UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2018: +0.32 deg. C

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

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2018 was +0.32 deg. C, up from the June 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 19 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 +0.23 +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 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.54 +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 +0.07 -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 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.42 +0.21 +0.29 +0.50 +0.29 +1.37

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

The UAH LT global anomaly image for July, 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


1,955 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2018: +0.32 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Alfred says:

    Some men, just want to watch the world burn.

  2. mike e says:

    Only 0.32. But I thought we just went through a fiery summer of made made global warming hell.

    • E. Swanson says:

      I presume that your “we” refers to the US of A. Take a look at the table above for the data over the Lower 48 this summer.

    • garyh845 says:

      Yeppers — billions of folks during the month of July, kept feeling – and suffering – from the horrific effects of the average temp being 0.32 warmer. “Honey, have you noticed? We usually average 28.1 during July – but I swear, every day I’ve noticed that it feels more like 28.42. Just don’t know if I can take it any longer.”

      How far northerly (in temperate regions) does one have to move in order to experience an average annual temperature change of -0.32C?

      I see this [approx] analysis:

      The rate is high in temperate regions

      The temperature difference between Tropic of cancer and 40 degree N can be 10 C.
      Rate = 10 C/16.5 degrees ~ 6 C/1 degree latitude

      1 degree latitude is roughly 69 miles (111 Km)

      The 6C looks to be way off. Looking at the 410 mi (5.9 degrees of latitude) between San Antonio and Oklahoma City. Average annual temp difference is 7.2 F.

      Anyway, that is a 1 F drop for every 57 miles.

      Anyone?

      • Nate says:

        The point of this measurement is not what the value is right now, but rather what the trend is.

        BTW, the 0.32C is relative to an arbitrary 0, and is measured in the troposphere.

        If instead, we measure at the surface, and on land where people live, and relative to 40 y ago, then the rise is ~ 2 F.

        If that trend continues, then that is 5 F/century. Is that significant?

      • David Appell says:

        garyh845 says:
        Yeppers billions of folks during the month of July, kept feeling and suffering from the horrific effects of the average temp being 0.32 warmer.

        Very naive.

        • coturnix says:

          Ascribing a few-fold increase in temperature variance to a percent increase in forcing and fraction of percent increase of in actual temperature is, well, an EXTRAORDINARY claim, and tehrefore REQUIRES extraordinary evidence, to quote sagan. Until then, it is just a unlikely speculative assumption, if not plain lie.

        • alessandro says:

          Very naive are your senseless comments, you costantly keep this bullshit going on and you don’t have even a solution for it. Let’s speak practical, do you have a magic solution to contain co2 emissions? And please do not insult my and your intelligence. I know you are paid to troll and I expect some quality from your service. Thank you.

    • Skye H says:

      I know you’re being sarcastic, but your point does have some merit — just not in the way you meant it. Yes, this particular month in terms of AIR temperature is “only” .32 C above the 1980-2010 running mean (the number is much higher if you start at pre-industrial era), for which UAH does not have data.

      But that is significant when it’s a climactic AVERAGE. The trite, overused analogy is that of the “planetary fever” but it does have some merit. If your body temperature is in the 99’s, you likely have a fever, even if that temperature seems quite close to 98.6. Likewise, an earth in balance tends to pretty much stick at the same average temperature, with some fluctuations on account of ENSO, volcanic eruptions, sunspots, etc. That’s why the last major ice age was what, only four or five degrees colder than pre-industrial revolution temperatures? And ice caps extended down into much of what’s now the lower 48 states.

      The most extreme scientific projections for future warming show a temperature INCREASE of that much by next century. I think, regardless of whether you believe in AGW, the prospect of that drastic a temperature change is alarming.

  3. François says:

    Well, if anything, it definitely has not been any colder, or has it, should we check over a six-month’s length of time or a thirty-year trend?

    • E. Swanson says:

      The NH sea-ice extent is still way below the long term average and tracking along near the path seen in 2012:
      https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn

      • François says:

        Sure, that is an enlightening comment, giving us the situation last week, omitting what it has been like over the last few months, or years. Variability, on a very short period, does that ring a bell?

      • ren says:

        Information about the figures
        The web page shows the sea surface temperature (SST) and anomalies derived from infrared measurements from the polar orbiting satellites. One interpolated field is constructed daily. Only nighttime SST observations are used for the interpolation because these are more representative of the temperature in the upper meters of the water column.
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-00.png

      • garyh845 says:

        Any one come across that snapshot of Gavin Schmidt in a spacesuit floating next to the RSS satellite furiously typing in the adjustments?

      • spike55 says:

        No, the Arctic sea ice extent is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years

      • Fritz Kraut says:

        E. Swanson says:
        August 1, 2018 at 8:03 AM
        The NH sea-ice extent is still way below the long term average and tracking along near the path seen in 2012:
        https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
        ___________________________________________
        This one is clearer: https://tinyurl.com/Northern-sea-ice
        Melting-Trend is really dramatically. Especially the trend of minimum area in summer.

      • John F. Hultquist says:

        E. S.,
        Please define “long term”, explain how you know what the value is.

        Please explain why there are many statements that Arctic Ocean ice will be gone by a date long past.

        Please explain why instead of “ice free” meaning no ice, the term now seems to mean 1 M. km. sq.?

        Thanks ever so much.

        • Nate says:

          Long term is since 70s, when satellite measurements available. Before that guesses and proxy data needed.

          ” many statements that Arctic Ocean ice will be gone by a date long past.”

          No serious climate scientists have made this claim. Strawman.

          “ice free meaning no ice, the term now seems to mean 1 M. km. sq.?”

          Who is saying this? Im guessing 1M km^2 means no problems for ship travel through arctic.

          • David Appell says:

            Scientists like Julienne Strove (N.S.I.D.C) use the 1 Mkm2 benchmark, because there will likely be sea ice clinging to bays and inlets long after the open ocean ice is gone. Just as happens each year on lakes that freeze over in the winter.

          • An Inquirer says:

            I am glad there common agreement that Al Gore is “not a serious climate scientist.”
            Moreover, I am thrilled that the mainstream media is not quoting or relying on “serious climate scientists” when they proclaim catastrophic results from CO2 emissions.
            Nevertheless, the following people may be surprised that they are not in the category of “serious climate scientist.”
            Professor Wieslow Maslocki
            “NASA Climate Scientist” Jay Zwally
            Director Mark Zerrese
            Professor Waldhams
            Professor James Hansen
            Paul Beckwith
            Brent Balchen
            Dr. Olav Orheim
            Professor David Barber

  4. pochas94 says:

    For those who think it’s really about ocean temperatures, here are the ocean temperature anomalies for June of the last three years.

    Year Globe NH SH
    2016 0.34 0.48 0.24
    2017 0.21 0.32 0.13
    2018 0.14 0.28 0.03

  5. Eben says:

    Still few degrees short of climate alarm

  6. I thought it would be lower but it is still more of the same.

    Overall surface sea temperatures are down and that will in the end dictate where we go.

    One can say for sure no further global warming is taking place this year. Cooling instead is the situation. I think it will continue.

  7. barry says:

    Salvatore,

    For the summer to be at or below the 30-year mean (UAH), August global temperature will need to be:

    -0.53C

    That would be the lowest anomaly in the UAH record.

    You said that you would agree your understanding of the solar influence on global temps is wrong if your prediction about this year’s summertime global temps was incorrect.

    Your prediction is going to be incorrect.

    I took you at your word, despite David’s endlessly posting previous predictions of yours that didn’t come to pass.

    I think you are going to do again what David points out that you do.

    You are going to slide away from your commitment.

    I have been watching patiently to see what you do.

    I wanted to see for myself if you had integrity or not. To see if David’s criticisms were fair.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      “I think you are going to do again what David points out that you do. You are going to slide away from your commitment.”

      ____________________

      Clunk. The penny drops.

      TFN

      • TheFinalNail says:

        Only not so much ‘slide away’ as brazenly walk away and come back the very next day, undaunted, with a whole new set of ludicrous cooling predictions.

        Self awareness is not Salvatore’s strongest selling point.

        Either this is very obvious to everyone or else I am Hercule Perot!

        (I am not Hercule Perot.)

        TFN

    • I was wrong on the quickness but still have not changed my mind. Overall surface sea surface temperatures only +.13c happy with that.

      • barry says:

        Salvatore Aug 13, 2017:

        “I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”

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

        Salvatore Jan 2, 2018:

        “If solar stays low and year 2018 is not the year I will say this time I am wrong.”

        Salvatore Aug 1, 2018:

        “Overall surface sea surface temperatures only +.13c happy with that.”

        Meanwhile, the UAH anomaly for July is 0.32C

        UAH is Salvatore’s preferred measure of global temps.

        So much for global temps being “at or below 30 year means.” It’s not even going to be within the error bars.

        Sal said he would admit to being wrong.

        I called him on the exact prediction many times in the last year.

        He always agreed – the 3 months global temps during NH summer would have to be at 30 year means (UAH zero baseline) or his solar model is wrong.

        It’s crunch time and he walked away from his agreement. An agreement he verified multiple times.

        I guess integrity doesn’t matter to Salvatore.

  8. Krakatoa says:

    It’s still very warm. Even with a La Nina the latest 13 month average is as high as the 2010 El Nino peak.

  9. mike e says:

    Supposedly its GLOBAL warming. The US of A is only 3% of the planets surface area.

  10. Aaron S says:

    La Nina is most likely gone.

  11. Aaron S says:

    The pattern I see is consistent with a step function (stair case). At each major El Nino the L Trop global temp steps up. Also, seems the stairs are getting shorter height, which is difficult to reconcile with a CO2 only model (natural climate denialism) because the CO2 trend is consistent. I still think the major solar activity change at about 2000 plays a role because of galactic cosmic rays and the sun’s magnetic field strength. So CO2 plus solar max possibly has more warming than CO2 and solar min.

    • François says:

      Meaning what? Pardon my French, but I think you are gibberishing any bovine refuse that is going through your mind, and there seems to be a lot of it. Your penultimate sentence does not make any sense.

    • Nate says:

      ” difficult to reconcile with a CO2 only model (natural climate denialism) because the CO2 trend is consistent. ”

      Difficult? Only difficult if one ignores all other known causes of variability: ENSO, volcanoes, aerosols, etc

      • Svante says:

        Yes, Dr Roy Spencer explained it pretty well here:
        https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z

          • Svante says:

            Thank you Kristian, you have an interesting argument, and I have a lot to learn.

            I think the catch up started 250 years ago, but the goal post keeps moving. The earth has a lot of inertia.

            If warming is natural we should not aggravate it, we should cure it because it is unsuitable for us and current eco systems, so the remedy might be the same.

          • Svante says:

            Looking at the others here I’d say you have the only interesting non-AGW argument on this blog.

        • barry says:

          From the earlier post:

          So when exactly did this “decades old equilibrium catch-up” start?

          It’s ongoing. Oceanic thermal lag.

          Water has a much higher heat capacity than air, so it takes longer to warm up.

          Oceans are gaining heat, so they are not yielding it to the atmosphere.

          At the long tail there is about 1000 years of lag, which is how long it takes for the global oceans to fully turn over. But the majority of heating “in the pipeline” is 30-40 years lag from the upper oceans.

          • Richard M says:

            Just because oceans are gaining heat does not mean they can’t share some of that heat with the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to saying the atmosphere above the oceans won’t warm in the summer even if the oceans do.

          • Kristian says:

            As always, barry, you appear not to be cognizant of the details of what the rest of us – the ones that are actually having this discussion – are discussing, in that the points you purport to bring to the table are invariably irrelevant (tangential) to the issue at hand, and when I point this out to you, you normally respond simply by saying I don’t get to set the agenda.

            The ‘agenda’ is already set, barry. All I’m telling you is that YOU’RE not addressing it …

          • Kristian says:

            You do not understand the gist of my argument, barry. Until you do, stop opining on it …!

          • barry says:

            Richard,

            Just because oceans are gaining heat does not mean they cant share some of that heat with the atmosphere. Thats equivalent to saying the atmosphere above the oceans wont warm in the summer even if the oceans do.

            Energy flows between them both constantly. But the bulk transfer is not from the oceans to the atmosphere – unless the depths are gaining heat from some source (underwater volcanoes?) and passing it skyward.

            Speaking of the seasons, a well known phenomenon is that the warmest/coldest annual air temps in most parts of the world happen, on average, some time after the solar peaks and troughs – that’s oceanic thermal lag at work (known as “seasonal lag”).

          • barry says:

            Kristian,

            I believe this is the Wikipedia entry Svante was referring to when you quoted him in the post you linked to.

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

            Sorry to interrupt the flow of your important conversation with some elaboration on a comment you queried.

          • Richard M says:

            Well, Barry appears to understand that the oceans have a big impact on the atmosphere as he mentions the seasonal lag. It appears he is denying his own view if he thinks the oceans are not driving the climate on longer scales.

            This isn’t hard. The sun warms the the oceans which passes some of that energy on to the atmosphere just like it does every summer. The reason this changes over long cycles has to do with ocean currents which are generally driven by salinity changes.

          • Bart says:

            “The reason this changes over long cycles has to do with ocean currents which are generally driven by salinity changes.”

            That is undoubtedly part of the puzzle, and could explain the warming all on its own. However, there was also an increase in solar input over the latter part of the 20th century which could have added to it as well:

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

          • David Appell says:

            I see blank at that page where the graph should be.

            But we do know that solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s:

            http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png

          • Bart says:

            Well, that’s your problem. But, your graph does not show what you think it shows. The peaks do not matter directly. It is the area under the curve that drives climate. And, the average area under the curve increased markedly in the latter half of the 20th century.

          • Kristian says:

            Bart says, August 4, 2018 at 10:10 AM:

            (…) there was also an increase in solar input over the latter part of the 20th century which could have added to it as well:

            TSI is not ‘solar input’, Bart. It is ‘solar OUTput’. The solar input to Earth, our Q_in, is the ASR, TSI minus albedo. ASR is the driver of Earth’s climate, not TSI. TSI curves hardly tell you anything about changes in how the Sun affects Earth’s climate. Variations in albedo will tell you nearly everything:

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-refl-sw-vs-pmod-tsi1.png

          • David Appell says:

            Kristian, let’s see an ASR time series for 90S-90N for several decades.

            Peer reviewed. (I don’t trust bloggers or spreadsheets made over a weekend.)

          • Bart says:

            Input and output are interchangeable depending on the modifier. But, the point is, the system responds with time lags, some of which are very, very long.

            Thus, One cannot just look at the peaks to understand how the system is being affected. One has to filter down and look at the very low frequency components. And, the very low frequency portion of TSI increased markedly in the latter portion of the 20th century.

        • Nate says:

          K:

          “a steady divergence over time between two directly comparable parameters, would clearly and unequivocally have manifested itself in the observational data by now, after 33 years of monitoring. IF there were actually GHE enhancement going on

          However, its nowhere to be seen. Only in studies (like Allan et al., 2014) where the observational data is deliberately adjusted to match with model simulations rather than the other way around ”

          Except that is a gross misrepresentation of, Allan et al., 2014, as K well knows.

          And the measurers themselves don’t trust the long term OLR record due to data Gaps, as K should also know.

          K to Barry: “the points you purport to bring to the table are invariably irrelevant (tangential) to the issue at hand”

          Actually his point seems quite relevant. The ‘catch up’ is ongoing, and we expect a nearly flat OLR as a result. It IS FLAT, within uncertainty.

    • David Appell says:

      Aaron S says:
      The pattern I see is consistent with a step function (stair case). At each major El Nino the L Trop global temp steps up. Also, seems the stairs are getting shorter height

      Here I plotted the GMST for each ENSO season (July-June), categorized by its ENSO status — El Nino, La Nina or neutral.

      https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html

      I don’t see the steps getting shorter in height….

  12. Sjoerd says:

    I was looking forward to this post. In the North of europa we have the a heatwave of the sort I cannot remember. We are close to 340 hours of sun in a month. Temperatures are….well….high. Upto 38C (even upto 40C in the city). So, it still leaves me worried a bit.

    The thing that stood out to me is the sharp peaks in temperaure. 30C one day and the next two days are 35C+ despite the fact is was quite cloudy. Also, the humidity seems to be lower than normal.

    That said, apparently the old time high was measured in 1944 (38.4C compared to this maximum of 38.2C). Sea ice volume seems to be high the normal in the artic, and sea surface temperatures seem te be lower than the last couple of years. I’m confused….and hot.

    • Nate says:

      ‘Sea ice volume seems to be high the normal in the artic’

      No. It is well below the long term average.

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

      • spike55 says:

        from 1979 is NOT long term,

        Sea ice is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

        What we have seen is a recovery from the extreme high sea ice extents of the LIA cold anomaly.

        Unfortunately, that recovery seems to have come to an end and as the AMO starts to turn, sea ice extent in the Arctic will most likely start to increase

      • barry says:

        Cooling has been ‘just around the corner’ for nearly 20 years.

        It will be the lame prediction from some quarters for another 20 years, I expect.

        • Bart says:

          As has warming. We got neither, so far. Just a pitched battle between El Ninos and La Ninas.

        • barry says:

          We’ve had a century of warming, Bart, and the globe had its warmest year in the instrumental record 2 years ago.

          How you see that as a failed predictions of warming a mystery.

          But you wrote it, so you must have some idea about putting the sentence together. Reason certainly wasn’t part of it.

          • Bart says:

            Yes, a century, the advent of which predated the mid-century acceleration in CO2 content.

            But, the warming has been modest, far less than the mean of the projections, in any case.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Bart says:
            August 4, 2018 at 11:10 AM
            But, the warming has been modest, far less than the mean of the projections, in any case.
            ____________________________________________
            Sure?
            http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png
            And what means “modest”
            You may call a global warming of 0.0xC “modest”, but the effect within decades for many people isnt “modest” at all.
            Dont forget, that warming isnt evenly for whole the planet. In some regions you have twice oder triple the global average.
            And other regions, with unfortunately high population, will be flooded.
            People there will have to die or to emigrate. But where to? Would America welcome them?

            Its also wellknown, that hunger produces political unrest and civil war, which in the final end will have very “unmodest” effects; also to all of us.
            So dont feel to safe of global warming, just because you live in the Rockies or you own an air conditioner.

          • Bart says:

            Yes, sure. Without the 2016 monster El Nino hump, there is no warming in the 21st century. If your plot went all the way to the present, we are currently at the very bottom of the spread, and continuing down.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Without the 2016 monster El Nino hump, there is no warming in the 21st century. ‘

            False.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315087

          • Bart says:

            IOW: Why believe your lyin’ eyes, when I’ve got a model with many adjustable parameters here that, if I set it up just so, says you’re wrong?

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Bart says:
            August 5, 2018 at 12:02 PM

            Yes, sure. Without the 2016 monster El Nino hump, there is no warming in the 21st century.
            _____________________________________
            But we HAVE El Ninos und will always have. Same to La Ninas.
            They belong to the climate.
            And, in longer therme, without El Ninos, warming would even be stronger. While warmer periods earth looses much more energy; According to Stefan-Boltzmann. (T^4-Law)

          • Nate says:

            “IOW: Why believe your lyin eyes, when Ive got a model with many adjustable parameters here that, if I set it up just so, says youre wrong?”

            Bart you are the one saying remove the El Nino contribution. Lets do that, but in an unbiased way, remove all ENSO contribution.

            I did that in the standard way, with the help of Climate Explorer.

            You dont like the result? Do it your own way.

          • barry says:

            I’ll do it another way. Remove the 1998 and 2016 el Ninos.

            2017 was pretty warm, too, as was 2015, so let’s use 2014 as the most recent year to be fair. There, I’ve removed as many warm years as possible from the end of the record to keep Bart happy.

            10-year comparisons UAH v6 global TLT:

            2005 to 2014 ave anomaly = 0.12
            1994 to 2004 ave anomaly = 0.06

            I excluded 1998 from the latter 10-year anomaly period. If we’re going to exclude one monster el Nino from the comparison, shouldn’t we exclude the other?

            So what happens if we include each of them for each of the 10-year periods?

            2008-2017 = 0.19
            1996-2007 = 0.15

            Not only is there warming in the 21st century, there is warming in the last 10 years.

            For some reason Bart has to get very selective to make his claims. Specifically, he’ll start a trend with the 1998 el Nino, but reject finishing with the current el Nino.

            Or he’ll pick some even shorter length of time in order to find the result he wants.

            Decadal averages avoid much of the problem of using linear regression over short time periods. Which is why Bart won’t go there – or he will by keeping the early el Nino and ditching the later one.

          • Bart says:

            Fritz Kraut –

            “And, in longer therme, without El Ninos…”

            We’re not discussing the longer term here. The impacts of the 2016 El Nino are still fresh, and any linear trend through the 2000’s to now is biased upward by it. You cannot hang your hat on 21st century warming on a momentary blip.

            Nate, barry –

            You guys are grasping at straws, trying to obscure what is plainly visible to the eyes with mathturbation. You’re whistling past the graveyard. We are already back at the “pause” level, and falling fast.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Bart says:
            August 6, 2018 at 10:33 AM
            Fritz Kraut –
            ‘And, in longer therme, without El Ninos…’

            We’re not discussing the longer term here. The impacts of the 2016 El Nino are still fresh, and any linear trend through the 2000’s to now is biased upward by it. You cannot hang your hat on 21st century warming on a momentary blip.
            ______________________________________________
            …and exactly that is the reason, WHY I also mentioned the longer term.
            I dont understand your contradiction. Do you mind me discussing the short or the long term?

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, barry

            You guys are grasping at straws, trying to obscure what is plainly visible to the eyes with mathturbation. Youre whistling past the graveyard. We are already back at the pause level, and falling fast.”

            Bart’s reaction to data analysis is becoming predictable.

            He is dead-set against using math to analyze data in standard, transparent ways, if it produces results which dont support his agenda.

            If mathematical analysis produces a result that does support his agenda, even if it cannot be justified in any objective way, then its perfectly fine to use, and in fact it’s use should be defended at all costs.

          • Bart says:

            Fritz – your claiming that the future holds more warming is merely that: a claim. Meanwhile, there has been no discernible warming in the 21st century.

            Nate – I understand you are easily dazzled by mathematics you do not understand. Thank you for reminding me, but I really needed no reminder.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            “a model with many adjustable parameters “.

            False . One free parameter, lag. And even that one is chosen to maximize correlation.

            I understand it just fine. Why don’t you?

            Why don’t you understand correlating two data sets? Why don’t you understand subtracting the influence of one data set from the other?

          • Bart says:

            I told you a reminder is not necessary.

          • barry says:

            We are already back at the “pause” level, and falling fast.

            Nope.

            1) Average temps for the ‘pause’ period were lower than now.

            2) Temps have fallen since 2016, but not nearly as fast as they did after 1998, and for all you know may have stopped falling. The last 2 months were successively warmer than the one prior. How do you know what will happen? And how will you test that when you won’t commit to a prediction of any specificity?

            I fully expect some anomalies ahead to be of similar value to some anomalies prior to 2016. But why are you interested in the weather?

            We’re not desperate, you are. Which is why your silly claims are absent any numerical values, or any commitment to a time frame.

          • Bart says:

            http://oi64.tinypic.com/10hm5g1.jpg

            You only see what you want to see.

          • barry says:

            Av temps 2001-2014 = 0.13
            Av temps 2018 = 0.23

            Current anomaly 0.32

            I think my eyesight is a bit better than yours.

            Let’s graph it with little trend lines.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend

            And let’s put it in context.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend

            The way you see things, because temps in 1987 and 1992 were ‘bobbling around’ the temps in the pause period as well as current temps, even ‘bobbling’ a bit higher back then for a few months…..

            There has been a pause since 1987?

          • Bart says:

            These methods serve your purposes, so I’m sure I cannot stop you from using them. But, they are meaningless.

            We are currently bobbling around between 0.2-0.3, just like we have been for most of the 2000’s.

          • Bart says:

            A good plot, Svante. It shows why soi-disant “climate scientists” are idiots.

            These data are not a linear progression. Why should a trend line drawn on them have any meaning? An El Nino blip also has no meaning for the long term.

            The fact is, we are back down to the level of the “pause”. In fact, we never left it, because the El Nino spike was just a transient event that masked the stasis.

          • Nate says:

            Its a good plot because, if interested in knowing what long trends are for testing climate change, than fitting the long term data to a line and finding its slope is useful.

            Much more useful than looking at any single 6 mo period, whether in 2018 or 2016.

            It matters not a whit that the long term trend may not be not linear. It still has trend over 30 y or 50 y or whatever that can be measured by fitting it to a line and finding the slope.

