UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2019: +0.44 deg. C.

May 1st, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2019 was +0.44 deg. C, up from the March, 2019 value of +0.34 deg. C:

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
2018 02 +0.25 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.21 +0.35
2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.10 -0.14 +0.06 +1.01 +0.84
2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.13 -0.24
2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.10 +0.76 -0.41
2018 07 +0.30 +0.37 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49
2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.10 +0.37
2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.22 +0.28
2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.28 +0.45 -1.16 +0.67 +0.55
2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.24 +0.69 +1.21
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.06
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.59
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91

The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2019 should be available in the next few days here.


The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:

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


1,706 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2019: +0.44 deg. C.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    OMG whatever happened to the global cooling that Dr. Roy and his minions have been predicting?

    • Craig T says:

      I’ll agree on the “minions” (at least the usual suspects) but I haven’t seen Dr. Spencer claiming we were in a cooling period. His opinions are much more “mainstream” than what goes on in the comments.

    • Richard M says:

      What part of El Nino do you fail to comprehend?

      • Neal M says:

        1982-83 Very Strong El Nino
        2019 Weak El Nino

        Yet the temperature anomaly of weak El Nino in 2019 are greater than a Very Strong El Nino in the 1982. That’s called warming.

        https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

        • JDHuffman says:

          Comparing El Niños is just another numbers game.

          My little hidden area got almost 7″ more rain that average, for April. That’s reality.

          • Svante says:

            Good point JD, perhaps the ENSO is irrelevant.
            Perhaps the ENSO, PDO and the AMO have no internal combustion.
            Perhaps they are just oscillations.
            Perhaps you need to look at the long term:
            https://tinyurl.com/y6b5ttyw

          • Techno Caveman says:

            Savante,
            Humans go back further than your graph plots.
            Yes the temperature rise is astonishing, so is the accuracy and the data points. That is not enough to debunk the results but factor it in.
            Yes the temperature went up. Mother nature is chaotic.
            Kind regards

          • Svante says:

            Yes DREMT, climate has always changed.
            Doesn’t mean it’s suitable for us now.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, please stop trolling.

          • Svante says:

            And we shouldn’t accept the risk just because it is natural.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Yes DREMT…”

            Svante, please stop trolling.

          • Svante says:

            DREMT says:
            “Humans go back further than your graph plots.”

            Yes DREMT, perhaps we can learn from the Neanderthals:

            Earth’s climate experienced a major warming during the last interglacial period (Eemian, MIS 5e, LIG 128 to 114 ky). The rapid climate change altered ecosystems causing a geographical redistribution of flora and fauna.
            […]
            We argue that, on the European continent, the human population collapsed, maintaining itself only in a few regions. We further suggest that these environmental upheavals, including depletion of prey biomass at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene, contributed to the rise of cannibalistic behavior in Neanderthals, as exhibited among remains found at the Baume Moula-Guercy.

            https://tinyurl.com/y5lwgxmh

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Snape, please stop trolling.

          • Svante says:

            “The prevailing Eemian climate was, on average, around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) warmer than that of the Holocene. However, due to global warming, the past few July global temperatures likely surpassed the (long-term average) July temperatures of the Eemian period.”

            “Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today”

            https://tinyurl.com/y34rrsz6

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK Snape.

        • Scott R says:

          The 1980-2019 intermediate trend is higher based on the pair of el ninos just described. The short term trend is lower.

          2017 El nino 3.4 region temperature is lower than 2018 yet global temperatures are also lower.

          So currently we are in a clear up trend from 1980, but, the trend is in danger of ending. I wish we had UAH data from 1940-1980. I think the LONG term cycle would be clear.

          • Rune Valaker says:

            “The short term trend is lower.”

            How short do You want it, will 10 years do?

            Well, then You have 0,292 C/decade

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

          • Scott R says:

            The down trend is very new. Just started in 2016. We just made the 3rd lower high on the UAH data. Too soon to call the intermediate trend broken. If the next data point is higher, the intermediate term trend is validated again. If we drop and make another lower low, I think that will be enough to raise some eyebrows finally. The north Atlantic is rolling over and broke it’s trend line multiple times in the last 10 years. (intermediate trend is down or sideways) El Nino is from low trade wind speeds and a weakening sun. This is a temporary warm up before we crash lower. Who knows how long it will take for the lack of upwelling to catch up with us. Could be another 10 years. I really don’t care. The sea level rise is linear. Co2 is parabolic. Sea level would have gone up in this fashion with or without us because the heat content of the ocean is increasing at a steady rate due to us being in an interglacial caused by the earths now almost perfectly round orbit. Don’t ignore the Holocene proxy data that shows temps can crash and deserts flood within a human lifetime even though we are living in this VERY favorable period. Lucky us the wind is at our backs and we will be able to grow food.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Scott…”The down trend is very new. Just started in 2016″

            What!!???

            The uptrend began in 2015 following 18 years of a flat trend, 15 of those years verified by the IPCC. The 2015 uptrend was obviously the beginning of the major 2016 El Nino which peaked in early 2016. Since that peak, the trend has been negative.

          • Scott R says:

            Gordon,

            Identifying the trend is a difficult job, we all have to be careful not to allow our biases to influence us when we pick time frames to focus in on. I can totally see how you see it as a flat trend for 18 years followed by the start of a new up trend. The trend / time frame depends on what data you grab. My personal opinion is that we never left the 1980-2016 up trend. I say this because while temperatures were flat, the pacific ocean stayed in a perfect channel and for me that is a key piece of data. (HADSST3) The reason I feel so strongly that we are running an energy deficit right now is that since 2010, the sea level in New York (which I consider a good proxy data for the world) has dropped by more than 200mm. I feel sea level is a good proxy for true ocean heat content. Have we departed the 1850-2019 linear sea level channel? Absolutely not. This is good news. We do not want to depart from that. I’m very worried that the magnetic field / solar min could drop / flood us similar to what we see in the Holocene proxy data. Volcanism / increased cloud cover could definitely overpower the wonderfully circular orbit we are enjoying right now for the rest of our lives which honestly is my biggest climate worry right now. At the end of the day, I feel is the biggest climate forcer based on the linear sea level rise is our currently circular orbit. I believe our orbit is adding energy to the earth every year at a steady linear pace. Lucky us, we can grow food!

        • Craig T says:

          You have to be careful with any one El Nino. The El Chichon Volcano erupted April 1982 suppressing temperatures for most of the year.

          The general trend is clear. The One Nino Index 1979 to present has a flat trend while the UAH TLT trend is upward 0.13 C per decade. If you detrend the temperature data it follows the rhythms of the El Nino/la Nina cycle, even during the “pause”. That suggests the warming trend hasn’t slowed. Let’s see what happens after a couple of la Ninas as strong as in 2008 or 2011.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            The effect of El Chichon on global temperatures wasn’t felt until the following year.

          • Craig T says:

            “The effect of El Chichon on global temperatures wasn’t felt until the following year.”

            Look at the UAH lower stratosphere data. You can see two big spikes in stratospheric temperature. The first peak at Nov 1982 is from El Chichon. The second, bigger spike at Oct 1991 is Pinatubo.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            I would have thought it was obvious that when I referred to “global temperatures”, I was talking about what was happening down here on the ground.

          • Craig T says:

            The stratosphere shows little impact from the ENSO cycle but dramatically warms with spikes of sulfur dioxide so it’s the best data source to spot volcanic activity that affects climate. The warming corresponds to cooling “down here on the ground.”

            I know you’re not talking about stratosphere temperatures but didn’t know if you were talking TLT or ground data. I assumed TLT because the warming in ground data is crystal clear.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            I was referring to surface data.

        • bdgwx says:

          I just plugged the UAH TLT numbers in Excel. The deepest La Nina drops send us about -0.4C below the linear regression trendline. Assuming the next La Nina is as deep as 2008 and 2012 then this would yield a UAH TLT anomaly of about -0.1C. Based on that, and only that, one could conclude that we still have the potential of seeing negative anomalies in the UAH TLT record for several more years. But, is the 2/2012 low of -0.22C still realistic? Meh…maybe not. At the very least you could argue that we’re going to need a very strong La Nina and a larger drop than has been seen in the UAH record thusfar for that happen.

        • bdgwx says:

          I should probably point out that a VEI 6 eruption timed with a La Nina would almost certainly plunge us well into the negative territory. Pinatubo sent us about -0.4C from the LR trend and that was timed with a strong El Nino.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            In another decade or so, that will be the only way of getting a negative anomaly.

      • Rune Valaker says:

        A Nino on the same strength as the two recent Ninas

      • Rune Valaker says:

        And what part of the El Nino phenomenon did You not comprehend?

        The 98 and 16 Ninos had anomalies above 2C for several months, this Nino is hardly a Nino at all, with no months above 1C. And since the 16 Nino we have gone trough two Ninas of the same amplitude as this Nino.

        • Richard M says:

          Rune, the two La Nina events you referenced were insignificant. In one of them the Nina 1.2 area was almost +2 C at the end of the La Nina. Hence, we were not seeing the normal cold water upwelling that leads to cooling.

          If you want to claim the current El Nino is not a factor then you will need to admit the cooling that will follow is natural. You won’t do that. We saw this same behavior from alarmists during the 2016 El Nino. They claimed it was climate change until the cooling started and then they immediately started claiming skeptics were cherry picking. If your fellow alarmists would quit lying then we might be able to hold a discussion.

          The only way to really understand the underlying climate is to completely remove the noisy data (mainly ENSO but also major volcanoes). When I did this I found a warming trend of around .06 C / decade since 1980. Since there was no warming between 1940 and 1980 we are left we a trend of .03 C / decade over the past 80 years. This is close to the trend from the depths of the LIA. Nothing unusual is happening.

    • I’ve never predicted global cooling.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Yet you never attack the people who do, despite the fact that their predictions deviate from yours by significantly more than do those of mainstream science, which you readily attack.

        • Spalding Craft says:

          Gimme a break.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            What do you see as the issue with my comment?

          • Wert says:

            It’s idiotic. Noboby has time to attack all the bozos of the Internet. It’s also untrue, so you are just wasting your time.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bobdes…”Yet you never attack the people who do, despite the fact that their predictions deviate from yours by significantly more than do those of mainstream science, which you readily attack”.

          Why would a guy with a degree in meteorology rule out the possibility of cooling in the future? Meteorology is not based on crystal ball gazing as is the case with the climate model social science.

          I would venture, based on my experience reading Roy’s article and comments, that he goes by the data, in the moment, and not by some convoluted consensus.

        • Darren says:

          Bob,

          “Yet you never attack the people who do”

          You, sir, either are very new to this site or a liar.

          Which is it?

          Dr Spencer routinely argues against those predicting global cooling based on junk science. He has banned several parasites for doing so.

          If only the mainstream warming crowd were as vocal about stamping out their non-science doomsayers.

          Has Gavin Schmidt and other warmist scientists bothered to stamp down the “Globe will end in 10 years” nonsense?

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Salvatore has been the main speaker for cooling, and he has not been banned. Nor am I expecting him to be banned. Which of these people has he banned? And how many articles has he dedicated to challenging the cooling nonsense?

            And yes, Guy McPherson is routinely referred to as a denier by mainstream climate scientists. I personally also regularly attack his nonsense. Not him directly, because he is a coward who ghost-blocks dissenting comments on his YouTube channel, but his ovine supporters.

            I would think that a scientist who is motivated by science alone would dedicate equal time to challenging all dissenting arguments, and not be afraid to attack one side with as much vehemence as the other just because they happen to share his political views.

          • RW says:

            Darren,

            “Dr Spencer routinely argues against those predicting global cooling based on junk science. He has banned several parasites for doing so.”

            I have not observed Dr. Spencer to argue against those predicting global cooling. He’s argued with those claiming the GHE is not valid, but this not the same thing. As best I know, Dr. Spencer does NOT think the science rules out coming global cooling; only that he is not predicting it (or warming for that matter).

        • Eben says:

          Warning – full blown Climate Derangement Syndrome on display !!!

        • Roy W. Spencer says:

          Bobdesbond, I tire of repeating myself. I’ve said before that I think gradual warming will probably continue. I don’t “attack” people for having views I don’t agree with unless they are pretty clearly wrong on some point of basic science, and then I will call them out on it. Even then, so many people repeat the same nonsense over and over, I can’t spend all my time trying to correct them. So, what’s my option? Stop allowing comments altogether? I’ve already tried that. If someone predicts cooling, I might think they are wrong, but we really won’t know until years down the road, will we?

    • RW says:

      It was Salvatore that predicted cooling — not Roy. Despite my and others telling him there was no way to know what the climate would do, warm or cool (or stay about the same). We haven’t seen him post in a while, so maybe he’s come to the realization that his prediction was wrong.

      No one knows what’s going to happen going forward. It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming, but wouldn’t bet on either.

      • Eben says:

        “No one knows what’s going to happen going forward. It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming”

        I disagree bigly , The climate reacts to the major temperature drivers very slowly , if you actually understand how climate works you can make reasonable predictions on temperature direction 10 – 30 years ahead, possibly longer but that is rather redundant and useless as most of us will be dead by then.

        • Craig T says:

          “…if you actually understand how climate works…”

          If only there were a group of scientists that studied climate for the last 50 plus years, maybe they could help.

          • Eben says:

            You are mixing studying and understand as if it was the same.
            The so called experts constructed a hundred models predicting anything from 1 to ten degrees of warming , why a hundred ? if they actually knew they would have only one,

          • bdgwx says:

            Eben, it’s a learning process. No one lays the golden egg on the first attempt. In fact, no model will ever be perfect. That doesn’t mean we can’t build a useful model though. And our understanding is increasing every year. Improvements and understanding are incremental.

          • Craig T says:

            “You are mixing studying and understand as if it was the same.”

            As in they study but don’t understand while you understand without studying the actual atmosphere firsthand?

            As early as the 30’s physical scientists were measuring and calculating the radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere. In 1956 Hans Suess found that the ratio of C14 to C12 of atmospheric CO2 was dropping because of fossil fuel use. In 1965 Eisenhower received Restoring the quality of our environment. Report United States from his science committee. It had a chapter on the problems anticipated by the increase in CO2 including ocean acidification, longwave radiative feedback and sea level rise. What they didn’t have was the data and models to say how much the change would be.
            https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4116127;view=1up;seq=133

            Data and observations have been collected for decades. Models tested against the data and rewritten. As usual scientist have argued about each minor point of the theories around climate change. It’s all based on physics and observation. Anyone wanting their opinion respected can’t just wave all of that research off as ignorance and lies.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, Craig T, please stop trolling.

        • gbaikie says:

          –Eben says:
          May 1, 2019 at 12:50 PM
          No one knows what’s going to happen going forward. It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming

          I disagree bigly , The climate reacts to the major temperature drivers very slowly , if you actually understand how climate works you can make reasonable predictions on temperature direction 10 30 years ahead, possibly longer but that is rather redundant and useless as most of us will be dead by then.–

          I would say 10 -30 years is not even global climate or global warming.Though such time periods does give possible clues regarding global warming.
          Over last hundred years one can say we have had global warming as compared to the Little Ice Age. And it’s particularly true if talking about warming of Northern Hemisphere. And northern is rather important regarding general issue of “global warming” or “global cooling”
          Re: “It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming”
          In last 100 years we had a cooling period but overall 100 year trend is upwards.
          So if equal chance applies to idea of having cooling period in the future similar to what have had- something like a decade of cooling. I would agree about a “equal chance”.
          But if global warming is thought correctly, something which require long period of time, I don’t think there is 50% chance of 100 years of cooling or 100 year reversal comparable to last 100 years of warming.

          But perhaps what is meant by cooling is further continuation of “the Pause” or continuation of the model projections failing to be correct. That in my opinion is a better chance than 50%.

          Or perhaps cooling is simply what in the record, short periods [several years] of dipping down and quick recovery [which could call long forecasts of global weather].

          What I think is that higher CO2 levels cause some warming and as every year that goes by increases the chance of getting a good guess of how much. And my range is doubling of CO2 levels could cause 0 to .5 C of increase in global temperature. But I mean in the short term and short term is about 100 years.
          Predicting a longer term effect of CO2, over period of 1000 years seems to difficult to me.

          And I am not sure we going to double CO2 levels- ie, 280 to 560 ppm within the next 100 years.
          I am pretty certain about is that all governmental actions to lower CO2 levels have not lowered CO2. And it seems governmental intended to lower CO2, has added rather subtracted.

          So governmental action to lower CO2 has cost the public more than trillion dollars. Depending how want choose to count the cost, it could exceed 5 trillion dollars. But conservative or at least “x amount”, has been more than 1 trillion dollars of lost wealth with no favorable result. Or NET loss/cost of 1 trillion dollars.
          Such damage as loss opportunity costs, waste the public attention, etc, etc could equal or excess the cost of Cold War- damage to the world caused by the Soviet Union from 1950 to 1990.
          The cost of Soviet Union from 1950 to 1990 seems like damage the soviet people the most and cost continues to the present time.
          Though some imagine there some positive aspects of Soviet Union, and it might possible indicate such things as compared to the actions of doing something about reducing global CO2 levels.
          The only plus, related to CO2 reduction, has also been greatest cause of increased CO2 level by China emissions- though it’s fair to give a lot blame to Nixon’s China policy. Nixon started it, and it was made worst by efforts to do something to reduce CO2 emission {and involves large corporations and globalism].
          So one has the big pluses of increase of wealth by China and cheap consumer products for it’s people and the people of the world.

          The only thing which has lower CO2 emission has been nuclear power. Which globally is about 14% of electrical power. But it seems it will take a while before efforts to reduce CO2 will favor more nuclear power, and to date, the effort to reduce CO2 emission have been opposed to and have thwarted increasing Nuclear power generation. Though places with air pollution problems have to date been more eager to use nuclear energy to solve their air pollution problems.

    • Greg K says:

      Where is Salvatore? He assured us this would be the year the temperatures would drop back below average.

      Well actually he predicted last year, or was it the year before, or the year before that . . .

      GK

      • Bobdesbond says:

        The 13 month sunspot average, which is used to quantify the timing and strength of the solar cycle, just increased for the first time since the last solar maximum. It bottomed out at about 2.5 times the average for the last solar minimum. It will most likely fall again, but is extremely unlikely to go anywhere near as low as last time. So Salvatore’s prediction of a Maunder-like minimum is standing on very shaky ground. That is what most likely explains his absence. But don’t worry – he will be back with his ridiculous predictions of a new ice age, just delayed by another 11 years.

      • wert says:

        Who expletive cares where is Salvatore?

    • Mike says:

      “OMG whatever happened to the global cooling that Dr. Roy and his minions have been predicting?” He didn’t. However, it will be hard to convince everyone that a fraction of a degree increase over 100 years is causing catastrophic changes that are destroying the ecosystem. Graphs can make small changes seem large. Also, it simply isn’t possible to know what the temperature change would have been over the last century if humans weren’t on the planet.

      With advancements in technology and depletion of fossil fuels, humanity will eventually be moving to new sources of energy to satisfy our needs. Given how rapid technology has been increasing — just think of everything that has changed in the last fifty years — it probably won’t be long before this happens. What is clear is that the climate across the earth has never remained static.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      doc…”OMG whatever happened to the global cooling that Dr. Roy and his minions have been predicting?”

      Another desperate alarmist clinging to a brief uptick in the global average while completely ignoring the negative trend since 2016.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Another desperate denier clinging to a brief downturn in the global average, while completely ignoring the fact that any negative trend is caused by choosing a time interval so short that ENSO effects easily dominate the slowly rising trend.

        • Scott R says:

          Bobdesbond – the key is sea level. It is a good proxy data for the heat content of the earth. If we truly are going into a 1000 / 12000 year type of event, you will see the linear trends end. I don’t think a 400 year type solar event will reverse these trends, but my confidence is not good. That said, I believe we should be on alert regarding the changes in the magnetic field and the sun. Volcanism can obviously change these trends over night. The relationship between cosmic rays, volcanism, solar min has not been studied to my satisfaction. There are some VERY strange events in the Holocene proxy data occurring during a human life time. Should we ignore this? Many data sets have their maximums set prior to 2016:

          NOAA tide gage New York max March 2010 (1/2 way between rising and sinking areas)
          HADSST3 North Atlantic departure 2012
          HADSST3 southern ocean 1985 (5 year MA)
          Pacific trade wind speed 2011
          UAH SH 1998
          UAH tropics 1998
          UAH sopol 1996
          UAH USA48 2012
          AUST 2002
          UAH Globe April 1998
          UAH Globe May 1998
          UAH Globe June 1998
          UAH Globe July 1998
          UAH Globe Aug 1998

          So at the end of the day, I still think the earth is warming, but there are definitely some divergences here / and reasons for concern. Cold crop losses are certainly possible. Honestly, with me living in Michigan where 87% of the proxy data from the last 1 million years has me under a mile of ice, I’m more worried about global cooling than global warming, but I’m not afraid to admit to having that bias.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Sea level change has not been linear.

            And all you are doing with that list is displaying the fact that over the short term, variability swamps the trend.

            And don’t know what “Aust2002” refers to. Is it temperature?

        • Scott R says:

          Show me proof that sea level rise has not been linear using the same methodology throughout the entire chart. It can not be done. I’ve gone through great lengths to try to find evidence of a rate change in sea level and have found nothing, 0, zilch, nada.

          What I’ve shown you is that even though UAH global maximum occurred in 2016, there are several other data sets that did not hit maximums in 2016. It means there are factors cooling us, and factors warming us. The factors are offsetting when you look at the global picture with the warm side winning right now. There is no guarantee the winning will continue for the warm side.

          AUST2002 I was referring to the Australia UAH temperature record. The max was in 2002.

          I find it extremely interesting that northern summer is diverging on a global scale. That will obviously make the ice at the artic harder to melt away in a very short summer season. So much for the arctic warming twice as fast as anywhere else. Please note that if we DO go into the ice age, it will be because the precession of the earth doesn’t allow the ice at the north pole to melt, which will increase albedo, and start a major cooling cycle. It won’t be due to the orbit. That is nice and friendly right now and won’t be changing any time soon. That’s all VERY long term analysis. In the human life time scale, we don’t have to worry about such things. We do have to worry about events similar to what we see in the Holocene proxy data. The 1000 year type ups and downs that seem random to my eye, along with the 400 year / 100 year solar cycles.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            The 12 oldest tide gauges that are still operating have an average acceleration of 0.6 mm/yr/century.

            Australian UAH annual averages:
            2002: +0.47
            2005: +0.50
            2013: +0.49
            2016: +0.59
            2017: +0.71
            2018: +0.51

            The major Milankovitch cycle is variation in axial tilt, followed by eccentricity. Axial and apsidal precession are only minor components that affect only the strength and timing of a glacial period, not whether we get one.

          • Scott R says:

            Please provide the location of the acc. sea level data, links. Thank you!

            As for Australia… The point was that the maximum was set long ago and was not taken out during the 2016 El Nino. This is a divergence. You said the trends were all recent. Any data set not making a higher high in 2016 should be looked at.

    • Eben says:

      30 years ago the experts made prediction about today’s temperature
      OMG whatever happened to the global warming that Hansen and his minions have been predicting?

      https://i.postimg.cc/4GjbRGgs/predictions.png

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Given that the original graph uses 5-year means, and the mean of the last 5 years of UAH data is 0.48C above the mean of the first 5 years of UAH data (which is centred on mid-1981, right where your red graph starts), please explain why your current temperature is less than 0.4C above the start of the red.

        Secondly, explain how you can compare low troposphere temps with surface temps.

        Thirdly, explain why you chose UAH as the representative satellite record.

        Finally, note that the zero-emission scenario actually shows rising temps in this model. That is because at that time, solar intensity was increasing, and they assumed it would continue to do so because there was no way of predicting that. The actual zero-emission scenario over that time is for decreasing temperatures, given the gradually falling solar intensity. Try subtracting the zero-emission trend instead of adding it, and tell me how accurate the emission-only component of the projection is.

      • bdgwx says:

        The other things to consider with Hansen’s work is that this was the era in which global circulation models were still cutting their teeth. I mean this is 30+ year old technology and understanding that we’re talking about here. Also consider that the business-as-usual scenario 1) underestimated aerosol emissions (Pinatubo), 2) overestimated GHG/CFC emissions (Montreal Protocol) and 3) overestimated solar forcing so the scenario that actually played out was somewhere between B and C. And as bobdesbond already pointed out the red line does not represent what actually happened according to a wide sampling of conventional and reanalysis datasets that publish a surface temperature.

      • bobdroege says:

        OMG, Hansen didn’t make any predictions of what the satellite data would be.

        You could plot the GISS met station data that Hansen was predicting on your graph, but then you would have to say OMG Hansen was right.

      • barry says:

        “whatever happened to the global warming that Hansen and his minions have been predicting?”

        No doubt you will be back to qualify that impoverished statement when it is pointed out that global warming happened after the 1988 paper, as can be seen even on the graph you provide.

        And should you do that, we then move on to how the forcings scenarios in the paper have played out differently in real life, so then you have to account for that to get a better of how well the models did.

        The red arrow saying ‘you should be here’ is just wrong. Given 3 choices, whoever made that graph didn’t investigate what Hansen said (“Scenario B is most likely”), or investigate which of the 3 scenarios most closely matched the actual emissions since the paper, which is somewhere between B and C.

        BS is so cheap to construct. Truth in science takes work. And honesty.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        barry, please stop trolling.

  2. Scott says:

    I’m surprised to see USA48 so high. At least for Detroit Michigan we had a -0.3 deg F month.

    That said, this data point makes perfect sense. We now have a perfect down trend line with +0.86 deg C Feb 2016, +0.64 deg C Oct 2017, and +0.44 deg c for April 2019.

    Look at how the data perfectly matches El nino spikes on a 4-6 month delay:

    3.1 October 2015
    0.8 April 2017
    1.3 Nov 2018

    The next point SHOULD be a drop. Trade winds are leading this process on an inconsistent delay. Dec / Jan max Sun, Trade wind, El Nino, Global temps. It’s simple right? lol

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Mr Spencer indicated a year ago that what happens in the troposphere above the US has little connection to temperatures at ground level.

  3. Richard Barraclough says:

    Thank you Dr. Spencer for publishing these results within a few hours of the end of the month

  4. Joel says:

    To be fair, Dr Spencer is a lukewarmist. The minions, however, are a seething mess of scientifically illiterate opinions masquerading as objective truth.

    • pochas94 says:

      Thank God you’re here, Joel, to inform all of us ignorant slobs.

    • RW says:

      Well, if Dr. Spencer is a lukewarmist, then I’m an extreme lukewarmist. I think the basic physics of the GHE and enhanced warming from added GHGs via it is *probably* correct, but I have serious doubts that the anthropogenic influence is actually net warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Joel…”To be fair, Dr Spencer is a lukewarmist. The minions, however, are a seething mess of scientifically illiterate opinions masquerading as objective truth.”

      Joel Shore I presume, the uber-alarmist.

      The minions are the alarmists and you are one of the leaders of that rat-pack. None of you have science to offer that matches the facts garnered over the centuries in physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Everything you preach is based purely on consensus.

      • Craig T says:

        “Everything you preach is based purely on consensus.”

        Yes, a consensus of Physicists and chemists studying data for decades. Like physicist Hans Suess, who studied levels of carbon-14 and tritium in the air and water. His “facts garnered” included discovering in the 50’s the dilution of atmospheric C14 by the burning of carbon fuel.

        Or geophysicists Fritz Möller and Syukuro Manabe, who worked together in the 60’s to calculate the warming caused by doubling CO2, including both convection and radiative forcing. While Möller thought warming would be no more than 1.5 C and Manabe expected 2.4 C, both agreed on the physics involved in the calculation.

        You aren’t going deep enough into past studies to know why the consensus is what it is. You assume you understand physics enough to decide on your own without looking at the work of previous scientists.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          craig….”You arent going deep enough into past studies to know why the consensus is what it is”

          Did any of your learned scientists predict catastrophic warming and climate change from an increase of atmospheric CO2 amounting to about 0.01%, if that?

        • Craig T says:

          “Did any of your learned scientists predict catastrophic warming and climate change from an increase of atmospheric CO2 amounting to about 0.01%, if that?”

          Mauna Loa data from May 1 2018 showed CO2 at 409.14 ppm. Yesterday’s CO2 measurement was 414.88 ppm, an increase of 1.4%.

          So no, no one has predicted catastrophic warming or climate change from a 0.01% increase in CO2.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Craig T, please stop trolling.

  5. Eben says:

    Is just the super El Nino dead cat bounce, started going back down today already

    • Rune Valaker says:

      “Is just the super El Nino dead cat bounce, started going back down today already”

      This must be the son of Salvatore.

      • Eben says:

        No, I do predict cooling also, but verifiable withing the period of next ten years , not ten month

        • Rune Valaker says:

          Then You must be hoping for a new Pinatubo and statistically that’s due.

          But regarding the carbon devil, Dr. Spencer have not given You any relief soon.

          • Eben says:

            Wrong again , although I predict cooling I actually hope there was more warming as I believe several degrees warmer would be overwhelmingly beneficial.

        • bdgwx says:

          OHC keeps increasing by about ~10e21 joules/year which equates to about a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance on the planet. That’s a pretty stout positive radiative forcing the atmosphere is going to have to fight against to cool. Will a monthly anomaly be lower than it is today? Almost certainly. But will the trend wane? Meh…you’re going to need a VEI 6+ eruption or two to get us back to mid-1990’s levels IMHO. Nevermind that those mid-1990’s levels were in part due to the Pinatubo eruption of 1991 so…

    • barry says:

      “dead cat bounce”

      Thus speak the skeptics.

  6. Rob Mitchell says:

    Dr. Mark, what do you think the effect of +0.44 deg C will be? The melting of the Greenland ice sheet and a 100+ foot sea level rise?

    I often tell my warmunist friends to be grateful for this mild Interglacial Period we are living in. If we were living in a Glacial Period, that would be a hard life!

    Many thanks should go to Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy for their tireless efforts to monitor global temperature. There was a time in recent history when the work done by these two great geo-scientists was appreciated by NASA. But when these scientists decided NOT to hop on board the human-caused global warming bandwagon, they have been maligned and harshly criticized by the politically correct class.

    Can you believe that John Cook and his “skeptical science” site is quoted as a reputable source to “falsify” the work of Spencer and Christy? That alone should tell you how low our scientific standards are. It is high time for those of us who work in the field of Meteorology to speak out in support of the truly valid climate research done at UAH!

    • RW says:

      Rob,

      “I often tell my warmunist friends to be grateful for this mild Interglacial Period we are living in. If we were living in a Glacial Period, that would be a hard life!”

      Yes, cooling is what should be feared (and has always been feared), and for good reason. As Ian Plimer has said, this is the first generation of humans that has ever feared a warmer climate.

      We should be embracing and enjoying the warmth while it lasts and embrace the increased fertilization of plants from the added CO2. The warming contribution is likely much smaller and less significant than these benefits.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Rob…”I often tell my warmunist friends to be grateful for this mild Interglacial Period we are living in. If we were living in a Glacial Period, that would be a hard life!”

      And if we are unfortunate enough to live under such conditions, and a leader suggested cutting back on fossil fuels, he/she would be assassinated.

      • bobdroege says:

        I have heard Dogger Bank is pretty nice during a glaciation, lots of big juicy things to eat, but kinda hard to breath there now.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Not trolling, just pointing out that even during a glaciation there would be plenty of food to eat.

            You on the other hand are nothing but a troll.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  7. bdgwx says:

    At +0.44C it looks like this is the 3rd warmest April in the UAH dataset behind 1998 and 2016. Using the ONI 1998 ENSO peaked at 2.4 in December and had a Feb-Mar-Apr value of 1.4. 2016 ENSO peaked at 2.6 in December and had a Feb-Mar-Apr value of 1.7. So far 2019 ENSO peaked in November and although we won’t have the Feb-Mar-Apr value for a few more weeks I’d imagine it is probably going to be close to 0.7.

    • RW says:

      Who cares?

      These are spectacularly small changes and differences.

    • Scott R says:

      There is always a delay between peak El Nino and global temperatures. It is usually about 4-6 months. The only thing that is clear is that the sun warms the earth more when it’s closer – like in January. This causes the trade winds to pick up. That slowly causes El nino to end. When the trade winds die in the middle of the nh summer, El nino starts to be recharged for the next season. Global temperatures without a doubt are tied to El nino (on a delay) more than co2. You have delay on top of delay mucking this up but the relationship is there if you are willing to look.

      • Craig T says:

        “The only thing that is clear is that the sun warms the earth more when its closer like in January. ”

        These numbers are anomalies. Global March 2019 is 0.44 C warmer than the 1981-2010 average March. Changes in season or Earth/Sun distance don’t affect the results. El Ninos and la Ninas usually start in the summer or fall – not January. Temperature changes from the ENSO cycle over time is a draw – no warming or cooling on the 30 year scale.

        • Scott R says:

          I’m referring to the fact that the earth is actually closest to the sun in January. So energy from the sun is maximized at that time. Check the trade winds… see how they have an annual cycle? See how they are at max in the NH winter? The trade winds are SUN powered. El nino is on a delay to the trade winds. The strong winds lead us out of El Nino. The weak winds in NH summer lead us back INTO el nino. And the cycle repeats again and again and again every year. Sometimes we make it to official El Nino / La Nina, sometimes not. The UAH temperatures are on a delay to El Nino. There are 2 delays here to consider.

          • bdgwx says:

            The difference in radiation from perihelion vs aphelion caused by orbital eccentricity is small compared to the difference from summer vs winter solstices caused by axial tilt. Solar radiation is significantly reduced in the NH winter vs summer overall as a result. Winds typically pick up in NH winter due to differential heating between low and high latitudes; not because solar insolation is greater. It is still correct say that they are “Sun powered”, but it’s not because of perihelion. It’s because of the winter solstice.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx, you have been well indoctrinated in pseudoscience, but that leaves you seriously handicapped when dealing with reality.

            Earth’s seasonal tilt does not change the solar energy impacting the planet. The orbit causes a change of about 90 W/m^2.

            Learn some physics, or at least quit spouting such nonsense.

          • Craig T says:

            Earth’s seasonal tilt does not change the solar energy impacting the planet. The orbit causes a change of about 90 W/m^2

            Here’s a link to a graph of the total solar irradiance data from NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment. From 2004 to 2019 it shows less than 2 watts variation in measurements. The annual variation is only a few tenths of a watt.
            http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png

          • bdgwx says:

            JD,

            I did not say the axial tilt affects the amount of radiation impacting the planet. I said it lowers the amount in the NH during the winter by an amount larger than the gain in radiation due to eccentricity. Axial tilt is why we have seasons. It is why winter is colder than summer.

            Anyway, the change in differential heating between high and low latitudes is the dominating factor in determining the magnitude of wind velocities averaged over seasonal periods; not the change in radiation itself. Remember, eccentricity changes in radiation are independent of latitude so every latitude experiences the same increase/decrease and thus there is no change in differential heating induced…mostly anyway. There are actually two really subtle and nuanced caveats with that last statement. Neither dominate the differential heating effect or are actually a result of the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit. The eccentricity just magnifies the effect. No axial tilt…no change in differential heating. And, of course, no hemispherical seasons either.

            But you are correct that the orbital differences account for about a 90 W/m^2 change in TSI.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            Your link appears completely pointless. Why did you bother? Stupidity or ignorance?

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx, I’ll let you argue with yourself:

            “I did not say the axial tilt affects the amount of radiation impacting the planet.”

            “The difference in radiation from perihelion vs aphelion caused by orbital eccentricity is small compared to the difference from summer vs winter solstices caused by axial tilt.”

          • JDHuffman says:

            CraigT believes: “The annual variation is only a few tenths of a watt.”

            Craig, this is another perfect example of how easily you can be fooled. Earth’s elliptical orbit changes the distance to the Sun by about 5 million kilometers, annually. If you knew the relevant physics, then you would know that change in distance changes the solar flux arriving Earth.

            The annual variation is about 90 Watts/m^2. (Also, flux has units of “Watts/m^2”, not “Watts”.)

            Learn some physics.

          • Nate says:

            Occasionally there is a glitch in the Matrix, and JD gets one right…the 90 W/m2 annual variation in solar flux..

          • Craig T says:

            “Your link appears completely pointless. Why did you bother? Stupidity or ignorance?”

            I’m an eternal optimist.

            In this case I didn’t know that the data is adjusted for changes in the distance between the Earth and the Sun. And JD is correct, I left off the per meter squared part of the units.

          • Scott R says:

            Interesting debate guys… I’m positive the net trade wind speed probably includes many factors – not just the earth’s position in the orbit. Like elevation, more land in the NH, having Antarctica vs arctic ocean. I’m interested in the summation of all of these forcers and it’s impact on the trade wind speeds and El Nino because that is what is driving the climate.

            My worry is that the 1850-2011 or so ocean heat content uptrend (caused by our circular orbit) has been interrupted. I believe the tide gage in an average location like New York (1/2 way between sinking Louisiana and rising northern Canada) makes good proxy data. I don’t feel ice melting or freezing makes any difference to this linear up trend other than bouncing between the channel lines. New York is DOWN more than 200mm since 2010. At the same time we have a potential magnetic reversal and most definitely the sun is going into a quiet phase. I think there is a lot we don’t know about these phase changes and their links to volcanism which obviously has a huge impact on climate if it increases.

            This is why I joined this conversation.

    • bdgwx says:

      Yes. There’s absolutely a link between ENSO phase and global TLT temperatures. The link is both in terms of timing and magnitude of the TLT changes. Scientists have been aware of this link for a long time. You don’t have to look very hard at all actually. What is a little more difficult to spot is the long term warming signal sans periodic natural cycles.

  8. Milton says:

    Dr Roy didn’t predict global cooling explicitly.

    But he does give voice to the worst of the global cooling hacks. He also frequently features cold weather episodes on the blog but not warm weather events, presumably to add confusion to the issue.

    Then there was the “polynomial fit” era where he overlayed a curve on temperatures that implied predicted cooling in the future.

    • a polynomial fit to the data, like a linear fit, doesn’t imply anything about the future (or the past). It’s just a best fit to the observations given certain assumptions.

      • S Svoboda says:

        Then why did you include it? You did it exactly because it implicitly suggested cooling ahead. You do cheap stuff like this all the time and then complain you don’t get respect from the scientific community.

        So there.

        • Rune Valaker says:

          Dr. Spencer should also receive respect for allowing such nasty comments of him personally be put open on his blog. Not all climate blog owners would accept that.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Rune…”Dr. Spencer should also receive respect for allowing such nasty comments of him personally be put open on his blog. Not all climate blog owners would accept that.”

            I second that.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          s svoboda…”Then why did you include it?”

          Why shouldn’t he? All the alarmist idiots out there are spreading so much propaganda about anthropogenic warming you could shovel it.

          IMHO, Roy has been admirably restrained with his commentaries, especially considering the way he has been maligned by alarmist hacks. He even supports the notion that ACO2 is producing warming, he has simply refrained from stating how much.

          I think Roy is a good ambassador for science whereas the alarmist clowns pushing catastrophic AGW are deeply immersed in pseudo-science and consensus.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          SS,

          Why did you bother commenting? You did it exactly because you are exceptionally stupid, ignorant, and mentally challenged!

          So there!

          Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Milton…”Dr Roy didnt predict global cooling explicitly.
      But he does give voice to the worst of the global cooling hacks”.

      There is no scientific reason to presume there won’t be cooling in the future. In the UAH 33 year report, the movement of temperature anomalies above the baseline was described as ‘true warming’. That journey into the +ve anomaly region coincided with a major El Nino.

      There was another significant EN in 2010 and another major one in early 2016. Despite those major natural events, the IPCC declared the period from 1998, when the major EN occurred, till 2012, as having no significant warming.

      It seems obvious that the cause of the +ve anomalies are natural forces like ENs and have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2.

      In 2008, a major La Nina drove temperatures briefly below the baseline. We are overdue for another major La Nina and if it occurs on top of reduced solar radiation, we may be in for an uncomfortably long cooling spell.

      • bdgwx says:

        “In 2008, a major La Nina drove temperatures briefly below the baseline. We are overdue for another major La Nina and if it occurs on top of reduced solar radiation, we may be in for an uncomfortably long cooling spell.”

        The 2008 La Nina occurred very close to a solar minimum. During that time the oceans took up +100e21 joules of heat. In fact, the oceans have been taking up heat at a rate of about +10e21 joules/year since the late 80’s. Almost every year now OHC breaks the record from the previous year. And we know it takes a decade or two for the ocean and atmosphere to equilibriate. So if we’re due for an uncomfortably long cooling spell then the ocean needed to have received that memo a long time ago. How are you thinking this long cooling era is going to happen while the imbalance on the planet is still topping +0.6 W/m^2?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          b,

          You are spouting nonsense again.

          Kiel and Trenberth are fools. Talk of energy imbalance in terms of power is not necessarily related to temperature. Ice can emit in excess of 300 W/m^2, and can heat nothing above 0 C! So much for your stupid +0.6 W/m^2!

          Your imaginary energy imbalance is just more meaningless climatological pseudoscience.

          The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years – hence liquid water covering most of the Earth’s surface. Antarctica is largely covered by frozen water, even. Keep your pseudoscientific gibberish generator cranked up. Maybe it could even produce a useful description of the GHE by some yet unknown mechanism, but I’d be prepared to bet against such an unlikely occurrence!

