Canadian Prairie Soybean Increase Not Due to Global Warming

February 22nd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

There is no shortage of articles claiming that global warming is causing agriculture of certain crops to push farther north, for example into the southern Canadian Prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

My contacts in the grain trading business tell me that the belief is widespread.

For example, here’s a quote from a Manitoba Co-operator article,

Lutz Goedde, of the management and consulting firm McKinsey & Company, said Canada is in a unique position because of its northern latitude and large supply of fresh water…. Pointing to the steady northward trek of corn and soybeans, the agricultural business consultant said that the effects are already evident.

The problem with this view is that the two main weather stations located in this region (Regina and Winnipeg) do not show a statistically significant warming trend during the prime growing months of June, July, and August:

Average yearly growing season temperatures at Regina and Winnipeg show no obvious warming trend that might explain the rapid increase in soybean production in southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan since 2000. Temperature data from Environment and Climate Change Canada.

So what is really happening? The amount of various grains produced each year is the result of many factors, for example demand, expected price, and tariffs. All of these affect what crops farmers decide to plant. For example, Canadian soybean production has responded to increasing global demand for soybeans, especially in China where increasing prosperity has led to greater consumption of pork and poultry, both of which use soybean meal for feed.

So, once again, we see “global warming” being invoked as a cause where causation either doesn’t exist, or is only a minor player.


463 Responses to “Canadian Prairie Soybean Increase Not Due to Global Warming”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. John says:

    Stop letting facts get in the way of a good narrative!!

  2. Peter Hartley says:

    How much of this is due to:

    1. New varieties being developed that, for example, have a shorter growing season (my guess for a dominant factor).
    2. Improved farming techniques from other agricultural research.
    3. CO2 fertilization increasing productivity of these crops.
    4. A declining price for substitute crops reinforcing an increasing one for soybeans that Roy suggests may have happened as a result of Chinese demand.
    5. A response of gathering and distribution systems to turn an initial small change from a few farmers choosing to grow soybeans into a larger change as falling distribution costs mean that more now find it profitable to switch.

  3. CO2isLife says:

    Blog Readers and Dr. Spencer. Scott Adams has put out a challenge for the best 5 arguments Pro and Con regarding Climate Change. Would you muster your resources and take on the challenge? Here is an example and please challenge other bloggers to do the same.

    Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/response-to-scott-adams-the-co2islife-top-5-skeptical-arguments/

    We can then create a top 5 of the top 5 list

  4. Curious George says:

    Why are we fighting a narrative “Global warming is good”? Just because it is coupled with “It is already occurring”?

  5. gallopingcamel says:

    It is sad that the world is mostly governed by thieves and liars. While that was true in the past and will likely be true in the future I can’t help fighting against corrupt government and its propagandists.

    Those links provided by CO2isLife, Scott Adams and Tony Heller point to alarming levels if mis-information paid for by governments around the world. NASA GISS & Michael Mann would get awards from Josef Goebbels and there are many other examples.

    At least 97% of “Climate Science” appears to be junk and is likely to remain so as long as politicians are in charge. It is a small miracle that any honest climate scientists remain given the iron grip of the Hockey Team and the rest of the Climate Mafia.

    Let’s hope Roy Spenser and John Christy will live long and prosper.

    • Bindidon says:

      gallopingcamel

      “NASA GISS & Michael Mann would get awards from Josef Goebbels and there are many other examples.”

      How can you write that?

      Goebbels is the head person responsible for having ordered the murder of over 6 million Jewish people, at least a million other Germans, including Christians, Sinti/Roma and severely disabled persons.

      You are here passing over a full dark red line. That is – at least for me – inacceptable and disgusting.

      How is it possible that a person like Peter Morcombe writes that????

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        You wrote –

        “You are here passing over a full dark red line. That is at least for me inacceptable and disgusting.”

        Thank you for for expressing your opinion, as pointless as the exercise might be. Do you think your opinion is somehow superior to that of another?

        Around 25,000,000 citizens of the the Soviet Union died during WW2. Did Goebbels order their murder too, or do you consider some deaths worth less than others? I can’t see the point of your comment, other than as an ad hominem attack. What is the relevance?

        If you fnd comments unacceptable, then don’t accept them. If you find them disgusting, take a teaspoon of cement, and harden up. Poor snowflake.

        Haven’t you anything better to do than wasting your time drawing full dark red lines?

        Cheers.

        • Nate says:

          ‘What is the relevance?’

          The relevance should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

          Someone mentioned Goebbels and made a stupid link to climate science.

          No one mentioned Stalin.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Nate,

            Nobody linked to “climate science”. There is no such academic discipline, and anybody implying otherwise is distorting the truth to their own ends.

            One of Goebbels’ propaganda principles was –

            “14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.”

            For example use meaningless phrases such as “climate change”, “extreme weather”, “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, “imminent danger”,”rising sea levels”, “carbon pollution”, and so on. With any luck, people might think these are due to increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and thermometers.

            Or one might call rationalists “climate deniers”, denialists”, or similar, and associate them with anti-Semites or Nazis, by implication.

            If people wrongly assume that Gavin Schmidt is a world renowned climate scientist rather than an incompetent mathematician, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winning climate scientist, don’t confuse them with the truth.

            You could always try injecting names of generally disliked person like Stalin, accompanied by a vague statement such as “. . .obvious to anyone with a brain.”, when it is anything but.

            Carry on with the propaganda. You might need to read and absorb the rest of Goebbels propaganda principles – the dimwitted likes of Hansen, Schmidt and Mann are failing with their propaganda campaign, it seems. You might be able to give them a few pointers.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike, you have little reading comprehension skill or sense..go back to your hole under the bridge.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Bindi,
        As you already know Goebbels was the master leftist propagandist. He probably had some things in common with Michael Mann and James Hansen.

        • Bindidon says:

          Anderson

          I begin to realise that you are a mix of ignorance and polemic.

          How stupid is one allowed to be in life, Anderson?

          Goebbels, a ‘leftist’ you say?

          Under Goebbels not only millions of Jewish people died, but also hundred thousands of communists, socialists, social-democrats!

          Catholics died, Protestants died.

          And you reckless and respectless, dumb ignorant name such a bloodthirsty monster a ‘leftist’.

          Inimaginable.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Oh, I get it, because the Nazi’s killed other leftists then they must not have been leftists. Really? Who’s dumb, stupid and ignorant?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Bindi,
            Here are the 25 points of the Nazi Party. Are they left or are they right?

            http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            I believe that the party to which you refer would be called in English “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”.

            You may draw your own conclusions as to what this means.

            How does this relate to the claim that there is a testable GHE hypothesis, or even to a description of the GHE? I’m guessing not at all, and that you are trying to create a trollish diversion.

            Still no GHE. Whining about Goebbels won’t help. Keep trying if it makes you feel better.

            Cheers.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            As an aside let’s stop this notion that the Nazi’s were and are right wing. Modern day alarmists like all leftists use many of the same tactics as Nazi’s and if they ever get into full power here, God help us.

          • Nate says:

            The Nazis have more in common with the so called white nationalists of today, who support Trump, and his demagoguery. His exploitation of people’s nationalism, racism and fear of those who are different, is similar to Nazis.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,
            Again, your ignorance is uncomparable. It is called defending America’s soverignity. I have some Mexican friends who recently became US citizens. They did it legally. Trump welcomes that. My Mexican friends who were anti-Trump suddenly once they became citizens now see his point. Amazing!

      • gallopingcamel says:

        @Bindidon,
        “Goebbels is the head person responsible for having ordered the murder of over 6 million Jewish people, at least a million other Germans, including Christians, Sinti/Roma and severely disabled persons.”

        You need to get your facts right.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

        The murders you mention were ordered by the Chancellor of Germany, namely Adolf Hitler. Goebbels succeeded Hitler and served as the German Chancellor for one day. Goebbels is rightly credited for making propaganda an art form.

        • Bindidon says:

          Morcombe

          I live in Germany since nearly 50 years and do not need to be told about the Nazis by people who know as much of them as is written on Wiki.

          Hitler was the figurehead of the Nazis. The real bloodthirsty rulers were Josef Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler.

          These two were the true origin of the killing of millions of people.

          Keep away from my comments.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Bindi,
            Nazi’s, communists, socialists and fascists all are from the left. Goebbels and Himmler were one of you. The truth hurts. Stop trying to use a weak theory to drive your political agenda and don’t tell anyone to stay off your comments. This is the USA not some leftist state or Nazi Germany.

          • Nate says:

            Nazis were socialist and for workers, in name only. They used these terms to gain popularity with workers.

            In the end, they were certainly not leftist, they attacked and banned labor unions and communists, banned strikes, partnered with industrialists and militarists. They were not for progressive, egalitarian policies or human rights, as leftists are today.

            They were highly authoritarian, hierarchical, nationalistic, militaristic, and nativist. Most of these things are associated with the far right today.

            One need look no further than the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville to see that many attendees were neo-Nazis or white nationalists.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,
            You don’t know what you’re talking about. The communists in Germany were Leninists and Stalinists. The Nazi’s were National Socialists. But they were definitely the left. Read their platform that I posted above. That is not a right wing platform. This narrative that has been perpetrated for decades was spun by the left because the Nazi’s wrote admiringly about democratic policies of the FDR administration. The democrats could not live with that narrative so many academians have spun this false narrative that Nazis were and are far right. Nazis, Facists and Communists are all leftists. Leftists are big government. White Supremists are big government. Richard Spencer is big government. Listen to what he says. Right wing or conservatism is limited government. Far right wing is no government. True conservatives don’t want to use the power of government to pick winners and losers. They prefer the free market do it.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            The SS was the militant wing of the Nazi Party. They eliminated the SA (brown shirts) who were their rival militants-just not as militant. Antifa, the militant wing of the democrat party are similar to the SS or the KKK. The KKK was the militant wing of the southern democrat party after the civil war. Their aim was to suppress the black citizen in the south. This is what leftists do. This is what leftists have always done. Antifa today who are the true fascists aim to suppress free speech and any hint of conservatism on college campuses. The left hate free speech. Free speech is their biggest enemy. Nazis, communists, socialists, facists-the left- all hate free speech. The only free speech they don’t hate is theirs. You don’t see the right trying to quell free speech. Most of the alarmists who post on this forum are not really alarmists. They are leftists. They want to quell any other view by denegration, humiliation, personal attacks, censorship, belittling, etc. etc. BAMN-“By Any Means Necessary”

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            What do all leftists do at the end? They turn on each other.

          • Nate says:

            Find an unbiased historical appraisal of the Nazis that claims they are leftist.

            You are buying into the revisionist history that says all bad things of the past must be leftist.

            The Nazis were all about authoritarian power, nationalism, nativism. These are not leftist ideals, which they had little interest in.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,
            Please explain to me how authortarianism, nationalism or nativism precludes leftistism?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            I know you academics need a book to explain to you why the moon rotates on its axis or that leftists can be authortarians or nationalists but maybe you might look at China. Authortarians? Check! Nationalists? Check! Nativists? Check! Or how about Maduro regime? Authortarians? Check. Nationalists! Check. Nativists? Check!

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Look at the KKK. They were the militant wing of the southern democrat party. Nativists? Check. Authortarian? Check. Leftists? Check. The Confederate States of America weren’t for state’s right. They were for authortarianism-the enslavement of people.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Ronald Reagan says it best:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2sMoykZ-lM

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            There are no unbiased sources. But listen to Dinesh D’Souza and educate yourself.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRs-6DrnX-8

          • Lewis guignard says:

            I would point out that the difference between left and right diminishes as they get farther to the left and right. At a certain point they are both authoritarian.

            Long before that point they have become self-serving, using the power of the state to enhance their personal position and wealth.

            Watch what happens to O-Cortez. She is already enjoying the trappings of power and will enjoy the money that comes with it, while continuing to preach socialism and AGW. See B Sanders and how rich he is – etc.

          • Nate says:

            “Dinesh D’Souza” OMG, talk about biased revisionist history!

            Here’s a quiz for you guys. Answers at bottom.

            1. Did the Nazi’s encourage a. govt take-over of industry or b. privatization when they came to power?

            2. What did the Nazi’s have in common with Eisenhower in the 1950s and Reagan in the 1980s?

            3. Were the Nazi’s big supporters of a. international organizations like leftists are today, or b. Germany First like Trumpism of today?

            4. Were the Nazi’s big supporters of human rights for minority groups or immigrants like leftists today?

            Answers:

            1. b. They privatized many industries that had been previouly govt owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

            2. Nazis invested heavily in infrastructure like the highway system, as did Eisenhower. Nazis drastically increased military spending, via deficit spending, as did Reagan in the 1980s. In both cases this boosted the economy.

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

            3. Of course not, they were all about German nationalism.

            4. Obviously not.

          • Nate says:

            “the difference between left and right diminishes as they get farther to the left and right. At a certain point they are both authoritarian.”

            Agreed.

            The political spectrum can be drawn as a circle.

          • Nate says:

            Look at the KKK. OK.

            Supporters of socialists or leftists or progressives? Pfft, no.

            Supporters of Trump. Check!

          • Nate says:

            “The Confederate States of America werent for states right. ”

            Uuuh…Stephen, you need to review your history.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            OMG you are a leftist propagandist!

            More of Nate’s ignorance:

            “1. Did the Nazis encourage a. govt take-over of industry or b. privatization when they came to power?” That’s what facism is, private ownership of industry but government controlled.”

            “2. What did the Nazis have in common with Eisenhower in the 1950s and Reagan in the 1980s?” So the communists didn’t drastically increase military spending? You have read our Constitution? Provide for the common defense, promote the general wellfare, secure the blessings of liberty….there is nothing wrong with some government spending if you’re a conservative. Promote commerce (capitalism) and defend the country (build a wall).

            “3. Were the Nazis big supporters of a. international organizations like leftists are today, or b. Germany First like Trumpism of today?” Again the Nazi’s were nationalists. They were also leftists. There’s nothing wrong with being a nationalists. Most conservatives are nationalists. But in your twisted brain you equate nationalism with something evil. Racism is evil. Building the wall isn’t racism. It is executing what the founders dreamed-a soverign nation.

            4. Were the Nazis big supporters of human rights for minority groups or immigrants like leftists today? Also, this tripe about the Democrats being supporters of human rights. What about the rights of the unborn? Nazi’s like the democrats believed in genocide. Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, was admired by Heinrich Himmler. Margaret Sanger believed in eugenics. Blacks moved to the democrat party during the 1930’s because of FDR’s entitlement policies. It was an economic move the democrat party and some leftist blacks took advantage of. Nate, if the democrat party is the party of human rights then why did they overwhelmingly vote against the Civil Rights Act and also support abortion?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            The Confederate States of America werent for states right.

            “UuuhStephen, you need to review your history.”

            You need to understand history. It was about using the power of government to own people. You can’t have slavery without government approval. It doesn’t work.

            I suppose you think the Civil War was a war between the North and the South?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            More of Nate’s ignorance:

            ““the difference between left and right diminishes as they get farther to the left and right. At a certain point they are both authoritarian.”

            Agreed.

            The political spectrum can be drawn as a circle”

            Nate,

            Far far left is complete authortarianism-Marxism-Communism-leftism. Far far right is no government. It is the polar opposite of authortarianism. It is the wild west. It is every man for himself. Think!

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,
            Now I see why you’re so confused about the Nazis. Because you don’t understand the concepts of left and right on the political spectrum. You don’t understand who is left and who is right. Are monarchists on the left or right? I guess you think because the communists overthrew the Tsar of Russia then the Tsar must have been on the right? I guess you think Chang Kai-shek was right wing?

          • Nate says:

            OK, Stephen. Anyone that thinks the KKK were leftists is off their rocker.

            Your main point seems to be that anything bad = leftist = socialist, which is wrong and naive.

            Wiki:

            “The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈkln, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group[8] The Klan has existed in three distinct eras at different points in time during the history of the United States. Each has advocated extremist reactionary positions such as white supremacy, white nationalism, anti-immigration andespecially in later iterationsNordicism[9][10] and anti-Catholicism. Historically, the KKK used terrorismboth physical assault and murderagainst groups or individuals whom they opposed.[11] All three movements have called for the “purification” of American society and all are considered right-wing extremist.”

            Here’s one view of the political spectrum that’s a circle:

            http://factmyth.com/the-left-right-political-spectrum-explained/

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            You want the political spectrum to be a circle. You need the political spectrum to be a circle, right Nate? If not it poops on your twisted world view. LOL.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          LOL. So now we’re going to pull out your leftist propagandist site Wiki as your source? A bunch of leftists Brits? Name me one conservative who is an administrator of Wiki? You just need about half a brain Nate. Every member of the KKK was a democrat. Who are the democrats? They are leftists. Just ask Robert “KKK” Byrd. Oh, I forgot he’s dead. Every slave in the south before the civil war was owned by democrats-four million. Those were leftists Nate-complete authoritarisanism. Not one slave was owned by a Republican.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            You know who did your little circle Nate? A leftist like you. Ok Nate, so if we’re a completely far right government, which is essentially no government, how do we go to authoritarianism? You can explain in your own words.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate found a leftist who can draw a circle. Typical leftist logic. They’re trying to use the same logic with the Big Bang now from leftist hero Hawking. The singularity was actually a circle you see.

          • Nate says:

            Stephen,

            Your ideas of left-right is an extremist view that does not match the standard one. Which like it or not, is more or less what is shown in Wikipedia, which anyone can edit, even conservatives.

            “Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on ‘ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism’, while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on ‘notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism’.[14]

            Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[15][16] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[17] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[18][19] Movements for racial equality[20] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[21]

            Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians,[22] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[23] fascists,[24] reactionaries and traditionalists.”

            You seem to desire to redefine right/left of politics to = right/wrong.

            Your hypothesis seems to be that leftists/liberals were always the evil ones in history.

            Sorry you cannot redefine terms like left/right after-the-fact to match your hypothesis. In science and even political science, that is cheating.

          • Nate says:

            “Every member of the KKK was a democrat. Who are the democrats? They are leftists. Just ask Robert KKK Byrd. Oh, I forgot hes dead. Every slave in the south before the civil war was owned by democrats-four million.”

            Stephen that is just plain ignorant.

            The parties have evolved over time. Southerners were Democrats since the Civil War because, of course, Lincoln was a Republican. Did that make them progressives or leftists, No.

            Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive (leftist in some ways) Republican.

            You seem blissfully unaware that all Southerners eventually left the Dem party after the passage of Civil Rights, and joined with conservative Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan who opposed it.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            Dinesh names, I think, Strom Thurman as one Dem who became a Rep. Can you name all the others?

            Which other revisions of history do you think Dinesh makes? Are you the scholar that he isn’t? Creds please.

          • JDHuffman says:

            I’m not sure what this has to do with the price of soybeans in China, but…

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

          • Nate says:

            “do you think Dinesh makes? Are you the scholar that he isnt? Creds please.”

            Im not a political scientist, but I have read a lot about Nazi era.

            But there are hundreds of scholars with cred who disagree with his extremist views, so…

          • Nate says:

            One such pushback from a historian (Broid),

            “all the cherry-picked evidence in the world won’t help you if you’re committing a category error, a fallacy in which one compares or conflates things that actually belong in different categories. Arguing for “liberal fascism” is like arguing about “atheist believers in God.” Fascism and leftism belong in fundamentally different categories, because the essence of fascism was, and is, anti-leftism.”

          • Nate says:

            “Dinesh names, I think, Strom Thurman as one Dem who became a Rep. Can you name all the others?”

            Sure, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, ….

            Not that difficult people:

            Being a Dem in 1960 in the South, clearly does not equate with being a liberal.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I was about to write, so name one of the hundreds who wouldn’t be considered equally extremist by some measure.

            Would it be a leftist or rightist tactic to brand someone as extremist?

          • Nate says:

            A scholar who’s views differ from 99% of his colleagues can be considered extreme. I would also label someone who is supposed to be a scholar, but talks a lot like Ann Coulter, and traffics in conspiracy theories, an extremist.

            “After mail bombing attempts on prominent Democratic politicians in October 2018, D’Souza tweeted “Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs.” and spread the conspiracy theory that because there was no cancellation mark on the bomb-containing packages they were not mailed.”

            C’mon the heinous ideas that the Nazi’s are known for are polar opposites of liberal ideas.

            It is just dumb to go back and cherry pick a few weak overlaps (correlations) between two things, and decide, Aha! causation.

            Serial killer Ted Bundy was a Young Republican. Should I conclude that being a Republican caused him to become a serial killer?!

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            You logic is extreme, but I won’t be distracted by that. Are you saying there were no fake sexual assault victims, refugees, or mail bombs?

            What Southern Democrats became a Republican?

            Which other revisions of history do you think Dinesh makes?

          • Nate says:

            “What Southern Democrats became a Republican? Which other revisions of history do you think Dinesh makes?”

            Already answered, Chic. Youve got plenty to explain.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            No, Nate, you didn’t name any other Democrats who became Republicans. They stayed and continued to oppose the civil rights movement.

            You haven’t specified anything Dinesh said that was a revision of history.

            What do you want ME to explain?

            I’ll be happy to drop the subject, because frankly I no little about Nazis. I just thought you needed a different perspective from your usual reading material on them.