          • Bart says:

            It says nothing about the cause. It misleads because the data are not well represented by a linear trend, and it is sensitive to end effects of the finite span of data.

            Take it back 30 more years, and you will lower the trend significantly. There is no assurance that 30 years later will not have the same impact.

          • Nate says:

            Yes, the point of climate science is to understand the changes in trend over time, to understand the forcings and correctly model them.

            Are the models perfect? No. It is well understood that climate feedbacks have uncertainty.

            For comparison to models, to determine climate feedbacks, the linear trends of the recent decades have value.

          • Bart says:

            Wrong answer.

          • NAte says:

            And why is that Dad?

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Bart says:
            August 8, 2018 at 7:17 PM

            It says nothing about the cause. It misleads because the data are not well represented by a linear trend, and it is sensitive to end effects of the finite span of data.
            ____________________________________________________
            @Bart
            Its not the purpose of a trendline to say anything about the cause.
            A trend is a trend. No more, no less.
            Its just one of several possible quantifications of a change.
            The cause must be found by conclusions.

            You also could just calculate the differenz between the first and the last single datum; not helpfull of course, because really extremly sensitiv.
            Or you could take the differenz between the average of some of the first, and the average of some of the last datas. Much better, but still not as good as the linear trend of the whole dataserie.

          • Bart says:

            A least squares regression is not magic. It doesn’t tell you anything you can’t already see looking at the data. In fact, it tells you much less.

            These data have a period of a rise, then a plateau. It’s just not consistent with the expectation from the AGW hypothesis. One can spin and hand wave and obfuscate all one wants, but that underlying fact does not go away.

    • Svante says:

      Global warming is only one degree C, so this is climate change, explained pretty well here:
      https://tinyurl.com/yb76brz3

      The same mechanism will produce snow and cold spells as well, so Gordon and senator Inhofe will be happy about that.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Jennifer Francis?

        So Ms Svante must be Jennifer?

        Tricky.

        Welcome out of the shadows, Jenny.

      • Bart says:

        “The same mechanism will produce snow and cold spells as well…”

        Heads you win, tails we lose. Isn’t that convenient…

        • Svante says:

          It is only the long term global average that goes up, not every place at every time like ren seems to think.

        • Bart says:

          Everything you claim hangs on the 2016 blip, and it is fading fast. You may be fooling yourselves. You are not fooling anyone else.

          • wert says:

            The trouble is, it is NOT fading completely but appears to follow a long time trend. Be that important or not, there’s a trend and it is not going anywhere.

          • barry says:

            I’ve worked out what would be required for the ‘pause’ to return by 2020, 2025 and 2030. No self-fooling, just statistics.

            What have you done?

          • Bart says:

            wert – oh, it does not. The level is already down to the level of the status quo ante, and it shows little sign of stopping.

            barry – it’s already returned. And, don’t kid yourself. At best, you’ve drawn some lines and made some unwarranted statistical assumptions. It’s GIGO.

          • Svante says:

            Like Salvatore, do you also have a level and a time where you would say that you were wrong?

          • Nate says:

            ” and it shows little sign of stopping.”

            Hoping against hope that ENSO doesn’t have its usual effects.

          • barry says:

            barry its already returned.

            Your idea of a ‘pause’ has no definition, Bart. It’s classic, plain old garbage.

            That’s why you don’t put numbers on it. That’s why you can’t show us how it extends to today. Are you hoping that repetition will do the trick?

            You used to be less full of it. Sad.

          • Bart says:

            Svante:

            “Like Salvatore, do you also have a level and a time where you would say that you were wrong?”

            I cannot be wrong, because I am already right. What comes after today is anyone’s guess, but global temperature anomaly has already dipped down to levels that preceded the 2016 monster El Nino.

            I would say it is likely that temperatures will revert to the long established pattern within the 2020’s

            http://oi63.tinypic.com/ke92le.jpg

            but it is by no means assured. It is a chaotic system, and we have only been observing it in earnest for a very short time.

            Temperatures alone are simply not enough to establish a link to human release of latent CO2. The SNR is too small. So, we have to look elsewhere.

            One such elsewhere is the fact that emissions are accelerating, and have been for the past 20 years, while atmospheric concentration is at a steady rate:

            http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg

            which correlates magnificently with temperature anomaly:

            http://oi66.tinypic.com/jgnl6o.jpg

  13. TheFinalNail says:

    So, the 4th warmest July globally in UAH TLT.

    ENSO neutral but La Nina still nipping at its heels…

    TFN

  14. Snape says:

    6 years and counting since the last negative anomaly.

    (March, 2012: – 0.03 C)

  15. Snape says:

    Goldminor

    There is a several month lag between ENSO and global temperature anomalies. Nino 3.4 didn’t turn positive until mid June.

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

  16. gbaikie says:

    So what’s Aug going to be?
    I will pick .30
    Nice round number.
    It seems Atlantic hurricane season will be on low side.
    Anyone want guess the number of Cat 3 or larger in Aug?

  17. Snowready says:

    Waiting for global cooling is like waiting for gold and silver prices to shoot the moon “an ice age is coming any day now” “gold and silver prices will hit 500oz sometime soon”.

    • ren says:

      You’re wrong. All you need is one dry winter in the northern hemisphere and you will see the difference.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Please link to the record of hemispheric precipitation which you will be using to judge the dryness of the northern hemisphere. Or do you plan on merely asserting whether it is dry or wet across the entire hemisphere?

        (Please do not link to one of your BS vector field maps unless it comes with a complete description of what it is supposed to be showing.)

    • Eben says:

      I don’t see anybody claiming an ice age is coming any day now. By the account of real climate scientists who know how the climate works The cooling will became evident within the next 10 years and irrefutable withing next 30 years, whether little ice age or a big one nobody knows.

    • barry says:

      Is the criteria for “real climate scientists” based on you liking what they are saying, or on something more objective?

      I’m kidding, of course. Obviously you haven’t a clue about objectivity.

    • Richard M says:

      The MWP didn’t end in a month and neither will the Modern Warm Period. The oceans are warm and it will take centuries for them to cool to any significant degree unless we figure out a way to create more clouds.

      That said, the AMO will go negative within a few years and produce another temporary cool period like the 60s and 70s. This should be enough to end the dangerous AGW myth and reboot climate science.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        The average AMO for the 90s was slightly more negative than the average AMO for the 60s. OOPS!

      • barry says:

        https://tinyurl.com/y85qk33z

        AMO has had 2 cool periods in the instrumental record. Global temps were higher in the more recent one.

        And if AMO leads, rather than aliases, global temps, then the next cool phase will see higher global temps than the last if the previous pattern is repeated.

        So you think clouds have caused the longer term warming?

        And you think a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 has little to no influence on surface temperatures, I suppose.

        Whatever you think is going on, you seem to have no doubts.

        • Richard M says:

          The long term warming, in this case 300-400 years, is part of the Millennial cycle which is easy to see in the Greenland ice cores and many other proxies.

          On top of that we have shorter term variations due to the 60-70 year cycle related to the PDO/AMO. We are probably near the top of both of these cycles at the moment.

          CO2 emissions have caused a .01% change in the composition of the atmosphere. There is some effect as with anything else. In this case we see warmer nights/winters and cooler days/summer. So far the data doesn’t support anything else.

          • David Appell says:

            Richard M says:
            In this case we see warmer nights/winters and cooler days/summer.

            I don’t think so.

            Using NASA GMST data, I find the trends since 1880 to be

            DJF: +0.08 C/dec
            MMA: +0.08 C/dec
            JJA: +0.07 C/dec
            SON: +0.07 C/dec

            The trends over the last 30 years are:

            DJF: +0.18 C/dec
            MMA: +0.19 C/dec
            JJA: +0.17 C/dec
            SON: +0.23 C/dec

            Summers are warming too, not cooling.

          • barry says:

            It’s the cycles!

  18. Snowready says:

    Perhaps the price of gold and silver will rise in 10 years and shoot the moon by 30 years.

  19. There is global cooling this year especially the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures so I say so far so good.

  20. angech says:

    1.92 C change for Australia, why so large?

  21. Bobdesbond says:

    So we had a few months below the trend due to a La Nina, and after a lag of a few months we are back to the trend (actually slightly higher), just as expected. No sign of Salvatore’s cooling.

    A reminder … Salvatore has only one more month for the UAH anomaly to hit zero, at which point he will admit to being wrong about cooling if this doesn’t happen. (Assuming he is true to his word, which I suspect will not be the case.)

  22. Bobdesbond says:

    Average UAH for first 7 months (Jan-Jul) of La Nina years:
    1. 2018 (+0.23)
    2. 2006 (+0.09)
    3. 2001 (+0.09)
    4. 2009 (+0.04)
    5. 2011 (0.00)
    The rest … negative

  23. barry says:

    One thing’s fairly certain, the ‘pause’ since 1998 isn’t coming back.

    But 2016 was a high anomaly, so all the pause-munchers can base their next song and dance from that year.

    • It is getting colder this year not warmer.

    • barry says:

      It’s a meaningless comment. Colder this year than what – The hottest year so far 2 years ago?

      Or do you mean it’s getting colder through this year? That’s wrong, too. The most recent anomaly is warmer than the last.

      These are weather reports. Nothing to do with climate change.

      And you’ve abandoned your commitment to your prediction as soon as it went wrong.

      Again.

      • It is colder this year according to satellite data.

        OCENIC SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE MUCH COLDER THIS YEAR!

        • Bobdesbond says:

          WE’VE HAD A LA NINA THIS YEAR!

          And … the UAH satellite record does NOT give ocean surface temperatures. It gives atmospheric temperatures above the ocean, at an average height of 7 km.

        • barry says:

          It is colder this year according to satellite data.

          Colder than what?

          2016? The largest el Nino in the 21st Century?

          That says nothing.

          If the world warmed at 5C per century for a thousand years, you could easily have 40% of the years in that series cooler than the one before.

          In the year 12018, future Salvatore would still be saying that cooling was around the corner, because the year 12017 was 0.2C warmer.

          Your ‘modeling’ has absolutely no rigour at all.

          Which is why you abandoned your prediction, and are now making vague comments.

          The more vague your ideas, the less likely they will be troubled by reality.

    • Bart says:

      It’s already back. Temperature now is about the mean of the 2000’s excluding El Nino peaks.

  24. Aaron S says:

    Sorry if I confused you by being succinct in my second to last sentence. At about the year 2000 the sun existed a long term (multidecadal) solar max and entered a long term solar minimum. At that point the hiatus began in global temperature data. There is still warmimg today. I think this is likeley CO2, but the pattern is different than models expected.

    Galactic Cosmic Rays influence natural climate by changing cloud albedo. The increase of GCR numbers increase ions to seed dense low clouds and thus Earth albedo. GCR increases during low solar activity when the sun’s magnetic field is reduced. The GCR influence on modern (anthropogenic) atmosphere has been contested bc there is now more pollution to seed clouds in the background and the assumption is GCR are now diluted.
    Its all peer reviewed literature. Sorry if you are ignorant to the process. Glad to help if I can.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      The models make no attempt to predict a pattern. They predict only the long term trend. If the pattern is different to what you assert the models predict, it is due primarily to changes in the Pacific Decadel Oscillation, not the sun.

      And if you are going to try to attack someone, perhaps next time respond directly to the person you are attacking. Sorry if you are ignorant to the reply process.

      • David Appell says:

        Actually the models don’t “predict” at all — they project, based on assumptions made about atmospheric GHG concentrations.

        The models can only make predictions in hindsight.

  25. Aaron S says:

    Salvatore. In the last 20 years solar activity dropped, but CO2 keeps increasing rapidly. The net change may still be positive forcing. This could create a luke warm scenario onward. At some point the climate establishment will get on board with solar forcing because at the end of this solar minimum the warming may again surge during the next aolar max. This is the irony of this entire situation. Svensmark will be gone and his work finally aligned with the establishment but he will not get to enjoy the credit he deserves for a fundamental theory in physics- like a Nobel Prize. What frustrates me is this pattern seems so obvious but the establishment holds to a natural denialism model because the IPCC retards rejected GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS in their primitive models. What I hate is these same biased scientists will still retain power and funding.

    • David Appell says:

      The “climate establishment” has, of course, considered solar forcing, and determined it to be (only) 0.0-0.1 C/(W/m2 of TSI):

      http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

      That’s also the value you get from the simplest energy balance model

      (1-albedo)S/4 = sigma*T^4

      which gives

      dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 C/(W/m2)

      TSI doesn’t change by much — only 1.5 W/m2 max between the Maunder Minimum and now.

      The climate simply isn’t that sensitive to changes in solar output. 0.1 C is about half a decade’s worth of greenhouse warming, so solar can have some effect on a decade’s warming. But not that much, really. Sorry.

  26. Myki says:

    I think we should stop picking on Salvatore.
    One day, just by chance, one of his predictions may turn out to be correct. Sadly, no one will take any notice because of his extensive record of failures.
    By then, nobody will grant him the recognition he will undoubtedly demand.
    A sad, but none-the-less common tale.

  27. Aaron S says:

    Not sure why my comments are at bottom of thread. Maybe a bug with my phone. This is a test.

  28. Bobdesbond says:

    Huh?? Please explain how a neutral ENSO will lead to a dryer than normal winter across the ENTIRE northern hemisphere.

    Then explain how you will PROVE that it was in fact dryer. Invoking an “ENSO neutral” call is not proof.

    Finally explain why why you have flipped on your assertion from two months ago that we are headed for a prolonged La Nina.

  29. ren says:

    Such a circulation in the lower stratosphere is a warning to North America from an early winter attack this year.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00968/88pmtq19rk6r.png

  30. Aaron S says:

    I made a comparison between UAH and: a. step function; and b. linear best fit trend to see which explains the data better.

    1. UAH data I used a 13 month running average to reduce noise a bit.
    2. UAH 13mo was correlated to linear best fit and had correlation =.73 and r2 = .54
    3. UAH 13mo was correlated to step function (stepped up 0.3 C at mid 1996 and stepped up 0.15 C at mid 2014) and had correlation = .77 and r2 = .60.

    So a simple step function would be slightly preferred.

    I also added a sin curve for El Nino (freq was ~4 yr and amplitude was .13C). Interestingly, the correlation and r2 for the step function both increased to .87 and .76, respectively. So although only quasi periodic, ENSO modelled as a sin cure still increases correlation.

    For me such strong correlation shows how much of the data is correlated to these variables. It really isn’t that complex. The difference between steps at mid 96 and mid 14 is to minor a change in correlation to determine if long term warming is slowing or not. But it is not inconsistent with that assertion.

    Will gladly email spreadsheet in Excel to anyone interested.

    • barry says:

      The more degrees of freedom you allow, the more parameters you give yourself leave to adjust, the less powerful your test.

      But the major problem here is that the model lacks a physical basis.

      Without that, the curve-fitting exercises are interesting but not indicative.

    • barry says:

      If you experimented with the step/sin curve values until you got the best result, then the experiment is worthless.

      You have to establish a null first. And the null has to be the opposite of what you’d prefer to see. Then see if the null is broken.

      You can’t do that by hunting for the values that give you better correlation.

  31. Carbon500 says:

    The Central England Temperature record gives readings from the year 1659.
    To entertain myself, I had a look at the averages for the summer months (June,July, and August).
    No year in the entire record has ever reached an average of 18C for these months, and values between equal to or greater than 17C are seen infrequently. Here they are, with the year.
    1781 17.0
    1826 17.6
    1846 17.1
    1911 17.0
    1933 17.0
    1947 17.0
    1976 17.8
    1983 17.1
    1995 17.4
    2003 17.3
    2006 17.2
    Also given that we are told that the CO2 level pre-1750 was 280ppm, and it’s now 410ppm, and given the fractional variations seen in Dr. Spencer’s satellite record (over which the arguments seem endless!), the anguished hand-wringing in the popular press in England suggesting that we are heading into a CO2-induced hell of our own making once again demonstrates the sensationalism of the media in over-hyping ‘climate’.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Yet another person who believes climate is defined by records.

      • bilybob says:

        So true, a recurring theme. After all, look how many new maximum temperature records are set globally. Yet the average pre 1970 record by country is 43.7C (110.7F) and post 1970 is 42.6C (108.6F), or 1.2C lower (2.1F lower) post 1970. Not much of a difference statistically. But there are many who focus on the number of new records as some sort of indicator that extremes are higher.

        • Bindidon says:

          What exactly do you mean here with ‘how many new maximum temperature records are set globally’, and with ‘the average pre [or post] 1970 record by country’ ?

          That is all but clear. How did you compute what you present here?

          • bilybob says:

            Hey Bindidon,

            I think you would appreciate this the most. It supports your analysis you did in the previous blog article. Temperatures below are in Celsius (I remembered) and are average of maximum temp record of each country within the specified continent. The date is when the record occurred. There are 23 countries that still have pre 1970 records, coincidentally they also have records the go back to early 1900’s. There are 108 countries that have post 1970 records, coincidentally most of these only have records going back 50 years. Please excuse any formatting issues below, not sure how this will post.

            Continent Pre 1970 Post 1970 Diff
            Africa 51.9 45.7 -6.2
            Asia 45.4 45.8 0.4
            Europe 39.6 40.7 1.1
            North America 43.7 38.3 -5.4
            South Pacific 43.0 36.7 -6.3
            South America 46.4 43.8 -2.6
            All 43.7 42.6 -1.2

            My point of course is not that there is significance to this. They all fall within the normal curve. But rather, telling me that there are 10 new temperature max records compared to 1 new temperature min record (10 to 1 ratio) has little meaning to me if the new records are only for the past 50 years.

          • Bindidon says:

            Thanks bilybob, that is indeed real progress compared with the comment posted at 6:34 AM.

            “The date is when the record occurred.”

            I suppose you mean here that you scan the data of each station over its entire period, enter the maximum in a yearly vector and build for each year the average over the number of stations having had their maximum in that year.

            Sounds correct, with – again – the exception that most ‘elder’ stations are found in America and Europe. Please remember that of the 1058 GHCN V4 daily stations active from 1895 till 2018, not less than 930 are in the US.

            When I have some time to do, I will redo your experiment, but based on a grid into which a first averaging is performed.

            But the central problem remains: that this maxima hunting based on absolute values is somwewhat useless.

            Because it is of no interest that stations like Death Valley show maxima all the time.

            Conversely, it is well of interest to see that stations with an average temperature of say -20 C from 1981 till 2010 show +10 C departures of that mean during five or ten years in sequence.

            Thus it would be better to do the same job as you did, but based on anomalies instead.

            A hard job.

          • bilybob says:

            Bindindon says “But the central problem remains: that this maxima hunting based on absolute values is somewhat useless.”

            Yes, I think this is also one of mine central premises. The other is you can’t compare maximum temperature records if they were not available in the 1930/1940’s.

            What I also found interesting is that Europe and Asia had higher max temperature averages which is consistent with what you had shown in your graphs. Australia (South Pacific), Africa, South America and North America show lower. Again at least for CONUS this is consistent.

            But I agree with you looking at the absolutes is useless in a vacuum. A more comprehensive analysis is needed, unfortunately the data simply does not exist.

            For the record, your analysis is far superior that mine. I was only using mine to show the insignificance.

          • Bindidon says:

            “A more comprehensive analysis is needed, unfortunately the data simply does not exist.”

            Of course it exists! You can construct anomalies for any station out of its abolute data, and for any set of stations sharing a common period large enough to build a mean.

            But it’s a somewhat harder work than to simply use absolute data.

            For GHCN daily, there is the file ‘ghcnd-inventory.txt’ which contains info about the lifetime of all stations.

            Using that file you can select all stations having data between for example 1981-2010 or 1951-1980 or whatsoever, build their daily mean (the ‘climatology’) and construct for each station the anomalies wrt their mean.

            The major difficulty, the ‘really hard work’ is to create an anomaly system out of stations sets having different reference periods, by analysing neighbourhood.

            People like Berkeley Earth, Nick Stokes or Clive Best know how to solve such problems.

          • bilybob says:

            Agreed, I believe there is sufficient data for post 1950 analysis.

      • SteveF says:

        ‘Records’, in the sense of _history_, are how climate is defined. ‘Records’, in the sense comparison with history, are additions to history.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        Along with the WMO, the IPCC, and anybody who agrees that “Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time.”

        Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less.

        Your CO2 induced psychotic state obviously blinds you to the fact that records are needed, before the average can be calculated.

        Cheers.

      • Carbon500 says:

        Bobdesbond:
        To summarise: I’ve presented data from slightly over three and a half centuries of temperature records (359 years) which show that the average highest temperature in the UK’s hottest months (Jun, July, and August) remains unchanged over all that time, despite atmospheric CO2 having increased from 280ppm to the current 410ppm.
        That’s an increase of slightly over 46%.
        This is clearly at odds with all the media hysteria over here about ‘climate change’, which of course means a supposed dangerous man-made global temperature increase due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.
        So what exactly do you mean when you say ‘Yet another person who believes climate is defined by records’?

        • Bobdesbond says:

          So now you want to claim that data from the Midlands area which constitutes 11.8% of the area of the UK is representative of the entire UK. Yet more denier misrepresentation.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, what percentage of unadjusted data do you plan to throw out?

            That might tell you something….

          • Carbon500 says:

            Bobdesbond – from the MetOffice:
            ‘These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol. The monthly series, which begins in 1659, is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. The daily mean-temperature series begins in 1772. Manley (1953, 1974) compiled most of the monthly series, covering 1659 to 1973. These data were updated to 1991 by Parker et al (1992), who also calculated the daily series. Both series are now kept up to date by the Climate Data Monitoring section of the Hadley Centre, Met Office. Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming: currently a correction of -0.2 C is applied to mean temperatures.’
            Lancashire, London, and Bristol are not in the Midlands.
            Now argue with the MetOffice.

  32. martinitony says:

    The tables are no good. I know someone out there still remembers their statistics (I don’t), but I know enough to recognize that the variances are too great from area to area and month to month. Therefore, we certainly can’t rely on them.
    I’d also bet that northern hemisphere has the most warming when averaged over many years suggesting that heat island effect is greater than thought.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Tell me … how does the UHI effect account for the warming of the oceans?

      • Each month that passes by without any further global warming makes AGW theory weaker and weaker.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          The trend is just over 0.001 degrees C per month. How large is the monthly variability in global temperatures?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Another gotcha enthusiast.

        Tell me . . . why should anyone even try to understand your nonsensical demands?

        Prove to me that you are just not another stupid and ignorant GHE proselytiser.

        Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      martinitony says:
      Id also bet that northern hemisphere has the most warming when averaged over many years suggesting that heat island effect is greater than thought.

      2/3rds of the globe’s land is in the Northern Hemisphere, which means it warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere, which is 81% ocean.

    • David Appell says:

      Carbon500 says:
      To summarise: Ive presented data from slightly over three and a half centuries of temperature records (359 years) which show that the average highest temperature in the UKs hottest months (Jun, July, and August) remains unchanged over all that time

      Not quite. I find JJA is up 0.4 C.

      That’s hardly a surprising result. The globe is up 1.0 C, but the HAD.CET thermometer is only measuring about 1 cubic centimeter of the atmosphere.

      • David Appell says:

        Here are all the other seasonal changes for HAD.CET:

        DJF: +1.4 C
        MAM: +1.0 C
        JJA: +0.4 C
        SON: +1.2 C

        total change: +1.0 C

        • Carbon500 says:

          DA:
          Seasonal changes from when to when – over what time period? Please clarify.
          Re the DJF: the highest values seen are above 6C but below 7C.
          In 1686, 1734, 1834,1869, 1935, 1975, 1989, 1990, 1998, 2007, 2014, and 2016.
          Even in a supposedly dangerous warming world, it’s remarkable that these seasonal averages have never gone higher than this over hundreds of years – don’t you think?
          And what does the UAH data show? Surely the planet going about its normal business, with fraction of a degree fluctuations only.

          • David Appell says:

            Over the entire Had.CET dataset.

            Carbon500 says:
            Re the DJF: the highest values seen are above 6C but below 7C.
            In 1686, 1734, 1834,1869, 1935, 1975, 1989, 1990, 1998, 2007, 2014, and 2016.
            Even in a supposedly dangerous warming world, its remarkable that these seasonal averages have never gone higher than this over hundreds of years dont you think?

            No, I don’t. What’s remarkable is that in a dataset of 360 years, half of those values have occurred in just the last 30 years.