          No CO2 or H2O heating. Take up astrology if you want to peer into the future – it might suit you better.

          Cheers.

        • JDHuffman says:

          bdgwx. there is NO imbalance. You still don’t understand that the “energy balance” is bogus.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bdg…”During that time the oceans took up +100e21 joules of heat. In fact, the oceans have been taking up heat at a rate of about +10e21 joules/year since the late 80s”.

          Trenberth’s pseudo-science has no impact on me. He dreamed up that nonsense about the oceans concealing warming after he was caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting the warming had stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.

          • wert says:

            It was non-alarmed people who first said quick warming is impossible because of the ocean heat capacity. Yes, the oceans could be warming, and we’d notice nothing without some extremely accurate measurements.

            Tell China to panic. Because I won’t.

          • Craig T says:

            “Trenberth’s pseudo-science has no impact on me. He dreamed up that nonsense about the oceans concealing warming after he was caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting the warming had stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.”

            Then I’m impressed by Trenberth’s preparedness. Here’s a paper on ocean heat content published 6 years before Climategate:

            Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature,and thermosteric expansion on global scales
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2003JC002260

          • JDHuffman says:

            Another link you can’t understand, huh Craig?

            Funny.

  9. Temperatures have risen and we are half-way through a doubling of co2 and yet still no increase in the strength and frequency of hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods or wildfires and unprecedented sea-level rise. Therefore, no man caused catastrophic climate change is imminent! Facts matter!!!

  10. Correction: “or unprecedented sea-level rise”

    • Rune Valaker says:

      Pleace define “unprecedented sea-level rise”

      Is 3,4 meters in a millennia “precedented?”

      • Mike Flynn says:

        R,

        Is your comment a subtle attempt at a gotcha, or are you truly ignorant?

        Marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m. Have sea levels really dropped by over 6000 m since these fossils were formed?

        On the other hand, coal and oil of land based organic origin are found at depths of over 10000 m. Have sea levels risen by more than 10000 m after the deposits were formed?

        It seems that sea levels have fluctuated by at least 16000 m if you believe the pseudoscientific climatological nonsense spouted about sea levels!

        Does this answer your question about “precedented” sea level rises? Or has your gotcha mis-fired?

        The world wonders!

        Cheers.

        • Rune Valaker says:

          I am talking about a time span of thousand of years, not hundred of millions.

          After the HTO about 7 – 8000 years ago, the sea level has not fluctuated nearly 3 mm/y. And with more carbon in the air the coming decades there is scientific reason to predict even higher rates of sea level rise. You will probably deny that, but time will tell.

        • Nate says:

          “Marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m. Have sea levels really dropped by over 6000 m since these fossils ”

          Mike is ignorant about so much, its hard to keep up. Now its geology.

        • Craig T says:

          “Marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m. Have sea levels really dropped by over 6000 m since these fossils were formed?”

          “It seems that sea levels have fluctuated by at least 16000 m if you believe the pseudoscientific climatological nonsense spouted about sea levels!”

          “The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past. Do you have a point?”

          Mike, are you saying sea level has been 10,000 m higher or that it would be ridiculous to believe sea level was ever that high?

        • wert says:

          trolling again

      • wert says:

        Yes, precedented it is, and also much hyped, so much I don’t take it seriously.

  11. Jimmie F. Dollard says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I believe there is an urgent need for a paper or book with a title “Where, When and If Climate Change is Occurring in Your Area”. Because of your experience and expertise you are the most qualified to write it. I would like to try but am unqualified and old.

    The reason this is urgently needed is that almost daily there are articles in the press attributing negative things to “global warming”. A cursory check of NOAA data shows that there has not been a significant change in that area. Not one of the laymen I interface with are aware that most experienced and projected warming is on Tmin not Tmax, or that it is more in winter and near the poles and less the tropics.

    I think such a book would help subdue the hysteria leading to squandering world resources by making people aware that in their area even the questionable climate change forecanted would lead to beneficial changes. These benefits include warmer winter nights, frost belt further north, increased crop yield, etc.

    Please, do the world a favor and write such a book.

  12. Gordon Robertson says:

    This confirms for me that the global average is nothing more than a number. Here is Canada, especially on the West Coast, where were normally have mild winters and springs, this year has been an exception.

    I cannot remember a consistently colder and more miserable winter in recent memory and by winter I am talking about late fall into early spring. April has been unusually cold on the West Coast. We have set records for cold temperatures across Canada and parts of the US yet here is the global average showing a warming.

    I am guessing that a global average of 0.44C is about warming in the South Pacific. The UAH graph shows similar warming spikes in 2007 and 2013, outside of official El Nino years and the 2007 spike was followed by a strong La Nina.

    There is no evidence of anthropogenic warming in this data and most of the past 20 years has shown a flat trend, 15 of those years confirmed by the IPCC as showing no significant warming.

    As I have inferred in the past, I think NOAA is fiddling with the satellite data before handing it over to UAH.

    • Slipstick says:

      Ignoring your attempt, yet again, to extrapolate local effects, i.e., a cold patch covering less than 2% of the Earth’s surface, to be demonstrative of the global climate state, I wanted to point out that the monster El Nino of 2015-16, which you ignored, was not followed by a strong La Nina. You should adjust your skirt; your confirmation bias is showing.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        S,

        There is no “global climate state”. You can’t even define the “Californian climate state”, can you?

        Maybe you could concentrate on devising a useful GHE description (unless you already agree that it is impossible).

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        slipstick….”Ignoring your attempt, yet again, to extrapolate local effects, i.e., a cold patch covering less than 2% of the Earths surface,”

        Allow me to be more succinct. If AGW theory was anywhere close to correct, we would not be having such cold spells 30 years after the dire predictions of catastrophic warming were announced by Hansen in 1988. Within 10 years, he admitted he had erred but he blamed it on his computer. The media has carried that nonsense ever since.

        It’s blatantly obvious to anyone who wants to see that the Sun disappears from the Arctic each year for several months, and for an even longer period it is low in the sky, offering barely any warming. When the Sun stops heating the Arctic, it gets damned cold up there and that air flows down into Canada and the US.

        CO2 can do nothing about warming that cold. The warming seen in spots of the Arctic move around month to month and the obvious cause is ocean and wind currents.

        I don’t give a hoot what the temperature is elsewhere in the world, I just wish it would warm up locally, but it’s not.

    • Craig T says:

      “This confirms for me that the global average is nothing more than a number. Here is Canada, especially on the West Coast, where were normally have mild winters and springs, this year has been an exception.”

      Look at the map for TLT March 2019 you posted. There is a swath of land from US west coast to Canada east coast that had temperatures between 1.5 C and 0.5 C below average. Around Vancouver the temperature was average, then up the Canadian west cost heading toward Alaska the anomaly climbs to over 5 C above average. Find yourself on the map.
      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/march2019/201903_map.png

      The whole idea of an average is to look for trends in variation. Each location had warmer and cooler days during March. Nearby areas were grouped and averaged. If you downloaded the full data and used the right software you could find the data for a 50 – 100 km area that includes where you live.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        craig…”The whole idea of an average is to look for trends in variation”.

        Why bother with trends when it’s obvious the Earth has been re-warming from the Little Ice Age since 1850. Why do we need all this bs about anthropenic warming?

        The Arctic was just as warm in the early 1920s.

      • Craig T says:

        What’s your source on that? What I find shows 1920’s as a cooler period for the Arctic.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          craig…”What’s your source on that? What I find shows 1920’s as a cooler period for the Arctic”.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          craig…if you are using NOAA data as a source, you should know they have re-written the historical record to show cooling. It seems to have irked the alarmists that the 1930s were as hot or hotter than today and that the 1920s in the Arctic were similar.

          NOAA solution: re-write the historical record.

          • bdgwx says:

            GR, pay particular attention to figure 2B on pg 1470.

            https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx, even if you believe such nonsense, what do you make of it?

            Do you believe the invention of television causes “global warming”?

            UFOs?

            Keyboards?

            Enjoy your pseudoscience.

          • Craig T says:

            I think bdgwx’s point was that if NOAA only adjusted data to get the desired result it would not raise the temperature from 1880 to 1940.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yep. That was definitely my point.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig and bdgwx, obviously you can’t understand figure 2B.

            You can’t understand your own links.

            Nothing new.

          • Craig Tevis says:

            I’ll bite. What did we not understand about figure 2b?

          • Nate says:

            Mitre Corporation Report on NOAA and Karl 2015 Paper:

            “Finding 1: After carefully reviewing internal NOAA email correspondence, the MITRE Committee found no evidence that the Karl Study falsified, or intentionally distorted climate
            data. The Karl Study data were subsequently used in multiple peer-reviewed scientific
            publications.

            Finding 7: At the time of publication, the Karl Study data were available to the public and were
            in full compliance with Science and community standards.

            Finding 8: The Science peer review was thorough, not expedited, and exceeded the average
            Science review time.

            Finding 9: After review of the evidence, the MITRE Committee found the Administration did
            not apply pressure on the Karl Study team, or on NOAA, to influence national and international
            deliberations on climate policy.”

            Looks like all the conspiracy theories about this paper were just theories.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, Nate, please stop trolling.

    • gbaikie says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “…I am guessing that a global average of 0.44C is about warming in the South Pacific. …”

      It appears to be southern hemisphere: “+0.51 C”
      Global: “+0.44 C” with N hemisphere being “+0.38 C”
      So as southern hem is entering winter it warmer than “normal”
      Normally s Hem is about 1 C cooler than N Hem and S Hem is probably still cooler than N Hem, but perhaps with less of difference, then “normal”.

      As general matter, there has to be “reasons” why S hem is colder than N Hem.
      A typical reason is S Hem has mechanisms which warm N Hem. S Hem has net loss of heat to N Hem.

      As general matter the Southern Hemisphere “should be” warmer than Northern Hemisphere [but it isn’t]. Or what constitutes global temperature is mostly ocean area and southern hemisphere has more ocean area than the northern hemisphere.
      But also one has the Antarctic which dominate factor in terms of global temperature and more dominate factor in regards just the southern hemisphere.
      But anyhow, as said the dominate factor of global temperature is the surface temperature of the ocean, and whether your region or entire north America is colder or warmer in time period of year or two doesn’t indicate global warming or cooling. Though region is colder or warmer for +10 years it has possible indication it might have something to with warming or cooling global temperature.

      As I said before, what is global temperature is the average temperature of the entire ocean- the entire volume average temperature which is currently about 3.5 C.
      And global average temperature we are measuring in terms of global air temperature is the thin temperature layer of the surface of the ocean.
      Anyhow, what seems to affect weather in northern hemisphere seems to have some relation to Solar min and Max, and that you having cold winter, is not too surprising as we are in a solar min.

      What affect solar min or Max have on global temperature is at best uncertain. But in terms of short term effect, it seems solar min or Max does not have much effect upon the average volume temperature of the entire ocean. Or nothing has much effect upon this temperature in the short term of less than a decade.
      Nor does average temperature of this month or few years of average global temperatures have any known effect upon it.
      But a century of warming should be having effect which could be measured, and some think that about 1/3 of sea level rise is a measurement of the entire ocean warming a bit.

      Or it’s like expecting your cold weather over last few months to have some effect upon global sea level rise [if want to assume it has something to do with actual global temperatures].

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”As general matter, there has to be reasons why S hem is colder than N Hem. A typical reason is S Hem has mechanisms which warm N Hem. S Hem has net loss of heat to N Hem.”

        Another reason is that the largest expanse of ocean is in the Southern Hemisphere. There are expanses of the southern Pacific that extend for 10,000 miles or more and much of that is in Tropical/Sub-Tropical zones where it can absorb heat from solar energy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”Or its like expecting your cold weather over last few months to have some effect upon global sea level rise ”

        I am well-aware that locality has little to do with the global average. The point I am trying to make is that the global average has no meaning for me here in the Pacific Northwest enduring a colder than normal autumn/winter/spring after AGW predicting it should have warmed by now..

        It certainly must be warmer somewhere in the world, which affects the statistic we call the global average. The warming is just not happening in my environment and CO2 is having no effect on us. The evidence locally and across Canada and parts of the US for the past winter is that global warming as described by AGW is not happening.

        In fact, the global average has no real meaning for anyone. Alarmists like to point out that parts of the Arctic are up to 5C above normal, which is 5C above -50C. The global average has risen only a fraction of a degree C over the UAH record and in order for that to occur, there must be parts of the planet nearly 5C below normal.

        And there are such regions, in Antarctica. The signal here is not one of anthropogenic warming it is one of natural variations over the entire planet.

        I think much of that has to do with the tilt of the Earth on it’s axis. That tilt robs both the Arctic and the Antarctic of solar energy for a good portion of the year but the effects are half a year apart. That has to set up some kind of oscillation between the alternate heating and cooling of each pole.

        If you throw in variations in solar energy over the centuries it quite possible to have Little Ice Ages and subsequent re-warming from them over a century or more.

        Weather and climate are far too complex to blame on a trace gas.

  13. argus says:

    One month its someone taking a jab, where’s the warming, next month, where’s the cooling. How about all of you get back to me in about 15 years. That’ll be 50 years + 5 on the satellite and explicitly beyond the predictive timespan of some up and coming political prophets.

    Allowing for skeptical opinion is imperative. It’s not traitorous to any cause or any people.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      argus…”Allowing for skeptical opinion is imperative. Its not traitorous to any cause or any people”.

      I agree. However, you don’t need to wait 15 years, you can simply go back 20 years to 1998. The IPCC admitted there was no significant warming over the 15 year span from 1998 – 2012. The UAH records have expanded that to 18 years.

      It has only been in the past 3 years, since early 2016, that any warming took place and that was due to a super El Nino. Since early 2016, we have been slowly falling back to that flat trend average.

      • bdgwx says:

        There was no significant warming in the troposphere. Everyone agrees. However, it is important to note that 1998 was a strong El Nino and 2012 was a strong La Nina. Also, OHC continued to march higher. The geosphere as a whole did not stop warming during this time.

        • JDHuffman says:

          bdgwx, OHC is NOT “continuing to march higher”. You just can’t swallow enough of the pseudoscience.

          Do you not question anything put out by mainstream pseudoscience?

          Are you unable to think for yourself?

  14. Joel says:

    Nah, I’m not Joel Shore.

    Your wild guess regarding my surname is a nice metaphor for your crackpot ideas about the greenhouse effect.

    • Bindidon says:

      Joel

      The more ignorant people are, the more quicky they pretend, discredit, denigrate… and lie.

      Among all of them, the fake-named ‘Gordon Robertson’ certainly is the ugliest one on this blog.

      He insults everybody whose meaning he either doesn’t accept or can’t manage to understand.

      He never would have enough courage to post his paranoid nonsense e.g. at WUWT: Watts would ban him within a day. Even Jo Postma would!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        Another pointless and cowardly ad hom?

        Begone troll!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”He insults everybody whose meaning he either doesnt accept or cant manage to understand”.

        No…I save my insults for number crunchers who falsify comparisons between UAH and NOAA data sets.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      J,

      I presume the the greenhouse effect to which you refer is the greenhouse effect that you cannot actually describe? You must adhere to the crackpot idea that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter! How much crackpottery would that take?

      Go on, tell me how increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!

      Your particular brand of crackpot magic hasn’t seem to have worked too well for the last four and a half billion years or so, has it?

      Maybe you need to chant the sacred Manntras more stridently, do you think? Nature doesn’t seem to be overly impressed with your particular crackpot ideas. Thermometers respond to heat. Burning lots of stuff to produce CO2 and H2O creates lots of heat. I suppose this amazes you to the point where you start believing that thermometers are responding to CO2 and H2O!

      What a crackpot notion.

      Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          CT,

          Have you linked to something irrelevant on purpose, or are you just naturally stupid and ignorant?

          The internet is rife with supposed explanations for things which don’t actually exist. Try providing a useful description of the GHE, from which a testable GHE hypothesis may be derived!

          You definitely cannot provide a link to such a thing, so you will have to make it up for yourself. How hard can it be?

          Good luck.

          Cheers.

        • Craig T says:

          “Another pointless and cowardly ad hom?”

          “I presume the the greenhouse effect to which you refer is the greenhouse effect that you cannot actually describe?”

          “Have you linked to something irrelevant on purpose, or are you just naturally stupid and ignorant?”

          As I said earlier, I’m an eternal optimist. In this case I keep hoping you will see that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly described. In Dr. Spencer’s words:

          “The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earths surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation.”

          That is a useful description that is testable and verified. Spencer also has an answer to your criticisms.

          “What those people need to do is go read a book on atmospheric radiation, say Grant Petty’s A First Course In Atmospheric Radiation. I know Grant, and he is a brilliant and careful scientist. If you disagree with him (and the many other experts who agree with him), you’d better have some pretty good evidence to back your case up.”

          That or stick to pointless and cowardly ad homs.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig T, you have a history of incompetence related to physics.

            Now, you appear to be clinging to Dr. Spencer’s shoe string.

            Is that all you have?

            Do you not understand that Dr. Spencer has established himself as a scientist? He has admitted he does not understand the physics, and he fully accepted the GHE nonsense, at one time. But after his research, he is now questioning what he has been taught.

            That brings ridicule from his “peers”.

            He is thinking for himself. You should try it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      joel…”Nah, Im not Joel Shore.”

      I’ll give you points for that. Now, if we could just get some sense into you and convert you into a skeptic. ☺

      I have been working on binny but he’s an incurable Teutonic sourpuss.

  15. Bindidon says:

    Here is the top25 list of an ascending sort of the monthly averages of temperature anomalies (wrt the mean of 1981-2010), out of all the 1253 GHCN daily stations located in British Columbia, Canada:

    1950 1 -14.28
    1936 2 -12.85
    1969 1 -11.95
    1916 1 -11.11
    1887 2 -9.95
    1907 1 -9.56
    1909 1 -9.47
    1930 1 -8.87
    1888 1 -8.55
    1890 1 -8.28
    1883 2 -8.26
    1896 11 -8.04
    1985 11 -7.80
    1922 2 -7.74
    1911 1 -7.71
    1884 2 -7.69
    1957 1 -7.48
    1955 11 -7.24
    1972 1 -7.22
    1954 1 -7.11
    1933 12 -7.09
    1982 1 -7.07
    2019 2 -6.82
    1917 12 -6.77
    1979 1 -6.68

    But on the other hand, we see that in the sort of the coldest days for BC, CA we have

    CA001181508 BC CHETWYND: 2019 2 4 -43.0

    at position 1935 in a list starting after all with

    CA001197530 BC SMITH RIVER: 1947 1 30 -57.2

    2019 was a rather hard winter edition in most parts of Canada, Alaska and Northern CONUS, due to a strong polar vortex anomaly.

    But it was nothing unusual.

    Western Europe experienced during the last two years nearly as much exceeding warmth as Northern America did experience exceeding cold.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      B,

      Presumably this has something to do with the crackpot idea that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter? Only a lunatic GHE fanatic would believe such nonsense!

      You still havent managed to find a useful description of this GHE that you worship so blindly, have you? Sounds more like cultism to me – you just accept whatever nonsense you are fed by the cult leaders!

      Have you tried thinking for yourself? I know it’s hard, but you might find it is quite satisfying. Give it a try.

      Cheers.

      • Rune Valaker says:

        Mike, I have one for You. When a dog feels to warm he will find a cooler spot, let’s say 15 C. Only a denier of the greenhouse effect would find a warmer spot and explain his choice “since my body heat is 37 C, it does not matter if i cool my self in surroundings of 32 C or 15 C.”

        • JDHuffman says:

          Rune, I have one for you (and all other GHE believers). When you feel too cold, in your room, you would bring in a large block of ice. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. If the block of ice does not warm you enough, being a GHE believer, you would bring in another large block of ice. Because GHE believers believe radiative fluxes simply add. So now, you believe you have 600 Watts/m^2. If you’re still too cold, you would bring in more ice. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.

          You’ve never heard Einstein’s definiton of insanity.

          Nor do you understand the relevant physics….

          • Rune Valaker says:

            There is still a small sect of GHE deniers who do not understand that the greenhouse effect does not heat the surface itself, but reduces the surface’s ability to cool, and that it will be even more slowed down by putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

            But I’m afraid You can’t be helped. Our host has been more than willing to help you time and again. And yet you keep telling him he’s not understanding physics, and he’s a lunatic GHE fanatic.And it’s enjoyable that Dr. Spencer is referred to as the cult leader!

            Who’s the crackpot here?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Rune, I never said any such things about Dr. Spencer. You got caught with your failed pseudoscience and all you can do is lash out with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.

            Nothing new.

          • Nate says:

            “When you feel too cold, in your room, you would bring in a large block of ice. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2.”

            Well, lets see, my walls @ 20 C, are already emitting 418 W/m2.

            Why would I want to block those walls with something emitting 300 W/m2, to warm up?

            Pretty dumb idea, JD.

            And forgetting all about Net flux as usual.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Now Nate, are you backing away from your own pseudoscience? What happened to adding 418 W/m^2 to 300 W/m^2? That’s what your pseudoscience claims.

            418 + 300 = 718, then add some more ice and, voila, 1018 W/m^2!

            Pretty soon, your room is hotter than any place on Earth!

            Don’t you just love pseudoscience?

          • Nate says:

            Nope JD, no one ever claimed that flux and blocked flux add.

            That was always your strawman idea.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            rune…”There is still a small sect of GHE deniers who do not understand that the greenhouse effect does not heat the surface itself, but reduces the surfaces ability to cool”

            Alarmists like you who use that analogy refuse to get it that the rate of surface cooling has nothing to do with the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The rate of surface cooling is dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere touching the surface and that atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.

            It is also in thermal equilibrium with the surface and gets progressively cooler with altitude. That means the atmosphere can never transfer heat to the surface that heated it. There may be a mechanism by which atmospheric gases, all of them, can absorb incoming solar energy and re-transmit it to the surface and heating it. There is no way GHGs heated by the surface can transfer heat back to the surface.

            In fact, it is convection produced by air heated at the surface rising and the cooler air rushing in to take its place that cools the surface.

            Joe Postma stated it well when he claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. Although you claim otherwise, the greenhouse effect is modeled on the action of the glass in a real greenhouse. It is theorized (by alarmists) that the glass blocks infrared radiation but they have not explained how blocking IR can raise the temperature of the 99% mixture of nitrogen and oxygen making up the air in the greenhouse.

            That was explained by R. W. Wood an expert on CO2 radiation. He claimed CO2 could not warm a greenhouse and that the warming was a result of solar energy heating the soil and structure of the GH, which warmed the air in the GH, then the glass trapped the heated air molecules as they tried to rise.

            Your explanation is a second had offering built on the failure of the first explanation, the so-called trapping of IR. A real greenhouse does trap heat as molecules of air. There is no mechanism in the atmosphere that can do the same and certainly no mechanism related to GHGs that can change the rate of cooling of the surface.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”Well, lets see, my walls @ 20 C, are already emitting 418 W/m2.

            Why would I want to block those walls with something emitting 300 W/m2, to warm up?

            You are still missing the point. Heat cannot be transferred from a colder body (ice) to a warmer body (a human with a body temperature of 37C). Radiation from the walls won’t warm a human body.

            Even the hot air from a furnace at 25C won’t warm a human body. The human body is a self-contained unit that produces its own heat and maintains its temperature at 37C or so as long as it is supplied with fuel and healthy.

            That 37C is the temperature of an internal orifice, the mouth. I’d be curious as to the actual skin temperature.

            Room temperature is defined at 20C. That temperature wont prevent a human body from cooling but it’s apparently enough to prevent the human body from transferring heat to the surroundings via conduction, convection, and radiation and too fast a rate.

            The rate of cooling of the human body is one of heat in versus heat out. Heat in comes from the food we eat and the rate of heat out depends on the clothing we wear and the ambient temperature of a room.

            Your walls at 20C are not independent radiators. Their temperature depends on the outside temperature and/or heating from a heat source internally. You won’t get any warming of a human body from walls at 20C but the walls will help maintain the room temperature at 20C once they have warmed to that temperature.

            Same with ice, it won’t warm anything that is warmer than it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            As usual, Gordon has more patience to explain the obvious to the clowns than me.

            I just enjoy the humor from their ignorance.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Why would I want to block those walls with something emitting 300 W/m2, to warm up?’

            G: ‘You are still missing the point.’

            Honestly, Gordon, would you feel warmer in a house with walls at 20C or walls of ice at 0C?

            How bout walls @ 3 K, the temperature of space? Would you feel warmer, cooler, or the same?

            Would your body lose heat at the same rate with walls @ 0 C? How bout with walls @ 3 K?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate continues to back away from his own pseudoscience. It’s fun to watch.

            418 + 300 = 718 Watts/m^2.

            Add more ice, 1018 Watts/m^2.

            Heck, let’s warm the shack up! 1000 blocks of ice.

            30,418 Watts/m^2.

            That’s some REAL “global warming”.

            (Clowns actually believe such nonsense.)

          • Nate says:

            ‘418 + 300 = 718 Watts/m^2.’

            No, JD. Not all fluxes get summed.

            Here’s a clue for the perpetually confused:

            If I earn $100 from one job and $100 from another job then I earned $200 total. They sum.

            If I earn $100 and Jim-Bob in Boise earns a $100, then I didn’t earn $200 total. They don’t sum.

            You see the difference?

            Good, now see if you can figure out when to sum flux and when not to sum it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, as I indicated, clowns believe fluxes add. They actually believe flux from the atmosphere adds to solar flux. So, it’s funny to see you attempt to back away from the pseudoscience. Obviously you can’t warm your room with ice cubes, just as you can’t warm Earth’s surface with 14.7 μ photons.

            Now, watch for some clown jump in to point out you can warm the room if it is below the temperature of ice. Of course they conviently forget Earth’s average temperature is 288K (15 C, 59 F).

            They are so desperate….

          • Norman says:

            Nate

            I see you are attempting to reason with the blog troll. I would encourage you to NOT FEED THE TROLL. This one does not care how intelligent or science based your posts are. They may even know you are correct, they will troll anyway trying to annoy you to get continued responses. I do not think this troll is one individual. Others have pointed out the troll posting times and it would probably be a group of them taking turns posting and annoying what could be good conversations and discussions. If you keep feeding this troll we will have to continue to see the troll posts continue. Let it go, you will find an improvement in mood!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, I don’t know which is funnier: Your childish obsession with personalities, or your pathetic attempts to pervert physics.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, as I indicated, clowns believe fluxes add’

            Yes, even when we give you the right formulas, when you put in the wrong numbers, you still manage to f*k it up.

            You need to drop the class.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          RV,

          Are you actually disagreeing with something I wrote, or just making irrelevant comments because you are stupid and ignorant?

          Dogs? Deniers? Greenhouse effect? You must be mad, or at least suffering from some form of delusional psychosis.

          Provide a useful description of this “greenhouse effect” to which you refer, and then at least there might be something to examine. Of course you can’t, so you are reduced to making pointless and irrelevant comments.

          Keep it up. At least, it costs you little, and provides endless amusement to others.

          Cheers.

  16. “Unprecedented sea level rise”. I was referring to the fact that sea levels have been rising for 120 years at a fairly constant rate. Therefore, the cause can not be laid at the feet of anthropogenic climate change

    • Craig T says:

      From 1870 to 2001 sea levels rose less than 20 cm. Before 1930 the rate was less than 1 mm per year. From 1993 to present the rate is over 3 mm per year.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        What is your point? Is this your bizarre way of trying to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 and H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, or are you just making random and irrelevant assertions due to some psychotic compulsion?

        You really have no clue, have you?

        Cheers.

        • Craig T says:

          “… or are you just making random and irrelevant assertions due to some psychotic compulsion?”

          You got me. I have a psychotic compulsion to interject observations and data into this conversation and steer away from ad homs. I know it is irrelevant to you that what I posted shows the sea level rise has not stayed constant over the last 120 years. No, the rising water will not get between the Sun and a thermometer and make it warmer.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past. Do you have a point?

            Unless you have awesome superpowers, you have no idea of the rate of vertical or lateral tectonic plate displacement, above or below the ocean surface, the effect of the resultant changed shape of the ocean containment, or indeed many other relevant factors.

            You obviously don’t need to pretend to be a fool.

            By the way, the primary greenhouse gas according to Wikipedia is stated to have the chemical composition H2O. I agree with you that increasing the amount between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter.

            I assume you misspoke, in a feeble attempt at sarcasm. Have you inadvertently been hoist with your own petard?

            Cheers.

          • JDhuffman says:

            Mike, I’m glad you didn’t inform poor Craig T that marine fossils have been found on many mountain peaks, including Mt. Everest.

            It’s funnier to just let them bask in their ignorance.

          • Craig T says:

            “The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past.”

            “Mike, I’m glad you didn’t inform poor Craig T that marine fossils have been found on many mountain peaks, including Mt. Everest.”

            Yes, Mt Everest is almost 9000 m high. Yes, marine fossils have been found on Mt. Everest. No, the ocean wasn’t 10,000 m above the current sea level when those fossils were trapped in rock.

            And yes, water vapor is the greenhouse gas that affects temperature the most. But I don’t think you suddenly realized the greenhouse effect is real.

            And no, I’m not going to return the insults.

          • JDHuffman says:

            But did you learn anything, poor Craig?

          • Craig T says:

            I learned a lot more reading Mike and your defense of Tesla’s claim that the Moon doesn’t rotate. I did learn that Mike thinks the ocean was deep enough at one time to cover Mt. Everest. Not sure if you agree with him.

            Mainly, my judgement that no amount of evidence will ever change either of your opinions has been confirmed. My goal is more to post an opposing view for other readers. Now I’m reconsidering. There may be only a dozen people that read the comments, most of those convinced they understand science better than anyone that spends a career studying a discipline.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, you haven’t presented any evidence of the Moon rotating on its axis. It is a well known fact that Institutionalized Pseudoscience supports such nonsense. So, linking to IP means nothing. The actual physics, and simple experiments, indicates the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Some folks just can’t think for themselves.

            The same applies to AGW.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        craig…”From 1870 to 2001 sea levels rose less than 20 cm. Before 1930 the rate was less than 1 mm per year. From 1993 to present the rate is over 3 mm per year”.

        Where’s the proof? We don’t have the telemetry today to accurately measure the ocean levels, so how the heck did they measure ocean level rises prior to 1930?

    • Rune Valaker says:

      Try this one:

      https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/5946.abstract

      Still at a fairly constant rate the last 120 years?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        RV,

        Some people will believe anything, if they are gullible enough.

        If you are trying an appeal to authority, you might choose one that doesn’t include –

        “reconciles observational GMSL estimates with the sum of individually modeled contributions from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 database for the entire 20th century.”

        Reconciles “estimates” with the “sum” of “models”? Really? Who is more delusional – the authors or you? If you believe this is science, good for you!

        Try another gotcha – maybe somebody even more stupid and ignorant than you will applaud loudly. Good luck.

        Cheers.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Rune
        Someone here defines bad science as anything which challenges his world view, and I’m not referring to you.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          B,

          I am glad you are not referring to me. Thanks.

          Here is a definition of science –

          “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

          Have you a definition of “bad” science? No? Just stringing random words together as usual?

          On the other hand, here is a definition of pseudoscience –

          “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method”

          I suppose you believe in a GHE which you cannot even describe. You might even believe that increasing the amount of CO2 and H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.

          Belief in such things is obviously pseudoscience, rather than science. Carry on believing.

          Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rune…from the article at your link…

        “The rate at which global mean sea level (GMSL) rose during the 20th century is uncertain, with little consensus between various reconstructions that indicate rates of rise ranging from 1.3 to 2 mm⋅y−1. Here we present a 20th-century GMSL reconstruction computed using an area-weighting technique…”

        They claim the level of the oceans us uncertain then add more uncertainty using a model.

        • Craig T says:

          Using an area-weighting technique is still working with data not a model. Rune’s paper actually talks about problems with sea level models. “Particularly striking is a significant mismatch of observed and modeled GMSL between the 1930s and the 1970s, in which the models generally suggest lower rates than observations.”

          Earlier you asked me “Where’s the proof?” The paper tells where they got their data. “Our tide gauge selection is based on the data set described in ref. 16, consisting of 322 stations (Fig. S1A), for which VLM corrections with uncertainties of less than 0.7 mmy^−1 are available.”

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Craig T, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      steve…”sea levels have been rising for 120 years at a fairly constant rate. Therefore, the cause can not be laid at the feet of anthropogenic climate change….”

      I was reading a book on a Shackleton expedition to Antarctica. One of the crew was a geologist who specialized in glaciers. He pointed out, even back in 1910, or so, that glaciers have been melting for thousands of years. They have been melting long before anthropogenic propaganda.

      That means the Earth has been warming for a long time as well. We are making way too much out of a degree C warming after 400 years of the Little Ice Age where temps were 1C to 2C below normal.

  17. bohous says:

    I do not think that the current increase would be unexpected. I try to approximate the _red_ line in the graph (after detrending) with a sinus function with periode 3.6 years and the approximation is heuristically quite good for the whole range of the graph. The last minimum of the red line was expected in March 2018 and now it is expected to grow again for some time. The approximation function is
    T = A * sin(B * t + C) + E * t + F
    where
    A=0.147177254326263
    B=1.74532925199433
    C=6.92793623087502
    E=0.0127217002387231
    F=-25.3918796086528
    I do not dare to guess where 3.6 years comes from.

    • bohous says:

      Both “t” (time) and “T” (temperature departure) is extracted from the graph

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Variations from the trend are NOT periodic.

      • bohous says:

        A hint of periodicity is visible from the graph on the first glance. I only tried to quantify it. Not speaking of the fact that periodicity 3.6 years has already been mentioned in relation to El Nino before.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Aperiodic variation with an average turnaround time of 3.6 years will come out as a period of 3.6 years when you try to force a sine curve to the data.

          To see how good such a model is, you need to form the model using half the date set only (ie. first half or last half), then see how well it does at predicting the other half. I guarantee it will do a poor job.

          • bohous says:

            At the level where I intended to show the periodicity the dividing of the interval is maybe a too sofisticated step. Just look at the image (I changed the colors slightly so as not to be confused with the original graph) where I plot in red the sinus curve – it is obvious that an increase is about to come but not exactly when:
            https://udoli.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/heuristic.gif

          • Bobdesbond says:

            There are lots of places where your curve doesn’t align with the data. And the only way it will continue to go close to lining with with new data is if you keep adjusting the parameters as the data comes in.

            And it is called a “sine curve” or a “sinusoidal curve”, never a “sinus curve” (at least not in English).

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bobdes…”To see how good such a model is, you need to form the model using half the date set only ”

            Better still Bob, just look at the entire UAH curve and put your number crunching aside. Follow the red curve, which obviously smooths out the monthly averages. If you look at it visually between 1998 and 2015, you can see it forms close to a flat trend without doing any calculations.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bohous…”Just look at the image”

            At first appearances, it looks like your sine waves are simply following a straight line trend. Forget the straight line trend and look at the reality represented by the red running average.

            The IPCC admitted in 2013, following AR5, that no significant warming occurred between 1998 – 2012. Based on the error margin supplied there could have been a warming of 0.05C/decade over that range or a cooling.

            The trend was flat for 15 years between 1998 – 2012 according to the IPCC and if you look at the UAH graph it’s around 18 years. Then there is a positive slope around 2015 as the super El Nino of early 2016 approached.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            How about we take a 5-year running average instead of just 13 months. What do you think you will see then?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Better still Bob, just look at the entire UAH curve and put your number crunching aside. Follow the red curve, which obviously smooths out the monthly averages. If you look at it visually between 1998 and 2015, you can see it forms close to a flat trend without doing any calculations.

            Pure idiocy.

            Don’t prove anything mathematically — just eyeball it!

          • David Appell says:

            As if routinely lying wasn’t already bad enough, Gordon also shows he is stupid.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bobdes…”Variations from the trend are NOT periodic”.

        Take a look at the red running average curve on Roy’s graph then tell me it’s not periodic.

        A trend is an average as is the red running AVERAGE. I think the red curve tells us a whole lot more about the real trend than a straight line averaged between end points.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Apparently you believe that the only requirement for periodicity is that the curve goes up and down.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bobdes…”Apparently you believe that the only requirement for periodicity is that the curve goes up and down.”

            I am talking about averages which you and others fail to equate with trends. A trend does not have to be a straight
            line.

            Roy’s red line is referred to as a moving average in the following article. It smooths the data but it also represents trends within trends.

            http://www.simafore.com/blog/bid/205162/6-trend-analyses-to-consider-prior-to-time-series-forecasting

            The red running average in Roy’s graph shows you a running average for the the data and if you look at it visually between 1998 – 2015 you see a flat trend overall trend.

            You can beat statistics to death with every such theory while the data is glaring at you and telling you something else. Then again, I was taught probability and statistics from the POV of an engineer where we don’t have time to mess around with pure theory. We have to understand the physical aspects, otherwise things blow up and/or fall down.

            Part of my training in engineering was engineering drawing, an art in which you learn to draw what you intend to work out mathematically. In exam questions we had to draw a fairly complex drawing just to get an idea of what we were asked in the problem.

            It seems to me, you and others are content to number crunch the data without having the slightest idea what the numbers mean.

            On the UAH graph, there are semblances of sine and cosine waves in the red curve. An immediate glance tells you the average is zero with such a shape representing data.

            It’s not rocket science, look at the cosine wave between 2007 and 2011 and it tells you the average between 2007 and 2011 was roughly flat. Now average the sine-like ripples between 2002 and 2007….flat again.

            From the 0.2C mark in 1998 till 2002, you have a distorted sine wave. The front part is narrow with a peak of 0.45C and the back part distended with a high of about 0.2C. I would say you could roughly make that a straight line (flat) average.

            Guess what? The IPCC found a flat trend from 1998 – 2012.

            I have asked several times, how do you explain that flat 15 to 18 years flat trend with a stated trend of 0.12C per decade?

            You don’t. The UAH trend cannot be explained adequately with a number-crunched trend from 1970 – present. You can do it if you want but it means dick-all. There is a rewarming trend from 1979 – 1997 then a 15 – 18 year flat trend from 1998 – roughly 2015.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”+1″

            If you had a clue what you are talking about your aping might have significance. As it stands, you are simply butt-kissing to someone else who has no idea what he’s talking about.

          • David Appell says:

            Says the liar.

            A man with fewer morals than a worm.
            Than a cockroach.
            Than lice.

          • David Appell says:

            I have asked several times, how do you explain that flat 15 to 18 years flat trend with a stated trend of 0.12C per decade?

            Explain why you think this violates AGW.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon makes a claim

            “Guess what? The IPCC found a flat trend from 1998 – 2012.”

            Nope, they found a flat or cooling trend with an uncertainty so high that the measured range also includes a high warming trend.

            The lesson to be learned is that you can’t make predictions based on short periods of noisy data.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

    • Scott R says:

      Bohous great work… very interesting. I found that the El Nino peaks proceed the UAH temperature spikes by 4-6 months… but if you apply a 5 year MA to el nino, it really starts to look like the 11 year period solar cycle on an offset. Take 3.6 years and multiply by 3. Solar cycle! So you have found a sub cycle that I had not considered. I will most definitely be looking into this some more. Thanks so much!

      • bohous says:

        How does it happen that the 11 year period is divided by 3? Is it the 3-rd harmonic frequency? It would expect a force that is not strong enough to cause the oscillation and needs a resonance. For example (just dreaming) Earth with the continuous belt of oceans – Arctic Ocean, Pacific, Southern Ocean, Atlantic rotating as a conductive loop in the variable solar magnetic field, the warm water (with higher conductivity) being pushed against the rotation the more the stronger is the magnetic field.

        • Scott R says:

          Bohous yes I was thinking some kind of 3rd harmonic frequency, but why it breaks down this way, I’m completely stumped right now. At the same time completely not surprised since nature loves harmonics, fibonacci retracements. I never noticed this relationship before. I am willing to say that the 2016 El Nino maximum qualifies as the obvious down beat to this 3.6 x 3 wave pattern. If true, there is 1 more down wave coming in temperature. So the 2018 lows will get taken out before the 2016 highs. It should be a substantial smashing, because in order for my theory to be right, the 5 year MA on el nino has to not only roll over and reverse, it still has to plummet based on the TSI lows of the current minimum that we are still enjoying. Basically the 5 year MA on El Nino is a lagging indicator to TSI and the 3.6 year pattern.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            scott…”Bohous yes I was thinking some kind of 3rd harmonic frequency…”

            Please remember that your reference to a 3rd harmonic is statistical jargon until you find evidence of a resonant condition in reality.

            In the field of electronics, or the electrical field, you can measure and see 3rd harmonic frequencies on an oscilloscope. They are representations of electrical alternating currents therefore what you see on the scope waveform are electrons being perturbed by interfering forces.

            If you could prove the same perturbations in the real world, related to ocean and atmospheric phenomena, you’d be onto something.

            I am trying to say that statistics can be interesting but entirely misleading, unless you verify and understand the contexts from which the data was acquired.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bohous…”For example (just dreaming) Earth with the continuous belt of oceans Arctic Ocean, Pacific, Southern Ocean, Atlantic rotating as a conductive loop in the variable solar magnetic field, the warm water (with higher conductivity) being pushed against the rotation the more the stronger is the magnetic field”.