          • Nate says:

            Dinesh understands that to sell books to conservatives you have to make over-the-top claims, such as here talking about Obama’s father:

            “The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dream of a Luo tribesman of the 1950sa polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into a stupor, and bounced around on two iron legs raging against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions. This philandering, inebriated, African socialist is now setting the nations agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

            A bit of a stretch for me. Maybe not for you.

          • Nate says:

            OK, looks like you cannot refute this, fine:

            “the heinous ideas that the Nazi’s are known for are polar opposites of liberal ideas.

            It is just dumb to go back and cherry pick a few weak overlaps (correlations) between two things, and decide, Aha! causation.”

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            “A bit of a stretch for me.”

            Did Obama write “Dreams from My Father?” Did he make over-the-top claims to sell the book or did he really mean what he wrote? Was Obama not a socialist? Did he not govern that way?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I might be able to put your assertion that Nazi’s and liberal ideas are polar opposites into a different perspective than you have, but why bother. If Dinesh can’t do it, why would I be able to?

            Again, I ask, which weak cherry-picked overlaps has Dinesh D’Souza made? You claim revisionist history. Be specific.

          • Nate says:

            https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/donald-trump-jr/did-nazi-platform-echo-democratic-platform-donald-/

            Some DD ‘Pants on Fire’ revisionism.

            The most gullible among you, like DT junior, find this ‘scholarship’ compelling.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Was Obama not a socialist? Did he not govern that way?’

            No. His signature legislation relies on private insurance.

            Do you have any evidence that Obama weirdly had ‘Rage against the world’ for colonialism??

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “His signature legislation relies on private insurance.”

            Did I have a choice not to buy it?

            Trump, Jr was quoted “So the left spends the last 3 years falsely calling my entire family NAZI’s, but the second I point out the similarities between the economic platform of the National Socialists and the Democrat Party, they scream bloody murder. Here’s what I was referring to.”

            Did Politifact deny people on the left associate the Trump family with Nazi’s? Did Spike Lee not make an inference that Trump is a white nationalist in his Oscar speech?

            Do you really think we will be better off with Democrats back in charge? After eight years of stagnation, we are back growing again. We are working on fixing the danger at the border. Foreign economic and military threats are being dealt with. Minorities are doing better than ever. No one’s civil rights are being denied.

            Are you happy with the platforms of Sanders, Warren, and AOC?

          • Nate says:

            I showed you what you asked me for, a pretty clear example of DD revisionism, and………

            you change the subject.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Yes, I did. To something more current, more relevant, and more important.

          • Bart says:

            Nate @ February 24, 2019 at 6:39 PM

            ”You seem blissfully unaware that all Southerners eventually left the Dem party after the passage of Civil Rights, and joined with conservative Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan who opposed it.”

            This is calumny. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he thought it coercive. He was not even remotely racist, and was a supporter of civil rights legislation in general. In the end, the Act was filibustered by Democrats, and passed only because of Republican support.

            This is the dividing line: Democrats believe in coercion. They don’t want to change hearts and minds. They want to steamroll them. It’s always been that way. Democrats are authoritarian. Republicans prefer freedom.

            Southerners did not switch parties because of civil rights. They didn’t switch at all. It’s just that the old, racist Democrats died off. The rising generation of Southerners had grown up in a pluralistic society, and no longer carried that baggage.

            Look around the country today. Where do the riots occur? Where are race relations the worst? That’s right – LA, Boston, Detroit, NYC – not the South.

            And, yes, the Nationalist Socialist Worker’s Party was socialist. Now that that’s settled, how about you get back to discussing the climate.

          • Nate says:

            Bart to the rescue.

            He settles all the issues with declarative statements.

            White and black southerners vote almost uniformly in opposition. But racism is not the reason.

            Rs are not authoritarians? Excepting the current party leaders..

          • Nate says:

            And we find out that facts that Chic was so interested in, in the end, don’t matter. Because they don’t fit his narrative.

            The economy is good, so…

            I remind him that the economy of Germany was also good under Hitler, so…

          • Nate says:

            ‘Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he thought it coercive.’

            Just like growth of atmospheric CO2 due to emissions, Bart, this issue is not that complicated.

            The Republican nominee was Civil Rights opponent Goldwater in 1964. He won five, traditionally Democrat deep South states, in the Presidential election.

            Pretty much all he won.

          • Bart says:

            Goldwater was not a civl rights opponent. That is a vicious lie. He supported numerous civil rights efforts. He was a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.

            https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/uncategorized/urban-legend-goldwater-against-civil-rights/

            It is a fact that it was the Democrats who filibustered the 1964 legislation, and opposed civil rights in general. It is a fact that race relations are worst in non-Southern states.

            But, you’ll support any narrative you prefer to make your life simple and uncomplicated, regardless of facts.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘Southerners did not switch parties because of civil rights. They didnt switch at all.’

            FALSE

            You guys eat-up this kind of historical revisionism like its from the Cheesecake Factory.

            These are the facts:

            Prior to 1964 and Civil Rights Legislation, white voters in Deep South states voted consistently Democrat.

            In 1964, five deep South states voted for the Republican, Goldwater, who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (as did Reagan).

            In 1968 those states voted for segregationist George Wallace, and in 1972, Nixon.

            Since 1964, no Democratic Presidential nominee has won more than 50% of white voters in the deep South states.

            The 1965 Voting Rights Act (opposed by R. Reagan) massively increased black election participation in the South.

            Native Southerner and evangelical Democrat Jimmy Carter won a minority of white southern votes in 76, but won southern states because of overwhelming black and hispanic votes. (BTW his opponent Ford had voted for Civil Rights Act).

            Why do you guys feel the need to revise history to make it seem that all evil things that people have done in the past was because they were liberal or Democrats?

            Why isnt it sufficient for you guys to simply disagree with people, without changing facts in order to demonize them?

          • Bart says:

            “Prior to 1964 and Civil Rights Legislation, white voters in Deep South states voted consistently Democrat.”

            There is something rather important you are missing here, Nate. It is true that the South votes more Republican now, but this is the key point: These are not the same voters.

            The only thing they share in common is where they lived and live. The racist Democrats stayed racist Democrats. Then, they died off, allowing a new polity to rise to prominence.

          • Bart says:

            To put a personal perspective on this, Nate, I will tell you that I grew up in the South. My cohort watched the buffoonish racists ranting on the tube, and made fun of them. When we came of voting age, we saw Carter’s myriad failures, and Reagan just made sense: you achieve peace through strength, and you do not become prosperous by penalizing success. So, we went for him in a big way.

            I did not ever support George Wallace, or any of the other racist politicians. I did not switch parties because I clung to racist views. I was never a Democrat in the first place, and the racist pols never had any appeal for me.

            So, your cartoonish narrative simply strikes me as you wishing to demonize your opponents. It has no basis in fact.

          • Svante says:

            Chic, it looks like Michael Cohen is a leftist.
            https://tinyurl.com/y5phl6qt

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Svante,

            Ha. Politicians say and do what they have to do to get re-elected. It looks like Cohen will do and say what he has to do to be accepted by the left. Do you think that will keep him out of jail? A Presidential pardon is probably out of the question now.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The racist Democrats stayed racist Democrats.’

            But they didnt vote for them, at least not for President.

            The voting data since 1964 is all there, plain to see.

            I’m not trying to demonize anyone.

            The entire narrative of this thread is you guys trying to do exactly that to liberals/leftists/Democrats.

          • Bart says:

            But they didnt vote for them, at least not for President.

            Yes, they did. They simply became a minority through attrition.

          • Nate says:

            No, just no, Bart. Again you ignore data that doesnt work for your beliefs.

            Voters continued to support many D politicians, inclu congressmen who voted ahgainst Civil Rights.

            Since 1964, no D Presidential candidate, not even Carter, received more than 50% of white Southerner vote.

            The racists of 1960, were not all dead in 1964-88.

          • Bart says:

            I didn’t say they were all dead. I said they became a minority.

          • Bart says:

            I am not questioning the data. I am saying your interpretation of them is facile and wrong. Much like your interpretations of data in other areas.

          • Nate says:

            I saw this interpretation somewhere. Lets see if you can agree with this:

            The marriage of Northern liberal and Southern conservative Democrats was always an awkward marriage of convenience since the New Deal.

            It worked for several decades, as long as Northern liberals kept their hands off the Jim Crow segregated South. Party loyalty was important, so they held their nose and voted for moderate or liberal Dem presidential candidates like FDR, Truman, and even Adlai Stevenson.

            But as Civil Rights became a central issue in the 1960s, and Northern liberals were able to win this battle, Southerners were no longer compelled to vote for Dems for President. So they didnt in 1964, 1968, 72 and beyond.

            They continued to have party loyalty when it came to local Dem politicians who were conservative.

            The more natural fit between Southern conservatives was with the conservative wing of the Republican party. And the R party moved more and more in this direction.

            And also Rs used the ‘Southern strategy’ and racial dog whistles to win national elections.

            BTW, I also spent my youth down South in Texas. The last D governor was Ann Richards in early 90s, who governed mostly like a Republican.

          • Bart says:

            Nonsense on stilts. Why do you insist on imagining Southern voters of today are the same individuals as Southern voters of yesteryear? These are almost entirely different groups of people.

          • Nate says:

            Which parts do you disagree with, and based on what?

            Are you so naive to think being racist and republican are mutually exclusive?

            Why have racist dog-whistles, like Willy Horton or Birtherism, worked so well to get people to vote Relublican?

          • Bart says:

            Willy Horton was first used by Al Gore to get Democrats to vote against Dukakis before it was ever used by Bush. Birtherism was no more cockeyed than Collusionism. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

  6. gallopingcamel says:

    Oooops! Somehow I keep forgetting that Dr. Roy Spencer is spelt with a “c” rather than and “s”.

    Mea culpa!

  7. Nate says:

    I would think May-October temps would be important for farmers. If they can plant earlier in May and harvest later in October, it makes a difference for what they can grow.

    For the Upper Midwest Region of US (close to that region of Canada) the 40 year trend for May-October has been 0.4 F/decade.

    https://tinyurl.com/y3opctw4

    • Nate says:

      Another important factor is soil temperature in Spring. In Canada soil temperatures showed:

      “A warming trend of 0.260.30C/decade was consistently detected in spring (MarchAprilMay) at all depths between 1958 and 2008.”

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015012

      • coturnix says:

        That could be, soil temperatures as well as thee depth of soil freeze-though depend on winter temperatures. Now, summer temperature in general should depend on soil temperatures in spring as that is the starting point of seasonal summer warming, as well as part of the heat capacity of the system that makes summer warming lag the insolation. The fact that summers get headstart and yet still fail to be warmer should be worrying, because the last time i checked it is summer temperatures that matter for the re-inception of glaciation… so much for the bright future of canadian agriculture.

    • coturnix says:

      Indeed, what Dr. Spencer should have plotted insted ias the last-frost-to-first-frost length of the growing season as well as the total growing degree days accumulated during such.

      • coturnix says:

        Strangely enough, this link https://winnipeg.weatherstats.ca/charts/gdd_5-yearly.html shows that there is no positive trend in gdd, weird. Must be sponsored by fossil fuel oligarchs.

      • Nate says:

        Be better to look at a large region or whole country, rather than one city.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Nate,

          Presumably you have done so, if you are not simply trolling.

          What were the results? None? You were only trolling after all?

          Surprise, surprise – not!

          Cheers.

        • coturnix says:

          2nate: oh really? is that how the climate science is done? I though that a single point sampled twice a day is enough to infer the temperatures withing 2000-km radius with .05 degree accuracy, isn’t it?

        • Nate says:

          If you are interested in seeing climate change, as in trends, then you want to reduce the background ‘noise’ caused by local weather variations.

          Averaging over a large land mass reduces this noise. Hence if we look at temperature trends of continents, or hemispheres, rather than cities, we see much less noise. Pretty standard.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Nate,

            Climate is the average of weather.

            Of course it changes. Only a dimwit would believe otherwise.

            Stop the climate from changing? Only a delusional dimwit would say such a stupid thing!

            A scientist might formulate a testable GHE hypothesis. A delusional dimwit would rely on debate, argument, consensus and avoidance, instead.

            Go for it, Nate.

            Cheers.

          • coturnix says:

            Sigh…..

            Not, it is not better to look at the ‘whole country’ because we don’t discuss the whole country. Also, using one city to infer the temperatures of the whole region or country is a common and acceptable practice among ‘real climate scientists’ which is what my comment was about.

          • Nate says:

            It is simply a signal/noise issue, C.

            Cold or warm air masses invade the West coast, Midwest, and East coasts on different days. Therefore these events get averaged when taking the temperature of the whole US.

            If you like to have more weather noise, go for local.

          • Nate says:

            Speaking of SNR, MF offers up more ad-hom noise, burying any detectable signal.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

  8. ====
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶① . . . Global Warming Travel Warning . . .
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ====

    The IPCC has issued an urgent travel warning.

    Many people are foolishly travelling to countries, which have an average temperature which is more than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than their home country.

    This activity is highly dangerous, and could result in the deaths of millions of people.

    The IPCC suggests that people limit their travel, to countries which have an average temperature which is less than 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than their home country.

    Scientists have proved that travel and temperatures, are more dangerous than smoking 60 cigarettes a day, for 50 years.

    It is safer to stay at home, and take up smoking, than to go travelling in warmer countries.

    To ensure your personal temperature safety, the IPCC has emitted the following travel regulations.

    Travel will be limited to “safe” country groups. This means that travel may only take place between a country, and the other countries that are in the same temperature safety group.

    For further details, please click the following link:

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-travel-warning

  9. Russ says:

    Hey Nate,

    You say A nerd says FYI the percent increase in co2 is ~ 33% since 1960.

    Well, Im a nerd and I say that going from 0.03% to 0.04% is an increase of 0.01%.

    If your best rebuttal is just a manipulation of the facts, then I suggest you change sides. Or just sit back and listen.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      According to Arrhenius that increase in CO2 should cause a temperature change of ΔT = 5.43 * log2 (0.40/0.30) = 2.25 K

      The predicted increase in temperature did not happen because the Arrhenius hypothesis is false.

      Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does affect temperature because it affects the optical depth of the atmosphere and Cp (specific heat at constant pressure).

      The effect of adding 0.01% of CO2 to our atmosphere is beyond our ability to measure. Gas composition is not a major factor in setting Earth’s temperature. Robinson and Catling (University of Washington) published a detailed model in a Natgeo letter in 2014 that agrees with observation on seven worlds in our solar system. My attempts to provide the link failed owing to Dr. Roy’s Bot.

      • Entropic man says:

        Galloping camel

        The equation you used calculates the direct forcing due to increased CO2 in Watts.

        To get a temperature change you need to factor in climate sensitivity (IPCC mid-range figure is 3) and forcing rate, the number of watts needed to produce 1C warming (3.7)

        The equationt then becomes

        Change in temperature = 5.43ln(C/Co)climate sensitivity/forcing rate

        5.43ln(400/300)3/3.7 = 1.27C

        We are currently at 1C. When you factor in the 25 year lag due to the ocean heat sink, that 1.27C is about right, or even a little conservative.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          E man,
          IPCC climate sensitivity has proven over and over to be wrong. Why do you keep insisting? IPCC don’t understand climate sensitivity.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          Entropic Man,
          I got that formula from the 1896 paper by Arrhenius. See here:
          https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/

          Even though that post was made 5 years ago it attracted a bunch of comments from David Appell, one of the trolls residing on this site.

          • Entropic man says:

            Galloping camel

            You should read this, particularly the sectiononhowthe equationis derived.

            https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/

            Two points.

            1) The equation predicts forcing in Watts. Youneedto extend thecalculation asI describd to get temperature change.

            2) Arrhenius used a constant of 5.43. The modern usage is 5.35, which gives slightly lower forcing than Arrhenius calculated.

          • gallopingcamel says:

            @Entropic Man,
            I used to frequent “Science of Doom”. Definitely one of the best Warmist sites. Much of what I know about Climate Science came from DeWitt Payne and Leonard Weinstein. SOD was really good with MODTRAN.

            I have been using the Arrhenius equation in its original form. Attempts to “Fix” it by adjusting the “Sensitivity Constant” are a waste of time. The hypothesis is simple false….let’s move on.

            Likewise converting the equation into a “Forcing” expressed as Watts/m^2 is putting lipstick on a pig.

    • Entropic man says:

      Russ

      A nerd who can’t do arithmetic.

      Percentage changes are expressed as a change relative to the initial value.

      Percentage change = final value * 100/ initial value

      Int his case the percentage change is 0.04 *100/0.03 = %133.

      That is an increase of 33%.

  10. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶① . . . WANTED STUPID PEOPLE . . .
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    .

    WANTED STUPID PEOPLE

    WANTED TO JOIN EQUALLY STUPID PEOPLE

    WANTED AT And-Then-Theres-Physics

    WANTED FEEL INTELLIGENT

    WANTED BY SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH MORONS

    WANTED GAIN IQ-CONFIDENCE

    WANTED AND BOOST SELF-ESTEEM

    WANTED LEARN TO IGNORE INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE

    WANTED WITHOUT FEELING GUILTY

    WANTED INTELLIGENT PEOPLE LIMITED TO ONE COMMENT PER THREAD

    WANTED BUT STUPID PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED UNLIMITED COMMENTS

    .

    You might think that I am being unfair to the morons at And-Then-Theres-Physics.

    But let me make it clear, that some of my best friends are morons.

    I made the mistake, of going to And-Then-Theres-Physics, to look for intelligent Alarmists.

    Yes, I know that “intelligent Alarmists” are as rare as unicorns.

    But I am an optimist, and unicorns might exist (where is your proof that unicorns DON’T exist).

    The people at And-Then-Theres-Physics, made me sit in the corner, and told me not to speak unless spoken to.

    I have never been good at keeping quiet.

    I tried to be good. Honestly.

    And I wrote the people at And-Then-Theres-Physics a polite letter when I left. My polite letter is displayed below.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/wanted-stupid-people

    • Entropic man says:

      Sheldon Walker

      You embarassed yourself at ATTP and embarrased yourself again here.

      You might remember Healy’s Law of Holes.

      “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

      • Pointing out that Alarmists and Climate scientists never look at “real” temperatures, is not embarrassing to me.

        The whole theory of global warming, is based on the theoretical increase in temperature, since pre-industrial times.

        There is another name for pre-industrial times. It is also called “the little ice age”.

        Alarmists don’t seem to understand, that we want temperatures to be higher than in “the little ice age”.

        If you don’t like warmer temperatures, then move to Russia. A simple, and relatively cheap solution. Please take all of your Alarmist friends with you. I am sure that Skeptics would even be willing to pay your fare, to send you to Russia.

        You are the one who should be embarrassed. You can’t even spell “embarrassed” correctly. You got the spelling wrong twice, in 2 different ways.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Sheldon, when the Alarmists are attacking you, you know you’re doing it right.

          I should know….

          • Entropic man says:

            Beware of selective arguments.

            In s Section 2 of a recent post youclaimed that CO2 is a feedback but cannot act asa forcing.

            As evidence you put forward a number of gological occasions in which temperature changed and CO2 acted as a feedback.

            You failed to mention snowball earths, the Permean extinction, the PETM and the 20th Century, when CO2 was the forcing and temperature change was the feedback.

            Speaking of temperature change, the problem with global warming is not the values, it is the change.

            You mention high latitude environments such as Canada and Russia. Their infrastructure is built on permafrost.

            As the Arctic warms, the permafrost is melting and the infrastructure it supports is collapsing. Coastal villages are relocating as a combination of thawing permafrost and receding ice triggers coastal erosion. Large areas are

          • JDHuffman says:

            E-man, you have either confused me with someone else, or have misplaced your comment.

            You might want to offer some correction.

          • Entropic man says:

            JD Huffman

            My comment was a response to Sheldon Walker.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Thanks for the clarification, E-man.

        • Entropic man says:

          I was mildly dyslexic as a child. My spelling is still bad, but it doesn’t affect my intelligence.

          What is your excuse?

          You went on a website run by an astrophysicist and regularly frequented by climate scientists . You told a group of professional temperature measurers that they were not measuring “real” temperatures.

          And you wonder why ATTP did not welcome you with open arms!

          You then compounded your foolishness by coming here and complaining, in capital letters, that your absurd pseudoscience was not taken seriously.

          I’ve read your website. I have rarely seen such a collection of poor science, logical fallacies and numerology.

          If you really want to debate at the top table,you need to raise your game.

          • Entropic man.

            My excuse is, that my mother dropped me on my head, when I was a baby.

            I don’t think that anybody disagrees about what a “real” temperature is (compared to what a temperature anomaly is).

            Alarmists are not claiming that they look at “real” temperatures. They seem proud of the fact, that they NEVER look at “real” temperatures.

            That seems wrong to me.

            If you disagree with me, then start a legal case against me. Charge me with “expecting Alarmists, and Nobel prize-winning scientists, to look at “real” temperatures”.

            You can probably make the legal case last for 8 to 10 years. Other Alarmists will pay your legal bills. So you have nothing to lose.

            I have raised my game. I have worked out, using my “real” actual absolute temperature data, for every country in the world, what the average temperature of the land is.