          • Carbon500 says:

            DA; you say:
            Here are all the other seasonal changes for HAD.CET:
            DJF: +1.4 C
            MAM: +1.0 C
            JJA: +0.4 C
            SON: +1.2 C
            total change: +1.0 C
            You also state that you got these figures ‘over the entire Had.CET dataset. I still don’t understand how you’ve calculated these figures. If you look at the dataset which shows the three-month seasonal averages (DJF, MAM, JJA, SON), there are of course year to year variations, some more marked than others, from year to year. For example, the 2018 DJF value from the MetOffice is 4.3, not an unusual value, and less than a lot of others from years ago. How can you say that the total DJF change is +1.4C?
            You also say in reply to my earlier post that ‘what’s remarkable is that in a dataset of 360 years, half of those values have occurred in just the last 30 years.’
            True enough, and I agree.
            The question then is why?

  33. Year 2018 is the first year I ever said was a transitional year.

  34. AGW theory is a lie. Their prediction is no better then mine.

    Climate is not doing what they have called for so they are liars also.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      The projected warming trend is around 0.15C per decade. Your predicted rate of fall is around 0.3C per year, 20 times as fast. There is no comparison to your prediction for sheer stupidity.

      • bilybob says:

        “There is no comparison to your prediction for sheer stupidity.”

        That rate of decline occurred 5 times since 1979.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Yet again, you confuse changes in the baseline of climate with short term changes due to weather.

          • ren says:

            Long-term climate changes are the result of long-term changes in solar activity.
            https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

          • bilybob says:

            No I don’t, you confuse comparing 1 year rates of change with 10 year rates of change. A common mistake on this blog, I have seen idiots compare 7000 year rates of change with decadal rates of change and say, oh look we are in unprecedented times. I guess it is the new math. Still not an apples to apples comparison.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            ren
            Would you please point out where I should look in that graphic to find a reference to climate.

  35. Bobdesbond says:

    bb
    I was talking about decadel changes, then you pipe in and make a claim about rates of decline that happened over much smaller time scales, so it is you who is suffering from that confusion.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Don’t know how this appeared here. I definitely hit reply.

      • bilybob says:

        I was just going on what you said “Your predicted rate of fall is around 0.3C per year”. I do not believe that Salvatore ever said that this would be something that was done year after year. I am only saying that some on this blog do not understand data and often confuse annual, decadal and millennial rates of change. You seemed to be comparing an annual with a decadal and claiming Salvatore is stupid. You say “There is no comparison to your prediction for sheer stupidity.” But please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to learn the difference.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Salvatore DOES claim that this rate will continue. If he were not, then he was making only a weather prediction, not climate.

  36. YanivGruenberg says:

    “Do you see a trend there?”

    “No I don’t see a trend there. Do you?”

    “No. No trend.”

    “Well if you squint you can kinda see how it’s vaguely sinusoidal.”

    “Hmmm… Yeah. For entertainment purposes only, I can kinda see it.”

    “You know what!? Squint even harder and it starts to look like it’s dropping!”

    “Huh! You’re right. Temperatures definitely declining…”

    There are some very smart posters here. They are clearly wasting their time with the rest of the crowd…

  37. Rob Mitchell says:

    Wow, what is going on Down Under? June 2018 was -0.55C and July 2018 was +1.37C. Did all of the world’s CO2 just happen to sit on top of Australia last month?!!

    • Bindidon says:

      I rather would suppose that extreme advection processes moved lots of Tropics heat poleward.

      Something similar seems to have happened above CONUS during May.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        Bindidon, that is exactly what I think is happening on a global scale. There is nothing at all uniform about the transport of heat from the tropics to the mid-lats and polar regions. There are day to day fluctuations, week to week, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, and century to century fluctuations of tropical heat to the extratropical regions. And I think some of us who work in the field of weather/climate make wayyyyy toooo much of a friggin’ deal about some chosen time frame.

        I can’t help but notice that the global warming alarmists are all fixated on the warming trend of the previous 3 decades. And they are desperately trying to convince all of humanity that we are the cause, based on their own arbitrary 3 decades that they chose to fit their narrative. And they are extrapolating the past 3 decades into the future without any regard for the prospect of climate cycles.

        • David Appell says:

          Warming has now been going on for 5 decades, not 3.

          And the last 3 (5) decades are arbitrary??!!??

          We’re most interested in climate change NOW, now the decades from 1070-1120. We’re interested in what’s causing climate change NOW, not from the years 110-160 CE. We’re interested in where the climate is going NOW, not where it was going in the year 1581.

          And models don’t “extrapolate,” they calculate by solving the equations that determine climate.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, have you learned any physics this week?

            Do you now understand your “missing 150 Watts/m^2” is nonsense?

            Keep studying.

          • Rob Mitchell says:

            The previous 3 decades DA; 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s. We are experiencing now what some global warming alarmists call “The Pause.” But many of you want to get rid of “The Pause.” There was a cooling trend in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Today’s global mean temperature anomaly is quite unspectacular.

            I am very content to live in this mild climate with surprisingly insignificant temperature fluctuations.

  38. ren says:

    Canberra has more than 30 nature reserves, with most hosting hundreds of Eastern Grey Kangaroos, and it is not unusual to see them in the reserves or in roads or yards nearby, Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Parks and Conservation Service Director Daniel Iglesias told CNN.
    But he said this winter the animals were far more visible.
    “Canberra is experiencing a perfect storm of hardship for its kangaroos. New records have been set in Canberra for very cold, frosty nights this winter. This, coupled with very dry conditions with very little rain at all in June and July, means there is very little food for kangaroos, ” Iglesias said, via email.
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/30/australia/australia-canberra-kangaroo-boom/index.html

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Yet the average daytime maximum was the second highest for July in the short 10-year life of Canberra’s only official station.

      How far do you have to narrow down before you find your cooling. One particular location, for one particular month, and specifically only overnight minimums.

      This variation has ALWAYS taken place. Look at the entire record instead of cherry picking.

      I dare you to do the following:
      Pick 100 locations spaced out around the world, ones with a good lengthy temperature record. Pick them NOW, announce which ones you have chosen, then report back on their average temperature for September. Keep doing the same for each month over the next five years.

      But of course you wouldn’t dare do that. You will insist on being able to chose your stations AFTER the event in order to maintain your illusion.

  39. David Dilley predicts cooling to start at the end of 2019

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Yeah right … the person who claimed in 2012 that “phase 1” of cooling had begun in 2008. If only every data set didn’t prove him wrong. It seems that every time we get La Nina, the nutjobs want to claim that this is the beginning of their cooling.

  40. As I said as month passes without any further global warming AGW theory becomes less and less viable.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      You also said that you would admit that you are wrong about cooling if the UAH didn’t get down to zero by the end of the northern hemisphere summer 2018.

      So … is any stock to be be placed in what you say?

    • barry says:

      As I said as month passes without any further global warming

      2018 05 +0.18
      2018 06 +0.21
      2018 07 +0.32

    • barry says:

      “I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means.”

      2018 06 +0.21
      2018 07 +0.32

      One month to go….

    • barry says:

      But wait, there’s more:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      July 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM
      “Barry you must understand if the global temperatures rise from this point in time on I will say I am wrong.

      If they keep trending down as they are I am going to say I am correct.”

      That was 1 month ago exactly, just after the June anomaly update.

      Well, the global temperature went up “from this point in time,” and Salvatore is still claiming victory.

      • You can say what you want I expect it because I put myself on the line unlike the phonies associated with their phony AGW theory that have one excuse after another as to why the global temperatures are not increasing any longer.

        Where is the increase for year 2018? Answer there is none.

      • barry says:

        Nobody claims that every year will be warmer than the last under AGW.

        Look at the record! Many years were cooler than the previous.

        But it warmed over the whole period.

        THAT is what is predicted under AGW – long term warming, not year-on-year warming, every year warmer than the last. It’s a childish notion.

        So stop trying to make it look like that is what the proponents of AGW claim.

        No, that it what you SAY they claim so that you can more easily try to discredit them.

        When people talk of ‘straw man argument’ this is exactly the sort of thing they mean.

        • Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.

          If I am going to be held to very high standards so then will AGW theory.

          I am more correct then they are this year so far.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            No Salvatore, the models indicate only the TREND, not actual predictions of annual temperatures. Try reading the small print for once instead of looking only at the pretty pictures.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            August 3, 2018 at 5:09 AM

            Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year.
            ————————————————
            No, it doesnt.
            That would be quite stupid.
            Everyone knows, that even with konstant CO2-level global temperatures would variate and did variate from year to year.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Everyone knows, that even with konstant [sic] CO2-level global temperatures would variate and did variate from year to year.”

            Yes, because CO2 has no effect on global temperatures.

          • barry says:

            Sal,

            Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.

            Bullshit.

            https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8

            That’s from the IPCC. that’s a bunch of different models. You are so wrong it’s not even funny.

            The model outputs have as much variation as the actual records – with a general warming trend.

            NO ONE expects every year to be warmer than the last under AGW (or any other case of warming).

            That is one of the most moronic straw man arguments that the skeptic world comes up with.

          • barry says:

            You are cementing yourself as an idiot with comments like that, JD.

            Or a troll. Hard to tell apart sometimes.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Barry, you are completely out of control. Please stop trolling.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”You are cementing yourself as an idiot with comments like that, JD”.

            Where’s your proof that JD is wrong and that you’re not the idiot? There’s no proof that CO2 is affecting global temperature. Even Roy, who is an expert on global temperatures cannot say what effect CO2 may have.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            Dr Spencer agrees that more CO2 in the atmos should cause some warming at the surface, all else being equal. He has written many posts explaining and experimenting to describe the physics.

            Your views are totally at odds with his on this. For which in the past you have said he is misguided. Don’t pretend he views things remotely like you do.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No barry, please STOP trolling.

          • Svante says:

            Why don’t you tell Dr Roy Spencer to stop trolling and learn some physics?

            See “Skeptical Arguments that Dont Hold Water”:
            http://tinyurl.com/ox3s4x7

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Ill just tell you to stop trolling.

            Svante, please stop trolling.

          • Svante says:

            Dr. Roy Spencer says:

            “Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”

            Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water:

            1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, PST.

          • Svante says:

            Tell that to Dr. Roy Spencer, it was his words.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, Dr Spencer isnt trolling, you are. Try to stop.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, what you have to learn to be able to do, is to follow a discussion. Barry stated that Gordon was pretending Dr Spencer shared his views. This is an incorrect statement since Gordon only said that Dr Spencer couldnt say what effect CO2 may have. He did not state that Dr Spencer thought there was no greenhouse effect. So this was just barry trolling again. I asked him to stop, and then for some strange reason this triggered your series of responses, which are only furthering the trolling. So I have asked you to stop.

  41. Svante says:

    How much do you think each of these factors will contribute for the century ahead, in W/m^2?

    Ozone
    Strat. H2O
    Aerosols (direct)
    Aerosols (indirect)
    Black Carbon
    Snow Albedo
    Volcanos
    Solar Intensity
    Land Use
    CO2
    CH4
    Other GHGs
    NAtl. Oscillation
    Pac. Decadal Osc.
    Southern Osc. Index
    Pacific Nino 3.4
    Salvatores solar effect

    • Svante says:

      … Salvatore?

      • It is all solar effects moderated by the geo magnetic field. All the other items you mentioned are tied to those things to one degree or another.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          So let me get this straight … you are claiming that the ONLY things that affect earth’s climate are solar radiation and the earth’s magnetic field. Is that right?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            What is the point of your witless gotcha?

            Without solar radiation, what sort of weather (and its average, climate) would there be?

            Are you claiming that with enough CO2, the Sun is irrelevant?

            Stupid and ignorant, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

            Off you go then, invent some more gotchas.

            Cheers.

          • gbaikie says:

            I think he saying that solar radiation and solar effects upon Earth’s magnetic is the “control knob”.

            Some think CO2 is the “control knob” in terms of the global temperature. Though not heard of Co2 controlling Ozone and etc, instead the belief is CO2 is effecting whether there is water vapor. No Co2 = no water vapor, lots of Co2 = lots of water vapor.

            I noticed the list is missing any mention of water vapor.

            Many believe water vapor is main greenhouse gas and imagine that only greenhouse gases increases the average temperature of Earth.

            []And such a belief requires that Ozone and clouds to be regarded as greenhouse gases.]]

          • Right because all the other items are connected to them.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Really Salvatore? So which one was responsible for the Eocene thermal maximum?

          • David Appell says:

            gbalkie: water vapor is a feedback on climate change, not a forcing.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Bobdesbond says:
            August 3, 2018 at 6:54 AM
            Really Salvatore? So which one was responsible for the Eocene thermal maximum?–

            Volcanic activity is thought to be responsible for Eocene thermal maximum- or that the seventh on that list.

            At that time period, Earth had ocean temperature of about 10 C, and then volcanic activity increased the ocean temperature. The Eocene thermal maximum was the transition from a typical earth climate to a hothouse climate- for relatively brief time period- and then it returns to a normal climate.
            Normal being Ocean with average temperature of 10 C and hothouse climate warmer than this, and our colder icebox climate has ocean temperature of 1 to 5 C.
            With us currently being at 3.5 C.

            Eocene thermal maximum demonstrates the impossibility of Earth becoming like Venus- as there was a very warm ocean and lots of greenhouse gases, and when the massive volcanic activity ceased, the Earth goes back to it’s normal temperature.

            Eocene thermal maximum is notable as being the last hothouse climate- Earth has had a lot of hothouse climates.
            It’s not clear that volcanic activity had a significant role with other hothouse climates, as most of these lasted for much longer time periods.

            It is the configuration and topography of Earth land masses within a world mostly covered with oceans, which causes us to be living within an Ice Age.
            Or even if the ocean were to somehow warm higher temperature than 5 C, that this alone doesn’t allow us to escape from the Ice Age.
            One might call it, an icebox + human influence climate.

            I think a ocean at 4 C or more, would be nicer Earth. It would be more suitable to support more life.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            So not solar activity or geomagnetism then.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Bobdesbond says:
            August 3, 2018 at 4:42 PM
            So not solar activity or geomagnetism then.”

            Salvatore seems to regard solar activity and geomagnetism as a control knob which includes volcanic activity- and he is quite specific in regards to volcanic eruptions with cubic kilometers of ejecta material that enters global atmosphere and which causes a cooling effect].

            I think that lower solar activity and volcanic activity might have cooling effect, due to the Little Ice Age having lower solar activity and significant volcanic activity. Simple correlation.
            But I don’t think anyone understands how the cooling occurred in the LIA- and anyone, includes myself.

            But if there was a cooling effect, it seems it would require a fair amount of time- and in near term, one will just have effects upon weather. And it’s possible the weather effects may help reach some predictive results in terms of global temperature of the future.

            Anyhow so far I seen no evidence which changes my view that we are continuing to recovery from LIA.
            And I hope average temperature will increase.
            And I think it might be possible CO2 could cause some amount of warming. But it’s not clear to me how CO2 would do this. And not clear that increasing CO2 has caused any global warming [or how much exactly].
            But what is very clear is that “GHE theory” is pseudo science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob…”Really Salvatore? So which one was responsible for the Eocene thermal maximum?”

            Where’s the proof there was one? Where’s the proof that ice was piled miles high on any continent?

            People tend to talk about such proxy-based evidence as if it is fact yet it is nothing more than conjecture.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”But I dont think anyone understands how the cooling occurred in the LIA- and anyone, includes myself”.

            You can add me to the list. I know one thing, the LIA was not caused by CO2. I am also sure that recovery from the cooling was not due to anthropogenic causes.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      Ice can contribute 300W/m2.

      It even emits this at night, during summer or winter, in the presence or absence of CO2, and can actually be measured – unlike the mythical GHE.

      Talking about W/m2 is completely pointless, in the context of climate. Just more mystical climatological pseudoscientific gibberish.

      Maybe you should learn more about science, and concentrate less on stupid and irrelevant gotchas.

      Are you really as stupid and ignorant as you appear, or are you just pretending for some bizarre reason?

      Carry on dreaming.

      Cheers.

      • E. Swanson says:

        MF wrote:
        Ice can contribute 300W/m2.

        It even emits this at night, during summer or winter, in the presence or absence of CO2, and can actually be measured unlike the mythical GHE.

        So, Mike, a big question. If the ice is radiating 300 watts/m^2, why does it stay near constant temperature instead of cooling all the way to zero K? Could it be that everything both emits and absorbs IR EM radiation at the same time? Doesn’t the atmosphere also emit and absorb as the energy flows thru the atmosphere out to deep space?

  42. It is happening Barry but slower then I thought although overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are going as I expected.

  43. I may to fast with some of my cooling but it is in the correct direction which means AGW prediction is in the wrong direction. So I am more correct for year 2018 then AGW theory thus far.

    • barry says:

      Sal, you said on July 3:

      “Barry you must understand if the global temperatures rise from this point in time on I will say I am wrong.

      If they keep trending down as they are I am going to say I am correct.”

      You said on July 23:

      “NO FURTHER WARMING WILL BE OCCURING FROM HERE ON OUT.”

      We’ve just got the latest UAH monthly anomaly – it’s warmer than last month.

      And last month was warmer than the month before.

      You said that global temps should be at baseline by now. You said you would admit you were wrong if they were not.

      I asked you a year ago to make a firm commitment. You agreed. You staked your opinion on what you said should happen.

      It didn’t happen. Your opinion is so precious to you that you would rather surrender your integrity than your opinion.

      I am sorry for you.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Salvatore…”I may to fast with some of my cooling but it is in the correct direction….”

      Don’t worry about it, the information you supply is informative and entertaining. I hope you’re right but if not it’s no big deal.

      As John Christy of UAH has pointed out, there are so many variables in climate science and predicting climate based on that issue is nigh impossible.

      If only the alarmists understood that.

  44. CraigT says:

    gbaikie, it’s a bit generous to sayTLT has dropped for 3 years since the highest anomaly in the data was 30 months ago. The temperature has yet to dip as low as it was during the 20 year “pause” and this la Nina is over.

    • ren says:

      Only that El Nino will not be created, so the global temperature will not increase.

    • gbaikie says:

      Rather “a bit generous” I would say it’s a bit silly.
      But, in term Aug TLT are expecting much change from the July .32?

      And do expect the Atlantic hurricane season to intensify in latter part of 2018 season?

      • Bobdesbond says:

        I’ve always wondered whether English is your first language. This and countless other posts from you suggest not.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          B,

          Did you ever consider asking? No?

          I wonder why?

          Cheers.

          • gbaikie says:

            I wonder about a lot things.
            The latest thing I wonder about, is there any way we make the Ozone warming effect, stronger.

            I am not sure the Ozone causes any warming effect.
            But some swear by it.

            Someone was wondering something related to this:

            “I was just wondering that if ozone is a strong[er] oxidizing agent [that oxygen alone] and its boiling point is higher than liquid oxygen [more practical?], then can it be used for applications where liquid oxygen is usually used?”

            And someone else gives a useful reply:

            “Hydrogen peroxide is relatively safe, safe enough for use by a (very) careful amateur rocket builder. Liquid ozone isn’t safe, period. The slightest contaminant, the slightest vibration, looking at it cross-eyed, kaboom. Using liquid ozone as a rocket propellant ozidizer is an old idea that goes back to the 1950s or before. It never worked because of the self-detonation problem. Even a liquid O2/O3 mix turned out to be problematic.”

            Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-liquid-ozone-substitute-for-liquid-oxygen.565920/

            This in turn makes me wonder how many millions of tonnes of O3 is Miss Nature making?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob…”Ive always wondered whether English is your first language. This and countless other posts from you suggest not”.

          Being from Australia you are not seriously claiming to speak English as a first language???

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      craig…”The temperature has yet to dip as low as it was during the 20 year pause and this la Nina is over”.

      Following the 1998 EN there was an unexplained increase to the ‘pause’ average. There could very well be an unexplained natural force at work related to warming.

      It’s also possible that the current erratic warming since 1970 is part of a long-term natural cycle.

      • Svante says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “There could very well be an unexplained natural force at work related to warming.”

        Or could it be an explained force?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        There could very well be an unexplained natural force at work related to warming.

        Citing unknown, unexplained forces isn’t science, it’s pseudoscience.

        You might as well just say some god is responsible.

        Current ideas, especially GHGs, explain modern warming quite well. Certainly well enough to tell us why it’s warmed so far and that it’s going to continue to warm.

  45. ren says:

    Very low solar activity and very low activity of Atlantic.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid

  46. Gordon Robertson says:

    On topic because I am challenging silly science like AGW. What I am seeing in the night sky with Venus and Jupiter is just as silly.

    It is claimed the planets revolve counterclockwise around the Sun. I have been watching Jupiter nightly as well as Venus and Mars due to the excellent weather we’ve experienced in this rain-forest (Vancouver, Canada) the past couple of months.

    When I started watching Venus and Jupiter a couple of months ago, Jupiter was almost due south around 10 PM. Venus was a bit north of west. Now, Venus is a bit south of west, meaning it has progressed south wrt Earth. Meantime, Jupiter has progressed significantly west of south.

    Ok, I am aware we are turning CCW as well, and at a different angular velocity than Jupiter and Venus. The apparent motion of Venus to the south of west could be explained by that. However, how does one explain Jupiter moving in an apparent CW direction?

    gbaikie should be into this. He’ll know.

    BTW, as the Earth rotates west to east, Venus moves down toward the horizon and Jupiter moves in a westerly direction, dipping down toward the horizon as it goes.

    Around midnight, Mars shows up in the southern sky at about the same elevation as Jupiter. I have not yet determined which way it appears to be going. It would be interesting if Venus moved south enough and Jupiter moved in behind it.

    One explanation fairly obvious to me is that Jupiter seems to be moving CCW because Earth is moving faster in an inner orbit. There’s a problem for all you relativity fetishists who believe in time dilation.

    If Jupiter is in fact moving CCW, but appears to be moving CW, that’s a perfect example of the illusion produced by relative motion. At some point, it should start moving CCW again wrt Earth.

    ***********

    Just discovered the explanation:

    http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~mendez/ASTRO110LAB11/planetmotion.html

    Now, how about an explanation for AGW that does not feature illusions?

    Right now, Venus is on the opposite side of the Sun from us and it is very bright. I guess when it catches up with us and comes between us and the Sun, it will disappear. Or, if you have a decent telescope, you’ll see it in phases like the Moon’s phases.

    When you look at the path of the orbital plane, Jupiter seems to be at the top of it right now with the plane slicing down through the Earth from South to north at about a 30 degree angle to the horizon (again…at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada). Mars is further up the plane right now, on the same inclined side as Jupiter. I’ll have to check to see where Saturn is located.

    **********

    Apparently from August 20th to 23, the Moon will be in the southern sky (from Vancouver, BC, at least), probably between 10 pm to midnight. On the 20th, Saturn will be visible just below the Moon and a bit to its left. Mars will be further to the left and lower still.

    http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/visible-planets-tonight-mars-jupiter-venus-saturn-mercury#saturn

    On the 21st and 22nd, the Moon will be between Mars and Saturn and higher than both. Apparently, Saturn has a golden tinge to it especially when viewed through binoculars.

    I know Mars has a definite reddish tinge, even by eye, and I have never seen it so bright, or that high in the sky.

    I am trying to setup an 80mm x 800mm reflector telescope but it’s not as easy as it seems. I did catch Jupiter one night but it was nothing more than a ball the size of a dime and fuzzy. Apparently, you can take an mp4 video and use averaging software from the Net that will clarify it so you can see a band. Not a rock band, a band of a different shade of grey.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I’ll bet that between August 20th and 23rd, our cloud cover will be back big-time.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Why did you post if you had already discovered the answer to your problem before posting? My suggestion … to give the illusion that you are a thinker. If you had been observing this phenomenon for 2 months, why would you have waited until just now to google it?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob…”Why did you post if you had already discovered the answer to your problem before posting? My suggestion to give the illusion that you are a thinker. If you had been observing this phenomenon for 2 months, why would you have waited until just now to google it?”

        It’s a bit over your limited intelligence. The answer is easy, I was commenting as I went along and looked things up after posing the question. Maybe you could try it and get some science into your posts rather than focusing on sarcasm and as homs.

        When you’re an astronomer, it takes time to develop theories through observation. I have other matters to deal with like brain surgery. Could I offer you a quick lobotomy?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          When youre an astronomer, it takes time to develop theories through observation.

          But where are the experiments??

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”But where are the experiments??”

            I’m currently on the ‘materials’ part of the scientific method, setting up my 80mm x 800mm reflector scope.

  47. Ren I say the climate is going in the right direction this year which is cooler on all fronts.

    It has to continue.