          I don’t think you are dreaming. Tsonis et al have already looked into such cycles over a century and found a positive correlation between the ocean oscillations and warming/cooling.

          With regard to resonance, look at the response (on the UAg graph on this site) following the 1998 El Nino. It dissipated below the baseline till mid 2000 then suddenly rose 0.2C, where it leveled off for a decade or more. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1977 and was not explained till 15 years later as being caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

          In my naivete, I am visualizing the 1998 EN as setting off an oscillation which produced a warming effect that sustained itself for another 15 years.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon R wrote:
            In my naivete….

            You got that right.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon R wrote:
            In my naivete.

            You got that right.”

            At least I am willing to acknowledge my understanding of atmospheric processes is naive. You, on the other hand, are willing to bs your way through everything you encounter.

            You have still not worked out how heat is transferred from the Sun to the Earth when heat cannot flow through the vacuum of space.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, you are a bald-faced liar.

            Lying doesn’t even phase you anymore.

            You aren’t ashamed of lying. You’ve done it for several years now.

            What kind of moral person keeps lying time and time and time again?

            No one, that’s who.

            Shame on you.

          • bobdroege says:

            But heat and energy are the same thing.

            If you say the sun doesn’t heat the earth you are being willfully obtuse.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • David Appell says:

        Scott R says:
        I found that the El Nino peaks proceed the UAH temperature spikes by 4-6 months but if you apply a 5 year MA to el nino, it really starts to look like the 11 year period solar cycle on an offset. Take 3.6 years and multiply by 3. Solar cycle!

        This is called…numerology.

  18. sky says:

    Sinusoidal curve-fitting to aperiodic data seems always attractive– when the record is relatively short. With longer records, it invariably proves inadequate. At the very least, the cross-correlation with the original data should be displayed. It’s never high enough to be really attractive.

    • Scott R says:

      I do not think it’s appropriate to assign the sin curve long term. The sun is not on a timer. It’s 11 year solar cycles vary in intensity and duration. The longer the data table, the more random drift will sum up. I therefore contend that the exact mathematical equation need not apply. Every cycle will be different. Other than major volcanic eruptions, the relation between El Nio and temperature is very clear. As solar cycle 25 starts, winds will pick up. This will bury the warm surface water we currently enjoy. As La Nia gets going, the globe cools. When cycle 25 ends, winds will die, El Nio begins again. Within this 11 year cycle it now looks like we have a 3.6 year cycle and obviously the yearly cycle that increases wind intensity in the winter.

      These temperatures look like a perfect leading diagonal lower from the 2016 peak. I do not think it’s been 3.6 years yet though. I won’t be surprised if it goes higher first, then drops.

      • Scott r says:

        What is spell check doing to my El Nio and La Nia? Lol must be an apple phone issue.

        • JDHuffman says:

          On this site, the tilde does not work. You can use “Nino”, without the tilde.

          If you prefer using the tilde, you must use HTML codes.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        scott…”the relation between El Nio and temperature is very clear. As solar cycle 25 starts, winds will pick up. This will bury the warm surface water we currently enjoy. As La Nia gets going, the globe cools. When cycle 25 ends, winds will die, El Nio begins again.”

        One problem. The solar cycles are 22 years between max/min and the ENSO cycles are much shorter, measured in a few years. If you tried to relate solar cycles to the PDO or AMO, you might have something, since the PDO is related to ENSO, and all the oscillations are related as Tsonis et al discovered.

        • Scott R says:

          Gordon… take the El Nino data and put a 5 year moving average on it. You will see the 11 year solar cycle.

          What we have here is a 11 year cycle plus a 3.6 year cycle plus a 1 year cycle. That 3.6 year cycle is honestly a HUGE discovery. Has anyone made this connection before?

          Because the 3.6 year cycle is not timed to the same down beat as the seasonal 1 year cycle, it creates data chaos. You might have La Nina in the winter. You might have El Nino in the summer. It depends on how the harmonic cancels the other 2 factors out (or not).

          bohous you did well… really well.

          Perhaps Dr Spencer would comment on this because I think this is an important discovery.

          • Scott R says:

            Oh I forgot to mention that El nino is tied to the 11 year sun spot cycle / TSI… not the 22 year magnetic reversal within the sun… although I admit I haven’t studied the effect of the 22 year magnetic cycle.

          • David Appell says:

            What’s the evidence that sunspots determine El Ninos?

            What’s the causal mechanism?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            What’s the evidence that you are not quite deluded, and living in a fantasy world?

            Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          scott…”Gordon take the El Nino data and put a 5 year moving average on it. You will see the 11 year solar cycle”.

          It would be interesting if that’s the case. I have read that the PDO affects ENSO and if what you say has merit then it should be easy to predict ENSO events by solar cycles.

          • David Appell says:

            I have read that the PDO affects ENSO and if what you say has merit then it should be easy to predict ENSO events by solar cycles.

            Huh????

            Please show us how “easy” this is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

      • David Appell says:

        Scott R says:
        These temperatures look like a perfect leading diagonal lower from the 2016 peak. I do not think its been 3.6 years yet though. I wont be surprised if it goes higher first, then drops.

        Ever hear of Elliott Wave Theory?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Are you really a dimwitted troll, or are you just pretending?

          Cheers.

        • Scott R says:

          David Appell,

          Yes I have actually. I’ve actually traded it in the stock market. Basically, I’ve been looking at data my whole life with my day job, stock trading, and climate. I often used divergences in my trading and analytics… and the divergences proved quite telling on many occasions.

          Why do you dismiss the data showing the same 11 year cycle on El Nino so easily? How would putting a 5 year MA on a data set like this automatically produce an 11 year cycle? It is there. And now the argument for El Nino controlled by the sun looks even stronger because there is a clear harmonic at 3.6 years as well.

          We know that a stronger sun creates stronger trade winds. We see that every year. If there are 3.6 year, 11 year solar cycles, these will either enhance or scale back the yearly trade wind cycle. When the wind speed picks up, the upwelling will increase.

        • Craig T says:

          Scott, here’s something you should look at. Pacific trade winds blow from east to west. During an El Nino those trade winds weaken and even reverse. During an la Nina trade winds are stronger than normal.
          https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/enso_patterns

          The trade winds drive ocean currents that bring cold water up in the east and force warmer water down in the west. Those currents weaken or stop during El Ninos, allowing the heat to stay at the surface of the ocean.
          http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/trade_enso.html
          https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/walker-circulation-ensos-atmospheric-buddy

          • Scott R says:

            Craig T yep. The wind speed picks up AS the sun’s energy increases which cools the planet. Think of the sun as a trickle charger for the system. The energy is released by the oceans when the sun shuts down. This is why the solar cycle is offset from El Nio. The deeper mins with all that uncirculated surface water is cooling the planet long term. If the yearly cycle is on a delay, and the 3.6 year cycle is on a delay, and the 11 year cycle is on a delay, what will the 100/400 year cycle be on? Delay of course.

          • Craig T says:

            Apologies Scott. I thought you said stronger trade winds produced El Ninos. I just reread some of your posts and you knew strong trade winds lead to la Ninas.

            Have you read any of the papers written by more traditional scientists talking about their ENSO models?

  19. Andrew stout says:

    Betting against a warming trend since the 1600’s, to reverse, at any particular moment, is a poor bet, but generally speaking, I AGREE the Solar minimum effect is expected soon: personally I didn’t expect to see effects for years. my expectation is that it’ll be yet another downturn within a generally warming cycle, like the 1940-1970 cooling Period NASA/NOAA censored…. if there’s no additional ‘pause’ or cooling trend in about 2025, I’ll be curious/ suprised, but Climate / weather is like that: if it doesn’t happen in 2025, that doesn’t say anything about 2026-2050. Look at all this freezing temperatures Into Spring, yet UAH record doesn’t seem impressed – go figure.

    • David Appell says:

      I AGREE the Solar minimum effect is expected soon….

      It’s always juuuuuuust around the corner, isn’t it?

      How many years of bad predictions do you need to admit your idea is wrong?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”How many years of bad predictions do you need to admit your idea is wrong?”

        You have not applied that to the AGW theory, for which there is no evidence, yet it is always just around the corner. It has been 30 years since Hansen predicted gloom and doom yet nothing has happened.

        We do have evidence of the effect of prolonged low sun spot counts like the Maunder and Dalton minimums. The Little Ice Age coincided with them. Do you think that was a coincidence?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon R wrote:
          You have not applied that to the AGW theory, for which there is no evidence

          Like a mangy dog, gordon lies again.

          I don’t think gordon is too stupid to understand the evidence for AGW. I think he’s too immoral to admit it.

          He’s an immoral, unethical liar in any case.

        • Carbon500 says:

          GR: I reside in the UK and yes, it’s about 31 years since the IPCC was formed, and no doomsday yet – just weather variation from year to year, now touted as ‘climate change’ and ‘extreme events.’
          Winter gales for example, a normal part of our weather, are these days given names by the Met Office, as if there were something unusual about them.
          We see billions of dollars and pounds (or name your preferred currency) wasted on ‘mitigating climate change’ – money which would be far better spent on health care, policing, education, social care and much more.
          Let’s see what idiocy the UK government will come up with next now that the baying mob outside Parliament has persuaded them to declare a ‘planetary emergency’!

  20. “U.S. had its coldest April in more than 20 years”, this is not reflected in the so called satellite data. Snow falls in Western Australias Stirling Ranges in April for the first time in 49 years also suggesting that this was not a warm April in the Southern Hemisphere either… I am not convinced that your “corrected” satellite data reflects the reality of what has been observed on the ground. Furthermore if your data is correct and the earth has warmed in April in the midst of very low sunspot activity, this then contradicts the theory of additional cloud created by cosmic rays. The spate of flooding world wide over the past months indicates in fact that there has been more cloud and consequent precipitation. We are not all climate scientists but when the data does not conform to what is being observed, then we suspect that this is yet more corruption, the kind of which we have had a belly full.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Lawrence…”We are not all climate scientists but when the data does not conform to what is being observed, then we suspect that this is yet more corruption…”

      That may not be up to UAH. As I have claimed, NOAA is known for fudging data and the UAH sat data comes from NOAA. UAH can only deal with the data they receive.

      What you say about a colder than normal April is interesting, and possibly a cooler April in Australia. I have commented on cooler conditions on the west coast of Canada that do not coincide with the global average.

    • Scott R says:

      Lawrence,

      We have not even started the cooling cycle yet for this solar minimum. The El nino cycle (which is controlled by the sun) is on a delay. You may want to check the conversation we had earlier in this thread. Once SC 25 starts, the warm water will be buried as the wind speeds pick up, the ice cold water underneath the surface will emerge and the temperature will plummet. In about 1 1/2 years expect negative departures for the global temperature.

      • David Appell says:

        What’s the evidence that the sun controls El Ninos?

      • David Appell says:

        Scott R says:
        “In about 1 1/2 years expect negative departures for the global temperature.”

        It’s curious how cooling is always JUST around the corner….

        https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/04/abdussamatovs-prediction-of-solar.html

        • Scott R says:

          Funny David… Do you see how the arctic is cooling twice as fast as everywhere else now? What part of the main stream global warming…no no no… main stream “climate change” model was that a part of? Isn’t it like 99 out of 100 of the traditional co2 based climate models have failed?
          Talk about people in glass houses.

          It’s hilarious. We are all no better than a weather man. What do we have, 0.44 deg C during an El Nino? Isn’t that about as expected as one can get? To be fair, I just joined the group. I just started making cooling predictions recently.

          Based on my analysis of the 3.6 year harmonic, 11 year cycle, we are about to drop. We will probably be at baseline just in time for the elections which would be hilarious wouldn’t it?

          • David Appell says:

            Scott R says:
            Funny David Do you see how the arctic is cooling twice as fast as everywhere else now?

            Show me the data.

          • David Appell says:

            Scott again: whats the evidence that the sun controls El Ninos?

          • Craig T says:

            Scott, I took sunspot data and graphed it against the Multivariate ENSO Index for 1950 – 2018. I can’t see any relationship between the solar cycle and El Nino/Southern Oscillation.
            https://i.imgur.com/Ws7wWm3.jpg

          • Scott R says:

            David Appell,

            The data is right here in the UAH.

            NoPol Jan 2016 = +2.46 deg C
            NoPol April 2019 = +0.92 deg C
            Drop = -1.54 deg C

            Globe Feb 2016 = +.86 deg C
            Globe April 2019 = +0.44 deg C
            Drop = -0.42

            Or you could look at the 12 month moving averages and see the same thing.

            Either way, the same people that have been saying look at the arctic, it’s warming twice as fast as everywhere else need to see that the arctic swings around wildly. It’s now cooling twice as fast as everywhere else.

          • Scott R says:

            Sorry Craig T I couldn’t open that link. Maybe it’s being blocked for some reason.

            In order to see the link, you have to apply a 5 year moving average to the El nino data. Then overlay the TSI departure from 1361 W/M^2.

            If you do that, you will see that as TSI picks up and El Nino ends. El Nino drops off after TSI declines.

            It may seem like it contradicts my theory that the sun is powering this cycle, but you just have to realize this isn’t a simple hot sun, hot ocean, hot land direct link. When the TSI is the highest, that is when we cool down short term because the cold water is being drawn up by the trade winds. When the TSI stays low and we get lots of El Ninos, the warm surface water is not buried which allows the ice cold Antarctic waters to build up without mixing with that warm tropical surface water. So this is a short term gain, but a long term loss. You can see the connection to the Antarctic flow by plotting the HADSTT3 southern ocean data also on a 5 year MA. Both the southern ocean, and El Nino seem tied to the solar cycle.

            I will work on a way to post links to my charts here when I have time. I’ve been spoiled by facebook just taking snap shots of my charts and posting. Also, do you guys get notifications from this? I haven’t been.

          • Craig T says:

            If ENSO cycles are driven by the solar cycle I expect the formula describing it to be complicated. Here’s links to a paper and presentation on the subject:
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008GL034831
            https://www.agci.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/lib/main/10S1_0613_JMeehl.pdf

          • Craig T says:

            “Either way, the same people that have been saying look at the arctic, its warming twice as fast as everywhere else need to see that the arctic swings around wildly. Its now cooling twice as fast as everywhere else.”

            Yes, the Arctic anomaly went down 1.54 C in the last 40 months, but the 40 months before that it went up 2.19 C. Starting or ending on a 40 year high makes short term trends untrustworthy. I don’t expect the longer term warming trend to stop.

          • Scott R says:

            Craig T thanks for the links to the papers. I just did a quick skim for now and noticed they also have that 3.6 harmonic along with a 2.2 year harmonic. Isn’t it wonderful how complex our climate is? I’ll have to look for that 2.2 year as well.

          • Scott R says:

            Craig T agreed. It should be a 2-way street. I’d honestly like to see them completely adjust El Nino / La Nina forcing out of the temperature data before giving it to the public. The public will take the peak numbers and run with it. I estimate the actual departure to be something like 0.25 deg C right now. Unfortunately, due to the delay / complexity of the El nino forcing, that will never happen. You will continue to have left wing media in Louisiana checking sea level, and right wingers in Norway. You will have right wingers taking the 2016 high and abusing that on the way down… same as we saw left wing media abusing it on the way up. Science has gotten far to political / biased. As far as the intermediate trend, it is still UP. I do see some cracks in the trend developing. I find it extremely interesting that the UAH summer data is diverging and not hitting new maximums. El nino is very biased to winter forcing as you know. If El Nino is caused by a weak sun in the short term, than eventually the cooling summers will win as the northern ice gets more and more stubborn. We have already seen that in Greenland recently. More northern ice will reflect away more heat and we COULD in theory go into another 400 year low similar to the mini ice age of 1600. For now, I’m looking at the sun data that is in, and I see we have a 1970s type cool down coming. The prediction for the lower SC25 is PRETTY main stream I’d say. The disagreement is only on the forcing. That’s really what this is all about. Splitting the climate changes we see into the various forcers and isolating the man made effects. Perhaps the sun will prove to be the biggest forcer when it’s all said and done. That doesn’t mean we have a go ahead to trash the planet… but if Co2 isn’t as important, we can worry about other things. That being said, being open to a cooler earth seems wise.

  21. Conspiracy Guy says:

    I think you guys are on to something. Just yesterday, I had to put a sweater over my polo. Its May, for heavens sake! And not just me, my wife noticed the chill as well. Brrrr…

  22. Conspiracy Guy says:

    Lawrence

    …this is not reflected in the so called satellite data..

    Its reassuring to see not everyone has been fooled my NASA. Satellites are a major con job, but I guess youve already figured that out:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IFd-ttWUmJ4

    • Bobdesbond says:

      So instead of addressing my response the first time you posted this, you post it again and ignore the issues.

    • David Appell says:

      Where is RSS on your graph?

      And did scenario A actually happen?

      PS: *NO* scenario ever exactly happens.

    • Craig T says:

      Fixed it.
      https://i.imgur.com/iFlnbkm.jpg

      Look at Dr. Spencer’s next post about AIRS satellite data. It’s surface data matches GISTEMP and troposphere data matches UAH and RSS. Since we live on the surface we should use surface temperature data.

      • Eben says:

        Even NOAA themselves Admit the land data is junk showing false warming
        https://bit.ly/2DOmBua
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1

      • Eben says:

        How could a bunch of thermometers concentrated around major populated areas ever stack up in accuracy against a complete sweep of the whole planet with a satellite sensor ?
        It does however offer a great opportunity to the few who compile it to massage and fiddle with it any way they want.
        That why the divergence from the two – that is the man made part

        • Craig T says:

          Satellite data has to be massaged a whole not more than thermometer readings to get anything meaningful out of them. Case in point – UAH adjusted the numbers from a cooling trend to a warming trend in 1998. Not because Dr. Spencer was suddenly in league with the Warmist data doctors but a clear cause of error was found.

          Look at the next blog post about AIRS satellite data. The ground data lines up well with GISTEMP and troposphere temps line up with RSS and UAH. The divergence seems to not be an error of measurement but an accurate measurement of different parts of the atmosphere.

          • Eben says:

            You are trying so hard you are giving away that you paycheck depends on propagating the global warming scam.

          • Craig T says:

            Financial disclosure: I receive no payments or incentives from the Global Warming Scam or subsidiaries thereof. I do benefit from the continuation of sound science practices.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

        • Scott says:

          Eben,

          I did a full analysis of various cities vs small weather stations in Michigan and found a stronger linear warming trend in the larger cities. There is definitely a heat island / cutting trees down component to global warming. It is probably more significant than Co2, but not as significant as the ocean heat content… which in my opinion is completely natural. (linear sea rise)

  23. Robert Mcintosh says:

    Figure 2 on page 289 of AR5 suggests sea level rise of 3 mm in the 1930s.

    • David Appell says:

      You mean from about 1915 to 1930, don’t you?

      And you’re picking out one reconstruction in particular, and ignoring the other two that show less SLR?

      And you’re ignoring the uncertainty? I calculate the rise to be about (3.0 +/- 1.3) mm at the 90% C.L.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”You mean from about 1915 to 1930, dont you?”

        No…he said 3 mm in the 1930s. All of it from melting ice as the planet re-warmed from the Little Ice Age and beyond.

    • Craig T says:

      This figure?
      https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGI_AR5_Fig13-7-718×1024.jpg

      The green, blue, and purple lines are three different tidal gauge studies. The rate of sea level rise for the purple study (Jevrejeva 2008) jumps more than the other two between 1920 and 1970. Together they show the rate for 1930 between 0.5 to 2 mm per year. For 2000 the rate is 2 to 3.5 mm per year.

      • David Appell says:

        No, figure 2 on page 289 of AR5 WG1.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        craig…”This figure?”

        The three top figures are marked ‘observed and modeled’ whereas the bottom figure is observed. The observed shows about 6 cm (about 2″) since 1992.

        There are wide error bands around the curve and I would guess the 6 cms falls within the overall error category considering the inaccuracy of trying to cover all the oceans with tidal gauges.

        Considering the Mickey Mouse aspects of these graphs I say the evidence of sea level rise is inconclusive. More alarmist bs.

        Off course, that bs is David Appell’s religion.

        • Craig T says:

          The error bands are a bit wide. The sea level in 1900 could have been anywhere from 120 to 180 mm lower than the 2000 sea level altimeter measurement. That’s a rate between 1.2 to 1.8 mm per year.

          Of course the altimeter data is a lot more accurate. It shows sea level went up 33 mm between 2000 and 2010. That’s a rate of 3.3 mm per year. That makes it somewhere between a 185% to 275% higher rate of sea level rise than the past century average.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, if there were no humans on Earth, sea levels would be rising. Do you know why?

  24. Mike Flynn says:

    CT,

    You wrote –

    “I did learn that Mike thinks the ocean was deep enough at one time to cover Mt. Everest.”,

    – thereby demonstrating that you should ask for a full refund of your mindreading course fees. Thinking that you can read my mind by means of your own unassisted mental powers, indicates that you are suffering from delusions of grandeur, or you may be undergoing a psychotic episode, wherein you truly believe you have psychic powers.

    Marine fossils by definition occur in marine environments.

    One definition of the sea level from the Cambridge dictionary is –

    “the average height of the sea where it meets the land:”

    example:

    “The top of Mount Everest is 8,848 m above sea level.”

    Think about the implications at your leisure, if you feel like it.

    Maybe you could quote me exactly next time. Just making stuff up, so that you can be ridiculed for arguing with yourself is your choice, of course.

    Still no GHE, is there? No CO2 or H2O heating either. Facts make no difference to the beliefs of pseudoscientific climate cultists, but that’s the nature of the ignorant, stupid, and extremely suggestible followers of foolishness.

    Cheers.

    • Craig Tevis says:

      The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past.

      When you wrote that did you mean it?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        If that’s an attempt at some sort of gotcha, it’s pretty poor.

        If it’s not, what would prompt you to ask such a pointless and irrelevant question?

        I assume you heeded my invitation to think about the implications of what I wrote. What conclusions did you reach, if any?

        Cheers.

      • Craig T says:

        You wrote that sea level had been 10,000 m higher in the past. When I said you believed the ocean covered Mt. Everest at one time you got upset.

        It nay be “pointless and irrelevant” to ask if something you wrote is really what you believe. You may be trolling instead of trying to make a logical argument.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          CT,

          You are a strange fellow. You make the assertion that I “got upset” without providing any reason for your bizarre and unwarranted assertion. You certainly didn’t ask me whether I was upset, so you must have reached into your fantasy world and asked yourself.

          I usually decline to become upset, annoyed, or to take offence without some good reason. You provide no compelling cause why I should make an exception in your case. You might have a higher sense of your importance to me than I do. Why should I value your opinion?

          You may state what you believe to your heart’s content. Pseudoscientific climate cultists do it all the time – facts don’t seem to get in the way of their beliefs. If you choose to believe that marine fossils originated outside a marine environment, by all means do so. If you choose to believe that marine fossils have been transported by magic to current altitudes in excess of 6000 m, go your hardest.

          The crust is in constant motion, both vertically and laterally. Liquid water accumulates in the ocean basins as Nature decrees. Change the shape of the basin, and the water level may fall, rise, or stay the same. Change the quantity of liquid available, and the level may change.

          Depending on the location, the ocean surface experiences level variations due to tides. Unfortunately, the Newtonian picture of tidal bulges is incorrect. For example, in the North Sea, there is always a high tide somewhere, at any given time of day. In addition, tidal range is inconsistent, and highly variable. Anyone claiming to be able to establish any reasonably accurate average global sea level or some such is quite clearly misguided at best, and deluded at worst.

          Just more pseudoscientific climate cultism, with wishful thinking masquerading as science. As one senior researcher said ” The global mean sea level results of the satellite altimeter are unfortunately never validated computations, not certainly very accurate measurements.”

          Bearing in mind that some people believe purported satellite altimetry readings to 0.1 mm, I might just point out that 0.1 mm is roughly 0.004 inches, or about the thickness of a fine human hair. If you choose to believe that this level of accuracy is achievable when supposedly measuring average global sea levels, you are a good candidate for joining the pseudoscientific climate cult. Go for it! I promise I won’t get upset.

          Cheers.

          • Craig T says:

            Finally…

            “If you choose to believe that marine fossils have been transported by magic to current altitudes in excess of 6000 m, go your hardest.”

            Not magic, continental drift.

            Magic would be sedimentary rocks being laid down angled and folded, they way they are found on Mt. Everest. Those fossils were laid down at the bottom of the Tethys Ocean 60,000 years ago. As the India plate pushed northward, most of the sea floor was subducted under the Eurasian plate. Some was pushed up between the two plates to form the Tibetan Plateau.
            https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap3-Plate-Margins/Convergent/Continental-Collision

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

  25. Mike Flynn says:

    CT,

    You provided the following as a useful description (well, some sort of description, I suppose) of the GHE –

    “The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earths surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation.

    Nope. “Usually”? And when it doesn’t, what then?

    As to the rest, try figuring out what a “net increase in Earth’s surface temperature” is. The statement that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation is meaningless in this context. The surface also both absorbs and emits infrared radiation, and so do bananas!

    Not as easy as you think, is it? Carry on.

    Cheers.

  26. barry says:

    The enhanced greenhouse effect is easy to put into a shot sentence.

    The surface becomes warmer if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, because they absorb more upwelling infrared, thereby slowing down the rate of heat loss from the surface to space.

    These are all observed in the lab and the atmosphere. Interannual variability from factors that have a larger annual effect than the 0.015 C/year of enhanced GHGs (ENSO can have an annual effect of 0.6 C), can swamp the long term trend for many years, but after a couple of decades and more, the warming signal becomes apparent.

    The empirical facts are these:

    CO2 and other GHGs absorb far more outgoing infrared infrared than incoming sunlight.
    In the lab this causes warming of a medium in which GHGs accumulate before an infrared heat source.
    We see the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    We measure increased downwelling radiation in the CO2 spectra, and less emission to space in the CO2 spectra.
    The globe is warming long term, and periods of nno-warming have gotten shorter as the CO2 increase accelerates.

    We have a physical mechanism that explains what is happening, and we have observations to corroborate.

    We also have observations of other factors that could contribute to warming but are not.

    The sun has not gotten warmer for 60 years while the global temps has increased.

    The oceans are not yielding their heat up to the atmosphere – the oceans are also getting warmer.

    Volcanic activity has not noticeably decreased to account for clearer skies.

    The empirical evidence is abundant for the warming of the surface from increased GHGs in the atmos. It’s not much abundant for warming from other sources.

    This for those who claims there is no ‘evidence’. (One wonders if they no the meaning of that word)

    • JDHuffman says:

      Wrong, barry.

      The surface does not become warmer with more CO2 in the atmosphere. There is NO “slowing down of heat loss”. What confuses you is that the surface warms the atmosphere. That does not then mean the atmosphere can warm the surface.

      “CO2 and other GHGs absorb far more outgoing infrared infrared than incoming sunlight.”

      Correct, but that is, again, the surface warming the atmosphere.

      “In the lab this causes warming of a medium in which GHGs accumulate before an infrared heat source.”

      Correct, the surface warms the atmosphere.

      “We measure increased downwelling radiation in the CO2 spectra, and less emission to space in the CO2 spectra.”

      Correct, the surface is warming the atmosphere.

      “The oceans are not yielding their heat up to the atmosphere – the oceans are also getting warmer.

      Wrong. El Niños are obvious proof the oceans can warm the atmosphere.

      “The empirical evidence is abundant for the warming of the surface from increased GHGs in the atmos. It’s not much abundant for warming from other sources.”

      Wrong. The atmosphere can NOT warm the surface. Again, you are confusing DWIR with “warming the surface”. A 14.7 μ photon can NOT warm the average surface temperature. Two such photons can not do it. Two bazillion, bazillion such photons cannot do it. You just don’t understand the relevant physics. All you understand is your agenda, which takes you away from reality.

      • Craig T says:

        “The oceans are not yielding their heat up to the atmosphere – the oceans are also getting warmer.”

        Wrong. El Niños are obvious proof the oceans can warm the atmosphere.

        But the oceans are warming at the same time as the atmosphere. They are not the source of the energy.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Craig, if you are admitting the Sun is the source of energy, then you finally got something right.

          • Craig T says:

            Yes, and the energy from the the Sun has not increased between 1979 and the present (excluding orbital variation in the distance to the Sun.)

          • JDHuffman says:

            The annual average is fairly constant.

            That’s why it’s called the “Solar Constant”.

        • bdgwx says:

          Yep. This is key. If the atmosphere were warming due to heat transferring from one medium to another than you would expect the source temperature to decrease. But what is actually observed is that the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land, etc. are all warming. Everything under the tropopause is warming. And it is happening during a period in which solar radiation has been declining.

          It’s not unlike the temperature in your home. An 60,000 btu furnace in combination with great insulation we yield a higher equilibrium temperature than say an 80,000 btu furnace with little insulation. It’s a testament to the fact that even a decrease in source energy can still yield a higher equilibrium temperature if the insulation effect increases more than the decrease in source energy.

          That is what is happening on Earth today. GHGs are slowing the rate of heat loss which causes the equilibrium temperature to increase even when solar radiation has been declining.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx, do you have no respect for truth?

            Many of your sentences contain errors, but the winner is the very last one: “GHGs are slowing the rate of heat loss which causes the equilibrium temperature to increase even when solar radiation has been declining.”

            1) Solar radiation has NOT been declining, in any meaningful way.

            2) GHGs are NOT “slowing the rate of heat loss”.

            You are obsessed with the GHE nonsense. Do you even understand it? Do you know where the “33K” comes from?

    • barry says:

      El Ninos provide temporary surface warming, la Ninas, temporary cooling.

      The oceans are gaining heat over the long term. They cannot be responsible for long term warming of the atmosphere, otherwise they should be losing heat energy of the long term.

      My blanket is colder than me on a Winter’s night. The fact that I get warmer from covering myself with it is that it slows the rate at which heat escapes from my skin to the cold night air. If I put more blankets on, I get even warmer. 2nd Law not violated.

      That is a convective result. in the atmosphere, a thicker blanket of GHGs slows the escape of thermal radiation to space from the surface. This, too, results in warming at the surface.

      It is easy to construct experiments (as Roy and others here have done) to demonstrate this effect. It is also not an ‘alarmist’ misapprehension of physics, as Roy, John Christie, Kristian at this site, Anthony Watts, most people at his website, and every skeptic scientist who is qualified on the matter (like Richard Lindzen) also agree with what is occurring.

      No, the enhanced GHE is not a bogus idea that warmistas thought up. Rejection of this basic physics is the province of a small subset of the skeptic milieu, of which you are a representative.

      • JDHuffman says:

        barry, you can’t really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isn’t complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you don’t know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.

        When you imply that a cold blanket somehow proves “cold” can warm “hot”, that just proves you do not understand thermodynamics.

        As stated many times, atmospheric CO2 can NOT warm the surface. Your lack of knowledge of physics, and your misguided beliefs keep you making the same mistakes, over and over.

        And like others, you try to hide behind Dr. Spencer. But, you really don’t like the fact that Dr. Spencer is slowing moving away from his training in the GHE. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”, explaining that he doesn’t believe CO2 can warm the planet as much as the Alarmists claim. You don’t like the fact that he is thinking for himself. When he is attacked, as on this very monthly report, you didn’t defend him. Not one Alarmist defended him. It was only the Skeptics that defended Dr. Spencer. You’re willing to use him, but not stand up for him.

        The enhanced GHE is most definitely a bogus idea that warmistas thought up. And if you believe the “basic physics” supports such nonsense, I would be happy to educate you otherwise.

        • gbaikie says:

          –JDHuffman says:
          May 4, 2019 at 5:11 PM
          barry, you cant really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isnt complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you dont know what is causing it. All of your facts are just based on your beliefs.–

          The ocean are not warming up very much, and it would require magic for ocean to warm quickly [a 1 C increase in less than 100 years, would warming extremely fast]

          But there is evidence of about 7 inch rise in sea level over last 100 years, and somehere around 1 or 2 inch of the rise is due to heating of ocean causing thermal expansion is plausible.

          It also plausible that falling sea levels during the Little Ice Age had some component of thermal contraction of the ocean [entire ocean cooling].

          The average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C and amount warming is hundredths/thousandths of a degree or increase and decrease of this average temperature.

          One also has the warming in first couple hundred meters of ocean waters- particularly in regards to the tropical ocean. And it this variation [warming or cooling] which is largely causing the monthly and yearly changing measured air temperature.
          Or the changing global temperature over last 50 years, is largely about the slab of surface ocean waters absorbing or releasing heat.
          Or heating and cooling of the surface slab of ocean water, is changing global weather and what we calling global temperature changes.

          • David Appell says:

            “The average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C and amount warming is hundredths/thousandths of a degree or increase and decrease of this average temperature.”

            That’s not the relevant metric.

            The relevant metric is the amount of heat going into the ocean.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

        • Scott R says:

          JD,

          I feel the sea level in New York (1/2 way between rising land and sinking land) is good proxy data for the heat content of the ocean. What I find when studying the data is that the trend has been a linear up trend since the mid 1800s. So the heat content in the ocean IS increasing. You can not deny that. The question is why. I believe if we were contributing to that, you would see the sea level in New York rising faster and faster because we are adding Co2 and other forcers (in theory) at a faster and faster rate. Because you don’t see this in the tide data, I believe that the earth was NOT in equilibrium prior to Co2 being introduced. So before we even started taking these readings, sea level was rising at this rate. I believe we are in a 400 year warming cycle that may possibly be ending soon. It may take a while for the sea level trend to roll over. It is also possible that the 400 year cycle does not break that trend at all, and you would need a larger period cycle to break it. I have no idea to be honest what cycle we are entering. A 1970s type mid-century cool down is a given. The next cycle will determine if we have a 100 year type cool down. I have a lot of worries right now… the magnetic field… our dependency on the grid… CMEs… cold weather crop losses… floods. It makes VERY good sense to have an open mind to a cooler earth and to get prepared. The global warming alarmists will all look like flat earthers within I’d say about 13 more years as we drop BELOW the UAH baseline, and return to the late 1800s temperatures that are probably the real baseline considering the 1600 lows and the 2016 highs. That said, just like picking tops in the stock market, we may be early. Watch the sea level in New York. If the intermediate up trend breaks, we are in trouble I’d say. I worry not about a warmer earth and co2. My plants love the Co2, and a few degrees warmer doesn’t bother me. Like I said, there is NO proof Co2 is speeding up sea level rise at all.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Scott, ocean warming can cause sea level rise. Some 10,000 thermal vents on ocean floors can’t be dismissed. The only thing certain is that atmospheric CO2 is NOT warming the oceans.

            One thing that perturbs the extremists is the fact that sea levels would be rising, even it there were no humans on the planet, due to the continual erosion of land masses.

        • barry says:

          Huffman wrote:

          “barry, you cant really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isnt complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you dont know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.”

          In science all that matters is evidence. For the warming of the oceans the evidence is ample and has several different lines. Rising global average sea level is one of them – been happening for over a century. Direct measurements of the oceans depths has been going on for a century, with coverage and sampling increasing over time.

          https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Mishonov/publication/257853181_World_Ocean_Database_2005/links/0deec5270070a583e5000000.pdf

          As for the cause/s, that too is a matter of evidence, not of belief.

          As you never provide evidence for your comments, it is you who are bandying beliefs (and rhetoric), and projecting your intellectual habits onto others. If you can’t make a scientific argument with references to the scientific literature backing it up, then your argument is worthless.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, I repeat: “you can’t really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isn’t complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you don’t know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.”

            I’ll be happy to repeat it again, if necessary.

            And, I noticed you didn’t offer any of your “basic physics”. You must have been too busy running down more of your distracting pseudoscience.

            Nothing new.

          • barry says:

            Yes, that’s right. You just repeat the same old stuff over and over and never back it up. You blow smoke. You get asked for evidence and you never provide. You just mouth off, uninterested in the way science is conducted and completely uninterested in having any substance to what you spout.

            For anyone who values evidence and facts more than you, here is a brace of papers on ocean heat content:

            https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/

            And sea level change:

            https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/papers-on-global-sea-level/

            Evidence is what matters. Not belief. Not opinion. Not tribal affiliation.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, as I stated, I’m willing to repeat it for you again, this time with bold for emphasis:

            “…you can’t really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isn’t complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you don’t know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.’

            And, you still haven’t presented your “basic physics” for the GHE. Do you even understand your pseudoscience. For example, do you know where the “33K” comes from?

        • Scott R says:

          JD I agree erosion is definitely a factor, along with geological processes. It is honestly amazing to me how perfect the linear trend is. We have all these forces so which one is causing the perfect linear sea level uptrend? I think we can agree it’s not co2. The grand solar min provides us an excellent opportunity for study in any case.

      • gbaikie says:

        –barry says:
        May 4, 2019 at 4:35 PM
        El Ninos provide temporary surface warming, la Ninas, temporary cooling.

        The oceans are gaining heat over the long term. They cannot be responsible for long term warming of the atmosphere, otherwise they should be losing heat energy of the long term.–

        The oceans are responsible for long term warming of the atmosphere.
        The tropical ocean [not tropics in general] is the heat engine of the world.
        The Gulf stream warms Europe [by about 10 C].

        And what you seems to be missing is the ocean warms the world by evaporation of surface water, and losing heat via ocean evaporation is NOT heat loss going directly to space. Nor can you have convectional loss going into space- only radiant energy loses heat to the space environment.

        As said the average volume temperature of the ocean determines global climatic temperature.
        Ocean average temperature of 1 to 2 C is glacial period.
        Ocean average temperature of 1 to 5 C defines the Ice Age we are living in.
        Earth has had ocean average temperature of 10 to 15 C, and when Earth has average temperature of +10 C, it’s not in an Ice Age. It can’t have permanent ice caps and can’t have periodic glaciation periods with ice sheets covering land or have polar sea ice.
        Whenever the average volume temperature of the ocean is 15 C or warmer, Earth has to be in a Hothouse global climate.
        Earth has had many hothouse global climates in it’s history. And they are common discussion of the Alarmists.

        A less common topic of discussion is the so called, Snowball Earth. And this is myth as far as I am concerned. But it seems that the snowball myth would have to have average ocean temperature of less than 1 C.
        Or your current ice age has had ocean temperature of 1 C, and no one claims it as being a snowball Earth, hence a “snowball earth” must be as cold or colder.

      • gbaikie says:

        –My blanket is colder than me on a Winters night. The fact that I get warmer from covering myself with it is that it slows the rate at which heat escapes from my skin to the cold night air. If I put more blankets on, I get even warmer. 2nd Law not violated.

        That is a convective result. in the atmosphere, a thicker blanket of GHGs slows the escape of thermal radiation to space from the surface. This, too, results in warming at the surface.–

        A huge “blanket” 20 feet above your head is not going to do much warming.
        Blankets reduce evaporational and convectional heat losses. And human body largely controls it’s temperature by evaporational heat loss.

        A problem with the GHE pseudoscience is the claim that bulk of atmosphere does not have “global warming effect”. But obviously it does. Or one could say the greenhouse gases are additives.
        So it’s like analogy of additive of gasoline making gasoline perform better and “forgetting” that the gasoline still does most of the work.
        Or take away the gasoline and keep the small quantity of the additives, and they don’t get you to the corner store.

        Likewise if you remove all the nitrogen, oxygen, argon from the atmosphere. Or remove 99% of Earth atmosphere, then you don’t get a greenhouse effect. Or more correctly, you don’t get an atmospheric greenhouse effect [the ocean still causes planet earth to to be warmer, as compared to having, no ocean].

      • gbaikie says:

        “It is easy to construct experiments (as Roy and others here have done) to demonstrate this effect. It is also not an alarmist misapprehension of physics, as Roy, John Christie, Kristian at this site, Anthony Watts, most people at his website, and every skeptic scientist who is qualified on the matter (like Richard Lindzen) also agree with what is occurring.”

        Yeah, but how much.
        We also also demonstrate warming effect of Urban Heat islands.

        And there are lots of warming and cooling effects.

        One thing you can say, is that in our time, or in our Ice Age, there very large cooling effects.
        And in our age, there large factor which control how warm it gets and how cool it gets. And these have nothing to do with CO2.

        The people above and no one I know, can not rule out the warming effect of CO2. But also no one know how much, the best they can do is estimate the upper limit of how much warming effect is possible.

        Now, one could say that the warming effect of CO2, has already mostly already occurred. Some of the people above have mentioned this, and many of the alarmists are also claiming it. As in: it’s already too late, we are already doomed. And they also foam at that the mouth about all the damage the warming has already done.

        I also tend to think most of warming from CO2 has already occurred, but I think in the future we will have better chance to actually measure the amount warming that is caused by CO2.

        And I also would say that no damage has been caused from the warming effect of CO2. Or I obviously don’t think warming effect is the same thing as “weather effects” or “climate change”. Weather has always and will always cause damage. Weather pretty important, it’s decided outcomes of wars, and had large effect upon civilizations in the past. Farmers have always been dependent upon “good and bad” weather.

        Of course one most known large effect of weather, had to do with the Dust Bowl. And we can also say that the dust bowl had nothing to do with CO2, though if had been more CO2 at the time, and having more CO2 would have made plants more drought tolerant, more CO2 could/might have reduced the effect from the drought.
        But of course most agree that it was related to poor farming practicing which had largest negative effect caused by degree that humans had on effect upon this large event.