            I have also worked out what the average temperature is, that humans live at.

            The average temperature of the land is 15.6 degrees Celsius.

            The average temperature that humans live at, is 19.7 degrees Celsius.

            Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.

            There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want it.

            But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.

            Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.

            I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.

          • Entropic man.

            Let me try to make some points clearer.

            ====================

            You said, “You told a group of professional temperature measurers that they were not measuring “real” temperatures.”

            No, I didn’t.

            I said that they were not LOOKING AT “real” temperatures.

            You need to MEASURE “real” temperatures, to calculate temperature anomalies.

            But they then LOOK AT the temperature anomalies, and IGNORE the “real” temperatures.

            ====================

            I went to And-Then-Theres-Physics, because I thought that many of the people who post comments there, seemed intelligent.

            It was a compliment to And-Then-Theres-Physics, that I picked their website to go to.

            I was willing to listen to their explanation. That is why I went there.

            But I didn’t expect them to be a bunch of intolerant bigots.

            I admit, that I made a mistake, expecting them to be reasonable.

            And expecting them to be interested in my “real” temperature data.

            ====================

            It is interesting, to hear about your mild dyslexia.

            I would never judge a person based only on something like spelling.

            I am a bad speller, myself. I use spell checkers a lot.

            The free version of Grammarly picks up a lot of my spelling mistakes, when I am posting comments.

            I recommend Grammarly, if you want something like that.

            ====================

            I would be interested to hear which things on my website are “a collection of poor science, logical fallacies and numerology”.

            I go to a lot of trouble, to provide evidence in my articles.

            And I try to base my articles on science, logic, and mathematics.

            I am always willing to try and improve myself, and my website.

            So I would like to hear your honest opinion.

            ====================

            In case you are taking my suggestion about moving to Russia seriously, you should take note of the following:

            The temperature of Russia’s average hottest month is +22.8 degrees Celsius.

            The temperature of Russia’s average month is +0.2 degrees Celsius (only just above the freezing point of water)

            The temperature of Russia’s average coldest month is -21.1 degrees Celsius.

            ====================

            You might prefer Canada:

            The temperature of Canada’s average hottest month is +23.5 degrees Celsius.

            The temperature of Canada’s average month is +4.1 degrees Celsius

            The temperature of Canada’s average coldest month is -15.0 degrees Celsius.

            ====================

            Entropic man, can you see why “real” temperatures are important.

            Temperature anomalies are also important.

            You shouldn’t ignore either of them.

  11. JDHuffman says:

    “…especially in China where increasing prosperity has led to greater consumption of pork and poultry, both of which use soybean meal for feed.”

    The mention of China and soybeans reminded me of soy sauce, which is a major product in many Asian countries. With so many things now made in China, I looked at our bottle of soy sauce. The label indicated it was from Walworth, Wisconsin!

    Curious, a quick search indicated the Walworth plant is Japanese-owned, and was the first Japanese owned production facility is the U.S., according to wiki.

  12. Aaron S says:

    Perhaps vice versa and land practice change will increase thermometer measurements?

  13. gallopingcamel says:

    @Sheldon Walker,
    The trouble with Leftists is that their tolerance only extends to people who agree with them.

    Like you I got kicked off a string of “Climate Science” blogs and the only one I miss is Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate”. You don’t mention Tim Lambert’s “Deltoid” blog that used to be inhabited by a bunch of very unpleasant people……maybe that is one reason why it is moribund today.

    It took John Cook a couple of years to expel me from SKS. Then someone hacked the SKS website and sent me a file that contained their reasons for deleting my comments. Even though some of it was written eight years ago I don’t see much that has been proved wrong by subsequent events. As Dr. Roy’s Bot won’t let me display the link you can find the file here:
    http://www.gallopingcamel.info/IPCC.html

    Just click on “Mimophants”.

    • Entropic man says:

      A fascinating list.

      29 comments deleted.

      1 religion

      1 accusation of deception

      1 assertion, hyperbole, no demonstration

      1 accusation of Lysenkoism

      3 useless insult

      6 no reason given

      7 off topic

      9 ad hominem

      • gallopingcamel says:

        Entropic Man’
        Thanks for taking the time to wade through all that stuff.

        Do you really accept the judgement of SKS moderators? Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Why not comment on the arguments presented? The moderators at SKS are “Mimophants” so all dissent hurts their tender feelings.

        In their fevered minds most dissent is “ad hominem”, racist, insulting or worse. They live in a Topsy Turvy world. In the real world everyone agrees that this camel is the mildest mannered man who ever cut a throat or scuttled a ship.

        • Norman says:

          gallopingcamel

          I have had similar experiences as you. I did get banned from Skeptical Science (now just an echo chamber), Open Mind, boreholed at Climate Change.

          Roy Spencer just lets the debates go on and on. Not much movement. I took a different path. I realized my limited knowledge on the topic and started to update my knowledge by reading textbook material on the subject. I find that both the “skeptics” and “alarmists” are political animals motivated by other forces than seeking the truth.

          I like the thoughtful and intelligent posters on either side that are willing to support their claims with evidence. My investment on this blog is trying to bring things back to actual science. Unfortunately it is a political movement and the Truth is the casualty. I find most skeptics on this blog make up their own science and intentionally refuse to support any of it. You seem to be a rational and thoughtful person that is more prone to investigating the Truth and leaving all political postitions out of a scientific debate.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, you are the biggest windbag on this blog. You’re extremely opinionated, as you claim everyone else is opinionated. Often your “evidence” is just a link to a subject you don’t understand. You prefer to just type out long rambles, filled with your worthless opinions, as demonstrated above.

            I could provide example after example, but one really revealing one is at the link provided below. Gallopingcamel had just admitted he did not understand thermodynamics. I offered my sympathy, as I too remember how difficult the subject can be, especially if the instructor is bad. Fortunately, as I explained to GC, I had an excellent professor who was able to make the difficult subject easily understandable.

            You jumped in with nothing but your erroneous opinions:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321310

            Norman you do NOT get to make up your own facts!

          • gallopingcamel says:

            Dr. Roy is to be praised for tolerating all commenters as long as they remain civil. He even puts up with me when I criticize his tacit acceptance of the false Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis.

            My approach is to examine the actual data and draw my own conclusions. I started back in 2008 with the v2 GHCN station data and the GISP ice core data. I was baffled to find that the data was at odds with what “Climate Scientists” were claiming.

            For example Richard Alley (Penn State) is a fun person but his conclusion that “CO2 is the Control Knob for Climate” is contrary to his own (GISP) data.

            @JDH,
            Nobody can be an expert on everything…..not even you. When I find myself in trouble working a problem using thermodynamics I call on Robert G. Brown who knows the subject (and many others) better.

            I blog about many things beyond my formal qualifications. For example I was able to blog confidently about Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors because my golfing buddies were eminent nuclear physicists and they used to proof read my posts.

            @Entropic Man,
            I have spent my life building high tech equipment much of it based on electro optics. Here are a few highlights out of more than 500 projects:

            -Pulsed dye lasers (1970)
            -Streak camera with a 2 ps resolution (1972)
            -ME29 mini computer (1976)
            -Fiber optic plant in Harlow (1978)
            -TAT-8 submarine cable system (1988)
            -Duke university HIGS (1995)

          • Entropic man says:

            Galloping camel

            Ah, an engineer!

            Surely you will have learned that reality happens whether you believe it or not.

            What really intrigues me is that the greenhouse effect and global warming are an inevitable consequence of the same physics which underlies emission and absorbtion in your electro-optical systems.

            Yet you believe in one aspect of that physics, and reject the other.

          • JDHuffman says:

            GC says: “Nobody can be an expert on everything….not even you.”

            GC, I never claimed to be an expert on anything, let alone on everything. So your implication falls in the garbage pile. The fact that you can not identify one time my physics has been wrong is rather telling.

            GC says: “I blog about many things beyond my formal qualifications.”

            I agree with you on that. And, you don’t seem to be able to learn, either. When E-man corrected you above, on your mistake with the Arrhenius equation, his correction apparently went right over your head. You don’t appear able to learn either science, or pseudoscience.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “Norman you do NOT get to make up your own facts!”

            No sorry, that is what you do. I prove my facts with valid science. You, however, ignore all requests to support your phony nonsense.

            No you never did a formal study of Thermodynamics. You can’t grasp view factors. Your Dr. T would have taught you how to use them in your equations. The facts speak for themselves.

            Some of your made up physics. Photons from a 300 K surface will all reflect off a 500 K surface. Absolute made up. Goes against established science. And again not supported by anything but your opinion.

            You claim that I don’t understand my links but you have yet to offer anything that supports your claim. You make endless declarations, you support none. Just make up whatever and hope it sticks.

          • JDHuffman says:

            There you go again, Norman. You have an erroneous opinion that you want to convert into reality. That’s not how life works.

            You claim: “No you never did a formal study of Thermodynamics.”

            That’s your opinion. You have no facts to back it up. You don’t know where I graduated, or what my major was. You don’t know what courses I’ve taken. You just make stuff up.

            But, you’ve told us you’ve never taken thermodynamics. So, your opinion is that I haven’t, with no facts to support your bogus opinion. But, the facts are YOU are the one that has never taken a course in thermodynamics.

            See why you’re a clown?

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            You do have a point. After looking at the textbook on Thermodynamics that TheRealOldOne2 linked to, it does not contain much of anything on heat transfer. Thermodynamics is a large field. Heat Transfer is a specific branch of a much larger topic.

            I would suggest that you had not taken any course in heat transfer.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, my point is–you are a clown.

            You can’t learn. You have tried to claim I do not understand thermo, yet it is you that has no understanding. Now, you try to claim I have never studied heat transfer. Again, it is you that falls short. I’ve had university courses in heat transfer, you haven’t.

            You didn’t learn the first time, but you keep hitting your head against that brick wall.

            See why you’re a clown?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Eman,

            “What really intrigues me is that the greenhouse effect and global warming are an inevitable consequence of the same physics which underlies emission and absorbtion in your electro-optical systems.”

            Inevitable only in your mind. Where have you or anyone published anything other than speculation, unproven hypotheses, and unverified models?

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            That I will not believe, that you had a college course in Heat Transfer. Maybe you dreamed you did. You do not know what a view factor is or how it works. I have not seen one textbook yet on the topic that does not deal with the topic in detail.

            Case of point, it is so basic to radiant heat transfer problems it would be like someone asked me what was the difference between an ionic bond and a covalent bond and I wouldn’t have a clue.

            No you have not taken any courses in Heat Transfer and I do doubt you have taken any in Thermodynamics. I was just thinking it was possible.

            No you are just making up stuff like you always do.

            Continue on making up things. It is what you do. Nothing new.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Norman claims: You do not know what a view factor is or how it works.”

            Norman, here again you make statements you can’t support.

            That’s why you’re a clown.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Actually I could support it, it is not some previous post. You are not worth the time or effort to demonstrate it to. You are a first class clown and maximum troll.

            You attack Chic Bowdrie who is a rational and reasonable skeptic (I think because he dared challenge your idiotic nonsense that the moon does not rotate on its axis).

            Now you attack another rational intelligent skeptic.

            You are 100% troll. I see the others asking you to support what you claim. I also see you won’t do it as you never do and never will.

            You are all Huff and Puff but nothing of value.

            I think soon all but your lone buddy Gordon Robertson will see you as nothing but a disruptive troll. Not interested in a bit of truth, just out to taunt and disrupt. It is what you did when you went as g.e.r.a.n. Nothing new.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Norman traps himself, again: “Actually I could support it…”

            No clown Norman, you can NOT support what you say. All you can do is just pound on your keyboard, hoping something you type will mean something. But, it never does.

            Nothing new.

          • bobdroege says:

            Some of us might want to see your transcripts JD

            Like evidence you ever passed a course in themo

          • bobdroege says:

            or thermo even

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

        • Entropic man says:

          I went through the list again.

          I find myself agreeing with the moderators.

          I don’t know what you did for a living, but scientists take accusations of bias, false practice and conspiracy very seriously.

          You cannot sprinkle them through your comments with gay abandon and expect to be taken seriously, especially on sites where the moderators, contributors and commenters are mostly working scientists.

  14. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Dinesh DSouuza and Vctor Davis Hansen

  15. Entropic man says:

    Sheldon Walker

    Beware of selective arguments. In political debate it is acceptable to be selective, but in scientific debate you should consider all the evidence. One example:

    In Section 2 of a recent post you claimed that CO2 is a feedback but cannot act as a forcing.

    As evidence you put forward a number of gological occasions in which temperature changed and CO2 acted as a feedback.

    You failed to mention snowball earths, the Permean extinction, the PETM and the 20th Century, when CO2 was the forcing and temperature change was the feedback.

    Was this a debating ploy, or were you fooling yourself?

    Speaking of temperature change, the problem with global warming is not the temperature values, it is the change. Local culture and infrastructure are optimised for local conditions. When conditions change,that optimisation is lost.

    You mention high latitude environments such as Canada and Russia. Their infrastructure is built on permafrost.

    As the Arctic warms, the permafrost is melting and the infrastructure it supports is collapsing. Coastal villages are relocating as a combination of thawing permafrost and receding ice triggers coastal erosion. Large areas are dependant on ice roads which are also becoming unreliable.

    In two countries a civilization based on ice and frozen soil is being disrupted by the change, requiring either abandoning large areas or rebuilding the infrastructure completely.

    In hotter climates such as India the opposite problem is occuring. Human beings cannot survive sustained temperatures above 35C wet bulb. These events are becoming more frequent, more extensive, more extreme and of longer duration. In the First World this can be mitigated by technology. In the Third World it will make large areas uninhabitable.

    We are a civilization of coastal plains and coastal cities. Once again infrastructure designed for constant sea levels is vulnerable to increasing sea levels. The collapse of house prices in Miami Beach is only the start.

    Global temperatures are the measure of change in the global system. Local changes are the consequences.

    • Entropic man.

      I don’t think that it acceptable to be selective in political debate, or scientific debate. You should always consider ALL of the evidence.

      So Alarmists and Climate scientists SHOULD look at “real” temperatures, as well as temperature anomalies.

      You claimed that I said something in Section 2 of a recent post. I don’t write posts in Sections, and I never said what you claim that I said. I don’t even believe what you claim that I said.

      I accept all of the basic climate science, including the greenhouse effect. I have my doubts about the size of water vapour feedback, that the IPCC, climate scientists, and Alarmists, claim exists.

      You are either mistaking me for somebody else, or just making things up. Please quote exactly what you think that I said, and provide links, to prove that I said it.

      You seem to believe that all change is bad, and that people should put up with low quality lifestyles, based on permafrost.

      If you lived in a permafrost environment, would you be happy to stay that way forever? When there was a way for you to improve the quality of your life.

      You seem to think that the “best” temperature for the whole Earth, is pre-industrial times. But why stop there, why not go back 10,000 years, to when the Earth was in a full ice age.

      You are greedy, and have selfishly picked a time when the temperatures suit YOU. You pretend that it is for the good of all humans, but really, you are just looking after yourself.

      • Entropic man.

        You are suffering from the delusion, that there is one “best” temperature for the whole Earth.

        This happens when you only look at temperature anomalies, and ignore “real” temperatures.

        You assume that the “best” temperature for the whole Earth, is when the global temperature anomaly equalled zero.

        But you measure the global temperature anomaly, from the arbitrary time when you think that the Earth had the “best” temperature.

        Can you see how your belief is a circular argument, which is not based on reality.

        If “normal”, is living in the cold mud, with pigs, should we try to stay “normal”.

        • bobdroege says:

          Sheldon,

          here is an explanation why anomalies are preferred.

          Saying they don’t look at real temperatures is misleading.

          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

          • bobdroege

            Thanks for the link. I have read the NASA explanation before.

            I don’t object to people using temperature anomalies. For certain things, temperature anomalies are the best thing to use.

            But to totally ignore absolute temperatures, is wrong. I could even say, stupid.

            A +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature anomaly, means different things, in different places.

            Russia has an average temperature of +0.2 degrees Celsius (only just above the freezing point of water).

            Tuvalu has an average temperature of +28.0 degrees Celsius.

            Does a +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature anomaly have the same effect in both of these places?

            I imagine that the people in Russia would welcome a +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature anomaly.

            But the people in Tuvalu would probably hate a +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature anomaly.

            Why not use absolute temperatures, to help explain the effect of temperature anomalies.

            I suspect that many Alarmists refuse to accept that warming could be good, in some places.

            I encourage Alarmists to move to Russia, if they are worried about global warming. It is a simple, and relatively cheap solution to global warming.

            Many Skeptics would probably be willing to help Alarmists with the cost of moving to Russia.

            If you want to learn more about absolute temperatures, then look at these 2 articles:

            https://agree-to-disagree.com/temp-population-by-country

            https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country

          • bobdroege says:

            You should look at wet bulb temperatures if you want to know the risk of death.

            And try not to be so condescending.

            You seem to know it all, you don’t.

          • bobdroege

            I admit that I don’t know everything, very publicly.

            https://agree-to-disagree.com/4-things

            If you want to see “condescending”, then look at the large number of people who “point blank” refuse to even consider absolute temperatures.

            Because these people know best, that absolute temperatures are totally unimportant. And they insult me, for even mentioning absolute temperatures.

  16. Andrew stout says:

    I follow Scott but he’s frustratingly Dogmatic in his beliefs , I assume it’s due to his ‘expert’ friends all bring Alarmists. He frames the debate as “Experts vs Skeptics”, and he has total faith in arguments from “authority” . I’ve been posting on his videos for months, that he should talk to Dr Spencer as a Alarmism-Skeptical expert, but I don’t think he really wants that because it would crush the concensus narrative. Fortunately I think Adams’ current intention is to have Heller on…. Heller is hugely effective at communication, so I’m happy with this selection, but IF the ‘debate’ is merely having some alarmist hack on, reciting the IPCC’s nonsense, and then declaring victory by ‘Authority’, then it’s a boondoggle from square 1.

  17. PhilJ says:

    “In two countries a civilization based on ice and frozen soil is being disrupted by the change, requiring either abandoning large areas or rebuilding the infrastructure completely”

    Lol. Canada’s civilization is based on ice and frozen soil? Guess thats why 90% of us live within a couple hundred miles of the southern border…

    • Entropic man says:

      PhilJ

      “Lol. Canadas civilization is based on ice and frozen soil? Guess thats why 90% of us live within a couple hundred miles of the southern border”

      That rather makes my point. The permafrost requires a difficult and and specialised way of life, marginal at the best of times, and more difficult when you cannot even rely on the foundations ot your buildings.

      I mentioned high latitudes. In this context I was thinking of the regions where the subsurface is, or was permanently frozen.

  18. Andrew stout says:

    @Bindidon

    You’re pearl-clutching and 99% of the subsequent critique revolving around your comment is a waste of time. Obviously in the context, he’s talking about making big lies instead if small ones, and repeating those lies until people believe them, which with regards to NOAA/GISS and record revisionism, is totally valid.

    If we wanted to discuss Genocide, we’d talk DDT & phony environmentalism leading to million of malaria deaths, but this isn’t the right thread…

    • gallopingcamel says:

      It was a mistake to link GISS and Michael Mann to Josef Geobbels because it diverted attention from the issue under discussion.

      That said, we should never sweep history under the rug just because it can be painful. In particular the excesses of the Third Reich should never be forgotten.

      Bindidon spent 50 years in Germany versus my two years. That is nothing compared to the five years my father spent in a German prison camp. It ruined his health but at least he got out alive.

      If Bindidon wants to act outraged he needs to speak up when Climate Alarmists call their opponents “Climate Deniers”.

  19. gallopingcamel says:

    @Entropic Man,
    “I dont know what you did for a living, but scientists take accusations of bias, false practice and conspiracy very seriously.”

    Scientists don’t take these issues as seriously as they should. Engineers are held to a much higher standard than scientists. When a bridge falls down or a building collapses it will be an engineer who gets thrown in jail or fined.

    Nobody feels sorry for that engineer but if you treat scientists the same way all hell breaks loose:
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/seven-year-legal-saga-ends-italian-official-cleared-manslaughter-earthquake-trial

    “Climate Scientists” will never be held accountable for the immense harm their junk science does. You won’t be getting back any of the trillions their “Carbon Mitigation” strategy has already wasted.

    The incentives are all wrong. The bigger the lie and the more flamboyant the liar (James Hansen, Al Gore, Prince Charles, AOC) the more will be the rewards that follow. Worst of all, none of these people will ever be held accountable for their lies.

    The latest Eco Liar, namely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will soon be fabulously wealthy with multiple homes just like Bernie Sanders, Al Gore and Prince Charles.

    • gbaikie says:

      The Dems are like the Mob. It seems AOC or the dinosaurs will be whacked. The Dem dinosaurs should not underestimated, as they have long track record. And it seems to me, that AOC is large threat to the entire Dem party. I agree with what some are saying that she very similar to Trump the Destructor.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        AOC wants Trump’s job but first she needs to get the skids under Nancy Pelosi. It may happen but my money is on Nancy.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently moved into a luxury apartment complex in Washington, D.C. that does not offer the affordable housing units that were a key plank in the New York congresswomans campaign platform.”