  48. The models are AGW theory prediction and they are way off and getting worse with each passing month.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Salvatore…”The models are AGW theory prediction and they are way off and getting worse with each passing month.”

      The models are unvalidated toys programmed with several inferences not backed in physics.

      The IPCC has its roots in climate modeling and that’s why they are such a useless organization. As I have pointed out previously, the IPCC came from politicking at the UN by ex-PM Margaret Thatcher. She had a beef with the coal miner’s union and starting bs about global warming related to emissions from coal was her way of drawing negative attention to coal.

      The first co-chair of the IPCC, John Houghton, was a climate modeler. He was a protege of Thatcher and that’s how he got in the door. Houghton brought climate modeling pseudo-science to the IPCC.

      If climate science went back to real physics they’d have no basis for claiming unprecedented warming or projected catastrophic warming.

      • Carbon500 says:

        Gordon: I think you should check your Margaret Thatcher story and verify its source. This is surely another folk myth that’s done the rounds many times. I live in England, and I can’t recall ‘global warming’ ever being mentioned at the time. As I’ve said before, it wasn’t even a blip on the media horizon at that time.
        The miner’s strike took place in 1984-5, and it was nasty. Ian MacGregor, an American, was the chairman of the National Coal Board at this time. Read his autobiography ‘The Enemies Within'(Collins Press, 1986) and you won’t see a single word about global warming.
        You understate matters when you say that ‘Margaret Thatcher had a beef with the coal miner’s union’ – this was a conflict in every sense of the word. It was, ultimately, an attempt to topple a democratically government, and was, as described in MacGregor’s book, ‘the longest-lasting, most bitter and most crucial dispute that Britain has ever suffered.’

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          carbo…”You understate matters when you say that Margaret Thatcher had a beef with the coal miners union this was a conflict in every sense of the word. It was, ultimately, an attempt to topple a democratically government….”

          They may have been democratically elected but they were far from being democratic. The Thatcher regime destroyed the UK putting millions out of work due to privatization and the sale of the UK to international interests.

          How about the time Churchill sent out the army to break the strike of miners during WWII? Although Churchill is largely regarded as a hero in the UK he was as bad as Thatcher when it came to right-wing Tory excesses. That’s why he was dumped as PM right after WWII.

          The Thatcher connection to global warming puts the notion to rest that global warming/climate change is a Left wing plot. Global warming theory has its roots in an uber-right wing government using it to control Left wing factions.

          From there, the IPCC has used it to try establishing a world government so it has taxation rights. That may appear to be a Left wing ploy but it’s driven by despots from Third World countries looking for handouts to stuff their coffers. Any money they receive will never get through to the poor for whom it is intended.

          • Carbon500 says:

            Thank you for your interesting comments, Gordon. I’ll look into the matters you mention and read up some political history relating to these issues.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        The models are unvalidated toys programmed with several inferences not backed in physics.

        The longest chapter in the 5AR WG1 is Chapter 9, “Evaluation of Climate Models.”

        What did you find unsatisfactory when you read it?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”The longest chapter in the 5AR WG1 is Chapter 9, Evaluation of Climate Models.

          What did you find unsatisfactory when you read it?”

          That about sums up the IPCC. The longest chapter is devoted to evaluating unvalidated toys, after they stated clearly in TAR that future climate states cannot be predicted.

          The IPCC are scam artists and their reports are akin to glossy travel brochures.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        carbo…”I live in England, and I cant recall global warming ever being mentioned at the time. As Ive said before, it wasnt even a blip on the media horizon at that time”.

        That’s right, there was no mention of it prior to Margaret Thatcher presenting the notion to the UN. She had a degree in chemistry and an advisor put her up to using her knowledge of chemistry to baffle the UN delegates.

        https://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic/

      • Bart says:

        Your smoothing masks the fact that the latest measurements are in line with the early 2000’s, well below the RCPs.

        • David Appell says:

          Natural variations, in particular back-to-back La Ninas.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Using global averages is “smoothing”???
          And … “your” smoothing??

          • Bart says:

            When they are smoothed over time? Yes, that is smoothing.

          • David Appell says:

            What time interval would you like to use, and why?

          • David Appell says:

            What time in.ter.val would you like to use, and why?

          • David Appell says:

            Holy cow, now I wasn’t allowed to use the i-word I have to break up above.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It was because of the repetition.

          • Bart says:

            In his plot, the transient hump from 2016 has not yet reached the level prior. In the actual data, we are already there, and trending further down.

          • barry says:

            Geez, Bart, the models outputs are annual averages and the obs are annual averages.

            Apples to apples.

            You are being really dense these days. There is no smoothing out differences when using the same metrics!

          • Bart says:

            It’s not yearly averages. If it were, it would go to the present year, and it would be back down to the “pause” level.

            Think!

          • Nate says:

            Lest we forget, not all data must behave like UAH.

            It looks like Had*crut. And Had*crut 12 mo average has not returned to pause level.

            Think!

          • Bart says:

            12 mo averaging is, in fact, what we call “smoothing”.

          • Nate says:

            And anyone should care why?

          • Bart says:

            Because without the 2016 El Nino blip, it is clear that the models are running way hot.

          • Nate says:

            A 12 mo smooth is not going to give you a 2016 influence in 2018..

            Meanwhile, getting your hopes up by looking at the La Nina influenced last few mo. and assuming that will continue after La Ninas demise, will lead to disappointment.

          • Bart says:

            The 2016 El Nino was centered in 2016, but its overall impact was longer lasting. I would say, in fact, it has not yet fully dissipated.

          • Nate says:

            Could be so.

            What if it never goes away? A step-up like after 98. What then?

          • barry says:

            Bart,

            Its not yearly averages. If it were, it would go to the present year, and it would be back down to the “pause” level.

            Think!

            No, you dumbass. It IS annual averages, Jan-Dec, same as the model output. 2018 isn’t over yet, so can’t be included.

            The graph extends one that appeared in AR5 comparing modeled annual surface temps with observations. Current monthly anomalies are still well inside the model envelope on the cooler side.

            For GISS, the current year (to July) is on average 0.1C cooler than 2017. That puts 2018 well inside the model envelope.

          • Bart says:

            Yeah, yeah. FU2. If you can’t control your emotions, maybe you should find something else to occupy your time.

            Yeah, they’re yearly averages, and that is smoothing. The output lacks monthly resolution, and it is delayed by six months, and 6 months ago, the temperatures were still elevated significantly above where they are now.

            In the world of finance, when the current time series dips down below the running average, they consider it a sell signal. I would advise you to sell your AGW holdings. The fundamentals do not look promising.

          • barry says:

            The model outputs are annual averages, Jan-Dec.

            Basing the obs on the same metric is not only obvious its rigorous.

            ‘Smoothing’ changes the value of a data point by subjecting it to an algorithm. This is not the process applied – nor the result – in annual averaging. You are overworking the terminology here.

          • barry says:

            Your original comment:

            Your smoothing masks the fact that the latest measurements are in line with the early 2000s, well below the RCPs.

            is just wrong. Average 2018 temps are 0.1C lower than the 2017 value, currently. Thats well within the envelope of the RCPs. The most recent month is also within the model envelope.

            FYI, the 4 RCPs do not begin to diverge until about 2025.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Yeah, theyre yearly averages, and that is smoothing.’

            If that is smoothing than so is using monthly data. So is using weekly data.

            Barry makes a good point. It is not smoothing, not a running average, it is just yearly data.

            What possibly could be wrong with that for judging long term trends?

          • Bart says:

            “Basing the obs on the same metric is not only obvious its rigorous.”

            That’d be no. There is inherent phase lag. If you want to know what is happening now, you can’t base it on overly smoothed data.

            “If that is smoothing than so is using monthly data. So is using weekly data.”

            True, but the degree of smoothing is progressively much lower for each.

          • barry says:

            The only way in which using monthly anomalies is appropriate is if the model data is also monthly anomalies.

            The noise frequency is much higher for monthly than annual.

            If you want to see if monthly obs fall inside or outside the model ensemble envelope, then you need to get model output as monthly values. Apples with apples – same frequency.

            You’ve had a career in dealing with data you say?

            It’s impossible to believe you would promote such an execrable notion – comparing at 2 different frequencies – if you have any skill in statistical analysis. You’re either incompetent or a shill.

            This one is basic. There’s no wiggle room for you.

          • Bart says:

            “The noise frequency is much higher for monthly than annual.”

            But, you are cutting into the signal, not just the noise. It is the classic trade-off between bias and variance. You have a lot to learn.

    • Myki says:

      SDP, you should be giving up towards the end of the year judging by the current temperature trends and another failed prediction.

  49. Aaron S says:

    Barry and Dave. I do agree but you didnt have all the information.
    The mean El Nino quasi-periodicity is 4 years. It is quasi periodic and varies between 2 and 7 years (Cane paper I can find). I also tested the more simple version by having a step at the peak of ocean el nino before the lag in Low Trop Temp. It was not random. I did match by halfing the increase at the 2016 mega elnino compared to 0.3 at 97 mega el nino. The other was a simple linear relationship best fit from excel.

    Sorry if this goes to bottom like all my other posts

    • ren says:

      La Nina may appear in November, when the jet stream in the Eastern South Pacific will be the most favorable.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      aaron…”The mean El Nino quasi-periodicity is 4 years”.

      There appears to be many variables. A paper by Tsonis et al demonstrated an interaction between the ocean oscillations like AMO, PDO, AO, ENSO, etc. They claimed a phase relationship between the oscillations that tends to produce warming when in phase and cooling when out of phase.

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL030288

      http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/climate-change/el-nino-shielding-us-climate-change

      Furthermore, the PDO is known to affect La Nina and who knows what effect is has on El Nino. If you have various oscillations affecting each other that could explain warming/cooling right there.

      http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

      http://www.john-daly.com/soi-temp.htm

      Roy has pointed out a relationship between the north Atlantic and Arctic warming. That should involved the AMO, the AO, and possibly the PDO. The warming hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and that indicates to me a relationship to weather and not anthropogenic forces.

      • barry says:

        Aaron,

        Roy has pointed out a relationship between the north Atlantic and Arctic warming. That should involved the AMO, the AO, and possibly the PDO. The warming hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and that indicates to me a relationship to weather…

        I agree. Interannual fluctuations and monthly fluctuations are weather. To determine the trajectory of global climate – as in shifts or trends – one needs decades worth of information.

        As to whether there are ‘steps’ – ever upward, it appears – a physical basis would be nice – one that can shift the global temperature by a sudden jerk over a year or two. I would have thought there was a lot more thermal inertia in the system – ie, the oceans.

    • barry says:

      Hey Aaron,

      I also tested the more simple version by having a step at the peak of ocean el nino before the lag in Low Trop Temp. It was not random.

      You made more than one test? Adjusting certain parameters? And did you then choose to retain and report the test that gave you the best correlation?

      I did match by halfing the increase at the 2016 mega elnino compared to 0.3 at 97 mega el nino.

      That’s a pretty arbitrary choice. And qualitatively not physically justified. The 2016 el Nino was comparably strong to 1997/8.

      We want to avoid making any choices, if possible, to avoid fooling ourselves. I like that you tested the fit of the models. It’s a beginning.

      Tamino at Open Mind did a series of posts on step function testing. You might find them interesting.

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/steps/

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/step-2/

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/

  50. Petwap says:

    The Bohnsacks family has measured the temperature at Skurholmen in Lule Sweden for 96 years. Despite the hot summer, there was no record for July. In 1937 the average temperature in July was 21.5 degrees, it was two tenths warmer than the same month this year, 21.3 degrees. On five occasions in these 96 years, the average temperature has been over 20 degrees:

    1925: 20.7
    1927: 20.7
    1937: 21.5
    2003: 20.3
    2018: 21.3

    https://infogram.com/d46f7a90-9623-423b-9acd-d2825e5453a9

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry….”Nobody claims that every year will be warmer than the last under AGW”.

    That’s the problem with the AGW theory, it is not based on observed science. All of the proof related to AGW comes from consensus based on unvalidated climate models.

    There is no testable theory, as Mike keeps pointing out, but that does not stop alarmists like Barry from making ludicrous statements pertaining to what AGW does and does not predict.

    It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.

    THAT IS THE AGW THEORY in a nutshell. It has not happened and the IPCC reported 15 years without significant warming even though they claimed CO2 increased significantly during that period.

    A fifteen year hiatus, as the IPCC called it, is easily enough time to prove the atmosphere is not sensitive to CO2 warming. But there’s more. UAH shows an 18 year flat trend. Following a major EN in 2016, the planet has cooled back to the range of the 18 year hiatus.

    Over 18 years there should be a significant trend showing and there is not.

    • CraigT says:

      The best 18 year flat period I could find you was 1998 to 2016. The average global temperature anomaly for this range was 0.16C. The lowest monthly anomaly since then was 0.18C and the average was 0.32C. Even though 1998 – 2016 includes the two hottest months in the satellite record the planet has not cooled back to that range.

      https://i.imgur.com/R6mfIRi.jpg

      • Bart says:

        It dipped to that range last month, and the current trend is continuing downward.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        craig…”The best 18 year flat period I could find you was 1998 to 2016. The average global temperature anomaly for this range was 0.16C”.

        The IPCC stated in 2013 that no warming occurred 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus. Where did you possibly get a trend out of that?

        You need to stop number crunching and look at the reality.

        • David Appell says:

          New and better data came in since the 4AR.

          Gordon likes to pretend this didn’t happen, and thinks he’s actually convincing someone.

        • CraigT says:

          Gordon you claimed “UAH shows an 18 year flat trend” so I found the flattest 18 years I could. The average TLT anomaly for 1998 – 2012 was 0.13C. The lowest anomaly this year was 0.18C and now we’re back up to 3.2C. The real proof will come in the next few years but I don’t see the average dropping that low again.

    • David Appell says:

      “Successful predictions of climate science,” Ray Pierrehumbert, 2012
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI

      • JDHuffman says:

        DA, try to avoid your addiction to pseudoscience.

        Learn some physics.

        • David Appell says:

          No rebuttal, no data, no evidence — just dumb, lame insults. (I doubt you even watched the video.) That’s been Ger*an’s insecure MO for as long as I’ve been reading here.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Successful predictions of climate science, Ray Pierrehumbert, 2012….”

        Will you stop referencing junk science? Pierrehumbert’s interpretation of physics is what one might expect from theoretical physics based on bad math and the misinterpretation of the basics.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon:

          What of Pierrehumbert’s math is “bad?”
          What of the basics does he “misinterpret?”

          I bet you can’t say.
          I bet you have no idea.
          No clue, even.
          I bet you didn’t even watch the video.
          As usual. For you.
          All mouth, no action.

    • barry says:

      barry: “Nobody claims that every year will be warmer than the last under AGW.”

      Gordon: “That’s the problem with the AGW theory, it is not based on observed science….

      It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”

      That is some A-grade, nuclear level stupidity, right there.

      There is no replying to such unmitigated idiocy. There is only recognizing it.

      I mean. WOW.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      A fifteen year hiatus, as the IPCC called it, is easily enough time to prove the atmosphere is not sensitive to CO2 warming.

      False.

      It depends on what else is going on. This should be obvious, to anyone who takes the time to learn about climate change.

      AGW is now running at about +0.2 C/decade. Over 15 years that’s +0.3 . But a large La Nina can cause swings like that for a year, that then persist for a few years. Volcanic explosions can also suppress GW. So can more aerosols.

      You have to consider the details of what’s happening, which, to say the least, is not your strong suit.

  52. CraigT says:

    “It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”

    Only if all other factors were the same. The energy from the steadily increasing downward radiation stays near the surface during El Ninos but is transferred into deeper ocean waters during la Ninas.

    • JDHuffman says:

      CraigT says: “The energy from the steadily increasing downward radiation stays near the surface during El Ninos but is transferred into deeper ocean waters during la Ninas.”

      Craig, you need to enroll in a physics class.

      After several years of study, you may understand that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.

      • CraigT says:

        JD what happens to the energy in the downward radiation? Energy in the system can’t be lost. The ground and sea cool slower because of the radiation absorbed and emitted by CO2 (among other gasses).

        • JDHuffman says:

          Craig, a complete answer would take years. That’s why you need to study physics.

          What happens to the “energy” released by an ice cube? Where does it go? Can you heat your room in winter with ice cubes?

          (Ice emits 300 Watts/m^2.)

          Something to think about, huh?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          C,

          Energy can be, and is, lost when an object cools.

          As the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years – it has lost energy.

          Or winter being colder than summer – energy has been lost, otherwise winter would be hotter than summer.

          No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. All pseudoscientific nonsense. One might as well believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist rather than a mathematician, or that Michael Mann is the Nobel Laureate he claimed himself to be, as in a GHE which nobody can even define!

          Cheers.

        • Bart says:

          “JD what happens to the energy in the downward radiation?”

          Radiation is not the only method of heat exchange in the lower atmosphere. Surface temperature is a result of radiative and convective exchange. Heat lofted by convection to high altitude is not impeded from egress by increasing CO2 concentration.

          • David Appell says:

            Nobody says radiation is the only way for the surface to gain or lose energy. I don’t know why you think that would be the case, but you need to read more papers to learn what scientists actually say. For example, convection has a prominent role in Manabe & Wetherald’s 1964 paper, and after:

            “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald
            https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)0242.0.CO;2
            Received: 2 November 1966

            And see Trenberth’s energy balance diagram:

            https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere

          • Bart says:

            The point is not what current models are using. The point is that there are paths by which increasing concentration of CO2 can fail to produce significant warming.

            It’s not a sure thing, and the climatistas had no business making such confident claims, and calling them “science”. It wasn’t science, it was advocacy.

      • David Appell says:

        Ger*an says:
        After several years of study, you may understand that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.

        Only true in an adiabatic system — one that does not exchange heat with its surroundings. (2nd law.) And parts of the climate system (or the whole) are (is) certainly not an adiabatic system.

        Basic thermodynamics.

        • JDHuffman says:

          DA, learn some physics.

          You still won’t be able to distort reality, but your efforts will be at a higher level.

          • David Appell says:

            Ger*an: This is what you always write when you have no scientific reply or can’t rebut a comment. Just insults. It’s lame and very easy to see through.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …David insulted.

          • Nate says:

            Again, DREMT, flagrant fouls by the other team that you seem to be missing.

            What kind of referee are you? Are you paid by the mob?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, why do you seem so upset by some guy going around asking people to stop trolling?

          • Nate says:

            Upset? No, not at all.

            Just pointing out hypocrisy.

            You remind me of evangelicals who are all about moral shaming. Yet when it comes the very immoral behavior of the President, they offer up only silence.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh, tu quoque. More trolling. Got it.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          You still cannot warm even a microscopic amount of water with all the ice in the universe emitting 300W/m2, can you?

          You can’t even define this nonsensical and mythical GHE, either!

          There is no climate system. Climate is the average of numbers derived from observations. You are a deluded follower of the pseudoscientific climatology cult.

          Luckily, administrations which previously shared your foolishly gullible outlook wasted vast sums trying to stop the average from changing, realised how they had been led astray by fast talking GHE adherents.

          Carry on promoting your ethnic cleansing, David. The majority of humanity are happy with more plant food in the atmosphere – so are the plants, without which we all die!

          Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            FYI.

            Your repetitive posts are becoming indistinguishable from background noise, easily tuned out.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      craig…”Only if all other factors were the same. The energy from the steadily increasing downward radiation stays near the surface during El Ninos but is transferred into deeper ocean waters during la Ninas”.

      Unfortunately one of the climate legends, in his own mind, Kevin Trenberth, thinks otherwise. He admitted in the Climategate emails that the perennial warming could not be found. Later he pointed out that it cannot be found because the signal is drowned out by warming/cooling from ENSO.

      Or maybe it’s not there, Kev.

      The claim that AGW does not predict perennial warming in step with increasing CO2 levels is moving of the goalposts by alarmists. When warming fails to occur for 15 years, alarmists claim it was predicted. After a while the rhetoric and propaganda gets a bit thick.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        Unfortunately one of the climate legends, in his own mind, Kevin Trenberth, thinks otherwise. He admitted in the Climategate emails that the perennial warming could not be found.

        Gordon you are a worthless POS liar.

        Why don’t you go read what Trenbeth wrote?

        What are you so afraid of, that you have to lie each and every time this topic comes up??

        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/

  53. CraigT says:

    The Tokyo Climate Center link explains how they came to their conclusion so it’s not just an appeal to authority.

  54. CraigT says:

    “Talking about W/m2 is completely pointless, in the context of climate.”

    Then what unit do you want to use to measure the warming effect of sunlight?

  55. Mike Flynn says:

    C,

    Posing a really witless gotcha just makes you appear stupid and ignorant.

    The SI unit of temperature is the Kelvin.

    What bizarre pseudoscientific unit do you prefer? Something completely meaningless, such as W/m2, perhaps?

    Off you go now – try some mhos/lumen^3, if you prefer.

    Cheers.

    • CraigT says:

      Radiant energy from the sun is measured in Watts/m^2 not Kelvin. Earth’s temperature is influenced by the radiant energy reaching the surface, the percent reflected and the percent radiated back into space. I’m trying to be nice, but if you consider that meaningless I don’t know what to say.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        I’m telling you from experience … don’t even try to engage this troll in a conversation.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob…”Im telling you from experience dont even try to engage this troll in a conversation”.

          Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        C,

        The radiant energy from the Sun does not dictate temperature.

        Say 300 W/m2 from the Sun is absorbed by the surface (the same as can be emitted by ice), what is the resultant temperature of the surface?

        You have’t a clue, have you? Just like other stupid and ignorant GHE cultists!

        Learn some physics. Real physics, not climatological pseudoscientific fake physics.

        Try to define the GHE in scientific terms. Have fun.

        Cheers.

        • Greg says:

          “C,

          The radiant energy from the Sun does not dictate temperature.”

          Huh?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            G,

            Huh yourself!

            Tell us what temperature is dictated by the Sun’s radiation. Be specific.

            Not so easy, is it?

            Much easier to proclaim your stupidity and ignorance by writing “Huh?”. You could always follow it up with “Wow, just wowl”, or something similarly pointless.

            You cannot even describe the GHE in any useful way, but I have no doubt that you believe it exists. Ah, the power of pseudoscience! It can induce mindless fanatical fervour in its climatological adherents!

            Feel free to say “Huh??”. I don’t expect you to understand.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            greg…”The radiant energy from the Sun does not dictate temperature.

            Huh?”

            *********

            Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms. There are no atoms in the electromagnetic energy that represents solar radiance.

            EM has no temperature and it has no heat. The heat, and the temperature that measures the heat, comes after EM is converted to heat by electrons in matter. At that stage, the EM does not exist.

            The units of W/m^2 attached to EM date back to the mid-18th century when scientists thought heat was radiated from matter. EM may be claimed to have potential thermal energy but it contains no kinetic thermal energy. Therefore, solar radiance in W/m^2 is a moot point till it is intercepted by matter.

            After that the EM is converted to heat and the heat is a property of the absorbing atoms.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms. There are no atoms in the electromagnetic energy that represents solar radiance.

            The Sun’s outer layer — the photosphere — is composed of plasma. It’s an electrified gas. Hence it obeys the laws of any dense gas.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            EM has no temperature and it has no heat.

            EM has the ability to do work. (See, for example, a solar cell.) Hence it is heat in the classical sense.

            PS: No single particle has a temperature. Temperature is a property of a collection of particles. You should know this.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            The units of W/m^2 attached to EM date back to the mid-18th century when scientists thought heat was radiated from matter.

            Heat *IS* radiated from matter.

            What the bleep do you think the Planck Law is about, anyway?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Therefore, solar radiance in W/m^2 is a moot point till it is intercepted by matter.

            Your distinction serves no purpose whatsoever.

            You’re just arguing about rhetoric.

            And rhetoric isn’t scientific.

  56. Here is a Global Warming Contour Map, which shows the warming rate for the Stratosphere, since 1960. Notice the “slowdown”, which started about 1995.
    https://i2.wp.com/agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RATPAC-Stratosphere.png

    You can see contour maps for the Upper and Lower Troposphere at my website:
    https://agree-to-disagree.com

    The Stratosphere, Upper Troposphere, and Lower Troposphere, each have very different warming rates.

    Check out the Robot-Train Contour Maps, to see how contour maps work. Also, see the Legend for Global Warming Contour Maps.

  57. ren says:

    Weak jet stream over the Atlantic can persist during solar minimum. Europe is threatened by a dry and frosty winter this year.
    The surface temperature of the North Atlantic is still very low.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png

  58. Bobdesbond,

    you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. I didn’t say that the stratosphere was warming. I said “the warming rate of the stratosphere”.