        • barry says:

          As you pointed out to Huffman, gbakie, sea level has risen over the long term, which is consonant with thermal expansion of the oceans. This corroborates what temperature measurements at depth find.

          And what you seems to be missing is the ocean warms the world by evaporation of surface water, and losing heat via ocean evaporation is NOT heat loss going directly to space.

          What you seem to be missing is that the oceans are gaining heat over the long term. With the mechanism you are describing, oceans should be losing heat long-term. Or the sea surface should be losing heat. But they are not.

          And if something is making the oceans warmer for the last 50 years, what is it? It’s not the sun, because that has been stable or even become slightly less intense during that period.

          The rest of your comments are extraneous to my point. Which is that the GH effect is not difficult to explain, and that more GHGs reduce the rate at which energy is lost from the surface to space. The result is that the surface warms, all else being equal. Yes, a thousand other things happen, but none of them change the physical premise.

          Do try to understand what premise is being spoken of here, and constrain your reply to that.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry continues with his pseudoscience: “…more GHGs reduce the rate at which energy is lost from the surface to space.”

            barry, just claiming the same thing over and over does not make it true. It just indicates your ignorance of the relevant physics, and your unwillingness/inability to learn.

          • gbaikie says:

            –“And what you seems to be missing is the ocean warms the world by evaporation of surface water, and losing heat via ocean evaporation is NOT heat loss going directly to space.”

            What you seem to be missing is that the oceans are gaining heat over the long term. With the mechanism you are describing, oceans should be losing heat long-term. Or the sea surface should be losing heat. But they are not.”

            The ocean both gains heat and loses it. Both occur at same time and varying amounts. And you are claiming there is net gain in adding heat in the oceans.
            It is possible/likely. And it is possible it will continue [for centuries].

            But all we have measuring is change surface temperature of the ocean and that effect of the net warming of surface- the warmed surface temperature of the ocean effect upon the increasing land surface temperatures.
            Plus other warming effects upon land surface air temperatures which cause increase in the centuries long measured average temperature of land surface air temperature [which is the longest measured record which we have available- unless you want to use less accurate and other proxy of global temperature increase [or other proxies {ie ocean floor sediment} for ocean temperatures]. And of course ice cores of changes in polar regions and/or ice cores of glaciers in temperate and/or tropical zone.

            But generally, it seems using thermometers is the better way to measure the actual temperature. And the recent satellite temperature record [40 years] is the best way.

            –And if something is making the oceans warmer for the last 50 years, what is it? It’s not the sun, because that has been stable or even become slightly less intense during that period.–

            I think Richard Lindzen has some general replies for this question.
            To roughly summarize, there are lots of big cycles.
            I think the many ocean cycles, are the most significant. But these are also many occurring in the atmosphere.
            Dr Lindzen will talk of analogy of music harmonics and of natural variability- which he will stress should not be underestimated.

            in attempt to stress their significant, I will say the natural variabilities cause glacial and interglacial periods.
            And I don’t think anyone serious on topic of global climate, disagrees.
            Or “the IPCC” agrees.
            The IPCC says it’s confident more 1/2 of recent warming due to CO2.
            And I am not confident that CO2 has had such large effect.

            In regards to the stable sun. The sun is not stable. Plus Earth gets closer and further away from the sun.
            The Sun is big. And the wild and vast action of the sun can be averaged in the mind of humans.

            But as Dr Lindzen says, even if you allow for a constant sun, one still would have “natural variability” on Earth, as a small pot of water boils has variability and addition of vast scale of Earth increases such effects. Particularly when you add time.

          • barry says:

            gabakie,

            And you are claiming there is net gain in adding heat in the oceans

            It’s not my ‘claim’, it is the result of observation found in reams of peer-reviewed research. I don’t form my opinion based on what I prefer to think, but on what the evidence demonstrates.

            If you are unsure that there is a long term gain in ocean heat content and would like to see the evidence for it, all you have to do is ask. That’s what I would do. Are you not interested in the evidence? How else do you form a useful opinion?

            But all we have measuring is change surface temperature of the ocean

            Have you so soon forgotten that you argued that sea level rise is an indicator of warming oceans? You said that only a few hours ago.

            It’s not just sea level and SSTs, we have measurements of oceans at depths going back nearly a hundred years, increasing in coverage and sampling rates over the years. Here is a reference paper on the kinds of measurements we have, how long they go back for, and what kind of instruments make them.

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Mishonov/publication/257853181_World_Ocean_Database_2005/links/0deec5270070a583e5000000.pdf

            If you are not familiarising yourself with the observational part of the science, how on Earth do you think you can comment on the “measurements?”

            Here are a brace of studies on ocean heat content.

            https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/

            You clearly are not up to date on this.

            The oceans have been warming over at least the last 5 decades. There is variation, but the rise is fairly consistent. ENSO changes are the short term fluctuations. The oceans are not yielding up their heat over the long term to the atmosphere. Both have been warming.

            The enhanced GHG effect is a strong candidate. The sun is not, as it has not increased in intensity over the same period.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong barry, the Sun is definitely a “strong candidate” for any ocean warming. It is well known that high energy photons from the Sun can penetrate to depths of over 200 feet. The atmosphere can not compete.

            But the thousands of underwater volcanoes, lava vents, and thermal vents can defintely compete with the Sun.

            It’s too bad you don’t know any thermodynamics, I could explain about the massive energy available in the super-critical pressures of thermal vents.

          • bobdroege says:

            Is the ocean warming from the bottom up?

            Which would be indicated by warmer water at the bottom, which is not the case because the water gets colder with depth. Only slightly warmer near the vents, and although 10,000 seems like a large number, because the mid-ocean ridges are so long, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans as far as warming the ocean.

            The heat from below is measured in the milli-watts per square meter, unlike the solar and down-welling IR.

            Better take those physics classes over, your retention seems marginal.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, you never get anything right. Maybe you would like to try to explain the “33K”?

            It seems bdgwx, barry, et al, are having trouble with their pseudoscience.

            It would be funny to see your derivation, since the “33K” is the crux of the GHE nonsense.

          • steve case says:

            Barry says: May 4, 2019 at 9:14 PM
            “…sea level has risen over the long term, which is consonant with thermal expansion of the oceans.

            Thermal expansion is a local phenomenon. Local may be the tropical pacific, but the level only goes up where the warming of the water has occurred. If the Pacific warmed up degree is that going to make sea level go up in New York?

            This corroborates what temperature measurements at depth find.

            Is the ocean warming up below the thermocline?

            The IPCC’s AR5 report tells us in FAQ 3.1:
            Is the Ocean Warming?:
            “In the upper 75 m of the ocean, the global average warming trend has been 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13]°C per decade over this time [1971-2010]. That trend generally lessens from the surface to mid-depth, reducing to about 0.04°C per decade by 200 m, and to less than 0.02°C per decade by 500 m.”

            I’ve run the numbers on that and it comes to 50mm (2.0) inches per century.

          • bobdroege says:

            Don’t try to change the subject JD,

            the subject is how much the mid ocean smokers are warming the ocean.

            The pseudo-science majority says not much

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “the subject is how much the mid ocean smokers are warming the ocean.”

            Really? Who set the subject? You?

            Why should anybody take any notice of you declaring what the subject is? Do you think others may have different ideas about why the oceans are not frozen through (nor any other deep body of water, for that matter)?

            You go on to write –

            “The pseudo-science majority says not much”.

            Which majority is that? Can you name one, at least? How are you defining “not much”? Maybe you won’t convince too many people about the power of your “pseudo-science” without specifying what you are talking about.

            I might point out that a majority, or even a consensus, belief is not necessarily a good basis for establishing fact. Fools like you might believe so – or you might even choose to believe that CO2 and H2O have miraculous heating properties, because some person claiming to be a “scientist” says so! What lunacy!

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob says: “The pseudo-science majority says not much”

            And your pseudoscience “majority” is wrong, again.

            Nothing new.

          • bobdroege says:

            Flynn,

            I have actually measured the magical heating properties of CO2 and H2O in a lab, so I am not believing what others have done.

            I know CO2 and H2O abzorb and emit infrared radiation because I have measured it, and they do it better than the other gases in the atmosphere, so don’t give me your all matter emits infrared bullshit because all matter doesn’t do it equally well.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            Since you know where the 33 K comes from perhaps you can provide a cite for this

            “But the thousands of underwater volcanoes, lava vents, and thermal vents can defintely compete with the Sun.”

            It’s about 100 mwatts per meter squared.

            That can sure compete with the in warming the ocean.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, your crude estimate is likely low by a factor of 10. But, even using that figure yields about 10^21 Joules annually into the oceans. That competes very well with solar, and dwarfs any CO2 contribution.

            Now, try a better estimate….

          • bobdroege says:

            I may have been off by about 8%

            The total heat from the earth is 47 Terrawatts and Solar is 173,000 Terrawatts.

            The surface of the earth is 510 trillion meters squared.

            You do the math and see if that squares with the industrial strength pseudoscience.

            And that’s an American trillion, not to be confused with the British variant.

            So which one heats the ocean more better?

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, you seem to be arguing with yourself, again.

            My point is that all of the energy entering the ocean floor will have some minuscule, yet measurable, effect on ocean temps.

            You seem to be proving that the Sun is warming the planet, as opposed to your other side, which claims CO2 is the cause.

            I agree with your proof that “It’s the Sun, stupid”.

          • bobdroege says:

            So I can take that as a walk back from competing with solar.

            I don’t think the heating effect of the earth’s heat flux can be measured as an increase in the temperature of the ocean, global instead of local.

            But that 33 K you were referring to, that would be the amount all greenhouse gases are heating the surface of the earth.

            If your handheld gizmo measured the temperature of space, that would be an indication that there was no greenhouse effect.

            Instead you actually measured the greenhouse effect.

            HA HA HA!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Every sentence is wrong, bob.

            Nothing new.

          • Svante says:

            Gotcha JD!

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            Thanks for confirming the existence of the greenhouse efect.

            Now can you provide a cite that shows the hot thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean increase the average temperature of the ocean?

            Didn’t think so eh?

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob,

            Thanks for confirming you have no concept of reality.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            We owe you thanks for demonstrating the greenhouse effect and reporting your data back to us.

            It’s a marvel what an amateur scientist can do with a few bucks worth of instruments.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, it must be difficult for you to make each comment stupider than your last.

            But somehow, you manage….

          • bobdroege says:

            Well JD,

            You keep screwing up the science and I’ll keep posting stupid comments.

            Works for me.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      b,

      You wrote –

      “The enhanced greenhouse effect is easy to put into a shot sentence.

      The surface becomes warmer if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, because they absorb more upwelling infrared, thereby slowing down the rate of heat loss from the surface to space.”

      Unfortunately, what you have written is nonsensical. Not only do surface temperatures fall at night, the history of the Earth shows that over the longest term possible, even average daylight temperatures have fallen.

      There is no greenhouse effect, let alone an enhanced greenhouse effect. Reduction in the rate of cooling is still cooling. The mythical greenhouse effect supposedly results in increased global temperatures – possibly even resulting in Antarctica reverting to its previous ice-free status, in some pseudoscientific climate cultist’s vivid imagination!

      Nobody has ever made a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of radiation reaching it. The pseudoscientific GHE believers even demonstrate that CO2 blocks portions of the light spectrum, preventing it from reaching a thermometer, and crow that this shows the existence of the GHE! What a pack of deluded fools!

      Carry on dreaming – maybe the power of prayer can change the laws of physics, but I don’t think so.

      Cheers.

      • barry says:

        Temperatures falling at night do not trouble the enhanced GH explanation, which is that more GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface. This happens by day and by night. The diurnal temperature cycle also continues as the world rotates.

        “There is no greenhouse effect”

        There is no discussing things with a fool. The rest of your post is just incoherent.

        • JDHuffman says:

          barry continues, almost word for word, his pseudoscience: “…more GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface.”

          barry, being consistently wrong does not add to your credibility. But, you likely already knew that, hence your belligerence.

          • Craig T says:

            barry continues, almost word for word, his pseudoscience: “more GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface.”

            Let’s back that up with some data.

            We seem to agree that there’s a 5 -6 month delay between what happens on the ground and TLT temperatures. Below is a link to a graph of 1979 – 2019 UAH TLT anomalies and outgoing longwave radiation measured by the NOAA polar orbiting spacecraft. OLR data is shifted right 6 months to align with corresponding TLT.
            https://i.imgur.com/U6pH4Dz.jpg

            The data almost mirror each other. When OLR went down TLT temperatures went up and TLT down when OLR went up.

            The laws of thermodynamics say objects emit more longwave radiation as they warm so why is the Earth losing less OLR to space while it warms? GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            You wrote –

            “The laws of thermodynamics say objects emit more longwave radiation as they warm so why is the Earth losing less OLR to space while it warms?”

            That is is a silly statement, or an even sillier gotcha. Over the last four and a half billion years. the Earth obviously lost far more energy than it than it received from the Sun. All the considerable energy from radiogenic sources has declined logarithmically since the creation of the Earth.

            You seem to believe that an object left on the surface will increase its temperature year by year, owing to the presence of GHGs such as CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere! Unfortunately, all of the Sun’s energy received during the day is radiated away at night, as Baron Fourier pointed out a couple of hundred years ago.

            Maybe you could describe the GHE in such a way that a testable GHE hypothesis may be proposed. Only joking, of course, as neither you nor anybody else can achieve such a miraculous outcome. That is why you cannot find anything even claiming to be a GHE or AGW “theory” in any reputable publication.

            Just insisting that the GHE is real does not make it so. That is not science, that is just being silly.

            Cheers.

          • Craig T says:

            “Over the last four and a half billion years. the Earth obviously lost far more energy than it than it received from the Sun.”

            I’m looking at data for the last few decades. When the TLT warmed less OLR left the Earth. If there were no GHE this would make no sense.

            “Maybe you could describe the GHE in such a way that a testable GHE hypothesis may be proposed.”

            Increases in greenhouse gasses should reduce outgoing longwave radiation and make the Earth warmer than it would be without the GHE. This could be tested by comparing the temperature anomaly to OLR data. Since atmospheric water vapor is a greenhouse gas and increases with temperature, OLR should go down during El Ninos and up during la Ninas.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, you’re confused, again.

            There is no reliable, meaningful meaure of “OLR”. It is all done with modeling. You are confusing estimates from pseudoscience with facts.

          • Craig T says:

            “There is no reliable, meaningful meaure of ‘OLR’. It is all done with modeling.”

            Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) data at the top of the atmosphere are observed from the AVHRR instrument aboard the NOAA polar orbiting spacecraft. The units are watts/meter^2.

            These data are available as twice daily observation NOAA-17 and NOAA-18, pentad means and monthly means. Daily OLR data from January 1979 to present are available at the Climate Diagnostic Center ftp site.

            https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_precip/html/wpage.olr.html

          • JDHuffman says:

            As indicated, there are no reliable, meaningful measure of OLR.

            (But, flux “anomalies” make your pseudoscience even funnier.)

          • Craig T says:

            “As indicated,…”

            The only thing indicated is that you will deny anything is real that shows you’re wrong.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Sorry Craig, but it’s your pseudoscience that is wrong. Your believe in your pseudoscience, coupled with your lack of understanding of physics and your aversion to reality, identifies you as just another “camp-follower”.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            You wrote –

            “Increases in greenhouse gasses should reduce outgoing longwave radiation and make the Earth warmer than it would be without the GHE. This could be tested by comparing the temperature anomaly to OLR data. Since atmospheric water vapor is a greenhouse gas and increases with temperature, OLR should go down during El Ninos and up during la Ninas.”

            Or you could just measure the temperature of an object before and after increasing the amount of CO2 between the heat source and the object. The reason pseudoscientific climate cultists avoid this at all costs, is that the more obstruction between a heat source and a thermometer, the colder the thermometer gets! No GHE, rather, the complete opposite!

            Nope. Reducing the amount of heat reaching a thermometer makes it colder, not hotter. Some pseudoscientific cultists believe that “warmer than it otherwise would be” is the same as “the temperature has increased”, which is nonsense. Hot soup in a vacuum flask is “warmer than it otherwise would be”, (compared with a lack of insulation), but its temperature still drops!

            If you are stupid enough to truly believe that increasing the amount of CO2 or H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, why not just say so? Why beat around the bush and launch into sciencey sounding nonsense which completely avoids what it is you are trying to say?

            Even the quite foolish non-scientist Gavin Schmidt said “Hottest year EVAH!”, not “The much warmer than it otherwise would have been year!”, which even sounds ridiculous, as well being ridiculously incorrect.

            Carry on. You might even convince yourself if you try hard enough.

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            MF, As usual, you incorrectly state the basics of the situation, writing:

            Some pseudoscientific cultists believe that warmer than it otherwise would be is the same as the temperature has increased, which is nonsense. Hot soup in a vacuum flask is warmer than it otherwise would be, (compared with a lack of insulation), but its temperature still drops!

            If the “hot soup” you describe is heated by an external energy source, (as is the surface of the Earth by the Sun’s energy), then increasing the insulating effect of the Dewar flask compared with a glass jar, will cause the soup’s temperature to increase toward some steady state temperature. The Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere will cause the surface temperature to rise in a similar fashion as more CO2 accumulates in the air above. The CO2 acts like a thermal “radiation shield”, the effects of which are well known in physics and engineering. Your continued rants just display your ignorance of physics for all to see.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Swanson, I see you still don’t understand thermodynamics.

            Nothing new.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            ES,

            You wrote –

            “If the hot soup you describe is heated by an external energy source, (as is the surface of the Earth by the Suns energy), then increasing the insulating effect of the Dewar flask compared with a glass jar,”

            Unfortunately, trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask results in less rapid heating – just as the Earth’s surface heats more slowly, and reaches lower maximum temperatures compared with the less insulated airless Moon. Nothing to do with the words of mine, which you correctly quoted, at all. Cooling more slowly is still cooling, isn’t it?

            You may not be aware that the highest surface temperatures on Earth are found in arid tropical deserts – less, rather than more, GHGs in the atmosphere.

            Maybe you could try to describe the GHE? No? That’s because it’s impossible! Carry on trying to avoid this basic step in applying the scientific method. Pseudoscience obviously suits you much better.

            Cheers,

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mikey still can’t grasp the reality of the problem. He wrote:

            …trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask results in less rapid heating just as the Earths surface heats more slowly, and reaches lower maximum temperatures compared with the less insulated airless Moon… Cooling more slowly is still cooling, isnt it?

            Flat out wrong. Adding energy (heating) into a Dewar flask filled with a liquid like soup, compared to doing the same using a glass jar, the result will be that the steady state temperature within the Dewar will be greater than that within the jar. Both jars end up transferring energy outwards at the same rate. That’s basic engineering heat transfer.

            Your reference to the Moon’s heating by the Sun’s energy fails to take into account the other side of the equation, that of the energy loss during the Lunar night. One must consider the average temperature, not the maximum, which is also true for desert situations on Earth. In the Dewar/glass jar comparison, the temperature doesn’t drop, after steady state is achieved. In that situation, the minimum will be the maximum, as long as the external energy supply continues.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E. Swanson, please stop trolling.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          b,

          I suppose you deny the Earth’s surface is no longer molten? No, I guess you don’t. That comes about as a result of cooling, not heating.

          No heating. No GHE. No magical properties for CO2 or H2O. So sad, too bad.

          Maybe you could start rambling about blankets, overcoats, bank accounts or toothpicks – anything to help you deny, divert, and confuse.

          You could even claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! If you put your fingers in your ears, you won’t even hear the derisive laughter from rational people.

          Off you go – give it a try, why don’t you?

          Cheers.

        • barry says:

          I suppose you deny the Earth’s surface is no longer molten?

          I actually point out that the Earth’s surface was 1000C near its formation. But I state that fact with some sarcasm, as it is quite irrelevant to the current situation. You, however, repeat this fact with all seriousness, as if it is somehow self-evidentially meaningful.

          As I said, no discussing things with a fool. You just repeat yourself, never progressing beyond the loop you are trapped in, forever immune to rational discussion.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, people have to keep repeating things to you because you just don’t get it.

            Mike’s point is there is nothing un-natural occurring with Earth’s temperatures.

            You have been duped, and are unable to process facts and logic.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, and all GHE addicts, I just did another check with my handheld IR thermometer.

            Overhead, blue sky, -15.5F
            Ground 81.8F
            Ground, in the shade 78.6F
            Low cloud 60.4F

            It seems it’s just another day with the surface warming the atmosphere.

            Nothing new.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “I actually point out that the Earths surface was 1000C near its formation. But I state that fact with some sarcasm, as it is quite irrelevant to the current situation.”

            In other words, the surface has cooled – no GHE until the present, or if you say there was, it resulted in cooling. The current situation seems to be that the surface is much cooler than it was in the past. In the case of continents such as Antarctica, very much so.

            It appears your indescribable GHE has magically sprung into existence due to some recent change to the natural physical laws of the universe. At the behest of a ragtag capering assortment of second-rate self proclaimed “climate experts”, perhaps? Worship as you will – if you try to convince followers of the scientific method that faith is superior to fact, you might face disappointment.

            Try if you wish. Good luck.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            “Overhead, blue sky, -15.5F.”

            Thankfully we have the relatively warm sky above us to keep us warmer!

            Much better than space @ -290 C!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well Nate, without the Sun, both Earth and your “warm” sky would be about 3K, -270C.

            If you knew any physics, you would know that -290 C is impossible.

            Thankfully, you’re too obsessed with your pseudoscience to be anything but just another clown.

          • Nate says:

            Ouch! You got me there. -290c.

            Any case, good to have a warm sky, raining ir photons down on us and your detector, allowing it to warm and measure temp way up there.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Poor Nate. He must believe a -15.5 F sky is warming the 80 F IR thermometer. Just as he must believe the same sky is warming the planet. And, he must also believe ice cubes can warm his cup of coffee.

            Funny.

          • Nate says:

            I wonder how your room temp detector can dectect photons from the -15 F sky without absorbing them?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Maybe your “wonder” will make you curious enough to learn some physics.

            But be careful. Just as curiosity killed the cat, learning will kill pseudoscience.

          • Nate says:

            JD,

            Just as we learned last month, your ‘physics’ doesnt work in the real world.

            It doesnt allow heaters to heat.

            Now, it doesn’t allow IR sensors to sense.

            If you think otherwise, pls explain how your sensor works without absorbing photons from a colder source.

          • Svante says:

            Nate says:

            “JD, […] It doesn’t allow heaters to heat.”

            In other words he invented a heater that is not hot.

            Should be a popular product if he could attract some investors.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Svante and Nate, your futile efforts to misrepresent me just further indicate your deficiencies in the relevant physics.

            Please continue, if only for the benefit of comedy.

          • Svante says:

            Make a fortune short selling sun parasols, they have no cooling effect whatsoever.

          • Nate says:

            ‘pls explain how your sensor works without absorbing photons from a colder source.’

            Obviously you can’t, JD.

            But thats ok because you’re just here to troll.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, you have never demonstrated a responsible attempt to learn. Consequently, don’t expect me to waste time helping you, until you show a sincere interest.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Nate, you have never demonstrated a responsible attempt to learn.’

            Why would someone trained in real physics want to learn fake physics?

            You also fail to understand humans.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Temperatures falling at night do not trouble the enhanced GH explanation, which is that more GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface. This happens by day and by night. The diurnal temperature cycle also continues as the world rotates”.

          It’s not clear where this propaganda comes from.

          GHGs, at an average of 0.30% over the entire atmosphere, don’t have the capability of influencing the rate of heat dissipation from the surface. That is controlled by the air temperature immediately at the surface and the temperature of that air is governed by nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the mass of air.

          With N2/O2 accounting for 99% of the heat that sets the temperature how the heck can GHGs, with a total % mass of around 0.3% for the entire atmosphere possibly affect atmospheric temperature at the surface?

          It’s plain that the theory is wrong. Alarmists have not explained how GHGs, as trace gases, can possibly affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.

          • Craig T says:

            Maybe, but scientists have explained how greenhouse gasses reduce the loss of outgoing longwave radiation to space.

            Here’s an example. During an El Nino lots of water vapor is added to the atmosphere from the warming seas. Water vapor is a GHG so outgoing longwave radiation is reduced during El Ninos.
            https://i.imgur.com/U6pH4Dz.jpg

            If there was no Greenhouse Effect you would expect more OLR when the surface and atmosphere warmed.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “…but pseudoscientists have explained how greenhouse gasses…”

            Much better, Craig.

            Also, that is not “outgoing long wave radiation”. It is some IP version involving modeling, estimates, and pseudoscience.

            If you knew some physics, you would be able to quickly spot things wrong with flux “anomalies”.

          • Craig T says:

            That’s direct measurements of OLR from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer.

            “The AVHRR/3 scans the Earth surface in six spectral bands in the range of 0.58 – 12.5 microns. It provides day and night imaging of land, water and clouds, measures sea surface temperature, ice, snow and vegetation cover.

            The AVHRR/3 is a six-channel imaging radiometer that detects energy in the visible and infrared (IR) portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. The instrument measures reflected solar (visible and near-IR) energy and radiated thermal energy from land, sea, clouds, and the intervening atmosphere. The instrument has an instantaneous field-of-view (IFOV) of 1.3 milliradians providing a nominal spatial resolution of 1.1 km (0.69 mi) at nadir.”
            https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Meteorological_missions/MetOp/About_AVHRR_3

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, as usual, there are so many things wrong with your pseudoscience, that it would take weeks to correct them all. I’ll just pick out the most blatant errors:

            1) A flux anomaly is meaningless.

            2) The Earth does NOT emit visible light. The visible light measured would be reflected photons. Reflected light does not relate to El Niño, except in pseudoscience.

            3) Random samplings of IR from the surface cannot be extrapolated into a global average.

            4) The only meaningful way to compare fluxes from different sources is by the spectra. And even then, you have to know what you’re doing.

            (That’s all I have time for today, but keep finding more things that prove you don’t understand the relevant physics.)

          • Craig T says:

            Here is more about the AVHRR available products:

            “The AVHRR/3, a six channel scanning radiometer, provides three solar channels in the visible-near infrared region and three thermal infrared channels. The instrument utilises an 8-inch diameter-collecting telescope of the reflective Mersenne type. Cross-track scanning is accomplished by a continuously rotating mirror direct driven by a hysteresis synchronous motor. The three thermal infrared detectors are cooled to 105K by a two-stage passive radiant cooler.”
            https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Meteorological_missions/MetOp/Scanning_mechanism

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, do you even have a high school diploma?

            You keep linking to stuff you don’t understand. You have no clue how stupid you make yourself.

            Obviously, you don’t realize the CO2 14.7 μ is not included in the 6 channels.

            Along with all your other fumbles.

          • Craig T says:

            No, but 0.58 12.5 microns covers a large area absorbed by water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas. I wouldn’t expect any sudden changes in 14.7 µm absorрtion because CO2 level show a steady rise.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, you have the ability to pound out something on your keyboard that makes no sense: “I wouldn’t expect any sudden changes in 14.7 μm absorрtion because CO2 level show a steady rise.”

            I’ve seen this sort of talent with other typists….

          • Craig T says:

            That was a little incoherent. That’s what I get for rushing.

          • Craig T says:

            “Obviously, you don’t realize the CO2 14.7 µ is not included in the 6 channels.”

            No, but the 0.58 µm to 12.5 µm range of IR measured by AVHHR covers a good deal of radiation absorbed by water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas. I wouldn’t expect any sudden changes in 14.7 µm radiation because CO2 levels show a steady rise.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

  27. Mike Flynn says:

    bobdroege wrote –

    “But heat and energy are the same thing.

    If you say the sun doesn’t heat the earth you are being willfully obtuse.”

    A candle flame reaches about 1000 C. Try warming yourself with the heat of a candle on a cold night, and you may be unhappy.

    A cubic kilometre of ice contains a very large amount of heat energy, but cannot make a drop of water hotter.

    Unless you specify some quantities, people might believe you are not trying to be deceptive – as pseudoscientific climate cultists often are.

    The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earth’s surface from cooling from the molten state, or even from preventing Antarctica from being buried under kilometres of ice.

    Are you wilfully obtuse, or just stupid, ignorant and gullible? Carry on.

    Cheers.

    • bobdroege says:

      You know if you are traveling in the winter in a car you should have a blanket and a candle in your car because that is enough to keep you warm in case your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere.

      The inuit build houses of snow blocks and once inside a properly built one their body heat is enough to keep them warm.

      Now who is being willfully obtuse?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        b,

        Are you actually able to disagree with something I wrote? No?

        Can you actually bring yourself to directly quote me? No?

        What a pity! What a fool! With a great deal of effort, you may yet aspire to becoming even more wilfully obtuse than you appear to be at present! Onwards and upwards, eh?

        Cheers.

        • bobdroege says:

          You said “try warming yourself with the heat of a candle on a cold night”

          I suggested a time when that might be a good idea.

          So what if I wasn’t quoting you.

          But then I just did.

          Has the earth been cooling at a steady rate since it was molten?

          Or have parts been solid for 4.4 billion years?

          Or are you just blathering nonsense for which you have no evidence.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Are you disagreeing with what I wrote, as you quoted, or just being really silly? Were you happy trying to warm yourself with a candle on a cold night?

            Of course, you don’t have to quote me.You can make up as much nonsense as you like, and argue with yourself till the cows come home.

            You wrote –

            “Has the earth been cooling at a steady rate since it was molten?”

            Why are you asking me? What efforts have you made to find out for yourself? You see, if you could bring yourself to quote what I said, and then provide some reason for disagreeing with me, then people might pay some attention.

            Otherwise, people might just come to the same valid conclusion as myself – you are just posing asinine and puerile gotchas because your pseudoscientific climate cult beliefs have nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with faith.

            I’m happy enough to let others decide for themselves. You?

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            I asked you because I wondered what you thought.

            I believe you have said that the earth has cooled since it was molten and hasn’t warmed since.

            Which I have researched and know to be complete bollocks.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “I believe you have said that the earth has cooled since it was molten and hasnt warmed since.”

            Maybe you could directly quote something with which you disagree, rather than just assuming that what you believe” is fact.

            I believe you are stupid and ignorant, mainly because you cannot demonstrate otherwise. Carry on.

            Cheers

          • bobdroege says:

            Flynn,

            Here is an accurate quote of what you said, maybe you could clarify what you meant.

            “The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state,”

            Did you mean that the earth has cooled at a constant rate since it was molten, or are you supporting Lord Kelvins ridiculous estimate of the age of the earth?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob d …”The inuit build houses of snow blocks and once inside a properly built one their body heat is enough to keep them warm.”

        They don’t sit around inside the igloo in t-shirts and shorts. Thy are dressed in furs from animals. They sleep on furs and under them while wearing furs.

        They also need calories of heat from the foods they consume.

        Humans can survive -60C temps if sheltered from the wind, slow heat loss due to conduction, convection and radiation, and have an adequate caloric intake.

    • David Appell says:

      bobdroege wrote
      “But heat and energy are the same thing.”

      Yes, of course.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Chaps,

      I disagree, of course.

      According to Einstein, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

      Mass may be at absolute zero, but have energy without having heat (not hot at all) – if you accept a definition of heat such as –

      “Heat – noun

      1.the quality of being hot; high temperature.
      “the fierce heat of the sun””

      You are using pseudoscientific climate cult concepts. Calling energy heat does not help to create a GHE.

      Try some more silly redefinitions – maybe you could claim reducing the rate of cooling is really heating!

      Cheers.

      • Craig T says:

        Heat is thermal energy, a subset of energy.

        • JDHuffman says:

          The thermodynamic definition of “heat” involves “transfer”. If you are talking about “heat” in an object, you should use “internal energy”, or “enthalpy”. An object does not contain “heat”, if you want to use the correct definition.

  28. gbaikie says:

    –barry says:
    May 5, 2019 at 7:29 AM
    gabakie,

    And you are claiming there is net gain in adding heat in the oceans

    It’s not my ‘claim’, it is the result of observation found in reams of peer-reviewed research. I don’t form my opinion based on what I prefer to think, but on what the evidence demonstrates.–

    I form my opinion on what I prefer to think.

    –If you are unsure that there is a long term gain in ocean heat content and would like to see the evidence for it, all you have to do is ask. That’s what I would do. Are you not interested in the evidence? How else do you form a useful opinion?–

    Long term in terms of the ocean is a long time.
    It seems the ocean has been cooling for thousands of years.

    –But all we have measuring is change surface temperature of the ocean

    Have you so soon forgotten that you argued that sea level rise is an indicator of warming oceans? You said that only a few hours ago.–
    Warmed a bit recently seems very likely.

    –It’s not just sea level and SSTs, we have measurements of oceans at depths going back nearly a hundred years, increasing in coverage and sampling rates over the years. Here is a reference paper on the kinds of measurements we have, how long they go back for, and what kind of instruments make them.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Mishonov/publication/257853181_World_Ocean_Database_2005/links/0deec5270070a583e5000000.pdf
    That could quite interesting.

    –If you are not familiarising yourself with the observational part of the science, how on Earth do you think you can comment on the “measurements?”

    Here are a brace of studies on ocean heat content.

    https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/

    You clearly are not up to date on this.–
    Probably not.
    I tend say the ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, but perhaps there is newer information that indicates a more precise number?

    –The oceans have been warming over at least the last 5 decades. There is variation, but the rise is fairly consistent. ENSO changes are the short term fluctuations. The oceans are not yielding up their heat over the long term to the atmosphere. Both have been warming.–

    Obviously there is also colder water added, and so, ocean does not need to give up heat, to cool.

    Obviously the ocean gains and loses heat but in terms of comparison to the vast amount of heat in the entire ocean, the loss [or gain] in the short term [less than 50 years] could/would be insignificant in terms of the ocean, but important in terms hundredths of degrees difference of atmosphere which we all seem to be discussing.

    –The enhanced GHG effect is a strong candidate. The sun is not, as it has not increased in intensity over the same period.–

    There also a massive amount the volcanic activity on the ocean floor. Though in terms of history of thousands of years, at the present time, it could be more or less now as compared to periods hundreds and thousands of years ago.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      g,

      The climate cultists live in denial of reality. Molten magma is continuously being forced through the crust under the oceans –

      “The production of new seafloor results from mantle upwelling in response to plate spreading; this isentropic upwelling solid mantle material eventually exceeds the solidus and melts. The buoyant melt rises as magma at a linear weakness in the oceanic crust, and emerges as lava, creating new crust upon cooling. A mid-ocean ridge demarcates the boundary between two tectonic plates, and consequently is termed a divergent plate boundary.”

      If you look at the mid-ocean ridges, you will notice they join up in such a way as to divide the crust into two distinct “halves”. A little reflection shows that this process must continue until the crust has become far thicker than it is presently. Some hundreds of millions of years, perhaps?

      Nobody can quantify the amount of energy released into the oceans by the molten magma along the ridges, and the totally unknown number of hydrothermal vents on the seafloor. Of course, there are undersea volcanoes and so forth, not associated with the mid-ocean ridges. Even more heat.

      Idiot pseudoscientific climate cultists refuse to accept that less dense water rises to overlay more dense colder water. They cannot understand that chaotic convective processes in water require heat from the bottom, not from the top! They have some bizarre fantasy that the energy from the Sun penetrates into the ocean depths beyond the aphotic zone, and somehow it warms water which either sinks, or stays where it is – not cooling. Unfortunately, some of these deluded fantasists are employed by organisations such as NASA, NOAA, the NSF and other organisations which should know better.

      The fools who claim that the GHE adds heat to the oceans, raising their temperature year on year, are the same fools who cannot even describe this supposed GHE, much less devise a testable GHE hypothesis!

      And still the incompetent fumbling bumblers proclaim impending doom – as if they can prevent the weather (and hence the climate) from changing! A grand collection of pseudoscientific clowns – not first class mind among them. Just wannabes and second raters, unable to achieve recognition in any recognised academic discipline.

      All part of the rich tapestry of life, pseudoscientific fantasies, and all teh rest.

      Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      I tend say the ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, but perhaps there is newer information that indicates a more precise number?

      The average number isn’t very meaningful. The temperature change is very little at the bottom (<~0.01 C) but significantly larger in the top 10s of meters (~1 C).

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        I thought pseudoscientific climate cultists were besotted with averages?

        In any case, are you unaware that warmer less dense water makes its way to the surface? You are also wrong about temperatures at the ocean bottom. Standardised values range from 1.67 – 2.78 C, rather more than the 0.01 C to which you refer. Of course, water in contact with molten magma gets much hotter than this, and even the water in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents can exceed 400 C without vaporising, due to the extreme pressure.

        Maybe you could try accepting reality, for a change. Or just ask more witless gotchas, demanding references, and generally be petulant. Have you tried flapping irrelevant spectrographic charts in peoples’ faces while crying “Evidence, evidence!”?

        Are you still denying that bananas both absorb and emit infrared radiation, like CO2, H2O, and everything else with a temperature, in the known universe?

        Have you figured out how photons of light pass through transparent matter without being absorbed?

        Carry on being deluded. It suits you – you demonstrate your form of mental impairment so nicely.

        Cheers.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Standardised values range from 1.67 – 2.78 C, rather more than the 0.01 C to which you refer.”

          You mis-interpret what David said.

          David is referring to changes in TIME, not in LOCATION.
          * At a given moment, there will be significant changes in temperature from one spot to another. Something on the order of 1 C (your number) sounds about right.
          * At a given location, there will be tiny changes from one year to the next. Something on the order of 0.01 C (David’s number) sounds about right.

          You are each right in your own way!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            TF,

            You dont appear to be satisfied with reading minds one at a time. You move the game up a notch, and now claim you can read minds two at a time! Well done!

            As to your rather bizarre assertion about 0.01 C sounding about right, maybe you could back it up with some measured date – over a year, say. If you cannot find any measurements to back up your opinion, why should anybody take any notice of of your opinion? Because it “sounds about right to you perhaps?

            As to your determination “You are each right in your own way!, oh goody! You are beginning to see the light, in my case at least. David is a fool of the pseudoscientific climate cultist variety, and wrong, so you are 50% correct.

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike, No mind-reading needed; only basic reading and logic skills.

            If only you spent as mush effort on critical thinking as you do on complaining! We all notice that you didn’t actually disagree with anything I said — you just ranted about it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            TF,

            You wrote –

            “If only you spent as mush effort on critical thinking as you do on complaining! We all notice that you didnt actually disagree with anything I said you just ranted about it.”

            Maybe you could quote where I complained? Only joking, of course you can’t!

            Does this “sound about right” to you? Obviously, you don’t like facts – otherwise you would use them instead your pointless opinions. What basic reading and logic skills are you referring to? Are they related to basic writing skills, or did you really mean to write “mush” instead of “much”?

            Carry on denying, diverting, and confusing at your leisure. You may get something right by accident. Good luck.

            Cheers.

      • gbaikie says:

        “David Appell says:
        May 5, 2019 at 6:14 PM
        I tend say the ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, but perhaps there is newer information that indicates a more precise number?

        The average number isn’t very meaningful.”

        Do, you think we could in an interglacial period if the ocean average temperature was 3.0 C ?

        If average ocean temperature increases or decrease by 1 C would it effect global sea level?
        How much?

        As I said before I think average volume temperature of the ocean determines whether you are in an Ice Age, not in Ice Age, or in hothouse global climate.

        And our cold ocean prevents Earth becoming like Venus.

        Yes, I know that you don’t think there is any possibility that Earth could become like Venus. But there a small number of people who have such a crazy delusions. And for them, they should realize our cold ocean prevents this from happening.
        Yes, there lot other reason why it will not happen, but it is simple factor which prevents it.

    • Craig T says:

      gbaikie, can you use quotation marks, blockquotes or something to help show when you are quoting another post and you’re making your own point?

    • barry says:

      gbakie

      “I form my opinion on what I prefer to think.”

      You form your opinion on scientific matters based on what you’d prefer to believe? Or was that meant to be a joke?

      “That [study describing the many ways ocean temps are measured at depth] could quite interesting.”

      Is the reason you will not inform yourself on a point you yourself brought up because you form your opinion on what you “prefer to think?”

      barry: “You clearly are not up to date on this.”

      gbakie: “Probably not. I tend say the ocean average temperature is….”

      Did someone hijack your account in order to make it seem like you prefer to have uninformed opinions?

      “…ocean does not need to give up heat, to cool…

      …the loss [or gain] in the short term [less than 50 years] could/would be insignificant in terms of the ocean, but important in terms hundredths of degrees difference of atmosphere which we all seem to be discussing…

      …a massive amount the volcanic activity on the ocean floor… could be more or less now as compared to periods hundreds and thousands of years ago.”

      There is a wealth of research material on these questions. You can educate yourself, and turn the “coulds” and “woulds” into something a little more concrete.

      Instead, you are taking a position – something you “prefer to think” – and arguing its merits based on speculation, avoiding, it would seem, any fact-based material that would interfere with your preferences.

      This I already knew, but you’ve been unusually candid here. Thank you for that.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        b,

        You wrote –

        “You form your opinion on scientific matters based on what you’d prefer to believe? Or was that meant to be a joke?”

        Belief is for pseudoscientists, and other faith based groups.

        You may believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist as he claims. You may believe that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize. You may even believe that the GHE exists, and has been described.