      She won the Democratic Primary where only 13% turned out to vote. Then she received more than half the number of registered Democrats in winning the November election. She will probably leave office at ripe old age unless her constituents get a clue.

  20. gallopingcamel says:

    @Entropic Man’
    ” What really intrigues me is that the greenhouse effect and global warming are an inevitable consequence of the same physics which underlies emission and absorbtion in your electro-optical systems.

    Yet you believe in one aspect of that physics, and reject the other.”

    Thank you for stepping up following David Appell’s absence. You make a lot more sense than he does so it will be a pleasure to debate the issues with you.

    It seems you may have misunderstood my position. I do believe in the GHE (GreenHouse Effect) and have written a bunch of detailed posts based on radiative-convective models and Finite Element Analysis.

    First off, the alleged 33 K GHE for Earth is absurdly wrong. A better estimate for GHE is between 79 and 91 Kelvin. Why is the range of values so large? There is still a dispute over the effect of rotation rate on average surface temperature. I am in close agreement with Professor Denning at Colorado State:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
    lies

    When it comes to worlds with atmospheres my favorite radiative-convective model is Robinson & Catling’s. The link below contains links to their model that anyone can use to reproduce their results. In other words their work is REPLICABLE as real science should always be.
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    Currently I am capturing the R&C model in the form of an Excel spreadsheet with the idea of making it easier for the public to use. I could use some “Peer Review” so if you are interested I can send you a copy.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “It seems you may have misunderstood my position. I do believe in the GHE (GreenHouse Effect)…”

      Well, that’s strange. That doesn’t sound like the GC that wrote, e.g. this comment:

      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-to-dr-roy-spencers-blog-article/comment-page-2/#comment-146735

      Do we have an imposter here?

    • Bart says:

      GC – this is interesting stuff, and close to what I have been contemplating, though I have not had a lot of time to flesh out my arguments. But, I think that thermalization is the key to why surface temperatures are not very sensitive to CO2 concentration. Interception of surface radiation is only a small part of the total activity of the CO2 molecules, and I suspect is really just not all that important in establishing overall equilibrium conditions.

      I don’t think the rotation rate deal will help much, though. Basically, if you have TSI of roughly S = 1360 W/m^2, a is albedo, and sigma is the SB constant, then at high rate with no atmosphere, you will top out at something like

      Tavg = (S*(1-a)/(4*sigma))^0.25

      which is about 255K for the Earth.

      Basically, as the rotation rate increases, you get to the point where you are effectively continuously illuminating half the projected area of the sphere, and radiating from the full area of the sphere, which is what gives the division by 4 in the formula.

      As the rotation rate falls, a lower bound is

      Tavg = 0.5*(S*(1-a)/(2*sigma))^0.25

      which is basically where half the surface is always illuminated, and half is in utter darkness, and the average is just 1/2 of the temperature on the hot side (of course, the cold side will bottom out at the background of about 3K in reality).

      The Moon is at

      Tavg = 0.5*((S*(1-a)/(2*sigma))^0.25 + Tnight)

      where Tnight is what the dark side falls to while out of the sunlight. With Tnight of about 74K, you get the average at around 200K.

  21. Entropic man says:

    Galloping camel

    “junk science”

    “trillions their Carbon Mitigation strategy has already wasted.”

    “The bigger the lie and the more flamboyant the liar”

    “Eco Liar”

    Hmmmm

  22. gallopingcamel says:

    @JDH,
    “…..And, you dont seem to be able to learn, either. When E-man corrected you above, on your mistake with the Arrhenius equation, his correction apparently went right over your head. You dont appear able to learn either science, or pseudoscience.”

    In science one should declare one’s sources. The equation I used is the one published by Arrhenius in 1896 and you would know that if you had bothered to follow the link I provided earlier.

    The Arrhenius hypothesis can’t be fixed by tweaking the sensitivity constant or converting it into a “Forcing” equation. The theory is simply false:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-343123

    If there was any validity to the Arrhenius hypothesis the IPCC’s models would at least be able to predict the past (hat tip to Richard Lindzen at the UK House of Parliament).

    • JDHuffman says:

      GC, in science one should UNDERSTAND one’s sources.

      E-man corrected you above. (Don’t mess with E-man in areas of pseudoscience.)

      Now, if you continue to BELIEVE that the bogus equation results in a Temperature, rather than a radiative flux, as E-man indicted, please provide page and paragraph. Here’s the 1896 paper:

      http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

      • gallopingcamel says:

        Take a look at Table VII in that paper you linked and then average the numbers:
        https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/

        There were 108 comments, many of them from Dr. Roy’s resident troll (David Appell). Somehow David and I don’t agree on much. Where do you stand? Are you really with David? I never thought of you as a troll but I have been wrong before.

        • JDHuffman says:

          GC, page and paragraph, please. You indicated you got your double-bogus equation from that source. Where is it?

          You won’t be able to produce it, because you can’t deliver on what you said.

          Your distractions won’t work.

          • gallopingcamel says:

            Is it lack of reading comprehension or is it the refusal to read what I send you?

            If you don’t know how to average a column of figures why not admit it?

            Maybe you should demonstrate your brilliance or lack thereof by answering some questions for a change.

          • JDHuffman says:

            GC, page and paragraph, please. You indicated you got your double-bogus equation from that source. Where is it?

            You wont be able to produce it, because you cant deliver on what you said.

            Your distractions wont work.

            But, maybe I’m repeating myself….

          • gallopingcamel says:

            @JDH,
            Please stop. Let’s not turn this excellent blog into and echo chamber.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Let’s”? Do you have another phony in your pocket?

            GC, I’m not the one that makes a mistake with an equation, and then tries to deny it.

            Either admit you were wrong, or change your screen name to “Gallopingclown”.

    • Entropic man says:

      Galloping camel

      Whatever hypothesis you come up with has to pass this test.

      You have to explain how Earths surface can take up an average of 161W/m^2 of shortwave (visible) radiation and lose a total of 493W/m^2 (396W/m^2 of radiation, 80W/m^2 and 17W/m^2 of thermals)

      That is 332W/m^2 which has to be transferred to the surface from somewhere, somehow.

      In acountancy they say you should follow the money. In climate matters I have found it useful to follow the energy.

      The consensus calculation is that most of it is back radiation from water vapour plus contributions from CO2 back radiation, radiation from clouds and reflection from clouds and aerosols.

      Something to test using your R&C model. See if you can make it match that 332 Watts/m^2.

      • Entropic man says:

        Galloping camel

        Oh yes, this is the energy budget.

        https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/energy-budget

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          And it’s pretty well understood and settled, right E-man?

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen Anderson

            Pretty much. There’s a lot of later work confirming it and the main fluxes are moninitored.

            Feel free to deny it, that is your privilage, but dont expect working scientists to accept your denial as anything more than cognitive dissonance.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            I believe you. And, that’s why their models are so accurate.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          EM,

          From your link –

          “For the most part, the energy coming to Earth as sunlight equals the energy leaving as IR. If it doesnt, Earth heats up or cools down.”

          Over the last four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled down. Observed.

          Trenberth et al. are simply delusional. Nutters. Off with the fairies.

          A giant ball of molten rock in space cannot be made hotter by the Sun, except in a mad climatological pseudoscientific fantasy. Hot things cool. Entropy increases.

          Basic physics.

          Cheers.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            E-Man doesn’t want us to warm. He’s afraid of dinosaurs.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike you seem to be missing some important context!

            When Dr. Spencer or other people studying climate talk about “global”, they clearly mean the surface of the globe The first few meters of ground and water and air where people live; the climate we experience every day. They are NOT talking about the earth as a whole the core & the mantle & crust.

            This surface region of the earth (the region of weather and climate) has cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed multiple times in the history of the earth. For example, this region warms slightly during each El Nino. This region has warmed dramatically since the last ice age.

            Yes, the core has cooled over the past 4 billion years (which no one questions!). That is not remotely related to the issue of “global warming”. Global *surface* warming has occurred.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, please stop trolling.

      • JDHuffman says:

        E-man, GC hasn’t been able to answer because he doesn’t understand the relevqnt physics. Maybe I can help you.

        E-man says: “You have to explain how Earth’s surface can take up an average of 161 W/m^2 of shortwave (visible) radiation and lose a total of 493W/m^2”

        You can NOT average radiative fluxes, as you’re attempting. Fluxes are NOT energy. Fluxes are NOT conserved. Trying to simply add/subtract/average fluxes is pseudoscience.

        E-man says: “In accountancy they say you should follow the money. In climate matters I have found it useful to follow the energy.”

        Fluxes are NOT energy. You are trying to walk into a bank with a large bag of grass clippings and claiming you want to deposit 1 million dollars. Grass clippings are not dollars. Fluxes are not energy.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          @JDH,
          “E-man, GC hasnt been able to answer because he doesnt understand the relevant physics. Maybe I can help you.”

          While I may not understand the GRT, quantum electro-opticss or thermodynamics I have applied their equations with great success so all kinds of projects got completed……mostly on time and under budget. OK, we were 90 minutes late delivering “First Beam” at the 1 GeV Duke electron synchrotron.

          Likewise with atmospheric physics. I don’t have to UNDERSTAND to compare a model with observations. I just evaluate the equations and test them against reality. This is why I say the R&C model works much better than the IPCC’s CMIP models based as they are on the false Arrhenius hypothesis.

          The R&C model is able to predict (explain?) planetary temperatures with striking accuracy whereas those pretty pictures by Trenberth and his buddies at UCAR don’t seem to have any practical use beyond blowing smoke in front of funding agencies.

        • Norman says:

          JDHuffman

          Again you are not correct with your view of fluxes and what you can do with them. Radiative flux is Watts/m^2. This is a flow of energy for through a given area. You can add and subtract fluxes.

          Again with a water flow analogy. The gallons would be similar to joules. A quantity of something. You can have a number of different flows of water to a big tank. The water in the tank will add and subtract directly related to the flows in and out of the tank.

          If you have a flow of 100 GPM into a large tank and you have another flow of 75 GPM out of the tank, the tank will gain 25 gallons of water a minute.

          If you have three flows of water into a tank, 50 GPM, 25 GPM, and 200 GPM the tank will gain 275 gallons of water a minute. The fluxes directly add.

          With energy it is the same even if you are not able to grasp it. If you have a radiative flux of EMR reaching a 1 m^2 surface that is 200 W/m^2 the surface will gain 200 joules of energy per second. If you have a flux of 200 W/m^2 and another flux of 100 W/m^2 the surface will gain 300 joules of energy per second. It is pretty basic. The amount of energy gained can be added and subtracted directly.

          Since you claim it can’t be support your hypothesis with some valid science or perform an experiment that supports your beliefs.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, I see you are practicing your typing again. At least that keeps you off the streets….

            No, radiative fluxes can not be simply added. We have been here before, but your learning disability prevents you from making progress.

            One square meter of ice emits 300 Watts. So if you bring 10 square meters of ice into your 75°F room, would the 3000 Watts raise the temperature?

            That might be a good experiment for you to try.

            Or just keep pounding on your keyboard. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            That’s dumb. The room is radiating way more than 3000 Watts back.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Are you daft? I explained this already to you. You could not understand it then and you will not now.

            If you bring the ice in your room you increase the amount of mass in the room.

            The total energy has increased with the ice but the mass has increased more so no the ice would not warm the room since you are distributing more energy to even greater mass.

            You have used this many times and I explain it to you each time but it flies over your head. You don’t understand what is being said.

            If you increase mass and energy you may or may not increase temperature. If is not a simple problem, it is dependent upon all the factors involved.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic says: “The room is radiating way more than 3000 Watts back.”

            So then the ice should easily heat the room since fluxes add, if you BELIEVE in pseudoscience….

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, as before, just take out some equal mass from the room.

            Not a problem.

            Your pseudoscience always fails.

            But keep typing. Maybe someone needs a good typist….

          • RealOldOne2 says:

            Norman says: on Feb.24,2019 at 8:27PM “Again with a water flow analogy. … You can have a number of flows of water to a big tank … With energy it is the same.”

            Since you brought up a water tank example, I’ll explain why a water tank example also exposes that your claim of bidirectional thermal energy transfer between two radiating objects is wrong.
            Your example of 100GPM, 75GPM, are two independent separate flow processes, one flow into the tank and a separate flow out of the tank.
            Where your “with energy” breaks down, is when you consider a single simultaneous water exchange that is analogous to two simultaneously radiating objects.

            The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            A water tank example representing two simultaneously radiating objects is shown in this figure: http://www.noshockzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Water-Tanks-No-Flow-300×247.jpg
            When the water levels/pressures are equal, as in the upper figure, there is no water flow in the pipe connecting the two tanks, zero, nada, zip. Your wrong claim of bidirectional thermal energy transfer between two objects in radiative contact is the same as claiming that there is continuous bidirectional water flow in the pipe connecting two water tanks with exactly the same water level, at the rate as if there was no opposing pressure in each other tank. That does not happen in the real world.

            Likewise, in the lower water tank example, there are not two separate bidirectional water flows which result in a net flow, there is a single unidirectional water flow determined by the net pressure. Likewise with two simultaneously radiating objects, there is a single unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer, which is determined by the net radiation, not the net of two separate bidirectional thermal energy transfers.

            My heat transfer example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287 , shows and explains the science why your understanding is wrong. It shows that your wrong understanding would mean that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased solely as a result of a transfer of thermal energy/heat from an always colder object. That can’t happen because it would be a direct violation of the 2nd Law.
            Noted that you STILL have not been able to quote anything in my heat transfer example and show that it was wrong.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            ROO2, the bidirectional flow of water is easy to show.

            Take a tank of water and let it sit a while until everything has calmed down and now currents are visible. Now put a drop of blue food coloring at one end and a drop of red food coloring at the other. The food color will slowly spread out. This indicates that the molecules of the food coloring (and molecules of water) are constantly moving (diffusing) in every direction. Even in perfectly “still” water.

            Or open a bottle of perfume in a room. As soon as you can smell the perfume, the perfume molecules have flowed from the bottle to your nose.

            Sure, the NET motion is zero, but there is indeed bidirectional movement. The individual molecules will be moving at 100’s of meters per second, bouncing around and flowing around the room.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            You responded exactly like g.e.r.a.n did on Principia Scientific blog.

            YOU: “Norman, as before, just take out some equal mass from the room.”

            Yes but when you take out an equal mass from the room you are removing energy that was contained in that mass.

            You did not understand it as g.e.r.a.n and you are no smarter as JDHuffman.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Norman, it is not about mass or “total energy in the room”. This is a red herring.

            The key issue is recognizing whether people are talking about flux FROM a surface or flux TO a surface.

            * Fluxes coming TO a surface add. If a surface receives 100 W/m from one source and receives 400 W/m from another, it receives 500 W/m^2 total.
            * Fluxes heading FROM a surface do not add. IF I have a section of floor at 300 K it will emit ~ 450 W/m^2. If I add a layer of ice to the floor at 273 K, the ice will emit ~ 300 W/m^2. The total flux emitted will be ……. 300 W/m^2 because the ice *blocks* the IR from the warmer floor behind it. These sort of fluxes do NOT add.

            So putting ice into a room has a cooling effect due to radiation because the ice BLOCKS the stronger radiation from the surfaces behind it and and REPLACES that radiation with its own weaker radiation. (There will also be changes in conduction & convection, but we are not discussing that here. )

          • JDHuffman says:

            Look at how Tiim plays his tricks:

            First he claims: “Fluxes coming TO a surface add.”

            He’s incorrect, in general, but look how he covers his statement: If a surface receives 100 W/m^2 from one source and receives 400 W/m^2 from another, it receives 500 W/m^2 total.”

            The key to his trick is the little two-letter word, “if”.

            He’s so tricky.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, your ongoing juvenile fascination with celebrities is amusing. I hope you never grow up.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Seriously? The word “if” confounds you?

            How many watts do YOU think would be absorbed if two separate lights shine 100 W/m^2 and 400 W/m^2 onto the same surface?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nearly none, if the surface were at 500 K.

            (I hope the “if” doesn’t confound you.)

          • RealOldOne2 says:

            Tim Folkerts says: on Feb.25,2019 at 11:20AM “ROO2, the bidirectional flow of water is easy to show”
            First, I am not ROO2. ROO2, aka Dan, aka Dana, aka Real0ld0ne2, aka RealOldOne3, aka RealOldOne2 (yes, my exact same username) is my serial impersonator. He got so enraged by my exposing his ignorance of science that he began serially impersonating me. It’s documented here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/#comment-867

            Secondly, you are just obfuscating by silly handwaving and moving the goalposts. You 2nd Law deniers claim that the rate of water bidirectional water transfer between the two tanks is the same as if the other tank wasn’t there. A single tank with the outlet pipe could be drained in seconds and a flowmeter on the outlet would show the significant water flowrate. When bot tanks are connected, the flowmeter shows a flowrate of zero.
            Your pointing out that there is molecular diffusion is merely a dishonest obfuscation which totally fails to support your wrong claim of bidirectional water flow or bidirectional heat flow between two radiating objects.

            Yes, from your comments I have observed that you are also a 2nd Law denier. My heat transfer example proves that. Here is that example:
            Givens:
            – We have an object with a surface area of 1m.
            – The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
            – the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
            – The S-B constant, σ=5.6710⁻⁸.
            – Temps rounded to whole numbers.
            – The shield is very very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are essentially equal considering the 3 significant figures of thermal energy transfer we are considering, 1m.
            – The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m^2 within the object.
            The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
            The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.
            So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m^2. The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.So the ONLY energy source to the object that exists in our system is 240W/m^2, PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred through any point in our system is 240 Joules/sec.
            At initial thermal equilibrium the 240 Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.
            We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system. The purpose of a radiation shield is to reduce heat loss from an object.
            The shield initially receives the 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is being transferred away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m^2 of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.
            The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).
            At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.
            The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
            q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.6710⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
            Th⁴=(240/5.6710⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K
            That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
            1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W^2/m(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.
            2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec).
            3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says: “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction . A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will not flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee. Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 The Second Law of Thermodynamics, p.155.
            4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket/shield, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.
            My correct understanding of this problem is supported by Heat Transfer textbooks. Section 8-8 Radiation Shields of J.P.Holman, Heat Transfer says: These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. J.P.Holman, Heat Transfer, McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., textbook
            Now your wrong understanding of bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the always warmer object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m^2 (Joules/sec) being transferred from the always colder shield to the always warmer object. So your wrong understanding at final equilibrium now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder radiation shield.
            Your wrong understanding has created 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.
            Your wrong view has 480W/m^2 (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K object, which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the only energy/heat source of our system.
            Your wrong view is not consistent with a radiation shield, whose purpose is to reduce heat transfer from an object, because your wrong view has the heat transfer from the object actually increasing.
            Your wrong view created a new energy-in source to the object of 240W/m^2 out of thin air. Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because it wrongly has the object receiving 480W/m^2 of energy where the only energy source is 240W/m^2, so conservation of energy, the 1st Law has been violated.
            And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has the cause of the increase in temperature of the always warmer object coming from the transfer of heat from an always colder object (shield) to an always warmer object.
            QED, My understanding is correct and your false claim of understanding of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer is proven wrong.
            You cant refute that science that proves you wrong. You ARE denying the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ROO_Two, HERE’s my reply to your posting on Spencer’s January UAH data. Your follow on reply then ignored my point that Holman noted that any body, no matter it’s emissivity, can act as a radiation shield because of the back radiation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E Swanson, please stop trolling.

        • Entropic man says:

          JDHuffman

          Flux measures the rate of energy flow, just as you can measure the rate of water flow through a hose.

          I’ve given up trying to get this across to you, but is is a valid concept.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E-man, radiative fluxes can NOT be simply added/subracted/averaged. A flux has units of “power/area”. “Power” is NOT conserved.

            A certain elevator requires a 10 hp motor to lift a certain load one floor, in a certain time. The energy required is “E”. To move the elevator two floors requires the same 10 hp motor, but 2E energy. To move the elevator ten floors requires the same 10 hp motor, but 10E energy.

            “Power” is NOT conserved, but energy is.

            Or, using your water flow, more water coming into a bucket than leaving will cause the level in the bucket to rise. But, 10 photons absorbed by a surface, with only 5 being emitted, will not necessarily cause the surface temperature to rise because photons can have differing energies. Photons are NOT conserved. Flux is NOT conserved.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Talking about photons, Chic and Tim are secretly upset with you about this statement, JD:

            “An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.”

            But they’re scared to ask you about it on a thread where you might answer. Maybe you could help them out?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yeah, as usual, they try to nit pick, to avoid reality.

            So, if they want to play games, I’ll just increase the ΔT, say 600 K and 200 K.

            That should upset them even more.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You two make quite a pair.

            Tim can speak for himself, but I am not upset and there is nothing secretive about any of this. A complete non sequitur.

            Please explain why “An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.”

            Also explain why increasing the temperature difference changes the explanation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Don’t take everything too seriously, Chic. I just found it odd that you and Tim were acting like you were waiting for some explanation, from someone who was no longer commenting under that article. Then when I pointed out that you could just go ask him here, you thanked Tim for his comments and said that you had “found closure”. Which is a strange thing to have found when you haven’t actually got any answers from the person you were trying to question. It was more like a comment someone would make if they were trying to convince others that Tim had provided all the answers needed.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic requests: “Please explain why…”

            Chic requests: “Also explain why…”

            Chic, before I try to explain anything else to you, I need to know your background in physics.