    The warming rate of the stratosphere happens to be negative, it is cooling, as my Global Warming Contour Map shows. And it has been cooling quite dramatically (-4.38 degrees Celsius per century).

    But there was a “slowdown” starting in about 1995. People normally associate the term “slowdown”, with a decrease in the warming rate. But it also applies to a decrease in the cooling rate.

    The upper troposphere is staying at about the same temperature, not much warming or cooling.

    The lower troposphere shows definite warming, at about +1.87 degrees Celsius per century. This is similar to the warming rate for the GISTEMP Global Land and Ocean temperature series.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Then I am confused … on which side of the fence do you lie?

      • Bobdesbond,

        I am on both sides of the fence, and sitting on the fence, all at the same time (sometimes that gets a little uncomfortable).

        I am just seeking the truth. There is SOME truth on both sides of the fence.

        Many people, because of their bias, think that their side has a monopoly on the truth.

        I am willing to listen to any reasonable person. I will judge the truth of their statements, based on my own (limited?) knowledge and ability to reason.

        I developed Global Warming Contour Maps as a way to show what the truth is. Sadly, many people reject the truth, when it doesn’t match their prejudices.

        • The truth is AGW is a scam and it has nothing to stand on.

          • Salvatore Del Prete,

            do you deny that the earth has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius in the last 100 years?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Do you deny that CO2 has no magical heating abilities?

            Do you deny that 7 billion people produce more heat than 1 billion people?

            Do you deny that thermometers indicate differences in heat?

            Do you deny that climate is just the average of numerical records?

            Deny, divert and confuse. That’s all you’ve got isn’t it?

            Carry on.

            Cheers.

          • Greg says:

            Case in point

          • Bart says:

            Sheldon – a warming planet does not establish that CO2 is warming the planet. In fact, the planet has been warming, with variations, for at least the past 100 or so years. But CO2, according to conventional estimates, did not really take off until mid-century.

            It is papered over with appeals to fudge factors like unmeasured aerosols and such, but the fact of the matter is that CO2 cannot explain the rise in the earlier part of the century.

            The upshot is, the long term warming trend was laid in well before CO2 could have been the culprit. If you remove that trend from consideration, there is very little left that could be attributed to CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            But CO2, according to conventional estimates, did not really take off until mid-century.

            That’s false. By 1950, CO2 radiative forcing had already reached 1/3rd of its present value.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            …but the fact of the matter is that CO2 cannot explain the rise in the earlier part of the century.

            Nobody says it can.

          • Bart says:

            It’s not false. The temperature increase 1910-1940 was almost precisely that of 1970-2000. That is not in proportion to CO2 concentration, or even the log of concentration.

            Global temperature anomaly over the last century has been dominated by a trend + a ~60 year oscillation, which were laid in before significant CO2 increase. Take those prior characteristics out, and there is very little left that could have been induced by increasing CO2:

            http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      sheldon…”The lower troposphere shows definite warming, at about +1.87 degrees Celsius per century. This is similar to the warming rate for the GISTEMP Global Land and Ocean temperature series”.

      Do you mean the fudged GISTEMP series which is based on the fudged NOAA series?

      Where did you get the propaganda about 1.87 C/century?

  59. The overall sea surface temperatures are around +.15c deviation from 1981-2010 means. I think they still go lower.

    If this holds this year will continue to be cooler then last year.

    This is just the beginning. I am pleased with year 2018 thus far.

  60. Mike Flynn says:

    B,

    Yep. And Antarctica has to get a lot hotter before it returns to being ice-free.

    Do you think more CO2 in the atmosphere might restore the natural state of an ice-free Antarctica?

    Have you figured out how to define the GHE yet? Make sure you account for the Antarctic ice in your explanation.

    How hard can it be?

    Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        That melting is already in motion.

        In the past, sea level has ultimately risen 10-20 meters for every degree Celsius of warming.

        It takes thousands of years, but is already irreversible.

        Greenland is 7.4 m of sea level equivalent, and other land-based glaciers and ice caps are 0.4 m SLE.

        So Antarctic melting will have to provide at least 2 m SLE, and perhap as much as 12 m SLE.

        That’s a lot of melting from Antarctica. And it’s barely begun to show….

  61. Shelton it has warmed that much since the Little Ice Age ended but it has done that and much more many times and to greater degress of magnitude changes over a shorter period of time. Just look at the historical climatic record.

    Look at my post sent at 5:00am today. AGW has largely hi jacked natural variation.

    This time in the climate is not unique not even close. I also have been saying year 2018 is going to be a transitional year due to very low solar moderated by a geo magnetic field which is in sync with solar. Both fields are weakening.

    My theory is simple, which is if two solar conditions are met which are 10+years of sub solar activity in general (2005) followed by a period of time of very low average value solar parameters equal to or greater that is observed during typical solar minimum periods(started late 2017) the sun will then have a more significant effect upon the climate.

    Low solar equating to lower overall sea surface temperatures(less UV/visible light intensity) and a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud/snow coverage and major explosive volcanic activity(galactic cosmic rays increasing). The result lower global temperatures.

    I will be very surprised if any further global warming takes place from here.

    I had predicted by the end of this summer global temperatures would be at or below the 1981-2010 baseline they are lower but not quite that low yet, but the trend has been good so far.

    Overall sea surface temperatures surprisingly have fallen more then global temperatures ,some .2c since last summer and this will be the key to where global temperatures go.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      “I also have been saying year 2018 is going to be a transitional year due to very low solar moderated by a geo magnetic field which is in sync with solar.”

      You said the same thing in (at least) 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

  62. CraigT says:

    “I will be very surprised if any further global warming takes place from here.”

    Is this in terms of months, years or longer? Are you predicting TLT will be below 0.32C for August?

    • barry says:

      You know how Lucy asks Charlie Brown to kick the ball and she whips it away every time?

      On predictions – Salvatore is Lucy. You think he’ll stick to what he says, but then he whips the ball away.

      Every time.

      I just spent a year testing him. Jun/Jul/Aug was crunch time. His prediction is already wrong and he walked way from it.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Really? Has Salvatore made some predictions that havent come to pass? I think thats the first time anyone has mentioned it.

        • David Appell says:

          We’ll criticize what Salvatore predicts, as long as he repeats it ad nauseam and spreads it over every corner of this blog.

          And why don’t you just shut up? You contribute nothing to this blog, and no one pays you the slightest bit of mind.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”You think hell stick to what he says, but then he whips the ball away”.Mr. Obfuscation chimes in.

        A while back I gave you a direct quote from the IPCC who claimed no warming from 1998 – 2012. They called it a warming hiatus. You raved that I was wrong and went off on a rant about short term trends.

        A 15 year trend is short-term????

        Later I gave you another direct quote in which NOAA freely admitted to slashing over 75% of their data. They felt OK admitting it but you went into a fit, claiming I was lying.

        You claimed they had actually increased the number of stations, referring to pseudo-data NOAA conjured in climate models by interpolating and homogenizing less than 25% of their data.

        You are blind to fact and deluded by fiction, yet here you are claiming Salvatore is obfuscating.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, what’s the statistical uncertainty of a 15-year trend? It’s p-value?

          What if you exclude autocorrelation?

          What if you include autocorrelation?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          Later I gave you another direct quote in which NOAA freely admitted to slashing over 75% of their data.

          What effect did that have on their calculation of global mean surface temperature? (Numbers please.)

        • barry says:

          First get him to point out the sentence where NOAA said they deleted 75% of the data. Or deliberately cut any of it.

          He can’t. But he accuses me of distortion.

          Come on, Gordon, quote the exact part where NOAA ‘admit’ to deliberately cutting any station data.

          Plain English, please, not twisted interpretations by you.

  63. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, I parsed your data to demonstrate that CO2 doesn’t impact atmospheric temperatures…at least not how the alarmists claim.

    Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/isolating-the-impact-of-co2-on-atmospheric-temperatures-conclusion-is-co2-has-no-measurable-impact/

    • Kristian says:

      CO2isLife,

      There is no way you could look at Christy & Spencer’s data alone and figure out whether or not CO2 has an impact on atmospheric temps … You need to compare it to the all-sky radiative fluxes (ASR and OLR) at the ToA to do that:

      https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/

      https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/

      Your general conclusion, however, is correct.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Kristian, thanks for the comment, but I’m not sure it is 100% correct. The GHG is due to thermalizing outgoing LWIR. The role the sun plays is to warm the surface and oceans. Cosmic Rays can cool the earth when there is a hot sun. The important factor isn’t how hot the sun is, the important factors is how much radiation from the sun reaches the earth’s surface. I use the warming oceans as a proxy for how much radiation is reaching the earth’s surface. I admittedly didn’t control for the sun because the analysis of just controlling for H20 and the Urban Heat Island Effect is so convincing. I’m sure that controlling for the sun would only make it even more convincing.

        • David Appell says:

          I admittedly didnt control for the sun because the analysis of just controlling for H20 and the Urban Heat Island Effect is so convincing.

          Oh boy.

          No need for data when CO2 has it all figured out anyway.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No need for a proper response when trolling will do. Please stop, David.

          • CO2isLife says:

            David, you can never control for every factor, and the CAGW crowd don’t attempt to control for anything. The fact that they rely on Ground Measurements proves controlling for external factors isn’t a concern. That is why I specifically chose Satellite data so I could pinpoint the data sets that best isolate the impact of CO2. You can’t do that with ground measurements. Anyway, I’d be interested in how you can explain CO2 is the cause of the warming when I demonstrated that there was no warming. Does the physics of the CO2 molecule change depend on where it is located in the atmosphere? If all CO2 molecules are in fact equal, you have a hard time making the case COw is causing warming when there is no warming.

  64. Tim says:

    The last time we had a summer like this in the UK was 1976, the winters were freezing though. Get ready for the grand solar minimum.

  65. Robert W. Turner says:

    Global average will be back to the 2003-2013 average by this time next year and the pause will slowly make its way back.

    • barry says:

      Heh. They said the pause would be back directly after the el Nino.

      Then it was the year after the el Nino, with the definitely-coming la Nina.

      They kept pushing the date back as the trend since 1998 kept climbing.

      Now it will “slowly make its way back.”

      Because wishful thinking means you don’t have to do any other kind of thinking.

      The ‘pause’ since 1998 is not coming back any time in the next 5 years. Doubtful that it will return at all.

      The planet will continue to get warmer over the long term.

      I’m willing to lay money on that.

      I keep getting no takers.

      The cooling predictionists huff and puff when I try to call them on it.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Well, barry, youre all over the comment thread like a rash, trolling left, right and centre. Doing a David Appell, I believe you professionals call it. PST.

        • CraigT says:

          Question for the EMT: I keep trying to post a 3 sentence quote from a physics textbook explaining how to calculate net radiation emission but I never see it post. Is there something about the post being blocked?

        • barry says:

          Certain collections of letters are banned or glitched.

          A.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n

          r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n.

          for example – not too many

          And any letter sequence with D and C adjacent. So Had.cru has to be written like that.

          • Bart says:

            For CraigT’s sake, it might be worth elucidating that D and C quirk. These were the initials of a notorious troll who inundated these pages at one point. He would be banned, and would come back with a new identity, generally with some combination of those two letters in his screen name somewhere. So, Dr. Spencer employed the nuclear option, and now those two letters in sequence anywhere provide a one way trip to oblivion.

          • David Appell says:

            Ger*an, also banned, has come back as JDHuffman.

          • JDHuffman says:

            *** Barry, the word “refrigeration” does NOT cause any problems. Please quit spreading false rumors.

            *** DA, please learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Because some people are allowed to use a word here does not mean all people are allowed to use it.

            I’ve seen that happen to me, with words like NO.AA and N.S.I.D.C.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, nothing seems to work for you.

            NOAA

          • barry says:

            refrigeration

          • barry says:

            Well, that works. Gordon posted that it didn’t some time back, and I couldn’t get it to either back then.

            This is a wobbly blog.

          • barry says:

            fridge

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Thats not my fault by the way. I keep suggesting to Dr Roy to drop the word bans in our monthly meetings, but he isnt having any of it.

      • Bart says:

        The “pause” is already back, and the temperature trend is downward. The effects of the 2016 El Nino have not yet completely dissipated, but they are continuing to dissipate.

        • David Appell says:

          Silly. A couple of colder years does not make a pause. (The first “pause” was a myth anyway.) Try to maintain a scientific perspective here.

        • barry says:

          It’s sad to see Bart’s commentary dipping to the asinine level of the lesser ‘skeptics’ here.

          The “pause” is already back

          From 2016?

          I think someone has stolen Bart’s identity. I cannot believe he is that stupid.

          • Bart says:

            The 2016 blip is just that: a blip. It is rapidly dissipating. You are hanging onto it as long as you can, but the handwriting is on the wall.

          • barry says:

            So what is this ‘pause’ that is ‘already back’?

            Did you have something actual in mind, or were you just being contrary?

          • Bart says:

            It’s just bobbling around this level:

            http://oi64.tinypic.com/10hm5g1.jpg

            This is no statistically significant trend at all.

          • barry says:

            The current decadal average is higher than the previous decadal average. Is that a pause?

            It’s bobbling around at a level that is higher than it bobbled around prior to 2016. About 0.2C higher than where it ‘bobbled’ before then.

            This is no statistically significant trend at all.

            Ha! I saw that back-step coming a mile off.

            And do you know what it means when a trend is not statistically significant? Do you know what is proven when the null is not rejected?

            Not the null, that’s for sure.

            The pause is not ‘already back’. Not unless you are about to pervert one of the most basic tools in the scientific tool-kit.

            And since you brought up statistical significance (thank you, at last), it pleases me to report that the pause, so-called, was never statistically significant in the first place.

            That is, the apparent slowdown was not statistically distinct from the previous warming trend.

            Shall we speak more of statistical significance? Let’s get a firm grip on it so that we don’t fool ourselves, eh?

            Or…. will you now remember that it interferes with your eye-crometer way of doing science and return to playing it down?

          • Bart says:

            “The current decadal average is higher than the previous decadal average. Is that a pause?”

            Of course it is, if temperatures haven’t risen in the current decade. And, they haven’t in any systematic way. They’re just bobbling around.

            “And do you know what it means when a trend is not statistically significant?”

            Kid, I was doing quality inspections and statistical analysis on rocket engines when you were in diapers. Probably before then.

            I see this in young, inexperienced people all they time. They have no bearings, so they put an over-reliance on mathematical tools that they think someone else has perfected.

            But, those tools are formulated under specific assumptions, and if you do not do a thorough analysis to assure that those assumptions hold, you have no idea whether the tools are giving you valid answers, or setting you up for a big fall.

            Visual inspection is the first step. If it doesn’t pass visual inspection, then you have to choose a different path.

            I said there was no statistically significant trend because there isn’t. But, in fact, that’s because talk of trends here is virtually meaningless. You can’t do statistical tests unless you have a valid model for how the data should behave, and a simple linear trend with additive i.i.d. error is not one for these data.

            Just use your eyes. They are exquisite instruments. You can see right away that there was a blip, which is now essentially gone. And, except for that blip, the data are just bobbling around, as they have for the past two decades.

          • barry says:

            Yep, you walked it back from ‘statistical significance,’ as I knew you would.

            Because if you invoke it, it kills the pause.

            Then with all your years of learning about scientific rigour and not fooling yourself….

            You tell us to ignore the numbers and go with the old eyecrometer. Because your eyes never fool you, do they?

            Thanks, Dad, but we’ll rely on professional methods designed to avoid self-deception.

          • barry says:

            Just use your eyes. They are exquisite instruments. You can see right away that there was a blip, which is now essentially gone. And, except for that blip, the data are just bobbling around, as they have for the past two decades.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12

            My eye tells me very clearly that there is an overall warming with ups and downs along the way.

            More detail,

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6

            Tells the same story, and that recent (last 12 months) temps are at a generally higher level than previous.

            I have to squint just like Dad wants me to to see what he’s seeing. A coming cooling he says, based on a very recent downturn. Well, I’ve seen them all through the record – bigger downturns even – and the overall warming still happened.

            I know what Dad sees.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:1999/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2007/plot/uah6/from:2009/to:2011/plot/uah6/from:2018

          • Bart says:

            I’m not interested in your playground games and gotchas. I’ve laid things out clearly. You are looking for excuses to doubt what your eyes can plainly see. I am not encumbered by such a yearning.

            I do not care if AGW is real or not. If it were real, we could easily take appropriate action. I see no convincing evidence that it is, and it is logically unsound, given the fact that we are not in control of CO2 levels in the first place.

          • barry says:

            Im not interested in your playground games and gotchas. Ive laid things out clearly.

            Bollocks.

            The pause refers to a stalling in surface or lower tropospheric temperature trends.

            The skeptiverse – a la Christopher Monckton – pitched it as a flat or ever so slightly declining mean trend line from 1998. He counted the months that the mean trend stayed at zero or lower(RSS data), and the skeptiverse went along for the ride.

            This graphic and the phrase “no warming since 1998” was it.

            2016 came along and the trend line finally went positive for the last data set. Monckton said the pause was over. The skeptiverse replied “it will be back!”

            Since then certain desperates in the skeptiverse have been trying to change the goalposts. Picking a new start date. Saying the 2016 el Nino doesn’t count. And you – with ‘temps bobbling around’.

            The pause is not back. The pause was a change in mean trend – absent any uncertainty values, what’s more – from 1998. If you want to talk about the pause, you must demonstrate a flat or declining trend of reasonable amount of years. Preferably from 1998. That’s all we heard about for 6 years.

            That’s the standard. Anything else is just more BS from the ideological skeptiverse.

            You remarked on statistical significance of trend then back-pedaled when called on it. The technical aspect of your view amounts to this – temperatures “bobbling around” some range similar to some other range at points during the period post 1998.

            No, you’ve not remotely “laid it out.”

            The pause was well defined once. Now that it is over the shills rush in to try to resurrect it by shifting the goalposts to ever more absurd positions. “Bobbling around.” Pathetic.

            I’m not blind, nor resistant to sound commentary different from my views. You are simply full of it.

          • Bart says:

            This is your failing, not mine. You very desperately want to deny what is right in front of your eyes. Your argument is ignoratio elenchi.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        The current warming is not unprecedented. Any fool can say it will continue warming over the long term. Oh wait. That’s what climate un-scientists do.

        You just make stupid predictions without any scientific evidence. Why would anyone want to make a bet with you? You are the one huffing and puffing.

        We don’t know what will happen with the climate in the future.

        • David Appell says:

          SkepticGoneWild says:
          You just make stupid predictions without any scientific evidence.

          That’s a very stupid thing to write. Complete horsesh!t.

        • barry says:

          You just make stupid predictions without any scientific evidence. Why would anyone want to make a bet with you?

          I’m hoping that any or all of the people claiming – with absolute certainty – that we are about to get cooler for a few decades, will lay a bet based on their certainty.

          I figure that the reason they have backed off when asked is that they are not as certain as they pretend to be.

          It’s especially good fun offering a (genuine) bet to those who say the ‘warmists’ are stupid and have got it all wrong.

          Watching them curl up and huff when the rubber hits the road is quite satisfying.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m surprised Salvatore won’t take you up on your bet — he seems so sure cooling is almost here, month after month after month, year after year after year….

            Salvatore?

    • barry says:

      A bunch of ‘skeptics’ and a bunch of ‘warmists’ pooled in for a serious bet about the current decade being cooler/warmer than the last.

      http://www.kiwithinker.com/climate-bet/

      There are a few more out there.

      I’m willing to play at any time, with reasonable conditions for both sides.

  66. Snape says:

    Bart

    The temperature trend over the past 40 years is positive. Over the past two years it’s negative. Over the past two months it’s positive. Over the past week (climatereanalyzer) it’s sharply negative.

    Which of those trends is meaningful with respect to AGW?

    • Bart says:

      None of them. What we have is a long term trend with a ~60 year cyclic phenomenon superimposed. These characteristics predated significant CO2 increase. Take those out, and there is very little left to attribute to CO2:

      http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg

    • barry says:

      More meaningless curve-fitting.

      No source mentioned. No data given for multidecadal cycle. No statistical testing to see if temps lead or lag these cycles – are the cycles aliasing global temps or leading them?

      Same old graphical rhetoric.

      • Bart says:

        Cycles are ubiquitous in Nature, and the long term trend pre-dates significant CO2 accumulation. You don’t have to know why, any more than you have to know how a diesel engine works to know you better get off the tracks when a locomotive is bearing down upon you. You can see it directly.

        You are trying to impress a paradigm upon the data, and insisting it is more rigorous because it explains the dynamics to your satisfaction. But, that is not a valid test of rigor. Any number of faux-sophisticate paradigms could be impressed upon these data. It does not make them true.

        This is a fallacy to which many neophytes fall prey. It leads to confirmation bias, and dead ends. You cannot become married to some hypothesis to the point you ignore the glaringly obvious, and sweep it under the rug in a vain struggle to support a collapsing paradigm.

      • barry says:

        Cycles are ubiquitous in Nature, and the long term trend pre-dates significant CO2 accumulation. You dont have to know why

        If you are going to state that these cycles are also responsible for long-term warming, then you do indeed have to know why.

        Warming from increased CO2 has an empirical basis. Wiggle-matching doesn’t.

        Without an empirical basis, and without testing the wiggle-match for lead/lag, correlation and a host of other questions, it is your hypothesis that lacks rigour. It is simply astonishing that you can’t see that, and that you even argue that establishing a physical basis is unnecessary. but perhaps I’ve been giving you too much credit.

        You don’t stress your own hypothesis at all. No null hypothesis to work against it. No tests at all. Just visual inspection of graphs. The confirmation bias is glaring.

        • Bart says:

          “Warming from increased CO2 has an empirical basis.”

          No, it actually doesn’t. Not on a global scale. Extrapolation from the lab under controlled conditions to a complex system under a multitude of influences is at best as good as a coin toss.

        • barry says:

          Extrapolation from the lab under controlled conditions to a complex system under a multitude of influences is at best as good as a coin toss.

          Well, that’s a steaming pile of rhetoric. Coin toss was a nice, obfuscatory flourish. You’d make a great politician.

          What we have from experiments spectral analysis in the lab and spectral analysis in the field is actual empirical evidence. A physical basis from which to work.

          We don’t have an empirical basis to tie natural oceanic cycles with long term warming. None.

          Wiggle-matching and conjecture is all you have. You have the scientific process upside down, mate.

          • Bart says:

            The list of such failed extrapolations is long. If you do not know this, you do not know science.

            When Leeuwenhoek first saw animacules in his microscope, there was no basis for the germ theory of disease, but the connection was almost immediately obvious. This is how science works. We observe logically connected phenomena, and then we follow the threads.

  67. CraigT says:

    A few posters have said Ice gives off 300 W/m2. If a grey body plane giving off 500 W/^2 is placed parallel between 2 planes of ice the net radiation heat loss of the grey body plane is 200W/m^2. The ice is not heating the grey body plane but reducing the loss of heat.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Your knowledge of pseudoscience is good.

      Your knowledge of physics is a big FAIL.

      • CraigT says:

        JD I’m shocked that you would say that! But if you could be more specific about what is wrong with that calculation it would be more helpful.

        • JDHuffman says:

          The list is long.

          * Radiative fluxes can NOT be treated arithmetically.

          * The 500 Watts/m^2 is from a warmer surface. It would not even notice the 300 Watts’m^2 from the ice. Different spectra.

          * “Reducing the loss” is not radiatively possible from a lower temperature. You must make the ice an “insulator”.

          You’ve been “shocked” enough, for now.

          • David Appell says:

            JDHuffman says:
            The 500 Watts/m^2 is from a warmer surface. It would not even notice the 300 Wattsm^2 from the ice. Different spectra.

            Energy is energy, and it is conserved.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Flux is NOT conserved.

            Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Flux = energy per unit time per unit area. So if energy is conserved, so is flux.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong!

            Radiative flux consists of photons. Photons have different energies. So photons are NOT conserved. Therefore radiative flux is NOT conserved.

            Learn some physics.

            Or remain a clown. Your choice.

          • David Appell says:

            If a photon of energy E1 is passing through a certain area, and another photon of energy E2 is passing through that same area, then the net flux is (E1+E2) per unit area per unit time.

            Conservation of energy.

          • JDHuffman says:

            If 5 photons, each with energy E, are absorbed by a surface, and 15 photons, each with energy E/3 are simultaneously emitted, then energy is conserved, but photons (flux) is NOT.

            Learn some physics, DA.