        You may believe any stupid and nonsensical thing you wish. It’s a free world (to a degree).

        You might fantasise that increasing the amount of CO2 and H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! It obviously hasn’t for four and a half billion years, each winter, or at night, in the shade and so on, but I’ll take a wild guess that your beliefs are not easily challenged by facts.

        What a fool. At least religious belief holds out the promise of reward – your belief holds only the promise of mockery and derision. Carry on believing.

        Cheers.

        • Craig T says:

          “You may believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist as he claims.”

          How are we defining “climate scientist”? Is it based on degree or field of research? While working on his PhD in the Department of Mathematics at University College London he published papers on Kelvin and Rossby waves, a climate topic. All of his research has been climate related.

      • barry says:

        Even the dimmest fool should be able to read what I wrote and understand I am critical of opinion of science that is based on belief, preference or faith. Factual evidence is all that matters.

        Your posts are reflexive, knee-jerk repetitions of a couple of very dull themes. Over and over and over again you post the same spam, usually completely disconnected to what you are replying to, as in this case, where your reply is based on something diametrically opposite to what I actually wrote.

        Troll, begone.

        • JDHuffman says:

          barry claims “Even the dimmest fool should be able to read what I wrote and understand I am critical of opinion of science that is based on belief, preference or faith.”

          barry, the incorrect solution to the “plates” is based on belief, preference, or faith. When are you going to be critical of your own opinions?

      • gbaikie says:

        –barry says:
        May 7, 2019 at 3:02 AM
        gbakie

        “I form my opinion on what I prefer to think.”

        You form your opinion on scientific matters based on what you’d prefer to believe? Or was that meant to be a joke?–

        Are asking “what I prefer to think” is the same as what “I prefer to believe”?

        It might be possible as a general matter.
        But I prefer to say, I think that God exists. Rather than I prefer to say, I believe God exist.
        In my opinion, there is a quite difference between “think” and “believe” and that is why I prefer to say, I think God exists.

        On topic of scientific matters, regarding global climate.
        As far as I am aware the average temperature of the Earth’s ocean is presently about 3.5 C.

        It seems there wide agreement that we are presently in Ice Age.

        And this Ice Age has going on for more than million years- some place it at 2.6 million years.
        But there have been millions of years of declining global temperature and the coldest the average temperature of ocean has become is around 1 C
        -and this was during glacial periods.
        In terms of recently [within last million years] I assume the warmest the average ocean temperature has become is around 5 C

        In terms of our present Holocene, the last several thousand years has had downward cooling trend. And our recent Little Ice Age was one of coldest periods in thousands of years.

  29. Mike Flynn says:

    Apropos of the non-existent GHE –

    “”Plate tectonics is a relatively benign way for Earth to lose heat, said Peter Cawood, an Earth scientist at Monash University in Australia.”

    Losing heat is called cooling, unless you are a pseudoscientific climate cultist. I assume that an Earth scientist might know as much about Earth science as an undistinguished mathematician, or other self proclaimed climate scientist, even one who falsely claimed a Nobel Prize!

    Who knows?

    Cheers.

    • Craig T says:

      Plate tectonics is also a great way to move marine fossils from the ocean floor to the top of the highest mountain.

      • JDHuffman says:

        More correctly, plate tectonics is a way to raise mountains.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        Neither you, nor anyone else, has the faintest idea of the sea level impact of raising Mount Everest from beneath the ocean to its present location, with respect to a fixed datum such as the centre of the Earth.

        After the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau achieved their present altitude, do you think sea levels before this –

        1. Were higher?
        2. Were the same? or
        3. Were lower?

        One problem is that the Earth is a wrinkly, crinkled, asymmetrical oblate spheroid, whose interior and crust are in chaotic unpredictable motion in three dimensions. The geoid (nominal sea level) changes constantly. The difference between geoid anomalies is presently around 190 m – that is based on measurement compared to the theoretical geoid.

        Are you still so confident that the pseudoscientific climatologists can measure global sea levels to less than the thickness of a human hair? Really?

        Cheers.

    • Craig T says:

      “Plate tectonics is a relatively benign way for Earth to lose heat, said Peter Cawood, an Earth scientist at Monash University in Australia.” …I assume that an Earth scientist might know as much about Earth science as an undistinguished mathematician, or other self proclaimed climate scientist, even one who falsely claimed a Nobel Prize!

      “Professor Peter Cawood, president of the Geological Society of Australia, says the EarthTrek project will be recording the changing environment for an ongoing period.

      ‘The negative effects of climate change are creating stress and gravestones are recording that stress in a sense,’ Professor Cawood told ABC News Online.”
      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-21/graveyards-may-hold-key-to-climate-change/1362076

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        And your point?

        The climate has been changing ever since the atmosphere existed!

        Is this news to you? Of course the environment has been changing. Why would it not?

        Try something sillier, and even more meaningless, if you can.

        Cheers.

  30. I am still in my quite zone since all the arguments have been made pro/con for global warming and the climate is still stuck in neutral.

    Until the climate makes a move in either direction there really is nothing much to say other then make the same arguments.

    So it is wait and see for now.

    • barry says:

      Your prediction of UAH global TLT temps hitting the zero line in 2017, and then 2018, were wrong.

      You staked your opinion on that prediction. And when it didn’t come about, you conveniently forgot what you staked on the results.

      You were asked to bank your opinion on predicting correctly. You promised to do so. You broke that promise.

      Never mind that you were wrong. You have no integrity.

      Being wrong is nothing. Having integrity is all.

  31. PhilJ says:

    “If there was no Greenhouse Effect you would expect more OLR when the surface and atmosphere warmed.”

    OLR data shifted +6 months….

    Lol nothing like manipulating the data to confuse cause and effect lol….

    • Craig T says:

      There is a delay before ground conditions change troposphere temperatures and some people on here think UAH data is the only trustworthy temperature source. I’ll redo the graphic with surface data and no delay.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        As to “There is a delay before ground conditions change troposphere temperatures”, I trust you will ensure that you will redo your graphic to take into account low level inversions, where the atmosphere actually increases in temperature with altitude, and is actually hotter than the surface beneath, even though both are cooling at the same time, albeit at different rates.

        Do you believe the GHE is responsible for the creation of temperature inversions? Maybe you could include this observable and measurable behaviour into the description of the GHE which you seem to have conveniently lost for the moment. Good luck.

        Cheers,

        • Craig T says:

          I think this is what you’re asking about:

          “Specifically, we find that the cold layers close to the surface in Arctic winter, where most of the warming takes place, hardly contribute to the infrared radiation that goes out to space. Instead, the additional radiation that is generated by the warming of these layers is directed downwards, and thus amplifies the warming. We conclude that the predominant Arctic wintertime temperature inversion damps infrared cooling of the system, and thus constitutes a positive warming feedback.”
          https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Bintanja/publication/232796146_Arctic_winter_warming_amplified_by_the_thermal_inversion_and_consequent_low_infrared_cooling_to_space/links/0deec517c435a01d2c000000.pdf

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            No, that wasn’t what I was talking about at all. I’m not sure why you linked to such a nonsensical paper, but you can provide a reason if you wish. It should be good for a laugh, if nothing else. “Amplifies the warming”? Really?

            I was referring to observed fact. From Britannica –

            “A ground inversion develops when air is cooled by contact with a colder surface until it becomes cooler than the overlying atmosphere; this occurs most often on clear nights, when the ground cools off rapidly by radiation.”

            This is more or less correct, but you can sort out the actual mechanism for yourself. The Wikipedia explanation is defective, obviously.

            Cheers.

    • Craig T says:

      OK, here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.
      https://i.imgur.com/Wwp5mSj.jpg

      There’s a feedback mechanism. More warming creates more atmospheric water vapor allowing less longwave radiation to excape the Earth. Less outgoing LR means less cooling, raising the temperature of the surface and atmosphere. So one doesn’t cause the other, they develop together.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        You wrote –

        “Theres a feedback mechanism. More warming creates more atmospheric water vapor allowing less longwave radiation to excape the Earth. Less outgoing LR means less cooling, raising the temperature of the surface and atmosphere.”

        That does not seem right. The hottest areas of the surface are arid tropical deserts, and of course they have the least amount of water vapour in their atmospheres. I don’t believe you know what you are talking about.

        “Less cooling” means less cooling to normal people. I know pseudoscientific climate cultists claim “less cooling” really means “increased temperatures”, but this is just fantasy. I can understand why you won’t say that less outgoing LR means increased heating (raised temperatures), directly, because you would be saying something really, really, stupid.

        No GHE, and the more sciencey sounding nonsense, of the “feedback mechanism, sort you try, the sillier you appear. Try describing the GHE first, and make sure it fits with observed fact. Otherwise, you are just preaching pseudoscientific climate cultism, based on devout belief rather than fact. Attracting more fools to your cause might make you feel better, but it won’t change physical law.

        Cheers.

        • Craig T says:

          “I know pseudoscientific climate cultists claim less cooling really means increased temperatures, but this is just fantasy.”

          Lets say something is being warmed at a set value of watts per square meter without any cooling and at the end of that time it is X degrees warmer. If that same thing is being warmed with the same watts per square meter for the same time but is also cooling during that time it will be less than X degrees warmer at the end.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            You wrote –

            “Lets say something is being warmed at a set value of watts per square meter without any cooling and at the end of that time it is X degrees warmer. If that same thing is being warmed with the same watts per square meter for the same time but is also cooling during that time it will be less than X degrees warmer at the end.”

            Let’s say Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate. Or let’s not.

            But what the hell. Just for fun, let’s just say I have an object emitting around 300 W/m2, and an object emitting 40 W/m2. Which one is hotter? You might suspect a gotcha, and you would be right. It doesn’t matter what answer you give, it will be wrong. You see the trouble you can get into, putting your trust in pseudoscientific climatological nonsense.

            Watts per square meter is meaningless without further information. An object emitting 300 W/m2 may be hotter than one emitting 40 W/m2, or vice versa.

            Don’t assume I am a willing participant in your fantasy.

            Just try describing the GHE in a useful way, and it can be examined. Otherwise you are just another delsuional pseudoscientific fantasist.

            Cheers.

          • Craig T says:

            “But what the hell. Just for fun, lets just say I have an object emitting around 300 W/m2, and an object emitting 40 W/m2. Which one is hotter? … Watts per square meter is meaningless without further information. An object emitting 300 W/m2 may be hotter than one emitting 40 W/m2, or vice versa.”

            That’s actually my point. You can’t judge the temperature of an object by how many watts per square meter are going in or out. You can use that information to determine how much it is warming or cooling. The total solar irradiance is essentially constant. How much the Earth warms or cools depends on the energy lost into space.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, not only are you ignorant of the relevant physics, but you can’t think logically. Here’s an example:

            Your statement: “How much the Earth warms or cools depends on the energy lost into space.”

            Your poor “physics”: “CO2 prevents energy moving to space”.

            Your poor “logic”: “Since energy cannot move to space, the surface is warming.”

            Likely you will never be able to learn.

          • Craig T says:

            “Your poor ‘logic’: ‘Since energy cannot move to space, the surface is warming.'”

            Here’s my logic: Since satellites show outgoing longwave radiation going down while satellites and ground observations show temperatures going up, there must be more affecting the amount of longwave radiation that leaves the Earth than temperature alone.

            Now I don’t think the up and down of OLR emissions between 1975 to present is caused by CO2. More likely it’s the changes in water vapor that accompany El Ninos and la Ninas.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Since satellites show outgoing longwave radiation going down…”

            WRONG. Satellites do not show such a thing. You are willingly deceived.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            craig t…”there must be more affecting the amount of longwave radiation that leaves the Earth than temperature alone”.

            Temperature is a human invention. As such, it affects nothing. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms, which is also the definition of heat. Temperature is a measure of the relative levels of heat.

            How is heat related to long wave emissions (IR)? The heat of a body is ultimately related to the energy levels of the electrons in each atom. When the body is heated, the electrons of each atom rise to higher energy levels and that condition is described as a higher level of heat or a higher temperature.

            Kinetic, as applied to energy, means only that the energy is in motion. Electrons orbiting a nucleii have energy that is kinetic since the electrons are constantly in motion. The KE of the electron changes with it’s orbital energy level, increasing as the electrons move to higher energy levels. So does the temperature.

            That KE is not to be confused with the KE due to the linear motion of atoms in a gas. In a solid, atoms are bound in a lattice and the lattice structure is formed by electron bonds or the charges produced by electrons. When a solid is heated, the electrons absorb the energy and move to higher orbital energy levels which increases the vibration of the inter-atomic bonds.

            Therefore, the IR emitted at the surface is dependent on the energy state of the electrons in the various elements making up the surface. Those electrons will radiate at a rate dependent on the temperature conditions surrounding the surface which can only be the atmosphere.

            It is the temperature of the atmosphere immediately in contact with the surface elements that controls the rate of heat loss at the surface. However, radiation is not the governing factor with surface heat loss, it is conduction directly to the gases in contact with the surface.

            That problem was addressed by R. W. Wood, an expert on CO2 emission. He argued that CO2 could not possibly warm the atmosphere and that the more likely cause was the transfer of heat directly to the atmosphere.

            Wood further explained that radiation would dissipate within a few feet of the surface due to the inverse square law. If you are talking about surface radiation, there would not be enough after a few feet to affect GHGs.

          • Craig T says:

            Gordon
            “That problem was addressed by R. W. Wood, an expert on CO2 emission. He argued that CO2 could not possibly warm the atmosphere and that the more likely cause was the transfer of heat directly to the atmosphere.”

            First, Wood literally tested if a greenhouse warms by trapping longwave radiation. You should consider the last line of his paper. “I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.”

            Wood wrote “This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection,” and I completely agree. I don’t see where Wood talks about the dissipation of radiation. Because the Earth is completely surrounded by its atmosphere dissipation is not a factor.

            Charles Greeley Abbot, who was director of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory, wrote a rebuttal to Wood directly addressing greenhouse gasses and climate. He writes “Remembering that the Earth is mainly water covered, it must be almost ‘perfectly black’ for long-wave rays.” Even in 1909 it was known that warm objects absorbing longwave radiation did not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
            http://boole.stanford.edu/wood/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Craig wallows in his pseudoscience: “Less outgoing LR [sic] means less cooling, raising the temperature of the surface and atmosphere.”

        WRONG, Craig. You make one mistake after another, presumably hoping all your mistakes will somehow cancel. But, they don’t cancel, they add.

        If you believe in “less outgoing ‘LR’ means less cooling”, then that would mean less photons are emitted to space. And, if less photons are emitted to space, then less photons are emitted back to the surface. So, if less photons arrive the surface, there is less chance of warming the surface, even disregarding the fact that absorp.tion is not guaranteed.

        You’re terribly lost in your pseudoscience.

        But, I’m having a blast!

        • Craig T says:

          “And, if less photons are emitted to space, then less photons are emitted back to the surface.”

          Any photon that clears the atmosphere heading outward isn’t coming back.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Duh.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            And cooling results when energy is lost to space. Not heating.

            Are you quite mad, or just pretending?

            Cheers.

          • Craig T says:

            JD
            A warmer surface means more longwave photons emitted from the surface. The graph I posted shows fewer longwave photons leaving the Earth when the surface is warmer. So the energy carried by those photons is still inside the atmosphere.

            Mike
            It’s clear from the graph that the loss of energy to space is not constant. Longwave radiation loss has been going up and down and is lower during an El Nino. We know the Earth warms during an El Nino because the ocean is warming the Atmosphere.

            So during an El Nino not only is the surface warming more but the Earth is cooling less. What is the cause of this reduction in cooling?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, the graph does NOT show fewer longwave photons leaving the Earth when the surface is warmer.

            1) The graph is bogus, as explained above.

            2) You can’t even interpret the bogus graph.

            It’s pure pseudoscience, and you’re 100% onboard–not a doubt in your mind.

  32. Eben says:

    If you have not predicted global cooling yet this is the time to do it and put yourself on the record, turning the coat after it is obvious will get you no glory no Nobel prize.

    The claim of CO2 causing the recent warming up is completely delusional, the evidence the sun did it all is there to see if you only look .
    This video contains the predictions but I will not tell you where , watch the whole thing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazGXAqgkds

    If you want to go in the history as one of the blind cult followers of preacher Gore keep believing CO2 is the earth temperature control knob.

    • Craig T says:

      Do you have a written version of this prediction? I hate watching “Youtube-splaining”. JD says the Sun is maintaining its solar constant so I don’t know if to believe him or you.

      Now if you want Al Gore, here’s a link to South Park’s Man-Bear-Pig.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuKjwWYyfkw

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        You may believe whom you like. It makes no difference at all to the facts, does it?

        You may even believe the deluded Schmidt, or the even more deluded Mann. You may even believe the idiotic Gore, with his belief that the interior of the Earth had a temperature of millions of degrees. What a pseudoscientific fool!

        Carry on believing. It costs you nothing.

        Cheers.

  33. Mike Flynn says:

    bobdroege wrote –

    “I have actually measured the magical heating properties of CO2 and H2O in a lab, so I am not believing what others have done.”

    And I am sure that anybody who is likely to believe that is even more stupid and ignorant than bobdroege. I don’t believe I’ll hold my breath waiting for the commercial version of the “bobdroege CO2 and H2O powered heater”. I don’t think even the most idiotic GHE cultist will, either.

    The mad capering of the pseudoscientific climatological cultists continues unabated.

    What a pack of delusional fools!

    Cheers.

    • bobdroege says:

      CO2 lasers are already on the market, you can use them to cut steel.

      Or maybe you want some skin resurfacing to get rid of some age spots.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Warmists usually go to the CO2 laser as “proof” that CO2 is warming the planet.

        Their misunderstanding of the science is always amusing.

        • Craig T says:

          No, it’s proof that nothing in physics prevents a 10µm photon from passing it’s energy to an object warmer than 16°C.

          • JDHuffman says:

            See.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            craig…”its proof that nothing in physics prevents a 10m photon from passing its energy to an object warmer than 16C”.

            There is one very import ‘thing’ in physics that governs whether a photon passes its energy to an atom (or molecule). It’s called an electron, one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

            In order for a photon to be absorbed by an electron the energy and frequency of the photon must be precise and match the frequency of the electron and the orbital energy level difference in eV through which the electron must transition after absorbing the photon’s energy. E = hf.

            It is not possible for an electron existing in the energy context of a higher temperature to absorb the lower frequency/lower energy offerings of a photon from a colder source. The photon must supply energy to raise an electron in that context to an even higher energy level and a photon from a cooler source lacks the required energy and frequency.

            That’s why photons from a block of ice cannot be absorbed by the electrons in water at a temperature above the temperature of ice. It is certainly not possible for photons from ice to be absorbed in the hot water of coffee so as to raise it’s temperature, or to slow its rate of cooling.

            Look at this another way. If you put ice in water, does the water warm? Radiation must obey the same 2lot that conduction and convection obey.

          • Craig T says:

            Gordon
            If “It is not possible for an electron existing in the energy context of a higher temperature to absorb the lower frequency/lower energy offerings of a photon from a colder source,” how can 10µm photons from a CO2 laser burn skin?

            Radiation does obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics as conduction and convection. In the formulas for conduction and convection both the temperature of the cooler and warmer objects are factors. Why would this be different for radiative heat transfer?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, As I demonstrated last month, photons from ice can be absorbed by a heated metal plate, exhibiting a warming much like other materials. This effect is called a “radiation shield” for those who don’t know engineering…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E. Swanson, please stop trolling.

        • bobdroege says:

          JD,

          No you misunderstand as you usually do

          It is evidence that infrared radiation from a CO2 molecules can be abzorbed by something warmer than the Wien’s law temperature correlating to 10 um.

          Which totally debunks the intelligent photon theory you are so wedded to.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, from your level, photons probably appear fairly intelligent. But then so do rocks, bricks, and dead fish.

            Nothing new.

          • Craig T says:

            Maybe it’s not the photon. All matter might have its own Maxwell’s demon assigned to it to work as a bouncer. Photons get shown the door if the energy they carry is below the matter’s peak wavelength.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR23aMjIHIY
            Reversing Entropy with Maxwell’s Demon

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            except you are the one espousing the intelligent photon theory, that photons know the temperature of the body or molecule they were emitted from.

            Hint, they don’t.

          • JDHuffman says:

            boob, some may think your continuing effort to misrepresent me is just pathetic. But, I think it is both pathetic and humorous.

            Please keep it up.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            Is it true that you are saying down-welling photons from CO2 don’t heat the earth because they are not abzorbed, because they come from a colder object.

            If that is not true then I have misrepresented you and you can accept my apologies.

            But then on the other hand you would have to admit that the down-welling photons from CO2 are abzorbed by the earth and do in fact heat the earth.

            So what’s it gonna be?

            Do you feel lucky?

          • JDHuffman says:

            More pathetic and humorous attempts to misrepresent me.

            Nothing new.

  34. Craig T says:

    PhilJ:

    Here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.
    https://i.imgur.com/Wwp5mSj.jpg

    • JDHuffman says:

      Again Craig, that is NOT the “outgoing long wave radiation”. It is some concocted, rigged, series of “anomalies”. Radiative flux “anomalies” from different surfaces/temperatures are meaningless.

      You keep doing the same thing, over and over, hoping for different results.

    • bdgwx says:

      Craig, this is really interesting. It definitely demonstrates that there is a correlation between OLR and surface temperature.

      • Craig T says:

        Even more when you look on the graph at 1991, the year that Mt. Pinatubo erupted. It’s the one time both OLR and surface temperature go in the same direction – down.

      • JDHuffman says:

        What is really interesting is that Craig believes ice cubes can warm his cup of lukewarm coffee: “…it’s proof that nothing in physics prevents a 10 μm photon from passing its [sic] energy to an object warmer than 16 °C.”

        Obviously poor Craig doesn’t know a 10.7 μ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.

        Nothing new.

        • Nate says:

          “a 10.7 μ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.”

          And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.”

            Absorp-tion of IR has nothing to do with the IR, it’s all about the mechanics of electrons and their transitions. If the IR lacks the energy intensity and frequency to excite an electron, it is not absorbed.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”Craig, this is really interesting. It definitely demonstrates that there is a correlation between OLR and surface temperature”.

        All it proves is that you are not aware of the chicanery of GISS and how they offer a brand of science that has no application on this planet.

        • Craig Tevis says:

          For all your claims of chicanery, AIRS lines up close to GISS data on the ground and UAH data in the troposphere. It looks like the temperatures are real. The drops in OLR during El Ninos also line up with UAH data.
          https://i.imgur.com/U6pH4Dz.jpg

          I’d encourage you to explore the development of the science between R. W. Wood and the present. You’ll find it more rooted in reality than you currently believe.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Craig T, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      craig…”Here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.”

      GISTEMP has proved themselves corrupt. They claimed 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 38% likelihood they were telling the truth. They back up the lies out of NOAA which lead them to rewrite the historical temperature record to reflect AGW.

      Take a look at your graph. GISS has a positive trend (blue curve) that never goes below the baseline while over the same period, UAH shows about half the trend below the baseline.

      GISS shows a true warming since 1975 of nearly a full degree C whereas UAH shows a flat trend for 18 years from 1998 – 2015 and a slight trend from 2015 onward due to the extreme 2016 El Nino. The IPCC agreed with 15 years of that flat trend yet GISS shows no flat trend.

      And would someone explain the orange curve? How can you have an out-going surface IR that varies around a baseline with no trend?

      GISSTEMP are bs artists of the worst kind. They should all be in jail for contempt of truth and science.

      • Craig T says:

        “Take a look at your graph. GISS has a positive trend (blue curve) that never goes below the baseline while over the same period, UAH shows about half the trend below the baseline”

        UAH data starts in 1979 and currently uses 1981 to 2010 as a comparison for anomalies. GISS data runs back to 1880 and uses the 1951 to 1980 average to measure the anomalies. That’s why UAH data crosses 0 around 2000 and GISS data crosses 0 a little after 1980. GISS has a faster warming rate, but so does all surface data.

        “GISS shows a true warming since 1975 of nearly a full degree C whereas UAH shows a flat trend for 18 years from 1998 2015 and a slight trend from 2015 onward due to the extreme 2016 El Nino.”

        The TLT shows a larger increase in temperature than the surface during a strong El Nino and more of a drop during a strong la Nina. Since 1998 was the strongest El Nino of the satellite data and 2008 and 2011 were strong la Nina years, the trend during that time is flat for the troposphere while still slightly rising for surface data.

        “How can you have an out-going surface IR that varies around a baseline with no trend?”

        That IR being measured is what left the atmosphere, not surface IR. The variation (I think) is because of the water vapor level in the atmosphere. Specific humidity goes up during an El Nino and down for la Ninas. El Nino/la Nina is a cycle with no trend over time. Water is the most important greenhouse gas.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Craig T, please stop trolling.

  35. Craig T says:

    Are you saying I believe a box made of ice would slow the cooling of a cup of 80° C lukewarm coffee floating in space? The coffee would radiate 560 W/m^2 and the ice 300 W/m^2. With only a net loss of 260 W/m^2 the coffee in an ice box cools at half the rate of being exposed to space.

    Let’s assume the cup is spherical …
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

    If the cup had a surface area of 1 square meter and a 500 watt heater inside, the coffee would slowly cool in open space. Put that spherical cup in a box made of ice and the coffee will warm. Still the ice isn’t warming my coffee. It just slows the cooling of my coffee.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      craig…”Put that spherical cup in a box made of ice and the coffee will warm. Still the ice isnt warming my coffee. It just slows the cooling of my coffee”.

      You guys offer some ludicrous thought experiments.

      First of all, you claim: “The coffee would radiate 560 W/m^2 and the ice 300 W/m^2. With only a net loss of 260 W/m^2 the coffee in an ice box cools at half the rate of being exposed to space”.

      A net loss of what? You have not specified the energy. In this case were are talking about a HEAT TRANSFER not electromagnetic energy. With a heat transfer there can be not net loss unless you specify the heat sources.

      With EM, there is not net energy. That notion is a fallacy based on a misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that EM energies radiated from bodies of different temperatures can produce a net heat transfer. That is sheer nonsense.

      Ice is not a heat source for anything hotter than ice. If you want to talk net heat loss then you must calculate the expected rate of heat loss from the coffee by itself and compare that rate to the rate it would cool if it was warmed at the same time by a heat source HOTTER than the coffee. If that hotter source was warm enough you could maintain the coffee at a constant temperature where it would lose no heat at all.

      Where you guys get this pseudo-science, that EM from a cooler body can transfer heat to a hotter body, escapes me.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?

        Light is emitted from a cold object and hits a hot object which has the capacity to abzorb the light, what prevents it?

        • JDHuffman says:

          bob, the reason that some photons aren’t absorbed is typically due to wavelength. But, you have already demonstrated an inability to learn.

          Nothing new.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            So now it’s wavelength?

            I thought it was due to a 2nd law violation in that you think photon can’t transfer energy from cold to hot.

            You know the wavelength of a photon from a CO2 molecule is not determined by the temperature of the gas cloud that CO2 molecule is in.

          • JDHuffman says:

            So now you’re backing away from the “intelligent photon” misrepresentation, and moving to “2LoT” misrepresentation?

            Pathetic and humorous.

            I can’t wait for your next effort.

          • bobdroege says:

            No,

            I’ve pinned them both on you.

            Learn some correct science for pete’s sake.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob continues with his usual pathetic and humorous comments.

            Nothing new.

          • Craig T says:

            “bob, the reason that some photons arent absorbed is typically due to wavelength.”

            True, but water soaks up longwave radiation like a sponge. Look at this graph of IR absorρtion of water.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorp.tion_coefficient_large.gif (remove “.” from the forbidden word.)

            Ice, Liquid water, and water vapor are all happy to soak up radiation with wavelengths as long as 100 µm. The WDL peak for 100 µm is -244° C.

            “Obviously poor Craig doesnt know a 10.7 µ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.”

            Nate said it best:
            “And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob d…”Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?

          Light is emitted from a cold object and hits a hot object which has the capacity to abzorb the light, what prevents it?”

          ********

          EM emission and absorp-tion is based on electrons in atoms. There is no other particle in an atom capable of emitting or absorbing EM under normal circumstances.

          The electron has a negative charge and when it moves, it generates an electric and magnetic field. That’s your EM. The positive protons in the nucleus are relatively stationary in solids and liquids and only move in gases.

          However, EM is associated with the movement of electrons in their orbits and the transitions between energy levels in the atom. When an electron falls from a higher energy level to a lower energy level it emits a quanta of EM described by E = hf, where E is the potential between energy levels in eV.

          The f refers to the frequency of the electron in an orbit and it is based on the angular velocity of the electron. Each energy orbital forces a difference frequency. When the electron emits a quanta of EM it transfers that frequency to the quanta.

          When electrons move in a conductor, they produce a magnetic field and an electric field around the conductor. The EM field is called near-field EM, like the EM field around a coil or a motor. At higher frequencies, that field can leave the conductor(s) to travel through space and is called far-field EM. All our communications is based on far-field radiation produced by electrons moving in conductors (antennas).

          According to Bohr, circa 1913, and upheld by Schrodinger et al, in order for an electron to absorb a quanta of EM, that quanta must meet the stringent requirements of E = hf. If that EM quanta originated from a cooler body, it lacks the requirements both in intensity and frequency, therefore it cannot be absorbed.

          A cooler body has lower electron energy levels and the potential between levels in eV is less than the difference in hotter bodies. When a cooler body emits EM, the E in E = hf is lower and the frequency is lower too. It is not a match for absorp-tion in the electrons of a hotter body.

          Who said that ‘light’ from a cooler body is absorbed by another body that is hotter? What is the major source of light? The Sun, right? At night, with no solar light, you can’t see any cooler body emitting light and having it absorbed by a hotter body.

          Everything we see in daytime is reflected solar energy. No ordinary body emits EM in the visible spectrum. It has to be heated to a temperature high enough to emit ‘light’. Therefore, the light ‘apparently’ emitted by ordinary bodies does not come from them, it comes from a very high temperature source. They absorb some of the solar energy spectrum and reflect the rest.

          Even a candle flame is a relatively high temperature. The blue inner flame is about 1400C while the yellow part is 1200C.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon, you are missing a whole lot of physics and get almost everything in your post incomplete if not out right wrong

            You say this

            “EM emission and absorp-tion is based on electrons in atoms. There is no other particle in an atom capable of emitting or absorbing EM under normal circumstances.”

            But then you say this

            “All our communications is based on far-field radiation produced by electrons moving in conductors (antennas).”

            So I get it that electrons can abzorb and emit radiation if they are moving in conductors as well as being bound in atoms.

            So if you have a free electron in a solid, then it is capable of abzorbing a photon, right?

            But then you go off the rails with this

            “The f refers to the frequency of the electron in an orbit and it is based on the angular velocity of the electron. Each energy orbital forces a difference frequency. When the electron emits a quanta of EM it transfers that frequency to the quanta.”

            Bound electrons don’t orbit and the frequency is due to the difference in the energy levels that the electron is transitioning to and from.

            This part is basically true

            “According to Bohr, circa 1913, and upheld by Schrodinger et al, in order for an electron to absorb a quanta of EM, that quanta must meet the stringent requirements of E = hf.”

            But you mention Schrodinger and you might want to look up solution to any of the Schrodinger equations and see that for some of them, the energy levels E=hf are quite low. Say for solids and crystals, which quite easily abzorb low energy radiation. And crystals, I mean like sand and rocks and such.

            However this part is just made up

            “A cooler body has lower electron energy levels and the potential between levels in eV is less than the difference in hotter bodies. When a cooler body emits EM, the E in E = hf is lower and the frequency is lower too.”

            Temperature has nothing to do with the electronic energy levels available, it has to do with how they are populated. Or should i say the energy levels in a substance, molecule or atom are not determined by the temperature but by the nature of the substance.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • Craig T says:

        “You guys offer some ludicrous thought experiments.”

        After too many “pathetic and humorous attempts to misrepresent me” by JD I decided if he felt I said something about ice and coffee I should at least make the physics in it correct.

        “In this case were are talking about a HEAT TRANSFER not electromagnetic energy.”

        In a vacuum the only type of heat transfer is in the form of electromagnetic energy.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          craig…”In a vacuum the only type of heat transfer is in the form of electromagnetic energy”.

          *********

          True. There are things to note about that ‘apparent’ transfer.

          -When the heated object emits EM, it cools. Heat is lost in proportion to the EM emitted even though there is a conversion of energy from heat to EM.

          -it is important to note that heat is lost and it is not sent to a cooler body via EM, which cannot transport heat. The transfer is apparent. If that emitted EM from a hotter body reaches a cooler body, it is absorbed and the cooler body gets hotter.

          That is your heat transfer, which is a misnomer. It is actually a transfer of energy involving a two step conversion form heat to EM and back to heat.

          -that conversion from hot to cold is not reversible. 2nd law.

          -In order for that emitter to maintain it’s temperature, without external heating, it would have to be subjected to a source of heat hotter than itself. EM from a cooler body cannot be converted back to heat in a hotter body.

          -The heated body cools due to what you have described, conduction, convection, and radiation. It will reach a temperature that satisfies the heat input minus the heat dissipation.

          The second you interfere with a means of dissipation, the body will warm naturally toward the temperature it would be if it could not dissipate heat.

          -It’s important to understand, that such warming has nothing whatsoever to do with EM from a cooler body.

          • Craig T says:

            “That is your heat transfer, which is a misnomer. It is actually a transfer of energy involving a two step conversion form heat to EM and back to heat.”

            You don’t consider that a transfer of heat? Would you rather call it a transfer of energy?

            “The heated body cools due to what you have described, conduction, convection, and radiation. It will reach a temperature that satisfies the heat input minus the heat dissipation.”

            Yes, but that includes any EM that came to the body and was converted back to heat. Spectrography shows matter absorbs a wide range of wavelengths. Liquid water has been experimentally measured absorbing wavelengths as long as 90 µm.
            https://omlc.org/spectra/water/data/hale73.txt
            G. M. Hale, M. R. Querry, “Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm wavelength region,” Appl. Opt.,12, 555-563 (1973).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    craig t …”Lets say something is being warmed at a set value of watts per square meter without any cooling and at the end of that time it is X degrees warmer. If that same thing is being warmed with the same watts per square meter for the same time but is also cooling during that time it will be less than X degrees warmer at the end”.

    OK. Now take the temperature of the body under the conditions that it cannot dissipate heat and call that temperature its natural temperature. Now allow it to dissipate heat by radiation, conduction, and convection, calling that temperature its ambient temperature.

    If you do anything to interfere with the body’s ability to radiate, conduct, or convect heat away from itself, Tambient will rise toward Tnatural.

    I have been trying to explain that to swannie, who thinks he has proved heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Heat is not being transferred cold to hot, the experiments he set up have managed to interfere with the bodies ability to dissipate heat.

    It’s the same with your thought experiment with a sphere of coffee inside an ice container in space. If that coffee warms under such conditions, which is extremely unlikely, it’s because the ice shell is blocking radiation from the coffee.

    Simply by blocking the coffee container’s ability to radiate, its temperature will rise. The temperature you measured would be its ambient temperature after it had reached an equilibrium state of heat in = heat out. Stifle heat out and the temperature rises.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo writes:


      the temperature of the body under the conditions that it cannot dissipate heat and call that temperature its natural temperature.

      There is no such thing in engineering or science called “natural temperature”. Your claim that such exists as the result of “no dissipation” (i.e., with perfect insulation) ignores the fact that any energy added to said body would cause it’s temperature to rise and there’s no upper temperature limit as more energy is added, except as a phase change as the body melts or vaporizes.

      Furthermore, when you write:

      If you do anything to interfere with the bodys ability to radiate, conduct, or convect heat away from itself, Tambient will rise toward Tnatural.

      I have been trying to explain that to swannie, who thinks he has proved heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Heat is not being transferred cold to hot, the experiments he set up have managed to interfere with the bodies ability to dissipate heat.

      Gordo seems to think that all he has to do is assert some grand physical mechanism without proof and it thus becomes reality. He has never provided any supporting evidence for his delusional physics, such as “blocking” a body’s “ability to radiate”.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        ES,

        What has any of this to do with the non-existent GHE? There is no such thing in engineering or science. No description, no physical basis, no nothing.

        Neither CO2 nor H2O have any heating abilities.

        Science relies on the scientific method, which involves things such as hypotheses, theories and experiments. Pseudoscientific climatology, on the other hand, relies on strident assertions from self appointed experts – a ragtag mob of second raters. Frauds, fools, and incompetent wannabes, unable to succeed in any field of real scientific endeavour!

        You can’t even properly describe this GHE, can you? How hard can it be to copy and paste a useful scientific description? Only joking, I know you are likely to claim that the concept can only be understood by top-level cultists with secret knowledge – the likes of Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and Hansen. Fools or frauds, all of them!

        Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Mike…”You [swannie] cant even properly describe this GHE, can you? ”

          *******

          Oh, but he’s trying. Unfortunately, he has amended science, like his fellow alarmists, to a false theory.

          His authority figures at NOAA and NASA have gone so far as to re-write the data to make it better fit the false theory.

          “…misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows.”

          Bill Shakespeare

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”There is no such thing in engineering or science called natural temperature.

        Of course not, I coined the term and indicated that. I was trying to describe the temperature a body would reach if you heated it electrically and prevented as much heat dissipation as possible.

        You do understand, hopefully, that if I have 1 amp of current running through a semiconductor that the semiconductor will reach a certain temperature. You can find the temperature maximum in the literature as well as the heat dissipation. The temperatures are rated at room temperature. You could run the same device hotter outside in a cold winter’s day.

        If you mount that semiconductor on a heat sink and blow air over the heat sink with a fan, the semiconductor gets cooler. Remove the fan, and it warms up. Remove the heat sink and it warms more.

        It’s obvious that the heat in the semiconductor comes from the electrical current and the cooling comes from the rate at which heat can be removed via straight air, a heat sink plus air, or a heat sink plus forced air.

        The ‘heat in’ from the electrical source will produce the maximum temperature for the body which I call it’s natural temperature based on the electrical heating. Any means of dissipation provided will lower that temperature.

        That’s what you fail to understand, in your experiments you have interfered with the ability of the body to dissipate heat naturally and the body has heated naturally toward it’s natural temperature.

        You have reached the wrong conclusion that the body is heating due to back-radiation from a surrounding object, which is only serving to block its ability to dissipate heat.

        *********
        “Gordo seems to think that all he has to do is assert some grand physical mechanism without proof and it thus becomes reality”.

        Oh, but I have proof. It’s called the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are the outlier here, claiming the 2nd law is wrong.

        • Nate says:

          ‘ Now take the temperature of the body under the conditions that it cannot dissipate heat and call that temperature its natural temperature. ‘

          If there is power input to a device, at a steady temperature, and it is NOT dissipating heat…

          .. then 1LOT will get very angry at you Gordon.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Nate, please stop trolling.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Your prediction of UAH global TLT temps hitting the zero line in 2017, and then 2018, were wrong”.

    So, what??? The entire AGW theory has been wrong. Hansen went on national TV, in 1988, enabled by his buddy Al Gore, and made stupid statements about dire consequences if we did not cut back on CO2 emissions immediately.

    Fast forward, 30+ years and nothing has happened. No sea level rises of note, no insect infestations, no climate change…nothing…nada.

    Even the global average has not risen noticeably over the past 20 years.

  38. PhilJ says:

    Bob,

    “Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?”

    What prevents my arm from transferring energy to a swing that is oscillating at the same frequency but a higher amplitude than my arm?

    • bobdroege says:

      PhilJ,

      You ought to have kids, take them to a park with a swing-set and find out.

      Or I can tell you.

      Nothing

      • PhilJ says:

        bob,

        I have 6 kids and have pushed many swings. And so i can tell you with confidence that trying to push a swing that is moving away from you faster than your arm is moving doesn’t work 😉

        This is no surprise… you see if your arm and the swing are oscillating at the same frequency then as the amplitude of the swing approaches the amplitude of your arm , the amount of energy transferred from your arm to the swing approaches zero…

        • bobdroege says:

          Then how do you make the swing go higher by pushing with your arm?

          The swing and your arm have the same frequency as they are attached while you are pushing on it, but the swing may have a higher amplitude, or lower at the start.

          The thing is that you try to increase the frequency of your arm while it is in contact with the swing, but it cant, so you exert a force on the swing which makes the amplitude of the swing go higher.

        • Nate says:

          ‘ And so i can tell you with confidence that trying to push a swing that is moving away from you faster than your arm is moving doesnt work’

          If you go try it, you will see that your push is most effective when applied just after it reaches its maximum height, and it is moving slowly away from you.

          This is a typical resonance effect, where a small driving force gives a large amplitude response.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”your push is most effective when applied just after it reaches its maximum height, and it is moving slowly away from you.

            This is a typical resonance effect, where a small driving force gives a large amplitude response”.

            *********

            Not really a resonant effect although a swing is an example of simple harmonic motion. Like any pendulum, as the swing reaches it’s highest point, it stops due to the effect of gravity then slowly accelerates as you claim. If you can add to that acceleration with a force it will speed up the swing’s motion.

            I think Phil is getting at more of a resonant situation but he is describing a form of damped oscillation with an impulse of energy designed to maintain the oscillation.