            Have you ever had a college level course in physics? How many semesters? Modern physics? Ever had a course in thermodynamics? Heat transfer? Have you had college calculus? Advanced calculus? Differential equations? Complex numbers?

            Your level of education will help me to know where to start.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            DREMT,

            Trust me, I don’t take either of you seriously any more. I do take the science seriously because I want to get it right. Without the means to return to a higher learning center at the moment, I’m settling for discussions here. Although I have substantial chemistry background, I have no experimental experience in heat transfer.

            I found closure with Tim Folkerts, not with JDHuffman. Neither of us get any usable feedback from JD. It makes me wonder why you both make so many comments without contributing any explanations.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            JDHuffman,

            No, you don’t need to know anything about me. Just answer the question as best you know how. I’ll try to keep up.

            Why isn’t a photon from a cold body absorbed by a warmer body? There will always be more of the same going the other way. You wrote “photons are not conserved.” Do photons represent quanta of energy? In some context, they must be conserved. Please explain.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK Thic (pronounced “Theek”).

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic, without an understanding of the relevant physics, you can only get more confused and frustrated. But nevertheless, I will try.

            Infrared photons have a wavelength determined at the time of emission. Photons emitted from cold surfaces have a longer wavelength than ones emitted from a hotter surface.

            (Just in two sentences, the pseudoscience clowns will refute this. They will claim that the higher frequency end of the colder spectrum overlaps with the lower lower frequency end of the hotter spectrum. Which will just confuse you, as is their purpose.)

            For the hotter surface to absorb the photons from the colder surface, the wavelengths must match. But, the molecules in the hotter surface are vibrating faster (higher frequency). So there is a mismatch. Such a mismatch then results in reflection.

            In simple terms, “cold” can NOT raise the temperature of “hot”, without help.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic asks: ‘You wrote ‘photons are not conserved.’ Do photons represent quanta of energy? In some context, they must be conserved. Please explain.”

            Photons contain energy, but the energy can be quite different from photon to photon. So, photons are NOT conserved.

            Think of a bank account. Money in minus money out must match any change in the account balance. All money must be accounted for, or “conserved”. But, you can not make a deposit with a bag of money. The bag might contain any amount, and must be counted before deposit. “Bags of money” would not be conserved.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I am not “secretly upset”. I am opening calling out an error.

            A warm object — whether 0.1K warmer or 200 K warmer or 1000 K warmer — still absorbs photons from a cooler surface. It is not the magnitude of the temperature difference in question, it is the principle.

            The warm surface does NOT reflect *ALL* photons as was the claim.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “I am not “secretly upset”. I am opening calling out an error.”

            OK, Dim. You are, now, openly discussing what you “called out”, yes. Thanks to me, only. Otherwise it would have been left on the other thread.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim loves his pedantry and semantics, but he is not that fond of reality.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD says: “Infrared photons have a wavelength determined at the time of emission.”
            Yes.

            “Photons emitted from cold surfaces have a longer wavelength than ones emitted from a hotter surface.”
            No. Cold surfaces have longer AVERAGE wavelengths.

            “For the hotter surface to absorb the photons from the colder surface, the wavelengths must match.”
            What you really mean is that for any material to absorb any photon from any source, the surface doing the absorbing must be able to absorb the particular wavelength/frequency/energy of the incoming photon. The surface doing the absorbing as no idea what the source of the photon is.

            “They will claim that the higher frequency end of the colder spectrum overlaps with the lower lower frequency end of the hotter spectrum.”
            Which it does.

            “Which will just confuse you …”
            Well, it clearly confuses JD. The overlap of the spectra is about the only thing he got right, and he thinks it is the problem!

            “But, the molecules in the hotter surface are vibrating faster (higher frequency). ”
            I am sure you have studies harmonic oscillators. To a first approximation, atoms vibrating in a solid are like tiny masses held in place by springs. And if you give such an object (like that atom) more energy (like making it hotter), it will vibrate with a LARGER AMPLITUDE, but the SAME FREQUENCY.
            (At a deeper level, interactions between atoms allow vibrations in the solid over broad bands of energies, in turn allowing a broad range of photons to be absorbed. But this would require delving into band structure and normal modes and phonons (not photons).)

            “So there is a mismatch.”
            So, no, there is no mismatch. To absorb a photon, the solid just have to vibrate with a slightly larger amplitude at the frequencies it is already vibrating.

            “In simple terms, cold can NOT raise the temperature of hot, without help.”
            I agree! Fortunately, the “cold atmosphere” has help from the sun to raise the temperature of the “hot surface”. The sun adds the energy; the atmosphere simply reduces the energy loss.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Tim loves his pedantry and semantics, but he is not that fond of reality.”

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD loves misdirection and avoidance. He can’t actually find errors (or even understand the physics involved), so he pretends to have some vastly superior knowledge rather than actually doing the tough work of thinking.

            Can you find any single statement that is incorrect? Explain your ‘correct’ answer.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, here’s some reality for you.

            My comments were in response to questions from Chic, who indicated he had no background in physics. I adjusted my answers accordingly. My answers were correct, straightforward, and easy to understand.

            Then, you jumped in, trying to corrupt everything. That’s what you do. You have no respect for truth, and you abhor reality.

            Nothing new.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            JD,

            Thank you. Your explanation is sufficiently detailed to have a good discussion of the topic.

            “They will claim that the higher frequency end of the colder spectrum overlaps with the lower lower frequency end of the hotter spectrum. Which will just confuse you….”

            It is an obvious claim, since conceivably there is overlap at every wavelength. Tim has already weighed in and I don’t have much to add, but I will supplant.

            “But, the molecules in the hotter surface are vibrating faster (higher frequency).”

            The average molecule in the hotter surface vibrates faster, but not all molecules vibrate with the same frequency. In any case, the hotter surface will be sending more photons of equivalent energy/frequency than they will receive from a colder surface. This occurs for every frequency and therefore no energy from a cold surface ever warms the hot surface.

            Bags, wads, pocket fulls of money are all piles of monetary units. A bag can have any number of bills representing different denominations. The total bag deposited is the total number of monetary units. The photon would be the monetary unit, not the bag or wallet.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic says: “The photon would be the monetary unit, not the bag or wallet.”

            No Chic, in my analogy, the photon is the “bag”, the energy in the photon is the monetary unit.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Yeah, I think I messed up the already messed up analogy.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD, Einstein is credits with a quote to the effect: “Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler”. I appreciate the challenges of trying to simplify physics so that others can understand. But you missed the boat here.

            You didn’t ‘simplify’ — you introduced major misunderstandings. Your answer may be “clear” and “easy to understand”, but it is not “correct”. It is like one of Kipling’s “Just So Stories” — plausible but ultimately wrong.

            Objects can vibrate at all sorts of frequencies. Hot object vibrate at those frequencies with larger amplitudes. And nothing stops them from vibrating at a little larger amplitude when they absorb an incoming IR photon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “So, no, there is no mismatch.”

            Tim, maybe you could explain, in Tim-World (Tim-baland?), how a surface might absorb a photon of one wavelength, but reflect a photon of another. Unless you are arguing that “all photons are always absorbed”, you have to have an explanation for why some are absorbed, whilst other aren’t.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, you appear to be very confused. You spout terms like “harmonic oscillators” and “amplitudes”, without seeming to understand them. You also are confusing IR wavelenths with much shorter wavelengths.

            Photons that are emitted naturally at a certain wavelength will ALWAYS have the same amplitude. Amplitude is not a factor, as it is set at emission. IR photons are typically re-emitted in nanoseconds if the energy is not otherwise lost. An incoming IR photon will ALWAYS have the same amplitude for that wavelength. IR photons are reflected or absorbed based on wavelength, NOT amplitude.

            Quit trying to avoid reality. You can’t.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            What would be the effects of increasing a surface temperature? The vibrations of the molecules and also the interaction between adjacent molecules. So could increasing the temperature make an object’s molecules vibrate at shorter wavelengths and greater amplitudes? This would be consistent with how the Planck’s curve changes with temperature.

            DREMT,

            “you have to have an explanation for why some are absorbed, whilst other aren’t.”

            If you know the answer, why not explain it? If you don’t know, it is a good question and let’s see how Tim answers.

            JD,

            How do you know photons that are emitted naturally at a certain wavelength will always have the same amplitude? Was this experimental result reported somewhere?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “If you know the answer, why not explain it?”

            My point is, JD has already provided an answer on that. Tim hasn’t, yet. Currently, then, JD is “winning” on the whole “closure” front. So yes, let’s see what answer Tim has.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Was this experimental result reported somewhere?”

            P.S: Don’t forget to ask the same standards of evidence from Tim as you do JD.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic asks: “How do you know photons that are emitted naturally at a certain wavelength will always have the same amplitude?”

            Chic, it’s called the “PlanckEinstein relation”.

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

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            DREMT,

            No, JD’s answer was there is a mismatch of wavelengths. Both Tim and I explained why there is no mismatch and JD has yet to refute that.

            As far as standards of evidence, yes we all should be backing up our assertions with evidence. I admit I’m only speculating as to what is going on. But if you think you are some kind of judge here, please stop trolling.

            JD, thanks for that link.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic demonstrates his confusion: “Both Tim and I explained why there is no mismatch and JD has yet to refute that.”

            Chic,, when there is a frequency mismatch between an incoming IR photon, and the target molecule, the photon will be reflected.

            You don’t have the technical background to “explain” anything, so quit faking it. You only confuse yourself, even more.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DREMT says: “P.S: Dont forget to ask the same standards of evidence from Tim as you do JD.”

            Yes DREMT, their blatant prejudice is revealed often. Tim tries to nit pick my brief answers to Chic, but all of the nonsense put out by clowns, he conveniently ignores. He has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with truth and reality.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Both Tim and I explained why there is no mismatch…”

            Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. But back to my point, JD has given an answer, Tim hasn’t, yet. Let’s wait and see what Tim can make up…I mean, come up with.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            JD,

            Your wiki link doesn’t mention amplitude at all. But this is from a pdf I googled:

            “Figure 1. Plancks law shows that radiation from a warmer body has higher spectral radiance (spectral amplitudes of oscillation) at all frequencies than does radiation from a cooler body and exhibits its greatest amplitude at a higher frequency.”

            https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Ward2016OnThePlanckEinsteinRelation.pdf

            “Thermal energy, transferred by resonance, moves spontaneously only from higher amplitude to lower amplitude at each frequency, which is from higher temperature to lower temperature (Figure 1) as stated by the second law of thermodynamics. Resonance sets the arrow of time from higher to lower amplitude of oscillation at each frequency and explains why the second law of thermodynamics in inviolable. The rate of energy transfer increases with increasing difference in amplitudes as is widely observed.”

            I see no evidence that radiation from a cold object will be rejected by a warmer one. It just won’t increase its temperature.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic, the “evidence” is right there in the quotes you provided. You just can’t understand it. Likely you don’t even understand what photon “amplitude” refers to.

            Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            The replies are coming WAY to fast to reply to everything. So here are jsut a few.

            “An incoming IR photon will ALWAYS have the same amplitude for that wavelength”
            Yes, of course. Every photons with the same wavelength is identical to every other photon of that wavelength
            * same frequency
            * same energy
            * same amplitude of E & B
            (and this answer Chic’s question, too)

            But were were discussing vibrations in a solid, not photons! Atoms in a solid can vibrate with various amplitudes. Cold solids with vibrate with small average amplitudes. Warm solids will vibrate with larger amplitudes.

            “IR photons are typically re-emitted in nanoseconds if the energy is not otherwise lost”
            No. In CO2 molecules, the energy is held as vibrational energy in the molecule for microseconds. You are off by a factor of about 1000. (Other molecules have similar times. perhaps you were thinking of the nanoseond times for collisions that can “otherwise lose” the energy by transferring it to other atoms.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            My understanding of photon amplitude is increasing from the feedback from Tim Folkerts, who first mentioned amplitude, and my reading of the article from Peter L. Ward that I linked to, which explains that energy transfer increases with increasing difference in amplitudes. It does not say that the smaller amplitude of a “cold” photon cannot resonate with the greater amplitude of a “warm” photon of the same frequency. It seems you are trying to catch up to our understanding, which is a good thing.

            JD, if you still think that all photons from cold objects are rejected by warmer objects, you will need to be more specific in your explanation.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Sorry Chic, you still don’t get it.

            Your link only confuses you, “Planck’s law shows that radiation from a warmer body has higher spectral radiance (spectral amplitudes of oscillation) at all frequencies than does radiation from a cooler body and exhibits its greatest amplitude at a higher frequency.”

            You obviously don’t know the difference between “spectral amplitudes of oscillation” and the amplitude of a photon.

            You have made so many obvious mistakes, going back to your inability to see temperatures on the plates diagram, that you are rendered incompetent and ineffective. Yet, you present an arrogant audacity, as if you are able to “judge”!

            Snape had that same personality. Snape is missing, but you are here. I’m about 99% certain that you are Snape, hiding behind another screen name, as he loved to do.

            So Snape, I will not waste anymore time trying to teach you, since you are clearly unteachable. If anything changes, let me know.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “The replies are coming WAY to fast to reply to everything”

            Oh, poor Tim! He’s waited all day to respond and now he’s absolutely INUNDATED with a small number of responses! Of course that means he’s going to ignore my question:

            Please explain how a surface might absorb a photon of one wavelength, but reflect a photon of another? Unless you are arguing that “all photons are always absorbed”, you need to have an explanation for why some are absorbed, whilst others aren’t.

            I’m sure it’s nothing to do with the fact that if he gives an answer, then “the Team” will have to give up on their “intelligent photon” straw man that they love so much. Perhaps he will be able to give an answer so wrapped up in obfuscation and couched in so many caveats that it can never come back to haunt him. Tim can usually find a way out of anything.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            JD,

            I’m not Snape. Up to now I thought you might be able to shed some light on this subject. I hope others are interested as I am, so I’m opening up a new thread below if you want to get back to it. Leave your ad homs and irrelevancies at the door.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Tim can usually find a way out of anything.”

            Tim is pretty slippery, but he lost an arm trying to prove that spinning airplane prop wasn’t really spinning, due to another frame of reference.

            I wonder if he learned anything….

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “I’m opening up a new thread below…”

            …and there’s Tim’s way out.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            JD,

            Why would Snape and I use two different handles on the same blog post? Is that what you do?

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/12/forest-fires-in-the-golden-state/

            Maybe you and DREMT are the same person. If not, have you seen “Stan and Ollie?” You might want to brush up on your comedy act.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Be sure to leave your ad homs and irrelevancies at the door of your thread distraction.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Please explain how a surface might absorb a photon of one wavelength, but reflect a photon of another? “

            I thought I posted an answer earlier, but it did not come through. So here is a brief answer.

            A surface absorbs photons based on the nature of nature of the material the surface is made of. The sort of photon that can be absorbed is related to the electron orbitals, the bond strengths, the mass of the atoms, and the the geometry of the molecules/crystal lattice. CO2 molecules absorb 15 um IR because that molecule with those bonds and those atom and that geometry can vibrate with an energy equal to that of a 15 um IR photon. An H atom can absorb visible photons matching the Balmer lines because the electron can jump to a higher energy orbital of appropriate energy.

            Solids get more complicated, because there are many more atoms involved, but the principle is the same — masses and bond strengths and geometry and electron structure determine what photon can be absorbed.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, you’re pretty safe with that one, Tim.

            😂

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, if you think you have had schooling in physics, you should consider suing to get your money back.

            You don’t have a clue about physics.

            Photon emission/absorp.tion from an object is also related to temperature. If you can’t understand this simple concept, put a metal object in an open fire for a few minutes. Does the metal object change colors?

            You have a lot to learn.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        E man,

        The average surface temperature is 288K, which is also about the temperature of my room. Everything in the room is emitting and absorbing about 396 W/m2. It isn’t changing the room temperature one bit. Subtract out your meaningless 396 and you will find the surface inputs and outputs balance just fine.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          E-man will tell you to breath into a paper bag. As it fills with CO2 you can feel it warm up. See?

        • Entropic man says:

          Chic Bowdrie

          All of your roomis at the same temperature.so the parts exchange energy but their energy content does not change.

          In the climate system you have a source of outgoing energy, the surface, and a sink, space, so you get an energy flow between them.

          On a larger scale the Earth’s average temperature remains approximately constant because the energy coming in from sunlight is balanced by the various outflowing energies.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I’m not following. The temperature of my room changes as the outside air warms or cools or I turn up or down the thermostat. There is almost always a flow of energy in or out. Only difference is I can control my room temperature, but not the planet.

          • Entropic man says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            Distinguish between open and closed systems.

            If you consider the room in isolation (a closed system)the 396W/m^2 emitted by one wall is absorbed by the opposite wall. Since each square metre is emitting 396W and absorbing 396W the two flows cancel out. The temperature of each square metre remains constant.

            If the room is not exchanging energy with the exterior, its total energy also remains constant.

            Now connect the room to the outside. This is an open system.
            When you run the heating full on you pump heat into the room the overall energy content increases.So does the temperatureand the amount of radiation produced by the walls.

            If the room is warmer than outside and the heating is switched off, then energy flows out. The room loses energy and cools, the walls radiate less.

            Run the heating at the right setting and energy flows in from the heating and out to the outside at the same rate. The room temperature stays constant.

            That is what the Earth does. In a stable clmate visible light energy flows in from the Sun, infra-red energy flows out to space at the same rate and the temperature remains constant.

            Global warming is when Earth loses less heat than it gains. The net inward energy flow increases the energy content, increases the temperature and increases the outward energy flow until a new balance is achieved.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E-man pumps his pseudoscience: “Global warming is when Earth loses less heat than it gains. The net inward energy flow increases the energy content, increases the temperature and increases the outward energy flow until a new balance is achieved.”

            Except, that does not happen.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I agree with all of that. However, the balance will never be nailed down because the solar input, clouds, IR absorbing gases, geothermal heat, ocean heat content will never average out.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Except, that does not happen.”

            What does not happens? The earth never loses less heat than it gains?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “The earth never loses less heat than it gains?”

            Dang me. You almost got something right for a change. For some reason you wrongly put a question mark at the end of your sentence. The Earth always loses more heat than it gains – thats why it has cooled for four and a half billion years!

            It doesn’t matter what you do, the Earth remains hotter than the surrounding environment. It therefore cools. Entropy increases. Try and stop it, if you are sufficiently foolish.

            Good luck – you’ll need it.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim asks: “What does not happens?”

            Tim, what “does not happen” is in reference to E-man’s quote. Maybe you missed it?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-343294

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Theoretically, the energy Earth receives from the sun could exactly match the losses. In reality that will never be measured or observed, because the inputs and outputs will continually be changing.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Chic,

            You wrote –

            “Theoretically, the energy Earth receives from the sun could exactly match the losses.”

            Don’t appear more stupid than you really are.

            As long as the core is a few thousand K, the Earth will continue to cool. The environment is around 4 K. No amount of chanting the pseudoscientific consensus Manntras will make the laws of thermodynamics go away.

            Keep talking nonsense if you wish.

            Cheers.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Mike,

            Barring some cataclysmic disruption of the Earth’s crust, it will continue to cool at a relatively slow rate. At least until the next ice age, energy from the sun is sufficient to keep the average surface temperatures approximately constant. As I wrote, the continually changing inputs and outputs preclude knowing what the balance would ever be.

            I’m only as stupid as you imagine me to be. Keep on thought shaming if it makes you happy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Chic, please stop trolling.

  23. Joe Sowersby says:

    Shame on you. You should know better than that. You might offend someone in England and then the PC police would have to come talk to you.

  24. gallopingcamel says:

    @Entropic Man’
    “Whatever hypothesis you come up with has to pass this test.

    You have to explain how Earths surface can take up an average of 161W/m^2 of shortwave (visible) radiation and lose a total of 493W/m^2 (396W/m^2 of radiation, 80W/m^2 and 17W/m^2 of thermals)”

    Those figures look familiar……Trenberth? They are of little value unless you can factor in the effects of convection and vapors as R&C ave done. “Climate Scientists” like Trenberth are mostly too lazy or incompetent to build models that include all heat transfer mechanisms. Radiation alone cannot model real atmospheres.

    Nikolov & Zeller do their energy balance at the surface while R&C do theirs at the “Top of the Atmosphere”.

    Did you notice the excellent correlation between the R&C model for Titan and the HASI probe measurements? The model agrees closely with observations for Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as well. I prefer models that agree with observations.

    One weakness of the R&C model is their failure to model clouds. FEAs are really good for problems with layers so I spent some time trying to improve the R&C model by introducing cloud layers but gave up a year ago. Maybe I could restart the project with help from someone who is really smart and has much younger legs.

  25. gallopingcamel says:

    @JDH,
    You know what I do and what I think about “Climate Science” and you make cryptic responses with no substance. You won’t tell us what you do or what you think so let me make a wild guess.

    You are over 30 years of age. You have a degree but have no real achievements. You have a meaningless job and resent the achievements of others including your own relatives.