          • CraigT says:

            Radiative flux is carried by photons but the energy still exists after the photons are absorbed. The energy of a photon is plank’s constant times the speed of light divided by the photon’s wavelength. Two photons of 1000 nanometer wavelength carry the same energy as one photon at 500 nanometers. Two 1000 nanometer photons per second supplies the same wattage as one 500 nanometer photon per second.

            Since I said the plane was a greybody object it absorbs all spectra equally. It would be happy to absorb 300 Watts per square meter no matter the wavelength of the photons bringing the energy.

            This is the point you tell me I need to learn some physics.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, you may have “black body” confused with “gray body”.

            So yes, you need to learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Again a meaningless response by Ger*an, attempting to cover up his ignorance.

          • JDHuffman says:

            It wouldn’t be meaningless to you if you understood.

            Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Still more dumb.

            Ger*an couldn’t give a scientific response if his identity depended on it.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, in your frantic effort to run from reality, you probably overlooked this:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315150

          • CraigT says:

            A greybody object is like a blackbody but it only absorbs and emits a percentage of the radiant energy striking it. I should have made the plane a black body to make the math work out as simple as it was.

            Now what about your problems with spectra, photons and energy? Photons carry energy but they are not the same as radiative flux. A given level of power (say 300 Watts) can be carried by photons of any spectra. As long as an object has the physical properties to absorb a photon the energy is transferred to the object. Maxwell’s demon doesn’t jump out and block the photon because the object is warmer than the source of the photon.

          • David Appell says:

            Overlooked what?

            I”m not clicking on your links anymore, since the invariably go to nothing that explains nothing.

            If you have something to say, make it in the present.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, you seem to be rambling, with no point.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      craigt…”The ice is not heating the grey body plane but reducing the loss of heat”.

      Would you not think the heat loss would increase since you have increased the thermal gradient both for radiation and conduction compared to the plate radiating without the ice sandwich?.

      • CraigT says:

        The thermal gradient doesn’t increase, it only falls slower. The plane will still cool and the ice will warm. Alone the plane loses 500 watts from every square meter with no incoming energy. Parallel to (but not touching) the ice planes it still loses 500 W/m^2 but now gains 300 W/m^2 for a net loss of 200 W/m^2.

        And as I told JDHuffman I should have made it a blackbody plane so that every photon touching it was absorbed. Otherwise some of the energy would be reflected and the math wouldn’t be that simple.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Craig, one of your mistakes is in how you use the “black body”. A black body is an imaginary concept. It is used to make radiative problems easier. But the problem arrises when a black body violates 2LoT, which is what your example does.

          • Craig Tevis says:

            Yes blackbodies are an imaginary concept but if they violated any law of thermodynamics they would be a poor teaching tool.The problem lies in your misinterpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

            When a photon strikes an object the only thing that matters is the wavelength of the photon and the properties of the object. The temperature of the source of the photon doesn’t matter. Entropy is still increasing as two objects exchange photons – the warmer object cools and the cooler object warms.

          • David Appell says:

            How did Craig’s example violate the 2LOT?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, when using a black body, in an example, you have to be careful to not violate 2LoT. Whenever you end up with “cold” warming “hot”, you have violated 2LoT.

            Also, your statement “The temperature of the source of the photon doesn’t matter.” is WRONG!

            The temperature of the source is what determines the wavelengths of emitted photons.

          • CraigT says:

            “Also, your statement ‘The temperature of the source of the photon doesnt matter.’ is WRONG!
            Objects give off and absorb energy in a range of spectra depending on their physical qualities. Even in the case of a blackbody the blackbody temperature is just the dominant wavelength of a broad range of emitted spectra.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Now you’ve got it right.

  68. CraigT says:

    Net heat transfer is why the stainless steel YETI cups keeps coffee hot for so long. The air between the 2 layers is just the first step. Although the coffee is giving off radiant energy the polished metal reflects most of that energy back into the liquid. There is little net loss of energy.

    • David Appell says:

      There’s a (near) vacuum between the two layers, that minimizes heat conduction. That works much better than if it were air.

      • CraigT says:

        Even better, but a vacuum doesn’t stop radiative cooling.

        • JDHuffman says:

          DA will be able to help you with pseudoscience. He doesn’t know squat about physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Yet you’ve ever pointed out one single thing I’ve gotten wrong about physics.

          • JDHuffman says:

            I’ve pointed out many.

            You live in denial.

            Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            You haven’t pointed out any. You never do. You always take the lazy way out, spouting insults instead of science.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong again, DA.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312730

            Learn to face reality, then learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Ha. Like I said, you haven’t pointed out any physics I’ve gotten wrong, just some vague meaningless words you think convince some people.

            Try again.

          • JDHuffman says:

            The link was to your own nonsense, DA:

            “The surface, at an average temperature of 288 K, radiates an average of 390 W/m2.

            But only 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere.

            Where is the missing 150 W/m2?”

            (Any more silliness, and we will just leave you as a clown.)

          • David Appell says:

            Why is it nonsense?

          • David Appell says:

            That link says “I’ve pointed out many.”

            Which many are those?

            And what was the question?
            How about answering today’s question, instead of playing games?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Any trick to avoid reality, huh DA?

          • David Appell says:

            Do you really find it satisfying to come here and write inanities?

            Really — do you?

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, learn some physics. Then you wouldn’t have to use such avoidance trickery.

          • Nate says:

            “DA, learn some physics.”

            Hilarious..

            David has long since heeded that advice, JD. He has a PhD in physics. He obviously knows physics very well.

            You? What evidence can you give that you have learned any physics? Let’s see your CV.

            I assume you regularly tell your doctor ‘go learn some anatomy’

            You probably tell your plumber to ‘go learn how to solder’

            If you wouldnt get banned again, youd tell Roy ‘go learn about precipitation’

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, if you had even a slight knowledge of physics, you would know how pathetic DA is. He never gets anything right, even the basics. He’s still searching for his “missing” 150 Watts/m^2.

            He’ll be searching for a long time….

          • Nate says:

            Come on JD. Lets face facts. You don’t have much, if any, training in physics, do you?

            It is just plain ridiculous for you, then, to tell someone with a PhD in physics, to go learn some physics.

            Most people get that. Im sure your grandmother gets it.

            Why don’t you?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Oh, I got plenty of facts, anonymous clown. It’s you that doesn’t have any facts, or ability to understand physics.

            AM radio stations–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
            Igloo–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
            Spectrum analyzer–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
            Poynting vector–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
            “Set phasors to stun”–Radiative fluxes do NOT add

            Need I go on?

          • Nate says:

            Anonymous JD/Ger*an, where is your CV showing your physics training? David shows his, why not you?

            Again, when someone has been well educated in physics (David), telling them to go learn physics is rather silly and pointless.

            It makes people question your ability to look at facts and process them logically.

          • Nate says:

            ‘AM radio stationsRadiative fluxes do NOT add
            IglooRadiative fluxes do NOT add
            Spectrum analyzerRadiative fluxes do NOT add
            Poynting vectorRadiative fluxes do NOT add
            Set phasors to stunRadiative fluxes do NOT add’

            JD, a bunch of nonsense words are not an argument.

            Meanwhile you are still running as fast as you can from answering my basic question of how ‘fluxes don’t add’ squares with the first law of thermodynamics.

            Hint: it doesnt.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, the trouble with replying to someone a couple of days later is that they have probably moved on to other discussions. Happy to help.

          • Nate says:

            Interestingly, but not very, you and Ger* seem to have no problem following me around.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More paranoid BS from a boring climate troll. PST.

        • Bart says:

          It has little to do with the material of the container. If you got a regular metal cup, the coffee would cool quite quickly. The key is that radiative cooling is much less efficient than convective cooling. The gap between the inner and outer wall makes all the difference. This is the principle of the Dewar flask:

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

          And, this is why the cartoon physics version of the GHE is insufficiently descriptive – when you’ve got a convective atmosphere, surface temperature is not even remotely explained by radiative exchange alone.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      C,

      Yes. Your coffee still gets colder – it doesn’t get hotter, does it?

      What is your point? Ancient civilisations used insulation for various purposes, but maybe this comes as a revelation to you.

      There is no GHE. CO2 has no heating properties. Anybody who thinks so is simply deluded, and quite possibly stupid and ignorant into the bargain!

      If you could describe the GHE yourself, then it could be examined scientifically – but you can’t, so it won’t. Boo hoo, so sad, too bad.

      Time for a pointless and irrelevant diversionary analogy, wot? Maybe you could point out that bananas absorb and emit IR, or Arabs wear long robes! Nothing to do with the mythical GHE, but good for a laugh.

      Go your hardest.

      Cheers.

      • CraigT says:

        My point is that incoming thermal energy has a great deal of impact on the net energy loss. The coffee in a thermos looses energy slowly because most of the radiant energy is reflected back into the coffee.

        Greenhouse gasses slow the cooling of the Earth’s surface by absorbing part of the outgoing radiant energy the ground gives off and emitting roughly half of it toward the Earth again. The less the Earth cools each night the warmer it is after a 24 hour cycle.

        You can find hundreds of studies where the downward longwave radiation is measured scientifically and its impact examined.

        • JDHuffman says:

          CraigT believes: “You can find hundreds of studies where the downward longwave radiation is measured scientifically and its impact examined.”

          Craig, please link to your very best such “study”.

          • David Appell says:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, DA seems to have floundered in with some of his pseudoscience. Do you want to pick one of his three, or offer one of your own?

          • David Appell says:

            Again ger*an has no science, just insults.

            It happens every time. EVERY time.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, if you’re embarrassed by your pseudoscience, don’t flaunt it.

            Your best course of action is to “learn some physics”.

          • David Appell says:

            You’re a sorry waste of time.

            Roy, please block Ger*an again — he can’t do anything but troll.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, it was you that jumped into this thread with Craig and I. You are the biggest troll here.

            Learn to embrace reality, and learn some physics.

          • CraigT says:

            I like David’s third link the best: Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. No computer models only good field work.

            The study took measurements of the wavelength known to be abosrbed and emitted by CO2 but not water vapor and compared it to not only the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 but also CO2’s rise and fall with the seasons. The match make it clear that CO2 impacts downward longwave radiation.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240/figures/4

            Can you explain what about the study is pseudoscience?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            C,

            Any document using the words “radiative forcing” is purveying pseudoscience.

            According to the IPCC “The term ‘radiative forcing’ has been employed in the IPCC Assessments to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system.”

            Pseudoscientific gobbledygook. Completely meaningless, but serves its purpose of making its authors seem knowledgeable in the minds of the stupid, ignorant, gullible, or feeble-minded.

            Which category best describes you?

            Cheers.

          • CraigT says:

            Mike, how can you discuss climate change without climate forcings? The term refers to anything that affects the temperature of the Earth. Changes in the solar output would be a form of radiative forcing, as is the distance of the Earth from the sun, the angle of the Earth’s axis and the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere.

            In Dr. Spencer’s 2007 paper “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations” he measured the “sensitivity of total (SW + LW) cloud radiative forcing to tropospheric temperature.” Was his paper purveying pseudoscience?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, the “radiative forcing” term, as used by the IPCC, is bogus. Real radiative forcing, such as that caused by clouds, is observable and verifiable.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, your choice of “very best” appears to be paywalled. But, all such papers, that I have seen, follow the basic steps:

            1) Make an assumption that supports pseudoscience.
            2) Run a computer model to support the assumption.
            3) Cherry-pick some inconclusive data to support the model.
            4) Declare the initial assumption is “proved”.

            In the one page you linked to, there is NO CO2 spectra shown. The “assumption” is that ALL DWIR is due to CO2. So there is no way to verify how they arrived at the CO2 “forcing”.

            More pseudoscience.

          • CraigT says:

            I found a link to a copy of the Feldman paper not behind a paywall:
            http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

          • JDHuffman says:

            Just in the first three sentences:

            “…calculated as the difference between estimates…”

            “Radiative transfer models calculate…”

            “…widespread scientific discussion and modeling…”

            Pure pseudoscience.

          • CraigT says:

            The first 3 lines of the paper:

            The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earths radiation field from pre-industrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.8260.19 W/m^2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.

            The fourth line:

            Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.

            So the paper is explicitly saying this study is not based on estimates or models but that’s why you say it’s pseudoscience.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            craigt….two problems with the paper at your link.

            1)The y-axis for absorp-tion is in milliwatts while the claimed surface radiation is in 100s of watts. On a similar graph I calculated the absorp-tion due to CO2 was about 5% of total surface radiation.

            2)Figure 4 shows a forcing from CO2 from 2002 – 2010, a period claimed by the IPCC as showing no warming. They called it a warming hiatus.

            The papers are based on estimates, not observation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            craigt…”Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2″.

            An obvious fabrication. The IPCC claimed no warming during that period.

            People doing research like this take liberties. There is no way to separate the effect of CO2 from water vapour since the WV spectrum overlies the CO2 spectrum. Furthermore, the effect is measured in milliwatts while the estimated surface radiation is hundreds of watts.

            CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and combined with water vapour, about 1% at sea level in temperature regions. That is clearly revealed in their absorp-tion which is rated in milliwatts.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, the “models”, “estimates”, and “assumptions” make it pseudoscience.

            Study the paper and identify where they prove CO2 can warm the planet. That’s the problem. They start with the belief that CO2 can warm the planet, that it has a “forcing”. Measuring DWIR is NOT proof that CO2 can warm the planet.

            It’s pseudoscience.

          • Nate says:

            Craig,

            Both JD and Mike Flynn think simply labeling ordinary science as pseudoscience is a convincing argument. But that is the best argument they have.

            They will pretend to discuss and be interested, but in the end will ignore facts, ridicule ordinary physics, and make up their own.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, all three sentences are incorrect.

            So, your status as a clown remains intact.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          craig…”Greenhouse gasses slow the cooling of the Earths surface by absorbing part of the outgoing radiant energy the ground gives off and emitting roughly half of it toward the Earth again”.

          A tired old bit of alarmist propaganda.

          CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere while nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of it. It’s plain to anyone with a scientific interest that N2/O2 dictate atmospheric temperature while CO2 has no effect.

          As far as back-radiation from 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 2nd law makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. Even if the GHGs are at the same temperature, heat cannot be transferred.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere while nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of it. Its plain to anyone with a scientific interest that N2/O2 dictate atmospheric temperature while CO2 has no effect.

            Let’s see your calculations of how much heat is trapped by CO2, and how much is trapped by N2 and O2.

          • David Appell says:

            GR says:
            As far as back-radiation from 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 2nd law makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.

            That’s not what Clausius said.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Let’s see your calculations of how much heat is trapped by CO2, and how much is trapped by N2 and O2″.

            I have done it several times, you lack the science background to understand.

            It’s all based on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. Consider the atmosphere a constant volume or a sequence of constant volume layers due to the gravitational gradient.

            P = (nR/V)T

            Essentially, pressure is directly proportional to temperature despite the nonsense climate scientists apply on top of it with the lapse rate. Climb Mt.Everest from sea level and you will experience a direct relationship between pressure and temperature.

            Apply Dalton to the pressure so that the sum of the partial pressures of each gas equals the total atmospheric gas pressure, either to the total or each layer. Since temperature is proportional to the partial pressures the percent mass of each gas represents the temperature contribution.

            With CO2 at 0.04% it is limited to 0.04% of the warming and N2/O2 represent 99% of the warming.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”the 2nd law makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.

            Thats not what Clausius said”.

            *******

            It’s exactly what he said, that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            It’s all based on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.

            So wrong.

            The very first assumption behind the ideal gas law is that the constituents of the gas do not interact with other constituents, or any other particles.

            So how can it lead to a greenhouse effect??

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Essentially, pressure is directly proportional to temperature despite the nonsense climate scientists apply on top of it with the lapse rate.

            Now even the linear lapse rate is junk, according to Gordon! Despite observations.

            My god, man, there really is no lie you won’t resort to, is there?

            In fact, while temperature declines linearly with altitude, pressure declines exponentially.

            Explain THAT using your simplistic ideas.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Its exactly what he said, that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.

            No, it was not what Clausius said about the 2LOT.

            Why don’t you quote him for us?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            With CO2 at 0.04% it is limited to 0.04% of the warming and N2/O2 represent 99% of the warming.

            Your hatred of science becomes more apparent every day….

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, your hatred of honest debate becomes more apparent every day…

          • Nate says:

            It is no longer honest debate when a repeatedly debunked idea is brought up again and again, with no attempt to refute the previous debunking arguments.

            Defending such posts is enabling trolls, DREMT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            In what way you imagine I am defending anyone, or anything, I have no idea. David said:

            Your hatred of science becomes more apparent every day…

            Trolling, wouldnt you agree?

          • Nate says:

            DREMT,

            In this instance, Gordon is being a troll, for the reasons I stated.

            David is pointing this out, as he and I and others have many times, to no avail.

            By defending Gordon, you are enabling a troll.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Im not defending Gordon, Im criticising David.

            Now please stop trolling.

        • Bart says:

          “The coffee in a thermos looses energy slowly because most of the radiant energy is reflected back into the coffee. “

          No, that is not why (see comment on Dewar flask above). These guys who deny the GHE entirely are just naysayers. Under particular conditions, greenhouse gases can have a substantial impact. But, the impact is dependent upon convective overturning. It is not a simple 1:1 relationship with atmospheric composition.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      craigt…”Net heat transfer is why the stainless steel YETI cups keeps coffee hot for so long”.

      No such thing as net heat transfer. Heat can only be transferred hot to cold without compensation.

      • David Appell says:

        (1) Dumb

        (2) Wrong, in a nonadiabatic system. As are most systems on and within Earth.

        • JDHuffman says:

          DA, 2LoT applies everywhere. If you don’t know how it applies in a non-adiabiatic system, you need to learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes 2LOT applies everywhere.

            And, yes, I know how it applies to a nonadiabatic system.

            But you have given evidence that you do not. So has Gordon.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, you don’t consider evidence that doesn’t fit your beliefs.

            Learn some physics. Embrace reality.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”(2) Wrong, in a nonadiabatic system. As are most systems on and within Earth.”

          That’s odd, I did not notice Clausius make exception in the 2nd law for adiabatic/non-adiabatic systems, or open/closed systems.

  69. gbaikie says:

    “The TNA (Tropical Northern Atlantic) Index will update for July in a few days but June was a record negative (cold) in sharp contrast to 2017. This should lead to a quieter hurricane season in the Atlantic Basin.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/03/atlantic-tripole-of-ocean-temperatures-driving-hurricane-season-and-europes-crazy-summer/

    [and it’s been warm summer in most of Europe]

  70. Peter says:

    Salvatore, you seem like a very desperate man. You post your claims in many sites all over the Web. I don’t mean this to be a personal attack but I can’t help but wonder what is it that frightens you the most about the fact that AGW theory may be correct?

    • David Appell says:

      Good question. I’ve asked Salvatore this too, but (so far) he’s ignored it. Maybe this time?

      • JDHuffman says:

        No DA, it’s a stupid question.

        AGW is a hoax. The ones that are frightened are the frauds and the phonies.

        Learn some physics.

        • David Appell says:

          Why is it a stupid question?
          What relevant physics don’t I know?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            What relevant physics do you know?

            You don’t know, do you? If you can’t even describe the GHE, you wouldn’t know what physics might or might not be relevant, eh?

            Strident assertions that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter don’t seem to be supported by any physical principles of which I am aware.

            Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer certainly reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer, unless you can dig up some heretofore unknown physical laws. Maybe the Schmidt – Mann Principle, or Hansen’s Law? I’m sure you can put up with the raucous laughter which will ensue!

            There’s dumb, dumber, and yourself – unless you can show otherwise.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            What Mike said.

            Plus radiative fluxes do NOT add, arithmetically. So your “missing” 150 Watts/m^2 is just one more indication you have no knowledge of the relevant physics.

            Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            A flux is energy per unit time per unit area.

            Why, specifically, do co-incident fluxes not add?

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, I appreciate your new interest in learning physics.

            To start, study “Poynting vector”.

            There’s much more, of course.

            We’re here to help.

          • David Appell says:

            I’d like an explanation, not just throwing out some words like “Poynting Vector.”

            That might impress others. It doesn’t impress me, and is very easy to see though.

            Explain why co-incident fluxes don’t add.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, I realize learning is an effort. Likely that is why you never did it before. Don’t hide behind a bunch of excuses, just because you’re lazy.

            Put out the effort. Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Stop squirming and dancing.

            I’d like an explanation.

            Or an admission that you can’t prove your claim.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, I’m not the one “squirming and dancing”.

            You’re projecting, again.

            I’m very consistent.

            Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Why, specifically, do co-incident fluxes not add?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Keep the gotchas coming, David.

            Maybe they really do make you appear less ignorant and stupid.

            Or maybe not – what do you think?

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, study the topic I gave you.

            Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Ger*an – won’t answer straightforward questions.

            Prefers piddling around.

            Now I remember why I ignored him.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, I gave you the topic to study–“Poynting vector”.

            You refused to study the relevant physics. You continue to avoid reality by attacking and maligning others.

            Embrace reality. Learn some physics.

          • Nate says:

            I already asked JD to give an answer many times regarding how can fluxes NOT add and still obey energy conservation.

            Where does the NOT added energy go?

            Each time, as he does here, he dodges, distracts, obfuscates, evades, blames the other guy, and avoids answering.

            I already discussed Poynting vectors with him, and this turned out to be a red herring. Vectors add too.

            Why does he avoid answering such a basic question?

            If he has a real answer, surely, with his superior physics knowledge, he could teach us all some physics.

            But no. He has no answer and is afraid to admit it. I get it.

          • Norman says:

            Nate

            You cannot reason with Ge*ran. He is a provocative troll and says things he knows will get the most volume of posts. This thread had moderate posts. When this dork started posting numbers of posts (half of them his) rose considerably.

            He just says stupid things that he knows will provoke people who know he is stupid and want to correct his idiot comments.

            He states over and over “fluxes do not add” everyone has shown he is totally wrong. He doesn’t care, he will post is again and again as long as he generates posts. I think maybe he generated over a thousand posts when he came up with the idiot statement that the “Moon does not rotate on its Axis”. Even the skeptics called him an idiot over that one. It is just what his goal is. I like to ignore this troll and his stupid troll partner (another idiot) “DREMT”.

            It is not useful to respond to them in anyway. I will do it from time to time, then you see you are wasting your time. You ignore these two and they jump into your posts uninvited with some stupid comment.

            Here is a link Ge*ran linked to about radiative fluxes.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux

            I also quoted the definition: “Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”

            I asked this babbling dork to turn on one light and then another, will more energy enter his eyes? Yes it will, there will be more power radiated through the given area of his pupil.

            He is too stupid to waste time with. He does create huge amounts of posts. Probably something that excites his simpleton brain.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate and Norman confer on their confusion over radiative fluxes.

            Nate wasn’t able to understand my last hint–“Set phasors to ‘stun'”. That’s okay, poor Norman believes AM radios do not work because one station interferes with every other station. And, he believes that an igloo with 30 sq. meters of interior ice, melts due to the internally “added” flux of 9000 Watts.

            As you might realize, neither has any physics background.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”I already asked JD to give an answer many times regarding how can fluxes NOT add and still obey energy conservation.

            Where does the NOT added energy go? ”

            Conservation of energy applies to all energies involved. For example, the 1st law, which is about conservation of energy, sums work and heat both externally and internally. The thermal and mechanical energies must sum to a total.

            Radiative energy is meaningless in itself until it contacts matter. Even, then it’s frequency, hence it intensity governs whether it will be absorbed. If it’s not absorbed, it is free to roam anywhere in the universe as EM.

            I think conservation of energy is sometimes stated too loosely. If energy is emitted from the Sun, and moves into general space, how to you keep tract of the sum? There has to be times when the COE does not hold.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”He states over and over fluxes do not add everyone has shown he is totally wrong”.

            Fluxes don’t add together for the simple reason that you cannot identify ‘a flux’. You have them visualized as particles of EM which is sheer speculation.

            Flux comes from fluxion by way of Newton. By fluxion, he meant a derivative, which is an instantaneous change in a field at a point. To calculate the field over a surface, you have to apply a surface integral to sum the instantaneous values.

            Since these points cannot be measured or seen they are essentially imaginary, stated by definition only.

            If you want to increase the density of a flux field you have to add more flux per unit area. You do not add one line of flux to another, you have to increase the number of flux lines in an area.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Here is the established use of radiative flux.
            Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.

            You can make up any version for flux you want. That won’t help you communicate with anyone. You still say silly things and make up your own versions of reality. Stick to the established use of the term of don’t post.

            YOU: “Fluxes dont add together for the simple reason that you cannot identify a flux. You have them visualized as particles of EM which is sheer speculation.”