            That’s how oscillators work in electronics. A tank circuit, an inductor and capacitor in parallel, is excited by a pulse and it begins to oscillate naturally as the capacitor and inductor exchange energy. The oscillation would be damped eventually by resistance in the circuit but if you supply a brief pulse from the power supply every cycle the oscillation is maintained.

            In an atom, say hydrogen with 1 electron and 1 proton in the nucleus, the electron will orbit at a ground state until it is excited, say by absorbing EM. It will then jump to a higher energy orbital where its frequency will change due to a different angular velocity.

            If you could project the orbital motion of an electron onto an axis, allowing the projection to extend with time, it would form a sine wave with a frequency equivalent to the angular velocity of the electron in its orbit.

            No one knows if such orbitals exist or why the electron transitions when excited. The transition is claimed to lack a time component, it happens without time passing. I guess that’s why they came up with the word quantum because even instantaneous infers time.

            With regard to resonance, I regard the electron in it’s orbit as a resonant situation. However, the electron does not change it frequency due to a damped oscillation. In order to excite it at a certain frequency it would be necessary to have an excitation in phase with the electron frequency.

            That’s what the applicable formula says, E = hf. In order to supply the E, which is the potential the electron must climb to get to a higher orbital level, it requires the frequency of the EM, f, to exactly match the frequency of the electron.

            Otherwise, as in any resonant situation, the energy is not absorbed. We depend on that in electronics for filters and bandpass requirements. Without that resonance electronic communications would not be possible.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Not really a resonant effect’

            Actually it really is a resonance effect.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

    • Nate says:

      +1 Bobd

      -1 PhilJ for self goal.

    • Craig T says:

      PhilJ
      Here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.
      https://i.imgur.com/Wwp5mSj.jpg

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Nate, Craig T, please stop trolling.

  39. Mike Flynn says:

    bobdroege wrote –

    “You know the wavelength of a photon from a CO2 molecule is not determined by the temperature of the gas cloud that CO2 molecule is in.”

    – which shows that bobdroege does not have the faintest idea what he is talking about.

    As an example, bobdroege might care to explain what wavelengths are emitted by a sample of 100 percent CO2 at 500 C. Now compare this with the wavelengths of photons emitted by CO2 at 20 C. How is bobdroege’s intital witless pronouncement looking now?

    bobdroege cannot even explain how CO2 may be heated by compression, without reverting to stupidities involving molecules “colliding” (they don’t), or molecules “bouncing” off walls (they don’t). These analogies are the sorts of facile lies told to children by teachers who do not understand physics sufficiently well to impart facts.

    bobdroege is a fool. Anyone is free to believe what he says, exactly as one is free to believe the statements of one’s favourite politician or cult leader. Assertions are one thing, facts may be quite another.

    bobdroege is confused. He does not understand physics well enough to realise that the CO2 in a CO2 laser is merely a means to convert the electrical power supplied to the device into another more useable form. The CO2 provides no heat at all.

    bobdroege cannot even explain why the lens used to focus the CO2 laser beam is largely unaffected by the beam, as its purpose is most definitely to absorb as little of the energy as possible.

    bobdroege makes many stupid and unsupported assertions, in common with pseudoscientific climate cultists.

    What a silly person!

    Cheers.

    • bobdroege says:

      Flynn,

      The spectrum of CO2 at 500 C shows peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, and the spectrum of CO2 at 20 C show the same 3 peaks at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns.

      The spectrum doesn’t change too much with that temperature change because CO2 only emits and abzorbs at certain wavelengths.

      Try to learn something about the behavior of gases, try this link

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

      The kinetic theory of gases describes a gas as a large number of submicroscopic particles (atoms or molecules), all of which are in constant, rapid, random motion. The randomness arises from the particles’ many collisions with each other and with the walls of the container.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike…

      “bobdroege wrote

      You know the wavelength of a photon from a CO2 molecule is not determined by the temperature of the gas cloud that CO2 molecule is in.

      Bon Droege replied…”The spectrum of CO2 at 500 C shows peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, and the spectrum of CO2 at 20 C show the same 3 peaks at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns”.

      ***********

      I don’t see how that’s possible. Take a look at this fudged, modeled CO2 absorp-tion spectrum laid over a set of blackbody curves representing a range of temperatures.

      https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/screen-shot-2017-10-21-at-14-09-51.png

      The first thing to note is how the peaks of the BB curves move to the right in wavelength as the temperature is decreased, The red curve shows the expected radiation at 300k while the lowest, light blue curve shows the expected BB radiation at 220K.

      If BB curves change centre frequencies as T drops, why should a CO2 notches remain stationary at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns? Those values represent electron transitions between different orbital energy levels. We know they will change with temperature since the orbital levels will change.

      As shown, the fudged, modeled dark blue curve (why can they not supply curves from real data???) remains stationary at a certain T while the BB curves move. The dark blue curve is supposed to represent surface radiation and who knows what temperature.

      The first lie in the diagram is the lack of a temperature for the dark blue curve or the amount of radiation generated.

      The second lie is that the vertical axis is in W/m^2 whereas the CO2 notches should be in milliwatts/m^2. Alarmists do their best to totally exaggerate the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      • Craig T says:

        “I don’t see how thats possible. Take a look at this fudged, modeled CO2 absorp-tion spectrum laid over a set of blackbody curves representing a range of temperatures.”

        Did you see the paper that goes with that link?
        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/infrared-absor.ption-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ (remove “.”

        Here is the source for that spectrum:
        http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

        It uses the 1986 HITRAN database for the spectral data. A paper on the database says “These values were determined at equally spaced wavenumber intervals from room-temperature laboratory spectra (Massie et al. 1985) and are included as a separate file in the 1986 HITRAN database.” The Modtran page allows you to choose between summer or winter and between tropical, midlatitude and subarctic numbers.

        “If BB curves change centre frequencies as T drops, why should a CO2 notches remain stationary at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns?”

        I’ll look for a paper that clearly shows how absorρtion changes as CO2 temp changes.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Craig T, please stop trolling.

  40. Mike Flynn says:

    bobdroege also wrote –

    “Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?”

    The idiot gotcha appears yet again. Ask away bobdroege – after you show me some evidence that you have made a sincere effort to find the facts for yourself, I will be glad to help.

    Give some thought to the fact that there are infinite numbers of photons travelling through your body at any given time, and yet you don’t seem to be bursting into flame. Your body doesn’t seem to be absorbing many photons, does it? How can this be? Why do visible light photons pass through glass without being absorbed? Why is gaseous iodine purple, and ozone blue?

    Questions, questions! All bobdroege has are witless gotchas. Pity.

    Cheers.

    • bobdroege says:

      Flynn,

      You don’t seem to understand what the word infinite means.

      “Give some thought to the fact that there are infinite numbers of photons travelling through your body at any given time, and yet you dont seem to be bursting into flame.”

      No there are not an infinite number of photons travelling anywhere at any time.

      You are pretty much a clueless twat.

      Now for this question

      “Why do visible light photons pass through glass without being absorbed?”

      Because, you scientific illiterate, there are no electronic transitions available in the silicon dioxide matrix that is glass, that match the energy available in each photon of visible light.

      for the rest of your questions you can do your own research if you can find the library.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        bobdroege,

        I believe that I do understand the meaning of the word infinite. More on that later. Your opinion is meaningless without some fact to back it up.

        Photons are bosons, and the exclusion principle does not apply to them. Theoretically, there is no limit on the number of photons which can simultaneously occupy any given space, although this may seem counter intuitive on the macro level. Some theorise that a black hole will result if a particular theoretical energy density is exceeded, but others disagree about the details.

        Maybe you are unaware that there are an infinite set of infinities? Anyone who is interested can examine Georg Cantors proof, and decide for themselves whether you, bobdroege, can be considered a definitive source for the definition of infinity.

        If you can prove that the universe is not infinite, go your hardest. I accept that it is, subject to cogent argument that it isn’t.

        As to your comment about transparency, you might have difficulty in then explaining how a prism manages to split white light into a spectrum including infrared (which is how Herschel discovered it in sunlight), let alone the phenomenon of total internal reflection, where photons appear to be totally reflected from that same glass with which you claim they do not interact.

        Others can decide who is correct. Are you sure that you can describe the GHE, or are you just pretending it exists?

        Cheers.

        • bobdroege says:

          Flynn,

          Either the universe is infinite or the universe is expanding, I consider those two to be contradictory.

          I see you are not 100% sure on the universe being infinite, so you have the same position as Einstein.

          Yes I am familiar with Cantor and can reproduce some of his proofs from memory, such that I can prove that the number of integers is the same as the number of rational numbers.

          Which is also the same as the number of primes. I can prove the number of primes is infinite as well.

          I told you why glass doesn’t abzorb photons, now you want to know about refraction, maybe you should do your own research.

          You might want to review what I posted, I said photons don’t get abzorbed by glass, I didn’t say there was no interaction.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…”Either the universe is infinite or the universe is expanding, I consider those two to be contradictory.”

            Who knows where the boundaries of the universe lie, or if there are any? And how do we know the universe is expanding if we have no idea where its boundaries lie?

            All we have is Doppler shifts of EM in stellar spectra. It appears some stars are moving away from us while other are moving toward us. Sorry, but that is hardly evidence of a Big Bang from which the universe is supposedly expanding.

            Can you seriously not see the ludicrous implication in the Big Bang, that one instant there was nothing and the next there was enough mass to account for the universe today?

            The same nutjobs who readily subscribe to this theory laugh at the notion that someone created this universe. I am not religious but I prefer the creation theory to the absurdity that something as vast as our universe appeared out of nothing.

            Just because our limited minds cannot conceive of an intelligence with the power to create such vastness does not mean it is not so. It seems unlikely but no more unlikely than the universe appearing out of nothing in a billionth of a second.

    • Craig T says:

      “Give some thought to the fact that there are infinite numbers of photons travelling through your body at any given time, and yet you dont seem to be bursting into flame.”

      Photons that are not absorbed keep their energy.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Craig T, please stop trolling.

  41. Mike Flynn says:

    Craig T wrote –

    “So during an El Nino not only is the surface warming more but the Earth is cooling less. What is the cause of this reduction in cooling?”

    Two things are apparent. CT does not understand that El Ninos, heat waves, summer, and so on do not add heat to the Earth.

    Anyone who writes ” . . . the Earth is cooling less.”, and then implies that this results in thermometers becoming hotter, has obviously either taken leave of their senses, or is a pseudoscientific climate cultist who has redefined “cooling less” to mean “increasing in temperature”. This sort of loony then starts to provide pointless and irrelevant analogies involving heat sources, insulation, blankets, bank accounts and all sorts of other nonsense.

    Craig T might think his stupid and pointless gotchas will make people think that the fact that Craig T cannot describe the GHE is irrelevant. If Craig T took the time to learn some physics, he might realise just how stupid and ignorant he appears to real scientists, who might well mock and ridicule his pseudoscientific pretensions.

    Cheers.

    • Craig T says:

      “Two things are apparent. CT does not understand that El Ninos, heat waves, summer, and so on do not add heat to the Earth.”

      If an increase in the temperature anomaly is not warming what word would you use to describe it?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Craig T, please stop trolling.

  42. Mike Flynn says:

    Nate wrote –

    “And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.”

    Well, unless it doesn’t, of course. For example, if it goes through something transparent, gets reflected or scattered. How about refraction or diffraction?

    Of course, your average pseudoscientific climate cultist ignores such inconvenient facts. They just keep blathering about a GHE which they can’t even describe.

    Just more strident pseudoscientific climate cultism – with no testable hypothesis, no theory, no nothing.

    Neither CO2 nor H2O heat anything. All nonsense, just like the non-existent GHE.

    Cheers

    • JDHuffman says:

      Well stated, Mike.

      Clowns like bobdroege, Nate, Swanson, Craig T, and several others, do not understand the relevant physics. One of their continuing misconceptions is that “all photons are always absorbed”. This is egregiously incorrect, yet forms a cornerstone of the GHE pseudoscience.

      Atmospheric CO2 emits mainly 14.7 μ photons. A 14.7 μ photon corresponds to a WDL temperature of 197 K (-76 C, -105 F). For someone that has even a basic knowledge of physics, such a low-energy photon has NO ability to “heat” anything of significance, even if it gets absorbed.

      But, to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.

      As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed. But pseudoscience clowns believe the “cold” photon can warm the sand. That’s why you see such ridiculous responses as “Well, where does the energy go then?”

      The clowns have never studied quantum physics, but even if the photon somehow got absorbed, that still does not quarantee an increase in temperature of the absorbing mass. If the average vibrational frequency of the mass is higher than the photon’s frequency, then the temperature of the mass would not increase. That would be true if the mass somehow absorbed millions of the lower frequency photons.

      But, we can’t expect clowns to understand quantum physics. They believe a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, as it runs an oval track.

      You can’t help people that are “stuck on stupid”.

      • Nate says:

        ” to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.”

        No, village idiots.

        Most condensed materials like water, your coffee, soil, etc absorb well over a broad range of IR. They are grey bodies.

        Look up emissivities, and use Kirchoffs Law. IOW, learn some physics!

        • Norman says:

          Nate

          The troll just makes up this goofy false brand of unsupported physics and thinks he is brilliant. It is total crap and has not rational support. This troll really does not know any physics but he is able to fool a couple people on this blog who also don’t know any real or valid physics. Ask the “boy wonder” what is his support for his nonsense and you will never get any. Just makes it up, things he got from skeptic blogs by other people making up things. That is all this one does.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Oops! I left poor Norman off the list. He hasn’t been commenting lately, and he’s so easily forgotten.

            Let me fix it:

            “Clowns like bobdroege, Nate, Swanson, Craig T, Norman, and several others, do not understand the relevant physics.”

            There, all fixed!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”The troll just makes up this goofy false brand of unsupported physics and thinks he is brilliant”.

            If JD is a troll and goofy then so are the majority of physicists who espouse the same theories.

            Energy cannot be transferred from a state of low potential energy to a state of high potential energy by its own means. That is essentially what JD is getting at and that statement would be supported by any physicist worth his/her salt.

            You have yet to prove that statement is not true. The truth has been well established and requires no further proof.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Nate spouts: “Look up emissivities, and use Kirchoffs [sic] Law.”

          “Emissivity” is the flux adjustment, as related to a black body at the same temperature. A photon must have the same energy as the difference in energy levels of the molecule, for both absorb.tion and emission. That is the essence of Kirchhoff’s Law.

          Nate spouts: “IOW, learn some physics!”

          Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

          • Nate says:

            “photon must have the same energy as the difference in energy levels of the molecule, for both absorb.tion and emission. That is the essence of Kirchhoff’s Law.”

            More hilarity. Keep it up JD.

            I feel like saying, ‘You can’t make this stuff up’.

            But clearly Just Dumb keeps right on doing it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Here’s some more physics for the clowns to ignore:

            Absorbed or emitted photon’s energy = hf.

            Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)

            hf must equal (E2 – E1)

          • Nate says:

            “Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)

            hf must equal (E2 – E1)”

            Yes, for isolated molecules, not for condensed matter.

            ‘As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed.’

            I would. Here is emissivity spectrum for quartz.

            http://tes.asu.edu/MARS_SURVEYOR/MGSTES/qtzemis.gif

            The photon has a better than 90% chance of being absorbed.

            BTW for the other common sand mineral, Feldspar, even more likely.

          • JDHuffman says:

            * 70 F is less than half of 104 F

            * The large changes in emissivity squashes the concept that “all photons are always absorbed”.

            * The large changes in emissivity verify that absorbed photons must match the required energy level of the molecule.

            It’s humorous when you link to things you don’t understand.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Its humorous when you link to things you dont understand.’

            Its humorous that you never find links that support your declarations.

            Pls do show us how emissivity changes in Quartz with temperature!

            Or just continue maing up BS, as we have come to expect.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, I’m just offering easy ways to understand basic physics. You don’t want to learn. You want me to waste time trying to find some link that you can also deny.

            Your own link offers plenty of material for you to deny. The huge changes in emissivity should prove to you that “all photons are not always absorbed”. But, you don’t want to know that. You likely understand that if “all photons are not always absorbed”, that’s just another nail in the coffin for the GHE pseudoscience.

            Nothing new.

          • Nate says:

            JD,

            This is a perfect demonstration of you just making stuff up when you clearly cannot or will not find the actual facts.

            In that case, why should anyone believe you?

            Why don’t you use your IR sensor and measure the IR temp of sand heated to 104 F.

            If you are correct that the emissivity of sand at thermal wavelengths is low at this temperature, then you will not find an IR temp close to 104 F, but much much lower.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well Nate, when you start the false accusations and misrepresentations, that’s the signal you realize you’ve lost again.

            Nothing new.

          • Nate says:

            ‘false accusations and misrepresentations’

            is now your goto response when you have no answers JD. It no longer has credibility.

            Why keep posting things that you cannot support with evidence?

          • Nate says:

            ‘all photons are always absorbed’, no one has said that, except for black bodies.

            I have lways said most photons in a broad range of IR, which is true here.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The large changes in emissivity verify that absorbed photons must match the required energy level of the molecule.’

            If the emissivity reaches a low of
            0.6 in a narrow range, and is 0.9 or more everywhere else, then there is >> 60 % chance of a thermal photon being absorbed.

            At your favorite 14 microns, the chance is > 90%.

            So I call BS.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Even after 3 desperate comments, Nate fails to make a relevant point, again.

            Nothing new.

          • Nate says:

            The ‘relevant point’ JD is that because, as I originally stated, sand and many other materials on the surface of Earth, absorb broadly in the IR.

            That means most photons in the range 10-20 microns will be absorbed, regardless of their origin.

            This is just an empirical fact, and there is no declaring or hand-waving you can do that will change this fact.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, when you can raise the temperature of 40 C desert sand with ice cubes (10 μ photons), let me know.

            Otherwise, you’re just pathetically desperate.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)

            hf must equal (E2 – E1)

            Yes, for isolated molecules, not for condensed matter. ”

            **********

            Condensed matter only radiates from its surface layer. It’s surface layer is made of atoms with electrons and the electrons absorb and emit the energy. Therefore E = hf applies to each electron.

            In your diagram at the link you provided, the emissivity spectrum for quartz has nothing to do with the absorp-tion of EM. The diagram tells us the quartz is at 70F (about 21C) and it will only absorb EM from a source hotter than 21C. If you surround the quartz with ice, it won’t absorb any EM from the ice.

            Please note as well the very low radiation intensity of quartz, peaking at 150 MILLIwatts at 21C.

            Let’s move to the Sahara desert which is made up of sand, with quartz being a key component. Consider that each grain of sand on the surface is comprised of bazillions of atoms with electrons emmiting EM. Now compare the number of CO2 molecules with electrons in the atmosphere, at a concentration of 0.04% and figure out how much of that 150 milliwatt radiation from the sand that the CO2 can absorb.

            And please don’t tell me that same CO2 can radiate enough of the trivial amount of EM it absorb back to the sand to increase its temperature.

          • Nate says:

            “The diagram tells us the quartz is at 70F (about 21C) and it will only absorb EM from a source hotter than 21C.”

            Nope, doesnt say that, and weird.

            All it says is what wavelengths it emits or absorbs well.

            If a cold object emits those WL, then quartz will absorb them well.

            Just an empirical fact.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Nate, when you can raise the temperature of 40 C desert sand with ice cubes (10 μ photons), let me know.’

            Recall, JD, I said heating things with ice was ‘a dumb idea’

            You’ve lost the argument on the fundamentals.

            What you got left?

            Trashing ideas that nobody except you has ever suggested.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nate…”Look up emissivities, and use Kirchoffs Law. IOW, learn some physics!”

          Kircheoff’s law applies only at thermal equilibrium, a condition in which heat cannot be transferred.

          • Nate says:

            Kirchoffs law only applies when no heat is transferred??

            Ugggh, then it is useless..

            Where do you get this BS from?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

      • Nate says:

        “If the average vibrational frequency of the mass is higher than the photons frequency, then the temperature of the mass would not increase. That would be true if the mass somehow absorbed millions of the lower frequency photons.”

        OMG, where do you get this BS?

        Hint: not from real physics!

        • JDHuffman says:

          A simple example would be 3 similar molecules, in an enclosure. The molecules have vibrational frequencies of 9, 10, and 11. The average is 10, and corresponds to a temperature “T”.

          Now, add a 4th molecule, vibrating at 9. The average is now 9.75. The lowering of the average vibration lowers the original “T”.

          Don’t fret if you still don’t get it, Nate. At least you know how to type….

          • bobdroege says:

            Your model is faulty,

            Temperature is both internal energy levels and translational velocity.

            And maybe since you are discussing energy, perhaps an average other than the strict mathematical mean would be more appropriate.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, maybe you should look up the definitions of “average” and “mean”.

            Too bad there isn’t a way to delete you stupid comment, huh?

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,
            since you totally botched the temperature calculation by neglecting to determine or even specify the average kinetic energy of your molecules, I don’t need to remind you that average kinetic energy is not the same as average speed.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, if you’re sincerely trying to understand this “simple example”, you can neglect the molecules translational motion.

            But, if you’re trying to avoid reality, best of luck.

          • bobdroege says:

            Then it doesn’t make any sense.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

        • Nate says:

          “That would be true if the mass somehow absorbed millions of the lower frequency photons.

          Thus the energy in these million absorbed photons went where?

          It vanished apparently.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “That’s why you see such ridiculous responses as ‘Well, where does the energy go then?'”

        • Nate says:

          Now we’ve switched from adding photons to adding molecules?

          Hilarious, JD. Stick to comedy.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate’s insults, false accusations and mis-representations fail him, again.

            So now, the desperation sets in.

            It’s delightful to watch.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            You wrote –

            “Now weve switched from adding photons to adding molecules?”

            Why have you switched from adding photons to adding molecules? Who is we?

            You and some mysterious invisible playmate?

            Maybe he’s the one who has hidden your GHE description. You might need more photons or molecules, but more wisdom and knowledge would probably help to alleviate your current levels of stupidity and ignorance.

            What do you think?

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike, if you can’t follow a discussion, no one can help you, maybe just go play in traffic.

          • Nate says:

            Nothing false or misrepresented here, JD.

            Just your idiotic posts.

            They make it crystal clear for all to see that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you just make it up.

            Whats next? How bout ‘Your Mama’ jokes.

            Like: Your mama’s so fat she can’t absorb energy from photons!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Frustrated and desperate, poor Nate now babbles incoherently.

            It’s delightful to watch.

          • Norman says:

            Nate

            All you said about the troll JDHuffman is correct. He knows no real physics, he will never ever support any of his nonsense made up BS (because he can’t). He pretends to be an expert by coming up with some words he looked up on the Internet like Poynting Vectors. He is clueless of what it means or how it is used but uses it to impress a couple gullible people.

            He is unable to understand that at room temperature most molecules in a solid are in ground states. You can’t reason with him since he is only trolling and trying to annoy.

            He is incapable of understanding the Quantum Physics he pretends he knows. He would realize if water can emit a 14.7 micron (which is obvious from an emission spectrum of water) it will also be able to absorb one. If most molecules are in ground state at room temperature than the chance for a successful absorbing photon is very high.

            You can’t reason with JDHuffman. I think it is a group of trolls posting as one.

            I think Mike Flynn is a bot. He shows zero signs of thought process and rarely interacts with a post in a rational way. Mostly repeating stuff and using a few words from a post to make it look human. This bot has never passed my test of linking once to an internet site. I Roy Spencer set up the Bot test “Are you Human”, some scrambled letters or identify items in a photo, Mike Flynn would not be posting on this blog.

            No rational human would continue posting thousands of times that the Earth was molten billions of years ago and think it means something. Yet the bot does so over and over. Thousands of posts. I would not get mad at this one, it is not a human or even a troll. JDHuffman is a troll and probably multiple people.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Another long typing exercise from Norman, containing nothing of substance, but continuing with his adolescent obsession with personalities.

            Nothing new.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nate…”If the average vibrational frequency of the mass is higher than the photons frequency, then the temperature of the mass would not increase”.

          “OMG, where do you get this BS?”

          From quantum theory. The vibrational mass is an infinite number of electrons changing energy levels while they oscillate at a frequency dependent on their particular orbit. The energy orbit is dependent on the temperature.

          We know that as temperature is lowered toward 0K that atoms stop vibrating. Conversely, as you heat a substance beyond its normal range the atoms begin to vibrate madly.

          The vibration is a result of the bonding electrons between atoms getting more energetic, causing the atomic structure to vibrate harder.

          Internally, in the atom, I prefer the word resonance, as related to the electron orbiting at a certain energy level. In order for an electron in a resonant condition to absorb energy, the energy must have the same frequency.

          The related formula E = hf tells you that. EM from a colder body will have a lower frequency hence it cannot be absorbed.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon, all of that is neither nor there if 1LOT is violated.

            Its very simple, and you guys are determined to make it complicated.

            If photons are of a wavelength that is readily absorbed by a material, a measurable fact, then they will be.

            If they are absorbed, they must add energy.

            Now, if other photons are emitted, they subtract energy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Chaps,

        I will be happy to learn your type of physics as soon as you can tell me how many cubic kilometres of ice, (emitting IR at 300W/m2), you would need to raise the temperature of one small drop of water?

        If it is easier, maybe you could substitute frozen CO2 instead of H2O, if you believe it emits more suitable thermal IR wavelengths.

        Feel free to suggest concentrating the IR using a lens, parabolic mirror, or such. I believe you are deluded if you think you can raise the temperature of water using either frozen water or carbon dioxide, but there are some fools who believe that temperature is irrelevant, as CO2 and H2O can only absorb and emit certain frequency photons.

        I’d prefer a useful description of the GHE, but learning how to heat water using ice would be handy.

        I await your advice.

        Cheers.

        • Nate says:

          Well, you’re the red herring specialist, Mike. How do you get that rotting fish smell off?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            I see that you cannot justify your silly assertion that 300W/m2 of IR can be used to heat a drop of water, no matter how many billions of such Watts you can gather together! What a surprise – not.

            I suppose the best a stupid and ignorant chap such as yourself can do is to attempt to deny, divert and confuse with pointless and irrelevant ad hom comments.

            Carry on your fanatical belief in the pseudoscientific climate cultist fantasy.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            Backasswards, you are the ‘pointless and irrelevant ad hom’ expert!

            Like this one:

            ‘The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state’

            What point or relevance does this have to today’s world?? None.

            Your ill-logic seems to be: X happened in the distant past, therefore Y can’t be happening today.

            So: dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, therefore today there are no giraffes.

            Brilliant!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Thanks for quoting me, and not disagreeing that what I presented is fact.

            No GHE to be seen preventing the Earth cooling for four and half billion years – at least until today, which is demonstrably cooler than when the surface was molten As you cannot even describe the GHE in any meaningful way, you might have a hard time convincing anybody that the laws of physics have changed, and the Earth is about to stop cooling for no particular reason that you can state.

            Carry on with your pointless dinosaurs and giraffes.

            Unless you can actually describe the mythical GHE which you worship, you are no better than a pseudoscientific climate cultist – afflicted with some form of delusional psychosis.

            Cheers

          • Nate says:

            “not disagreeing that what I presented is fact.”

            True, and keep those pointless and irrelevant facts coming.

            Personally I’d prefer to hear more about Wombats or Wallabies.

          • bobdroege says:

            Nate,

            You remind me of my favorite 8th grade algebra problem.

            If one wombat can dig a tunnel in 4 hours, and another wombat can dig a tunnel in three hours,

            How long will it take both of them to dig a tunnel if they start from opposite ends?

          • Nate says:

            Ha! Somehow wombats are always humorous..

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • bobdroege says:

        JD,

        I just have to say your knowledge is incomplete.

        You say

        “But, to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.”

        and then you add

        “As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand.”

        In a crystal, which a grain of sand is, has plenty of vibrational energy levels that match the energy of infrared photons from CO2.

        This you would know if you had studied Quantum Physics, which I have, although it was called Quantum Mechanics, a required course for a degree in Chemistry.

        I though you only got through the introductory physics classes to almost get you minor in Physics. There are usually more prerequisites than that to take Quantum Physics.

        • JDHuffman says:

          bob, all you need to do is look at the link provided by Nate. If you can understand it, you will see that you are wrong, again.

          “Quantum mechanics” typically deals with quantum numbers. “Quantum physics” is a more complete study, involving photon absorp.tion and emission. It’s somewhat similar to “mechanics” being a subset of “physics”. What probably confuses you is that the two terms are often used interchangeably.

          • bobdroege says:

            You don’t know what you are talking about.

            There is no difference between Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics.

            “the branch of mechanics that deals with the mathematical description of the motion and interaction of subatomic particles, incorporating the concepts of quantization of energy, wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and the correspondence principle.”

            Google either one and you go to Quantum Mechanics.

          • bobdroege says:

            But then I’m a chemist, so I obviously prefer the one term over the other.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Whenever some clown claims to be a chemist, and then tells me I don’t know what I am talking about, then I know I’ve got everything right.

            You can’t get much better quality control than that….

          • bobdroege says:

            At least I can claim to have received a passing grade in a class called Quantum Mechanics and not be lying.

            Tell us the truth now, JD, you have never studied either Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, I can work the eigenvalues for Hamilton and dot the o in Schrodinder before you can recognize reality.

          • bobdroege says:

            It’s Hamiltonian if you are referring to the equation.

            And you just proved my point.

            Sir William Rowan Hamilton MRIA (4 August 1805 2 September 1865)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “At least I can claim to have received a passing grade in a class called Quantum Mechanics and not be lying.”

            Oooooh! Appeal to your own authority! How impressive!

            It goes to show you can pass a course of completely unstated content, from an unidentified educational institution, apparently without gaining any understanding of the subject matter whatever. Carry on being a legend in your own lunchbox.

            Cheers

          • bobdroege says:

            Mike if you want the details

            University of Illinois

            Chem 442 Physical Chemistry I

            Lectures and problems focusing on microscopic properties. CHEM 442 and CHEM 444 constitute a year-long study of chemical principles. CHEM 442 focuses on quantum chemistry, atomic and molecular structure, spectroscopy and dynamics. 4 undergraduate hours.

            I’ll leave it to you to look up how they rank for Chemistry.

            But I’ll say they are not too shabby.

          • Nate says:

            Ahhh, fond memories of Urbana, Illinois and the Sweet Corn Festival, and cows with windows on the side…

          • Nate says:

            Bob” In a crystal, which a grain of sand is, has plenty of vibrational energy levels that match the energy of infrared photons from CO2.”

            JD “bob, all you need to do is look at the link provided by Nate. If you can understand it, you will see that you are wrong, again.”

            The link CLEARLY shows that there are many available WL that IR photons could be absorbed.

            Bob was right.

            Just demented, JD. Why keep posting things that are glaringly opposite to the facts?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “At least I can claim to have received a passing grade in a class called Quantum Mechanics and not be lying.”

            Maybe you provided the wrong link, or the syllabus has changed. I cannot see a reference to a class or course referred to as Quantum Mechanics.

            I would have expected Quantum Mechanics to be associated with physics, although I appreciate that the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics can be used to explain every physical phenomena in the known universe, with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes.

            It doesn’t matter, I suppose. Many courses contain a lecture or two on the quantum world. Some of them are pretty dreadful, and many students mange to pass without actually understanding QED. Many lecturers are similarly deficient in their understanding, but the syllabus requires at least lip service to the subject.

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            I didn’t say the syllabus called it Quantum Mechanics, but the students did and the textbook was called Molecular Quantum Mechanics, by P.W. Adkins.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob d …”This you would know if you had studied Quantum Physics, which I have, although it was called Quantum Mechanics, a required course for a degree in Chemistry.”

          You can thank Linus Pauling for that, he introduced quantum theory to chemistry in North America well before anyone else. In fact, he consulted with Schrodinger et al then taught them a few things about how molecules form.

          Some were quite impressed. Till then, they had only worked with the simple hydrogen model but Pauling knew a few things about the shapes of molecules due to work with x-rays. He was able to modify Schrodinger’s math to fit the shape of molecules.

          You might look deeper into QM theory to see exactly how EM is absorbed and emitted by atoms. As a chemist, you should know how important electrons are in forming atomic bonds and the role they play in absorp-tion/emission.

          • bobdroege says:

            Hybrid bonds and electronegativity, yeah, I’ve heard of that guy.

            How does hybrid bonding affect how compounds interact with radiation?

            CO2 has hybrid bonds, did you know that?

            HMMMMMM

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Dr Empty,

            Please join the conversation if you have something useful to say.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The “conversations” have already all been had.. You lost. Yet you are still here, lying for money, like a pathetic piece of human faeces. Hence I will continue to say the only thing worth saying at this stage in the proceedings:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Don’t know why Huffingman keeps referring to “a 14.7 μ photon”. The dominant wave number for CO2 in the 15 micron complex is 667.38 cm^-1 , for a wavelength of 14.984 μm. Curious lack of precision from one so well versed in physics.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Swanson, I have no problem with using 15μ for CO2. It doesn’t change much. CO2 is still unable to heat the planet.

          Have you been studying thermodynamics enough to learn what a fool you made of yourself with the plates nonsense?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Huffingman, I studied thermodynamics enough to earn 2 mechanical engineering degrees. Besides, the problem isn’t one of thermodynamics, it’s a classic heat transfer situation. I’m not surprised that you don’t know the difference..

          • JDHuffman says:

            Swanson, I’m sorry you got taught such pseudoscience. Maybe it’s not too late for you to request a refund.

            The plates “incorrect solution” violates the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously that is over your head. But that is just more justification for demanding a refund from your useless institution.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            ES,

            As the holder of 2 mechanical engineering degrees, you can no doubt explain how CO2 emitting photons equivalent to a blackbody with a temperature of around -80 C, can warm water of any temperature at all.

            I find it hard to believe, but maybe you can show this phenomenon by means of experiment. Dropping some water on dry ice should fulfil the conditions. Are you really sure that the water will warm up as a result of absorbing photons from the colder body?

            You don’t even need to have a high temperature heat source around, either. If you find that the surrounding environment is keeping the water, (in contact with the dry ice), from freezing, I suggest that you use a large block of dry ice, drill a suitable clearance hole to the centre, and drop the water down the hole.

            Seems pretty simple. I predict that the 15 micron photons, no matter how many, will be unable to keep the temperature of the water above freezing. If it turns out that you can heat water with the radiation from dry ice, I will have to revise my thinking.

            Stupid fantasy “thought experiments” involving your usual deceptions and hidden high temperature heat sources are not acceptable. Let me know how you get on.

            Cheers.

          • bdgwx says:

            MF,

            Infrared radiation emitted from CO2 will not warm a colder body on its own. But, it will slow down the rate of heat loss from that colder body thus augmenting another heat source’s ability to warm that object.

            Just dropping water on dry ice by itself isn’t representative or analogous to the GHE as it occurs in the atmosphere. The GHE works because the Sun is doing the heating. The CO2 layer is just augmenting it by acting as insulation that inhibits heat loss.

            And although the fundamental processes are different this is conceptually the same as how the insulation and furnace work together to increase the equilibrium temperature relative to what it would be without the insulation. So despite this being very different than the GHE at a fundamental level it still makes this everyday experiment more relevant to the GHE than does your dry ice and water drop experiment.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong bdgwx. CO2 does not insulate. You could claim that O2 and N2 are insulators, but CO2 is a radiator.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”Huffingman, I studied thermodynamics enough to earn 2 mechanical engineering degrees. Besides, the problem isnt one of thermodynamics, its a classic heat transfer situation”.

            Come on, swannie, you are digging yourself a hole.

            “…the problem isnt one of thermodynamics, its a classic heat transfer situation”.

            Are you serious??? Thermodynamics is the study of all heat transfer situations and the 2nd law tells us heat can NEVER be transferred cold to hot by its own means. Classic heat transfer is thermodynamics.

            You are confusing electromagnetic energy with thermal energy. They have nothing in common with the exception that electrons can convert one form to the other.

            All forms of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation, are governed by the 2nd law.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Nope, that won’t work either. Putting more insulation between the heat source and the target actually reduces the amount of energy reaching the target, lowering its temperature.

            This is why firefighters, as an example, wear thick insulating clothing, and desert Berbers wear thick black woollen robes to keep cool in some of the hottest regions on Earth. Yes, peer reviewed research in Nature indicates why.

            It is no good claiming that CO2 and H2O have magical one way insulating properties – they don’t.

            Stupid analogies are the refuge of pseudoscientific types – blathering about furnaces, equilibrium temperatures and “what it would be without” are pointless. Completely pointless if you cannot relate them to a GHE which can be usefully described – and you cannot describe any such thing, because it doesn’t exist.

            Maybe you could quote me, and provide some facts to back up any disagreement you might have. I think it more likely that you can produce a flying pig, but I am willing to be shown to be wrong.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg….”Infrared radiation emitted from CO2 will not warm a colder body on its own. But, it will slow down the rate of heat loss from that colder body”

            Not possible, the rate of heat loss is dependent only on temperature difference. There is no way CO2 by itself, as a particle, can slow the rate of heat dissipation. If you had a heated body inside an enclosure of 100% CO2 at a high enough concentration it might have an effect.

            However, in the atmosphere, the temperature is governed by nitrogen and oxygen, that make up 99% of the atmosphere. CO2 at 0.04% would have little or no impact.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Looks like I tweaked the collective sock puppet denialist minds around here. Glad I didn’t try, yet again, to point out that the Moon rotates as it orbits the Earth. Hey, Huffingboy, since you missed the Kentucky Derby, have you tried attaching a compass on your hobbyhorse and recording it’s gyrations as you “ride” around a table? Without doubt, it would show 1 revolution per circuit around the table.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes Swanson, you also got the Moon rotation wrong. Thanks for the reminder.

            That makes you a three-time loser. You got the Moon rotation wrong, you got the “plates” wrong, and you got the CO2 nonsense wrong. You don’t know orbital physics, and you don’t know radiative physics or thermodynamics.

            No wonder you’re so insecure. You’re wrong too much….

          • Svante says:

            Funny how everything you say applies to yourself.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Funny how Svante is never able to offer anything except back-stabbing.

            But, as in many false religions, he believes it will get him to heaven. Just like any depraved terrorist.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Funny how Joseph Postma threw JD under the bus by declaring the moon does indeed rotate about its own axis.

            LMAO.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Speaking of depraved terrorists….

      • bdgwx says:

        JD, You guessed right. I’m going to ask the question.

        If a 14.7 um photon travels toward the Earth and the Earth does not absorb it then when does it and its energy go?

        • JDHuffman says:

          bmgwx, visible light travels all the way from the Sun to Earth. Yet, some of it is reflected. That’s why you can see things outdoors, if you ever venture there.

          Where does that energy go?

          • bdgwx says:

            If you have a radiometer observing the photons coming from an object it won’t know if they were emitted vs reflected. If the emitted flux is E and the reflected flux is R then the radiometer will see a flux of E+R. The temperature of the object as seen by the radiometer will be a function of E+R. This is a clue that something isn’t right with a model that claims photons are simply reflected. And this is ignoring the lack of a fundamental process for which these photons could be reflected anyway.

            Shiny materials/metals often make good infrared reflectors. They don’t generate heat on their own, but if you wear a coat or blanket lined with such an IR reflecting material you can reduce the rate at which heat is lost thus keeping you warmer than you would have been otherwise even with the same coat sans the IR reflecting material.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote,

            “They dont generate heat on their own, but if you wear a coat or blanket lined with such an IR reflecting material you can reduce the rate at which heat is lost thus keeping you warmer than you would have been otherwise even with the same coat sans the IR reflecting material.”

            A good bit of misdirection of the pseudoscientific climate cultist variety. True, but irrelevant and meaningless.

            An IR reflecting material will not warm a corpse. If the corpse is left in the Sun, for example, surrounded by IR reflecting material, it will not get as hot as an uninsulated corpse, either. Sad but true.

            The Earth is like a cooling corpse. Internal heat sources are unable to sustain its previous temperature, and the Sun can do no more than slow the cooling which has taken place over the last four and a half billion years or so.

            You can see why nobody can actually describe the amazing missing GHE in any way that will stand up to scrutiny. GHE true believers are fanatical nutters who deny observed reality.

            But carry on believing that CO2 can make thermometers hotter. Ah, the wondrous power of magical thinking – never let fact get in the way of a good delusion, eh?

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”If you have a radiometer observing the photons coming from an object it wont know if they were emitted vs reflected”

            It doesn’t care, it’s not measuring heat, it is measuring the frequency of IR emitted by the CO2 molecules. A handheld radiometer is calibrated in a lab to measure the frequency of IR then convert it to a known temperature for that wavelength of IR.

          • bdgwx says:

            MF,

            A corpse does not generate heat like a living person would. Coats and blankets lined with an IR reflecting material won’t have the same effect on a corpse as they would on a living person because there is a source of energy involved with the living person. Earth is not like a cooling corpse. It is provided with a steady supply of energy from the Sun.

            You are right though. That coat/blanket won’t warm a corpse. It also won’t lead to a scenario where the corpse gets warmer than it would have been without the same coat/blanket. But, it will slow the rate at which heat is lost. Now with a living person in which a source of heat is in play that person will get warmer with the IR reflecting material than without it. Similarly on Earth without the Sun the CO2 layer cannot induce the GHE. All it can do without a source of energy is reduce the rate at which heat is lost. Add the Sun back in and the CO2 layer leads to a scenario in which the equilibrium temperature is higher than it would be otherwise. Again, at a conceptual level this is the same effect the insulation in your home causes. CO2 does not warm the Earth by itself no more than the insulation warms your home. But they both augment an existing source of heat to yield a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be possible.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “Earth is not like a cooling corpse. It is provided with a steady supply of energy from the Sun.”