    Do you still live in a basement?

    • JDHuffman says:

      GallopingCLOWN, we know you can’t stand by your own words. We know you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.

      Everyone loves a comedian.

  26. gallopingcamel says:

    @Roy Spencer,
    My apologies for creating negative vibes on your excellent blog. Part of the problem is being confined to the house owing to miserable weather in North Carolina. Five inches of rain & sleet in the last five days! I can’t even let the dog out owing to soggy Carolina mud (red clay) out there.

    Finally the sun came out this afternoon and glorious weather is expected tomorrow so I am going to take a few days off from commenting here in the hope that reasoned discussion will have resumed by the time I get back.

    As a parting comment, the soy bean “Hockey Stick” from 2000 to 2017 was mostly caused by Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” assisted by the factors listed by Peter Hartley:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-342750

    “Climate Change” had nothing to do with it and anyone saying that should be called out in the strongest terms.

  27. ren says:

    Return of frost with strong wind over the Great Lakes.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/1l1h7rojw7ic.png

  28. ren says:

    Stratospheric intrusion will attack in the northeast of the US within 12 hours. It’ll be cold.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/utjd3ub7udpf.png

  29. Entropic man says:

    Chic Bowdrie

    Distinguish between open and closed systems.

    If you consider the room in isolation (a closed system)the 396W/m^2 emitted by one wall is absorbed by the opposite wall. Since each square metre is emitting 396W and absorbing 396W the two flows cancel out. The temperature of each square metre remains constant.

    If the room is not exchanging energy with the exterior, its total energy also remains constant.

    Now connect the room to the outside. This is an open system.
    When you run the heating full on you pump heat into the room and the overall energy content increases.So does the temperature and the amount of radiation produced by the walls.

    If the room is warmer than outside and the heating is switched off, then energy flows out. The room loses energy and cools, the walls radiate less.

    Run the heating at the right setting and energy flows in from the heating and out to the outside at the same rate. The room temperature stays constant.

    That is what the Earth does. In a stable clmate visible light energy flows in from the Sun, infra-red energy flows out to space at the same rate and the temperature remains constant.

    Global warming is when Earth loses less heat than it gains. The net inward energy flow increases the energy content, increases the temperature and increases the outward energy flow until a new balance is achieved.

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man repeats his pseudoscience: “Global warming is when Earth loses less heat than it gains. The net inward energy flow increases the energy content, increases the temperature and increases the outward energy flow until a new balance is achieved.”

      Sorry E-man. No matter how many times you spout such nonsense, it is still not happening.

      Maybe you should try some new nonsense?

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      E-man,
      No matter how hard you leftist bureaucrats try the Earth’s climate is never going to be stable. It hasn’t in 4 billion years.

  30. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote –

    “Mike you seem to be missing some important context!

    When Dr. Spencer or other people studying climate talk about “global”, they clearly mean the surface of the globe The first few meters of ground and water and air where people live; the climate we experience every day. They are NOT talking about the earth as a whole the core & the mantle & crust.

    This surface region of the earth (the region of weather and climate) has cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed multiple times in the history of the earth.”

    I am missing nothing. Your assumption is based on precisely nothing except your pseudoscientific ignorance of reality.

    If the Earth is losing energy as a whole, and the Sun is unable to provide enough energy to make up the loss (as evidenced by the fact that the earth has cooled), then no amount of bizarre claims that the surface of a big ball of molten rock can miraculously heat up and cool down on a global basis can be supported by any real physical process.

    There is no heat trapping or accumulation. Contrary to the claims of NASA –

    “A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter. In the daytime, sunlight shines into the greenhouse and warms the plants and air inside. At nighttime, it’s colder outside, but the greenhouse stays pretty warm inside. That’s because the glass walls of the greenhouse trap the Sun’s heat.”

    Some Warmist fool must have written such nonsense. Gavin Schmidt, perhaps?

    Carry on believing in magic, Tim. You can’t even find a testable GHE hypothesis, can you? Some science!

    Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “then no amount of bizarre claims that the surface of a big ball of molten rock can miraculously heat up and cool down on a global basis can be supported by any real physical process.”

      And yet we have had repeated ice-ages separated by periods of warmth — ie the surface of a big ball of molten rock can and does heat up and cool down on a global basis.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        The whiz kids will tell you that all this CO2 has ended any chance of an ice age.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Tim,

        You wrote –

        “And yet we have had repeated ice-ages separated by periods of warmth ie the surface of a big ball of molten rock can and does heat up and cool down on a global basis.”

        Complete nonsense. You cannot even propose a mechanism not involving magic which could provide additional heat sources enabling the raising of the temperature of the surface. Nonsensical assertions of heat trapping coming and going won’t quite do it, will they?

        You can’t even find a testable GHE hypothesis, not that that would explain how a molten ball of rock could magically regain the energy it lost while cooling.

        Try again. Use a different magic wand, if you like.

        Cheers.

  31. Entropic man says:

    Galloping camel

    Think of the Earth’s climate system as a machine for turning incoming visible radiation into outgoing infra-red radiation.

    The energy budget numbers are performance data on that machine, measured and monitored.

    As an engineer you know that you cannot understand the operation of your machine without performance data, and you cannot ignore data because you dont like it.

    You are free to generate alternative hypotheses, but they have to fit the data.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      EM,

      There is no such thing as a climate system. Climate is the average of weather records -no more, no less.

      Energy budget numbers are meaningless pseudoscientific nonsense.

      Temperatures on the Earths surface range from about -90 C to 90 C (apart from hotter material released from the interior). Averages, so beloved of foolish Warmists, are meaningless in this context.

      As to science, nobody has produced a useful description of the GHE to date, much less a testable GHE hypothesis. This GHE rubbish is not science, it is non-science, also known as nonsense, or fantasy.

      If you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, good for you! Believe, worship and pray. Your religious faith obviously needs no facts to support it.

      Enjoy life. Nothing wrong with living in a fantasy if it makes you happy, and doesn’t come at someone else’s expense.

      Cheers.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “A thermodynamic system is a macroscopic region of the universe under study, with a quantity of matter of fixed identity. It is defined by boundaries, which control the transfers between the system and the surroundings (everything which is outside the boundary). The types of transfers that can occur in a thermodynamic process are mass and energy (work and heat).”
        https://www.wikilectures.eu/w/Thermodynamic_system/description

        The “climate system” would be the part of the earth that we might study to understand the climate. Talking about “systems” is a standard part of thermodynamics.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Tim,

          Waffle away. Telling me what you think it should be, does not make it so, does it?

          If you believe that a system based on the average of past weather records is a standard part of thermodynamics, you are more deluded than I thought.

          You are obviously confused. Maybe you need to use scientific terms, rather than the pseudoscientific nonsense redefinitions used by foolish Warmists.

          There is no academic discipline called climate science. Not surprising, considering that climate is the average of something else. Maybe you could invent a new discipline, and call it climatology. I’m sure some people who are mentally challenged would welcome the opportunity to give you money to be awarded a totally meaningless piece of paper.

          Might be of use to people like Gavin Schmidt, I suppose.

          Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            No waffling. Just trying to explain some very basic vocabulary that seems to continue to allude you.

            A “system” is any subset of the universe that you choose to study. For example, the space within the piston of a car engine is a “system”. A mercury thermometer is a “system”. The atmosphere is a “system”. This is not a “pseudoscientific nonsense redefinition” — it is standard scientific vocabulary. That fact that you don’t understand such basic vocab suggest you really have know understanding of how thermodynamics works

            A “system” has properties you might measure and/or calculate — like temperature, pressure, volume, mass, entropy. The systems can have inputs and outputs — like heat, work, mass, radiation.

            “If you believe that a system based on the average of past weather …”
            The systems is not based on past weather! The system is some physical subset of the universe — like the atmosphere. Past weather is simply the properties of the system as the system responds to internal changes and external inputs/outputs.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, as you try to learn some thermodynamics keep in mind that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”, without help.

            And, as you learn about thermodynamic systems, realize that the Earth and the “solar constant” can be considered a system. So that system, can NOT increase in temperature, as you will learn if you keep studying.

            Of course, if you continue with pseudoscience, you will have to deny the laws of physics.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            Looks like you need to review the thermodynamic definitions of open and closed systems.

            Or you can stop with the evidence that you never took a course in thermodynamics.

            Your choice.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, two words, “control volume”.

          • bobdroege says:

            Not looking good JD,

            It has something to do with the properties of the boundaries of the “control volume”

            Unless of course you were asking me to turn up the volume.

            I can do that.

            Would you like to hear my rendition of “Dumb Ass Blues?”

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Tim, as you try to learn some thermodynamics keep in mind that cold can NOT warm hot, without help.”
            Yep. Agree 100%.

            “the Earth and the solar constant can be considered a system.”
            That would be a very odd “system” to consider. Typically the “earth” would be the “system” and the “solar constant” (~1370 W/m^2 of incoming solar energy) would be an input, an interaction with the “universe” (everything outside the system).

            But perhaps you can describe what you mean by your “system” more precisely. What boundary encloses the system you envision? How much of the earth do you want to include? (the core? the mantle? The crust? the troposphere? the entire atmosphere? How much of the beam of incoming sunlight (the “solar constant”) are you including withing the boundaries of your system? All of these choices will impact how we analyze the “system”.

            My choice would be to include just the troposphere, since that is where climate happens (and climate is, after all, what we are ultimately trying to understand). Maybe the stratosphere too; maybe just the first few meter since of the troposphere, since that is where people live. Perhaps the first few meters of land and water.

            But do, pray tell, define the exact nature of the system you are envisioning.

            “So that system, can NOT increase in temperature, as you will learn if you keep studying.”
            We would have to hold off on any further discussion until we agree what exactly “that system” consists of!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, maybe someday you and bob can take a couple of semesters of thermodynamics. Then have a career where you can really learn about “control volumes”.

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

          • bobdroege says:

            Except dear JD

            It’s a mistake to refer to control volumes and the earth and sun as a thermodynamic system, maybe you can refer to your wiki page and figure out why.

            You are obviously confused and applying things you don’t understand to things you don’e understand.

            Where did you take your thermodynamics courses?

          • JDHuffman says:

            You can lead a druggy to water, but you can’t make him drink.

          • bobdroege says:

            So you try to throw a word out there to show how smart you are, and it backfires, so you go to throwing insults.

            So it seems you don’t know what a “control volume” is, or how to apply it, or any thing related to thermodynamics.

            So if you won’t say where you took thermodynamics, a reasonable person would tend to think you haven’t taken any thermodynamics courses.

            How that minor in physics going?

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, you must be in the same typing class as Norman. When I was trying to teach him that radiative fluxes to not simply add, I told him about the Poynting vector. His response was that I had never heard of the Poynting vector!

            Then, I tried to teach you about a thermodynamic “control volume”, even providing a link, and you come back claiming it is me that had never heard of a control volume!

            Maybe if you clowns ever get out of typing school, you can learn some physics.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            Looks like you need to review basic reading comprehension.

            I never said you never heard of “control volumes.”

            I said you were misapplying control volumes to the earth sun system in an attempt to show that the earth is not warming.

            Here is the money quote from your wiki link

            “At steady state, and in the absence of work and heat transfer, the energy within the control volume remains constant.”

            amiright?

            But news flash for you, the earth is indeed warming.

            And for your information, radiative fluxes can be added, like vectors can be added.

            If they couldn’t then adding additional light fixtures would not make a room brighter. That’s why they can put banks of lights to light a football field at night, because radiative fluxes add.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, a control volume does not always have to be in “steady state”. It can have energy/mass flowing in/out, as long as it is accounted for. That’s why it is so useful in solving thermodynamic problems.

            You have pulled out one specific case trying to pervert the general case.

            Radiative fluxes do NOT simply add. Football field lights presumably all emit the same flux. So, you have pulled out one specific case trying to pervert the general case.

            And, the Earth is NOT warming. That’s why there are all the efforts to corrupt the temperature record.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD, every time we try to actually get to to state your positions, you simply move on to something else, pretending you are teaching.

            I asked you to clarify your rather bizarre “earth + solar constant” system. You bailed and distracted with control volumes. Well, control volumes are just specific subsets of a system. If you can’t define your system as a whole, you certainly can’t study representative subsets!

            For climate, a reasonably “system” would the the atmosphere. A “control volume” would be something like a cell used in a GCM climate model.
            https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
            (And that still doesn’t explain how you include “the solar constant” within your system).

            ******************************

            Yes, a bank of lights is brighter than a single light. The flux arriving at a surface (eg playing field, wall, floor) is greater with each additional light. in this case, fluxes clearly add.

            *****************************

            Yes, the earth is warming. At least the part of the earth under discussion is warming — the atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere has warmed substantially since 50,000 years ago when ice covered large parts of of the subpolar regions. Moer specifically, over the last ~ 40 years, the atmosphere as warmed overall — each month Dr Spencer posts updates.

            Certainly the core & mantel have not warmed, but no one (except Flynn) is discussing the interior of the earth.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, it’s not that hard to understand.

            Place a sphere around the Earth. The Sun supplies solar energy through the sphere, and Earth emits/reflects back to space through the sphere.

            The sphere’s volume is the “control volume”.

            And, like bob, you are trying to use a specific case to claim that ALL fluxes simply add. That is wrong, and it just another attempt to spin reality. And, the fluxes aren’t really “adding”. If the bulb filaments are 2500 °F, then no matter how many bulbs you had shining on the field, you could never heat it above 2500 °F, radiatively.

            It’s not that different from when you tried to claim the Moon was spinning on its axis, because it appeared to be from another frame of reference. But, that didn’t work so well with the spinning airplane prop, did it?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            This also highlights why these discussion are mostly pointless. Comments are scattered hither and yon, with different voices coming and going. No issue is ever resolved. The blog itself is not even about the issues in the comments!

            If the discussion could be taken to some other site/blog focused just on these issues of the science behind global warming, then maybe, just maybe, some progress could be made. Maybe, just maybe, issues could be resolved. (Of course, most of these issues HAVE been resolve, but people just can’t/won’t make the effort.)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “The spheres volume is the control volume.”
            This is what most people would call the “thermodynamics system”. (and most people who are discussing climate would draw a second surface at the bottom of the atmosphere and use that shell containing the atmosphere as the “system”.)

            <i?"you are trying to use a specific case to claim that ALL fluxes simply add."
            No, we are using a specific case to refute your claim that fluxes never add.

            So perhaps we are finally reaching a middle ground — some fluxes do indeed add!

            “And, the fluxes arent really adding.
            Yes, they really are. Take a light bulb filament emitting 20 W of thermal radiation (some visible + a lot of IR). Let its light spread out uniformly over 1000 m^2. The flux illuminating that surface will be 0.02 W/m^2. Add a second filament. The flux will be 0.04 W/m^2. A third filament will make that 0.06 W/m^2.

            Each filament adds 0.02 W/m^2.

            “If the bulb filaments are 2500 F, then no matter how many bulbs you had shining on the field, you could never heat it above 2500 F, radiatively.”
            This is true and important. But it is a different (albeit related) issue. The surface of a 2500 F filament emits about 414,000 W/m^2. If you keep adding more and more filaments illuminating a surface, you will get to the point where every steradian of solid angle above your surface is covered with 2500 F filaments. At that point, you have the maximum possible flux and the surface would rise to 2500 F.

            Or we can discuss ice. Ice @ 273 K emits about 300 W/m^2 of flux. If that square meter of ice is far from a surface I want to study, that ice might only supply 1 W/m^2 to my specific bit of surface. [NOTE — the ice does NOT supply 300 W/m^2 to my surface!]. Another m^2 of ice would supply its own flux — we are now up to 2 W/m^2. [And just to beat a dead horse, we do NOT now have 600 W/m^2 coming to my surface.]

            If you are inside an igloo with every steradian covered with ice, we can reach a maximum of 300 W/m^2 to my surface — with different little bits of flux coming from different bits of ice in all directions.

            And of course, you cannot add more ice to increase this value because there must already be ice in all directions! Adding more ice would necessarily block the flux from ice behind it, leaving the total the same — 300 W/m^2 delivered to my surface.

            This is identical to the point you were making about filaments. Think about how your point applies to the ice examples you keep trying to use.

            [I skipped over “form factors”. We could add that for completeness, but it won’t change the conclusions.]

          • JDHuffman says:

            “This is what most people would call the ‘thermodynamics system’.”

            I don’t care if most people call it a “catfish”. It’s still a “control volume”.

            “No, we are using a specific case to refute your claim that fluxes never add.”

            If you were interested in reality, a correct statement of my claim would be “Radiative fluxes don’t simply add.” That’s a general statement, and it’s generally correct. Trying to find specific cases where identical fluxes can be added, is just desperation.

            I’m glad you have stopped trying to warm the igloo with ice. Now, if you can just convince several others…

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      GC,
      You’d think with all this confidence they’d be able to make an accurate prediction. No? Oh, well.

  32. PhilJ says:

    EM,

    “We are currently at 1C. When you factor in the 25 year lag due to the ocean heat sink,”

    Does anyone here really believe ocean temps lag atmosphere temps and not the reverse?

    Clearly the warmer ocean heats the cooler atmosphere, and thus air temps must necessarily follow ocean temps and not the reverse..

    • Entropic man says:

      ” air temps must necessarily follow ocean temps and not the reverse.”

      By God, you are right!

      More than 90% of sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface is absorbed by the oceans and then transfers to the atmosphere.

      But why is the ocean warming?

      Because something is forcing the Earth to radiate less energy than it receives.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        EM,

        You wrote –

        “But why is the ocean warming?

        Because something is forcing the Earth to radiate less energy than it receives.”

        What a stupid answer!

        The correct one is that at least 30 terrawatts of heat flow into the base of the oceans through the crust. Luckily enough to stop the oceans from freezing. Convection allows deep water to reach the surface, radiate its heat, and sink, continuously.

        But carry on believing nonsensical pseudoscience of the climatological variety, if it keeps you calm.

        No GHE.

        Cheers.

        • bobdroege says:

          Mike,

          The earth receives almost 4000 times as much energy from the sun as it does from the earth’s interior.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You poor deluded chap.

            The Sun does not penetrate into the abyssal depths – at all.

            You are entitled to believe in the nonsenses perpetuated by pseudoscientific cultists like Trenberth. There is no missing heat. The ocean does not store or trap heat. If water is hotter than its surroundings, it loses heat. It cools, and sinks until it is in equilibrium with its surroundings.

            Your apparent stupidity is now doubt due to your ignorance of physics, and your unswerving devotion to the ramblings of the pseudoscientific nutters.

            The oceans, or any deep bodies of water, such as Lake Baikal, are warmed from below, and from the sides to a lesser degree.

            Carry on writing irrelevant comments,

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            Right Mike,

            You said the oceans were warmed by the 30 terrawatts from the interior of the earth, but the surface of the oceans receives about 130 pettawatts from the sun.

            Which one warms the oceans more?

            Why is the ocean warm on the surface but very cold at depth?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Are you thick? Can you not comprehend what I wrote?

            Hotter, less dense water floats on top of cooler, less dense water.

            All the heat from the Sun heats the top layer – which floats. At night, it cools, sinks, and is displaces warmer water to the top. Repeat.

            The oceans are no longer boiling. They have cooled. The highest sea surface temperature is less than 35 C. So much for your 130 petawatts. The usual nonsensical and meaningless pseudoscientific misdirection.

            Your fantasies are not fact. Facts are not arrived at by consensus. You are free to be as stupid and ignorant as you like. It won’t change a thing.

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            You seem to be changing your mind.

            Which is it, the ocean gets heated from the top as you are saying in your last post. Or from the bottom, which you were saying just a couple of posts ago.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            Don’t pretend to be more stupid than you are.

            You cannot bring yourself to quote me, can you?

            Is that because your ignorance exceeds your stupidity, or vice versa? I appreciate the regard in which you hold my opinion, but if you take the trouble to learn some physics, rather than worshipping pseudoscience, you you might be able to establish the facts for yourself.

            Off you go now. Get back to me if you find basic physics too difficult to comprehend.

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yes I can quote you

            “The correct one is that at least 30 terrawatts of heat flow into the base of the oceans through the crust.”

            “All the heat from the Sun heats the top layer – which floats. At night, it cools, sinks, and is displaces warmer water to the top. Repeat.”

            So what heats the ocean, the sun or the heat flow through the crust.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, you need to learn about the geothermal vents on the bottoms of oceans. In the last 50-60 years, thousands have been discovered. Many thousands more are thought to exist. The vents are venting water at temperatures well above the atmospheric boiling point. Some have been measured at temps over 700 °F. The reason the water does not boil is due to the enormous pressure. But, the heat energy provided by the vents contributes to ocean warming.

            I won’t provide you with any links, because you will say I didn’t provide you with any links.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah JD,

            The vents of which you speak are accounted for in the 30 terrawatts of heat from the interior that Flym Flam Flynn mentioned, and the number is actually higher than that, more like 45 terrawatts.

            But that is still lower than the amount the Earth receives from the Sun by a factor of about 4000.

            If you knew any thermo, you would know that water doesn’t boil at over 705 F.

          • bobdroege says:

            And of course JD,

            I have heard of the geothermal vents

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

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, the “4000” figure is off by about 30%, because you forgot to allow for albedo. And, the “45” is completely bogus, because no one even knows how many vents there are.

            And, I don’t know where you conjured this up from: “If you knew any thermo, you would know that water doesn’t boil at over 705 F.

            Maybe you are just desperately trying to find some way to twist reality, or it’s just another case of bad drugs.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            How does albedo affect the amount of heat transmitted from the interior of the earth.

            You are really showing off the stupid parts now.

            Once a fluid is above its critical point, there is no phase transition between liquid and gas.

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

            You must have been sleeping when that was covered in your thermo studies.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, “albedo” refers to the 30% reduction in solar energy, not geothermal.

            And , I never said anything about water boiling at 705 F, or critical point.

            Maybe you should stay off the drugs.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah, you did

            ” Some have been measured at temps over 700 F. The reason the water does not boil is due to the enormous pressure.”

            Where did you learn your thermo?

            Cracker Jack box?

            Still haven’t let us know where you learned your science of any kind, and you keep proving you don’t know any thermo.

            You should try some drugs, might lead to enlightenment.

            Might make you smarter, you know it couldn’t hurt you in that respect.

          • JDHuffman says:

            boob, the “enormous pressure” is the pressure the water is under before venting.

            I shouldn’t have to explain such basic concepts to you.

            You get the last word on this nonsense. I can’t help you.

          • bobdroege says:

            Really I get the last word?

            It’s still under the same enormous pressure after venting dumb-ass.

            There is no phase transition for water under that enormous pressure.

            So I guess we are never going to hear where you flunked thermodynamics.

            You certainly aren’t exhibiting evidence that you could have passed.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            JD says, “the reason the water does not boil is due to the enormous pressure”.

            bob says, “there is no phase transition for water under that enormous pressure”.

            Yet bobdroege is convinced there is some disagreement somewhere.

          • bobdroege says:

            Well we were discussing what heats the ocean, the sun or the heat from the interior of the earth.

            Then JD tripped over his thermodynamics knowledge or I should say lack of that.

            So DREMT, where do you stand on that topic?

            Does the internal heat from the earth contribute to ocean warming in any meaningful way or not?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Then JD tripped over his thermodynamics knowledge or I should say lack of that.”

            By agreeing with you, apparently…

          • bobdroege says:

            No DREMT, he doesn’t agree with me because he implied, meaning he didn’t actually come out and say it, that the oceans are being heated predominantly by underwater vents of high temperature water.

            That amount of heat is negligible when compared to the amount of heat that comes from the sun.

            With which do you agree, the sun provides the heat to the oceans or is it from underwater volcanos?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “No DREMT, he doesn’t agree with me”

            He said this: “the reason the water does not boil is due to the enormous pressure”.

            You said this: “there is no phase transition for water under that enormous pressure”.

            So, yes, he did agree with you. You keep going on about some thermodynamics knowledge fail, yet that all seemed to stem from the discussion about why water does not boil…which you agree on. So there was no thermodynamics fail, unless you made the same one.

      • Bart says:

        To the extent the ocean is warming, it is from incoming SW, not LW.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      Psssst, Phil, don’t bring up those nasty laws of thermodynamics. They’re content in their narrative.

  33. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim wrote –

    “To a first approximation, atoms vibrating in a solid are like tiny masses held in place by springs. And if you give such an object (like that atom) more energy (like making it hotter), it will vibrate with a LARGER AMPLITUDE, but the SAME FREQUENCY.
    (At a deeper level, interactions between atoms allow vibrations in the solid over broad bands of energies, in turn allowing a broad range of photons to be absorbed. But this would require delving into band structure and normal modes and phonons (not photons).)”

    Complete and utter nonsense. Using CAPS doesn’t turn fantasy into fact.

    The Tim Folkerts Gibberish Generator is obviously doing a fine job. Believe its output at your own risk.

    Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Just complaining doesn’t do anything — anyone can mindlessly contradict. How do YOU think atoms vibrate in a solid? What specifically is wrong with anything I said? Give us some of your “true science” preferably with some references to back you up.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Tim, “gibberish” is NOT science. It is pseudoscience. Want an example? Look at your own quote, Mike provided.

        Also, see here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-343358

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          That quote is pretty simple. I am sorry that it is too tough for you to understand.

          So .. as I often ask … quote me something specific. What part of my explanation is beyond your understanding? I can even make a list:

          1) “To a first approximation”
          Everything in science is an approximation; an effort to explain the real world with models and theories.

          2) “atoms vibrating in a solid are like tiny masses held in place by springs.”
          Atoms are, of course, tiny masses. Since they can move a bit in the lattice, there must be some “give” to allow that motion.

          3) “if you give such an object (like that atom) more energy (like making it hotter)”
          Clearly making something hotter gives more energy.

          4) “it will vibrate with a LARGER AMPLITUDE”
          An oscillation with more energy has a larger amplitude.

          5) “but the SAME FREQUENCY.”
          Masses on springs maintain a constant frequency, no matter the amplitude.

          Pick a number. Which part confuses you?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            I will start with number 1.

            From Merriam Webster –

            “First approximation definition is – a roughly approximate value of a quantity often preliminary to more precise determination.”

            You haven’t the faintest idea, have you? Sciencey sounding gibberish. No first approximation involved. You might really be attempting to use a poor analogy to sound as though you understand what you are talking about.

            What is your first approximation of the AMPLITUDE and FREQUENCY to which you refer? You have no clue have you?

            You are talking nonsense, as do most members of the pseudoscientific climatological cult.

            Try something simple – start with finding a testable GHE hypothesis, if you like.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Tim, he gets so confused.

            He believes atoms will absorb energy and the amplitude will increase. So if the atom receives more energy, its amplitude will increase even more. More energy, more amplitude.

            Just like a battery, you just charge it up. Leave an ice cube in the freezer long enough to absorbs all the IR from the other ice, and you can use it to power your golf cart.

            No wonder he believes in the GHE….

          • Mike Flynn says:

            JDH,

            According to Tim, wouldnt an ice cube absorb even more energy from the terawatts emitted by the Sun?

            After charging it up by leaving it to absorb sunlight, you could probably power several golf carts from one ice cube. Keep your beer cool at the same time too, I suppose.

            Ah, the wondrous power of pseudoscience!

            Good golfing.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes Mike, and the solar energy is magnified by CO2, which would be stored by the ice cube, now with “amplitude” nearly to the Moon. The clowns have discovered an infinite supply of free energy, that only continues to increase in amplitude. All they had to do was vote out the 2LoT, and deny reality!

            Clowns are so entertaining.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike wonders: “What is your first approximation of the AMPLITUDE and FREQUENCY to which you refer?”

            If you read the sentence, you would see I said “To a first approximation, atoms vibrating in a solid are like tiny masses held in place by springs.”

            The approximation is for the nature of atoms in solids. Treating them like little balls connected by springs gives a rough idea of how they behave. There are all sorts of improvements to this model, but it is a decent starting point.

            Understanding that “first approximation” that is spelled out clearly in the sentence you were quoting, the answer to your question is found in any college physics textbook.

            omega = (k/m)^0.5
            E = 1/2 k A^2

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, you got off on your “amplitude” in an attempt to get around the fact that a 300 K object can not warm a 500 K object. It’s just another example of the tricks you attempt to twist reality and ignore the 2LoT. Or, maybe you just don’t understand physics.

            Which is it, are you incompetent or dishonest?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            No, JD, we got off into amplitude because YOU incorrectly described oscillating atoms with more energy as vibrating with a higher FREQUENCY, which is incorrect. And we got into THAT because you incorrectly described a 500 K surface as reflecting all photons from a 300 K surface. \

            Every time you try to explain something, you introduce yet more errors.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, you get going in the wrong direction, and you end up just floundering.

            Photon absorb.tion/emission is based on wavelengths. You can’t spin your way out of that fact. The higher the temperature of an object, the shorter the wavelengths. If two identical objects are at different temperatures, they will have a different emission spectrum.

            Reality is our friend.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            That’s only true for perfect blackbodies, which emit according to their temperature but absorb all radiation no matter the temperature of the body that emitted the radiation.

            Why, cause they’re blackbodies!

            And as far as two clouds of CO2 gas at different temperatures, they will have the same spectrum, because CO2 has really low emissivity.

            Showing off your lack of thermodynamics experience again.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes boob, I see you have to change my “objects” into “gases” to make me appear wrong.

            I get misrepresented a lot.

            Nothing new.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD, you don’t get misrepresented as often as you misrepresent science, so take as the cost of not knowing your science.

            Gases are objects and the main topic is the fact that cool objects meaning the concentration of molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere can and do warm the warmer objects being the surface of the earth.

            Learn some science and you won’t be misrepresented.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No bob, the “main topic” was specifically related to solids, not gases. Scroll up to Mike’s opening comment, Feb 26 at 1:59am, which all responses other than yours relate to. We’ll get you following a discussion one day.

          • JDHuffman says:

            As with most of his ilk, bob revels in inaccuracies.

            That’s all he has.

          • bobdroege says:

            Well this is what you guys are saying

            “If two identical objects are at different temperatures, they will have a different emission spectrum.”

            This statement is bullshit.

            It depends on how objects emit radiation, contrary to what you guys think, everything does not emit like a black-body.

            Once you get past that mental roadblock you might come to a small amount of enlightenment.

            And this is more bullshit

            “Tim, you got off on your amplitude in an attempt to get around the fact that a 300 K object can not warm a 500 K object. Its just another example of the tricks you attempt to twist reality and ignore the 2LoT. Or, maybe you just dont understand physics.”

            You need to check your thermodynamics texts for the correct second law.

            And as to Mike’s original post, he was way wrong, and Tim was essentially correct, although he should have said frequencies instead of frequency.

            See here

            https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Atom_vibrations.html

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, you didn’t get anything correct. Both of my quotes are correct, you are incorrect.

            An object changes its emisstion spectrum based on temperature. Do you know what an incandescent light bulb is? When the bulb is turned off, in a dark room, you see nothing. Turn the bulb on, and the room lights up. The filament has one spectrum, when off, and a completely different spectrum when turned on.

            You’re as ignorant as you are immature.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            That is an example of something close to a black-body.

            So you are just not getting the fact that everything does not emit radiation like black-bodies.

            Since the general discussion topic is the greenhouse effect, which works on other modes of radiation emission, applying black-body radiation rules to CO2 is wrong.

            And the greenhouse effect is caused by individual molecules emitting radiation, and since individual molecules don’t have a temperature, any restrictions on cold heating warm don’t apply, even though the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t restrict cold heating warm.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Sorry bob, but I never said everything has to radiate like a black body. You’re just making stuff up.

            Your incompetence goes well with your ignorance.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Mike,

      I agree that something seems wrong with Tim’s explanation. But I would like to know exactly what is happening, if anybody even knows.

      • Bart says:

        “And if you give such an object (like that atom) more energy (like making it hotter), it will vibrate with a LARGER AMPLITUDE, but the SAME FREQUENCY.”

        Well, that’s not quite right. Individual atoms do not vibrate at higher amplitude at a specific frequency, but more of them vibrate at that frequency, so it gets reinforced in the aggregate.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Bart,

          That seems completely plausible. Do you have any comment on the nature of vibration? Does a gas molecule vibrate when it is not interacting with other molecules, rotating, or other internal motion in multi-atomic molecules?

          What effect can the contributions of all these other potential motions have on the radiation from solids?

        • Norman says:

          Bart

          I will have to side with Tim Folkerts on this one.

          Here you can read this link. Chic Bowdrie may like it as well since he has a chemistry background.

          https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Principles_of_Modern_Chemistry_(Oxtoby_et_al.)/UNIT_5%3A_RATES_OF_CHEMICAL_AND_PHYSICAL_PROCESSES/20%3A_Molecular_Spectroscopy_and_Photochemistry/20.2%3A_Vibrations_and_Rotations_of_Molecules%3A_Infrared_and_Microwave_Spectroscopy

          I would say Tim knows of what he speaks.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman entertains us with his latest fascination with personalities.

            And another link he can’t understand.

            It never gets old….

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Don’t you have something else to do besides trolling climate blogs?

            Your posts are really getting pointless and dumb. Your post contains nothing of use, seems a childish taunt to attempt some type of provocation. Don’t you tire of such nonsense?

            Will you ever say anything worthy of consideration?

            I guess you take advice from your favorite comic.

            https://assets.amuniversal.com/9cb083401057013780e3005056a9545d

          • JDHuffman says:

            Since you saw me linking to a Dilbert cartoon, you decided to copy me.

            Good move.

            Copy me and quote me directly. That way you won’t look like an uneducated child.

          • Bart says:

            Norman – Mm-mmm.

            Energy levels are discrete on the molecular and atomic scale. You don’t get an increase in amplitude from an individual particle at a given frequency. You get excitation of a new mode, a.k.a. frequency, when you absorb a quantum of energy.

            Mind you, I was sloppy speaking of atomic vibration levels. Atoms shift orbital modes. Molecules vibrate. It’s similar math, but it’s conceptually different.

            Chic – yes, gas molecules vibrate in all these conditions. Each mode of vibration has an associated energy/frequency.

            I’m not particularly expert in these matters, but I am somewhat versed.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bart says: “You dont get an increase in amplitude from an individual particle at a given frequency. You get excitation of a new mode, a.k.a. frequency, when you absorb a quantum of energy.”

            You can get either of these. A quantum oscillator like a vibrating molecule can oscillate with varying amplitudes at the same frequency in the same mode.
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc.html
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration

            So a CO2 molecule could absorb multiple 15 um photons. Each additional photon simply makes the vibration larger.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            You are confusing harmonic oscillation with vibration. for example, you wrote –

            “So a CO2 molecule could absorb multiple 15 um photons. Each additional photon simply makes the vibration larger.”

            No, it doesn’t. I suggest you familiarise yourself with basic quantum electrodynamics.

            For a start, consider a sample of air at STP containing 0.05% CO2 rapidly compressed to 2 MPa.

            You can calculate the temperature. You can calculate the wavelengths emitted at this temperature. Now, try and convince anybody that the gibberish you post is related to reality.

            Or try your fantasy on a lump of ice at 270 K. A 15 um photon is emitted at a temperature of around 193 K. How much will the ice heat up by absorbing billions of photons of 15 um wavelength?

            Maybe you could heat some CO2 at 20 C by exposing it to a body at -80 C (emitting 15 um photons), do you think?

            Cheers.

          • Bart says:

            No, Tim. As your link says:

            “When two quanta are absorbed the first overtone is excited, and so on to higher overtones.”

            The overtone is the next higher excitation frequency.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Mike says: “Tim, You are confusing harmonic oscillation with vibration.”

            Tim is getting a lot of things confused. He is trying to support “cold” warming “hot”, by claiming that objects absorb photons but the result is increased “amplitude” rather than increased frequency. But, he uses diatomic molecules, gases, as his “special case”!

            Once again, he tries to use deception to push his agenda. A typical diatomic gas is N2, which does not even absorb IR. The kind of “amplitude” hs is talking about is from high energy photons, typically well above atmospheric infrared frequencies.

            So, he is WAY off course, on purpose.

          • Bart says:

            Don’t think of that “No” as categorical. It was more of a puzzled “No” than a declarative one. I’m a little outside my comfort zone here. I haven’t studied quantum mech in decades, and we mostly did atomic structure.

            The harmonic oscillator problem does have ambiguous solutions, but molecular vibrations are not precisely harmonic, so I’m not sure it applies directly. The quote from the other link seems to support my POV, but it may have just been pointing out what can happen, rather than what must.

            I think in this instance, I’m going to concede the point, rather than defend something I do not know for sure.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “A 15 um photon is emitted at a temperature of around 193 K.”

            You seem to be implying that when you find a 15 um photons, then they must have been emitted at a temperature of 193 K. This is, of course, wrong.

            15 um photons are emitted at all sorts of temperatures. Clearly you are using Wein’s Law, which only says that a blackbody @ 193 K emits most strongly @ 15 um. Of course, it also emits longer and shorter wavelengths as well. Conversely, objects cooler than 193K or warmer than 193 K also emit 15 um photons.

          • Bart says:

            OK Tim, I’m convinced. It appears there are generally two independent indices associated with a free molecule with multiple vibrational modes, one for the energy level of the mode, and one for its frequency.

            However, I am given to believe the indices become dependent upon one another in a solid lattice, so that arbitrary combinations are not allowed. Perhaps, there also are constraints for a collection of gas molecules under pressure. Can you comment upon this?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Chic,

        if you want to know what is going on, I suggest you learn about quantum electrodynamics. If, after you have tried as hard as you can, there is anything you can’t understand, I might be able to help.

        Obviously, there are some people who do not have the necessary intellectual capacity to understand certain parts of science. These people will never understand. You won’t know unless you try.

        Let me know how you go, if you wish.

        Cheers.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Mike,

          OK, I had a go at some QED online sources. So far I found nothing anywhere close to explaining photon exchange between objects at different temperatures. I won’t be going back school so I am asking for help. If nothing else, what’s wrong with this:

          Take a simple example of two similar objects separated by a vacuum, one starts out at 320K and the other at 300K. Both objects can radiate 15 micron photons. The 320K object cools as its radiation is absorbed by the formerly 300K object. Were any 15 micron photons from the cooler object absorbed by the warm object?

          My understanding is that warmer objects always radiate photons of any wavelength at a faster rate than the cooler object can radiate the same wavelength and that is why cold can’t warm hot. Some are of the opinion that photons from cold objects can’t be absorbed by warmer objects. Which is it?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Snape is back running his same old game, again.

            He poses as sincerely interested, asking for help in understanding. But when someone tries to help, he starts arguing with them.

            He’s playing games.

            Nothing new.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Chic,

            What QED resources did you “have a go” at?

            Your understanding is probably incorrect. What do you mean by “at a faster rate”? Two objects at the same temperature obey Wien’s displacement law similarly. However, consider real bodies with emissivities such that one is 100 times that of the other.

            You have no clue, have you? Your gotcha is stupid because you don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

            If you are too lazy or stupid to learn, it is pointless trolling. Give up, and accept that faith is no substitute for fact. Unfortunately, you appear to be incapable of distinguishing the difference.

            Keep believing the pseudoscientific bumbling buffoons if you wish.

            Cheers.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Mike,

            I read the Wikipedia post on QED. It has much background information, references, see alsos, further reading, etc., but it isn’t obvious where to go for something specifically addressing my question. I have a couple advanced thermodynamics textbooks which don’t help either. I’ll keep looking into it.

            It wasn’t a gotcha question. I’m not trying to prove or disprove a GHE or that CO2 warms the planet or doesn’t. Cold photon absorp.tion is or is not possible and I need more than just an answer by assertion. Don’t help if you don’t want to. No harm, no foul.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic/Snape, can you provide one example where someone helped you face reality, and you accepted it?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Chic,

            Maybe you could answer my request for clarification?

            Your laziness and incompetence does not impress me. Taking pride in being stupid and ignorant is a mark of the pseudoscientific climatological zealot.

            Maybe you could supply a reason why anyone would think that you are genuinely seeking knowledge, rather than attempting a feeble gotcha? I’m quite sure you can’t. Feel free to try to justify your bizarre refusal to actually attempt to acquaint yourself with some basic physics, if you wish.

            It will no doubt be entertaining.

            Cheers.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Mike,

            “What do you mean by ‘at a faster rate’?”

            I’m imagining photons as particles each with a discreet amount of energy according to their wavelength. If photons of same wavelength strike a surface in the same time interval more frequently than previously, they are radiating at a faster rate.

            “Two objects at the same temperature obey Wiens displacement law similarly. However, consider real bodies with emissivities such that one is 100 times that of the other.”

            That is a completely different situation. I am interested in two identical objects with the same emissivities at two different temperatures. Maybe that is an oxymoron? Is emissivity a function of temperature?

            If you want to comment on my situation, please do or not. Your choice. I still have a couple hours of Feynman lectures to go and a few years time to investigate after that.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Chic asks: “Is emissivity a function of temperature?”

            Chic, the definition of “emissivity” compares the emission from a body to that of an ideal black body, at the same temperature.

            So by definition, emissivity is not a function of temperature. But the emissivity of a body at one temperature is not the same as the emissivity of the same body at a different temperature.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            As always trying to lead people astray with you fake phony made up declarations.

            YOU: “So by definition, emissivity is not a function of temperature. But the emissivity of a body at one temperature is not the same as the emissivity of the same body at a different temperature.”

            Not using terms properly again. Nothing new for you.

            emissivity may change with temperature but unless the temperature changes are significant the emissivity will be close to the same.

            You are thinking of the word emission NOT emissivity. Emission is totally dependent upon temperature, emissivity not so much.

            Please learn some physics. You look like a babbling fool when you go up against and actual knowledgeable person like Tim Folkerts. He uses correct textbook physics and you counter with childish taunts and posts with zero value. Grow up will you.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, i’m glad you quoted me exactly. That’s your only chance of ever getting something right.

            And using some of my catchy phrases is very flattering. Thanks.

            The rest of your comment was just your usual insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.

            Now back to your typing class.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            No there are not insults at all. I am trying to help you out but you refuse to even listen. Facts are you do not have any higher physics knowledge. All your posts clearly show this to be true. So you are a complete phony dishonest poster that makes up everything. You will always do this for your own reasons. You can’t understand the Moon rotation even when shown to you by many examples.

            Now you show you don’t understand the concept of emissivity.

            You are hopelessly wrong about heat transfer. It is most obvious you have zero knowledge of the topic. You can fool a few on this blog. Those that know you know you are a clown and complete liar. You make up everything and pretend you are smart.

            You pulled up Poynting Vectors but you NEVER attempted to explain how that proves fluxes do not add. You just make phony declarations and never prove anything. Hopelessly dishonest and phony till your last post.

          • JDHuffman says:

            EVERY sentence is inaccurate, Norman.

            See why you always need to quote me exactly.

  34. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶① . . . One sandwich short of a picnic . . .
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    .

    Since 1980, scientists have been using satellites to monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region.

    Why do scientists monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region, you might ask? The answer is quite simple. What do you think polar bears eat, when they can’t hunt seals, because there is no sea ice.

    The number of sandwiches grows and decays with the seasons. There are more sandwiches in winter/spring (while the polar bears are eating seals). And there are fewer sandwiches in summer/fall (when seals are not available).

    But scientists are concerned, because over the decades, the number of sandwiches is following a decreasing trend.

    The number of sandwiches is obviously getting smaller. Not every year, of course. It does so in fits and starts. But the long term pattern (the trend), is clear. Deny it, and you are a sandwich denier.

    A bitter argument has broken out, between the 2 scientists who have been monitoring sandwich numbers.

    Dr Anne Alarmist, insists that sandwich numbers are falling rapidly, and may fall to zero within 10 to 20 years.

    But her rival, Dr A Skeptic, claims that Dr Anne Alarmist is talking “poppycock”. Dr A Skeptic agrees that there is a decreasing trend, but claims that sandwiches will continue to be available, for at least 100 to 200 years.

    Each scientist has plotted a graph of sandwich numbers from 1980 to 2018.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/one-sandwich-short-of-a-picnic

  35. The Other Brad says:

    A blog post about Soybeans and Global Warming turns into individuals verbally bludgeoning each other to no avail about Goebbels, atoms vibrating, and the ubiquitous “pseudoscience”. What fun.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Are you relishing the discussion or impugning it? If the latter, c’mon join in. Don’t be a stick in the mud.

      • The Other Brad says:

        It would be my preference to see everyone that is verbally abusive on this Blog to get into a room and talk to each other face to face. It would be interesting to see how the conversation might be elevated or if physical punches would be thrown. But that is an unattainable dream. Anonymity has a tendency to expose the worst in some folks.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      …and nobody’s brought up astronomy yet, that’s unusual…

  36. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Continued from here:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-343416

    It looks like the kitchen is getting too hot for JDHuffman (pun intended) and he is bailing out (mixed metaphor not intended). Is there anyone else who can carry JD’s torch? Perhaps someone else from the “back radiation violates the 2LoT” wing of the AGW skeptic community ?

    What is the difference between “spectral amplitudes of oscillation” and the amplitude of a photon?

    • JDHuffman says:

      Snape, why do you keep asking questions when you are unwilling/unable to learn?

      How about answering your own question. THAT would be funny.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        What seems reasonable is Bart’s comment here:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-343415

        The “spectral amplitudes of oscillation” represent the total energy contributed by photons of a given wavelength. The total must come from either “warmer” (greater amplitude) photons or more photons of the same “warmth”/amplitude. In either case, a hot object radiates more than a cold object and no 2LoT violation.

        Has anyone measured the amplitude of a photon?

        • JDHuffman says:

          Wrong, Snape.

          “Spectral amplitudes of oscillation” are the total flux at each frequency/wavelength. The units are typically “Watts/(srm^2Hz)”, for the Figure 1, at your link. The units are usually converted to the more familiar “Watts/m^2”, a raditive flux.

          The “amplitude” of a photon refers to the amplitude of the photon wave, which has units of “energy”, usually in electron-Volts.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Do you have anything useful to contribute other than your penetrating insight into what is intuitively obvious from what I previously commented about?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nothing that you could understand, beyond pointing out your mistakes, which you won’t admit.

        • Bart says:

          Has anyone measured the amplitude of a photon?

          The energy of a photon is h*nu, where h is the Planck constant, and nu is the frequency.

  37. Mike Flynn says:

    A bit of fun with the interaction of light and matter.

    Microwaves – in a microwave oven, the light heats water strongly, fats and sugars less, many things not at all. The microwaves are nominally the same frequency.

    Visible light goes through transparent glass without being absorbed by the glass. Green glass absorbs the light which is not coloured green, but lets the rest through. Visibly transparent glass can be relatively opaque to infrared.

    How come total internal reflection works? At other angles, the glass is transparent, not reflective.

    Some infrared light passes through black plastic garbage bags as though the’re not there, but the plastic is totally opaque to visible light.

    Light at X-ray wavelengths goes through many types of matter without interacting. How do you make a lens for X-rays?

    The infrared light emitted by ice of any temperature has no effect on liquid water at all. The water is not heated. Why does the water refuse to accept the photons emitted from the ice? Do they go straight through, get reflected, or what?

    Matter emits photons continuously if it is above absolute zero. How many photons can be emitted by a single electron?

    Would you believe someone pretending to know about the interaction between light (including infrared) and CO2, if they can’t answer even simple questions?

    Cheers.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Mike,

      This is all very interesting, but opens up a can of worms for me. And I don’t fish.

      How long are you going to keep me in suspense about your view on photons from cold to hot objects? Things other than water and ice.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Chic,

        What are you babbling about?

        Should I care about your lack of piscatorial interest? Why would you be concerned about my views?

        Stand tall! Be proud of your ignorance and stupidity!

        Follow your pseudoscience. Pay no attention to facts, if fantasy suits you better.

        Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Mike, those are (mostly) well-known properties of EM radiation. Except for two that are wrong!

      “Light at X-ray wavelengths goes through many types of matter without interacting.”
      X-rays interact with pretty much all types of matter. X-ray telescopes are put in orbit because x-rays don’t penetrate through the atmosphere. X-rays relatively interact weakly with light elements (like H, C & O in organic molecules), but even an arm or a tooth blocks a significant amount of x-rays. If x-rays went through without interacting, there would be no image!

      With metals, the penetration is even less — a millimeter or less for most metals and most x-rays. For concrete, the penetration might be a couple cm.

      (PS, since metals mostly absorb x-rays, the way to focus them involves grazing incidence, where the materials reflect much better.)

      “The infrared light emitted by ice of any temperature has no effect on liquid water at all. “
      liquid water has an emissivity close to 1, so it absorbs nearly all IR photons from any source at any temperature.

      * Water @ 300 K with nothing around (but the cold of outer space) would radiate away ~ 460 W/m^2 and cool rapidly.
      * Water @ 300 K surround by ice at 273K would radiate away ~ 145 W/m^2 and cool slowly.
      * Water @ 300 K surround by walls @ 300 K would radiate away ~ 0 W/m^2 and cool not at all.

      Since 460 ≠ 145, the ice DOES have an impact.

      Would you believe someone pretending to know about the interaction between light (including infrared) and CO2, if they can’t answer even simple questions?”
      hmmm … would you indeed?

      • JDHuffman says:

        “liquid water has an emissivity close to 1, so it absorbs nearly all IR photons from any source at any temperature.”

        Tim continues with his pseudoscience. Trying to heat water with ice!

        The comedy never ends.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Tim,

        You are right – I left out the word significantly. Sorry. X-rays are used because of their penetrating abilities, not in spite of them.

        As you do not specify the wavelengths of light, your comments about penetration are completely irrelevant. Here – “The cobalt-60 units use gamma photons with a mean energy 1.25 MeV, which can penetrate up to 15–18 cm of steel.” Yes – an X-ray by any other name is still an X-ray.

        Your comments about ice are purely nonsensical. You seem to be claiming that water will absorb photons emitted by ice, but the resulting increase in the energy of the water will not result in a temperature rise. As you point out, the result is that the water cools – regardless of how much ice you surround it with. No warming. Cooling is not warming, except to stupid pseudoscientists.

        The insulating properties of ice are well known. Igloos are built of ice. Skiers or trekkers are advised to build themselves a snow cave to enhance survival. No, the ice warms nothing. And no, putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will not make the thermometer hotter.

        No global warming due to CO2.

        Cheers.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          I see you are desperately trying to double-talk your way out of your own claims, Mike.

          ““The cobalt-60 units use gamma photons with a mean energy 1.25 MeV, which can penetrate up to 15–18 cm of steel.” Yes – an X-ray by any other name is still an X-ray.”
          That gamma ray is about 10x more energy than a high-energy x-ray. Are you now going to claim that 5 um IR is actually visible light or that red light is extreme UV? “500 nm green light is just IR by another name.” That makes as much sense as calling these gamma rays “x-rays”.

          X-rays are used because of their penetrating abilities, not in spite of them.
          Sure, x-rays penetrate into metals or concrete better than visible light. But the distances are less than a millimeter for typical metals with typical x-rays (not gamma rays).

          Name some of those materials that x-rays go through without significantly interacting.
          only

          As you point out, the result is that the water cools – regardless of how much ice you surround it with. No warming.
          Very clever, trying to change the goalposts! Switching from “no effect” to “no warming”. But slowing down the cooling is a very clear and real effect. “No effect” would be cooling at exactly the same rate with and without the ice.

          Or how about this? Since we were positing water at 300 K while radiating 460 W/m^2 into space, the water must have had 460 W/m^2 of heat from some sort of heater to maintain that temperature. Now adding the ice would mean 460 W/m^2 of heating but radiating only 145 W/m^2 –> warming! The water with ice around and a constant 460 W/m^2 heater would warm to ~ 340 K!

          Warming by 40 K sure sounds like an “effect” to me!

          “And no, putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will not make the thermometer hotter.”
          More classic misdirection. This is unrelated to the discussion at hand.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            T,

            An X-ray is a gamma ray. According to at least one Government –

            “Gamma rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). They are the same as x-rays, . . .”

            Maybe you can specify precisely what frequencies you are referring to? Just as all frequencies of light below visible red are called infrared – as in “below the red”. No doubt you have your own stupid pseudoscientific climatological redefinition – you just can’t find out what it is at the moment. I understand.

            You may look up radiolucent materials to your hearts content. I’m not interested in playing your silly gotcha games.

            No warming. No heating. No increased temperature. You are being stupid – dimwits like Gavin Schmidt crow “Hottest year EVAH” – not “Most slowly cooling year EVAH”.

            The discussion at hand (higher temperatures due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere) claims that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter. If you can prevent the atmosphere from occupying a region between the thermometer and the Sun, then your pseudoscientific magic is even more powerful than we thought!

            You may blame me for your stupidity and ignorance if you wish. Others may not agree.

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            The discussion at hand is “Would you believe someone pretending to know about the interaction between light (including infrared) and CO2, if they cant answer even simple questions?” You started that discussion, and I took you up on that topic.

            “Gamma rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). They are the same as x-rays, … distinguished only by the fact that they come from the nucleus.”
            The very sentence you quoted clearly shows you were talking about gamma rays. Co-60 is an isotope famous for emitting gamma rays from its nucleus. Besides the technical definition based on sources, x-rays tend to be 0.01 – 0.1 MeV, while gamma tend to be above 1 MeV. There is some overlap between high energy x-rays and low energy gamma rays, but not much.

            We could go on all day. The point is that you fail your own test!
            We shouldn’t believe someone like you who can’t answer/explain/defend his own hand-picked topics about light.

            You claim …

            * Light at X-ray wavelengths goes through many types of matter without (significantly) interacting .
            — WRONG, just about all materials stop x-rays in a short distance.

            * you claim IR from cool ice as NO EFFECT on warmer water.
            –WRONG, it affects the cooling rate.

            * You claim gamma rays from Co-60 are x-rays.
            — WRONG, these photons come from the nucleus (and are also in the range generally associated with gamma rays).

            * You claim everything beyond red is infrared.
            — WRONG, IR is generally defined as stopping at 1 mm, with longer wavelengths called “microwaves” and “radio waves”.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, your obsession with nit-picking Skeptics is amazing. In your depravity, no Skeptic can ever get anything right. Yet blatant pseudoscience gets no notice from you.

            Amazing.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD, Apparently you are fine letting major errors slide, but I am not.

            In this particular case, Mike was hoisted with his own petard, so it is hard to put any blame on me.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Sorry Tim but you see through your pseudoscience glasses.

            If you are really after “major mistakes”, you make a major mistake ignoring trash like this:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341636

          • Mike Flynn says:

            T,

            “For example, on typical radiographs, bones look white or light gray (radiopaque), whereas muscle and skin look black or dark gray, being mostly invisible (radiolucent).” Believe what you wish. However, shipping containers are X-rayed at ports around the world.

            I said you cannot heat water using ice. You can redefine cooling to mean heating or warming if you like. Would you prefer that I say that you cannot raise the temperature of water using radiation emitted by ice? I don’t really believe you as dense as you make out, but I am open to you convincing me otherwise.

            A photon is a photon. It is defined by its energy. It doesn’t matter where it comes from. You are just being stupid.

            All wavelengths longer than visible red are “infra red” by definition. If you don’t like it, find another universe.

            Carry on. Maybe you can crank up the Gibberish Generator to produce a testable GHE hypothesis. USE ALL CAPS IF YOU THINK IT WILL ADD EMPHASIS.

            Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. The pseudoscientific consensus remains as stupid and ignorant as ever.

            Cheers.

  38. crakar24 says:

    There is a hole under a bridge…………….that cant be safe

  39. crakar24 says:

    bloody website comments always go to the end!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway whilst here i got banned from SKS after one comment, apparently all deniers end there statements with the word “cheers”.

    There is a bunch of really rich peope in Europe who have built a machine that can suck the CO2 out of the air and bottle it, the bottles of CO2 are then sold to green house farmers to enhance yields and to companies that make aerated drinks (coke, pepsi etc).

    These people are viewed as “planet savers”….now i know most people are dumb but this dumb?

  40. MikeN says:

    THAT is why they want soybeans?
    All this time I was thinking they eat lots of tofu.

  41. Mike Flynn says:

    Chic wrote –

    “Mike,

    Barring some cataclysmic disruption of the Earths crust, it will continue to cool at a relatively slow rate.”

    Exactly. No CO2 heating. No GHE. In spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight. All those terawatts made no difference. Ah, well. So sad, too bad.

    Cheers.

  42. Brett says:

    25 years ago the government of Canada eliminated the Crow Rate that had created a single grain shipping rate across the prairies so grain farmers could have equal access to send grain east and west to ports for shipping to international markets. Once the freight rate subsidy ended prairie farmers began diversifying to higher value crops for export to make up for the loss of the rail subsidy. It’s that simple. Because climate change is responsible for everything otherwise intelligent people overlook the obvious.

  43. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote –

    “You seem to be implying that when you find a 15 um photons, then they must have been emitted at a temperature of 193 K. This is, of course, wrong.”

    In typical Timish fashion, he makes an assumption, then declares it to be wrong.

    Tim is still trying to claim that radiation from ice can be used to raise the temperature of water – by furious dint of debating tactics.

    Unfortunately, as Richard Feynman said –

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    Tim cannot raise the temperature of water using ice – no matter how much ice he uses, or how cunningly he arranges it. He cannot even find a testable GHE hypothesis, but imagines it must exist.

    CO2 creates no heat. Thermometers do not become hotter in its presence. If Tim and his ilk are delusionally psychotic, they will continue to hold their delusional beliefs until they die. Some may even go as far to claim they are Nobel Laureates, or to claim they are climate scientists, even though no such academic discipline exists in any reputable university.

    No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

    Cheers.

    • Bart says:

      “CO2 creates no heat.”

      It doesn’t have to. Energy is continually coming in. If CO2 slows the scale at which it dissipates, then more energy will be retained, and the temperature will be higher.

      There are legitimate inadequacies in the AGW hypothesis. This is not one of them.

      Go ahead and assert that isn’t the case. Assertions aren’t persuasive.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        Unfortunately for your foray into the world of pseudoscientific fantasy, the Earth’s surface has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.

        You don’t even have a testable AGW hypothesis, do you?

        Oh dear. So sad. Too bad.

        Go ahead and assert that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, if you wish.

        The sound you hear might well be laughter, or maybe derisive sniggering.

        Cheers.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Bart claims: “…then more energy will be retained, and the temperature will be higher.”

        No Bart, you’re making the same mistake as others. “More energy” is NOT a guarantee of higher temperature. Again, for the bazillionth time, bring ice into your 70 °F room. The ice is emitting about 300 Watts/m^2. It will NOT raise the temperature of the room above 70 °F.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Bart,
        Go to Dan Pangburn’s blog and under Global Warming Made Simple and refute it. Global warming is not caused by CO2. Refute his logic and his math.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          Also, look under the sunspot number anomaly time-integral.

        • Bart says:

          I did not say that the bulk of modern warming is being caused by increasing CO2. I do not believe it is. I merely stated qualitatively what the result would be if a particular thing happens without any countervailing reaction.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Suppose you have a sphere of water in deep space with a surface area of 1 m^2. Wrap it inside some sort of baggy so it doesn’t escape off into space. [Or just use a solid sphere of metal with a think coat of high-emissivity paint, but Mike said “water” so we don’t want to give him some other way to try to weasel out of things.)

      Inside is a 400 W heater. The water will stabilize with the surface at about 290 K. (As would the metal sphere.).

      Now, I put a shell of ice @ 273 K around the sphere. This shell radiates 300 W/m^2. The inner sphere with the 400 W heater will now rise up to about 333 K.

      Its oh-so-simple (I was going to add “and fool-proof” but then I remembered the people who might be replying … ). By doing nothing other than adding the shell of ice, the inner sphere rose from ~ 290 K to ~ 333 K.

      “Tim is still trying to claim that radiation from ice can be used to raise the temperature of water”
      And there I (once again!) showed you and everyone how it can be done

      ” … by furious dint of debating tactics.
      No, just with basic radiative heat transfer as taught in every physics and engineering university in the world.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Tim, that is NOT an example of ice warming water. You are using all kinds of extra energy and devices. Take away all you trickery and warm water using ONLY ice. That is your task.

        Save your tricks for your pseudoscience gatherings.

  44. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim Folkerts provided a link to a textbook to back up his misconceptions about basic physics.

    His link contains the following –

    “Molecules such as O2, N2, Br2, do not have a changing dipole moment (amplitude nor orientation) when they undergo rotational and vibrational motions, as a result, they cannot cannot absorb IR radiation.”

    /sarc on

    I suppose they can’t emit IR either. They must be subjected to cold rays to be cooled. Obviously, bromine is only pretending to be a liquid at room temperature, seeing as how it cannot absorb IR. Liquid oxygen and nitrogen have to be sprinkled with pixie dust to become gases again – no IR absorp-tion allowed.

    /sarc off

    Oh well.

    Cheers.

  45. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    Still no meaningful advance on:

    “Infrared photons have a wavelength determined at the time of emission. Photons emitted from cold surfaces have a longer wavelength than ones emitted from a hotter surface.

    For the hotter surface to absorb the photons from the colder surface, the wavelengths must match. But, the molecules in the hotter surface are vibrating faster (higher frequency). So there is a mismatch. Such a mismatch then results in reflection.”

    All sorts of nit-picking, all sorts of pedantry, all sorts of generic answers involving anything but temperature and solid objects, but no meaningful advance on that quoted, as an explanation for why some photons are absorbed by a surface, whilst others aren’t.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “all sorts of generic answers involving anything but temperature …

      That’s because temperature is not a central issue here! The statement should be:
      “For ANY surface to absorb the photons from ANY SOURCE the wavelengths must match A WAVELENGTH THE SURFACE CAN ABSORB.”

      High emissivity surfaces by definition absorb nearly all photons over the wavelengths of interest. That means they absorb photons from surfaces of all sorts of temperatures — both warm and cold. If a surface can absorb 7.8 um photons, then it doesn’t matter what temperature the source was that emitted the 7.8 um photons.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Tim, you keep messing up.

        You keep clinging to a failed issue. You keep trying to use a specific case to prove all cases. Does adding a glass of 20C water to a bathtub of 30C water warm the mix?

        And, you keep ignoring the temperature of the absorber.

        Among other things….

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “That’s because temperature is not a central issue here…”

        Incorrect, Tim, it is THE central issue. Remember, the statement that initiated all this discussion was:

        “An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.”

        There is no stated difference between the objects besides temperature, emissivity of the hotter object is “very high”, and so temperature difference is the only factor up for discussion. Clearly you are arguing that not all photons are reflected by the higher temperature object. If you were just asking people to be skeptical of the “all photons” part of that statement, then that would be one thing. But, it’s not reasonable to expect people to be skeptical that “all photons are reflected” due to only temperature difference, and yet not be skeptical of the other end of the scale, that “all photons are always absorbed”, despite temperature difference. Yet, every single thing you say, Tim, is seemingly designed to imply just that. You simply will not say a word that will put ANY temperature-based limit on what photons can be absorbed.

        Which is why you come across as dishonest, in this discussion. You’re coming across as desperate to avoid going on record with any such statement.