            Don’t be an idiot like JDHuffman. You make up science all the time but you don’t have to be stupid. It is a measured value of energy in W/m^2 not an visualized speculation. If you don’t accept photons I really don’t care, it is your own opinion. Means nothing to me, a lot of people have lots of opinions.

            Now here is the test you can do in your own home. JDHuffman (Ge*ran) is too lazy or stupid to be able to figure it out.

            In a dark room turn on one light and look around. Now turn on more lights. Look at the accepted concept of radiative flux. Is more energy entering your pupils when you turn on more lights? If it is then please don’t post in favor of idiot Ge*ran. Look again at the accepted definition of radiative flux.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, every time the correct physics is explained to you, you run. You don’t want reality. For some reason, like several others, you fear reality.

            I offered the simple example of AM radio stations. One station’s transmit frequency (flux) does NOT add to another local station’s different transmit frequency. Fluxes do NOT add.

            You ran from that simple example.

            Next, there was the simple example of an igloo. (Thank you, Ms Svante.) A sealed igloo with 30 square meters of interior area would be emitting 300 Watts/m^2. So, if radiative fluxes simply added, that would be 9000 Watts inside the igloo! Obviously, that is FALSE.

            You ran from that simple example.

            Now, you have conjured up that the human eye can recognize turning on more lights. If you can’t understand the previous simple examples, you certainly can’t understand the human eye. (The Poynting vector is MUCH easier to understand than the human eye.) The eye has specialized receptors to recognize photons. So, to your eyes, the fluxes are adding. But, that is due to the human eye’s ability to recognize all photons within the visible range.

            Again, the two simple examples indicate that fluxes do NOT add. A much more technical example would be a spectrum analyzer. A spectrum analyzer could easily recognize two different fluxes within its bandwidth. It could display the two distinct spikes on a screen. The fluxes do NOT add. Simple experiments with a spectrum analyzer could further verify that fluxes do not add.

            But, you’re welcome to run from reality, all you want. Your avoidance of reality, along with your constant insults and attacks, just make you another clown.

          • Nate says:

            JD, you raise examples always involving blocks of ice, in not so simple geometries.

            You then turn ice into straw, by forgetting about the fact other surfaces are emitting as well the ice. That the net flow of heat is TO the ice from warmer surfaces.

            Meanwhile you ignore the simplest example that I gave that get at the fundamentals. 3 spotlights 1000 W each shining on one black object. I claim the three spotlights will sum to produce 3000 W, no matter the wavelength.

            You say no, fluxes don’t add.

            We could measure the temperature rise of the black object and determine how many Watts it received. It will be 3000 W.

            If you say no, then you have to find where the 3000 W went.

            I predict you will insult, obfuscate, distract, weasil, evade, dodge, but you will in the end avoid answering this basic question.

            Because you are have no answer. And that should tell you something.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Anonymous, but funny, clown Nate, I don’t have to insult you. You do that quite well, all by yourself. That’s why you are a clown.

            1) You did not ask a question, so it’s hard to guess what your specific problem is.

            2) The three 1000 W spotlights would not be able to deliver 3000 W to a surface. Not all of the Watts are magically turned into photons. And whatever flux was at the surface of the bulb would be lessened with the square of the distance from the bulb.

            You’re just terribly confused, like a fish out of water.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The three 1000 W spotlights would not be able to deliver 3000 W to a surface. Not all of the Watts are magically turned into photons. And whatever flux was at the surface of the bulb would be lessened with the square of the distance from the bulb.’

            The beginnings of an answer, but still attempting to distract and obfuscate, confuse, as a way out.

            The point of the question was to make it simple so that the fundamentals can be explored, don’t try to change it to make it more complicated.

            As stated in the original question, each 1000 W spotlight delivers 1000 W of light flux (photons) to the object. Simple.

            ‘Square of distance’ All of the 1000 W of flux from each spotlight is hitting the object. Simple.

          • Nate says:

            And….he has no answer.

          • Nate says:

            JD,

            If you can’t find my missing Watts, then they are not really missing, are they? They have been summed.

            There is no other option given that, I assume, we all believe in 1LOT.

            This means you are unable to support your assertion that fluxes don’t add.

    • We will find out just how correct it is over the next few years.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Peter…”I dont mean this to be a personal attack but I cant help but wonder what is it that frightens you the most about the fact that AGW theory may be correct?”

      What frightens me is the destruction of science if this consensus-based garbage is accepted as science.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, you’re not entitled to that opinion. You haven’t earned it.

        So what about AGW scares you so much that you have to deny the science in the dumbest ways?

    • gbaikie says:

      “that AGW theory may be correct”

      Is like, Al Gore is a competent scientist.

      • gbaikie says:

        Or:

        Humanity’s only hope has been dashed forever- because Hillary Clinton isn’t the US President.
        She was the only way and “the one”.

        Moonbeam has been the greatest Governor.

        Marxism actually makes a lot of sense.

        • David Appell says:

          You’re arguing with yourself about the wrong things.

          • gbaikie says:

            What are right things to be arguing with myself.

            What does David argue with himself about?

            AGW theory is wrong.
            And warming is a good thing for this planet to do.
            Ice Ages are cold.
            15 C is cold.
            An ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C is cold.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gbaikie…”Marxism actually makes a lot of sense”.

          To everyone but Karl Marx. Marxism has nothing to do with his theories.

          I’m off to ground myself by observing Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. Venus has already set for the evening.

    • Bart says:

      If AGW were correct, the answer would be obvious: move to nuclear power in a big way. Anyone who claims to be seriously worried about AGW, yet opposes the only genuine path to fossil fuel independence, is not seriously worried about AGW.

      But, AGW is not correct, and nobody is genuinely worried about it. So we have this weird movement composed of those in favor of coercive government using it as a vehicle to impose their political vision, claiming the mantle of Science, but opposing scientific solutions to the purported problem.

  71. barry says:

    I propose a bet.

    There is no way the ‘pause’ since 1998 is going to return by the end of 2020 (although I’ll gladly wager anyone who claims the opposite). The trend inertia is too strong to be reversed in that time.

    But if coolists are right, the trend could return by 2025.

    All that needs to happen is that the average monthly UAH anomaly from now until the end of 2025 is 0.09C.

    Salvatore is predicting that UAH is going to hit and stay at the zero line or under in the very near future. He predicts that cooling will ensue for the next few years to decades.

    He should make this bet if he really thinks he’s right.

    I’ll take any takers.

    One caveat – if there is a super-massive volcanic eruption between Jan 2020 and Dec 2024 – a Pinatubo size eruption – the bet is off.

    Punters are welcome to make their own caveats, to be reasonable.

    Maybe a coolist will put their money where their mouth is?

    • barry says:

      Or propose your own – reasonable – bet, dear coolists.

      Do you truly believe the guff you’re spouting, or are you just waving your arms on the internet?

      • gbaikie says:

        –barry says:
        August 4, 2018 at 6:27 PM
        Or propose your own reasonable bet, dear coolists.–

        I suggest you pick a ICCP projection you think understates the amount warming which will occur, and bet on it being warmer and others can bet on it not being as warm as projected.

        • gbaikie says:

          IPCC projection. [not as I typed, ICCP projection]

        • barry says:

          Do you believe we are headed for a long cooling period, gbakie? Do you want to make a bet?

          others can bet

          What about you? Do you have the stuff to put up a stake, or are you just going to cat-cal?

    • barry says:

      To be clearer:

      But if coolists are right, the ‘pause‘ could return by 2025.

      All that needs to happen is that the average monthly UAH anomaly from now until the end of 2025 is 0.09C or less.

    • An increase in major explosive volcanic activity is part of my equation I have been saying it for years.

      • David Appell says:

        What’s the evidence for that?

      • barry says:

        How should we frame a bet, Salvatore?

        Shall we set a date in the future – I proposed 2025 – to see how temps evolve since some time before?

        There’s a few ways to construct the bet. I suggested a trend. We only need to find a mutually agreeable one.

        Another bet could be that the decade after 2016 will be warmer than the decade before it. EG, average temps 2006-2015, and average temps 2017-2026.

        Neither decade includes the big 2016 spike, so no one can complain that either decade is unduly influenced by that year’s el Nino.

        I would put up a starting bet of $100. Not too shocking, but not nothing, either. I’m prepared to go higher.

    • JDHuffman says:

      barry, I would bet that, in a properly conducted experiment, CO2 cannot warm a system.

      Interested?

      • David Appell says:

        Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?

        • JDHuffman says:

          Are clouds concealing UFOs?

          • David Appell says:

            Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Are clouds concealing alien space craft, from other galaxies, ready to invade Earth?

          • David Appell says:

            You can’t even address a simple question.

            You proved my point very well — you are a fake and a troll.

            Useless. But for some reason you get your jollies by writing replies that are utterly meaningless. All day long. Every day. What a sad life.

            Didn’t you once say that your wife died a few years ago? You really need a better hobby, man.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, you are the biggest troll here. Just count your number of comments.

            And, you never know what you’re talking about. You have me confused with someone else, but can’t figure it out. If you had a dog, he would probably bite you.

            Learn some physics. It will change your life.

          • David Appell says:

            Trollishness isn’t determined by who writes the most comments.

            It’s determined by who writes the most off-topic comments. Ger*an wins that, hands down.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, your entire existence is “off topic”.

            Embrace reality. Learn some physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, you are completely unwilling, or unable, to stop trolling. Its the way you argue that makes you this sites biggest troll. You use every underhand debate trick in the book (as do all the professional trolls here) and you comment over just about every conversation going, under every single article. PST.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?”

            What’s a greenhouse gas?

          • CraigT says:

            Is water vapor a greenhouse gas? Dr. Spencer Thinks so:

            “Importantly, evidence for ENSO related radiative forcing of temperature would involve the atmospheric radiative changes preceding the ocean temperature changes, after internal ocean mixing changes have already been accounted for. These atmospheric changes could involve some combination of cloud shortwave albedo, cloud longwave, or water vapor changes.”

            The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes during 1955 2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model
            Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell 2013

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          What the heck is a greenhouse gas, anyway? Is it supposed to be especially effective at reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, thereby lowering its temperature?

          Why is this important?

          You do realise that bananas are a good source of potassium, as well as absorbing and emitting IR, don’t you?

          Try learning physics, rather than parroting a fake scientist like Schmidt, or a fake Nobel Laureate, like Mann. Alternatively, keep on with pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo – forcings, feed backs, back-radiation, hot-spots, fingerprints and all the rest!

          Oh, how we laughed!

          Cheers.

  72. Geoff Sherrington says:

    No thanks to those above who have gone on and on and on with trivial, largely non-scientific comments, greatly devaluing the information presented by Dr Spencer.
    You did it the month before, as well.
    And the month before that.

    This pattern is one of deliberate intent to lessen the value of Dr Spencer’s work, which has been recognized as proper and significant by several major awards. This is a greater achievement than any of you, to my knowledge, has ever demonstrated. Be considerate and recognize class, even if you lack it personally.

    Why not cease your schoolboy standard comments for the present month of August, when Dr Spencer will likely update the time series once more.

    Thus, the abundant dross can be forgotten and a show of gold in the blog comments might become easier to see. I hope it does. Geoff.

    • CraigT says:

      I think I agree with Geoff. I’ve read posts where Dr. Spencer patiently explains radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect. It falls on the deaf ears of posters waving around the 2nd law of thermodynamics like they had a clue what it really meant.

      For example, Dr. Spencer’s 2007 paper “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations” analyses the impact of shortwave and longwave radiation on sea surface temperatures. Most posters would call that a violation of the second law and and immediately turn off. One would tell Dr. Spencer to “Embrace reality. Learn some physics.”

      • JDHuffman says:

        Craig, that almost sounds like a false accusation.

        If you believe something in that paper violates 2LoT, feel free to point it out and we can discuss.

        It’s just one more opportunity to embrace reality and learn some physics.

      • CraigT says:

        Quite the contrary I think it is a valid approach to climate study. The warming caused by downward longwave radiation in no way violates the 2nd law. But you seem to feel what Dr. Spencer is doing in the paper is pseudoscience.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Craig states: “But you seem to feel what Dr. Spencer is doing in the paper is pseudoscience.”

          Craig, why do you have to resort to such tricks? Is your grasp of science that poor? Is your character that weak?

          How do you know how I “seem to feel” about the paper. I have never even read the paper, just the first page.

          Again, if you have something substantive, show me the quote. Don’t just make up stuff, just because you have no facts.

        • CraigT says:

          JD you have repeatedly said that downward longwave radiation cannot warm the Earth. Why should your opinion change based on a single quote?

          Dr. Spencer’s paper I mentioned states “The tropical tropospheric heat budget is dominated by a quasi-equilibrium balance between latent heating in precipitation systems and longwave (infrared) cooling to outer space. The precipitation systems also produce clouds that both warm the atmosphere through longwave greenhouse warming, and cool the surface through shortwave (solar) shading.”

          • JDHuffman says:

            See Craig, that’s the advantage of exact quotes. Now, I can see why you are confused.

            When I say “DWIR”, I am referring to infrared from the clear sky. Infrared from a clear sky can NOT warm a 288 K surface. Clouds can be quite a lot warmer than clear sky. A simple rule-of-thumb is low clouds keep it warmer, at night.

            Hope that clears it up.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Geoff…”This pattern is one of deliberate intent to lessen the value of Dr Spencers work….”

      No way, I am a staunch supporter of Roy’s work. You have to be around here for a bit to get the link between what is being discussed and Roy’s articles. Today, we could be carrying on a debate about an article Roy wrote a year ago.

      It’s all connected. Just about everything being discussed is related to articles Roy has written at one time.

      There are factions who are pro Roy and those out to discredit his views. It is to Roy’s credit that he allows such diversity on his blog.

  73. gbaikie says:

    Hmm, odd:

    Bizarre rogue planet discovered wandering in our galaxy

    “A bizarre rogue planet without a star is roaming the Milky Way just 20 light-years from the Sun.”

    “The peculiar and untethered object, succinctly named SIMP J01365663+0933473 (we’ll call it SIMP for simplicity’s sake), was first discovered back in 2016. At the time, researchers thought SIMP was a brown dwarf: an object that’s too big to be a planet, but too small to be a star. However, last year, another study showed that SIMP is just small enough, at 12.7 times the mass and 1.2 times the radius of Jupiter, to be considered a planet — albeit a mammoth one.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/04/bizarre-rogue-planet-discovered-wandering-in-our-galaxy/

    What could be more strange, is if this was quite common.

    • David Appell says:

      Relevance to climate change?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”Bizarre rogue planet discovered wandering in our galaxy….”

      I hardly think it would be just wandering. It had to get momentum from somewhere, hence it direction. Also, it would have to be under some kind of influence from the galaxy.

      Of course, that’s coming from a human mind with no understanding of how the universe works. Maybe there is a race of giants out there firing brown dwarf-like planetoids from a sling shot.

  74. barry says:

    Just wanted to put a little math on Gordon’s asinine comment upthread that if AGW is true, each year should be warmer than the last – it’s ‘logical’ according to Gordon.

    First, let’s look at how much natural variability there is in annual temperature. Gordon’s (originally Salvatore’s) claim is about annualtemps, so we’ll use UAH, they’re favourite data set, and check how much the temperature can change year on year. Here are the yearly averages.

    1979 -0.21
    1980 -0.04
    1981 -0.11
    1982 -0.30
    1983 -0.04
    1984 -0.24
    1985 -0.36
    1986 -0.22
    1987 +0.05
    1988 +0.04
    1989 -0.21
    1990 +0.01
    1991 +0.02
    1992 -0.28
    1993 -0.20
    1994 -0.06
    1995 +0.07
    1996 -0.01
    1997 -0.01
    1998 +0.48
    1999 -0.02
    2000 -0.02
    2001 +0.12
    2002 +0.22
    2003 +0.19
    2004 +0.08
    2005 +0.20
    2006 +0.11
    2007 +0.16
    2008 -0.10
    2009 +0.10
    2010 +0.34
    2011 +0.03
    2012 +0.06
    2013 +0.14
    2014 +0.18
    2015 +0.27
    2016 +0.51
    2017 +0.38

    Annual changes of 0.2 are not uncommon, natural variation gives us a range of change from virtually nothing to as much as 0.5C from one year to the next.

    In order for CO2 warming to make every year warmer than the next, one of 2 things have to occur.

    1) All natural variability must cease completely. No influence from ENSO, the sun, volcanoes, or anything else that effects global temperature on interannual time scales.

    OR

    2) The warming signal from CO2 has to be so strong that it is greater than +0.5C per year. That’s 5C/decade. That’s 50C over a century. That’s a statistical requirement for Gordon’s (and Salvatore’s) view looking at all the UAH data.

    The IPCC puts CO2 warming even at the highest rates an order of magnitude smaller than the rate required for CO2 warming to cause year on year warming every year.

    So it’s not the rate of warming.

    Gordon and Salvatore must believe that the IPCC claims natural processes completely cease in the face of CO2 warming.

    There is nowhere they can find this claim to show us who said it.

    This notion is a complete fabrication – and a hopelessly gormless one – from the fetid minds of the ‘skeptic’ camp.

    As straw man arguments go, this has to be the most obviously stupid.

    • barry says:

      And if you think I’m being unfair – yes, they actually said that.

      Gordon Robertson:

      “It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”

      Salvatore:

      “Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.”

      Oh really?

      https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8

      These 2 are displaying weapons grade stupidity.

      Sal may click on that link, see that every model output has a different profile and non-linear warming, but still repeat the same wrong statement in a day or 2.

      A mushroom has more awareness.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        You cannot describe either the operation of natural variability, or the mythical GHE, can you?

        What seems to be a fact is that the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years. If you are claiming that either natural variability or the mythical GHE will suddenly reverse this fact, you might have to provide a testable hypothesis.

        Of course, you cannot. The hallmark of the fool or the fraud? Or maybe you are just stupid and ignorant.

        Still no GHE to be found. Maybe it’s hiding with Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize?

        The world wonders!

        Cheers.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Gordon and Salvatore must believe that the IPCC claims natural processes completely cease in the face of CO2 warming.

      There is nowhere they can find this claim to show us who said it.”

      It’s indicated in IPCC climate projections.
      And basically IPCC climate projections is “everything” that IPCC is saying.

      Obviously all IPCC climate projections [that I am aware of] are wrong and even mentioning IPCC invalids your case against Gordon and Salvatore.

      • barry says:

        It’s indicated in IPCC climate projections.

        No it isn’t. Did you not click on the link?

        https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8

        Plenty of natural variability there. Some years are warmer than others, some hotter, overall warming.

        Furthermore, the IPCC reports discuss the effect of natural variation at length. Climate models try to recreate many natural processes – for example the ENSO process. This is exactly the kind of natural variation that would have to cease for Gordon and Salvatore’s comments to have any meaning.

        You are in danger of being as stupid as those two. I recommend actually reading the IPCC reports before making up any more rubbish.

        Or you or Gordon or Salvatore could actually supply some links to corroborate what you are saying.

        But you can’t because you’re talking complete rubbish.

        • gbaikie says:

          “You are in danger of being as stupid as those two. I recommend actually reading the IPCC reports before making up any more rubbish.”

          The projections show ever increasing temperatures.

          Since the end of Little Ice Age the average temperature has been rising, but the addition of CO2 to atmosphere is suppose to double the amount of CO2, from 280 to 560 ppm and get a corresponding increase in global temperature.
          So each decade that pasts should get increasing effect from this CO2 increase.
          Currently CO2 is at about 410 ppm, and at it’s peak, and if continues it’s pattern, it will lower to about 405 ppm and then increase again, but the long trend is increase of 100 ppm.
          And the UAH temperature graph from 1979, has yet to show warming from this 100 ppm of added CO2.
          At top:
          “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through July 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
          And CO2 should increase this at some point in the future to a +0.14 C/decade [or much more].
          Barry says:
          “All that needs to happen is that the average monthly UAH anomaly from now until the end of 2025 is 0.09C.”

          One could say we living in golden age of getting shortest time period of doubling CO2- requires less time to double 280 than double 560 ppm.
          If you allow 2 ppm increase per year in 20 years it will add 40 ppm to the peak level, 410 + 40 = 450. And more than 1/2 way to the doubled of 560 ppm.
          Or it seems if going to get some measurable effect of CO2, we should be seeing it soon.
          And Barry want to bet CO2 has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect.

          I would rather bet that by 2025, China runs out of coal- or it has to decrease it’s use rather than having any possibility of increasing it’s yearly coal use.
          But after 2025 AD China will still remain the top country by a large margin, it’s just it’s time of doubling it’s CO2 emission in shortest time possible is over.
          And US by 2025 AD will have continue to decline in it’s CO2 emission- and this is largely due to US become a world leader in Natural gas production.
          And nothing to do with using alternative energy, and nothing to do efforts that cost US tax payer trillions of wasted dollars.

        • barry says:

          The claim here is that model projections show every single year getting warmer than the last, and that this is what is expected under AGW.

          That is completely false, as a glance at any of the model outputs will reveal to anyone who is not willfully blind – see below.

          It is astonishing that you hold this view. I did not think you could be as ignorant as the other 2.

          Here are numerous graphs of model outputs. Only the completely stupid or willfully blind could look at these and retain the belief that monotonic annual warming is expected under AGW.

          https://tinyurl.com/ycl6xpbw
          https://tinyurl.com/ya3bd8p5
          https://tinyurl.com/yb6o47da

          And last but not least, our very own Dr Spencer’s graph which displays 5-year means of the model runs, and there are still ups and downs – not monotnonic warming.

          https://tinyurl.com/ls9rpge

          gbakie, if after seeing these model results you continue to espouse that every year should be warmer than the last according to the logic of AGW, or that this is what models show, then I’m sorry, but you are as stupid as the other 2. It’s a woefully brain-poor fabrication.

          • gbaikie says:

            “barry says:
            August 5, 2018 at 7:20 PM
            The claim here is that model projections show every single year getting warmer than the last, and that this is what is expected under AGW.

            That is completely false, as a glance at any of the model outputs will reveal to anyone who is not willfully blind see below.

            It is astonishing that you hold this view. I did not think you could be as ignorant as the other 2.”

            It is possible I am as ignorant as the other 2, but obviously I don’t agree with other 2.
            If allow for noise and greenhouse gases are increasing- particularly “the most important greenhouse gas” which some claimed causes all warming it should warm each year and over say 10 to 20 year period you should detect the signal of this warming.

            But as I said endlessly, global temperature depends on the temperature of the whole ocean. We in an icebox climate because the entire ocean temperature is between 1 to 5 C and presently it’s at about 3.5 C. And our ocean has increased by amount which has [so far] been fairly immeasurably- and that is the recovery from LIA.
            The entire ocean does warm and does cool, and has a been warming for at at least 100 years. AGW thinks the world only started warming around 1950, as that is when one had significant increase of CO2 levels.
            The ocean surface temperature has increase more and it directly reflects global average temperature [as it’s 70% of entire surface of Earth] but surface temperature of ocean is not really the average temperature of Earth climate- rather it’s what is measured as average global temperature, but it’s like measuring only land surface- it’s like a proxy, it gives a clue, and is a significant improvement over reading tea leaves.
            But I would regard a accurate measure of the entire ocean as a more direct measure of Earth average global temperature.

            Or I do think the Argo floats are a good idea- and hard to do and will take awhile but it is right direction.

            Of course I would like to someday get to the point of being able to say what the temperature of entire ocean is, rather than just saying it’s about 3.5 C.
            And though less important I would also like to know what Earth’s average ocean is, rather than saying about 17 C.

            Or said differently land has increase in average temperature and ocean surface has increased in temperature- hence quite likely entire ocean has increase in temperature and the thermal expansion of ocean is probably about 2″ and if correct, the entire ocean has been warming.
            Of course some large chunks of ocean has likely been warming more than other large chunks- and/or ocean basins have had different amounts of warming, and global average temperature will be some sort dance of entire ocean[s].
            But if not adding heat on yearly basis- we aren’t warming.

            Now one view it, as believer in AGW, that increase of CO2 is like some kind of potential for warming- which going to leap out the closet someday, but I think most believers imagine the entire earth is actually warming due to CO2. Or everyday they say how terrible the warming has been and of course will be.

            Now leaping out closet idea may also be along the lines that some days it gets very hot and other days extremely cold and transform itself into strange weather and extreme weather or weird weather.

          • barry says:

            It is possible I am as ignorant as the other 2, but obviously I dont agree with other 2.