            And so is a corpse on the Earth’s surface, surrounded by an insulating blanket. It still won’t get as hot as it would without the insulation. Look at the temperature range on the Moon, if you don’t believe me.

            Maybe if you could actually state a description of the GHE, (including furnaces, homes, and insulation if you wish), then others might be able to figure out where the magic of CO2 being able to ” . . . augment an existing source of heat . . . actually occurs.

            Cheers

          • bdgwx says:

            GR wrote…”It doesn’t care, it’s not measuring heat, it is measuring the frequency of IR emitted by the CO2 molecules. A handheld radiometer is calibrated in a lab to measure the frequency of IR then convert it to a known temperature for that wavelength of IR.”

            You may be thinking of a spectrometer here. Those measure frequency. For IR active materials this is typically referred to as infrared spectroscopy. It’s one way in which scientists know that CO2 is IR active in some channels.

            Handheld infrared thermometers typically use a series of IR active lens to focus the “light” on a thermopile. It responds to heat and turns it into an electrical signal.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          b,

          What a stupid attempt at a gotcha. You have made precisely no effort to find an answer to your question, have you?

          Are you really as dim as you appear, or just pretending?

          Demonstrate you made a reasonable effort to at least acquaint yourself with the interaction between light and matter. If you are too stupid to understand basic physics, no one can help you. If it is purely a matter of ignorance, I may be able to assist, by pointing you to some reasonable sources, and explaining what you are unable to comprehend.

          Pleas let me know if you require assistance. I’m here to help.

          Cheers.

      • Craig T says:

        “But, we cant expect clowns to understand quantum physics. They believe a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, as it runs an oval track.”

        That reminds me. I need to shoot a video showing the Moon does not gallop around the Earth on a track.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Craig, don’t forget to include in your video all of your failings in physics, as displayed in your comments here.

          You are going for a comedy video, right?

        • E. Swanson says:

          Craig T, NASA has already provided a video which proves that the Moon rotates as it orbits the Earth. Of course, the local troll population apparently lives in a fantasy universe which says otherwise. Not unlike the Flat Earth people and some religious fundamentalist who claim that the Earth is less then 10k years old.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Swanson, DA also had a NASA link he kept using. He eventually realized how stupid it made him look.

            It took a long time….

          • E. Swanson says:

            If Huffingboy had any brains, he would realize that arguing with NASA about space issues is a losing proposition. DA probably got tired of holding Huffingboy’s hand while leading him to understanding.

          • JDHuffman says:

            I have seen a couple of instances where DA was able to get something right. Although he is confused a lot, he still has some limited use of his brain. Most of the clowns here no longer are able to think for themselves.

            An easy test, to see if your brain stilll works, is the racehorse. Is a racehorse “rotating on its own axis” as if runs an oval track?

            Typically, clowns answer “yes”, because they know they have to match with Institutionalized Pseudoscience. The correct answer, if one were able to think for himself, is “no”. The racehorse has the same motion as the Moon–orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis.

    • Craig T says:

      “And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.”

      Well, unless it doesnt, of course.

      And when it does?
      http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html

      “Of course, your average pseudoscientific climate cultist ignores such inconvenient facts.”

      The absorρtion spectrum of water is a fact. Liquid water absorbs light from 1000 nm to at least 600 µm. (WDL peak -268° C)

      Could you please move on to better arguments?

      • JDHuffman says:

        Craig, look at the graph labeled, “Absorbance of gaseous, liquid and solid water; mouse over for LDL and HDL”.

        What is the absorbance for a 14.7 μ, impacting 25 C liquid water?

        Hint: It’s off the scale.

        • bobdroege says:

          You need to scroll down and look at the right chart.

          The absorbance you want is not on that chart, but if you look at the right chart you find that liquid water is quite good at abzorbing 14.7 um photons.

          That chart is for bending, stretching, and twisting.

          Just twisting is at a lower energy level, so it is off of that chart.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You appear to be bending, stretching and twisting, if you are claiming that liquid water will increase its temperature by being exposed to photons of roughly the same frequency as those naturally emitted by frozen CO2 – dry ice.

            Maybe you face reality rather than becoming mentally bent, stretched, twisted, and confused by looking at documents you clearly do not understand. You might need to reconsider the unstated and misleading assumptions implied in your link. A thing can be true, but completely irrelevant, depending on circumstances.

            Still no GHE. No heating by CO2 or H2O.

            Carry on appearing as stupid and ignorant if you wish. Many otherwise intelligent and well-educated people share the same magical and delusional thinking.

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            Flynn you have to be smart enough to understand the chart we are talking about.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            I am smart to know that you are not disagreeing with anything I wrote. Carry on.

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            Oh, but I am!

            The radiation from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere does add energy to the surface of the earth and this is what is called the greenhouse effect.

            Even though it’s not like a greenhouse.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            What is it you are disagreeing with me about? If you believe a greenhouse effect exists, maybe you would care to describe in such a way that it might be examined scientifically.

            You claim –

            “The radiation from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere does add energy to the surface of the earth and this is what is called the greenhouse effect.”

            Of course, this is complete and utter nonsense, if you are claiming that higher surface temperatures result, as in “Hottest year EVAH!”. Even where air temperatures are higher than surface temperatures (during observed low level surface inversions), the surface temperature still falls. Ask any meteorologist. Or citrus farmer, if you want a view on the practical effects of radiative cooling.

            At night, during winter, indoors, when it is cloudy, raining, snowing, or cold, your supposed description seems to show an effect which has no effect whatever. It is hard to observe and measure such an effect, surely?

            Unfortunately, just making an assertion does not actually qualify as a useful description.

            Nope. Only stupid pseudoscientific climate nutters believe that Wattmeters are thermometers. Radiative fluxes are meaningless without qualification. People like Trenberth etc. are deluded.

            Believe all you want. If you want to prefer fantasy to fact, that is your choice.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • Craig T says:

        “What is the absorbance for a 14.7 µ, impacting 25 C liquid water?”

        I guess it is off the scale, because the graph you’re talking about only goes to 2800 cm^-1 (3.5 µm). Let’s go down to “The visible and UV spectra of liquid water” graph.
        http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_spectrum_2.gif

        It shows the absorρtion coefficient of 14.7 µm as around 10^3 cm^-1. That means a 14.7 µm photon has less than 3% chance to penetrate water 0.01 mm deep before being absorbed.
        http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_spectrum_2.gif

        • JDHuffman says:

          Craig, 14.7 μ photons are not included in “The visible and UV spectra”.

          Sorry. You might want to try your pseudoscience again.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            You might want to look at the scale at the bottom of the chart and see if you can determine if it covers the 14.7 um wavelength.

            14.7 being between 10 and 100, can you see it?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You might want to learn physics related to reality. Or you might not – the choice is yours.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            One more time, just for you bob: 14.7 μ photons are not included in “The visible and UV spectra”.

          • bobdroege says:

            You are right that 14.7 um photons are not in the UV or Visible range

            But they are on the chart and you can read the abzorbativity of them on the chart.

          • Craig T says:

            “Craig, 14.7 µ photons are not included in ‘The visible and UV spectra’.”

            No, but that’s the chart that shows 14.7 µm is labeled. And here’s the data used to make the chart.
            https://omlc.org/spectra/water/data/hale73.txt

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, that link indicates 15000nm corresponds to 3368.0 1/cm.

            What do you believe that means?

          • bobdroege says:

            It means the 15000 nm photons are abzorbed quite easily.

            The ducks here seem to making an unusual argument.

            Usually ducks argue that the IR photons are abzorbed in the first few micrometers of the ocean, and thus don’t heat the ocean, because it only increases the evaporation rate thus cooling the ocean.

          • Craig T says:

            “Craig, that link indicates 15000nm corresponds to 3368.0 1/cm.

            What do you believe that means?”

            It means that only 1 in 10 ^3368 of the 15 µm photons entering will make it through 1 cm of water. The rest will be absorbed.

          • JDHuffman says:

            And how did they arrive at that figure (3368), Craig?

          • Craig T says:

            “By use of a wedge-shaped cell providing an absorbing layer tapering in thickness from less than one wavelength of visible light at one end to approximately 20 µm at the other end, we have measured the Lambert absorρtion coefficient for water in the spectral region between 4000 and 288 cm^−1. After proper initial alignment of the cell windows had been established by the observation of interference fringes in the visible, we measured film thicknesses at various positions along the wedge by interferometric methods, employing convenient wavelengths in the infrared. We present the results of the study in graphical and tabular form.

          • JDHuffman says:

            And how did they arrive at that figure (3368), Craig?

            Also, the “3368” has units of “cm^-1”. But, you are using it as an exponent. When did exponents acquire units?

            Or, you could just admit you don’t know what the crap you’re talking about.

            We both know that won’t happen….

          • Craig T says:

            “Also, the ‘3368’ has units of ‘cm^-1’. But, you are using it as an exponent. When did exponents acquire units?”

            It appears Mike wants another physics lesson.

            Maybe I can find time this afternoon or evening.

          • Craig T says:

            No, that is a horrible way to treat anyone.

            Absorbance is the common log of the intensity of light entering matter divided by light passing through. The numbers were per centimeter of penetration.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbance#Absorbance

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, you are WAY over your head. You don’t know crap. You just keep linking to things you don’t understand.

            You are confusing “absorbance” with “absorp.tance”.

            Your first clue should have been the exponent with units. Exponents don’t have units. “Absorp.tance” doesn’t have units; “absorbance” has units, “cm^-1”

            Learn some physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorp.tance

            (To make the link work, remove the “.” in “Absorp.tance”.)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD, says: “Also, the 3368 has units of cm^-1. But, you are using it as an exponent. When did exponents acquire units?”

            The attenuation of light (or pretty much anything) can often be expressed accurately as:

            I(x) = I(0) e^(-kx)

            where I(x) is the intensity at some distance, x, into the absorbing material.

            The exponent “kx” must be dimensionless, as you noted above. However, since “x” has units of length (eg centimeters), then “k” must have units of 1/length (eg 1/cm).

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, you’re not adding clarity. You’re adding confusion.

            Either you are incompetent, or knowingly trying to pervert reality.

            “Attentuation” is not the same as “absorp.tance”.

          • Craig T says:

            “Craig, you are WAY over your head. You dont know crap. You just keep linking to things you dont understand.

            You are confusing ‘absorbance’ with ‘absorp.tance’.”

            As your Wiki link says, Asorρtance is a ratio either shown as a number between 0 and 1 or a percent between 1 and 100. It is not possible that 3368 is a measure of Asorρtance.
            https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/23f1qyt-png.228918/

            Don’t hold back. You can start showing us your superior understanding of physics any time you like.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig T, what does the “T” stand for?

            “Thick”?

            No one is linking your “3368” to absorp.tance, except you.

            You are confusing absorp.tance with absorbance, and can’t learn.

            Nothing new.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        You quoted me correctly. Thanks.

        You dont appear to be disagreeing with me 10.7 micron photons are not absorbed by a material transparent to the particular frequency. Flying off at a tangent by saying some light is absorbed, reflected, refracted and so on, by various materials makes you appear as intelligent as a 5 year old.

        But no matter. 10.7 microns is a wavelength emitted by ice. You claim is is absorbed by water, apparently with no effect whatsoever, as no one has ever managed to raise the temperature of water using the radiation from ice, no matter how clever they claim to be.

        As you can see, pseudoscientific climate cultists are adept at misdirection – conflating disparate things, and hoping no one will realise the deception.

        This is particularly evident when the climate fools pretend that Wattmeters can be used to measure absolute temperatures. Or try to convince people that outputs of computer programs are experiments! They seem to have convinced you. Intelligence is no protection against mental impairment, such as extreme gullibility.

        No GHE description yet, is there?

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        craig…”craig…”The absorρ-tion spectrum of water is a fact. Liquid water absorbs light from 1000 nm to at least 600 m. (WDL peak -268 C)”

        **********

        And what is the temperature of the source of that light, about a million C?

        When was the last time you saw water vapour heated by radiation from an iceberg?

        • Craig T says:

          “And what is the temperature of the source of that light, about a million C?”

          A black body whose peak emittance was 600 µm has a temperature of -268 C. But we’re not talking about black bodies.

          We’re talking about radiation absorbed and re-emitted by CO2, H20, CH4 and other greenhouse gasses not radiation emitted by ice. But if you must talk about water vapor and icebergs I can. Water vapor near an iceberg would gain some energy from the iceberg as it lost energy to space, just as water vapor inside an igloo would not lose net energy as fast as water vapor in the upper troposphere. Cooling would be reduced.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            craig…”Were talking about radiation absorbed and re-emitted by CO2, H20, CH4 and other greenhouse gasses not radiation emitted by ice.”

            You missed my point. EM cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body. Water can only be heated by EM from a hotter body. EM from ice does nothing.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            Maybe you could indicate your reasons fro thinking that 300W/m2 from hotter material (ice) creates less heating than 0.5 W/m2 from colder CO2?

            I have been generous with the emissivity and the emitted wavelength for CO2, at 14.7 um.

            I can’t see how could make water of any temperature hotter with either, but the ice is emitting far more power at a much higher temperature.

            You should be able to see why nobody can come up with any rational description for a GHE, which would not attract ridicule and derisive snorts.

            Surely you can copy and paste a useful GHE description from somewhere? Only joking – nobody else has managed so far, have they? Of course, I’m having a laugh at your expense. Do your best to turn the tables. Good luck.

            Cheers.

          • Craig T says:

            “EM cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body.”

            So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig asks: “So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?”

            It appears Craig T wants another physics lesson.

            Maybe I can find time this afternoon or evening.

          • Craig T says:

            “It appears Craig T wants another physics lesson.”

            I guess I should rephrase that.

            Gordon, JD and Mike, what do you think happens to the energy carried by by that EM when absorbed by water?

          • bdgwx says:

            I’d like to hear how GR, JD, and MF explain that away as well.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            A big part of the confusion is that different people use words differently in conversations like this. Sometimes that is because they prefer one specific definition. Often, they don’t even recognize that they are applying different definitions and/or conflating two different by related ideas. Consequently, people often talk past each other.

            Take for example: “EM cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body.”

            If you are using the language of classical thermodynamics, where heat = Q = macroscopic energy transferred due to a temperature difference, then this statement is absolutely correct. Heat only ever spontaneously goes from warmer areas to cooler areas.

            But if you try to expand this to say that no energy ever transfers spontaneously from cooler to warmer, that is nonsense. Photons can and get emitted from cooler surfaces and later get absorbed by warmer surfaces.

            Much like a gas molecule near the top of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a cool gas can have more energy than a gas molecule near the bottom of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a warm gas, leading to energy transfers from cooler molecules to warmer molecules.

            For either photons or gas molecules, the net macroscopic transfer of energy is always from warmer to cooler, but individual interactions can go the other way.

          • JDHuffman says:

            The question has been asked: “So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?”

            Not all photons are always absorbed. Just because a photon strikes a surface, that does not automatically imply the photon will be absorbed. Absorp.tion is determined by the interaction of the arriving photon, and the target molecule. Generally, if the molecule has a vibrational frequency higher than the arriving photon, the photon will be reflected.

            But, for the purpose of answering the above question, let’s assume somehow a photon gets absorbed by a water molecule, where the frequency of the other water molecules are higher than that of the photon. Since the average frequency of all the water molecules was then lower, the temperature would also be lower. Of course, such a infinitesimally small change could not be measured.

            For those that have never studied quantum physics, a good analogy is adding a glass of 20 C water to a larger volume of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the volume of water, but the temperature will not go up.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Generally, if the molecule has a vibrational frequency higher than the arriving photon, the photon will be reflected.”

            Do you have a reference to support this assertion? No physics text I have ever read says anything vaguely like this! But if you can show me a textbook that explains your ideas, I am more than happy to read and learn from them.

            What is the “vibrational frequency” of a water molecule in liquid water at 300 K?
            What is the “vibrational frequency” of a gaseous water molecule at 300 K?
            What is the “vibrational frequency” of a gaseous water molecule at 350 K?
            What is the “vibrational frequency” of a gaseous CO2 molecule at 300 K?

            Since you put yourself out as an expert, surely you can tells us how you would do these calculations, and what the specific frequencies are for the above circumstances.

          • Craig T says:

            Not all photons are always absorbed. Just because a photon strikes a surface, that does not automatically imply the photon will be absorbed.

            In the bandwidth we’re talking about, the odds are 1 in 10^3368 that a photon will not be absorbed by the first centimeter of water. The photons carry 300 to 350 watts per square meter to the surface (without the cooling by conduction that ice placed in the water would bring.)

            Unlike mixing 20 C water and 40 C water, energy is added to the water molecules without adding molecules of lower energy states. The energy density goes up.

          • bobdroege says:

            CO2 also emits radiation of 2.7 um, which corresponds to a temperature of 800 C according to the Wien’s displacement law.

            I am assuming that would have no problem heating water at 25 C.

            But CO2 in the atmosphere is not at 800 C so somebody’s thinking has gone wrong.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, I bet you are now really sorry that you have such a failed history answering my questions, huh?

            Answering questions is a two-way street, and you are about 7-8 behind.

            I’m not putting myself “out as an expert”, but thanks for the recognition. It’s been a long time since I studied QP, but I remember the basics well enough to bust the AGW/GHE nonsense. And, I’m having a blast!

          • JDHuffman says:

            “In the bandwidth we’re talking about, the odds are 1 in 10^3368 that a photon will not be absorbed by the first centimeter of water.”

            Craig, you keep relying on that pseudoscience, but you clearly don’t know what it means.

            Nothing new.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            You never studied Quantum Physics, or if you may have enrolled in a course, you flunked out pretty quick and here is the proof

            “bob, I can work the eigenvalues for Hamilton and dot the o in Schrodinder before you can recognize reality.”

            Is funny
            Too funny

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD — let me refresh your memory about QM, since you are clearly more rusty than you imagine.

            Generally, if the molecule has a vibrational mode *possible* that matches the energy of an arriving IR photon, the photon will be absorbed. If the molecule has a no vibrational mode possible that matches the energy of an arriving IR photon, the photon will be transmitted.

            So for example, one of the vibrational modes for CO2 corresponds to the energy of ~ 15 um photons. So CO2 molecules can absorb 15 um photons. This is true whether the CO2 molecules are -50 C or +50 C or +500 C. Other vibrational modes correspond to other wavelengths.

            Conversely, CO2 molecules have no vibrational modes that correspond to the energies of 12 um photons, so CO2 cannot absorb 12 um photons.

            Water has its own set of possible modes corresponding to other wavelenghts of IR.

            PS — ask a reasonable question and I could give a reasonable answer.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            One other quick follow-up point … JD says various things related to “Since the average frequency of all the water molecules was then lower, the temperature would also be lower.”

            Molecules do not vibrate “faster” as they warm up — they vibrate with larger *amplitudes*. The frequencies are quantized based on the possible modes of vibration.
            * At low temperatures, most molecules will be in the ground state and not vibrating at all.
            * At higher temperatures, some will gain a quantum of vibrational energy and vibrate with a specific frequency.
            * At even higher temperatures, molecules can gain a second quantum of energy – at the same frequency but larger amplitude.

          • Nate says:

            ‘lets assume somehow a photon gets absorbed by a water molecule, where the frequency of the other water molecules are higher than that of the photon. Since the average frequency of all the water molecules was then lower, the temperature would also be lower.’

            If it is absorbed, then its energy has been ADDED. It has excited a molecule to a higher energy state, which could be in the form of vibration, rotation or translation.

            If you think temperature (average molecular energy) went DOWN as a result, then 1LOT is going to be very unhappy.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, you must be in the same typing class as that other pretender. You certainly would not be willing to bet much money that I have not studied QP. You just make false accusations based on your opinionated beliefs.

            Nothing new.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, that’s a lot of blah-blah just to confuse a simple concept mentioned upthread.

            Maybe you ignored it:

            Here’s some more physics for the clowns to ignore:

            Absorbed or emitted photon’s energy = hf.

            Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)

            hf must equal (E2 – E1)

            See how simple it is?

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            So you want to put up or shut up?

            The usual amount 1 dollar?

            Or do you want to make it more interesting?

            I’ll bet you never passed a formal course in Quantum Mechanics at an accredited college or university.

            Staring at a wiki page until you are cross-eyed doesn’t count.

            I was wrong before saying Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics being the same thing, they are not, at the university I attended Quantum Physics is a pre req for Quantum Mechanics.

            When I took three semesters of physics, the last course wasn’t called Quantum physics, and I can’t remember what it was called, but that is what it is called now.

            So it was part of your almost minor in physics.

            What grade did you get?

          • JDHuffman says:

            No bob, it would have to be a substantail sum for me to be interested. The fees in setting up a legal, binding contract could easily be several thousand.

            And, a legal, binding contract would be necessary to keep you from backing out, as you are now doing over your fatuous remarks about QP and QM.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD Says: “hf must equal (E2 E1)”

            Yes!

            But that has nothing do do with incorrectly claiming ‘hotter water has a higher frequency’ or incorrectly making analogies about ‘adding cool water to hot water’ or incorrectly describing grains of sand as containing ‘molecules of SiO2’.

            Getting one equation right is no guarantee that your other, unrelated claims are also correct.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, you don’t like my simple examples and analogies because they cut through the thick, tangled mess you resort to.

            Absorp.tion is dependent on wavelength compatibility. Wavelength varies with energy. Absorp.tion is NOT guranteed. Not all photons are always absorbed. You can NOT warm lukewarm water with ice cubes. You can NOT heat your house in winter with blocks of ice. Atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise surface temperatures.

            And, a racehorse is NOT rotating on its own axis on an oval track.

            Reality–learn it, live it, love it.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD, you really do get a lot right.
            “Absorp.tion is dependent on wavelength compatibility. Wavelength varies with energy. Absorp.tion is NOT guranteed. Not all photons are always absorbed.”

            This is great stuff. A wonderful start. No one should dispute this. This is completely in line with what I have been saying too. ANd completely in line with how the greenhouse effect work. And completely in line with warmer surfaces radiating heat to cooler surfaces.

            But you seem to resist deeper thinking. You meander through odd and incorrect extensions, as if getting the basics right somehow guarantees you are an authority.

            Stick to your paragraph above and you won’t go wrong.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, that’s a perfect example of the “thick, tangled mess” you resort to.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            craig t…”So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?”

            If the EM came from a source like the Sun that is much warmer than the water, the EM will be absorbed. If the EM came from an iceberg floating in the water it will not be absorbed.

            The 2nd law is satisfied.

          • bobdroege says:

            CO2 also emits 2.7 um photons, which correspond to a WDL temperature of 800 C, so it can increase the temperature of water, so it’s not like heating water with ice.

            Although the WDL is irrelevant, as CO2 emits multiple wavelengths.

          • bobdroege says:

            Just for JD’s benefit,

            A course in Quantum Physics is a pre-requisite for

            Physical Chemistry I

            Lectures and problems focusing on microscopic properties. CHEM 442 and CHEM 444 constitute a year-long study of chemical principles. CHEM 442 focuses on quantum chemistry, atomic and molecular structure, spectroscopy and dynamics. 4 undergraduate hours. 4 graduate hours. Credit is not given for both CHEM 442 and PHYS 485. Prerequisite: CHEM 204 or CHEM 222; MATH 225 or MATH 415, and a minimal knowledge of differential equations, or equivalent; and PHYS 211, PHYS 212, and PHYS 214 or equivalent.

            Physics 214 Univ Physics: Quantum Physics

            Interference and diffraction, photons and matter waves, the Bohr atom, uncertainty principle, and wave mechanics. A calculus-based course for majors in engineering, mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Credit is not given for both PHYS 214 and PHYS 102. Prerequisite: PHYS 212.
            This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for:
            Nat Sci & Tech – Phys Sciences
            Quantitative Reasoning II

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            This statement

            “If the EM came from a source like the Sun that is much warmer than the water, the EM will be absorbed. If the EM came from an iceberg floating in the water it will not be absorbed.”

            requires that the EM carries the information of the temperature of the body or molecule that emitted it.

            Which it can’t as a photon only carries 3 pieces of information, namely it’s energy and the direction it is traveling.

            And your other comment about clouds is incomplete, some clouds are composed of particles of ice.

          • bobdroege says:

            I admitted I was wrong about that.

            When I was in college Quantum Physics was called Modern Physics and still is a pre-requisite for Physical Chemistry I for chemists or Atomic Physics and Quantum Theory for physics majors.

            So as far as I can tell, your education still lacks a structured course in Quantum Chemistry or Quantum Theory.

            Because you still get all the physics about light being absorbed or transmitted or reflected wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          CT,

          You wrote –

          “Cooling would be reduced.” If you mean the temperature wouldn’t fall as fast, fine.

          If you mean that the temperature would increase, why not just say so?

          I suspect that you realise that saying this would expose you to mockery and derision.

          Gavin Schmidt exclaims “Hottest year EVAH!”, not “Most reduced cooling year EVAH!”.

          Maybe you do not understand the difference. Others may.

          Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine.”

            So you are agreeing that with GHGs, temperatures don’t fall as fast. Conversely, that must also mean that without GHGs, temperatures fall faster.

            That automatically means that average temperatures would be higher with GHGs than without.

          • MIke Flynn says:

            TF,

            You wrote –

            “That automatically means that average temperatures would be higher with GHGs than without.” Nonsense.

            As you agree, the surface has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight. Surface temperatures range roughly from 90 C to -90 C (actual surface temperatures). The average temperature has dropped.

            The atmosphere prevents around 35% of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface. Hence, maximum temperatures, due to the Sun’s radiation, are depressed. Average temperatures are meaningless – only a strangely deluded mathematician like Gavin Schmidt would claim “Hottest year EVAH!”, and then claim that a calculated 38% probability supported his strange utterance.

            As to thermometers showing higher temperatures, this is how thermometers are designed – they indicate how hot they are, and are calibrated in degrees, generally. If you wish to claim that CO2 makes the mercury in a mercury in glass thermometer expand, indicating a higher temperature, I would expect some experimental support for such a remarkable claim.

            Falling temperatures are falling temperatures. Cooling. Fast or slow, if the temperature is falling, it is not going up. No heating due to falling temperature. This is just pseudoscientific climate cult garbage.

            Cheers.

          • bdgwx says:

            So it is okay to acknowledge that the atmosphere can block a significant amount of shortwave radiation and yet somehow it’s taken as a given that this can’t possibly happen with longwave radiation as well…because why?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”So it is okay to acknowledge that the atmosphere can block a significant amount of shortwave radiation and yet somehow its taken as a given that this cant possibly happen with longwave radiation as wellbecause why?”

            Clouds are droplets of water that are actually modeled as a lake. The droplets absorb SW solar hence the blocking. As a cloud moves across the Sun you can actually see the visible EM blocked. When the cloud passes, the SW re-appears unblocked.

            WV in a clear sky is not about to block a lot of anything, either SW from the Sun or LW from the surface. If there is any blockage it will be a few percent, nothing more.

            GHGs block nothing of significance…nada.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Maybe you could quote me. Or you could just make it up as you go along, as you seem to prefer.

            Your choice. If you want to make stuff up, you could probably ask yourself all sorts of stupid gotchas, and then pretend to be fearfully confused when you couldn’t understand your own answers.

            There is a difference between pseudoscience and science. Feel free to disagree, if you wish.

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Me >> “That automatically means that average temperatures would be higher with GHGs than without.
            MF> “Nonsense.”

            Focus on the issue at hand. Two worlds. Otherwise identical except one has GHGs in the atmosphere.

            The identical worlds both warm up some day .. say to 30 C. And we agree the one with GHGs cools slower. So it my cool slowly over night to, say, 20 C, while the one with no GHG’s cools faster — say to 10 C.

            T or F: The GHG world has a higher average temperature.

            —————————————-

            If we can agree on that, then we can see about addressing some of your tangents. But the direct, inescapeable conclusion of If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine. is that GHGs lead to warmer average temperatures.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            TF,

            Don’t be silly. The problem is that if one of your worlds has no GHGs (like the Moon, say), then it will get hotter than the Earth during the same exposure time, as it is receiving more radiation from a temperature source of the same value.

            It will cool faster, and reach a lower temperature – no GHGs, you see. The same thing happens on Earth. Arid tropical deserts reach far higher temperatures during the day, and cool much faster at night, due to the lack of supposed GHGs in the atmosphere.

            Thanks for quoting me saying “Nonsense.” I assume you are disagreeing with my opinion, but you haven’t provided any facts to show I am wrong. Just telling me to “focus” on this or that doesn’t seem to help. I focus on whatever I like, and if you don’t like it, tough.

            You can agree with yourself as much as you like, and you can address whatever you like with yourself. If you expect me to dance to your tune, you might be sorely disappointed. Maybe you need to focus on the issue at hand – the conspicuous absence of a useful GHE description. Or maybe you could just ignore it.

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gavin never said

            “hottest year EVAH!”

          • bdgwx says:

            GR said…”As a cloud moves across the Sun you can actually see the visible EM blocked.”

            And the same effect occurs with non-condensed WV and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) as well. WV shadows surface OLR. The more WV the more the surface OLR is shadowed. This is a significant factor in how the ABI instrument on the GOES-R satellites detects WV. In the presence of WV the ABI instrument primarily picks up the cooler OLR emitted from the WV layer. In the absence of WV the ABI instrument primarily picks up the warmer surface OLR. There are many other satellites that detect WV in this manner as well. I just picked the GOES-R as example because it’s the newest technology developed by NOAA for observational meteorology.

            The point…as WV moves across the Earth satellites can actually see the infrared EM blocked.

            By the way…the GOES-R ABI actually has a “CO2” channel centered at 13.3 um. Note that 13.3 um is NOT the band in which CO2’s GHE is dominant. It just so happens that CO2 is also IR active at 13.3 um though in a considerably reduced amount compared to the 14.9 um band where the bulk of the GHE arises. This particular band exploits CO2’s well mixed nature in the troposphere to produce various scientific and meteorological products.

            https://www.goes-r.gov/education/docs/ABI-bands-FS/Band_16FS_CO2_LW_IR_FINAL.pdf

          • JDHuffman says:

            “…compared to the 14.9 um band where the bulk of the GHE arises.”

            bmgwx, your addiction to pseudoscience is blantantly apparent.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”Conversely, that must also mean that without GHGs, temperatures fall faster”.

            I would like to see your reasoning behind this claim. Why should GHGs, at even 1% of the lower atmosphere, be able to affect atmospheric temperature enough to affect the rate of surface radiation?

            There is no evidence that GHGs have affected atmospheric temps over a period of more than 150 years. It’s a presumption that lacks hard scientific evidence.

  43. Mike Flynn says:

    bobdroege wrote –

    “Flynn,

    Here is an accurate quote of what you said, maybe you could clarify what you meant.

    The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state,

    Did you mean that the earth has cooled at a constant rate since it was molten, or are you supporting Lord Kelvins ridiculous estimate of the age of the earth?”

    bobdroege seems unable to comprehend simple English. He seems unable to understand that I meant what I wrote. Maybe he is in the grip of some pseudoscientific climatological delusional condition – or just exceptionally stupid and ignorant.

    If anybody else is unable to understand my quoted statement, please let me know what part you don’t understand. Maybe bobdroege only understands Warmese.

    Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Mike, I don’t have trouble understanding the statement. I just have trouble understanding why you think this is so important.

      No one disputes that the surface cooled from a few 1000 kelvins to a few 100 kelvins. The early planet’s surface was indeed once molten rock, which cooled to form the current solid crust.

      But this is the distant past. Most estimates suggest liquid water was present on earth within a few 100 million years and the life arose within half a billion years. For literally billions of years, the surface temperatures have been relatively stable. They have risen and fallen and risen and fallen many times.

      The early cooling of the surface and the continued slow cooling of the core are interesting science. They just have next to nothing to do with climate or climate change. The air, water, and land near the surface can and have warmed in the past, and are doing so again right now.

      I would welcome any comments about either
      a) anything factually you disagree with, or
      b) why the surface cooling 4.5 billion years ago is important to understanding current climate change.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        TF,

        I am glad you agree with as to the fact that –

        “The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state.”

        I am quoting myself due to your reluctance to do so. I understand why.

        I cannot see anything new or particularly relevant in anything else you say. There is not much point in commenting in any unsupported assertions you may or may not have made. Climate is the average of weather. No comment required.

        You still cannot describe the GHE in any useful way, because no such description exists, or is possible. I’m guessing that if you could provide a description you would. If you have a GHE description, but wish to keep it secret, that is your choice.

        Cheers.

  44. gbaikie says:

    “If anybody else is unable to understand my quoted statement, please let me know….”

    Well some might not know how the sun could prevent Earth surface from cooling, as in the sun doesn’t prevent any planet from cooling from a molten state**.
    And there might not be any star which prevents any planet from not cooling from it’s molten state.
    And it’s possible, that this is your point.

    It’s also possible that might be regarded that a planet such as Venus is somewhere in the ballpark,- if closer to sun, larger atmosphere.
    And planet in formation might have various metals and various compound not normally associated to be in a gasous state and within atmosphere which could could act like greenhouse gases.

    But probably this is over thinking it, and it would be thebpoint that Earth was very hot and now the surface is quite cold.
    And the assumption that there was far more greenhouse gases when Earth was hot, and why did it cool if greenhouse gases could keep it hot?
    Or it is plausible that Earth had more than 100 atm of water vapor, thousands of times more CO2 and methane than it does now.
    And yet, the Earth cooled.
    Though Earth could have been completely cloud covered and reflecting a lot of sunlight, which might be problem with idea of sunlight keeping it warm.

    ** Of course there is Jupiter moon, Io, which has very little sunlight, and though entire surface (skin surface) is not molten, there is lots of volcanic activity, with lava flowing in a lot places.
    One could ask, why isn’t the vacuum of space cooling it.

  45. Mike Flynn says:

    Someone wrote –

    “lets assume somehow a photon gets absorbed by a water molecule, where the frequency of the other water molecules are higher than that of the photon.”

    This is about as stupid as saying “let’s assume your auntie has testicles, and is really your uncle . . ” Not only that, but the rest of the sciencey sounding nonsense is meaningless.

    The dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha posers resort to such idiocies because they cannot even describe the supposed GHE in any way in which the description could be examined in a scientific fashion. Hence, reams of rubbish from people who pretend they have knowledge about all sorts of irrelevant things, appeals to self appointed authority, endless pointless and irrelevant analogies (pointless and irrelevant because there is no adequate GHE description), and all the rest of the lunatic folderol so beloved of the usual ragtag mob of shambling climate fools.

    Suffice it to say that one cannot raise the temperature of water regardless of how much energy you have at your disposal, if it is being emitted by ice.

    Likewise, trying to pretend that W/m2 is somehow directly related to temperature is the pseudoscientific rambling of climate cultists. And so it goes. CO2 and H2O do not add to a heat source. They do not accumulate heat, nor reinforce or multiply it. Climate is the average of weather, no more no less.

    No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should, and the capering climate clowns are part of the warp and weft of the rich tapestry of life. Ain’t life grand?

    Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      That “dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser” is JD. Glad to know you think he is so confused here. He won’t listen to me, but maybe he will listen to you, 🙂

      • Mike Flynn says:

        TF,

        What bizarre nonsense are to trying to flog now?

        Maybe you think I have awesome super powers, and that anybody cares what I think, or what my opinion is. I appreciate the flattery, but it will not get you anywhere.

        If you are hoping that I won’t mention the fact that neither you nor anybody else can actaully produce a useable GHE description – abandon all hope.

        No GHE. CO2 heats nothing.

        Cheers.

    • gbaikie says:

      “….endless pointless and irrelevant analogies (pointless and irrelevant because there is no adequate GHE description)…”

      Greenhouse effect doesn’t make the surface hotter.
      The greenhouse effect which is inadequately described by the “greenhouse effect theory” does encourage people to imagine greenhouse gases cause the surface to be hotter as compared to a world which lacks any atmosphere, but obviously the lunar surface in daylight is heated to higher temperature than what occurs anywhere on Earth.
      But disregarding the pseudo science of the “greenhouse effect theory” a greenhouse effect increases the average temperature.
      Or if Earth had less atmosphere it could have lower average temperature, but with less atmosphere in the daytime, the surface could be warmed to higher temperature during the day.
      Less atmosphere would make colder nights and colder winters.

      Or if Earth had 1/4 of it’s atmosphere and 4 times more CO2, it would probably have lower average temperature.

      There many elements involved with making the Earth average global temperature of about 15 C.
      If a planet had a strong greenhouse effect, the planet’s surface air temperature would close to being uniform. If Planet’s average surface air was 15 C, then it have uniform temperature which was close to 15 C.
      Earth does not have temperatures which are commonly close to 15 C.
      Nor is the much percentage of surface area have average daily or yearly average temperature of near 15 C.
      An air temperature of near 15 C on Earth is rare rather than common.
      40% of surface of Earth is in the tropical zone [between 23.5 degrees North and South latitude]. 80% of the tropics is ocean and the tropical ocean average temperature is about 26 C [78.8 F or a bit warmer than room temperature, “For scientific work, room temperature is taken to be about 20 to 25 degrees Celsius ”
      The tropics generally fairly uniform and the tropical ocean has the most uniform temperature.
      The human creature is a tropical animal prefers the near uniform temperature of tropics [though modern technological human wears clothes, and if wearing warm clothes prefers it’s living spaces to be slightly cooler than 26 C].

      So tropics has fairly uniform and this “fits” with environment which has more greenhouse effect. And the tropics famously is known to have a lot water vapor. Greenhouse gas of water vapor associated with strong greenhouse effect of tropics.
      But of course there is other aspect of ocean water having a high specific heat. The ocean water being transparent to sunlight. And the latent heat of water vapor.

      The global average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
      40% has average of 26 C and remaining 60% of the ocean has average temperature of about 11 C [51.8 F]

      Global average land surface air temperature is about 10 C

      70% ocean of 17 and 30% land of 10 C is average global temperature of about 15 C.
      And Northern hemisphere is about 1 C warmer average temperature than the Southern hemisphere

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”But disregarding the pseudo science of the greenhouse effect theory a greenhouse effect increases the average temperature”.

        How?

        Based on your description you seem to be presuming all atmospheric gases offer a greenhouse effect.

        A greenhouse effect refers to only 1% of atmospheric gases and they behave nothing like the glass in a greenhouse. The GHE theory is wrong because it is based on a faulty assumption which itself is based on three faulty assumptions.

        Faulty assumption #1 is that GHGs can somehow trap heat. That comes from another faulty assumption that electromagnetic radiation is heat. GHGs can absorb EM radiation from the surface but how much? Calculations show it is in the neighbourhood of 5% of surface radiation.

        EM is not heat and since heat is a property of atoms, gases cannot trap atoms. Glass can, but gases cannot.

        Faulty assumption #2 is that GHGs can back-radiate energy (EM) that can somehow raise the surface temperature. That contradicts the 2nd law and describes perpetual motion as the recycling of heat from the surface to the atmosphere and back to the surface.

        Faulty assumption #3 is that GHGs can affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. The rate of heat dissipation is affected only by the temperature of the atmosphere immediately at the surface.

        It’s no different than heat being transferred from the end of a steel rod from an end heated by a torch to the cooler end of the rod. If the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface is the same as the surface temperature, no heat will flow in either direction. If the atmosphere could somehow be hotter, heat would flow from the atmosphere to the surface.

        As it stands, the atmosphere immediately at the surface absorbs heat directly from the surface and that heated air rises. Cooler air flows in as convection to replace the rising air parcels and is heated itself. The process repeats.

        As far as radiation is concerned, R. W. Wood pointed out that surface IR would itself dissipate within a few feet of the surface to the point where GHGs could not absorb it.

        Lindzen does not claim the surface radiates directly to space, he claims heat is convected to higher altitudes in the Tropics and moved pole ward, where it radiates to space at high altitude.

        Lindzen claims the GHE, as it is understood, is far too simple.

        http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

        Lindzen is not clear about what does the radiating at high altitude but he refers to water vapour and a T^4th factor which I take to be a reference to Stefan-Boltzmann. In that case, S-B applies to any substance at temperature T, not just GHGs.

        If S-B is to be applied here than it must refer to radiation from nitrogen and oxygen as well, since they make up 99% of the atmosphere.

        Excuse the pun, but I think the science is pretty cloudy.

        • gbaikie says:

          –Gordon Robertson says:
          May 11, 2019 at 1:04 AM
          gbaikie…”But disregarding the pseudo science of the greenhouse effect theory a greenhouse effect increases the average temperature”.

          How?

          Based on your description you seem to be presuming all atmospheric gases offer a greenhouse effect.

          A greenhouse effect refers to only 1% of atmospheric gases and they behave nothing like the glass in a greenhouse. The GHE theory is wrong because it is based on a faulty assumption which itself is based on three faulty assumptions.–

          I said disregard the greenhouse effect theory.
          And I and even pseudo science greenhouse effect theory assert that the glass of greenhouse do not behave like/similar or even analogous to greenhouse gases.