            Thank goodness. I rate you much better.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, I would imagine people are as impressed by how you rate them as they are by your elaborate straw men. In other words, not a lot.

        • barry says:

          You said model output shows year-on-year warming from increased CO2.

          Here is model output from increased CO2 – it’s an image from the most recent IPCC report.

          https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8

          You are wrong.

          You should immediately say so, but for some reason you are immune to facts.

      • barry says:

        Obviously all IPCC climate projections [that I am aware of] are wrong and even mentioning IPCC invalids your case against Gordon and Salvatore.

        Idiotic statement.

        Gordon and Salvatore are making claims about the models – about ALL the models. The IPCC collates them so it is already invoked by their ridiculous statements.

        Let’s be clear about what they said:

        Gordon:

        “It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”

        Salvatore:

        “Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.”

        This is the position you are defending. I didn’t think you were a stupid person.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          barry, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.

          Salvatore:

          Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.

          This is the position you are defending. I didnt think you were a stupid person”.

          ***

          one of us is stupid and it’s not me or Salvatore. Barry lacks the ability to see the obvious, he lives in a world of denial and moving goalposts.

          • barry says:

            https://tinyurl.com/ycl6xpbw

            See the projected temps go up and down?

            Models do not show every year being warmer than the last, only general warming.

            Want to see the same result from Dr Spencer?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

            That graph is of 5-year averages of model output, and still there are downs as well as ups.

            No, Gordon, no one expects every year to be warmer than the last under AGW, and neither is it ‘logical’ as you said.

            Which us why you are not defending your intellectually moribund comment with any logic, only ad hominem.

          • barry says:

            Moving the goalposts?

            This is what you said:

            “It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”

            Care to explain how i moved the goalposts while responding to that precise quote, as well as the one from Sal that mirrors it?

            Or are you about to move the goalposts and starting waving your arms about NOAA, IPCC, pauses, and whatever else lets you not have to deal with the topic to hand?

            Come on man, defend your comment here on point or concede it was just wrong.

      • ren says:

        The temperature anomalies in the middle Atlantic have decreased. The hurricane season in the Atlantic will be very weak.
        https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/catlssta.png
        https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”lets look at how much natural variability there is in annual temperature”.

      According to AGW there should be a regular trend superimposed on the natural variability. There is not.

      That’s what Trenberth was ranting about in the Climategate email scandal, circa 2009. It had to be apparent to him by then that the warming had stopped since 1998, a fact confirmed by the IPCC in 2013.

      In the email, Trenberth claimed it a travesty that no one knew why the warming was not showing up. Later, he blamed it on the lack of instruments sensitive enough to detect it. I’d say that is a clear indication that CO2 warming is not detectable.

      Then he got desperate and claimed the oceans ate it. The old standby for children who had not done their homework: the dog ate my homework.

      • barry says:

        You’ve not responded to what I said. You’ve moved the goalposts.

        You quote me in a post that picks out and responds to a comment of yours.

        “It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”

        I made an argument that it is neither logical nor shown by models that every year should be warmer than the last under AGW.

        On the contrary, it is highly illogical (statistically), and links to model outputs show no monotonic, year on year warming.

        Trenberth’s ‘homework’ has nothing to do with this notion.

        You have now changed your position, but you haven’t said, “let me correct myself.” Now you say:

        “According to AGW there should be a regular trend superimposed on the natural variability.”

        That’s right, the natural varability means that even if there is a general warming – an underlying regular trend – some years will be warmer, and some cooler than the last.

        That is the case whether the warming were from solar increase, fewer clouds over time, or any source where the warming rate produces a gradual rise – even if it were 5C over a century.

        There is no ‘logic’ that says this natural variability would disappear under AGW.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        barry, please stop pettifogging.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”If the neutrons in Oulu reach 7000 counts, it will be a record”.

      It’s not clear why they are counting neutrons. Cosmic Rays tend to be protons or the odd electron.

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

      It should be noted that cosmic rays are not rays at all, they are particles with mass. A proton generally comes from hydrogen stripped of its electron.

      The Sun spits out protons and electrons as the solar wind but fortunately they lack the energy to cause much damage (that we know of), most of them being diverted by our magnetic field while inducing large voltages and current into our planet.

  75. CO2isLife says:

    Climate alarmists posting on this thread. You know who you are. I’d be curious as to your take on this article.:

    Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/isolating-the-impact-of-co2-on-atmospheric-temperatures-conclusion-is-co2-has-no-measurable-impact/

    Dr. Spencer’s data seems to provide pretty convincing evidence AGAINST CO2 being the cause of any global warming. The data, when controlled for the urban heat island effect and water vapor pretty much rules out CO2 as the cause of any warming at all. At least that is what the data says.

    • E. Swanson says:

      CO2isLife, Your graphs don’t demonstrate anything about the Urban Heat Island Effect, as the physical areas covered by urban development is tiny compared to the land area included in the satellite data. Thus, your claiming that you have “removed” the UHI is totally bogus. Furthermore, your comments regarding water vapor ignores the fact that the tropopause marks the altitude above which water vapor is removed, not the altitude at which the temperature has declined to 0 deg C.

      Of course, you also don’t comprehend that the data over the Antarctic is also bogus, as Spencer & Christy long ago warned when they began to present their data. The high latitude of the East antarctic Ice Sheet intrudes into the scan altitude of the MSU/AMSU instruments, while the Ozone Hole also has produced a cooling effect. RSS removes the Antarctic area from their analysis for that very reason, which is the main reason that the RSS data shows greater warming than UAH for the SH.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”Thus, your claiming that you have removed the UHI is totally bogus”.

        Would that be totally bogus, or just bogus? You are not allowing your emotions to take over your reason are you?

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, I was trying to be somewhat civil, instead of writing “the UAH Antarctic data is total crap”. As for emotions, it was you who suggested that a commenter should receive a lobotomy just a few posts above. That would register as a threat or bodily harm against another person.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”As for emotions, it was you who suggested that a commenter should receive a lobotomy just a few posts above”.

            You heard wrong, I offered to do the lobotomy for him. I do brain surgery as a hobby.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote:

            You heard wrong, I offered to do the lobotomy for him. I do brain surgery as a hobby.

            We know from your other hobby, climate change denial, that your technique would likely involve a blunt instrument delivered swiftly from the back of the head with typical totalitarian precision.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E Swanson, please stop trolling.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            I’d much rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. Geoff.

          • Svante says:

            E. Swanson says:

            “your technique would likely involve a blunt instrument delivered swiftly from the back of the head”.

            Yes, based it on his own re-interpretation 19th century science.
            http://tinyurl.com/y7aadndv

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            S, PST.

      • CO2isLife says:

        “CO2isLife, Your graphs don’t demonstrate anything about the Urban Heat Island Effect, as the physical areas covered by urban development is tiny compared to the land area included in the satellite data. Thus, your claiming that you have “removed” the UHI is totally bogus.”

        That is interesting. How did you reach the conclusion that isolating the data to the data over Antarctica didn’t control for the Urban Heat Island Effect? Are there cities in Antarctica that I am not aware of?

        Also, CO2 is 411 ppm over land and sea, if the Urban Heat Island doesn’t impact satellite measurements, how can you explain the difference in temperature trends. You certainly can’t blame CO2.

        Also, there are millions and millions of miles of roads in the N Hemi. I find it difficult to believe that those roads don’t distort temperature readings.

        • E. Swanson says:

          CO2isLife, The Urban Heat Island Effect is due to the concentration of many structures in high density URBAN areas. The connecting roads won’t have much impact because they don’t store more thermal energy than land. The land data shows more warming than the oceans because the oceans have not reached steady state and thus are warming more slowly.

          Your use of the UAH MT ignores the fact that the MT is contaminated with the well known cooling trend in the stratosphere. That fact was the original justification for the LT (or TLT or T2R) back in 1992.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            Eric,

            “the oceans have not reached steady state and thus are warming more slowly”
            When do you estimate that the oceans will catch up to the land, and by what mechanism? Or more simply, when will the land reach a steady state? Geoff

  76. Nealf says:

    It proves the model is inadequate, nothing more.

  77. Nealf says:

    It proves that such a simple model is inadequate for describing the relationship between CO2 and temperature, nothing more.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nealf…”It proves that such a simple model is inadequate for describing the relationship between CO2 and temperature, nothing more”.

      The models are programmed with pseudo-scientific nonsense. They have a positive feedback that contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a warming factor for CO2 that seriously exceeds its percent mass in the atmosphere.

      Due to that trivial percent mass, CO2 has no significant effect on warming.

    • CO2isLife says:

      “It proves that such a simple model is inadequate for describing the relationship between CO2 and temperature, nothing more.”

      I’ll take that. My 20 minutes of writing a blog post has proven that the billions spent on IPCC Models has resulted in an “inadequate” model. That is pretty powerful stuff given this is a settled science and I’m not a peer-reviewed scientist or part of the consensus.

      • barry says:

        It did not occur to me that a blog post written in 20 minutes could undo decades of work by tens of thousands of scientists.

        The kung fu in this one is strong.

        • JDHuffman says:

          barry remember, if they believe CO2 can warm the planet, try to falsify records, and censor valid physics, they’re NOT “scientists”.

          (You might want to commit the above to memory, for future reference.)

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”It did not occur to me that a blog post written in 20 minutes could undo decades of work by tens of thousands of scientists”.

          Would not be a problem undoing the crap written in favour of AGW. Load of wannabees chasing the almighty dollar in the forms of grants and tenure.

  78. Fritz Kraut says:

    SkepticGoneWIld says:
    August 5, 2018 at 9:25 AM
    DA,
    That is real rich coming from a CLOWN who thinks the earth heats the sun!!!! LMAO. Talk about BS.

    What a loser.
    ___________________________________________
    Indeed, because of the earth the sun is warmer than it would be without earth. Of course unmeasurable little, but it is.

    • JDHuffman says:

      That’s clown talk, Fritz.

      Learn some physics.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      fritz…”Indeed, because of the earth the sun is warmer than it would be without earth. Of course unmeasurable little, but it is”.

      You need to study the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How would you go about transferring heat from a planetary surface at 15C on average to a boiling cauldron of hydrogen and helium?

      • Fritz Kraut says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        August 5, 2018 at 3:39 PM

        fritz…”Indeed, because of the earth the sun is warmer than it would be without earth. Of course unmeasurable little, but it is”.

        You need to study the 2nd law of thermodynamics….
        ____________________________________________________
        Unnecessary.
        No law in this universum allows any energie to disappear.
        Also not the energie radiated from earth to sun.

        • JDHuffman says:

          See Fritz, that’s why you need to learn some physics. You’re making the same mistake as other clowns. You believe that “All photons must always be absorbed”. That’s incorrect.

          All photons are not always absorbed.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            JDHuffman says:
            August 5, 2018 at 8:01 PM
            See Fritz, that’s why you need to learn some physics. You’re making the same mistake as other clowns. You believe that “All photons must always be absorbed”. That’s incorrect.
            __________________________________________________
            No matter what you believe what I may believe:
            The energy radiated from earth to sun doesnt dissappear; and each input of energy makes the sun warmer than it would be without this input.
            Its really as simple as it sounds.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Fritz, you keep keying on “energy disappearing”. That’s called a “straw man”. No one is saying energy disappears. I’m just saying photons from Earth would not be absorbed by the Sun.

            It’s very similar to saying you can’t warm a campfire with a block of ice.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            JDHuffman says:
            August 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM
            Fritz, you keep keying on energy disappearing. Thats called a straw man. No one is saying energy disappears.
            __________________________________________
            So you agree, that the energy radiated from Earth to sun doesnt disappear?
            But you deny, that this energy warms the sun…?

            Please tell me: What the fuck else happens to this energy??
            I have absolutely no idea, how something can disappear without disappearing….

          • SketpicGoneWild says:

            Fritz,
            Bad physics leads to all sorts of dumba$$ beliefs.

            Ice emits IR, but it won’t warm you up.

            Neither does the earth heat the sun, dork.

            A warmer sun can only be warmed if energy is added to it. There is none to add. First Law. A cooler earth cannot heat warmer sun. Second Law. What the hell happened to our school system, producing all these science pretenders?

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Fritz says: ‘Please tell me: What the fuck else happens to this energy??
            I have absolutely no idea, how something can disappear without disappearing….’

            SketpicGoneWild says:
            ‘August 7, 2018 at 10:41 AM

            Fritz,
            Bad physics leads to all sorts of dumba$$ beliefs.

            Ice emits IR, but it won’t warm you up.

            Neither does the earth heat the sun, dork.

            A warmer sun can only be warmed if energy is added to it. There is none to add. First Law. A cooler earth cannot heat warmer sun. Second Law. What the hell happened to our school system, producing all these science pretenders?’
            __________________________________________________

            @SketpicGoneWild
            Very very interesting, what you are telling me….but as you see, its not the answer to my simple question. I didnt ask you what sun can or can not, or what you think about our schoolsystem, or about me.
            I give you opportunitity to proof your firstclass science-education:
            WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ENERGY, RADIATED FROM THE EARTH TO THE SUN??
            I am really extremly interested in your highly-qualified oppinion.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            On-the-Fritz,

            “I am really extremly interested in your highly-qualified oppinion(sic).”

            No you are not. You are interested in maintaining your ignorant position. Crack open a thermodynamics textbook.

            Here’s a simple experiment for ya:

            Take one of those 1500 watt floor heaters. Get a parabolic reflector and place it in front of the floor heater so it can reflect some of that IR back to the floor heater. Does the floor heater burn hotter with the reflector. What happened to that reflected “energy”?

            Hint: When a red line shows under your text, you may have a spelling issue.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            SkepticGoneWild says:
            August 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM
            On-the-Fritz,
            “I am really extremly interested in your highly-qualified oppinion(sic).”

            No you are not.
            ________________________________________
            Yes I am!
            Have you really no idea, what the fuck happens to this energy?
            Tell me your opinion; I promise not to laugh.

            But pleaseplease no more timewasting digressions. It becomes boaring.
            Just a short answer.
            If you have no idea, just let me know.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            fritz…”So you agree, that the energy radiated from Earth to sun doesnt disappear?
            But you deny, that this energy warms the sun…?”

            Your statements are unrelated. It’s plain that EM radiated from the Earth does not disappear but it is not plain that it warms the Sun. How about the 99% of the radiation that is not intercepted by the Sun?

            No one knows what happens to the EM intercepted by the Sun, quantum physics and the 2nd law make it clear that it is not converted to heat.

            We have a similar situation with visible light. If broad spectrum EM strikes an object, some is absorbed and some is not. What we see as colour is the part of the spectrum not absorbed.

            Broad spectrum EM appears white to the eye whereas black objects absorb all the EM. What happens to the EM not absorbed by a white object?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            fritz…”If you have no idea, just let me know”.

            No one knows what happens to it, furthermore, no one knows what energy is.

            You are presuming any EM incident on a body must be absorbed. You are confusing the real world with blackbody theory, an old fiction that should be scrapped. BB theory was developed 75 years before it became clear that it is not possible for bodies to absorb all EM. If that was the case, we’d have to scrap quantum theory.

            Mind you, I think some of the more esotric parts of quantum theory should be scrapped, like entanglement theory. Also, the speed of light factor should be removed from relativity theory to bring it in line with reality. A steel ruler will not change it’s dimension when sped up in velocity toward the speed of light and time cannot dilate because time does not exist.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Fritz,

            Are you on drugs? Or did you even complete 5th grade?

            I mean seriously. You make the following mistakes:

            “Boar” instead of “bore”
            “proof” instead of “prove”
            “energy” instead of “energy”

            The list goes on. I am done with your incoherent ramblings.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          fritz…”No law in this universum allows any energie to disappear”.

          I can buy that but we are talking about heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed the atmosphere (according to AGW). That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it represents perpetual motion in the form of recycled heat producing a gain in heat.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, As usual, another false claim that the Green House Effect violates the 2nd Law, based on in incorrect understanding of thermodynamics. Does a Dewar bottle or multi-layer insulation in the vacuum of space violate the 2nd Law? The answer is NO and the same applies to the atmospheric absorp_tion and emission processes involving greenhouse gases.

            There’s no way that I know of by which AGW might power a device in perpetual motion. The long winded paper by G & T describes the 2nd Law using a mechanical device which produces work, but then jumps to a description based on energy transfer from cool to warm and claims this is impossible, even though they had previously noted that all bodies constantly radiate thermal radiation, which is energy which must be transferred to the other bodies which surround the cooler one, EVEN IF THE OTHER BODIES ARE WARM. Of course, the warmer bodies are also radiating as well and if one of the warmer bodies receives external energy, the net effect on the steady state temperatures will be that the heated warm body will be a higher temperature than would be the situation without the energy supplied by the cooler surroundings.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E. Swanson, it appears you are still making the same mistakes.

            E.S–“…which is energy which must be transferred to the other bodies which surround the cooler one, EVEN IF THE OTHER BODIES ARE WARM.”

            WRONG! There is no “must”. Photons are not always absorbed.

            You keep believing that all photons MUST be absorbed. That false belief leads you to then claim that the absorbed energy will raise the temperature of the warmer object. You just make one mistake after another.

            Are you able to see your hand in front of your face? You see your hand because photons are being reflected off your hand. They were NOT absorbed. Photons are NOT always absorbed.

            You seem very confused. I hope this helps somewhat.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Huffingman, Yes, photons may be reflected or absorbed. But, they don’t vanish and the IR EM absorp_tion coefficient of a body doesn’t change depending on the temperature of the source of those photons. When those photons are absorbed, the internal energy of the body increases, which may result in increased IR EM radiation as the result of the temperature increase of said body.

            Hope this helps your deluded mind.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E. Swanson provides an excellent example of deception.

            He begins: “Yes, photons may be reflected or absorbed.”

            So he’s agreeing that photons may be reflected, whereas before he stated they MUST be absorbed. It sounds like he is admitting he was wrong. No way.

            He continues his deception: ” But, they dont vanish and the IR EM absorp_tion coefficient of a body doesn’t change depending on the temperature of the source of those photons.”

            This, of course, is just all “straw man”. He’s just adding filler before he completes the deception.

            Swanson states: “When those photons are absorbed, the internal energy of the body increases…”

            So now, his deception is complete. He started with reality, that photons may be reflected, but ended up with they will be absorbed, consequently “cold” can warm “hot”.

            Deception is an important part of pseudoscience.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Huffingman wrote: “Deception is an important part of pseudoscience”.

            You should have written: “Disinformation is an important part of propaganda.”

            If the emissivity (= absorp_tivity) of a surface is 0.95, then 95% of the photons will be absorbed. My statement would have been more correct if I had used “may be” instead of “must”. Your excessive concern with semantics is just another excuse for trolling.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            JDHuffman says:
            August 6, 2018 at 8:32 AM
            E. Swanson, it appears you are still making the same mistakes.

            You keep believing that all photons MUST be absorbed. That false belief leads you to then claim that the absorbed energy will raise the temperature of the warmer object.
            ________________________________________________________
            Swanson surely doesnt believe each body beeing a perfect black body which absorbs all photons..
            It doesnt matter at all, if a body absorbs 1% or 99% of all photons. Fact is, in each case energy is transferred, just less or more, and the body will be warmer than it would be without this transferred and absorbed energy.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            You identify your self here: “Deception is an important part of pseudoscience.”

            Since all you post is your made up versions of physics, and you NEVER support any off your stupid declarations (yet make them anyway like your very stupid the Moon does not rotate on its axis or that raidative fluxes do not add, very stupid, no supporting evidence pure pseudoscience).

            You deceive yourself constantly. One really big deception you tell yourself is that you understand physics of heat transfer. You are so stupid on the topic.

            You are the Master of deception and pseudoscience. I am glad that so far only Mike Flynn (a complete idiot) and Gordon Robertson (King of making up his own versions of physics but rejecting everything else he can’t comprehend) think you know what you are talking about.

            It gives me hope that science will prevail over the stupid people like you.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E. Swanson: “My statement would have been more correct if I had used “may be” instead of “must”. Your excessive concern with semantics is just another excuse for trolling.”

            Swanson, “being more correct” is indeed better than being completely wrong.

            It’s not about semantics, it’s about getting your physics correct.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Fritz states: “It doesn’t matter at all…”

            Fritz, it matters if you’re trying to violate 2LoT.

            That would make you a “climate clown”.

          • JDHuffman says:

            (No need to even respond to Grinvalds’ rambling nonsense.)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”Does a Dewar bottle or multi-layer insulation in the vacuum of space violate the 2nd Law?”

            I don’t get your point. In either case, heat is always transferred from a hotter region to a cooler region. In the case of the atmosphere, where cooler GHGs absorb EM from the hotter surface, there is no problem. The problem comes when claims are made of a heat transfer from cooler gases in the atmosphere to a warmer surface.

            That is your contradiction of the 2nd law. Both of your experiments contradict it as well. In either case, you are claiming heat can be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object. Eli Rabbett is thoroughly confused about that but G&T are not.

            In the case where the surface radiates EM and warms GHGs in the cooler atmosphere, AGW is claiming that heat can be recycled back to the surface to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy.

            That is your perpetual motion. Show me another instance where heat can be recycled from a source and back to the source to warm the source.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            fritz…”It doesnt matter at all, if a body absorbs 1% or 99% of all photons. Fact is, in each case energy is transferred, just less or more, and the body will be warmer than it would be without this transferred and absorbed energy”.

            *********

            Alarmists tend to obfuscate the problem by talking in terms of a generic energy. We are talking here about heat, thermal energy, and a fundamental law related to heat, the 2nd law, states clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to warmer body.

            There is no mentioned of a net heat or EM transfer, that is pseudo-science created by alarmists trying to apply Kircheoff to bodies of different temperatures.

            The 2nd law does not apply to electromagnetic energy, which has no heat. However, electrons in atoms are required to absorb and emit EM and there are rules for that emission/absorp-tion. Both must obey E = hf, where E is the energy difference in eV between orbital energy levels to which the electron can jump in an atom, and f = the frequency of the electron in those energy levels.

            The frequency of incoming EM must exactly match the frequency of the electron and that is not possible when E comes from a cooler atom. Cooler atoms simply cannot emit the required frequency that an electron needs to jump to a higher energy level hence heating the atom.

            I am using ‘heat’ loosely here because it’s ridiculous to talk about the heat in one atom just as it’s ridiculous to talk in terms of one photon, especially when we have no idea whether photons exist or not. I am trying to illustrate a point derived by Bohr in 1913 when he proposed the rules for electron/proton interactions in an atom.

            You should discard blackbody theory in this case, it applies only to bodies in thermal equilibrium. When Kircheoff derived the notion, he was talking only about thermal equilibrium. When the blackbody was defined as having to absorb all energy incident upon it, the definition came some 75 years before it was understood how EM interacts with electrons in real bodies.

            Even at that, the theories and equations of Stefan-Boltzmann applied only to bodies of different temperature which obeyed the 2nd law. That is, the equation was derived from hot bodies cooling or a platinum wire heated electrically and radiating to a cooler space.

            Alarmists apply S-B in both directions, which is a bad interpretation of the law. Some engineering texts are guilty of that as well and unfortunately Norman has read that nonsense in them. Swannie has fallen for it too.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            August 7, 2018 at 1:15 AM

            fritzIt doesnt matter at all, if a body absorbs 1% or 99% of all photons. Fact is, in each case energy is transferred, just less or more, and the body will be warmer than it would be without this transferred and absorbed energy.

            *********

            Alarmists tend to obfuscate the problem by talking in terms of a generic energy. We are talking here about heat, thermal energy, and a fundamental law related to heat, the 2nd law, states clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to warmer body….
            ________________________________________________
            Long text.
            The only point interesting to me:
            Doe you agree what I said?
            Doe you understand, that a body receiving energy is warmer than it would be without receiving energy?
            Yes or No?
            If “No”, please tell me whats wrong in your opininion, and why.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            August 7, 2018 at 12:56 AM
            swannieDoes a Dewar bottle or multi-layer insulation in the vacuum of space violate the 2nd Law?

            I dont get your point. In either case, heat is always transferred from a hotter region to a cooler region. In the case of the atmosphere, where cooler GHGs absorb EM from the hotter surface, there is no problem. The problem comes when claims are made of a heat transfer from cooler gases in the atmosphere to a warmer surface.
            _________________________________
            You always speak of “problem”.
            What does it mean? Who has the problem?
            Physik itself has no problem. It just follows its own rules without discussion.

            Doe you accept, that GHGs radiate towards earth-surface?
            And that this radiation transferes energy to surface?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Fritz, you’re still trying the old “Twisted Science Two-Step”.

            Step 1–You mention that the sky emits infrare