          But an actual greenhouse does work.
          And the Atmosphere does act like a actual greenhouse.
          An actual greenhouse warms and remains warm by inhibting convectional heat loss [the glass reduces convection heat loss- or use double pane windows and it does it better than single pane].

          And obviously Earth atmosphere does not transfer heat to space via convectional heat transfer.
          Or Earth atmosphere is like a huge greenhouse.
          But this huge greenhouse only has a portion of it which is in sunlight. And the sunlight moves during the day and thru the seasons.

          Now what happens if someone makes very large/huge greenhouse?
          Makes a hemispheric dome with diameter of 100 km and highest point of dome is 50 Km high.
          I would say that such large dome does not work like a normal small greenhouse. Or it’s too big to inhibt convectional heat loss in same way a small greenhouse does.
          Or small greenhouse don’t warm the rest of the world by very much, instead they warm the volume within the small greenhouse and inhibted the warmed air from quickly warming the rest of the world.
          What happens if instead of huge, one make greenhouse which is quite large: hemisphere 100 meter in diameter and 50 meter high.
          It going to have more air to warm up, and it will have more thermal mass which would require longer to warm up in the day and longer to cool down in the night.

          Anyhow very roughly speaking with the huge 100 km diameter dome it will do much because basically the atmosphere is already doing it.
          Or if put dome on world with no atmosphere or little atmosphere like Mars, then would have large effect.

          But I am not mentioning the radiant effects of greenhouse gases, as you should recall, I am lukewarmer, and I think there is some warming effect from greenhouse gases. Or I think that were CO2 concentration to double from 280 to 560 ppm, that it would have 0 to .5 C increase in global temperature. And as I recall you also thought it might have some small amount of warming effect.
          But I will concede that the effect has not been measured [or the fingerprints have yet to detected]

        • Craig T says:

          “As far as radiation is concerned, R. W. Wood pointed out that surface IR would itself dissipate within a few feet of the surface to the point where GHGs could not absorb it.”

          You say that again, but I can’t find it in R. W. Wood’s small comments on how greenhouses work. But when a sphere is enclosed in hollow sphere, all radiation from the inside sphere reaches the hollow sphere. Every photon leaving the Earth passes through the atmosphere.

          You should reread the Lindzen paper you linked.

          “Lindzen is not clear about what does the radiating at high altitude…”

          He is perfectly clear and calls them greenhouse gasses.

          Crudely speaking, radiation is attenuated as e^−τ. The level at which τ = 1, is one optical depth into the atmosphere, and radiation emitted from this level is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature at this new level. When the earth is in radiative balance with space, the net incoming solar radiation is balanced by the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR or thermal radiation or infrared radiation; these are all commonly used and equivalent terms) from the characteristic emission level, τ = 1. When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the level at which τ = 1 is raised in altitude, and, because the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with altitude (at the rate of approximately 6.5 C per kilometer), the new characteristic emission level is colder than the previous level.

          Lindzen has no doubt the greenhouse effect is real. His position is that increases in clouds will reduce incoming solar radiation and reduce the total warming. Getting the Skeptics on this page to that level of understanding would be a great accomplishment.

          I grow tired of arguments claiming radiative balance, outgoing longwave radiation and greenhouse gasses don’t matter.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig says: “Lindzen has no doubt the greenhouse effect is real.”

            Craig, you should not misrepresent people, just to support your pseudoscience.

            Dr. Lindzen is a Skeptic. His expertise is in mathematics, so although he may not be able to put down the pseudoscience with the exact physics, he nevertheless knows it is a hoax.

          • Craig T says:

            Lindzen, like Dr. Spencer, is a Skeptic. Neither are so out of touch with physics to deny that there is a greenhouse effect. Read his paper:

            “In Section 2, we present a physically correct view of the greenhouse effect, and show how this view enables us to use modeling results and observations in order to estimate a bound on the greenhouse contribution to recent surface warming of about 1/3.”

            Calling things you don’t understand pseudoscience doesn’t make you skeptical, it means you would rather deny things than learn about them.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

  46. MIke Flynn says:

    Just in case JDH might actually give a toss about my opinion, I should make it clear that I do not consider him to be a “dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser.”.

    I appreciate that trying to communicate with the average dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser requires using terminology one might use with a child. I assume he adopted the patois of the fools, in an attempt to imbue some knowledge. I’ll stick to using attributed quotes in future, to avoid any mistaken imputations.

    JDH, a thousand pardons! I grovel in mortification!

    Cheers.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Mikey should take up a career in creative writing, perhaps science fiction. While he writes well, his scientific understanding regarding heat transfer is seriously flawed.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        ES,

        Thanks for the compliment. Maybe you could quote something with which you disagree, and marshal some facts to support your view.

        Maybe you are so addicted to your hidden infinite heat sources that you may have misunderstood me when I suggested that trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask resulted in less rapid heating. I was unclear – I did not specify that the soup was inside the flask, and the heat source was outside the flask, as I perhaps should have.

        You seem to be besotted with the idea that sunlight can be treated as a heat source below the atmosphere, rather than where it actually is – on the far side of the atmosphere. No amount of magical pseudoscientific fantasy can change this.

        Would you like to quote me again, and tell me that I am “flat out wrong”? As to the Moon, only a stupid pseudoscientific climate cultist would try to conflate heating of the Moon by the sun by complaining that that the surface cools in the absence of sunlight! Petulantly demanding that “One must consider the average temperature, not the maximum, . . .”, when I was clearly referring to maximum temperatures, is just stupid.

        Why should I do what you demand? You seem to claiming that you know something about a mysterious GHE, which, unfortunately you can’t even describe! Telling me what I must and must not do seems a little odd. I feel compassion towards the mentally afflicted, but it doesn’t mean that I must dance to their tune. Would you?

        Carry on with your silliness, if it gives you solace.

        Cheers.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Mikey wrote:

          you may have misunderstood me when I suggested that trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask resulted in less rapid heating. I was unclear I did not specify that the soup was inside the flask, and the heat source was outside the flask, as I perhaps should have.

          No, Mikey, that’s exactly what I thought. The heating within the Dewar flask is due to some external source of energy. It’s your discussion of what happens as the result which is the problem. Comparing the Dewar’s steady state temperature with that of a similar sized glass vessel, the soup/water will be hotter within the Dewar because of the insulating effect of the walls of the Dewar. Both vessels will exhibit the same rate of energy flow thru their respective walls at steady state. Your apparent lack of understanding of these facts displays a fundamental problem which is either due to ignorance or intentional disinformation.

          Why even try to explain AGW to you as long as you can’t comprehend the much simpler basics in the example which you yourself presented?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            ES,

            Presumably, the “steady state temperature” to which you refer, is the equilibrium temperature, without the influence of any hidden heat source which you might suddenly produce?

            If this is the case, your comments are quite simply, mad. Everything will be the same temperature. The flask, the contents, the environment.

            Insulation has no magical properties. Insulation may be used to slow the rate of cooling, or more likely, to slow the rate of heating – as in refrigerated areas, liquid nitrogen canisters and so on.

            Placing insulation between the Sun and an object on the ground, such as a thermometer, does not make the thermometer hotter – it reduces the temperature. Hence Stevenson screens, shade temperatures and so on.

            Your fanatical belief in a GHE which you cannot even describe, is your affair. Trying to convince others that it is based on science might only only attract equally deluded persons to your cause. If that is your desire, I wish you well. Count me amongst the non-believers.

            By the way, have you abandoned your belief in the GHE? If so, to what would you ascribe observed rises in the temperatures of thermometers in various places?

            Cheers.

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mikey continues with his misdirection, writing:

            Presumably, the steady state temperature to which you refer, is the equilibrium temperature, without the influence of any hidden heat source which you might suddenly produce?

            If this is the case, your comments are quite simply, mad. Everything will be the same temperature. The flask, the contents, the environment.

            In a condition of thermal steady state, the energy entering a system equals that leaving to the surroundings. Your example proposed heating of soup in a Dewar meets this condition when the internal temperature stops increasing from the effect of the added energy. In more detail, at steady state, the difference in temperature between the “soup” and the surrounding environment no longer changes.

            This result is completely different from that of your last sentence which I quoted. Sorry you are unable to understand such a simple heat transfer problem. I suppose this partially explains your ignorance regarding the GHE (and my Green Plate Demo as well).

            I have no clue what your last paragraph is about. Did you botch the edit of your cut and paste, or is your bot brain a bit off kilter today?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            ES,
            You wrote –

            “In more detail, at steady state, the difference in temperature between the soup and the surrounding environment no longer changes.”

            As I said. This would be the time time to produce your hidden heat sources, eh? And in the case you missed it, I also said –

            “. . . trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask resulted in less rapid heating.”, I am not surprised that you are not disagreeing with my statement. Maybe you forgot that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it colder, not hotter.

            The overall result of this phenomenon has resulted in the Earth cooling since its creation. Time for you to disagree if you wish. Maybe you could invoke the magic of the average?

            No GHE. No CO2 or H2O heating.All delusionary nonsense.

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mikey wrote:

            This would be the time time to produce your hidden heat sources, eh? And in the case you missed it, I also said

            . . . trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask resulted in less rapid heating., I am not surprised that you are not disagreeing with my statement.

            There’s no hidden energy source. There’s no way to heat your soup in said Dewar without adding energy from an external source. Don’t forget that it was your analogy about heating soup, not mine. I just added a second hypothetical case, a glass jar of similar size and volume, pointing out that adding energy at the same rate to each would result with a higher temperature in the Dewar than within the glass jar. That’s basic heat transfer physics.

            Of course, you again add your usual misdirection, writing:

            The overall result of this phenomenon has resulted in the Earth cooling since its creation. Time for you to disagree if you wish. Maybe you could invoke the magic of the average?

            Yes, the Earth has been “cooling” since it solidified after the collusion which formed the Moon. And it’s also true that the Earth has also been heated by the Sun’s energy since then as well, a basic fact which you apparently insist on ignoring. In science, facts must not be ignored, even though they present unpleasant results. Magic and miracles belong in the realm of the religious fanatics, charlatans, and other idiots.

          • bdgwx says:

            Not only has the Sun been heating the Earth for billions of years, but it does so with increasing luminosity. Like all main sequence stars the Sun brightens as it ages. It does so at a rate of about 1% every 120 million years.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E. Swanson, bdgwx, please stop trolling.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

      I enjoy your continual trouncing of the clowns.

      Keep up the great effort!

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      I gotta say, Mike, it is fascinating to see you harshly call out bad science (“dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha posers resort to such idiocies”) and nonchalantly accept correct science (“If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine.”) — and then backpedal furiously to accept the idiocies and deny your own conclusion.

      In fact, you ARE supporting the greenhouse effect. You even stated the elusive greenhouse effect yourself — “If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine.” That *is* the greenhouse effect! Congratulations. Certain gases in the atmosphere cause temperature to not fall as fast as they would in otherwise identical circumstances.

      You also correctly recognize that this is not the whole picture — as do we all. You are correct in considering things like “if one of your worlds has no GHGs (like the Moon, say), then it will get hotter than the Earth during the same exposure time, as it is receiving more radiation from a temperature source of the same value.” Lots of things matter:
      * clouds changing the albedo
      * ozone absorbing some incoming UV
      * water vapor absorbing some incoming IR
      * Milankovitch Cycles
      * convection of energy to/from the bulk of the atmosphere
      * geothermal heat flows from the interior
      * …

      Just because other issues like these are ALSO true does not mean you were wrong before. It just means this is a complicated problem with MANY correct and important factors involved.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Tim, you are making Mike Flynn’s case for him. He continually points out that there is no consistent definition of the GHE. In your comment, you are trying to claim that Earth’s ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE. You are making up new definitions, trying in vain, to protect the failed pseudoscience.

        Earth maintains its temperature around a “set point”, based on thermodynamic principles. That ability is NOT the GHE. The GHE claims that CO2 can warm the surface.

        Now, come up with some more of your “spin”.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “In your comment, you are trying to claim that Earths ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE. “

          No, in my comment I am claiming the the ability of certain gases to reduce cooling rates (ie what Mike himself agreed to) is the greenhouse effect. Read what I wrote.

          This ‘ability to reduce cooling rates’ one of the (many) “thermodynamic principles” that shape the temperature of the earth. You simply cannot understand the full thermodynamics without this piece of the puzzle.

          To paraphrase you, now come up with more strawmen to attack.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Tim, you get to argue with yourself: “That *is* the greenhouse effect! Congratulations. Certain gases in the atmosphere cause temperature to not fall as fast as they would in otherwise identical circumstances.”

            May the best clown win….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JD,

            Take it up with Mike — I as simply agreeing with his claim that GHGs have an ability to reduce cooling rate.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong Tim, you were trying to claim that is the GHE.

            Again, argue with yourself. I’m not interested in your continual effort to avoid reality.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            It’s there in black and white, JD.

            YOU >> “In your comment, you are trying to claim that Earths ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE. ”

            ME >> “You even stated the elusive greenhouse effect yourself If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine. That *is* the greenhouse effect! ”

            I made no claim even remotely like “Earths ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE.”

          • JDHuffman says:

            It’s all there in black and white, Tim.

            Tim says: “…in my comment I am claiming the the ability of certain gases to reduce cooling rates is the greenhouse effect.”

            The pseudoscience “definition” of the GHE claims that CO2 can warm the surface. So are you now backing away from that pseudoscience?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”in my comment I am claiming the the ability of certain gases to reduce cooling rates (ie what Mike himself agreed to) is the greenhouse effect…”

            You have yet to explain how gases making up 1% of the atmosphere can affect the rate of cooling at the Earth’s surface.

          • Craig T says:

            “You have yet to explain how gases making up 1% of the atmosphere can affect the rate of cooling at the Earths surface.”

            Fortunately, your paper by Lindzen explains it quite well:

            “Part of the sunlight reaching the earth is reflected by clouds, and the earth’s surface. The remainder (Net Incoming Solar Radiation) warms the earth and this warming is balanced by the earth’s infrared (or thermal) radiation. However, the presence of greenhouse substances (the most important of which are water vapor and clouds) inhibits this cooling by thermal radiation, and serves as a blanket which causes the earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be. It is commonly claimed that the natural component of this blanket keeps the earth about 33 C warmer than it would be in the absence of this blanket.”

            Lindzen doesn’t deny the greenhouse effect. He expects negative feedback from clouds to prevent much of the predicted warming.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T, please stop trolling.

        • Nate says:

          ” based on thermodynamic principles”

          Oh, JD, you think thermodynamic laws are important?

          Then how is it that you so easily cast aside the First Law of Thermodynamics, by suggesting that photon absor*ption in a material will lower the temperature and internal energy of that material??

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nate, I just provide simple examples, to explain the basic physics. It is your task to understand the simple examples.

            If you prefer just the basic physics, here you go:

            ΔE = hf

          • Nate says:

            ‘ΔE = hf’

            And….what??

            It is still energy being ADDED.

            And 1LOT is still being ignored.

          • bobdroege says:

            So JD,

            You understand the frequency of light be it infrared or other, is related to the change in energy levels of the molecule, or atom, or ionic crystal that is emitting or abzorbing the radiation or light.

            So do you have a clue as to the number and energy levels that are available with respect to liquid water molecules?

          • JDHuffman says:

            The clowns don’t like it when I provide simple examples to explain the basic physics. And they don’t like it when I just provide the basic physics.

            All they like is their pseudoscience.

            Nothing new.

          • bobdroege says:

            We are agreeing that you have the basic physics correct.

            Yes E=Hv

            We just disagree that because CO2 emits a 14.7 um photon, that you can infer that means that CO2 molecule has a certain temperature.

            That’s your made up science and you can’t provide evidence that it is true.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob,

            It is just your false belief that I inferred such a thing.

            Thats your made-up belief and you cant provide evidence that it is true.

          • Nate says:

            No JD,

            We don’t like it when your examples make no sense and deny reality.

            Even Mike concurs…

          • bobdroege says:

            JD says a bunch of crap

            “Obviously you cant warm your room with ice cubes, just as you cant warm Earths surface with 14.7 μ photons.

            A 14.7 μ photon can NOT warm the average surface temperature.

            Obviously poor Craig doesnt know a 10.7 μ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.

            Atmospheric CO2 emits mainly 14.7 μ photons. A 14.7 μ photon corresponds to a WDL temperature of 197 K (-76 C, -105 F)”

            Are you now to say you didn’t make the above statements?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Thanks for quoting me correctly, bob.

            You are not misrepresenting me, and you might even learn something.

            Improvement is good.

          • bobdroege says:

            Good JD,

            We are almost there

            So we have a 14.7 um photon headed towards the earth, water or land,

            Now tell me what determines whether it will be reflected, transmitted or abzorbed?

            Are there the appropriate energy level differences in water or sand for the photon to be abzorbed?

            Checkmate

          • JDHuffman says:

            I don’t know if we’re “almost there”, or not. You seem to be playing with yourself–“checkmate”.

            Also, it’s spelled “absorbed”, not “abzorbed”.

            Your questions have been addressed before. Maybe try memorizing my words. Rote is often a good start to understanding.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-351626

          • bdgwx says:

            JD said…”As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed.”

            So what happens to it and its energy?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “Now tell me what determines whether it will be reflected, transmitted or abzorbed?”

            Why bother with stupid gotchas? I assume you are not seeking knowledge, but just attempting to make someone appear foolish.

            You are right – you are looking quite foolish. How about you tell me how you know which specific materials reflect, absorb or are transparent to photons possessing a frequency of 14.7 um? Feel free to include materials which may or may not possess resonant frequencies of various types which may or may not coincide with those of the incoming photon.

            I guess you are trying to make a point, but your point seems to have devolved into a self impacting blunt object – a large limp noodle might fit the bill.

            Still no GHE. You cannot even describe such an impossible concept – that is why you have to worship an invisible deity. How do you know your GHE isn’t really an invisible old, old, man with a long grey beard and awesome supernatural powers? Convince me.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            bd,

            You wrote –

            “JD saidAs an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed.

            So what happens to it and its energy?”

            I’ll see your gotcha, and raise you. Suppose a 14.7 um photon emitted by a black body (equivalent to temperature of about -76 C, impinges on a pot of boiling water – 100 C. What happens to it and its energy?

            Or try the same thing with a 10.7 um photon emitted by a block of ice, which you have added to your coffee to raise the coffee’s temperature. What happens to those 10.7 um photons and their energy? How much hotter is your coffee getting due to all those phons emitted by the ice?

            Learn some physics, and you won’t have to embarrass yourself by posing witless gotchas. You don’t have to thank me – my pleasure.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx asks: “So what happens to it and its energy?”

            bmgwx, you have asked this before. I answered with a hint that visible light is reflected constantly. You were unable to understand the hint.

            Maybe you can’t think for yourself. Maybe all you can do is avoid reality, and come up with “witless gotchas”, as Mike says. You certainly have no demonstrated interest in seeking truth.

            If you like your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            you posted

            “But, to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.”

            It passes that major test, as there are plenty of energy levels in water that differ by the 0.0843 eV of energy in a 14.7 um photon.

            Water has lots of energy level from the bending, twisting and stretching modes. That would match that exactly.

            That’s why on this chart

            http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_spectrum_2.gif

            the absorp.tion coefficient for 14.7 um photons is between 1000 and 1000.

            Which means the 14.7 um photon is likely absorbed

          • bdgwx says:

            JD said…”I answered with a hint that visible light is reflected constantly.”

            So the infrared radiation emitted by H20, CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc. and directed toward the Earth is then reflected off the surface of the Earth. Is that your answer?

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, if you’re going to try to understand the links you find, you need to have some background.

            “Absorp.tion coefficent” is not the same as “absorp.tion”.

            Water absorp.tion varies with temperature.

            ***********

            bdgwx asks: “Is that your answer?”

            In general, the low energy photons would be reflected. That’s why the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.

          • bdgwx says:

            JD, so what does an observer who is monitoring the infrared radiation coming from the Earth see? What conclusions do they draw? To assist in answering this question lets consider that the emission from Earth is X and that the emission from the colder body which is directed to Earth and then subsequently reflected is Y. Will the observer see a flux of X or X+Y?

          • bobdroege says:

            JD,

            So the xxxxxxxxxx coefficient is related to xxxxxxxx

            The xxxxxxxxx coefficient is a representative term for determining how far incident light of a certain wavelength penetrates a material before being xxxxxxxxxx.

            A high xxxxxxxxx coefficient means a wavelength is easily xxxxxx.

            You say it varies with temperature but it would have to go really close to zero to cancel the greenhouse effect.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            bd,

            “JD, so what does an observer who is monitoring the infrared radiation coming from the Earth see? What conclusions do they draw? To assist in answering this question lets consider that the emission from Earth is X and that the emission from the colder body which is directed to Earth and then subsequently reflected is Y. Will the observer see a flux of X or X+Y?”

            Are you attempting to set a record for the longest stupid gotcha?

            Do you really not know the answer? You could always try doing a bit of research. If you prefer pictures, you could look at infrared images taken from satellites. You might need to learn more about the light spectrum beyond visible red to understand what is shown.

            If you have any problems you cannot establish for yourself, if you admit you don’t know and cannot find out, I will do my best to help.

            I assume you are just trolling, but I have no idea why, except that you are truly stupid and ignorant, and do not possess either the will or the ability to learn. Let me know if I am wrong, and provide reasons.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bdgwx asks: “Will the observer see a flux of X or X+Y?”

            It depends on how the measurement is made. X and Y would have different spectra, so with a proper spectrometer, you would see both fluxes. But, fluxes don’t simply add. So if you were trying to detect with a bolometer, you would only see X.

          • JDHuffman says:

            bob, that’s some really original pseudoscience!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”ΔE = hf

            And.what??

            It is still energy being ADDED.

            And 1LOT is still being ignored.”

            Energy being added provided the conditions are right for it to be absorbed.

            Besides, the 1st law is about heat and work and their effect on internal energy. It says nothing about EM.

          • bdgwx says:

            JD,

            If the flux from the warmer body for the 14.7 um band is X and the flux for the colder body for the same 14.7 um band is Y and if Y is reflected from the warmer body then an observer would see X+Y for the 14.7 um band. But it doesn’t really matter what the spectra is exactly. If the warmer body flux is X over a wide infrared band and the cold body flux is Y over a wide infrared band and if all of Y is reflected off the warmer body then an observer is still going to measure X+Y.

            If you’re going to hang your hat on the argument that fluxes aren’t additive then you’re going to have to figure out where the energy associated with X and Y is going without breaking the 1LOT. In other words, you have two questions to answer here. How does an observer even know if a photon of a specific frequency is spontaneously emitted vs reflected anyway? And where does the Y flux go if the observer does not see it?

          • bdgwx says:

            MF, the intent of my questions is to figure out what JD’s model says about reality. I know what the prevailing scientific consensus model says about reality and I can look that up. That’s not the issue. The issue is that I’m trying to figure out what his model says happens to the radiation emitted by a colder object toward a warmer object if it does not slow the rate of heat loss on the warmer object or augment an even warmer object’s ability to raise the average temperature. I’m assuming you subscribe to JD’s model as well or at least a variant of it? Maybe you could chime in and help describe this model and explain how it fits within the established thermodynamic laws?

          • bobdroege says:

            JD

            says

            “bob, thats some really original pseudoscience!”

            Yes industrial strength verified by empirical observations.

            Water is very good at abzorbing infrared radiation.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yep. Exactly. Water will happily absorb IR regardless of the temperature of the body emitting it. That’s not equivalent to us claiming that the cooler body will necessarily increase the temperature the warmer water on its own though. If the water has no other energy source acting on it then it’s temperature will still cool as it equilibriates with the cooler body. It’s just that the rate of heat loss is than it would be otherwise. The 1LOT and 2LOT are perfectly accounted for here. That is energy is conserved and entropy increases. It shouldn’t be hard to understand what implications this has when you add a cyclic energy source acting on the water to increase its temperature. It’s time averaged temperature is higher than it would be otherwise if the back radiation from the cooler body were not present.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Two questions from bdgwx:

            “How does an observer even know if a photon of a specific frequency is spontaneously emitted vs reflected anyway?”

            Since photons with the same wavelength/frequency are all identical you could not tell if they were emitted or reflected, without more information.

            “And where does the Y flux go if the observer does not see it?”

            bdgwx, this is the third time you have asked this stupid question. At some point, you are going to have to move on, or just accept the fact that you want to remain stupid and unwilling to learn.

            A reflected photon (Y flux) travels in the direction it was emitted until it impacts mass. It’s the same as reflected photons from Earth. Earth is visible from space because of reflected photons. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “It’s time averaged temperature is higher than it would be otherwise if the back radiation from the cooler body were not present.”

            FALSE!

          • Svante says:

            Physics says:
            ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah

            JDHuffman says:
            Tc is always zero.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Svante misrepresents what physics says, and what I say.

            Nothing new.

          • bdgwx says:

            JD said…”Since photons with the same wavelength/frequency are all identical you could not tell if they were emitted or reflected, without more information.”

            Exactly. And I completely agree. So if an observer sees a radiation flux of X from a warm body they’ll derive a temperature T(x) from it. And if a colder body is added to the system and it emits Y towards the warmer body and all of Y is reflected then the observer will then see X+Y and derive a temperature T(X+Y) such that T(X+Y) > T(X). The observer sees an increase in temperature *if* all of Y is reflected. This should be a clue that the colder body’s photons are not all reflected because if they were then you’ve violated the 2LOT.

            What actually happens is that the photons from the colder body are absorbed by the warmer body. And per Wien’s Displacement Law we know that the flux in every EM channel is less for the colder body than for the warmer body. So the warmer body is absorbing less photons than it is emitting. It still cools as it equilibriates with the cooler body, but it does so at a slower rate. The 1LOT and 2LOT are both very happy with this arrangement.

            “FALSE!”

            It can’t be any other way unless you don’t think the 1LOT or 2LOT are valid. Slowing the rate of heat loss necessarily means that the temperature is maintained for a longer period of time. And when you add an energy source in the mix that is acting on the warmer body to further increase its temperature than that temperature will achieve a higher equilibrium value and thus a higher time averaged temperature than it would have obtained otherwise even if the energy source is cyclic. Any other effect would be a violation of either the 0LOT, 1LOT, or 2LOT.

          • JDHuffman says:

            That’s all wrong, bdgwx. I’ve already explained why in several places. You refuse to learn, or deal with the explanation. Instead, you just keep moving in the wrong direction, repeating the same old pseudoscience: “GHGs keep the surface from cooling so that it is warmer than it would otherwise be, when the Sun comes up.”

            That’s all fantasy, based on perverted physics. And, you refuse to consider reality.

            If you want your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “So if an observer sees a radiation flux of X from a warm body theyll derive a temperature T(x) from it.”

            Complete nonsense, unless they practice pseudoscience. Say you measure a flux of 100 W/m2. What temperature would you derive from it? It doesn’t matter what answer you give, I can quickly demonstrate you are wrong.

            Want to give it a try? No? Gee, maybe you aren’t as stupid and ignorant as you appear. Or maybe you are, but you possess enough rat cunning to sense a trap! Which is more appropriate?

            Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Mike says: “I assume he adopted the patois of the fools …”

      No, but this was as valiant effort to dig yourself out. And then JD thanks you for thinking his serious contribution was intentional foolishness. I swear we are in “1984”!

      • Nate says:

        Yep.

        JD is a “dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser.” ?

        A rare occasion when a typical MF ad-hom inadvertently matches reality.

        So of course, he has to retract it.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Tim, the problem with misrepresentating someone is it always makes you WRONG!

        Nothing new, huh?

    • Craig T says:

      “Just in case JDH might actually give a toss about my opinion, I should make it clear that I do not consider him to be a ‘dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser.’.”

      No need. We all know your opinion about intelligence and science completely depends on how much a post agrees with your beliefs.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        Thanks for quoting me directly. As usual, you do not disagree, but provide irrelevant and pointless opinion, backed by appeal to the consensus of the unstated “we”.

        Your mindreading skills are crap. Your claim to know what I think is the usual demented pseudoscientific climate cultist attempt to convert fantasy to fact, through the power of faith.

        My opinion about intelligence and science completely depends on my assessment of information. If I receive new information. I change my opinion – what do you do?

        Maybe if you could find a scientific description of the GHE, the invisible object of your slavish worship, I might have to change my opinion. Fat chance – CO2 and H2O heat nothing. No amplification, enhancement, or accumulating of heat, Delusional pseudoscientific worship of fantasy, no more. You could always just ignore what I say, and hope that others might believe the nonsense you espouse! Good luck with that.

        Cheers.

  47. Mike Flynn says:

    bobdroege wrote –

    “You understand the frequency of light be it infrared or other, is related to the change in energy levels of the molecule, or atom, or ionic crystal that is emitting or abzorbing the radiation or light.”

    Not true as a rule. For example, the warmed air emitted by your lungs contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour etc. You cannot distinguish these gases by the frequency of the emitted radiation.

    Another example is compressing air with a piston in a cylinder. At a guess, bobdroege cannot explain in any useful fashion how all the components of air all have the same temperature after being compressed to say, 500 C.

    A final example might be that of placing a mercury in glass thermometer under your tongue to take your temperature. The mercury expands according to temperature.

    If bobdroege is claiming that the mercury is experiencing changes to its energy levels, people might assume he is talking about changes relating to specific frequencies and wavelengths, without acknowledging that matter can respond to light of any frequency by changing its temperature, if it not perfectly transparent or perfectly reflective at that frequency.

    Maybe bobdroege could try to be clearer. If he is trying to say that CO2, for example is perfectly transparent to frequencies other than a specified few, he is mistaken. bobdroege doesn’t seem to have much of a clue, regardless of the sciencey sounding nature of his pseudoscientific pronouncements.

    In any case, bobdroege cannot heat water with ice. bobdroege cannot heat the Earth’s surface with colder atmosphere. CO2 and H2O possess no heating ability. No GHE. So sad, too bad.

    Cheers.

    • bobdroege says:

      Flynn

      Sorry Dude

      “Not true as a rule. For example, the warmed air emitted by your lungs contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour etc. You cannot distinguish these gases by the frequency of the emitted radiation.”

      Yes you can.

      They are gases and don’t emit like blackbodies.

      Each can be detected by their specific emission spectrum.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        b,

        You may spare me the faux sorrow if you wish.

        You might need to back your assertion, if you are not referring to emission spectroscopy, which requires sufficiently excited atoms to function.

        From Wikipedia –

        “Light consists of electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths. Therefore, when the elements or their compounds are heated either on a flame or by an electric arc they emit energy in the form of light.”

        If I understand you correctly, you claim that you can determine the composition of samples of gas at roughly room temperature by measuring the frequency of their emitted radiation. I am unaware of any such technology, so I would be most grateful if you could provide further information.

        Companies such as Honeywell, Drager, and so on, seem to be unaware of your technology. Navies around the world would beat a path to your door, and abandon their present bulky and expensive gas detectors and analysers for your innovative discriminating frequency detector.

        Alas, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are so stupid, ignorant and confused that you cannot comprehend how stupid, ignorant and confused you are. Your fantasies are not fact. If you are depending on some imaginary device which should, would, or could work, not good enough. Go for it.

        Cheers.

        • bobdroege says:

          Flynn

          “You cannot distinguish these gases by the frequency of the emitted radiation.”

          Astronomers do it all the time.

        • bobdroege says:

          Flynn,

          You must have some reading comprehension problems, is English your first language.

          “If I understand you correctly, you claim that you can determine the composition of samples of gas at roughly room temperature by measuring the frequency of their emitted radiation. I am unaware of any such technology, so I would be most grateful if you could provide further information.”

          I didn’t say the composition of samples could be determined.

          So no, you didn’t understand what I said.

          I said the gases could be detected by their emission spectrum.

          And I didn’t say it would be cheap, easy, or fast.

          And I didn’t specify the temperature.

          So your reading comprehension skills are low compared to your being a dick skills.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          bobdroege, please stop trolling.

    • Nate says:

      Mercury expanding in thermometers? Gases heated by compressing?

      Mike the red herring specialist is at it again, offering up facts irrelevant to anything discussed.

      • Mikw Flynn says:

        N,

        I see you have answered your questions. Add a few more words, and you can make sentences.

        Keep at it.

        Cheers.

  48. Mike Flynn says:

    bobdroege provided a link to support his appeal to his own authority as being learned in Quantum Mechanics.

    I couldn’t find support, and bobdroege responded –

    “I didnt say the syllabus called it Quantum Mechanics, but the students did and the textbook was called Molecular Quantum Mechanics, by P.W. Adkins.”

    The usual fraudulent tactics to avoid being caught in a lie. Blame the questioners lack of mindreading skills.

    What a pack of evasive slippery pseudoscientific fools. The students might have called bobd the smartest guy in the world, and there might have been a library full of textbooks. Bobd appears to have avoided learning much of what was offered, so he might as well carry on with the sly misrepresentations.

    Cheers.

    • bobdroege says:

      Flynn,

      Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, or Quantum Chemistry all mean the same thing to anyone who has studied the subject.

      So go ahead and call me a liar.

      Hottest year evah!

      Gavin never said that, so you are a liar as well.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        Thank you for the part clarification. I indicated I would be grateful if you could provide further information.

        When I pointed out that you could not distinguish between the warmed gases coming from ones lungs, you took issue , and wrote –

        “Each can be detected by their specific emission spectrum.”

        Not without heating the gases to the point where they emit light. Off you go – wriggle some more.

        Demanding that I call you a liar because you are stupid and ignorant is pointless. Calling me a liar because I paraphrased Gavin Schmidtss statement that “It wasn’t quite the warmest year in the land records, but combined, this did actually give the warmest year” might be considered a bit harsh, but at least the undistinguished mathematician Schmidt later covered himself by saying by saying that there was a 62% probability that 2014 was not the warmest year on record.

        As one publication wrote

        “According to NASA, all of the following statements are true:

        2014 was the warmest year on record, dating all the way back to 1880.
        2014 is far more likely than any other year since 1880 to have been the warmest.
        Theres a 62 percent chance that 2014 was NOT actually the warmest year since 1880.”

        Typical pseudoscientific obfuscation and misrepresentation. This is what happens when you have mathematicians pretending to be climate scientists. Even worse, when you put a pretend scientist in charge of of something called the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. A non-scientist in charge of a body which doesn’t even have as its main aim anything to do with weather (or its average – climate)! Logical? You tell me.

        Carry on b. Maybe if you keep telling everybody about how many courses you attended, and what your texts were titled, people might believe that “Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, or Quantum Chemistry all mean the same thing to anyone who has studied the subject.”

        Sure. You are living proof that someone can attend an educational institution, and emerge unscathed by attempts to impart knowledge of certain types. Feel free to continue believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Which part of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, or Quantum Chemistry supports your crazy assertion?

        Cheers.

        • bobdroege says:

          Flynn,

          Didn’t you once post that all matter above absolute zero emits radiation?

          I never argued the following

          “Feel free to continue believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”

          This is a pile of straw, and doesn’t represent what the greenhouse effect is.

          Quantum theory supports the idea that CO2 gas in the earth’s atmosphere emits photons of an energy sufficient to add energy to the surface of the earth.

          Then you screw up and say this

          “Theres a 62 percent chance that 2014 was NOT actually the warmest year since 1880.

          Actually it is closer to 100%

          You should recheck your dates.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You quoted me saying –

            Feel free to continue believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter., and claim you never argued this. That is good, because it is obviously nonsense.

            However, you go on to say –

            “Quantum theory supports the idea that CO2 gas in the earths atmosphere emits photons of an energy sufficient to add energy to the surface of the earth.”, which might lead a stupid and ignorant person to believe that you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie between the Sun and a thermometer) will make the thermometer hotter, which you said you didn’t believe (or argue, if you want to be specific).

            Unfortunately you cannot actually describe the GHE in any useful way, so your slippery obfuscations and evasions come to nothing. Your appeals to your own authority as an expert in quantum theory fall flat. If you believe you understand quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman said –

            “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Do you imagine you do?

            The emissions from a naturally colder object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object. That happens to be a fact, whether you understand why, or whether you don’t.

            As to your suggestion that I recheck anything, I am happy to ignore it. If the factual information is wrong, feel free to point out why. Otherwise, you are obviously not interested in imparting information, just trolling for no good reason.

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            Mike,

            You say

            “The emissions from a naturally colder object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object. That happens to be a fact, whether you understand why, or whether you don’t.”

            This is an incomplete statement of the second law of thermodynamics.

            Perhaps you could quote the full statement of the second law, or be considered an incomplete expert.

            Your choice

            It might make you a “a stupid and ignorant person”

            Then this

            “increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie between the Sun and a thermometer) will make the thermometer hotter, which you said you didn’t believe (or argue, if you want to be specific).”

            Is a pile of straw constructed by a fool.

            Not one thermometer, and not always warmer, but the average temperature, and an average temperature measured consistently the same way.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Thanks for quoting me. You don’t seem to be disagreeing with me. Why should I do as you suggest? If you want to state the laws of thermodynamics, go your hardest. If you find anything there to show that my statement is incorrect, let me know. I can be as stupid and ignorant as I wish. Don’t you agree? It doesn’t make any difference to observed fact.

            As to your second piece of inanity, not only can you not describe the non-existent GHE, but you now believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer either hotter or colder, but as long as there are an unspecified number, the average measured in a consistent way will be higher than something or other.

            I suppose you will invoke Quantum Theory to support this particular lunatic assertion?

            What was the average surface temperature of the Earth before the first liquid water appeared? Above the boiling point of water? Yes. How many thermometers would you need to figure that out? None.

            Has the average surface temperature of the Earth dropped from then to right now? Yes. How many thermometers do you need to figure that out? None.

            Did any mechanism prevent the average temperature from falling to its present value? No.

            You might need to pray harder – maybe the Almighty could write a useable description of the GHE on a tablet of stone, and a testable GHE hypothesis on another tablet. It seems to be beyond the competence of the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth, or any other fumbling bumbler. Aren’t they supposed to be famous climate scientists? How hard can it be?

            Cheers.

          • bobdroege says:

            Here for the ignorant is one of the complete statements of the second law of thermodynamics

            “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

            you guys seem to always forget about the second part.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  49. JDHuffman says:

    Temperatures are not “conserved”. That’s just another fact of the relevant physics that clowns have to avoid.

    A couple of simple examples to explain the basic physics:

    ***A bathtub contains 50 liters of water, at a temperature of 30 &deg:C. Adding one more liter of water, also at 30 °C, does not raise the temperature of the tub. Energy has been added to the tub, but the temperature does not go up.

    If you add a liter of water at 10 °C, the average temperature of the tub will decrease. Energy has been added to the tub, but it results in a temperature decrease.

    ***A surface has an average temperature of “T”. The average vibrational frequency of the molecules in the surface is “F”. If the surface absorbs a photon with frequency “F”, the surface temperature will not increase. Energy has been added to the surface, but the temperature did not increase.

    If the surface absorbs a photon with a vibrational frequency below “F”, then the average temperature of the surface will decrease. The surface absorbed more energy, but its temperature dropped.

    The only photon that will increase the surface temperature is a photo with frequency above the average of the surface.

    The above examples explain why ice cannot boil water, even if you have a whole lot of ice.

    Of course, the examples also explain why atmospheric CO2 cannot warm the surface, even if you have a whole lot of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    • Svante says:

      You forgot to add the scientific link to this new ‘F’ theory.

    • Nate says:

      “temperature does not go up.

      If you add a liter of water at 10 °C, the average temperature of the tub will decrease. Energy has been added to the tub, but it results in a temperature decrease.”

      JD, Seriously? You really dont see the difference between adding energy by adding mass, and adding energy by adding energy?

      Different problem, different outcome.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Nate, seriously? You were not able to understand the simple examples?

        The first one is easy to understand even if people have never heard of photons, like Svante’s leader with the funny hat. The second example deals with only adding energy to the system.

        Two examples, same outcomes.

      • Norman says:

        Nate

        I have already explained all this to the troll. It does not matter what you say, how logical it is, how correct the science is. Nothing will stop him (them) from trolling unless you ignore them. There goal is NOT to understand anything, debate rational issues, or learn. It is to provoke and annoy and get some form of reaction. You can spend hours thinking this group of trolls will change. They will not, they are not able to. They will just troll. Observe how the troll interacts with others. It is generally the same.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Norman, there may be some that don’t know what “trolling” means.

          Thanks for setting such a great example.

        • Svante says:

          I learnt a lot from your posts Norman, so it wasn’t a complete waste. JD has learnt me a lot about trolling.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes Svante, I see more and more similarity between you and Norman. You definitely have the false accusations, misrepresentations, and pseudoscience down pat.

            But, you could work more on your rambling….

        • bdgwx says:

          This is called the backfire effect. The more evidence you present against the contrarian argument the more the contrarian will dig their heels in.

          I’ll ditto Svante’s comment. I have learned a lot over the years in monitoring forums and blogs like this. This goes for your posts, Svante’s, bobdroege, barry, swanson, etc. on this blog as well. And yes, I extend that comment to Dr. Spencer himself. And the more I learn the more I realize how much more there is still to be learned.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Adherents to a false religion will not change their beliefs on a blog, especially if they are hiding behind a screen name.

            Their agenda is more important to them than truth or reality.

        • Nate says:

          Norman,

          Of course you are right.

      • Nate says: