News reporting of the recent heat wave in France and other European countries was accompanied with the usual blame on humans for causing the event. For example, here’s the CBS News headline: Record-breaking heat is scorching France. Experts say climate change is to blame.
While it is possible that the human component of recent warming might have made the heat wave slightly worse, there are three facts the media routinely ignore when reporting on such “record hot” events. If these facts were to be mentioned, few people with the ability to think for themselves would conclude that our greenhouse gas emissions had much of an impact.
1. Record High Temperatures Occur Even Without Global Warming
The time period covered by reliable thermometer records is relatively short, even in Europe. Due to the chaotic nature of weather, record high and record low temperatures can be expected to occur from time to time, even with no long-term warming trend.
The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time? At least in the U.S., the answer is ‘no’, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased (see Fig. 5 here). One would need to study the data for Europe to see if the number of record highs is increasing over time.
Then, even if they are increasing, one needs to determine the cause. Most of the warming since the Little Ice Age (up to about 1900) occurred before greenhouse gases could be blamed. We have no temperature measurements during the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago. How hot were some of the summer days back then? No one knows. Weather changes, which leads me to my next point.
2. Summer Heat Waves are Weather-Related, and Unusual Cold is Usually Nearby
The recent excessive heat in Europe wasn’t caused by summer air sitting there and cooking in a bath of increased human-emitted carbon dioxide. It was caused by a Saharan Air Layer (SAL) flowing in from that gigantic desert to the south.
This happens from time to time. Here’s what the temperature departures from normal looked like at ~ 5,000 ft. altitude:
The SAL event flowed north from the Sahara Desert to cover western Europe while a cold air mass flowed south over eastern Europe. As evidence of just how large natural weather variations can be, the full range of temperature departures from normal just over this small section of the world spanned 25 deg. C (45 deg. F).
Meanwhile, the global average temperature anomaly for June (from NOAA’s Climate Forecast System, CFSv2 model) at the surface was only +0.3 deg. C (0.5 deg. F), and even for one day (July 1, 2019, from WeatherBell.com) remains at +0.3 deg. C.
Do you see the disparity between those two numbers?: weather-related temperature variations of 45 deg. F versus a climate-related global average “warmth” of only 0.5 deg. F.
Here’s what the situation looked like at the surface:
The range in surface air temperature departures from normal was was 32 deg. C (about 58 deg. F), again swamping (by a factor of 100) the global “climate” warmth of only 0.5 deg. F.
Thus, when we talk of new temperature records, we should be looking at normal weather variations first.
3. Most Thermometer Measurements Have Been Spuriously Warmed by the Urban Heat Island Effect
I am thoroughly convinced that the global thermometer record has exaggerated warming trends due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. When natural vegetation is replaced with buildings, pavement, and we add spurious heat sources like air conditioning units, cars, and ice cream trucks, the microclimate around thermometer sites changes.
Many of us experience this on a daily basis as we commute from more rural surroundings to our jobs in more urban settings.
For example, Miami International Airport recently set a new high temperature record of 98 deg. F for the month of May. The thermometer in question is at the west end of the south runway at the airport, at the center of the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale metroplex. Only 120 years ago, virtually no one lived in Miami; in 1896 it had a population of 300.
The UHI effect is so strong and pervasive that it is now included in the GFS weather forecast model, and in the case of Miami’s recent hot spell, we see the metroplex at midnight was nearly 10 deg. F warmer than the rural surroundings:
When a thermometer site has that kind of spurious warming at night, it’s going to produce spuriously warm temperatures during the day (and vice versa).
The most thorough analysis of the UHI effect on U.S. temperature was by Anthony Watts and co-authors, who analyzed the siting of hundreds of thermometers around the U.S. and showed that if only the best (most rural) sited thermometers are used, U.S. warming trends are roughly cut in half. Curiously, they found that the official NOAA-adjusted temperature data (which uses both urban and rural data) has even more warming than if no UHI adjustments were made, leading many of us to conclude that the NOAA UHI adjustment procedure has made the rural data look like urban, rather than the other way around as it should be.
How does this impact the recent record high temperatures in France? There is no question that temperatures were unusually hot, I’m only addressing the reasons why high temperature records are set. I’ve already established that (1) record high temperatures will occur without global warming; (2) weather variations are the primary cause (in this case, an intrusion of Saharan air), and now (3) many thermometer sites have experienced spurious warming.
On this third point, this MeteoFrance page lists the temperature records from the event, and one location (Mont Aigoua) caught my eye because it is a high altitude observatory with little development, on a peak that would be well-ventilated. The previous high temperature record there from 1923 was beat by only 0.5 deg. C.
Some of the other records listed on that page are also from the early 20th Century, which naturally begs the question of how it could have been so hot back then with no anthropogenic greenhouse effect and little urban development.
The bottom line is that record high temperatures occur naturally, with or without climate change, and our ability to identify them has been compromised by spurious warming in most thermometer data which has yet to be properly removed.
Yes, new temperature records would occur in a non changing climate also, but with gradually rising average temperature this happens more often. Hundred year events events become 30 year events and later 10 year events..
I also believe that spurious heat records were more likely to occur in the old days. The sitings were not always carefully chosen, and the equipment more prone to spurious solar heating.
Copenicus climate change service has a good piece on the recent European heat. According to the ERA5 reanalysis is it the hottest June on record in Europe and globally. Is this June the hottest on record in the TLT layer as well?
https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june
Olof,
I think you are correct about spurious heat records in the old days, although I’m not sure they were more likely in the past because there are many more monitors now. Thus, even if the rate per site was higher in the past, the total number will be much larger now because of the huge number of sites now versus then.
Also, in thinking about frequency of extreme events, it seems to me that if you follow 1,000 widely spread locations around the globe you will see a 1 in 1,000 year event at one location, a 1 in 500 year event at two locations, a 1 in 200 year event at five locations, a 1 in 100 year event at ten locations, a 1 in 50 year event at 20 locations, and a 1 in 20 year event at 50 locations, almost every year. And this includes temperature as well as precipitation extremes. Consequently, very extreme events should happen somewhere around the globe every year and this is perfectly normal. To statistically determine a trend in extreme events with good confidence could take many decades with many well sited monitors.
Olof, this June was 2nd warmest globally in UAH TLT, behind 1998.
BUT in the U.S., May/June 2019 was the 4th coldest of the last 41 years.
1) Your claim about increasing number of high temperature records, I already showed that it’s not true for the U.S. Has a similar analysis been done for Europe? (and have the data been adjusted for UHI?)
2) Your claim about spurious warming in old temperature data is just an assertion, while I pointed you to actual observational evidence of spurious warming in modern temperature measurements due to UHI.
3) Your claim about “hottest” June on record is qualitative…I’ve already addressed the *quantitative* value, which is tiny compared to weather variations such as a Saharan Air Layer intrusion, as happened in France. Here’s the June map from CFSv2 showing the wide range of positive and negative anomalies from around the world: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_062019.png . Furthermore, it’s not obvious that any of the reanalyses (or operational global analyses) have corrections for the urban heat island effect over time.
You seem to have ignored the main points of my post which makes me wonder whether you actually read it.
Roy, you will have to do more than claim that US days over 100 or 105 have not changed. Meehl et al. (2009) found that currently, about twice as many high temperature records are being set as low temperature records over the conterminous U.S. (lower 48 states) as a whole.
Meehl, G.A., C. Tebaldi, G. Walton, D. Easterling, and L. McDaniel, 2009: Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L23701, doi:10.1029/2009GL040736.
“In the United States, the most recent decade (2000-2010) was the nations warmest on record. Record-breaking high temperatures are now outnumbering record lows by an average decadal ratio of 2:1. Record highs are occurring more often than record lows due to climate change.”
In a stable climate, the ratio of new record highs to new record lows is approximately even. However in our warming climate, record highs have begun to outpace record lows, with the imbalance growing for the past three decades. This trend is one of the clearest signals of climate change that we experience directly.”
https://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps
Dr Myki believes in the unicorn of stable climate when we live in a world of ever changing climate.
Are you so naive you believe that there is the same attention to events that oppose climate alarmism as to events that support the narrative.
My guess is that you do not have an open mind that would allow you to spend time on the climate realist sites to learn what is and what is not going on.
Since you are a true believer I would like your take on since the entire theory that CO2 effects the temperature is based on the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels in ice cores. The theory is based on the premise that CO2 leads the temperature. The ice core data ALL say CO2 lags temperature by 300 to 500 years.
Why do you believe in the hoax, except that the sources you trust are playing you for a gullible fool. Try real science sites!
Start with “watts up with that” and from there you will find links to other science sites.
Your entire belief is based on appeals to authority and has nothing to do with science.
In science you pay scientists to prove your theory wrong and if no one can, it is considered science. In climate change , like all propaganda, you pay scientists to prove your theory right.
Lastly issues of science do not fall along political lines.
You may have a Phd, but you clearly have not put on your thinking cap on this subject.
Have you though about when the halcyon warming we are in will end??? We are 12,000 years into the current warming period. previous warmings historically have lasted an average of only 10,000 years.
Look at a chart of the last 1.8 million years and consider what you see.
Dr. Myki
Quack, quack !
The 1930’s were the warmest U.S. decade.
That’s why so many states set all-time heat records in the 1930s and only two, of 50, set all-time heat records in your beloved 2000 – 2010 decade, to 2009
NASA-GISS didn’t like the hot 1930’s , so arbitrarily changed the historical data.
By the time they finish adjustin’, and re-adjustin’ and re-re-adjustin”, the 1930s will have changed from the “Dust Bowl”, to the “Snow Bowl”.
That’s science fraud, but common for the climate change cult (people like yourself)
Here’s a link to US state temperature extreme records.
Where are all the heat records in the 2000 to 2010 decade ?
In your imagination, Doc (say hi to your horse patient for me).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
Richard Ferris says:
July 5, 2019 at 4:39 PM
“…the entire theory that CO2 effects the temperature is based on the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels in ice cores.”
_________________________________________
You are wrong informed by your “realist” sites.
Greenhouseeffect isnt based on any observed correlation.
It was known long before Global Warming started, and long before any data fom icecores did exist.
Its based on wellknown laws of physics.
“Its based on well known laws of physics.”
The laws of physics allow it, but there are countervailing influences. Radiative exchange is not the only factor that establishes surface temperatures.
RG said…”By the time they finish adjustin, and re-adjustin and re-re-adjustin, the 1930s will have changed from the Dust Bowl, to the Snow Bowl.”
Umm…what? No. That’s not even remotely close to being correct. GISS adjusted the 1930’s data alright. The net effect of global adjustments to the raw data made the 1930’s WARMER; not cooler. Their adjustments are in the public domain. You are free to review them. If you still think they are flawed then you’re going to have to live with the fact that the warming since the 1930’s is even more pronounced than their official statements.
bdgwx says: “Umm…what? No. That’s not even remotely close to being correct. GISS adjusted the 1930’s data alright. The net effect of global adjustments to the raw data made the 1930’s WARMER; not cooler. Their adjustments are in the public domain. You are free to review them. If you still think they are flawed then you’re going to have to live with the fact that the warming since the 1930’s is even more pronounced than their official statements.”
Ummm sort of depends upon which round of adjustments you are looking for for which record. With the pause and all there was a need to reduce early 20th century warming so it didn’t continue to match the recent warming. Each adjustment has a targeted need that arises out of observations. Observations obviously have to be in accordance with settled science. . . .no?
Bill, you’re arguing that the adjustments are done to satisfy an agenda instead of making the dataset more correct. Let’s ignore the obvious hint of conspiracy think here for a moment…the indictment that it is agenda based isn’t even true. If you disagree with any adjustment made then point it out, describe how it is wrong, and describe how you would do it better.
bdgwx says: Bill, youre arguing that the adjustments are done to satisfy an agenda instead of making the dataset more correct.
———–
Largely a strawman you are erecting there bdgwx. I think agendas and personal biases are in everything.
The best way to avoid having agendas and biases screw the system up is to avoid having monopolist/socialist-like biases and agendas amplify specific biases and agendas. World wide monopolist/socialistic agendas and biases have far more effect than they have here in the US. |And that is a very good thing. But its eroding away under the weight of growing government and the concentration of funding power with the most powerful. Certainly the private sector is capable of monopoly power also and explains why we have anti-trust laws.
bdgwx says: Lets ignore the obvious hint of conspiracy think here for a momentthe indictment that it is agenda based isnt even true. If you disagree with any adjustment made then point it out, describe how it is wrong, and describe how you would do it better.
——-
LOL! Yea nothing going on here folks just move along. The naivete soup here is so thick you have to cut it with a knife.
bdgwx says: – Bill, youre arguing that the adjustments are done to satisfy an agenda instead of making the dataset more correct. Lets ignore the obvious hint of conspiracy think here for a momentthe indictment that it is agenda based isnt even true. If you disagree with any adjustment made then point it out, describe how it is wrong, and describe how you would do it better.
————
I thought your comment was so far off target it deserved more comment.
I have not hinted at conspiracy (except in the case of climategate which is a longterm temperature proxy). There may be more conspiracies but I am not hinting at that in any way shape or form.
I am making on simple point. Kevin Trenberth a man of great influence on the receipt of funding for climate change work declared that it must be the temperature records were wrong when he talked about the travesty of the pause. Not for one second do I believe that Kevin Trenberth believes anything different.
Further, I believe Kevin Trenberth might be right. However, I see that as an improbability. Additionally, the climate models have been annoited as settled science using well established physics calculations to estimate the effect of emissions on climate. I not for one second believe that Trenberth does not believe that. And I am certain its not true, but I can see why somebody might think it is as the concept has a certain intuitiveness to it. But intuitive use of physics isn’t always appropriate. But I am sure Trenberth believes it is.
So is it a conspiracy to dangle money like a fisherman with an anchovy on a hook in front of scientists willing to tackle the morass that the temperature record is? Gee, NO! That is done everyday for every science grant program out there. Its the life blood of capitalism and even relied upon in socialism except in socialism it isn’t always money that’s offered.
Did the respondees commit fraud? I don’t believe that for one second either.
So here you are climate models are screaming the temperature record is too cold or whatever, too hot in the early 20th century when there were few emissions or whatever. Somebody takes the grant and bias is ensured because the researcher is going to favor all adjustments he can find that fixes this discrepancy and kind of pooh pooh as unlikely (like I am doing to their choices for action or the opposite of what your doing in support of their choices) We can look at this from a thousand angles. Bias is guaranteed. . . .but bias is just intuition! And if the intuition about the models is correct its likely the intuition about the temperature record is too.
And dang its all been annoited as settled science and the best science available so for not one second does anybody think they are doing anything wrong. . . .and they aren’t! they are just biased. . . .a perfectly normal human condition.
Dr Myki
I hope you are better at being a doctor than you are at being a climate scientist !
.
.
.
— Only 1 US state temperature heat record was set after 1995, but 6 US state cold records were set after 1995 (my source data was from Wikipedia, earlier in 2019)
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/us-state-temperature-records-only-1.html
.
.
.
— Not one continent has set an all-time heat record since 1977
(my source data was from 2012 — maybe something has changed since then?)
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/continent-heat-records.html
huh?
Did you read the published articles I cited? No.
Can you refute their conclusions? No
Do you ever question the reliability of anonymous blog posts? No
Sorry. That is why I am a Dr and you are not.
Dr. Myki:
I will assume from your nasty bedside manner, that you are a specialist, most likely a horse podiatrist.
.
The United States in 2019, January through June, had the coldest and wettest january through June on record.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/07/2019-had-coldest-and-wettest-us-january.html
.
.
.
,
Repeating data from my prior comment that you ignored, like the quack you are:
(1)
Since 1995 there were 7 US state temperature records set:
6 states set cold records
Only 1 state set a heat record
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/us-state-temperature-records-only-1.html
Dr. Myki,
The reason you are a Dr. is, assuming you truly are one, is because you did as you were told and, additionally studied, relatively hard, for a period of time. At the end of that time you were awarded a certificate telling you what a good boy you were.
No more, no less.
Since then is what matters to the rest of the world.
RG, Still no published studies I can look up.
Just “blogspots”.
Try harder.
LG,thanks for your comment but my PhD was based on research – not rote learning.
Myki, please stop trolling.
Well, I just said that temperature records will be more likely when the average temperature increases.
And the experts in the field try to estimate how much more likely:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/human-contribution-to-record-breaking-june-2019-heatwave-in-france/
UHI is a part of the anthropogenic global warming, but UHI affected temperature readings should of course not be allowed to affect rural areas where UHI isn’t present, when contructing regional or global averages.
I would take that Watts study with a pinch of salt, it’s not peer-reviewed and based on “secret” stations. On the other hand, the Berkeley Earth team has demonstrated that the UHI effect is slightly negative since the 1950ies. Also, the CONUS temperature trend (since 2005) reported by the “rural” USCRN network is 0.12 C/decade higher than that of the big adjusted mixed rural/urban ClimDiv network.
ERA5, if any reanalysis, it is the most modern, should have spatial info on urbanisation. It also ingests satellite IR readings of the surface.
Anyway, I suggest that the effect of urbanisation on tmax should be studied using airborne high resolution thermography (flewn in the hottest summer afternoons of course).
Mr Olof said:
“UHI is a part of the anthropogenic global warming, but UHI affected temperature readings should of course not be allowed to affect rural areas where UHI isnt present, when contructing regional or global averages.”
Actually, the greatest UHI effect is when rural weather stations become less rural.
.
.
.
The NASA (alleged) adjustment for UHI is tiny and and their methodology makes no sense.
UHI may be small globally, but the way NASA-GISS handles UHI makes me concerned about the integrity of EVERYTHING they do and say.
My article on the subject is here:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/urbanization-bias-adjustments-are-tiny.html
The effect of GISS UHI adjustment is tiny because the homogenisation of GHCN has already removed most of it.
Please read an experts take on UHI (a twitter reply to Dr Spencers post)
https://mobile.twitter.com/hausfath/status/1146450263395319808?s=21
You will maybe also be surprised by the fact that the USCRN trend is significantly higher than that of ClimDiv (by about 0.12 C/decade)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3pQojzXsAAJInx.png
Olof
Homogenization does not remove UHI — it just spreads the errors to neighboring stations, making them less accurate.
USCRN has had a flat trend since 2005.
You ought to find some “experts” who know what they are talking about.
.
.
.
.
.
By the way, did you know that USHCN data are 61% wild guesses, rather than actual temperature measurements ?
And the US is considered to have the BEST surface weather station network in the world ?
This is not real climate science — surface temperature numbers are science fraud:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-us-surface-temperature-record-ushcn.html
Richard, I have friendly request. Can you post the references you are using at the bottom your blog entries that way we can review them?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
It is important to remember that an increasing GHE is not supposed to be associated with higher highs so much as higher lows.
But even your graph shows a slowly warming earth…it makes complete logical sense that if the bell curve shifts to the right, then you WILL expect more,hotter heatwaves… the heatwave in France is just an example of this.
probably true. but cold snaps are far more deadly than heatwaves.
Ice core studies identified mild, harmless climate cycles of warming followed by cooling.
The cause of those cycles is unknown, and doesn’t even matter, because they are harmless.
There has been a mild intermittent warming cycle since the late 1600s.
Compilations of real-time global average temperatures started DURING that warming cycle.
With all global average compilations made DURING a warming cycle, we should EXPECT frequent “record highs” until the warming cycle ends, and a cooling cycle begins.
There is no logical reason to get excited about record highs — when we stop having them, that might be the tine to get excited — because that will mean we are in a cooling cycle, and people will soon realize that a warming cycle is more pleasant than a cooling cycle.
In the junk science of climate alarmism, any excuse to wave one’s arms and declare the world is coming to an end, is good enough.
Record heat in France = headlines everywhere ! … but … Several old newspapers list hotter French temperatures in 1930 and 1773:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-june-28-2019-french-heat-record-is.html
.
.
.
A lot of snow in Colorado in the second half of June — never mind that — that’s not important — just move on:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/07/lots-of-colorado-snow-last-week-in-june.html
Look at the location of the heatwaves and the location of cold snaps, then overlay the northern jet streams and it makes perfect sense. But it is the way the jet streams are now behaving that is the pertinent question. Why are temperatures in the arctic regions rising so much, despite being remote and not being significantly affected by urban heat mass? By itself, it makes no sense, however in a world of warming ocean currents, it makes complete sense.
Blaz says: Look at the location of the heatwaves and the location of cold snaps, then overlay the northern jet streams and it makes perfect sense. But it is the way the jet streams are now behaving that is the pertinent question. Why are temperatures in the arctic regions rising so much, despite being remote and not being significantly affected by urban heat mass? By itself, it makes no sense, however in a world of warming ocean currents, it makes complete sense.
————–
Ice comes and goes. At the peak of the Holocene its estimated that for a few thousand years there was no summer ice in the arctic. Beaches on the northshore of Greenland testify to the fact they were formed by large wave action that tells that the arctic was clear of ice clear to the north pole.
Even in the 20th century the NW passage opened twice for Amundsen then Larsen then closed again until 2007.
Ice is like insulation for the arctic. Strip it off the ocean top and the warm currents which used to run under the ice and cooled only by ice at about 0 degrees centigrade becomes exposed to climate dropping way below zero creating annual refreezes far and away larger than when the sea is covered with ice. All this ice freezing squeezes briny water out of the saltwater in converting it to freshwater ice. This saline heavy and very cold brines sink to the bottom of the ocean often creating massive columns of frozen ice rising from the sea floor. This cold brine feeds the global thermohaline currents so as warming occurs at the surface the bottom of the ocean starts cooling and none of this activity can be estimated in size because of processes like frazil ice can create areas in the arctic that are like little ice factories because of the loss of ocean ice cover. And of course the air temperature goes up significantly often spiking arctic-wide temperatures from lows around -30 to -40 up 10C or more. A normal process even with ice but more massive when ice is stripped away. This heat rising out of the once insulated ocean currents in the process warm the frigid arctic airs as ice forms in clumps and brines sink to the bottom.
So what you are likely observing the most of rising arctic surface temperatures is the heat being extracted from ice in the freezing process and instead of just being relatively normal warming like the rest of the globe there is just a lot more of it.
These processes have always gone on and will likely continue even in the presence of general warming trends from whatever source. The last time the ice opened up like this was in the 30’s and 40′. Before that little history is written but it was open some time after the failed British expeditions of the 1870’s and the time when Amundsen made his transit. And of course the British expeditions were no doubt driven by aboriginal word of mouth of previous periods when the passage was open or how else would they have thought it to be there?
No, you cannot know if the frequency of events has increased unless you have a very long record. Two “hundred year” events can occur in two years but that tells you nothing. And if old records are not reliable how do we know what are 100 year events anyway?
As for this June in Europe, the average is high simply because of weather patterns. The heat is air from North Africa. And either side of the record heat are areas of cold way below average – it’s far easier to produce record heat in a small area than record cold in larger areas, just because of physics.
‘Most of the warming since the Little Ice Age (up to about 1900) occurred before greenhouse gases could be blamed.’
That is not obvious. How do we know that?
Ive never heard of the LIA extending to 1900. And most of the warming in all the surface records has been SINCE 1900.
Nate,
If I look at Wikipedia’s graph for temperature in reference to LIA, it seems the coldest was ~1600-1700. I believe Roy was probably saying something to the effect:
– ‘since the LIA’, there was natural warming up to ~1900 as human effects would have been small (but the LIA ended well before that…)
– after ~1900, human effects were larger and at least a portion of the warming ‘could be blamed’ on greenhouse gases.
However, at least Wikipedia blames a cold spell ending around 1850 on the end of LIA…
Barry
Yes, so todays warming relative to periods just before and after LIA seems to be ~ 1.0C. The LIA min relative to these periods seems to be 0.5 C at most.
The warming after the LIA thus appears to be larger than the LIA recovery.
Nate,
Unfortunately, before some point (well after any ‘minima’ from LIA) we don’t have real temperature measurements, only proxy data (ice cores I guess, although I gather there are historical accounts indicating it was much colder). So, we don’t really know how much ‘natural’ warming occurred since then (or even up until human effects ‘started’).
The big question is how much of today’s warming is ‘natural’?
I’m sure humans are having an effect (in more ways than just CO2 levels…).
I’m also reasonably sure there is a ‘natural’ component (unlikely the ‘natural’ warming ceased right when any human effects commenced).
As I think Roy has pointed out, when you assume all the warming in the temperature record is due to CO2, the models will undoubtedly over-predict the forcing effect of CO2 and then over-predict the expected warming when extrapolating into the future…
Barry
Based on the stuff I’ve read the consensus does seem to be that pre-1900 warming was mostly natural, from 1900-1950 the anthroprogenic factor began ramping up, and post-1950 most of the warming is anthroprogenic. I think the standard 1951-1980 baseline makes for a reasonable approximation of the point where the anthroprogenic factor began in earnest. So yeah, about 1.0C of anthroprogenic warming sounds about right.
It is all natural.
Stephen P Anderson says: “It is all natural.”
I disagree. I think there is some room for anthropogenic warming from 1) deforestation; 2) UHI; 3) Emissions. Add them all up and they make a sizable contribution to the long term trend of about half a degree per century mingled in there with a slight amount of warming still occurring from the LIA recovery.
I have too much skepticism to buy into temperature record adjustments where problems with the record was so uniformly period centered over exactly the warming alarmed scientists couldn’t explain. Its like they repealed prohibition, the climate station managers all got drunk, and they replaced them all in the same decade. . . .either that or sobered them up. Just kidding of course, but its like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear at best. All in all it results in the perception that rather than solving climate dilemmas we are handwaving the problems away for the sake of politics. Its quite amazing that everything has changed since the 1970’s except the Charney Report which hasn’t budged an inch when the first models were constructed by James Hansen. But thats politics for you in a nutshell.
Bill,
Your guess is as good as mine.
everybody is guessing on this one. even the modeling groups are all over the place like a soup sandwich. The only reason they lean a particular direction is the cherry picking for funding that weeded out groups that didn’t drink the koolaid.
bdgwx, the anthropogenic contribution the current warming is more than all of it, more than twice your number.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28419-5
It is difficult to believe that warming attributed to all natural causes ceased in a short time period of a few decades to be replaced by all anthropogenic warming. The specific question would be: why did natural warming stop?
Not saying natural stopped. It is needed to explain 20th century record.
You need to consider all physical processes, both naturally and anthroprogenically modulated, to explain climate trends. These processes wax and wane in magnitude. It’s the net effect of all of them considered together that matters.
Nate, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
At least 3/4 of the +2 degrees C. warming since the 1690s could not have been caused by CO2 — happened before 1940.
Based on 1690s temperatures in Central England only ( real time temperature records not available from elsewhere ).
If you data mine, and start with the coldest year in the late 1600s. there has been +3 degrees C. warming in Central England, not +2 degrees C.
There is no scientific proof that any warming on our planet was ever caused by man made CO2.
That is a theory — an assumption based on simple closed system water vapor free lab spectroscopy experiments — not a proven fact.
All climate changes in the past 150 years could have had 100% natural causes.
There is no justification for claiming “over half” of the warming since 1950 is man made — that IPCC claim is science fraud.
records
‘If you data mine, and start with the coldest year in the late 1600s. there has been +3 degrees C. warming in Central England,’
Which is a thoroughly pointless activity.
Nasty Nate is bbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccckkkkkkkkk,
If the Central England temperature is up +3 degrees since the coldest period in the late 1600’s, that means we have experience with a large amount of global warming, and guess what, nasty Nate, the people of Central England would never want to go back to the cold times during the Maunder Minimum in the last 1800’s.
So when I hear the climate alarmists bellowing about +2 degrees C., or +1.5 degrees C., I just start laughing at the fools — we’ve already had experience with +2 degrees C., and it was 100% good news. In fact all the global warming in the past 300 years was good news.
Only FUTURE global warming is said to be 100% bad news, by the climate scaremongers like you, with your scary climate campfire fairy tales.
Have a nice day.
“Maunder Minimum in the last 1800s.”
should have been typed as “Maunder Minimum in the late 1600’s”
I was so excited Nasty Nate was back.
Richard,
Already addressed your cherry picking in CET with you last month.
Climate average for any location is determined by a 30 y average, not a single year downward spike.
A single site is interesting to look at, but not for drawing any conclusion about global or even continental temperature.
You know better.
Nasty Nate
The ONLY real time temperature data for the 1600s is from ENGLAND.
Climate proxies are not accurate enough for one two degree changes
Real people in England experienced real global warming.
Completely unlike the imaginary future global warming that climate alarmists like you love to dream about !
The +3 degrees C. looks at the coldest year in the late 1600s
The +2 degrees C. considers a 30 year average.
Well actually the IPCC claims 95% confidence that at least half of the warming since 1950 is anthroprogenic. Their best estimate though is nearly 100%; just with less confidence.
The IPCC wild guess is a steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products.
The correct answer is “no one knows what percentage of warming was natural”
For 4.5 billion years, 100% of climate change was natural.
It is the job of climate alarmists to prove modern warming is NOT from natural causes, and they have failed miserably at doing that.
The 95% confidence used by the IPCC is meaningless — it is just an opinion — the scientists took some kind of a vote, and came up with 95% off the top of their heads, or from two feet lower !
A 95% confidence level can have an important meaning in math and science.
The IPCC use of “95% confidence” is totally meaningless.
And they should be ashamed of themselves for the con job. .
Richard GreeneNewDeal says:
The IPCC wild guess is a steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products.
It can be modeled and thus calculated. The calculation is certainly in the ballpark (it won’t and doesn’t have to be perfect)
Reply to Mr. Apple’s comment below:
Models do not produce data.
They produce whatever numbers the computer programmers tell them.
There is no way to know what percentage of warming since 1940 was natural and what percentage was man made.
Guesses and models do not create truth.
If you really have a PhD, you should return it, Mr. Apple.
You’ve just made the “steaming pile” higher.
Since the UN IPCC will not look into natural warming how would they know.
Remember the IPCC is an ad agency who’s charter spells out it’s mission.
The mission of the IPCC is to PROMOTE the UN treaty on climate!
Their is nothing in their mission statement that says do actual science, NO , they are to PROMOTE the climate change treaty period.
Why believe these frauds?
Curious, try reading ” the teenager who thought he was the worlds foremost climate expert” if you want to understand what goes on at hoax central.
Yep, it is not gullible to believe that warming that was 100% natural has suddenly changed to 100% man-made.
The IPCC already considers all physical processes both naturally and anthroprogenically modulated. Read the AR5 Physical Science Basis report for information about what is considered.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Lets look at the 30 y averages in the CET record, shall we?
Downloaded from here:
https://tinyurl.com/y23brkj7
the minimum 30 y av was 8.49 C in 1672-1701.
The average of the whole series was 9.24 C
The maximum 30 y av was 10.25 C, the LAST ONE 1989-2018.
So the coldest 30 y period was 0.75 below the average.
The warmest, today, was 1.01 C above average.
From 1750-1900 the 30 y average never exceeded 9.31, almost 1 C below the current 30 y average
Do you understand what the debate is about??
No one says we are not at the end of the current halcyon period.
No one says it has not warmed…..although whether it still warming and how much more it will warm is in question.
How is this relevant to IF CO2 and human activities are the cause????
It was warmer 6000 years ago, why does that fact not sink in??
It would be better , right now, to be 2 degrees warmer, than 2 degrees colder!!!! Do you disagree??
Why the concern about the good positive warming???? Why did what was good since the beginning of human existence suddenly become bad.
Can you point all of us lost souls to the debates about my questions as most of us missed them
“It would be better , right now, to be 2 degrees warmer, than 2 degrees colder!!!! Do you disagree??t would be better , right now, to be 2 degrees warmer, than 2 degrees colder!!!! Do you disagree??”
Those are not the choices, so strawman.
Its not going to be 2C colder no matter what we do next.
Why do think that you know what a 2C warmer world would be like, and that it would be better, for most people?
Far too many numbers for you to handle Nasty Nate.
I have the same data.
I said there was +2 degrees warming since the late 1600s,
and +3 degrees C. from the coldest year in the 1690s’
in Central England.
.
.
.
+2 degrees C. calculation:
The minimum 30 year average was 8.49 C in 1672-1701.
The maximum 30 year average was 10.25 C, the LAST ONE 1989-2018.
Maximum minus minimum = 1.76 degrees C. ( I rounded that to +2 degrees )
.
.
.
+3 degrees C. calculation:
Minimum year was 1695 at 7.29 degrees C. average
The year 2018 was 10.68 degrees C. average
2018 minus 1695 = 3.39 degrees C. ( I rounded that to +3 degrees C. )
A child could understand the math.
Find a child to explain it to you Nate !
“A child could understand the math.
Find a child to explain it to you Nate !”
Didnt say it was wrong, I said it was pointless cherry picking to measure from coldest year, dufus.
You also forgot that warmest 30 y period 1750 -1900 was ~1.0 C below current one.
Your “3/4 of warming since 1690s” natural is DOA.
Nasty Nate
There was not enough change in CO2 levels before 1940 to account for much, if any, of the warming before 1940.
I estimate that warming as at least +2 degrees C. based on central England real-time temperature data — +1.4 degrees C. before 1940, and +0.6 degrees C. after 1940.
I’ll assume 10% of the warming before 1940 was caused by man made CO2, and 50% of the warming after 1940 was caused by man made CO2, with no scientific proof any of the warming was caused by man made CO2
10% of +1.4 degrees C. is +0.14 degrees C.
50% of +0.6 degrees C. is +0.30 degrees C.
That adds up to +0.44 degrees C. warming attributable to man made CO2, of the total estimated warming since the 1690s, based on my logical estimate.
+0.44 degrees C. of +2.0 degrees C. = 22%
I rounded the 22% up to 25% for my claim that three quarters of the total warming since the 1690s (in central England) was likely to have natural causes.
Nate, I typed this really slow so even YOU could understand it, but maybe you’d better go find that local child, and pay him a few dollars, to explain this to you.
No one with sense could attribute a majority of the warming since the 1690s Maunder Minimum period in the Little Ice Age to man made CO2 … well, maybe you could.
Nate you yourself said there was a pre-industrial warming of .75 degrees and a post industrial warming of 1 degree. Considering AGW was for all practical purposes nil, that saddles the industrial age with .25 degree warming.
I personally think its maybe a bit more than that like half a degree over 150 years. . . .a combination of UHI, deforestation, and emissions. . . probably split up fairly evenly with maybe a bit more added into the tail as deforestation seems to be somewhat mitigated by an unprecedented greening of the planet in recent years as the huge acceleration in carbon emissions has spurred a green revolution in just the most recent decades.
One has to allow for an as yet sizeable amount of warming from combined effects not yet realized in the ocean.
RG, I’m okay with 10% prior to WWII. I’m not sure it’s quite that low, but it’s not unreasonable. What I’m not okay with is 50% after WWII. I think it’s likely to be much higher than that; possibly near 100%. The reason is that the net effect of all naturally modulated processes post-WWII is believed to produce a slight negative radiative forcing. I will say that I am skeptical of claims that most of the warming since the LIA is anthroprogenic. I just don’t think the numbers are quite there yet. But I do think there is enough confidence to say that most off the warming after WWII is anthroprogenic. This would represent about 0.9C plus the maybe 0.2C prior to WWII brings us to 1.1C. That’s about where I stand unless someone can convince me otherwise.
Bdgwx: “The reason is that the net effect of all naturally modulated processes post-WWII is believed to produce a slight negative radiative forcing.”
This argument has been made for over a decade and based on even thinner evidence than the surface effect of CO2 being responsible for the entire greenhouse effect. (e.g. we don’t even know if the auxilliary effects are positive or negative)
I accept the greenhouse effect and figure total sensitivity at about .4degC per doubling. Interesting analysis above with yet a 5th methodology except not really sure where the percentages came from they seem actually out of line with actual emission history since current emissions are an order of magnitude over 1970 alone.
The arguments for net natural cooling though are almost certainly the wrong sign in total, except in the current ocean/solar cycle.
With both solar and multi-decadal ocean indexes positive until the last decade we may well be crossing int a cooling “net other” category now. But we need to wait a couple decades to gain a clear signal of that if that is true.
We have already seen the scramble toward adjusting the monitoring systems to align them with the “best science available” and we may need a couple of decades to shoot a hole in that balloon. That may not be adequate as its likely there is enough slop in the monitoring systems to keep adjusting them for some time.
If low solar activity and ocean oscillations continue to occur for a couple of decades at least proponents of natural climate change will get as much time as warmists did post the Charney Report to gin up evidence of warming.
Rather than subjecting the entire population to oppression over the fears of a few and those who can be convinced via cash over the barrel (e.g. the chinese government and scientists with power over government funding ala the whatever industrial complex), those with real concerns should act individually to a) cut personal emissions; b) go into survivalist mode. As it stands there are more in survivalist mode today over the threat of overbearing government than global warming and as innocuous as the effects of warming has been I am not expecting that to change soon.
Bill,
‘Nate you yourself said there was a pre-industrial warming of .75 degrees and a post industrial warming of 1 degree.’
You are not following the discussion, which was about 1 site in Central England, which had one 30 y period @ 8.5 C in late 1600s.
From 1750-1900, the 30 y ave stayed between 9.0 and 9.25 C. Then it increased after 1900 until the current 30 y period, which is 10.25 C
“I estimate that warming as at least +2 degrees C. based on central England real-time temperature data +1.4 degrees C. before 1940, and +0.6 degrees C. after 1940.”
Ill assume 10% yada yada”
I dont why we should use Central England as a proxy for the globe.
I don’t know why your estimates and assumptions should be taken seriously.
Nate says: “You are not following the discussion, which was about 1 site in Central England, which had one 30 y period @ 8.5 C in late 1600s. From 1750-1900, the 30 y ave stayed between 9.0 and 9.25 C. Then it increased after 1900 until the current 30 y period, which is 10.25 C”
I’m following it just fine. We had one 30 year period before industrialization where the temperature rose by 3/4’s to 1 degree and one 30 year period most recently after industrialization where temperatures rose by 1 degree to 1 1/4 degrees.
Its a fair conclusion from those facts that industrialization may or may not have contributed to the recent warming.
Bill, like I said to R Greene,
‘I dont why we should use Central England as a proxy for the globe.’
Nasty Nate:
In your July 7 %:22 am comment you called me a “dufus”.
I just wanted you to know the word is spelled “doofus”,in case you ever want to use it again one of your usual scholarly dissertations.
Spelling your insult wrong is considered a violation of internet ethics — Internet Rule 6b — I assume you are a victim of a pubic school edumacation.
Have a nice day.
Nate says: “I dont why we should use Central England as a proxy for the globe. I don’t know why your estimates and assumptions should be taken seriously.”
Why not Nate? At least its a real thermometer in the real world which is one heckuva lot more relevant than a James Hansen climate model being used as the proxy for scientific evidence of Hansen’s AGW warming theory.
Certainly there is room for a lot of doubt in every aspect and corner found in climate science.
I ask why Central England should not be a proxy for the Globe.
Bill says: “Why not?”
I dunno Bill, why not use Pirates?
‘I just wanted you to know the word is spelled ‘doofus’.
Thanks RG. Thats actually a helpful post.
Nate says: “I dunno Bill, why not use Pirates?”
Is Pirates a thermometer that has been around for 320 years or are you just being a jerk?
The point is that there is evidence that temperatures in England do not move in the same direction as the global mean or even the NH mean. In fact, sometimes they move in opposite directions. That’s not to say these observations in England aren’t useful. They definitely are. You just have to consider them in context. That’s all.
bdgwx says: “The point is that there is evidence that temperatures in England do not move in the same direction as the global mean or even the NH mean. In fact, sometimes they move in opposite directions. Thats not to say these observations in England arent useful. They definitely are. You just have to consider them in context. Thats all.”
You are absolutely right bdgwx. But what context do we consider them against? A sacred tree in Siberia? Nate was just being an ignorant jerk replying the way he did.
Im being a jerk for being sarcastic about Bill’s ‘Why not?’ use Central England as a proxy for Global temperature’ which is so silly it cannot possibly have been intended as serious question.
Nate, you are being silly because CET is not alone. It may be a lone thermometer but it is consistent with tons of other information that has been hashed over all the time. Sure a several decade long period in CET could be different than a several decade long period of global mean but its about the best proxy we have. . . .that is unless you are worshipper of that single tree in Siberia the advocates on your side pushed to the front page of an IPCC report.
OMG, it WAS intended as serious question!
Just try looking at different states in the US over last 120 y to see how much regional variation there is.
Here’s Kansas whose 1930s were as warm as today.
https://tinyurl.com/y5jlz7c7
Click on map to choose other states.
Notice eg California and others are much cooler in 1930s than today.
Nate, please stop trolling.
May be corrected into NORTH: “It was caused by a Saharan Air Layer (SAL) flowing in from that gigantic desert to the SOUTH…”
The heat island effect is very real. The effects are felt globally, but are peanuts compared to locally. The local temperature forcing from the heat island effect on weather stations across the globe is the #1 reason to trust Dr Spencer’s data over ground based stations. With every station they add at a new location, there is more opportunity for the false trends to continue.
Don’t ignore this point because it is critical. How else can you explain the flat lined Antarctic trend? Or how about 40 years of southern ocean declines? (HADSST3)
The same people using ice core data from Antarctica to build models that have been 100% wrong, will tell you to ignore data that comes in now. Hilarious.
Re UHI. Cities comprise only 0.2% of the globe by area.
In the last 365 days in the US, record highs have outnumbered record lows by 1.22:1.
https://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps
Last decade the ratio was 2:1.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL040736
David, none of that refutes my point.
Roy,
You very clearly stated that record highs in the US are not increasing over time. Quote:
“The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time? At least in the U.S., the answer is ‘no’, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased”
This is a very sneaky way of wording things. Assuming that the climate isn’t warming, we’d expect roughly equal number of record hot and record cold events. Your point #2 from the article implicitly states this.
David has provided some evidence that record warm events are occurring more frequently than we would expect them to. Rather than commenting on that evidence, you’ve decided to take the route of pedantry and ignore it because it wasn’t “technically” the point you were trying to make.
Shame.
Butts: Yes, thanks.
Roy, in a warming world, the number of high temperature records per year does not need to increase.
In fact, if the world is warming, that number can stay constant. Yet there is still warming.
And thankfully, whether warming or not, the world doesn’t seem to be getting colder.
David Appell,
The heat island effect is not limited to cities. Every time you cut down trees and build a barn it has an effect. Every time you put in a new road there is an effect. The global temperature departures like the ones used on this data set take into account all of this. You are changing the way the earth (all be it slowly) absorbs and releases energy back to space thru deforestation, pouring cement, and even building cars! Some of this energy ends up in the oceans even though it was originally added to the system on land. Once you add more energy to land, it doesn’t just stay there. The more energy you add to land, the more will slowly transfer to the ocean as the winds blow warmer air off the land onto the ocean where it warms the surface. So our heat island effects everything.
What is most troubling is how the IPCC, NOAA, NASA can adjust out the rural data to make this look even worse and nobody except the VERY in tune folks will realize it. Add that to the natural changes in TSI forcing over the last 400 years which the effect of that has also been put into the CO2 category, and you are setting up a MASSIVE surprise for the grand solar minimum.
Scott R says:
What is most troubling is how the IPCC, NOAA, NASA can adjust out the rural data to make this look even worse and nobody except the VERY in tune folks will realize it.
Scott:
Why are the raw data adjusted? Do you know?
PS: Are you aware the adjustments *cool* the long-term warming trend?
Mr. Apple blathers, clueless as usual, or deliberately lying, when he claimed:
“Are you aware the adjustments *cool* the long-term warming trend?”
.
.
.
“The 1940 to 1975 global cooling period has been gradually “adjusted” into no cooling at all, over several decades of shifty government bureaucrat manipulations:
Here’s the full story:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/in-1980-1940s-to-1970s-had-global.html
Berkeley Earth found “no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
That was for anomaly trends, record highs could be another story.
Svante,
That doesn’t even pass the sniff test. Of course there is a heat island effect. I get to experience it every day as I drive home and watch my temperature change. You can download local NOAA NOW data and sum average temperatures to see I’m right if you still don’t believe me.
Yes, but it didn’t affect the trend.
In fact the BEST UHI trend estimate was negative.
By chopping all station records into short snippets of data in the name of “break detection” and then reassembling those snippets to conform to urban-dominated “regional averages,” BEST brashly manufactures long time-histories that suppress vital features of ACTUAL temperature variations, while producing a bogus “trend.” Their expertise is in self-promoting PR, not in geophysics.
A brilliant method, described here:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
Svante, please stop trolling.
The thing that Roy has neglected to mention here is that the UHI study he cited from Anthony Watts is either very poor work or intentionally fraud.
The publication in question fails to adjust for the time of day that a temperature reading was taken at. It’s completely meaningless. For this gross oversight, one of Watts’ coauthors asked to have his name removed from the publication.
It discredits Spencer to rely on such an unreliable source of research as Watts. Anthony literally has kept repeating the same experiment until he got the results he wanted for nearly a decade now.
https://skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html
David Appell says: “So lets see, who should we believe.”
Neither! Unless of course you are a fool. Never believe an expert unless you have an enforceable contract with him. History has born out the precaution time and time again.
Big Butts:
I read the Watts study in 2009 and again recently to write a summary on the tent5h anniversary.
I never considered it to be a study of the UHI effect.
It was a study of weather station siting in the US and it was obvious the goobermint bureaucrats didn’t care much about reasonable siting.
From an outsider’s point of view, all you really see is the weather stations — and if they look like they were placed without regard for proper siting, then there is no reason to t4rust the numbers coming from those bureaucrats.
Three important concerns:
– Weather station coverage — still poor in 2019 — far too much infilling even in the U.S.
– Mix of urban, suburban and rural stations — there are not enough rural stations, especially rural stations with long-term data
— Economic growth and land use changes in the vicinity of a weather station (for all stations, urban, suburban and rural)
I once researched the weather station at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport — the airport originally had about 3 regular flights leaving per day when the weather station was installed — and now has over 200 flights per day — that’s a lot more jet engines spewing heat in the vicinity of a weather station located near runways.
Scott R says:
That doesnt even pass the sniff test.
So let’s see, who should we believe….
Scott R, a random, anonymous blog commenter who provides no evidence whatsoever
or
A team of scientists and data processors, including a Nobel Laureate, who have spent a few years thinking carefully about this problem and doing actual detailed calculations with real data.
Yes, trust the scientists who are paid to produce results that conform to the IPCC’s needs.
Who needs the scientific method of falsification when we have a hoax to promote.
Do you only count Nobel laureates who support alarmism?
Yep, appeal to authority settles all questions of science.
Without loyal gullible dupes where would the hoax be.
Richard Ferris:
Which scientists are paid to agree with the IPCC, and how do you know this?
Who do you think the IPCC is, anyway? They’re the scientists who volunteer to serve on its committees!
BTW, oil company scientists reached the same AGW conclusions in the late 1970s.
David, please stop trolling.
When using the scientific term “sniff test”, Mr. Apple, I assumed Scott R. was referring to your usual pathetic Appeals to Authority, acting as a trained parrot of climate alarmism.
No one gonna answer this?
Richard Ferris:
Which scientists are paid to agree with the IPCC, and how do you know this?
OK, I will answer: David, please stop trolling.
I always found it interesting when I would leave the city and watch the temp gauge in the car drop almost 10 deg F on my way home – only 10 miles away. But in a heavily wooded area.
Lewis guignard,
Exactly. Just yesterday, I witnessed temperatures rise from 67 deg F to 72 deg F as I drove home from a late party yesterday. The commute started about 30 minutes east of Flint, MI. As I approached Flint, the temperature spiked. Then, I turned south down US 23 and watched the temperatures slowly drop 2 degrees even as I drove south. The true test is driving INTO a city at the same elevation along an east-west rout in the evening. There is nothing else that can explain the temperature rise that you see. You can also look at nightly weather reports and see that in general, the cities are warmer.
But people like David Appell want you to disbelieve your eyes and trust corrupt scientists that supposedly know better.
Guys, the point is not that UHI isnt real. It is that the algorithms for finding temperatures at each grid point are dealing with it.
Nate says: “Guys, the point is not that UHI isnt real. It is that the algorithms for finding temperatures at each grid point are dealing with it.”
Exactly! Using “settled science” as determined by climate models to get it right.
Which datasets use climate models to adjust for UHI?
bdgwx says: “Which datasets use climate models to adjust for UHI?”
In the algorithms, do you actually think any well trained scientist is going to ignore settled science?
BH said…”In the algorithms, do you actually think any well trained scientist is going to ignore settled science?”
Yes. That’s why different groups use different techniques and different subsets of available data.
But that doesn’t answer my question. I’m not aware of any dataset that uses NWP/GCM climate models to adjust for UHI. I mean I’m sure they exist. It’s just that I don’t think it’s very common.
Can Bill offer any evidence that climate scientists are doing these nefarious or incompetent things he often assumes they are doing?
bdgwx says:
“Im not aware of any dataset that uses NWP/GCM climate models to adjust for UHI. I mean Im sure they exist. Its just that I dont think its very common.”
About as common as UHI adjustments? come on bdgwx do you have any experience at any of this stuff? Dataset managers often also sponsor climate models, those that don’t are closely associated with such groups and share data. All data adjustments going back more than a year or so in review are provoked either by climate models or by controversy and which ever it is they are going to resort to the tools they have on hand and not reinvent the wheel.
‘Can Bill offer any evidence that climate scientists are doing these nefarious or incompetent things he often assumes they are doing?’
Nope, he just imagines it.
Nate says: Can Bill offer any evidence that climate scientists are doing these nefarious or incompetent things he often assumes they are doing?
Nope, he just imagines it.
—————-
What your post sounds like to me is you have no argument so you have decided to resort to generalized ad hominems. I don’t think I have accused anybody of being nefarious unless they deserved it but to answer your undefended ad hominem you will need to be more specific.
If you can’t do that perhaps you should go back to school and learn something so you can keep up
Bill does not know what ad hom means. I was simply pointing out that your statements about how climate scientists adjust for UHI, is not backed by any evidence.
It just declared, based on your biases.
Ad hom looks like this:
“So you come in here blabbing like an infant spouting stuff you know practically nothing about because you read it somewhere, probably on a blog populated by other ignoramuses.”
could look like an ad hom taken out of context and would be an ad hom without any context like your post
Nope.
The context was you being frustrated by me disageeing with you on meaning of data and logic.
Lewis, Scott:
These guys have looked at the UHI’s impact on global temperature data much more carefully than either of you, and found no effect:
from Berkeley Earth:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Scott R says:
Just yesterday, I witnessed temperatures rise from 67 deg F to 72 deg F as I drove home from a late party yesterday.
Scientifically meaningless. An anecdote no better than party talk.
Bill said…”Dataset managers often also sponsor climate models, those that don’t are closely associated with such groups and share data.”
Sure. Hansen is an example. That doesn’t mean he used a numerical weather prediction model to adjust for the UHI effect in GISTEMP. His methods are in the public domain. They’re posted right there on the GISTEMP website for you to review. I recall him using population, light pollution, etc. for UHI adjustments, but never a NWP model.
Bill said…”All data adjustments going back more than a year or so in review are provoked either by climate models or by controversy and which ever it is they are going to resort to the tools they have on hand and not reinvent the wheel.”
Aside from the hint of conspiracy theory here this isn’t even true. And besides the net effect of all of Hansen’s adjustments is to REDUCE the longterm warming trend relative to the raw data. So if Hansen, Karl, Berkeley Earth, etc. all had an agenda to make the warming look worse than it is then they did a REALLY bad job at it since the adjustments actually worked to make the warming trend less; not more. It defines credulity to think there is some kind of conspiracy going on here.
bdgwx says: “It defines credulity to think there is some kind of conspiracy going on here.”
Come on bdgwx when did I claim a conspiracy? The only conspiracy I have seen was climategate. I have said repeatedly there is no wide conspiracy, yet you remain busy erecting strawmen.
When it comes to credibility, I know a bit about that, having been in a profession that mandates it. Credibility is built on the foundation of independence. And independence means more than independence in fact, it means also independence in appearance.
This is our largest problem as I see it. The civil service was created to end political corruption in the work the government undertakes on behalf of its citizens. To we are rapidly backtracking on that commitment to our citizenry by creating politically appointed panels to do such things as select grantees for government work, panels to issue official government positions like on climate. These are jobs that should be done by an independent civil service. Its fine for the civil service to formulate government positions on matters like climate and to choose outside researchers to complete work assignments subject to final review by the civil service to weed out biased statements and questionable conclusions.
Thus what you had in James Hansen is one hand feeding the other in physical fact and dual loyalty with associations with external institutions seeking public grants. Did he do anything crooked? Probably not, I have said I like Hansen and his forthright honesty even though I don’t agree with his alarmist beliefs. But there is no way to detect that being a fact and there is no way to detect bias in the work product. Bias in particular because a biased honest man will work hard to eliminate his bias but that is a very difficult thing to do in fact. Thats why the standard of independence goes beyond independence in fact and includes independence in appearance. Any sane man realizes that.
svante…”Berkeley Earth found “no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”.”
Are you still quoting that fraud? Judith Curry was a co-author and withdrew her support when Mueller got climate religion and began misinterpreting the results.
Yes, she liked the method but she didn’t like the result.
Judith Curry did not withdrawl her support for the method she signed off on. She abandoned ship when the method she helped develop showed about the same amount of warming as the dozen-plus other datasets that publish a global mean surface temperature.
She didn’t agree to the inevitable conclusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w&t=1m53s
bdgwx, Svante, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says: “Judith Curry did not withdrawl her support for the method she signed off on. She abandoned ship when the method she helped develop showed about the same amount of warming as the dozen-plus other datasets that publish a global mean surface temperature.”
Thats absolutely false.
Dr. Curry has always supported the surface record and still does as far as I know. Her objection was to the conclusion drawn by Muller, that was not part of the paper that the effort had eliminated all uncertainty about the cause of the warming.
People need to be more careful about the conclusions they leap to. Not all skeptics expect using many of the same data bases and gridding concepts as used by other surface records a difference would emerge.
When you really get down to it there isn’t all that much difference between the types of records for anybody to get their panties in a wad about anyway. That is of course unless its extremely important for them to use a record adjusted by the very thing they want it to validate.
Unlike NOAA Argo buoys, surface records, RSS, tidal gauges, and who knows what else; at least UAH isn’t adjusted by the same thing that other folks are likely to want to use it for to test for validity.
Over the decades I have had to deal with bias a lot. Bias is subtle. I have worked with scientists for decades and long ago formed an opinion that most want to get it right but wanting to get it right and getting it right is often waylaid by unconscious bias. Typically when they get up to speak about their work its intentional to exaggerate in support of their work. You even see it a lot in abstracts and conclusions of science papers where the statements may not even be tested in the paper but through a word like “suggests” they totally speculate.
Accountants can’t do that but scientists do it all the time. The difference? The difference is fiduciary responsibility and an accountant can be sued by those claiming the accountants statement provoked action by the plaintiff. You can sue a scientist also but the case will get tossed on the basis of the plaintiff having no standing to sue.
But despite that natural propensity to exaggerate in speech and writings, I find all the scientists I have worked with very much dedicated to science in the area of what they actually specialize in.
Gordon Robertson says:
Judith Curry was a co-author and withdrew her support when Mueller got climate religion and began misinterpreting the results.
So one scientist against several others.
How does that prove Berkeley Earth wrong?
David Appell says: “So one scientist against several others.
How does that prove Berkeley Earth wrong?”
Well its not necessary to prove anything wrong, its the job of those who would like to convince us to do something to prove what they say is right.
When all you have is something written on paper there is no easy way to tell if its science or science fiction.
‘all you have is something written on paper’
you mean like Galileo’s ‘Dialogues concerning two new sciences’. Newtons’s ‘Pricipia’, Darwin’s ‘The origin of species’ and Einstein’s ‘Annus mirabilis” papers?
Many of the major advances in science have been just ‘something written on paper’.
… by “People working in windowless offices” in some cases.
Nate says: “you mean like Galileos Dialogues concerning two new sciences. Newtonss Pricipia, Darwins The origin of species and Einsteins Annus mirabilis papers?”
Yes I mean like that absolutely! Galileo had a heckuva time convincing people that the Copernican theory was the correct one as he also could not rely on experiment to prove his case and folks had become so indoctrinated in their particular point of view that it was an uphill battle all the way. Same thing with the others. The scientists behind the Ptolemy Theory even went so far as to invent machinery to duplicate the strange motions of the heavens as they went around the earth including retrograde motion.
Just thought I would throw that in to specify that there is two sides of the story that scientists like to suggest that the adherents to the Ptolemy Theory weren’t scientists but instead were religious bigots. . . .but thats only a luxury afforded in hindsight.
David Appell says:
“Re UHI. Cities comprise only 0.2% of the globe by area.”
David the percent of the globe area for the cities is only relevant to the satellite record. The UHI error for surface weather station records would be the percent of thermometers affected. If 50% of the thermometers are in UHI influenced areas, that translates to that error affecting half the globe.
If you read Roy’s post more carefully you will note he is talking about thermometers (mentioned all of 10 times) and not satellite sensors.
The BEST paper says 0.5 % of land stations, so that makes 0.2 % of the total.
Its a problematic issue. The thermometer I have on the north side of my house typically registers several degrees warmer during the day than NOAA reports for my area.
Driving around Oregon a few years ago during a heat wave the temperatures when driving on the highway in a forested area were ten or more degrees different than when driving through relatively smaller areas where the trees had been harvested. I am of the mind that there is no way one can have any assurance regarding surface thermometers for trying to measure “mean” climate. Not only are the stations not randomly sited, but every community has one and few forests do, and forests existed before the communities in many locales. .5% sounds crazy low. What did they do? Only count cities with over a 100,000 residents or something like that?
Read the paper and find out.
Which Best paper?
from Berkeley Earth:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
David, please stop trolling.
Svante, I read the paper and found the answer for you. The assumption was a community larger than 50,000.
UHI is an effect I guess discovered by satellites and the surface weather stations are responding to it by studies from windowless offices in academic institutions.
No, “Sensitivity to the definition of very-rural being 0.1 degree distant from an urban area was assessed by repeating the analysis in this section using distances of 10km and 25km. The resulting curves were very similar”.
You’re right about all the hard work in academic institutions.
Svante says:
“No, “Sensitivity to the definition of very-rural being 0.1 degree distant from an urban area was assessed by repeating the analysis in this section using distances of 10km and 25km.”
Svante “urban area” is defined as urban areas with over 50,000 residents. That was the question I asked you and you didn’t know and I found the answer for you.
That’s not the criterion in the BEST paper.
Sorry, I lost track of the question.
It was 0.5% of the area, but 27% of GHCN-M stations are in urban areas of 50000+.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
Svante says: Sorry, I lost track of the question.
It was 0.5% of the area, but 27% of GHCN-M stations are in urban areas of 50000+.
No problem. But why would we limit UHI to only communities of 50k+. I live in a community of about 800 and we have a very large UHI effect. Our community for being in the middle of nature is rather unique regarding its density and the height of homes which surely increases the UHI. But we are too small for an official weather station.
If you lowered the standard to 25K plus the number might rise to 52% (based upon proportions of communities in the US, without regard to whether they have a station). Of 10k plus and coverage would compute to 107% (obviously some of those don’t have weather stations).
Bill Hunter says:
“But why would we limit UHI to only communities of 50k+.”
That was the question I answered before you asked it:
BEST didn’t use that limit, they used “very rural” sites:
“Sensitivity to the definition of very-rural being 0.1 degree distant from an urban area was assessed by repeating the analysis in this section using distances of 10km and 25km. The resulting curves were very similar”.
Svante says: BEST didnt use that limit, they used very rural sites: Sensitivity to the definition of very-rural being 0.1 degree distant from an urban area was assessed by repeating the analysis in this section using distances of 10km and 25km. The resulting curves were very similar.
So very rural is defined as distance from an urban site. Hmmm, what tool can do that? Ah a climate model! Take note bdgwx!
No, the MODIS 500m Global Urban Extent classification map is what did it.
Svante says:
July 9, 2019 at 3:38 PM
No, the MODIS 500m Global Urban Extent classification map is what did it.
So where did the temperatures come from since the Modus map is just a map of urban areas of greater than 50K residents. What did they compare it to? I have heard the USCRN has shown about a tenth degree less that Berkeley over one decade.
The temperatures came from the set 39 thousand stations used by Berkeley Earth. They compared the total to a subset of “very rural” stations according the MODIS 500m grid, and kept well away from any populated areas.
Again, they did not base the comparison on “50K residents”.
Where did you hear about the USCRN-Berkeley discrepancy?
USCRN is high quality and non-urban, and can be used without adjustments. This paper shows that other stations match better after adjustment:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
Svante says: – The temperatures came from the set 39 thousand stations used by Berkeley Earth. They compared the total to a subset of very rural stations according the MODIS 500m grid, and kept well away from any populated areas.
Again, they did not base the comparison on 50K residents.
——
I am just going with the consistency of what you are saying as I haven’t read the BE report. As I understand it they defined “the populated areas” as urban areas with 50k residents.
Then they defined the comparative areas as areas first .1degree away (~11km) then repeated it at 10km and 25km away from that urban area. No where have I heard how they calculated the temperatures at those distances, described what was located at those distances.
So you have not described how the temperature differences were arrrived at nor what they actually compared. Do you know? Or do you just believe it because they came up with a small number?
Bill Hunter says:
“As I understand it they defined ‘the populated areas’ as urban areas with 50k residents.”
Your understanding is wrong.
“No where have I heard how they calculated the temperatures at those distances, described what was located at those distances.”
They used data from weather stations at those locations.
“So you have not described how the temperature differences were arrrived at nor what they actually compared. Do you know? Or do you just believe it because they came up with a small number?”
Why can you not read?
Bill Hunter, here’s more info on the UHI effect by Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth, and Matthew Menne of NOAA:
https://tinyurl.com/d82nww9
Svante says: Bill Hunter, heres more info on the UHI effect by Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth, and Matthew Menne of NOAA:
——-
Svante, I think mankind has a huge influence on climate without even considering emissions. UHI is one, deforestation is another.
I think its erroneous to attempt to measure UHI separate from the deforestation issue. Farmland is probably the biggest offender and its no mystery that farmland is heavy around the entire world and every chance it gets its right next to human populations with farmland occupying every square foot of land not developed into roads, housing subdivisions, or urban areas. In fact investment in undeveloped land is in more demand than areas distant from urban areas because transportation costs of the products are less and farmers are farming lands often simply as a speculative maneuver on expanding suburbs.
Further reference networks can be place out in nature but limitations exist there also both from funding and access. How many sites are on mountain tops? How many sites are in the trees? If what we tend to measure with reference networks are we favoring the same sort of environments as farmland? I have other concerns as well like how we measure the ocean temperatures for our estimates of radiative temperatures. The very top of the ocean surface has a steep cooling gradient because of evaporation during certain times of the day. Its why a splash of even warm water can feel cold instantaneously. I don’t see the basic building blocks of carefully conducted studies compiled into the sort of form that the more casual public can absorb on any of these issues. Instead its all about how the science is settled and moving on to other things.
In the work I do I often get asked for help on an environmental concern. First thing I want to see is the science. I am a believer in the best science available but it does have to at least be comprehensive because the way I can help is in spreading that message on the science.
You see people selling climate change science on the basis of tobacco science. The claim is the cigarette companies knew and covered up the information. Then they claim the same thing for climate science. But its complete BS because nobody seems to have studies that prove climate change causes something bad like cancer.
You say you believe in the best science available.
Science says GHGs cause global warming.
You say it could be this or it could be that.
Why don’t you study the science and find out?
Svante says: You say you believe in the best science available.
——–
Of course I do. Don’t you?
Svante says:
Science says GHGs cause global warming.
You say it could be this or it could be that.
Why don’t you study the science and find out?
———
Science doesn’t talk. Science makes it self completely obvious by observation. So far nothing is obvious about “climate change” and thats even acknowledging that greenhouse gases are necessary for a “radiating surface” greenhouse effect.
I’m glad you agree on the scientific basis.
You cannot conclude much about the globe by looking out of your window. You need global scientific observations, not media anecdotes.
Science speaks through text books and papers, or you can attend a class.
So you agree on the GHE, but you think we can add GHGs with impunity? If you are talking feedbacks you are in the realm of the sensible, like Spencer and Lindzen.
Svante says: You cannot conclude much about the globe by looking out of your window. You need global scientific observations, not media anecdotes.
———
LMAO! Media anecdotes!!!?????!!!! Thats your problem, not mine.
Therein lies the whole problem if you need somebody else to tell you that there is an environmental problem. Peering out your window rather than going outside and enjoying the many pleasures available to you sets you up as the biggest sucker known to man.
That’s where we have gotten to with the “me” generation. We worry about stuff only if it is going to affect us personally on the basis we live forever. Meanwhile, huge real problems go unsolved because of the diversion of huge amounts of money to non-problems.
One has to trust their senses and go out in the world and find real problems they can perceive that needs fixing because there are plenty of them. But no we have no current problems in our own lives so it must be the case there are no current problems except projected problems. . . .all focused on the big “me”.
Svante says:
So you agree on the GHE, but you think we can add GHGs with impunity? If you are talking feedbacks you are in the realm of the sensible, like Spencer and Lindzen.
———-
I think its obvious that when it comes to prefeedback sensitivity there isn’t any hope that it could be more than every single additional calorie that CO2 traps. That’s thrown out there with the most aggressive stance one could possibly take. Its my opinion that any number that is only part of a sum that can be observed by observation is the most difficult one to establish. Additionally CO2’s maximum effect and is the least significant number. Even weaker is the argument for feedbacks. Further feedbacks are poorly defined in the first place and encompass unaccounted for primary effects such as how much additional sunlight CO2 will trap high in the atmosphere. The concept of negative feedbacks easily handles any over estimates in any partial parameter.
So there is little mileage to be gained by going after the first assumption by the alarmists that every single additional calorie trapped by the atmosphere is going to warm the surface.
It’s not a problem for “me”, except I like skating.
I’m concerned about the risk to other people and the risk of collapsing ecosystems.
I want every country to be itself. I guess I’m conservative.
Without feedbacks you have about one degree of warming for a doubling of CO2.
Problem is we are past one degree and nowhere near a doubling.
Svante says: –
1) It’s not a problem for “me”, except I like skating.
OK, I used to skate. . . .here is socal; I don’t today but it has nothing to do with global warming.
2) I’m concerned about the risk to other people and the risk of collapsing ecosystems.
Ecosystems aren’t going to collapse from CO2. Put a lot of poison in an ecosystem and yeah maybe but most likely like a fire that comes through it soon recovers.
3) I want every country to be itself. I guess I’m conservative.
You are working contrary to that idea as a large part of the political agenda push is to breakdown nationalism and move toward world government.
4) Without feedbacks you have about one degree of warming for a doubling of CO2.
Problem is we are past one degree and nowhere near a doubling.
You need to understand that a couple of degrees variation in climate is perfectly normal situation. Look at the oscillations in the ice core chronologies. Temperature vary in a very tight oscillation pattern. The ice core record is a long one so it a little difficult to estimate its period but it appears around 200 to 400 years. Three consecutive grand solar minimums creating the temperature decline in the 2nd millennium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum
The difference now is the speed of change.
Species have no time to adapt, small creatures can not move fast enough, some move up mountains but get stuck at the top, some run out of land mass.
Warmer and drier means increased risk of forest fire, and one day the forest doesn’t recover any more.
To top it off you have global warming’s evil twin, ocean acidification.
Svante says: The difference now is the speed of change.
Species have no time to adapt, small creatures can not move fast enough, some move up mountains but get stuck at the top, some run out of land mass.
Warmer and drier means increased risk of forest fire, and one day the forest doesnt recover any more.
To top it off you have global warmings evil twin, ocean acidification.
———
Wow! You are really inculcated there. Global warming is on a centennial scale. How slow do you think things move? Its ridiculous. About the slowest movers are plants but plants tolerate far greater seasonal changes than is being projected for global warming in 200 years.
And where do you get this drier idea from? More moisture in the air equals more precipitation. In fact thats exactly how scientists measure latent heat input into the system. But having spent a good portion of my life in brush fire areas, I am perfectly aware that brush fires are not caused by drought, they are caused by seasonal changes from wet to dry. The wet is a necessary ingredient for forest fires as you have to grow the vegetation to burn it. Only in climate science can you burn stuff that never grew.
Ah ocean acidification. Another alarmist theory. Is it true? Holy crap they are scaring a lot of people into believing its true. But its interesting how with all the CO2 in the air how the planet is greening. Greening is a negative feedback to ocean acidification because plants take up CO2 and deplete the upper oceans of carbon. Carbon has always been saturated in the oceans below the photic zone.
Fact is we can’t measure the effect. Its all theorized on 300 year old proxies claimed to establish a diminishing ocean pH. But we don’t even know what mean ocean pH is today, how could we in 1700’s? The answer is you get a bunch of ordained monks and their lay brothers to gin up estimates then you average them all together and draw a mean line between the estimates. LMAO!
Ignorance is bliss again, isn’t it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Svante says: Ignorance is bliss again, isnt it?
———–
gee even obama’s epa couldn’t find anything reliable when they examined it. So all they did was start funding studies to gin up something reliable.
Here’s a paper in case you want to learn:
https://tinyurl.com/y4xl7o7q
Svante says: Heres a paper in case you want to learn:
—————
As is typical of papers with dozens of authors the message is “send money”.
What was I supposed to learn from that paper? That a bunch of environmentalists want the government to spend a lot of money to find a problem?
You know there are poor people in this world with real problems and there are enough environmental problems to soak up the entire budget. Why should we be setting off in search of more problems when people are suffering from problems we can readily see without spending a lot of money?
You need a good grasp of reality to prioritize correctly.
Your method is ignorance.
Svante says: – You need a good grasp of reality to prioritize correctly. Your method is ignorance.
——————-
Obviously you also couldn’t find a single finding of consequence that you could stick in my face either. You have a lot of company there including a long list of authors.
The whole paper is just a lot of hang wringing over possible consequences. The alleged rate of increases in acids 1) are so small as to be immeasurable, one has to rely on 300 year proxies that completely ignore natural changes. We don’t know the magnitude of chemical processes going on in the ocean. 2) studies conducted on the effects of “real” increases of acids related to the carbon cycle on critters with calcified scales mostly show an acceleration in growth in artificially enhanced acidic laboratory experiments. There is no rational basis for concluding disasterous consequences from a build up of CO2 in the oceans even if it is happening.
I would certainly be open to the reality of a problem if you could actually find a paper that demonstrates one. That all said we have a huge shortcoming in understanding our own oceans. Certainly anything related to ocean studies to expand that knowledge is a worthwhile endeavor. But lets keep the priorities where real damage and problems have been identified.
Wrong again Mr. Apple (as usual)
The largest UHI effects are from rural stations that become less rural.
In addition, the percentage of the globe covered by cities is irrelevant.
The actual location of the weather stations is relevant.
Weather stations are far more likely to be near where people live. or are willing to live — not many people want to monitor some middle of nowhere rural station — that’s why rural stations rarely have continuous 100 years records.
Richard GreeneNewDeal says:
The largest UHI effects are from rural stations that become less rural.
from Berkeley Earth:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Mr. Apple / Butts
About half the linear UHI adjustments the NASA GISS computer program calculates have positive slopes !
The computer program is calculating “urbanization bias” due to “urban cooling“, as often as
“urbanization bias” due to “urban warming” !
That’s science fraud !
Science fraud is the science that Mr. Apple lives for.
My article on the subject of UHI (ask someone to read it to you, Mr. Apple)
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/urbanization-bias-adjustments-are-tiny.html
Richard GreeneNewDeal says:
The computer program is calculating “urbanization bias” due to “urban cooling“, as often as
“urbanization bias” due to “urban warming” !
Mumble mumble mumble…. how about writing in English instead of some obscure computer code? Them people might know what you mean.
Richard GreeneNewDeal says:
About half the linear UHI adjustments the NASA GISS computer program calculates have positive slopes !
What does that even mean???
Adjustments are done pointwise. Points do not have a “slope.”
Whatever do you mean, RGND?
David, please stop trolling.
Bill: from Berkeley Earth:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Bill Hunter says:
David the percent of the globe area for the cities is only relevant to the satellite record. The UHI error for surface weather station records would be the percent of thermometers affected. If 50% of the thermometers are in UHI influenced areas,
Are they?
I doubt it, since the Earth is 70% ocean.
Or do ocean SSTs also have a UHI??
David Appell says: “I doubt it, since the Earth is 70% ocean.
Or do ocean SSTs also have a UHI??”
David, the sentence I wrote had a big If in front of it capitalized as the primary signal that the sentence was conditional, a perfectly fair practice as long as I don’t do what you love doing of extrapolating as absolute truth from a few data points or a single published paper. And no I don’t expect any UHI effects on the ocean.
This is NOT only about “cities”.
Don’t listen to clueless Mr. Apple.
This is about economic growth and land use changes that could affect any land surface weather stations.
A rural station can become less rural = “global warming”.
The grass and weeds around a rural station can be plowed under, leaving brown dirt (an albedo change)= “global warming”.
An urban station near buildings could be moved to the middle of a green park = “global cooling”.
Leftists could drive up to weather stations and aim their tail pipe hot exhaust at them to boost the temperatures — I hear Mr. Apple does this all the time,
The US had the coldest winter ( October through April ) in over 100 years, measured by daily average maximum temperatures at the 1,218 Unites States Historical Climatology Network Stations. We don’t care about your alternative facts, Mr. Apple:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/us-average-maximum-daily-temperatures.html
Richard GreeneNewDeal says:
The US had the coldest winter ( October through April ) in over 100 years,
Not even remotely true, even given your inaccurate definition of “winter.”
In fact, Oct18-Apr18 ranked as the 56th coldest period of 124 for USA48 since 1895.
Even recently, Oct13-Apr14 was colder.
Source:
NOAA USA48 monthly
https://is.gd/nN5P9i
“GreeneNewDeal” is not funny enough Mr. Apple. Do I have to come up with a better nickname for you to insult me with that will make people laugh? I thought you were a perfessional writer! You can do better than GreeneNewDeal, which would be a complement for a Dumbocrat. Put on your thinking cap. Hire a ghost writer. Get drunk Or perhaps I should say: Get sober?.
.
.
.
For the U.S. the first half of 2019 was the coldest and wettest January through June on record, based on maximum daily temperatures, at all USHCN stations:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/07/2019-had-coldest-and-wettest-us-january.html
Richard GreeneNewDeal wrote:
“For the U.S. the first half of 2019 was the coldest and wettest January through June on record, based on maximum daily temperatures, at all USHCN stations”
I doubt it, RGND.
The rank of USA48 temperatures (min+max)/2, for the 1st half of the year ranks as 61st highest out of 125 years.
It is thus very unlikely your claim is true. Or that it matters, since people, plants, oceans etc do not experience minimum temperatures, they experience ALL temperatures
Apple:
I wrote that “coldest” was “based on maximum daily temperatures at all USHCN stations”.
Do you read before criticizing, Apple?
The maximum daily temperature is important because it is a daytime temperature when people are awake and likely to be outside.
Those of us alert enough to notice the weather in the past six months knew it was unusually cool during the day.
The minimum temperature is much less important because it happens when most people are indoors, often sleeping.
The average temperature of the day obscures what is really important — how hot did it get during the day?
How cold it got at night, or near dawn, is not that important to people asleep in their beds (I’ll assume you are outside peeking through windows?).
Just like a single global annual average temperature obscures important details about the poles versus the tropics, and climate change split by season,
“Cities comprise only 0.2% of the globe by area. “
Then WHY is the UHI effect smeared over the remaining 99.8% of the globe, DA?
You really do have a way of putting your foot in your gob and sucking hard. !!
Roy wrote:
Most of the warming since the Little Ice Age (up to about 1900) occurred before greenhouse gases could be blamed.
What’s your proof of that, Roy?
1/7th of CO2’s present forcing happened before 1900.
From a recent paper:
“…we demonstrate that multidecadal ocean variability was unlikely to be the driver of observed changes in global mean surface temperature (GMST) after 1850 A.D. Instead, virtually all (97-98%) of the global low-frequency variability (> 30 years) can be explained by external forcing.”
– “A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming,” Karsten Haustein et al, Journal of Climate, May 2019. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
How naive does one have to be to accept blindly the over-reaching conclusions of young academics based upon their simplistic, “two-box impulse-response” model over the unequivocal indications provided by vetted, century-long data records?
BTW, the fact that “cities comprise only 0.2% of the globe by area” has no bearing upon where the overwhelming majority of long-term temperature recordings were made.
It’s high time to get real!
The population of the USA was app. 76 million in 1900. There were no planes and practically no autos. Only a climate cultist would believe that today’s urban heat island effect would be about the same as in 1900.
clif…”There were no planes and practically no autos”.
And no air conditioner exhausts blowing directly into surface thermometer housings.
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/does-your-weather-station-get-the-wind-how-station-siting-compromises-temperature-measurements-via-wind-issues/
here’s UHI-related link to the original started by Anthony Watts.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
You should read this…
https://tinyurl.com/pnnmrw6
and then this…
https://tinyurl.com/y6d74rgg
In a nutshell…the surfacestations.org site (ran by Watts) even agrees that the mean temperature trends are not materially impacted by station class. The authors claim that minimum temperatures have been overestimated while maximum temperatures have been underestimated with the two biases cancelling out.
It would be good to read this as well…
https://tinyurl.com/y3d7h2ey
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Roy, you wrote “Most of the warming since the Little Ice Age (up to about 1900) occurred before greenhouse gases could be blamed.”
You didn’t reply to my question about your proof of this, but you did reply to other parts of my reply, so I’m going to assume you don’t actually have any proof of this claim.
Not very scientific.
Have you read the assumptions involved in the forcing models??
Garbage in= garbage out
Roy wrote:
Meanwhile, the global average temperature anomaly for June (from NOAAs Climate Forecast System, CFSv2 model) at the surface was only +0.3 deg. C (0.5 deg. F), and even for one day (July 1, 2019, from WeatherBell.com) remains at +0.3 deg. C.
Sleight of hand.
You’re comparing a temperature VARIATION of a region for ONE DAY at 5000 ft to the AVERAGE SURFACE temperature of an entire month for the entire globe.
There are always meteorological explanations for the timing and location of a heat wave. But there is no doubting that global warming shifts the temperature probability distribution to the right and makes a specific heat wave more common and hotter. Exponentially so for a linear increase in temperature:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/08/how-fast-is-probability-of-extreme.html
I ALSO included the 1-day average anomaly for the globe (JULY 1) which was also +0.3 deg. C.
You are making my point for me, though…. weather variations are MUCH larger than climate variations.
Yes, I agree that warming SHOULD make warm records more frequent, but with UHI, how can we know by how much?
And why must alarmists like yourself use such misleading statistics, such as “exponential increase” in heat waves? What matters to people is the actual temperature increase, not so much that the event was unprecedented. For example, it’s misleading to claim that the number of heat waves (or heavy rain events) exceeding some arbitrary value has increased by 1,000%, when the actual increase in temperature or rainfall is actually very small. It’s technically true, but misleading in terms of its importance.
It’s this kind of wishy-washy statistics that make people distrust alarmists.
I distrust alarmist DA because he is only here to be a negative. If he was really here to honestly discuss a topic he wouldn’t ALWAYS post against Roy. Some statements coming from DA would support Roy, even if only a very few. Just negative trolling.
Why would anyone post to agree with Roy?
Seems silly. I’m sure Roy doesn’t need my reassurance that I agree with him.
If I agree with Roy I usually say silent, unless I think I have something unique to add. Usually I do not.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
You are making my point for me, though. weather variations are MUCH larger than climate variations.
Of course they are. No one doubts that, Roy.
But climate change shifts the weather probability distributions to the right, towards higher temperatures.
And instead of asking if the heat wave in France was “caused” by climate change, we should be asking if climate change has altered the temperature probability distribution there.
A NY Times article in the last few days said scientists estimated it was five times more likely than in the absence of AGW.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
And why must alarmists like yourself use such misleading statistics, such as exponential increase in heat waves?
Roy, learn to read.
I showed that, given a normal distribution, a warmer world increases the chances of extreme temperatures exponentially.
I showed you the math:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html
If you think I’m wrong, then prove it.
David, please stop trolling.
Dr. Roy,
Here is the temp record for Europe.
https://tinyurl.com/yxukmr4z
Their is a sharp rise since 1980s of ~ 2.7 F, relatively flat prior.
Its hard to believe that in Europe The UHI only became important in 1980s.
Then if you look at all other continents, roughly the same pattern.
Here’s Africa, whose UHI history is surely different from Europe’s.
https://tinyurl.com/y6458gxz
Any character of sub-decadal, decadal, or multi-decadal variability can be superimposed upon one or more underlying trends. Alaska warmed up in the late 1970s and then stayed warm…. but that doesn’t mean that climate shift wasn’t superimposed upon one or more long-term trend components, whether warming or cooling.
For example, look at this time series and tell me what you see. You might read causation into it, but it was created with a time series of low-passed random numbers forcing a 1D model of temperature variability with realistic heat capacity and radiative feedback: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mystery-climate-index-2.gif
Not sure what Im supposed to see?
Yes ‘trends’ can appear out of noise, but what I see here is a small trend with larger RMS noise.
Doesnt look like Temp records of the continents I showed above, which show the global trend pattern is the dominant pattern, overwhelming local variation, presumably even UHI, from late 20th century on.
If UHI is tied to population growth, then Europe will have had a flat UHI effect since 1980s, while Africa will have had its largest UHI effect since 1980s.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Population_Growth_by_World_Bank_continental_division.png
Your argument is illogical. As we have seen in the data climate change is primarily a northern hemisphere phenomena, thus comparing a northern hemisphere continent with a southern hemisphere one looking for a UHI effect makes no sense whatsoever.
Bill Hunter says:
As we have seen in the data climate change is primarily a northern hemisphere phenomena
Not true.
Yes, the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere, which is expected since the SH has more ocean. But even UAH v6 find the SH warming:
UAH v6 LT trends since 1979 are:
NH +0.15 C/dec
SH +0.10 C/dec
Bill, I don’t see how Nate’s argument is illogical. Could you please explain further?
David Appell says:
“Yes, the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere, which is expected since the SH has more ocean. But even UAH v6 find the SH warming:”
“Bill, I don’t see how Nate’s argument is illogical. Could you please explain further?”
David, the temp records also show southern hemisphere land warming much slower than northern hemisphere land.
The error in logic is in assuming that Africa should be warming faster than Europe because of UHI if UHI was a factor because it has greater population growth.
So many leaps of logic its hard to name them all. First of all nobody has suggested that UHI was directly linked to population growth. UHI is linked to urban environments with asphalt and concrete coverage of the land, the development of dense jungles of tall buildings etc. None of that is directly connected to population growth and if anything the 3rd world is creating UHI type environments far slower than the developed world, almost by definition.
Then assuming population growth is directly proportional to UHI, Nate takes the logic leap that therefore Africa should be warming faster than Europe.
Nate’s argument is illogical because none of his premises even if they are true provide support for his conclusion.
David, the temp records also show southern hemisphere land warming much slower than northern hemisphere land.
No they don’t. I gave you the numbers. SH’s warming rate is 2/3rds the NH’s warming rate.
Then assuming population growth is directly proportional to UHI,
There’s no justification for assuming this.
The UHI requires concrete and roof tops and blacktop, not people. Without the former there is very little UHI no matter how any people are put there.
David, please stop trolling.
I am not assuming UHI is directly proportional to population, by I suspect the two are strongly correlated.
Europe’s population grew rapidly from 1800s thru mid 1900, and its urvbanization did as well.
Thats just a fact.
After 1980 its population growth was very slow. Do you think its UHI effect would have grown more prior to 1980? I do.
Yet its temperature record is quite flat up to ~ 1980, and takes off after.
Africa same pattern. Same in South America, North America, Asia.
Same pattern, not same magnitude. And yes I do think the UHI effect will be shifted in Africa to recent decades, relative to Europe.
If UHI effect was a significant part of the story in Europe, I think it would have shown up in the record prior to 1960, relative to other undeveloped continents.
Your ‘illogical’ declaration is a stretch.
Nate says:, “I am not assuming UHI is directly proportional to population, by I suspect the two are strongly correlated.”
I also suspect that UHI is correlated to population. but being correlated isn’t a basis for comparison, or a claim of cause.
The fact is one man can create a UHI effect. It isn’t so much that there is people, its how you go about living that matters the most and big differences in that still exist between Africa and Europe.
Also Berkeley Earth states: “The topic is not without controversy.”
Yet there are those who choose to ride roughshod towards what they think is a definitive answer, that Berkeley Earth results are a complete an exhaustive examination of the topic so that you fail to recognize that your little illogical addition to the argument despite correlation completely lacks any controls. The basis of the scientific method is to have everything under control except the experimental variable.
A failure in logic is when you draw a conclusion not supported by the experiment you offer as proof and thats the case for a comparison where different variables are present aren’t controlled.
the classic example is the argument that goes: If it rains the sidewalk will get wet. That argument logically supports that when it rains the sidewalk will get wet. Its illogical to claim that it rained because the sidewalk was wet. . . .even though it could be true. There may be other reasons the sidewalk gets wet.
Its so illogical it has a fallacy named for it. . . .affirming the consequent, or converse error, or fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency.
confusion of necessity and sufficiency is IMHO, rampant in climate science.
Bill,
Population and UHI are correlated, and it is not an accident.
Here is urban percentage map
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization
Europe majority urban by 1950s.
Africa, about halfway urban majority today.
Geeez, Nate why don’t you even bother to read my post before replying? I said I believed there was probably a correlation with population, but correlation is an extremely loose concept.
Trying to fix logic errors with more logic errors doesn’t work well. Unfortunately academics tend to be pretty ignorant people in general due to a lack of real world exposure. I work with academics a lot and there is a huge difference across the board in how aware they are. Farmers and fishermen who are greatly affected by science laugh at a lot of nonsense the academic community comes up with. We work with scientists a lot but the scientists we work the best with spend countless hours in the field actually getting a feel for nature and applying the tools they have learned in their science educations. A scientist behind a desk in a windowless office might be an expert with the tools but has no clue on how to apply them to the real world.
I experienced that myself coming out of college and taking a private sector job.
Take for example the figures you just tossed out. You have just made a typical error of a sheltered academic. The figures you offered in support of your argument are all but meaningless in defense of the point you are trying to make.
Africa is only 40% urbanized which is a minor error on your part.
But the big error is a completely lack of consideration of effect of population density on the effects UHI will have on mean region temperature.
Africa is more than 3.5 times less dense in population to Europe.
And thats just one of the major parameters you failed to even acknowledge. Another more difficult to measure factor is the nature of the urbanization. How much high rise, how much asphalt and concrete per person. Africa is impoverished so the magnitude of that factor is probably nearly off the charts.
And thats just the beginning. In terms of “development” urban effects are just one of many. I believe that agriculture likely has a larger effect than urbanization and the developed nations tend to be net exporters of food because of being developed and having access to the tools and products to multiply agricultural production.
So you come in here blabbing like an infant spouting stuff you know practically nothing about because you read it somewhere, probably on a blog populated by other ignoramuses.
“So you come in here blabbing like an infant spouting stuff you know practically nothing about because you read it somewhere, probably on a blog populated by other ignoramuses.”
Non sequitur, Bill. Nothing I said merits that kind of ad hom BS.
My post was my opinion, and not meant to be rigorous or publishable. You act like it was intented to be.
But it was logical, and science types know what that means.
Nate, I gave you several arguments for why Africa would lag in UHI despite greater population growth. And you are stubbornly trying to avoid acknowledging that. For UHI, population growth is a poor proxy. Like tree rings which are going to be affected by temperature but are affected more by other variables.
I live in a very small community with a very large UHI factor. Several hundred homes most 3 stories densely packed on very small lots surrounded by nature. It seems abundantly clear that the factors for this UHI effect are the lack of greenery within the community combined with asphalt streets, asphalt roofs, and relatively tall buildings trapping heat while blocking the seabreeze land influences. No valid thermometer could be established in this community for measuring anything but the temperature within the community.
My community is all of 5% of one kilometer square, extrapolating a thermometer in the community out a radius of 1500km would multiply the UHI error in my community by a factor of 14 billion percent.
Yes, Bill, UHI exists, but you ASSUME that climate scientists are simply oblivious to it, but offer no evidence.
practice your readin. skills. nowhere did i claim science was oblivious to it. the main debate is on how to measure it. uscrn should help
roy
The most thorough analysis of the UHI effect on U.S. temperature was by Anthony Watts and co-authors, who analyzed the siting of hundreds of thermometers around the U.S. and showed that if only the best (most rural) sited thermometers are used, U.S. warming trends are roughly cut in half.
—————————
why has this report never been published. Last I heard was the Climate Audit had fond serious problems – were these fixed?
I had not heard that. From what I understand, one of the co-authors has been taking a long time doing some statistical tests for the paper submitted for publication. I will ask about your claim.
Then why was it announced in a press release at the AGU Fall Meeting in 2015 in San Francisco?
ren…”The most thorough analysis of the UHI effect on U.S. temperature was by Anthony Watts and co-authors…”
http://www.surfacestations.org/
where was surfacestations.org published?
It’s just blog crap.
David Appell says: “where was surfacestations.org published? It’s just blog crap.”
Sheesh David why don’t you read the site before passing judgement? I went to the link provided and it took me all of 3 seconds to find the published version of the paper.
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
Just because all you ever post is crap doesn’t mean everything on blogs is crap.
Not only are not surface stations randomly distributed nor representative, they are sloppily designed and maintained, at least for the purpose of detecting small changes in temperature. And it seems almost a certainty that the US network is superior to that of most nations.
Not only are not surface stations randomly distributed nor representative
They don’t need to be. That’s why the averages are weighted by unit area.
David, please stop trolling.
That is not the paper on UHI, Bill. That’s Fall et al (2011), which examined microsite bias regarding min/max temps in the US, corroborating and extending previous work.
That paper also finds that the best-sited stations mean temp record is a close match to NOAA and GISS US temp records.
The UHI work is unpublished as yet. As it says in the paper you linked,
A follow-up study is underway to distinguish and quantify the
separate effects of siting, instrumentation, urbanization, and
other factors.
Don’t know if it’s stalled or what.
barry says: – That paper also finds that the best-sited stations mean temp record is a close match to NOAA and GISS US temp records.
————–
That makes sense. Almost all the stations are installed in or near human development. Actually being that way was obviously intentional. When a city dweller when checking his weather doesn’t want to hear what the temperature is 1500km out to sea from where he is at.
So I guess you might say even all that temperature gridding is sort of leaning down the same path. After all the man that wants to know what the weather is and is going to be is for where he is, not where he would like to be.
I remember staying at a place for a while like 4 decades ago that had a big patio sitting on the side of the house facing the prevailing wind. With no air conditioning we opened the doors and windows there and on the opposite side to let a draft through the house. But that old patio would heat up so hot you couldn’t walk on it and it warmed that breeze coming in the windows by a large degree. So I took to afternoons wetting down the patio to get some evaporation going. It helped. Turned that old patio into a swamp cooler.
we live 10 miles from Cheltenham uk
The met office has always given us a lower predicted temperature than Cheltenham.
Surely this means the metoffice acknowledges UHI?
Why do you claim different?
stavros…”The met office has always given us a lower predicted temperature than Cheltenham”.
Remember the Cheltenham Flyer?? Or are you too young?
I’m surprised you get anything from the Met Office since it was lead at one time by Phil Jones of Climategate email scandal vintage.
The Met Office, aka Had-crut, sounds a lot like NOAA and GISS with their fudging and chicanery. In fact, the Met Office gets their data from NOAA.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/24/uk-met-office-and-dr-phil-jones-pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain/
In a Climategate email, Jones admitted to using Mann’s ‘Trick’ (hide the decline) on Had-crut data. In another email, Jones applauded the death of skeptic John Daly.
Classy guy…classy outfit. [sarc /off].
Gordon *STILL* doesn’t know what “Mike’s trick” refers to.
GR, “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” are not the same thing. The former is a statistical technique called principal component analysis (PCA). Mann did not invent it. It is used widely in many disciplines of science. The later is in reference to the divergence problem post-WWII in the field of dendrochronology. The phrase is not in reference to the instrumental temperature trend. FWIW I’m not defending Mann or Jones or here. I’m just letting you know what these phrases mean so that any debate in this regard can be based on fact instead of myth.
bdgwx says:
GR, Mikes Nature trick and hide the decline are not the same thing. The former is a statistical technique called principal component analysis (PCA).
No, that’s wrong.
PCA is not a trick.
THe “trick,” if you want to call it that, is using actual temperatures post-1960 instead of proxy temperatures.
Because proxy temperatures in high latitudes fail after 1960. This is called the “divergence problem.” No one is sure why — it may be pollution, or it may be global warming itself.
On the Divergence Problem in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes, Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289305.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
It’s not just “high latitudes” — it’s high northern latitudes.
David, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
From post: The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time? At least in the U.S., the answer is ‘no’, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased . . .
The arbitrary choice of 100 and 105 deg F days seems like a silly proxy for number of record high temperatures. Why not just use daily record temperatures directly if one is interested in that metric?
The French heatwave is pretty clearly due to jet stream blocking. Here is a jet stream map of about that time.
You can see the strong loop to the east and a weaker loop west of Ireland. The stronger loop is blocking movement of air eastwards. At the same time the two loops plus the high pressure system are channeling air up from Africa. The westward loop is keeping cooler sea air from providing any relief over the continent.
Such sinuous Rossby wave patterns are common during solar minimums. A similar pattern caused the great Moscow heatwave of 2010.
2003 on a solar minimum? Really?
It’s easy to compare a GHCN time series for FR with the 10.7 cm flux…
What is that about? We’re in a solar minimum now and a feature of solar minima are sinuous Rossby waves and jet stream blocking events. They can cause unusual cold or hot. It’s very well known that the 2010 the great Moscow heatwave was caused by jet stream blocking, as was the white out of the UK in the winter of that year. Mike Lockwood pointed out that low solar activity caused such patterns. Mike is an IPCC lead author.
bruce…”What is that about?”
Binny just shows up every so often and says silly things. Once he disappeared in a snit and re-appeared as a female.
Bruce of Newcastle
I repeat: the problem with your comment is that 2003 never and never has been in any solar minimum.
Sure, but it did not happen last year, nor at any time during the last couple of centuries. And, by the way, there is not much of an UHI effect in a town of 3000some inhabitants. Mr. Spencer telling us about Miami’s population in the year 1900 and today’s was funny, it does not hold when it comes to the population of European countries.
Bruce of Newcastle says:
The French heatwave is pretty clearly due to jet stream blocking
And why is the jet stream blocking occurring?
David, please stop trolling.
I read somewhere above a typical pseudoskeptic statement:
“Or how about 40 years of southern ocean declines? (HADSST3)
…
Hilarious.”
Fourty years of Southern Ocean declines ??? What ???
(1) Here is HaddSST3 SH from 1979 till now, from Paul Clark’s WFT:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1979/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1979/mean:36
(2) Here is the evaluation of the download from
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_sh_ts.txt
to which UAH6.0 LT’s time series (SH ocean)
(the usual suspect, column 11, can’t access tinyURL right now, 525)
was added just for fun, ha ha ha, using a well-known spread sheet calculator.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gNHlhA5S29xYd28dI__gIic55qTwk1T2/view
Linear trends for 1979-2019, in C / decade:
HadSST3 SH: 0.091 +- 0.004
UAH6.0 LT SH ocean: 0.093 +- 0.007
Incompetence and ignorance are absolutely hilarious indeed. Absolutely!
B, exactly!
That is one reason why I come back to this site when bored.
Always believe what paid scientist tell you. Especially those paid by organizations that will only accept one type of answer from the research.
Since there is ZERO doubt that the earth will return to an ice age in the near future ( 50 to 1000 years? ) , why not worry about the problem that is 100% real and 100% going to happen?
Winter is coming………….
Dr. Myki, the horse podiatrist, returns, and then the rest of us get bored with his bloviating.
binny…”Here is HaddSST3 SH from 1979 till now…”
Had-crut gets its data from NOAA, as does GISS.
Had-crut = NOAA = GISS = fudged.
And UAH6 SH STT with a higher trend also fudged?
Interesting question, but… bypassing by far this commenter’s intellectual capabilities.
Gordon Robertson says:
Had-crut = NOAA = GISS = fudged.
Something Gordon has never proved, and can’t. He’s just lying.
David, please stop trolling.
The only reason the recent hot weather in Europe attracted so much media attention was because various media attention was because outlets such as the BBC and Guardian here in the U.K. (and presumably other equally biased organisations in other countries) knew they could use it to push their global warming agenda. In reality it was a very minor event in that it lasted for less than a week compared to last years heat wave which lasted for several months. I bet that 30 years ago before global warming achieved such a high profile there would’ve been a few short stories buried deep inside a few newspapers and no more.
Here in Northern Scotland we obviously missed the “worst” of the heat, but had a few warm days followed by a temperature drop of aprox. 16 degrees in 24 hours as the warm air was pushed aside by cooler air off the Atlantic. I haven’t looked up the figures for what actually happened, but the forecasts were predicting similar if not greater one day drops in temperature over much of Western Europe as the cooler air pushed East over the past few days. If temperatures can change this much from day to day then I fail to understand how an increase of a couple of degrees over many decades can have any noticeable effect what so ever. Indeed I (and presumably the vast majority of people) would be unable to tell the difference between, for example, 75 degrees and 77 or 78 degrees. Presumably the same goes for the rest of the living world as well. Given that all of life can cope with large temperature changes from one day to the next then presumably it can cope with much smaller changes taking place over tens of years.
Mathew, one method for interpreting projected changes in mean temperature is to look at the mean annual temperature for surrounding regions. In your case, plus 2 degrees could be the same as moving from Northern Scotland to Southern England.
So yes, you might cope very well – in fact, you may thrive! However, you would have to give up producing whiskey and start making sparkling wine.
Mickey…”Mathew, one method for interpreting projected changes in mean temperature…”
This is the sort of bs we must endure around here, Matthew. How does one interpret a ‘projected’ mean temperature?
Might as well claim to have pulled the temperature from a hat.
DM,
Are you trying to look intelligent by providing answers to questions which were never posed?
Why would he have to give up producing whiskey and start making sparkling wine? Are you quite mad? Whisky is currently produced in England and Wales – why would it not be?
Average temperatures are an exercise in futility, by themselves. For example, if I tell you that the average monthly temperature is 26 C, what does that tell you about a location?
Not much – it tells you nothing about minima or maxima. This sort of silliness has resulted in the deaths of special forces soldiers who were kitted out on on the basis of average temperatures in a desert region. Freezing temperatures proved to be a more effective killer than the maxima.
Your comment about comparing projected temperatures with actual temperatures is equally pointless. What about humidity, rainfall, geography, etc? You sound like a witless pseudoscientific climate cultist, dispensing unasked for opinion backed up by precisely nothing of use.
Cheers.
Calm down and lighten up.
I am sure Mathew found my contribution very informative.
DM,
Thank you for your interest, misguided as it might be. I do as I wish.
You wrote –
“I am sure Mathew found my contribution very informative.” Appealing to your own authority may not be persuasive.
I am sure you will find my contribution very informative.
Cheers.
Dr. Myki:
That was the first post under your name that made sense, and was even amusing.
I assume you hired a ghostwriter.
RG, I am glad to have helped you.
However, it takes considerable effort on my part to dumb down the science so that even you can understand it.
Myki, please stop trolling.
Wow, and how do explain it was warm enough during the Roman era in England when it is not yet warm enough to do so now??
How does one explain all the dead trees that grew above the current tree lines if it was not warmer in the recent past??
Quoting studies from discredited government organizations does little to nothing to convince a realist on climate as we all know how much “adjusting” of the data they have done to promote the hoax.
If all you can do is quote propagandist research, then you do not think much on your own. Can you answer any of the questions I have poised on this thread??
If you go to any of the realist sites you have been told not to go to, do you understand the issues being discussed???
Most of what you say or reference starts with the assumption that CO2 is the cause……..and build on that foundation of sand.
It is said that the higher the education level the harder it is to change an opinion that was not originally based on the facts. This would seem to describe you.
Are you so illiterate that you believe an ocean that is saturated with CO2 can absorb more???? Base ocean cannot become acidic.
Please explain how you can believe a hoax based on the relationship of CO2 and temperature that itself is based on the fact that the ocean is saturated with CO2 . So when it warms, like now, it out gasses CO2 (1/3 to 1/2 of the increase) and when it cools it sucks more CO2 in. Does a Doctor know/understand the gas laws of physics that is the basis of my statements??
You can do better Doc!
OOPs, my reply to this is down 4 posts…………..
matthew…”I fail to understand how an increase of a couple of degrees over many decades can have any noticeable effect what so ever”.
Most sane people who understand science would fail to understand it either, Matthew.
And…lack may yer lum reek, wae ither folks coal.
A prize for correctly guessing which group GR belongs to.
Sane people who understand science
or
Insane people who understand science
or
Insane people who dont understand science
or
Sane people who dont understand science.
Begone, ad homming troll!
Another point to me thanks.
Begone, troll!
mickey…”A prize for correctly guessing which group GR belongs to”.
Do you do any science at all, or are you one of those wannabees?
matthew
I fail to understand how an increase of a couple of degrees over many decades can have any noticeable effect what so ever.
The global average temperature difference between the Holocene and the depth of the last glacial maximum (23,000 yrs ago) was only 5 C.
David, please stop trolling.
Even though there were no thermometers in 1578 we know that the weather was hot and dry that year. One could walk across the river Seine near the Ile-de-France. The hot summer of 2019 does not come close to what happened 440 years ago before the invention of SUVs:
You can find the full text here:
http://www.eu-drought.org/technicalreports/10863624/DROUGHT-R-SPI-Technical-Report-No-35-Historic-droughts-beyond-the-modern-instrumental-records-an-analysis-of-cases-in-United-Kingdom-France-Rhine-and-Syros
QUOTE
The drought of 1578
The 1578 drought is very probably one of most extreme of the history of France of the last five centuries. Despite the lack of instrumental data at that time, there are a plethora of written testimonies in archives because of its severity (Fig. 17). It is during the winter of 1577 when archives mention for the first time a
“rather dry” season, followed by a very hot spring the same year. The low precipitation continues and in April 1578, archives evoke the general concern about the harvest outlook. They spoke of barley and hemp, which did not grow and pro pluvia processions were organized in Paris by the municipal authorities. Figure 17. Progress of the great drought of 1577-1578 in Ile-de-France according to the written
archives.
The environmental crisis reached its climax in the autumn in Ile-de-France where springs and fountains dried up. In the countryside, farmers spoke about the soil being difficult to plough because of being completely dry to a depth of 1.20 m. On the water management plan, it was the whole of the Seine basin that was affected. Low-water then affected the Seine, the Yonne and the Marne rivers and in June, it was even possible to cross the Seine on foot in Paris. This had catastrophic socio-economic consequences.
It prevented the wood and wheat supplies to the city on the eve of the winter and led to the lay-off of mills. Wheat being rare in the market and grinding impossible, bread prices shot up and diseases gained ground. In total, during 565 days dryness was observed in the archives between 1577 and 1578, and there were only 15 rainy days.
UNQUOTE
Thanks, interesting stuff.
Odd, I can’t remember having read anything about a huge mortality following that event. Historical records do not actually show anything of interest during that year.
GC – what does a past severe drought say about today’s climate change?
David, please stop trolling.
Hello from Spain
Nobody remembers the snowfalls in mountain areas (at 1200 meters) and the frosts in areas of Spain only 20 days ago, with minimun or near minimum temperatures for a month of June.
Regarding the maximum temperatures recorded this past June in Spain and west Europe:
1)In my area (northern Spain) some maximum temperatures have been reaching for 70 years in june. It is a long time without registering such high temperatures…
2)What is the physical difference betwen 29 june and 2 of July?…however, we impose an “artificial wall” ( the month) between consecutive days for considering maximun or minimun historical records
3)Thermometers are often in airports close to urban areas.70 years ago, the airports were little aerodroms and the urban areas were small. Now we have weather stations in big airports and the urban areas are 5 times bigest than 70 years ago.
3)We assume as valid many temperature measurements, but we do not know where is the location of the weather station, the solar insulation of the sensor or its calibration. If you visit weather stations you get great surprises
4) How many meteorological stations remain in undisturbed places more than 50 years with the same meteorological instruments and big Stevenson Screens?
Thanks
Amillena
You write
“1)In my area (northern Spain) some maximum temperatures have been reaching for 70 years in june. It is a long time without registering such high temperatures…”
Here is the top 10 for the June anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010, up to June 2018, out of an average of the ten northernmost Spanish stations registered in GHCN daily (among them San Seb and Santander for example):
2003 6 1.71
2005 6 1.49
1976 6 1.33
2004 6 1.31
2017 6 1.22
1950 6 1.19
1952 6 1.02
2006 6 0.98
2014 6 0.92
1989 6 0.85
Yes: 2015, 2016, 2018 are missing, and 2019 certainly would have been absent as well if I had the data.
A commenter visiting Tarragona in June since 15 years wrote recently that June 2019 was the coldest of all.
“3)Thermometers are often in airports close to urban areas.70 years ago, the airports were little aerodroms and the urban areas were small. Now we have weather stations in big airports and the urban areas are 5 times bigest than 70 years ago.”
I understand what you mean but I nevertheless recomend to read this paper:
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Egun atsegina izan
J.-P. D.
Amillena
I forgot to add a link to a rather interesting comment:
https://tinyurl.com/y2logz9v
“We have no temperature measurements during the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago.”
Isn’t it possible to see drastic changes in earth climate by analyzing ice core drillings and conserved trees? Starting around 10,0000 years B.C. wood clearing has caused a steep rise in atmospheric CO2. While the beginning of rice cultivation around 7,000 years B.C. has caused a steep rise in atmospheric methane (according to Prof. Lesch). I’m curious about your view of these two events: Didn’t they influence temperatures considerably?
Yes, the agricultural revolution might have added as much as the industrial revolution to global temperatures, but not enough to reverse the natural cooling trend.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28419-5
S,
Oooooh! Another modelling paper!
How quaint!
From the paper –
“Our global climate model simulation driven by orbital parameters and observed greenhouse gas concentrations at the end of MIS19c is 1.3 K colder than the reference pre-industrial climate of the late Holocene (year 1850). ”
What has any your “reference” to do with reality?
Cheers.
All scientific papers are modeling papers.
Even more — all science is modeling.
And why are we warmer than MIS19?
Most other interglacials have a sharp peak, ours is drawn out.
Svante says: “July 5, 2019 at 1:11 AM
And why are we warmer than MIS19?”
Good question. MIS11 is similar to the current interglacial in terms of its drawn out nature.
Shake, rattle, and roll here in California, another strong earthquake, preliminary from Caltech 6.9 magnitude a few miles from the previous one while I was writing this.
Yes, the jury is still out but Ruddiman says:
“MIS 11 was once claimed to be the closest MIS 1 analog (for example, Broecker and Stocker, 2006), but that claim is now rejected because obliquity and precession peaks in MIS 11 were far offset.”
See fig. 1 in: https://tinyurl.com/y66xzyxq
“The long duration of MIS-11 is related to a particular combination of eccentricity, obliquity and precession as well as to its long-lasting high CO2 concentration.”
https://tinyurl.com/yx8mecna
The more drawn out forcing removed most of the Greenland ice sheet, implying a strong snow/ice albedo feedback?
https://tinyurl.com/yxaborsl
Yep see’n as how we now know everything about everything that was an easy call to make.
Yep, less and less room for doubt.
Svante says: “Yep, less and less room for doubt.”
Actually more room for doubt. Nature is amazing in its complexity and as one delves deeper into the mysteries of nature it raises questions a lot faster than it answers them. Doubt is only reduced by ever more complex correlations that begin to clearly statistically set themselves apart from other possible answers.
The most difficult correlation to make in nature is one without being able to clearly see variation in time with the controlling variable. So in developing natural sciences especially in face of short term effort, mostly what you see at first is more complexity to deal with.
Its hard with flora and fauna with short generational reproductive cycles and actually still remains beyond reach for many species with long reproductive generations. Climate science appears to have generation times that reach into millennia because of the massive heat capacities of the oceans and due to the fact we don’t even have any statistically sufficient measurements of the entire bottom half of the oceans. Fortunately there is an effort underway in ARGO to address that huge gap, but its likely to take another human generation or two to really start getting a handle on it.
The doubt is in the details. The big picture is clear.
ARGO measures down to 2 km, there is little effect below that, and whatever effect it has must propagate through the upper layers. There is no evidence that the current warming comes from the abyss.
The ENSO can be ignored because it is short term.
The PDO is not visible in global record because it has a plus and minus pole at the same time.
The only long term cycle that affects global temperatures cycles is the AMO cycle. Now the AMO has been explained as a secondary effect from other primary forcings:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
Svante says:
“ARGO measures down to 2 km, there is little effect below that, and whatever effect it has must propagate through the upper layers. There is no evidence that the current warming comes from the abyss.”
LOL! Nice handwave! This is a portion of my theory. Ice has come and gone over the decades. This coming and going of ice I theorize as having a huge impact on the ocean bottoms. Strip the ice off the Arctic ocean and warm currents moving north can rapidly cool without an insulating layer of ice.
In turn the ocean surface is exposed to wind chilling as the atmosphere up there drops well below zero and the water can be cooled at a much accelerated rate. In addition the loss of ice extent makes for far larger refreezes each winter. The areas stripped of ice are the coldest climates in the world. The conversion of seawater into freshwater ice squeezes heavy very cold brines out of the ice and they sink to the bottom often leaving frozen columns of water in their path. This brine input provides the convective forcing for the thermohaline currents and the saltiness of the water causes it to travel along the bottom rather than form a nearby rising column of water.
Eventually in the temperate and tropic regions upwellings of cold water occur. So loss of ice leads to eventual atmospheric cooling (so much for positive feedback). And as the atmosphere cools ice begins once again covering the arctic ocean. Now with very little cold brine input the ocean bottom begins to slowly warm from heat from the core and heat from the surface, reducing the the effect of cold zone upwellings.
ENSO is a natural process of upwelling that occurs on the coast of south America. Its caused by offshore wind patterns and a piling up of warm water in the western Pacific reaching perhaps 10″ higher than the eastern Pacific. Ocean oscillations don’t cause this effect but influence its temperature effects and frequency.
One can argue how much the net effect of this is, but its really the only explanation for why the ocean bottoms are so cold while being sandwiched between two relatively hot places. Looking at temperature records it appears the effect on a multi-decadal scale can reach about 8 tenths of a degree, whereas the individual ENSO events can influence global temperatures by as much as 5 tenths of a degree.
I see these processes and internal heat exchange events that have no effect on long term warming say on trends over about 70 years or so. My astrometeorologist says 72 years but I take that with a grain of salt.
Longer term events seem likely to be occurring via the history handed down over the centuries while instrument records were either unavailable or very scanty. Exactly what their nature might be is beyond me, but since heat exchange events in the ocean more or less handles changes of almost one degree C without any external forcing, that would seem to be in the range of an external forcing event that might take centuries to play out. Recent studies show areas of the Pacific ocean still cooling from the LIA while most of the ocean is believed to be warming. That warming will be manifested at the surface via upwelling water, perhaps even more robustly than cold water upwells since the warmer water is lighter.
Understanding the dynamics and measurements posed by these conditions is a real challenge as cold water upwellings could be somewhat focused by geographical steering of very slow moving ocean bottom currents while heat of an atmosphere immediately above the ocean may continually supply downwelling heat via conduction from a long ago change in climate due to some solar event. Global warming proponents in fact claim heat is being lost in the ocean and it should be during a warm phase oscillation. My astrometeorologist again times the end of that warm phase as this year. Again I take that with a grain of salt. For over 30 years its been my job to pick the right signal out of a messy situation. I have a pretty darned good track record and know what I am looking for. When I see I will be on one side of the other. Right now I am just skeptical and I am completely unconvinced by what I have seen so far. I have an alternative theory for the greenhouse effect but I am not 100% sure that it isn’t influenced by increasing greenhouse gases as I whole heartedly endorse that greenhouse gases are absolutely necessary for the environment we enjoy today. But again one has to be careful of a causal fallacy where one confuses necessity with sufficiency.
The ENSO can be ignored because it is short term.
The PDO is not visible in global record because it has a plus and minus pole at the same time.
The only long term cycle that affects global temperatures cycles is the AMO cycle. Now the AMO has been explained as a secondary effect from other primary forcings:
Well here’s some science:
“Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015”
https://tinyurl.com/y63w765u
Fig. 6 shows that the energy anomaly is:
– positive in all ocean layers (so it does cool earth).
– mostly at the top.
– consistent with the TOA radiation imbalance.
https://tinyurl.com/yxu9jlrf
Svante says: “Well heres some science:”
Yep, Al Gore 1995 IPCC appointee colluding with the Chinese government.
You mean “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”?
Do you think China is going to give up the exemption from needing to comply with the Paris accords that Obama gave them?
Didn’t know that, please tell me about it.
Here is a place to start. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390741-chinas-rising-emissions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement
It doesn’t say that “Obama gave them an exemption”.
Svante says: It doesnt say that Obama gave them an exemption.
Cripes how naive can you get? Obama is the only American that signed the deal, it didn’t go into force in the US because the Senate refused to ratify Obama’s giveaway.
Cripes, it is in force by an executive order.
trump agreed to continue reporting emissions and hopefully will continue that after officially withdrawing
Solar brightening is happening since 1980.
It has an impact not to be neglected!
10% more energy thanks to less clouds.
17% more hours of sun since 1980.
Climate change!
Nope. Solar energy delivery has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png
David the 1960’s in terms of earth’s energy storage system time lags is nothing.
Nate, hes saying most of the warming that did occur prior to 1900 occurred absent of GHG emissions.
He is not saying there was more warming before 1900.
If this is in reference to me then yes. That is what I was saying.
Stephen w says:
Nate, hes saying most of the warming that did occur prior to 1900 occurred absent of GHG emissions.
So what caused that warming?
Prior to 1900 the bulk of the warming was likely due to increased solar radiation and a quiescent period of volcanic activity (relative to the LIA era anyway).
Proof? Evidence? Data?
CO2 concentration in 1900 was 290 ppm. This represents a radiative forcing of 5.35*ln(290/280) = 0.19 W/m^2. And using a modern estimate of the climate sensitivity of 0.75C per W/m^2 gives us about 0.19 * 0.75 = 0.14C of warming as a result of CO2. You’ve already presented evidence that the LIA was caused by a more active volcanic era. It certainly didn’t hurt the Maunder Minimum was occurring during this time. Volcanic activity waned and the Modern Maximum began and peaked in 1958. The trough to peak in the solar cycle was likely in the range of 1 W/m^2. I’m not saying that the anthroprogenic factors were zero, but I’ve seen no compelling evidence that they represented a majority portion of the radiative forcing between the LIA and 1900. I could be wrong. But if I am then that means the climate sensitivity (in C per W/m^2) for CO2 would have had to decrease since 1900 for the numbers to all add up. And there’s strong evidence (see the work by Hansen) that climate sensitivity tends to increase not decrease during periods of sudden climatic change.
bdg…”CO2 concentration in 1900 was 290 ppm”.
Alleged warming. The IPCC cherry picked that value among CO2 concentrations in ice cores as high as 2000 ppmv.
You wrote:
Prior to 1900 the bulk of the warming was likely due to increased solar radiation and a quiescent period of volcanic activity (relative to the LIA era anyway)
Instead of meaningless hand waving, I want to see proof of your claim — the data and evidence.
It doesn’t look like you have it.
David, please stop trolling.
Highest and Lowest Temperatures for the 50 states for the past 200 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
In the past decade: 1 state with a new high; 2 states with new lows;
Interesting anomalies appear in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_sh/500gz_anomalies_sh.gif
Temperature in the southern hemisphere is below average.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
The amount of heat in the ocean is decreasing.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.201907.gif
Oh yes.
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/ohc/ohc_global.txt
ren says:
The amount of heat in the ocean is decreasing.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.201907.gif
More garbage from ren, who presents a snapshot in time as evidence of change.
A ren special.
David, please stop trolling.
Interestingly my hometown of St. Louis has one of the most well known urban heat islands. There have been a lot of peer reviewed studies and research conducted here. One thing that makes this doubly interesting is that the metropolitan area is also near the corn belt where agricultural activity is affecting the climate as well. Back to UHI…in our case it affects precipitation as well. It has been observed that thunderstorm activity is greatest on the downwind side of the metro area in the summer and that this effect may be caused not only by the radiation flux changes but by the surface roughness changes as well. Perhaps the UHI may be affecting thunderstorm activity in the area even today.
b,
The really interesting aspect (for me) is that nobody can foretell future states of a chaotic system. Lorenz stated he was talking literally when he posed the question “Does the flap of a butterflys wings in Brazil start a tornado in Texas?”
The answer is a definite and resounding “maybe”.
There is no minimum initial parameter change which may result in chaos from a system capable of such.
The nature of chaotic systems such as the Earth is such that assumptions or guesses are as good a way of predicting future states as the most intense numerical methods. Night tends to follow day, the seasons progress, all humans will die, and so on. More than 99% of all species created are now extinct. Sh*t happens.
Don’t worry. Be happy. In the immortal words of Kung Fu Panda –
“The past is history, the future’s a mystery. All we have is now, and it’s a gift. That’s why it’s called the present.” Or something like it.
Cheers.
What is this garbled message about?
Have you been drinking?
Kung Fu Panda ? Since you never cite any published material and seem to get your information from comic books, why am I not surprised.
DM,
Thank you for your interest.
Cheers.
Chaos can’t overcome energy conservation.
Where is the chaos in the Pleistocene cycles, where there are clear patterns?
https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo/images/Pleistocene_temp_change_graph.gif
DA,
You wrote –
“Chaos cant overcome energy conservation.”
Who said it could? Are you complaining, as usual, about things I didn’t say?
Cheers.
David Appell Strawman Producer Extraordinaire!
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Indeed when uncertainty rules the day competing peer reviewed studies are the rule also.
Thank you Roy for explaining and revealing the true nature of these hot weather conditions that have recently occurred in Europe. I believe that we are lucky to have you as a world climate watchdog against the perverse claims of the various national meteorological departments egged on by an uninformed media.
Regards Geoff Williams
And God bless Donald Trump.
mickey…”And God bless Donald Trump”.
God has already blessed him. He saw that Hillary Clinton might become president and caused the Democrats to disintegrate through creating a bs connection to the Russians.
Doesn’t mean God likes Donald, it just means he did not see the point in having an airhead like Hillary running the US. Might as well have Donald.
yeah.
sure.
whatever.
Gordon, Russian interference in the 2016 election is an established fact.
Don’t try to argue facts, Gordon, it just solidifies your reputation.
DA,
It is a great pity that nobody in the previous administration (including the oxymoronic intelligence community, the FBI, or even the President) was aware of the cunning Russian machinations to make a mockery of US democracy.
If the previous administration was that incompetent, they need a damn good shaking. Sack the lot, if they were too thick to know what was going on, or they knew, but were too thick to be able to do anything about it!
If you are right, why did you put up with such a collection of incompetent fumbling bumblers? Would you go to war at their behest? I suppose you would – you’re pretty gullible, by the look of things.
Cheers.
good one Flynn!!
And who, disguised as Donald Trump, mild-mannered executive for a great metropolitan development company, fights a never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way by pulling the wool over the eyes of 17 corrupted from the top US security agencies.
As for Miami International Airport setting a new record of 98 F for the month of May: I just tried some factchecking of this. Isn’t that airport KMIA? Isn’t the record high set there for May being 98 set on 5/28/2017? Isn’t the highest temperature recorded there in May 2019 95 F on the 14th and 15th, breaking previous records for those dates by 1 degree F?
Mount Aigoual new record could be the result of sampling.
Maximum-minimum mercury thermometers were replaced 30 years ago with platinum resistance thermometers. Older thermometers had much more thermal inertia. New thermometers are sampled more frequently (but I could not determine how frequently). A higher sampling frequency translate into peaks being sharper.
Example:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/triangle:10/mean:48/plot/triangle:10
Peaks are sharper – yes
But that applies to both maxima and minima.
There should be no bias with respect to the ratio of new warm records and new cold records.
In a given place, temperatures fluctuate by ±2°C within minutes. A high frequency thermometer will faithfully record the temporary maximum, a LIG thermometer with less inertia will not.
Only record high temperatures were published by media. Nighttime temperatures were not so warm.
We’re still colder than the Medieval Warm Period, and certainly colder than the even warmer Roman and Minoan Warm Periods. They were farming in Iceland! So the whole recovery since the minima of LIA and up to today is well within natural variation. There’s various records out there that show the MWP was indeed global as well.
Oh welcome to the probably millionth commenter posting such stuff without any reference to published material…
Great.
You really look like a smart and well-informed guy. They where farming in Iceland? Well, there has been continuous farming on Iceland the last 1000 years, also during LIA.
Rune Valaker
The ‘smart’ guy above of course was meaning… Greenland and all these Norse ‘farmers’ who in fact all were walrus hunters seeking for their tusks’ ivory until it became really unprofitable.
Yes, they exported more walrus tusks than they could possibly have collected themselves, which implies trade with eskimos.
It became unprofitable when the Portuguese started shipping African ivory I guess.
To Bindidon and Svante. The Nordic settlements in Greenland and their fate have been researched for several decades by Scandinavian scientists. It’s still a mystery, and climate probably played a role. I have not read that walrus teeth played a major role. Probably a lack of contact with Iceland and Norway and a no supplies of shipbuilding material that again stopped trading was more important. All in combination with a hostile attitude between the Inuit and the Nordic peoples.
I present a link of an able Norwegian professor emeritus;
https://forskning.no/historie-kronikk-kultur/slik-levde-norrone-bonder-pa-gronland-i-vikingtida/1276640
Try it on Google Translate.
Your article says “The source material does not support a hypothesis that emphasizes climate deterioration and ecological problems”.
But yes, there must have been many factors.
The black death appeared around the same time.
Well we know the glaciers in southern Greenland were advancing at the time of the disappearance. The article does say the Norsemen did not disappear because of climate change, demonstrating yet once again that humans are actually quite adept at adjusting to such phenomena. More likely the cause was indirectly related to climate. Perma-frozen seaways would push the Inuit hunting grounds south due to marine mammals not being as adaptable to increasing year round ice.
Bill Hunter says:
Well we know the glaciers in southern Greenland were advancing at the time of the disappearance.
And how do we know this?
https://foramsetal.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/winsor_qsr_2014_gis_lia.pdf
Unlucky citation, it puts the maximum extent at 1340 years ago:
You’re probably right about the western settlement.
An abandoned Viking farm named “Gard Unter Sandet” in Kalaallit (Nanuata) was dug out of permafrost [see http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf%5D. From what was found there, its inhabitants were assuredly farmers.
Interesting paper, delete everything after ‘.pdf’ to make the link work.
The site is in the western settlement.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Can you post links to the lines of evidence you are considering when making this bold claim that the MWP was warmer globally than today? We would like to review the material.
Also, which physical processes specifically are causing this magnitude of “natural variation” especially after 1950? It would be super helpful if you could post links to this information here as well.
The MWP has already been settled:
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
The MPW has been settled: there were warm events all over the world.
More than 1200 paper showing its reality have been gathered here:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4
For each location on the map, a reference to a scientific publication is given, and the relevant part of this publication is quoted.
The keyword is synchronous, I’m glad you didn’t drop that David.
Synchronous? You mean the warming that reversed the cooling wasn’t synchronous with anything?
And of course there was a MWP because it was warmer before it started getting cooler or it wouldn’t have been cooling.
This is all just one of those argumentum ad ignorantiam examples we see so often in climate science trying to pacify the masses by claiming that those who know better than everybody else indeed do know better than anybody else but they just don’t have a clue just how ignorant they are but rest assured they are less ignorant than anybody else or at least they think they are! LOL!
David’s reference is good.
Instead of trying to describe it, just look at fig. 2.
Well I think maybe a nice picture is good for the all the youngsters, right?
As we see with natural variation of all sorts like multi-decadal oscillations when SST patterns in the north Pacific align in certain ways for several decades at a time, the actual alignment still shifts in time with the much shorter ENSO cycle and the multi-decadal patterns are only a dominance of El Nino over La Nina for the warm phase or vice versa for the cold phase.
Natural variation doesn’t typically reveal itself as a pattern most are capable of comprehending, our small brains tend to classify and group stuff in ways quite unnatural.
I would remain skeptical of such attempts to show a lack of synchrony because that is in fact the natural order of the system even today. You look at the map and you see a dominant pattern of warmth, look at a map today and you see the same thing. Its quite amazing you don’t get that.
Your Nino talk made my head spin, but I do think I got the rest of what you said.
All I am saying Svante is within natural warming and cooling patterns there are smaller shorter term patterns of warming and cooling.
You can see that at work daily in the ocean. At a small scale current directions are constantly changing from the tides. Current direction changes occur about 4 times a day, not unlike winds that undergo daily changes due to a rotating planet in relationship to the sun.
Seasons come and go bringing larger movements. Tides keep doing their thing, while the sun effects undergo longer seasonal changes.
ENSO is a pattern of winds piling up warm water in the western equatorial Pacific where sealevel rises several inches above the level in the west, then winds change and the water sloshes back to the east, dampening currents, affecting upwelling zones, and extending their effects ocean wide into the entire Coriollis Effect driven winds and currents.
All these effects are manifested simultaneously and so you see a lot of noise in the data which actually isn’t noise but real climate/weather change.
Fishermen and farmers see this everyday. The older ones have seen the longer term cycles, the younger ones tend to go bankrupt while the older ones who survived previous cycles reach into their old bag of tricks.
Scientists without decades outside are like the neophytes who just throw up their hands and proclaim the end of the world.
The first paper on the Pacific ocean multi-decadal oscillation wasn’t even written until 1996 but its foundations are solid reaching well back into the history of fisheries and is supported by layers of sediments in the bottom of the ocean. What they all have in common for many species of fish are water temperature.
People working in windowless offices have no concept of any of this.
Here’s some of those academics:
http://proglacial.com/research/
http://proglacial.com/people/
Ocean cycles addressed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-361957
Some of those academics:
http://proglacial.com/research/
http://proglacial.com/people/
Svante, please stop trolling.
JimGiordano says:
Were still colder than the Medieval Warm Period, and certainly colder than the even warmer Roman and Minoan Warm Periods.
I’d like to see that (global) data, too. Jim?
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4
Climate reconstructions of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ 1000-1200 AD. Legend: MWP was warm (red), cold (blue), dry (yellow), wet
Example:
Sha et al. 2014, Andresen et al. 2011: Marine sediment core
diatom-based sea-ice reconstruction from marine sediment core
DA06-139G, Vaigat Strait, Disko Bugt, West Greenland
Warming phase 1000-1200 AD marked by increase in Atlantic warm water, increased iceberg calving and an increase in meltwater.
I would not underestimate Hilary! Definitely not an airhead, more like Senator Palpatine!
jim…”I would not underestimate Hilary! Definitely not an airhead, more like Senator Palpatine!”
My airhead reference is two-fold:
1)She stood by Lying Willie through several affairs and a sexual harassment suit with Paula Jones that cost the Clinton’s $800,000 in an out of court settlement.
In the end, Hillary blamed the women. I don’t want such an airhead running the US.
2)While John Christy of UAH, a good climate scientist and man of integrity, was testifying at a senate hearing, she stood there with arms folded glaring at him. She was very rude to John, another indication that she is an airhead. Since she was not willing to hear John out, even though he had the UAH data, she is an idiot to boot.
HClinton stood with arms crossed while Christy testified?
Do you have proof of that?
PS: Anyone who Gordon thinks is an “airhead” is, ipso facto, quite smart.
DA…”HClinton stood with arms crossed while Christy testified?
Do you have proof of that?”
Ask John Christy, he was there.
Hey Mike I for one appreciated your comment, especially about the nature of the chaotic system. However that is more in play with weather predictions. I think we should at least be able to ball-park rough climate ranges, especially when we compare to past climate reconstructions and fact in what we know about the Sun’s moods and planetary motion.
After several days to a week and a half, weather predictions are subject to chaos.
But global climate changes are about the planetary energy imbalance. Now that imbalance is inward.
DA,
You wrote –
“But global climate changes are about the planetary energy imbalance. Now that imbalance is inward.”
More meaningless pseudoscientific drivel! Another pointless, incorrect, and irrelevant word collection.
Cheers.
Improving estimates of Earths energy imbalance,
Johnson, G.C., J.M. Lyman, and N.G. Loeb
Nature Clim. Change, 6, 639640, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3043 (2016).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
From the abstract:
Here, we update our calculations (Fig. 1), and find a net heat uptake of 0.71 +/- 0.10 W m−2 from 2005 to 2015 (with 0.61 +/- 0.09 W m−2 taken up by the ocean from 01,800 m; 0.07 +/- 0.04 W m−2 by the deeper ocean; and 0.03 +/- 0.01 W m−2 by melting ice, warming land, and an increasingly warmer and moister atmosphere).
DA,
Complete nonsense, of course.
There is no ongoing “heat uptake”. More pseudoscientific cultist propaganda. Heat is not being stored, accumulated, or hidden, The authors are delusional.
No useful description the GHE exists, and the experiment carried out by Nature over the last four and a half billion years indicates that the Earth has cooled.
Bad luck for you and the rest of the cultists.
Cheers.
The authors are delusional.
What evidence do you have that they are wrong?
DA,
Did you not read my reasons?
Have you any evidence to say they aren’t?
Cheers.
MF, you keep making it crystal clear that you are a waste of time.
Sadly, that somehow excites you.
DA,
Do you truly believe you can read minds? Oh well, if you suffer form delusional psychosis, facts will have no impact on you.
Michael Mann apparently believes he was unjustly deprived of a Nobel Prize, and Gavin Schmidt believes he is a world famous climate scientist! Join the delusional climate cult club.
Cheers.
Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt !
They are my heroes !
I wish they were my patients here at the Delusional Denialist Dreamtime Retirement Home instead of old grouches like MF and GR.
Begone, psychobabbling troll.
nurse crotchrot…”Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt !
They are my heroes !”
Get a life!!!
David Appel said: After several days to a week and a half, weather predictions are subject to chaos.
But global climate changes are about the planetary energy imbalance. Now that imbalance is inward
No. Climate models have been shown over the last 20 years incapable of predicting the actual temperature trends. And they cannot either predict precipitations or regional variations. Their built-in energy imbalance is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. Their failure to correctly predict the future refute that hypothesis.
paul…”Their [models] failure to correctly predict the future refute that hypothesis”.
Models cannot even predict the past, given past data.
JG,
Thanks.
My point is that any predictions of a chaotic system are no better than a naive persistence prediction in practice. For example, usefully predicting the the next drought in California would be a good thing. However, the location, intensity and duration can only be guessed at.
For somebody to simply “predict” that California will suffer from drought conditions in the future is not difficult, and might even come to pass. I can make such a prediction. So can you. As such, no use to anybody. When, where, how long, how severe? Nobody can tell. Unpredictable.
A reasonable seeming assumption might be that even a chaotic system may exhibit stability, as the infinitely variable inputs might tend to cancel each other. This assumption is fine, until it doesn’t work. The “one in a thousand year” event mya be followed by another next week, next year or next century! No two tornado seasons are the same. No two hurricanes seasons are identical.
And so it goes. Chaos everywhere – many claims of predictability, but all eventually fail, if based on examination of the past. Even based on known probabilities, prediction may not be useful. A coin may have come down heads 50 times in row (unlikely), but the chance of another head remains 0.5 (50%).
I’ll stick with making assumptions. Most of mine have been good enough, so I’m doing OK. I even bet my life on them, every time I board and aircraft, or apply the brakes to avoid a collision. Would you bet your life on climate predictions?
Cheers.
MF says:
For example, usefully predicting the the next drought in California would be a good thing. However, the location, intensity and duration can only be guessed at
But predicting the change in global average temperature is much easier.
Consider a swimming pool on a sunny afternoon. As we all know, it has spots that particularly warm and some that are particularly cold. Predicting the exact location of their spots, and their duration, is a very difficult problem in fluid mechanics.
But the evolution of the pool’s average temperature is much easier to predict — use Newton’s law of cooling, add wind or whatever else you want, but it’s a much much easier calculation than calculating the evolution of the warm and cold spots.
The former is like predicting weather. The latter is like predicting climate — dependent on large scale global factors, not the microscopic details.
DA,
Don’t be silly.
You didn’t contradict a single thing I wrote, but decided to avoid reality by saying –
“But predicting the change in global average temperature is much easier.”
Another stupid and ignorant unsupported cultist assertion. You agree that you cannot predict climate, but claim you can still predict something you cannot even define – global average temperature!
Go on – try and usefully define “global average temperature”. According to NASA “The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet.”
Untrue, of course. Actual surface temperatures are totally ignored in favour of nominal air temperatures taken under a variety of conditions at various heights above the surface with very poor controls relating to siting, instrument type and calibration, enclosure parameters and so on.
Additionally, the surface covered by water (more than 70%), is totally ignored.
Off you go now. While you are trying to furiously avoid facts, try to figure out why the surface (the actual surface) has cooled from a molten state over the last four and a half billion years.
Or you could just throw in some more pseudoscientific cultist dogma. Your choice.
Cheers.
something you cannot even define global average temperature!
Do you know the definition of a scalar function over a 2-dimensional domain?
DA,
You are obviously confused.
I referred to the fact that you can’t even define global average temperature.
You asked –
“Do you know the definition of a scalar function over a 2-dimensional domain?”
Don’t ask me. Look it up yourself, if you don’t know. You claim to have a PhD, so you should be capable of finding it out for yourself. Unless, of course, you assumed the identity of David Appel. Did David Appell actually receive a PhD, or can’t you remember?
Maybe you suffered a traumatic brain injury – you have my sympathy if you are currently suffering from a severe mental defect. I certainly support your endeavours to find out about scalar functions. They are easy enough for you to start re-learning mathematics. I wish you well in your endeavours.
Cheers.
My apologies Dr Appell. MF has been off his tablets again. Don’t listen to his ramblings – he will quieten down as soon as I find his comic books for him to read. His favourite is something called “Watts Up”.
nurse ratchet, please stop trolling.
David Apell said: But predicting the change in global average temperature is much easier.
Actually, climate models tried to do so and failed.
See for example : “A Test of the Tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models” [doi:10.1029/2018EA000401].
Can you define “failed” so that we can use the definition to objectively compare predictions with observations.
Also, do you think this is a failure? I mean, it looks pretty good to me.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337
bdgwx said : can you define “failed”.
Please, see the publication doi:10.1029/2018EA000401 as suggested.
dgwx said : can you define failed.
Paul Aubrin says: Please, see the publication doi:10.1029/2018EA000401 as suggested.
_________________
The most important topics in climate science are the ones that the loudest proponents religiously attempt to avoid or address with a handwave.
Paul,
I did read the publication. It’s about the well known mid troposphere tropical hotspot problem which everyone has known about for like 2 decades now. I’m going to attempt at guessing your definition of failure is when the warming trend of 200-300mb layer between 20N and 20S is off by more than a factor of 2. That’s the error report in the paper anyway. Let me know if you agree. Anyway, if I’m remembering correctly this is a substantial improvement over what the error was in early 2000’s.
I’m curious though…if a prediction of 0.325C/decade as compared to an observation of 0.173C/decade is failure then what it is when a prediction is for cooling and the opposite occurs?
Can you read the paper I posted and comment regarding whether you think the authors attempts at modeling the last 3 million years is failure? Given that they don’t attempt to explain the 200-300mb layer I’m not sure we can use the definition I presented above.
bdgwx says:
“Im curious thoughif a prediction of 0.325C/decade as compared to an observation of 0.173C/decade is failure then what it is when a prediction is for cooling and the opposite occurs?”
I would be more ready to take the position that .173C/decade as a result of a .325C/decade to simply be a failure in its own right as that would be the proper representation in contrast to a true skeptic.
A true skeptic doesn’t make predictions. So you don’t get mileage by contrasting it to other predictions. . . .unless of course you are now resigned to incorporating the other predictions and calling both sides off the mark for failure to see the truth in the oppositions viewpoint.
Are you at that point?
Bill,
I disagree. True skeptics definitely make predictions. In fact, it’s the one’s that make predictions and demonstrate that their theory is a better match to reality than the established theory they are challenging who are the most convincing.
The point I’m at is picking the theory that best matches reality. The standard model, general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. would almost certainly be considered a failure by contrarians because they don’t make perfect predictions. That’s par for the course in most disciplines of science. But they are still useful and provide the best match to reality we have. It’s the same with climate science. The modern consensus on climate change isn’t perfect and it never will be will. But, it provides the best match reality thusfar. Like any true skeptic I form viewpoints around the set of hypothesis that have survived falsification and rally around the theory that does the best job among all of the imperfect candidates. If a new observation, hypothesis, theory forms that does a better job at explain ALL of the observations then I’ll shift my viewpoint. But right now these GHG-less theories are horrible matches to reality so I don’t have much choice at the moment in supporting theories that incorporate GHG physics.
bdgwx says: “Bill, I disagree. True skeptics definitely make predictions. In fact, its the ones that make predictions and demonstrate that their theory is a better match to reality than the established theory they are challenging who are the most convincing.”
that may be the “modern” definition created by proponents of global warming deriding all not going along as deniers. Skeptic is a better word for one that actually needs some real evidence to become convinced that a complex theory is correct. However, global warming advocates instead of proof of their own theory desire that skeptics provide proof of an alternative theory and many skeptics work hard at that. However, unless the alternative theory does have a solid foundation in evidence, its proponent is NOT a skeptic in any sense more than a loud proponent of global warming is a skeptic.
You are just confounding skepticism in general with skepticism only about what you believe.
Now I grant you, and this was a college major of mine, language is something defined by common usage. So indeed maybe skepticism is becoming only about global warming. But hey the masses out there misunderstanding the English language and basic logic are perfectly in their rights to create any language they want.
bdgwx said:”Im curious thoughif a prediction of 0.325C/decade as compared to an observation of 0.173C/decade is failure then what it is when a prediction is for cooling and the opposite occurs?”
Who cares. A 100% error is huge enough to disprove any hypothesis.
Paul, so what criteria do you use to select the theory that best matches observations? For example, would you rather choose a theory that predictions just with the wrong magnitude or a theory that predicts cooling?
bdgwx says: “Paul, so what criteria do you use to select the theory that best matches observations? For example, would you rather choose a theory that predictions just with the wrong magnitude or a theory that predicts cooling?”
Why pick a theory? Sure you have to pick a theory to create a climate model. But that’s the problem! All the climate models are operating on the basis of a single theory deemed the best science available and settled science without further evidence. . . .a death knell to centralized science ever inventing a different theory and massive sums of money circling the drain.
Gee, its the main problem with socialism too. . . .go figure!
Scientists rally around the theory that best explains reality. That’s kind of what science does.
“Sure you have to pick a theory to create a climate model. But that’s the problem! All the climate models are operating on the basis of a single theory deemed the best science available and settled science without further evidence.”
Where does this idea come from that climate models are based on theories that have no evidence, Bill?
Climate models are based on ordinary physics, and well-tested atmospheric physics models that is able, for example, to produce the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere that is actually observed.
bdgwx says: “Scientists rally around the theory that best explains reality. Thats kind of what science does.”
LMAO! Boy are you ever naive! Scientists don’t rally around some kind of silly notion of a “best” unproven theory. . . .not to speak of the fact that the very idea of a best unproven theory is largely an oxymoron. There really is no “best” unproven theory, there are only unproven theories and proved theories or theories with great predictive track records becoming proven. Not anything like that in sight in climate science.
No, they rally around grant money. Grant money is their life blood, without it they probably ought to start thinking about flipping burgers for a living. Its the grant money that keeps the lab ticking and provides expenses for assistants. Its publish or perish and to publish you need funds to do the work.
It would be great if what you said was true but the reality of needing to make a living doing what you love to do to keep doing it is a necessity.
Its a much better situation where the funding is non-politicized and available for virtually any scientists idea. thats really how science advances. When science is not doing that its not being inventive, its not being open minded, its not thinking outside the box, its not inventing anything.
‘Grant money is their life blood, without it they probably ought to start thinking about flipping burgers for a living.’
Yes, true.
But the meme that federal grant agencies EXPECT a certain science outcome, is simply made up.
As someone who has gotten federal grants, I can tell you thats not how it works, at all.
Funding agencies expect you to investigate some topic, complete the project, and publish the findings.
They don’t know what the findings will be, thats why its called SCIENCE.
Nate says: Yes, true. But the meme that federal grant agencies EXPECT a certain science outcome, is simply made up.
As someone who has gotten federal grants, I can tell you thats not how it works, at all.
Funding agencies expect you to investigate some topic, complete the project, and publish the findings.
————-
I have great respect for the civil service run grant agencies Nate. The civil service was a great concept. We should return back towards more civil service control. Unfortunately, the government now is like swiss cheese when it comes to independence. Yes indeed you may have gotten federal grants and felt that the process was extremely fair and not politically motivated. But against that wall of neutrality NGOs and private foundations have exerted their will through Congress to influence the topics, and create appointed panels to direct funding. Often these efforts create a small but extremely potent bias in requiring a “consultation” to recommend topic specific grants and even comment on the recipients of such grants.
Of course grants should be reviewed and recommended by experts but the civil service is perfectly capable of providing them and keeping the processes independent.
Of course its all justified as the politically powerful find themselves in positions of power over grants without regard to what side they are on. Big corps actually profit from regulation so the whole “big oil” meme is a false flag operation. The crazy thing about it all its not a conspiracy it is all about appealing to authority and power for the purpose of consolidation of power. That is one of the major reasons I like James Hansen. He demonstrates almost daily he is not part of the operation calling cap and trade what it is. . . .a huge giveaway to the wealthy and not likely to change much of anything. Hansen wants fuel rationing. I completely disagree with him on that point but agree that would be the fair approach to a war on climate change if done and enforced globally if anything is done to restrain free choice of energy usage.
But the consortium of the politically powerful simply won’t choose that as it doesn’t line their pockets with more of the people’s money as it doesn’t continue to force dollars into the corrupt side of the system and harm the less powerful to the benefit of the powerful.
‘ But against that wall of neutrality NGOs and private foundations have exerted their will through Congress to influence the topics, and create appointed panels to direct funding. ‘
Can you point to an example of that?
Nate says: – Can you point to an example of that?
Sure thousands of times over. Ask any skeptic scientist if they have encountered a wall of resistance. One of my favorite examples of bias is with a major decision maker on funding science projects. Lonnie Thomson for years gave grave reports on the fate of a tropical glacier Qori Kalis. In 2007 he suggested it would be gone in just a few years. After probably a decade of annual expeditions to Qori Kalis accompanied with a study proclaiming how dire the situation was at Qori Kalis, reports suddenly ceases. Thomson was still mounting expeditions to Peru, still occasionally looked at Qori Kalis, but not one published story appeared since on the status of the glacier. Today you can view Qori Kalis and see its extent has been fluctuating up from and back to its 2007 extent. Of course its not a case of a lack of funding as Thomson has massive control over funding. Its simply he sounded the alarm and doesn’t want to diminish its effects.
Here’s an update by Thomson et al. in 2017:
https://tinyurl.com/y2ofn6vk
Svante says: Heres an update by Thomson et al. in 2017:
Over the thirteen year [2004 to 2017] observational period Qori Kalis areal extent decreased by 30%, its volume decreased by 43%, consistent with past studies and the behavior of the Quelccaya ice cap. Within one to two decades, the Kilimanjaro ice fields and the Qori Kalis glacier are quite likely to disappear completely.
————–
Hmmm, you are just proving my point. Thompson didn’t write anything from his expeditions there after 2007 when 20% of the extent was gone and Thompson claimed the glacier would likely disappear in 5 years.
Now a student of his completing her Master’s Thesis has written something. Thompson is simply an advisor on her thesis committee. And of course you probably missed the part where more than 2/3rds of the loss reported in the recent study was lost by 2006 prompting another “scientific” extrapolation of causing the glacier to completely disappear in 5 years.
Also missing are any papers during two periods of glacier growth where the glacier gained about 28% of its mass. And you think there is no bias?
Bill,
I don’t see how this anecdote (no cite) supports your claim:
‘But against that wall of neutrality NGOs and private foundations have exerted their will through Congress to influence the topics, and create appointed panels to direct funding.’
Nate says –
I dont see how this anecdote (no cite) supports your claim:
———
You can put it down as a cite from me and my 30 years of experience, 20 of which has been deeply embroiled into local environment activism.
If thats enough I suggest you read Tom Knudsen, Environment, Inc.;
Michael Crichton, State of Fear; Peter Huber, Hard Green. And I can get you more if you read those and discuss their applicability to what I am talking about.
Do you think that the temperature drop below the average in the southern hemisphere is only seasonal?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_t2anom_1-day.png
To have a look at existing, confirmed data has always been better than reading news, be it on paper or online.
Even the official MeteoFrance site publishes inofficial informations:
http://www.meteofrance.fr/actualites/73942103-canicule-de-juin-2019-retour-sur-un-episode-exceptionnel
When you download the GHCN daily data, many of the highest temperaures communicated in France are not visible because they were not transmitted to NOAA.
The 45.9 C in Gallargues-le-Montueux for example were by no means measured: it is either an interpolation (which might have been correct) or it was a private measurement. The same holds for the 44.8 C in Nimes: there is no acknowledged GHCN daily station there.
The highest ‘officialy communicatedl’ temperature measured in FR during the 2019 June heat wave was 43.5 C by two nearby stations at Montpellier airport.
This is also the highest temperature in France ever communicated to NOAA: is bypasses even the old record (Mont-de-Marsan, 1947 July 25), and all measurements performed in July and August during the 2003 heat wave.
For Mont Aigoual, 29.9 C were communicated. This temperature there was bypassed only once, in July 2005.
This is really a high temperature there, because the station’s altitude is 1567 m.
Luckily, temps actually move down in Yrop, like here, where we soon will experience a drop from 37.5 down to 18 C in one week.
Perfect.
My experience in the US is that not most stations that are considered official by the National Weather Service are not part of the USHCN or the GHCN. I suspect the same is true in France.
Donald L. Klipstein
Correct. But there have been / still are in the sum over 18000 GHCN daily staions for CONUS! Amazing…
***
Re.: Miami
Fact check succeeded.
1. The GHCN daily station
USW00012839 25.7906 -80.3164 8.8 FL MIAMI INTL AP
indeed is here
https://tinyurl.com/yxjhex7x
All ‘skeptic’s will have a big laugh when looking at the station’s place, ha ha.
2. In the station’s file
https://tinyurl.com/yxqu3arp
there is no day with 36.7 C in TMAX for May 2019; the last day in this station’s history showing such a temp was indeed 2017, May 28.
Good point!
Donald L. Klipstein
Re.: Miami [2]
Oh I’m afraid I must take the good point half back:
USW00012839201906TMAX 339 D 333 D 356 D 333 D 333 D 328 D 350 D 333 D 311 D 322 D 328 D 333 D 322 D 344 D 317 D 283 D 300 D 328 D 328 D 333 D 350 D 344 D 350 D 367 D 361 D 350 D 333 D 333 D 294 D 317 D-9999
because on June 24 your 36.7 C aka 98 F in fact are really there…
While I accept that we often throttle statistical data into submission, I did a curve fit on the monthly CET records from 1650 to see where the minimum of the LIA occurred.
The equation that I got was T = 44.4-0.0412 x Year+1.177810^-5 x year^2. Differentiating to find the minimum gave 1750 as the turning point from which temperatures are slowly recovering.
Good fun and a bit surprising that it is so sensible: however, as usual with weather data, the statistical significance of the curve is low (R^2=.348).
Is there any validated source for the IPCC doom temperature rise of 1.5 deg K (or was it 2 deg K)?
jack broughton
LIA might eventually be a little bit more complex than you think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
There was not simply one ‘turning point’, even not one global LIA.
Taking CET as source is somewhat risky I guess… unless you concentrate your ‘theories’ on Western Europe.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
binny…”LIA might eventually be a little bit more complex than you think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age”
If you click on the Talk tab at the top of the page you will see the name of William Connolley as an editor. He is an uber-alarmist who hangs out at realclimate and he is a computer programmer.
Try going onto the site and edit something that has a skeptical nuance. Connolley will appear and cancel it.
This article is not worth the paper on which it is printed. More alarmists bs.
There is plenty of evidence to support the LIA as a global phenomenon.
Differentiating to find the minimum gave 1750 as the turning point from which temperatures are slowly recovering
What does “recovering” mean?
The global temperature doesn’t change unless something *causes* it to change. So what has caused the change since 1850?
David Appel said: «The global temperature doesn’t change unless something *causes* it to change.»
No. Given the chaotic nature of the climate systems, causes cannot generally be identified.
Philippe Larminat applied classical identification techniques on several climate data sets [doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.09.018]. The results were not exactly what you would imagine.
Abstract
Based on numerical models and climate observations over past centuries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes to human activity most of the warming observed since the mid-20th century. In this context, this paper presents the first major attempt for climate system identification – in the sense of the systems theory – in the hope to significantly reduce the uncertainty ranges. Actually, climatic data being what they are, the identified models only partially fulfill this expectation. Nevertheless, despite the dispersion of the identified parameters and of the induced simulations, one can draw robust conclusions which turn out to be incompatible with those of the IPCC: the natural contributions (solar activity and internal variability) could in fact be predominant in the recent warming. We then confront our work with the approach favored by IPCC, namely the “detection and attribution related to anthropic climate change”. We explain the differences first by the exclusion by IPCC of the millennial paleoclimatic data, secondly by an obvious confusion between cause and effect, when the El Niño index is involved in detection and attribution.
jack…”Differentiating to find the minimum gave 1750 as the turning point from which temperatures are slowly recovering. ”
Apparently there were two minima but the evidence supports the fact that the LIA was a global phenomenon with global temps 1C to 2C below normal. Your base for the rewarming is interesting and likely correct. It seems reasonable it would have taken till 1850 for the full effect to be ended.
It is also reasonable that it took another century for the re-warming to bring as back to current temps: for glaciers to shrink back, sea levels to re-rise, etc.
Stavro
You wrote upthread:
The most thorough analysis of the UHI effect on U.S. temperature was by Anthony Watts and co-authors, who analyzed the siting of hundreds of thermometers around the U.S. and showed that if only the best (most rural) sited thermometers are used, U.S. warming trends are roughly cut in half.
why has this report never been published. Last I heard was the Climate Audit had fond serious problems were these fixed?
*
This report should in fact have been published in… 2012. It couldn’t, probably because it contained too much of manifestly unproven matter.
Nevertheless, NOAA officially acknowledged the work done by collaborators of surfacestations.org, by publishing in the following document a list of 71 USHCN stations these collaborators had considered valuable:
Long-Term Monthly Climate Records from Stations Across the Contiguous United States
Menne, Williams, Vose
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/monthly_doc.html
You read there:
Set 1 includes stations identified as having good siting by the volunteers at surfacestations.org.
This is the link to ‘Set 1’:
https://tinyurl.com/y5f5zwxe
*
To discover the list was interesting for me because it made me able to search, within the far bigger GHCN daily station list (over 100000 stations, about 36000 dealing with temperature, 18000 of them in the US) those stations exactly matching the USHCN stations considered well-sited by surfacestations.org.
The GHCN daily station list can be found within
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
46 of the 71 USHCN stations were matched:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nfrk9qylSAyYA1yNilPXrC6E3Sul5rVA/view
The idea was to compare these 46 GHCN daily stations with all those in the CONUS, what would avoid the bias of comparing USHCN data with GHCN daily data.
I thought: Oh dear, how will all these 18000 anonymous GHCN daily stations be able to compete with these ‘well-sited’ ones? They sure will show a tremendous warming trend!
Hmmmh. Here is the rather suprising result.
1. 1900-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B4TzVe7rFLidKIb-dUOLwdittauW2oVY/view
2. 1979-2018 (together with UAH6.0 LT USA48)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/138KA91L0a5mTkYTxPKLLw0u3ekC0RaGc/view
As you can easily see, the 46 well-sited stations selected by surfacestations.org give when averaged together a higher trend than the average of all available GHCN daily stations for CONUS.
Where the heck then is this UHI?
I don’t deny it! I simply have to see that I obtain results unable to clearly show its presence.
The next step is now to select out of the GHCN daily CONUS data subset those 206 ‘pristine’ stations marked with the CRN flag (Climatology Reference Network), and to do the same job again.
On verra bien!
Meanwhile we’ll have one more time a good laugh when the genius comes around and as usual spits his faked and/or fudged nonsense. The less you are able to do things, the more you urge in denigrating those who did.
From Roy Spencer’s post we read:
The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time? At least in the U.S., the answer is no, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased (). One would need to study the data for Europe to see if the number of record highs is increasing over time.
*
Yes, for the U.S., the answer is no:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
But for the Globe, the answer is (of course according to a laymans home work), clearly yes.
1. As John Christy generated his record high stat out of the USHCN record, I first switched to the GHCN daily record with around 18000 US stations in the grand total over the period, and around 36000 worldwide, and generated a similar stat for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
I chosed 35 / 40 C instead of 100 / 105 F: nobody uses Fahrenheit ouside of the USA and some of its backyards. But it seems that the stuff, though based on a considerably greater data set, nevertheless fits to John Christys work quite well. The two graphs are very similar.
2. Extending the stat worldwide then gave this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
The station data was distributed over a grid of 2.5 cell size, in order to have 200 US grid cells competing with 2000 cells worldwide, instead of having in the yearly average about 8000 US stations competing with about 8000 worldwide, what lets the Globe look like CONUS backyard 🙂
Who has some doubt concerning accuracy and precision is kindly invited to to the same job. We can then compare the results.
Maybe I redo the stat work again, this time restricted to Europe or even to France, when I have some idle time.
Bindidon says:
The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time?
No, that is not the proper question.
In a warming locale a constant rate of record high temperatures certainly indicates warming. That rate need not increase for warming to be present.
But it is significant if record high temperatures are occurring at a greater rate than record cold temperatures, as is happening at least in USA48.
David Appell
“Bindidon says:
The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time?”
*
No, Appell. I did not say that.
It was from Roy Spencer’s head post, right here on top.
“In a warming locale a constant rate of record high temperatures certainly indicates warming.”
WRONG, Appell.
That is exactly why I computed the number of record highs for the Globe instead of for the US only.
You are an ideologist, not a scientist.
DA: – “But it is significant if record high temperatures are occurring at a greater rate than record cold temperatures, as is happening at least in USA48.”
This just shows how imprecise our concepts are. Global mean temperature is merely a statistic not a real temperature. One would expect that the rate of record high temperatures would exceed the rate of record low temperatures in the situation of a rising global mean temperature even when the rate of high temperature records remains level.
In the real world sense (as an actual sensory experience) that would be more properly characterized as “closer to normal” temperatures because cold divergence from normal is shrinking at a higher rate than warm divergence from normal is.
But hey any lie works if it achieves the agenda you want it to achieve, right David? That’s why they say figures lie and liars figure.
Grand Solar Minimum GSM News
Opublikowany 23 cze 2019
The new research was led by Irina Kitiashvili, a researcher with the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute at NASA’s Ames Research Center, in California’s Silicon Valley. It combined observations from two NASA space missions – the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory and the Solar Dynamics Observatory – with data collected since 1976 from the ground-based National Solar Observatory.
blob:https://www.youtube.com/33fbdebe-2986-4558-bb52-7f4fe37c9db9
Sorry.
https://youtu.be/jP9_4uoEdKg
Richard GreeneNewDeal wrote:
The US had the coldest winter ( October through April ) in over 100 years,
Not even remotely true, even given your inaccurate definition of “winter.”
In fact, Oct18-Apr18 ranked as the 56th coldest period of 124 for USA48 since 1895.
Even recently, Oct13-Apr14 was colder.
Source:
NOAA USA48 monthly
https://is.gd/nN5P9i
That should be Oct18-Apr19, not Apr18.
No come back, ‘NewDeal?
David, please stop trolling.
Roy: from Berkeley Earth:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
DA,
Berkely Earth is a strange organisation, created by Richard and Elizabeth Muller to apparently ensure a flow of income to – Richard and Elizabeth Muller?
As is common with such organisations, it creates “scientists” at will. One such is Steven Mosher, who apparently has Bachelor’s degrees in English Literature and Philosophy, and attempted a PhD in Literature.
Of course, Berkeley Earth has no connection at all to the University of California, Berkeley, which some naive donors might possibly assume.
Berekely Earth’s concern for the Chinese population is laudable, but possibly pointless, as the PRC Government doesn’t seem to take much notice of Berkely Earth, who wrote –
“In China the numbers are far worse; on bad days the health effects of air pollution are comparable to the harm done smoking three packs per day (60 cigarettes) by every man, woman, and child. Air pollution is arguably the greatest environmental catastrophe in the world today.”
Maybe such statements bring a warm glow to the donors who give their hard-earned cash to Berkeley Earth. Apart from that, there doesn’t seem to be much point in telling the Chinese what they already know.
Cheers.
BE, in part funded by Koch Industries.
Their work all open source and published in good, peer reviewed journals.
So if you think you have something to say, critique the work, if you can.
DA,
If you consider papers published by SciTechnol, (OMICS), good, peer reviewed journals, you are deluded.
Here’s one reference –
“SciTechnol (OMICS in disguise)
In May 2012, Beall reported that OMICS created this name for 53 instant journals and was “spamming tens of thousands of academics, hoping to recruit some of them for the new journals editorial boards.” ”
Or –
“In August 2016, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a suit against OMICS, two of its affiliated companies and Gedela, charging them with deceptive publishing practices.”
Predatory journals publish any nonsense at all, provided payment is received. Fake peer review is provided as part of the service. Use your noggin, laddie.
The work is rubbish. Worship it if you like.
Cheers.
What about the paper’s contents and conclusions is wrong?
PS: Be specific.
DA,
You wrote –
“What about the papers contents and conclusions is wrong?”
If you don’t know, why should I tell you? Read it, and draw your own conclusions. You don’t expect me to spoon feed you, do you?
Cheers.
MF, clearly you haven’t read the papers and know nothing about them.
(It’s just so easy with you people….)
DA,
You wrote –
“MF, clearly you havent read the papers and know nothing about them.”
You need to seek a refund from the con man who charged you for the mind reading course. You have been scammed. There is no such thing as mind reading. It is about as valid as pseudoscientific belief that CO2 has miraculous heating powers.
Oh well, these sorts of people prey on the weak minded and gullible. Have you tried studying science? It might help you to distinguish fact from fantasy. You seem to be unaware of the difference at present.
Good luck.
Cheers.
David Appell says: “So if you think you have something to say, critique the work, if you can.”
The paper critiques itself and recognizes that the entire discussion of UHI remains controversial. The paper simply offers a narrow view of the topic which adds to the discourse but only a moron would think it represents the last word on the topic.
Bill, from Berkeley Earth:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
**
David, please stop trolling.
“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
“My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
– Richard Muller, New York Times, 7/28/12
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
DA,
An appeal to his own authority. Not terribly convincing, is it?
He said –
“Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
It appears likely? Really? How stupid would you have to be to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Muller is as delusional as that other astrophysicist, James Hansen. He cannot even provide a useful description of the GHE either, can he?
Just another pseudoscientific climate cultist.
Cheers.
How stupid would you have to be to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Why do you sleep under blankets at night?
Why do you wear a coat to stay warm?
DA,
I repeat for the slow learners –
How stupid would you have to be to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
I will add –
How stupid would you have to be to believe that putting blankets or a coat between the Sun and a thermometer would make the thermometer hotter?
Maybe you could face facts, and leave your stupid irrelevant gotchas for later?
Cheers
Why do you repeatedly avoid these simple questions?
* Why do you sleep under blankets at night?
* Why do you wear a coat to stay warm?
DA,
Why do you keep posing stupid gotchas?
Cheers.
Because these simple questions show how your position is full of shit.
You know that too, which is why you always avoid answering them.
DA,
“Because these simple questions show how your position is full of shit.”
What is my position, precisely?
You don’t seem to like the facts I present, as is your right. You can’t describe the GHE on religious or privacy grounds, apparently, but it seems you demand that people accept that you are the GHE’s prophet on Earth. I don’t.
Ask your gotchas – I’ll generally refuse to answer, as usual.
Maybe you could explain why the Earth’s surface managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, and an atmosphere containing so called GHGs for four and a half billion years.
I’ll let you know my position after examining your explanation.
Cheers.
DA asks:
* Why do you sleep under blankets at night?
* Why do you wear a coat to stay warm?
Here’s mine: why are we not wearing transparent overcoats filled with CO2?
They threatened to go after his shale oil investments.
If you believe his research you’d have to believe that 100% of the warming was due to less than 1% of the energy budget-almost 100% correlation. Of course if it is the other way around and temperature is causing the CO2? Can’t be, right?
Carbon500 says:
“why are we not wearing transparent overcoats filled with CO2?”
Because they have to be 10 km thick?
svante…”Carbon500 says:
why are we not wearing transparent overcoats filled with CO2?
Because they have to be 10 km thick?”
If filled with air having a CO2 concentration of 0.04%. Why not fill them with 100% CO2 at a high enough pressure that IR blocking might be significant?
The problem is obvious. Even though the transparent coat blocked significant amounts of IR, it would not block conduction through the inner and outer linings. Since CO2 has similar heat conduction to air, you might as well fill the transparent coat with air.
David Appell says: “Why do you sleep under blankets at night? Why do you wear a coat to stay warm?”
Thats certainly a good point for some of those who think greenhouse gases are not capable of anything.
But the nature of a radiation barrier is of a blanket of undefined thickness that decreases heat transfer by radiation.
In other words increase the thickness of a gaseous or liquid radiation blanket and it doesn’t increase its insulation value as heat will travel through the entire blanket thickness via convection.
These various kinds of blankets exist on the market today. You can buy a thin mylar blanket that gives a boost to reflection of heat (as do all commercially available radiation blankets). These blankets don’t get warmer with thickness as the material is usually some kind of plastic with good conductivity.
Or you can buy a fabric blanket of different insulation characteristics that varies with thickness of the blanket. Or you can buy a blanket that combines both means of insulation, a thick blanket with a radiation barrier bonded to it.
Where the physics falls down in all this is in proposing something else that prevents that convection from doing its nonsense. So far no proposal for how that works has been forthcoming except to proclaim that in the “undefined” critical zone the atmosphere cools with increasing elevation. This would suggest less radiation going to space.
But if well-mixed CO2 densification were also occurring in the stratosphere which increases in temperature with height, more radiation would be going to space from CO2 emissions not less. Seems to me well-mixed would include the stratosphere.
Finally, if one accepts the top of the troposphere as being defined as the elevation where condensation of water becomes relevantly extinct, and that the rising of water vapor blocks any effect of CO2 on the surface, then the primary obstruction to the radiation of water into space must occur in the stratosphere or above.
Sounds logical anyway. Perhaps you could refer me to some windowless office studies that refute those exact points.
Bill Hunter says:
But the nature of a radiation barrier is of a blanket of undefined thickness that decreases heat transfer by radiation/i>
It’s measured, not defined.
Other than that, exactly — GHGs decrease heat transfer out of the atmosphere. That warms the surface.
Every once in awhile one of the deniers stumbles upon the truth. Today it was Bill’s turn….
Bill H wrote:
“and that the rising of water vapor blocks any effect of CO2 on the surface”
Why do you think this?
Do you think w.v. and CO2 absorb at exactly the same wavelengths?
Where did you ever learn that?
Carbon500 says
Heres mine: why are we not wearing transparent overcoats filled with CO2?
That’s a decent question.
What’s your answer?
(Hint: CO2 doesn’t block sunlight, it blocks IR.)
Stephen P Anderson says:
If you believe his research youd have to believe that 100% of the warming was due to less than 1% of the energy budget-almost 100% correlation. Of course if it is the other way around and temperature is causing the CO2? Cant be, right?
Stephen,
Do you agree that man is emitting CO2 into the atmosphere?
Then doensn’t it lead CO2?
David Appell says: “Its measured, not defined.”
LMAO! truth there David! Except the guy with the ruler doesn’t know what the heck he is measuring because it was never defined in physics. It is only defined in physics for solids. Use a little logic please!
David Appell says:
“Why do you think this?
Do you think w.v. and CO2 absorb at exactly the same wavelengths?
Where did you ever learn that?”
Where did I say they absorb on the exact same wavelengths? I didn’t.
I realize we are in an area of uncertainty, but water is a full spectrum absorber. If it didn’t emit frequencies that CO2 could absorb then CO2 would not block outgoing radiation from water. If water can emit frequencies that CO2 can absorb then water has to in accordance with the laws of radiation be able to also absorb the same frequencies. Again use a little logic within the laws of physics. Equal in, equal out.
p.s. I had a one on one argument with Dr. Kevin Trenberth about water being full spectrum as he uses a blackbody radiation number for its emissions from the surface in his budgeting as does it seems everybody else. I questioned whether water reflected full spectrum implying that water might not be full spectrum and that surface radiation might be high if thats the case. But KT stuck to his guns. Maybe you should argue with him.
DA…”Roy: from Berkeley Earth:”
Berkeley Earth are fudge artists like NOAA. They have retroactively fudged temperatures to suit a point of view.
I call it scientific misconduct.
Yeah, it’s a conspiracy Gordon, just like the moon landings.
S,
I didn’t realise the Moon landings were faked. Thanks for letting everybody know.
Cheers.
Yeah, its a conspiracy Gordon, just like the moon landings.
You leftists don’t need to conspire. You all think alike. You’re like a bunch of lemmings. You just watch what the next leftist is doing and herd mentality takes over and you support each other’s idiotic views to advance your common agenda which is to control everything-to create your leftist utopia.
But I’m conservative!
The world has adapted to the current climate and it works pretty well.
Why would you want to risk upsetting this delicate balance, and throw the world into turmoil?
This is one of the most stupid comments publsihed on this blog since years.
You are probably a brainless alt-right Breitbart fan, and probably still admirfe people like Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet, Pol-Pot and the like.
Just like Trump is a lover of people like Kim-Jong-Un…
binny…”This is one of the most stupid comments publsihed on this blog since years”.
The more you open your mouth and let your belly rumble, the more obvious it becomes that I am right in calling you an idiot.
Judith Curry was a co-author on the Berkeley Earth study and she withdrew her support due to the fudging of Mueller. The study, as it stands, is a fudged copy of the original, which did not find what the current copy claims.
stephen…”You leftists dont need to conspire”.
The Leftists of today are not the Leftists of yesteryear. They have become politically-correct, effete snobs, riddled with intellectuals and special interest groups. It’s not that Leftists have become believers in AGW in general, it’s that special interest groups like eco-weenies have taken over the cause. They have done the same to the once proud National Academy of Science.
One must distinguish between the leftist socialist and the communist of yore. The socialists formed unions IN DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS and put their money where their mouths were. They took beatings and killings and kept at their cause. As a result, they won benefits like shorter work days and weeks, safer working conditions, health care, unemployment insurance, workers compensation and pensions.
The communists who are generally referenced when the word Leftist is used were not communists. The Russian regime was run by Bolsheviks, who were nothing more than sadists who used the word socialism to give their brutal regime an image of the working class. The Bolsheviks threw socialists and communists alike into concentration camps, much like their counterparts, the Nazis.
With regard to the global warming/climate change propaganda, there are as many right-wingers as Leftists involved. A carbon tax was imposed in the province of British Columbia, Canada by an uber-right wing regime. They found a way to filter the money collected back to private companies.
This is not about political leanings, its about a belief system based on emotions. It is bereft of scientific logic or reasoning.
GR, as has already been discussed Judith Curry did not withdrawl her support for the methodology she helped develop. She withdrew her support from the conclusion that came out of it after the fact. If there was any fraud on the part of BEST then JC played an active role in it since she gave her blessing on the method employed to produce the result.
bdg…”She withdrew her support from the conclusion that came out of it after the fact”.
That’s an obtuse answer typical of alarmists.
She withdrew her support after seeing Mueller re-interpret the results from the interpretation originally made by the team.
Mueller changed from a skeptic to a believer of pseudo-science. He cannot be trusted, nor can his interpretation.
Same with NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut. They change the facts, and the data, to suit the propaganda.
Why you are blinded to this corruption is the question. Are you that naive?
Gordon Robertson says:
She withdrew her support after seeing Mueller re-interpret the results from the interpretation originally made by the team.
GR, what was the original interpretation, and how did Muller (not “Mueller”) change it?
DA says: “GR, what was the original interpretation, and how did Muller change it?”
Quite simple. You can read it for yourself here: https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/
GR said…”Berkeley Earth are fudge artists like NOAA. They have retroactively fudged temperatures to suit a point of view.”
Keep in mind that NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way, etc. all adjust pre-WWII data up for more than post-WWII. The result of these necessary adjustments is to reduce the amount of warming as compared to the raw data. What point of view do you think these institutions support exactly? Are you okay with using the raw data to draw conclusions from instead?
bdg…”Are you okay with using the raw data to draw conclusions from instead?”
I am all for leaving the data as it was recorded. It’s sheer arrogance, never mind scientific-misconduct to go back in history and amend data based on a biased opinion.
It’s misconduct to:
– not consider the impact the time of day in which observations were made
– not consider the impact of station moves
– not consider the impact of the urban heat island effect
– not consider the impact of instrument changes
– not consider the impact of local factors that might bias observations
Anyway, let’s move past all of that for now. Are you telling me you agree that the Earth has warmed even more than what NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way, etc. have told us? Are you saying their agenda is to downplay the warming rate?
bdgwx said: “Its misconduct to:
not consider the impact the time of day in which observations were made
not consider the impact of station moves
not consider the impact of the urban heat island effect
not consider the impact of instrument changes
not consider the impact of local factors that might bias observations”
It is misconduct to blindly apply some non-validated algorithm and pretend to have achieved the goals above when checks with a few individual weather stations prove you just messed with the original data. Without a proper calibration period to compare two stations, the old one and the new one, you cannot validly infer what would have been the data at the new station from the old data, and even less what noise your adjustment procedure adds in the adjusted old data.
Data is data. Automatically adjusted data is no more data and generally cannot be relied upon.
Paul,
So are you saying you support the viewpoint that the warming rate is even more than the institutions are letting on? Why would they want to downplay the warming?
Also it sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on how these institutions deal with the issues I listed. What specifically about the way they handle these issues do you disagree with? For example, which calibration method would you have used instead to adjust for station moves? What was the difference in terms of the warming rate between your method and their method?
Paul Aubrin says:
Data is data. Automatically adjusted data is no more data and generally cannot be relied upon.
Paul, why do all the groups that measure temperatures, including Roy Spencer and UAH, adjust the raw data?
What reason do they give for doing so?
Paul?
Anyone?
bdgwx says:
“Its misconduct to:”
I have heard it characterized as misconduct to treat station managers as idiots and to do so from a windowless office somewhere far away without even talking to the station manager.
Bill, I’m not understanding what you mean. Who are these station managers you speak of? How are they being treated like idiots? How are they supposed to be interviewed?
guess it went over your head. So explain to me what you think a station manager does during a typical day.
Most station managers in the instrumental record, at least those in the early period, are likely dead so it’s not like they can be interviewed. And there’s no broad indictment of idiocy of them. And today most first order surface stations like ASOS and AWOS are fully automated at least in regards to temperature measurements so it’s like there is a person writing down a reading every 1 minute. Sure, upper air stations typically have a person launching the balloon, but the measurements themselves are fully automated. All measurements go through quality control which again is largely automated. Other datasets like satellite or reanalysis would have large groups of people engineering the hardware and software to collect and assimilate the data. Today there are tens of millions of observations taken on a global scale with the vast majority being automated at least in the sense of the actual measurement. That’s why I’m asking you to clarify what you mean by “station manager”.
David Apell said: Paul, why do all the groups that measure temperatures, including Roy Spencer and UAH, adjust the raw data?
You are playing with words, as usual. You can carefully calibrate the output of a new device against the older one to be later able to compare the new values with the older ones. But if you didn’t have a calibration period, you just mess with the data.
bdgwx says: “Most station managers in the instrumental record, at least those in the early period, are likely dead so its not like they can be interviewed. And theres no broad indictment of idiocy of them.”
Sure there is, the claim is they didn’t record the low temperature of the day properly and did so on the basis of the time of the log entry without noting that the coldest time of the day varies throughout the night depending upon cloud cover, fronts, etc. Min/max thermometer was invented in 1780.
If you can’t interview them you don’t know how they dealt with that so they just assumed they were idiots and made the adjustments because they felt the best science available demanded an answer. They didn’t even think of doing that before funding King Kevin Trenberth declared the monitoring systems a travesty.
Gordon Robertson says:
Berkeley Earth are fudge artists like NOAA. They have retroactively fudged temperatures to suit a point of view.
Gordon: why do the temperature groups — including UAH — adjust the raw data?
Do you know?
DA: – “Gordon: why do the temperature groups including UAH adjust the raw data? Do you know?”
Sure do! I replied above to the comment by bdgwx on misconduct and pointed out that its probably misconduct to adjust the data treating the station managers as idiots and not even ever interviewing them as to the appropriateness of such actions. In the case of UAH, they are the station managers; and indeed sometimes the thermometer position needs to be corrected and the guys actively managing the thermometer have the best view of it.
Well if station manager is the rule we are to go by then wouldn’t RSS be preferable over UAH?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says: Well if station manager is the rule we are to go by then wouldnt RSS be preferable over UAH?
———
Excellent question bdgwx! The answer is I think we don’t know the answer. Why would one pick one over the other? Eventually, this discrepancy will get resolved but I don’t think today is a good day to just spin the bottle.
I’m not saying that one should prefer RSS over UAH. In fact, I don’t think anyone should prefer any dataset over any other as long each has no egregious errors. They should all be treated equal. I’m just saying that if the rule is to prefer the data published by station managers then you should give RSS preferential treatment over UAH because RSS is the “station manager” for the bulk of the polar orbiting microwave satellite data.
bdgwx says: Im just saying that if the rule is to prefer the data published by station managers then you should give RSS preferential treatment over UAH because RSS is the station manager for the bulk of the polar orbiting microwave satellite data.
————-
Thats not a scientific argument. Its like saying the Pope’s scientists control most of the assets and models supporting the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. Its an appeal to authority that doesn’t move RSS any closer to the issue than UAH is.
Further RSS used surface observation data to make their adjustments becoming yet another group to surrender to the mob mentality. . . .a factor that has absolutely nothing to do with science. Now UAH stands alone as a system developed completely separate from the land surface observations and becomes the only source of ground truthing the surface temperature record. Same thing occurred with the Argo buoy system. Its a problem with single source funding. politics creates an attractant that has nothing to do with science.
Bill,
I completely agree. It’s not a valid reason to prefer RSS over UAH. That’s what I’m saying. The idea of invoking station manager as a rule for selecting data is an appeal to authority and I disagree with it. That’s one reason why I treat RSS and UAH equally. I also treat the conventional surface datasets and reanalysis datasets equally as well.
Actually at one point RSS used a global circulation model to make some of the adjustments. Their peers criticized this method and so instead they switched to another model-less technique. UAH makes the same adjustments that RSS does just using different techniques. Likewise UAH has been criticized for their methods as well. Neither of these groups are doing anything nefarious though. They are both committed to producing the most accurate dataset possible.
By the way, neither RSS and UAH actually measure temperature. They measure microwave emissions that then have to be converted to a temperature using a model that maps these emissions to temperatures. And neither of them are looking at the surface. And both have a concern where the cooling stratosphere may be contaminating the result from the lower troposphere.
bdgwx says: I completely agree.
Actually at one point RSS used a global circulation model to make some of the adjustments. Their peers criticized this method and so instead they switched to another model-less technique. UAH makes the same adjustments that RSS does just using different techniques. Likewise UAH has been criticized for their methods as well. Neither of these groups are doing anything nefarious though. They are both committed to producing the most accurate dataset possible.
———
Well you have to accept that by using the surface records to influence adjustments in RSS, you now have only two completely independent temperature records. UAH and everybody else.
bdgwx says:
By the way, neither RSS and UAH actually measure temperature. They measure microwave emissions that then have to be converted to a temperature using a model that maps these emissions to temperatures. And neither of them are looking at the surface. And both have a concern where the cooling stratosphere may be contaminating the result from the lower troposphere.
—————–
I have no problem with what they measure. Atmosphere temperature is important to the greenhouse effect particularly under the multi-layered theory.
In fact, the cooling stratosphere under the mainstream theory would exert less forcing on the surface. Where have you heard that accounted for bdgwx?
Well you have to accept that by using the surface records to influence adjustments in RSS, you now have only two completely independent temperature records. UAH and everybody else.
Surface temperature records are NOT used to influence RSS adjustments. The models are process-based, not fed surface data, and are used to test diurnal corrections. Here is the methods paper for RSS.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
RSS and UAH are not independent from each other at all, using the same metric and the same data streams – almost entirely the same satellite instrument readings.
And you made your comment with no idea of the manner in which land surface might be being utilised to “influence” RSS. You determined what was dataset was closer to another with ZERO understanding of the processing method (never mind that the process you avouch is not even occurring).
This is not skepticism, Bill. Not remotely.
barry says: – Surface temperature records are NOT used to influence RSS adjustments. The models are process-based, not fed surface data, and are used to test diurnal corrections. Here is the methods paper for RSS.
————-
Yep I misspoke. Surface temperature records and RSS are both climate model influenced. Just a slip of the tongue.
But the conclusion withstands your criticism: “you now have only two completely independent temperature records. UAH and everybody else.”
Loved watching the 4th of July celebrations today and Trump’s speech-best Presdident since Abraham Lincoln.
Off topic.
David, please stop trolling.
[since you didn’t write a separate 4th of july post, i’ll leave it here]
Happy aphelion-2019 day!, and may the 1321 watts/m2 keep you cool! Glory to the sun, the clouds and the water vapor!
Oh boy, this is sad.
The summer solstice is 6/21, not 7/4.
The solar system doesn’t give a crap about US revolutionary movements. But it’s definitely funny that you think it does.
Oh, you gotta be kidding me… afaik there is no registration or comment notification on dr spencer’s blog, or is there? because otherwise, how u could reply to a random comment while making complete fool of yourself within 3 minutes unless you just sit there pressing F5 incessantly. Boy, this is sad…
Why would you write “Happy aphelion-2019 day” on July 4th?
DA,
Why do you pose stupid gotchas?
Do you have a particular reason for wanting to know, or are you just trolling?
In any case, I suppose a stupid and ignorant GHE true believer would be too lazy or incompetent to look up anything factual for himself, so –
“Happy Aphelion Day! Earth is farther from the sun today (July 4) than at any other time of the year.”
If you want to know the difference between solstices, aphelion, perihelion, etc., just ask me. I’ll tell you to use your initiative, and find out for yourself. Do you think your self proclaimed mind reading abilities might help?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
Why do you pose stupid gotchas?
To show how afraid you are to answer simple questions when it’s clear to you and to us that the answers undercut your previous crappy claims.
DA,
You wrote –
“To show how afraid you are to answer simple questions . . .”
Oh dear. More mind reading. Why do you think I should answer your pointless questions?
In addition to mind reading ability, do you possess awesome super powers? Will you unleash them on my poor defenceless self if I refuse to play your stupid games?
Carry on, David. Have you found out about the solstices, aphelion and perihelion yet? A bit too much to take in at one sitting?
Best go back to complaining about people who poke fun at your stupid gotchas.
Cheers.
Calm down Mr Flynn.
Is the nasty man asking you to answer nasty questions again?
Please ignore him as it raises your blood pressure.
Begone, troll!
Aphelion occurs on July 4th.
Well, obviously because it is aphelion, duh; it seems that you, as had already been noted, confused aphelion with solstice. Which is very amusing, since i was under impression that you were a scientifically savvy alarmist. Honestly, I did think you were a douche, but at least i seen you as a knowledgeable and well-read douche, but now I’m not sure about that anymore. It seems to me I’ve discovered a breach in your knowledge about climate, and so I suggest that you learn about eccentricity and its role in climate system.
In brief, if you don’t know, aphelion is an event that happens once per year around july 4th, when earth is at its most distant from the sun. Its match with the US independence day is of course a pure coincidence, especially given that due to earth axial precession, the aphelion day is not fixed and in 1776 it fell on july 1st or possibly may 30st. And if one is a sun-worshiper, it is a good date to celebrate! This way, you can celebrate the 4th of july without being a mouth-frothing us patriot or even a US citizen in the first place (and at this point it should be obvious that i am NOT one, of course). In my opinion it is a much more profound event than the solstices, although less in-your-face-obvious to an average joe, which gives it a veneer of mystery (same true about perihelion of course).
But i did have yet another ulterior motive mentioning it here, that being to see how many people are aware of its role in climate system. Ever since i learned about it several months ago, it just keeps bothering me. Perhaps, I hoped dr. spencer would comment on it, to find out his opinion on the topic. Instead, i learned to my surprise that the alarmist-in-chief for drroyspencer-dot-com has no clue about its existence to the point of publicly humiliating himself; a rater unexpected but amusing result.
*** june the 30st, not may 30st of course
coturnix…”Which is very amusing, since i was under impression that you [Appell] were a scientifically savvy alarmist”.
DA is a legend, in his own mind. He still doesn’t understand how heat gets here from the Sun when heat cannot flow through the vacuum of space.
Re aphelion…interesting stuff in that one might think the summer heat would coincide with the perihelion. I guess there is not much eccentricity in the orbit.
Goes to show that we have a lot to learn about how the Earth works as it orbits the Sun.
@GR
>> Re aphelion…interesting stuff in that one might think the summer heat would coincide with the perihelion.
<> I guess there is not much eccentricity in the orbit.
<<
– guess again. Or better yet, google up the aphelion/perihelion distances and calculate tye change in radiative forcing, and I mean it … you'd be pleasantly surprised and baffled, as was I. The change of toa solar radiative forcing over the course of the year is substantial and very much not negligible.
@GR
“”” Re aphelioninteresting stuff in that one might think the summer heat would coincide with the perihelion.
“””
i’d say, not really. What coincides ith summer heat in NH is winter cold in SH, so don’t be a NH chauvinist =)
“”” I guess there is not much eccentricity in the orbit.
“””
guess again. Or better yet, google up the aphelion/perihelion distances and calculate the change in radiative forcing, and I mean it … you’d be pleasantly surprised and baffled, as was I. The change of toa solar radiative forcing over the course of the year is substantial and very much not negligible.
coturnix, you were right about aphelion day, and I was wrong.
Thanks.
DA…”The solar system doesnt give a crap about US revolutionary movements. But its definitely funny that you think it does”.
What’s funny is your utter scientific illiteracy. As coturnix pointed out, July 4th is aphelion day, not solstice day.
Gordon Robertson says:
As coturnix pointed out, July 4th is aphelion day
You’re right, I was wrong.
Thanks for the correction.
https://www.space.com/41093-earth-at-aphelion-guide.html
Wrong, bindion, you wrote that above.
If you were quoting someone then use quote marks, which is proper English and put that way for a reason.
If you don’t then people have no idea what you’re writing about and you’ll get the quotes you get and you have no legitimacy for complaint.
We’re not here to read your mind.
DA,
Just a minute there, pardner!
You wrote –
“We’re not here to read your mind.”
Of course you are. You claim to be able to read minds – you have no trouble claiming that you know what I have or have not read, or what I do or do not know, all without asking me!
So get to it – read bindidon ‘s mind. Tell him what he thinks.
By the way, when you read his mind, his nom-de-plume came through to you as “bindion”. I know you get your own name wrong from time to time, but you should make sure to get other peoples’ names correct, particularly if you intend to be critical about their grammar. It’s just basic courtesy.
Sometimes lacking in GHE true believers, I know, but still . . .
Cheers.
Come along Mike, time for your tablets.
Since you had the lobotomy you are behaving as if you had two brains.
Lord knows it is difficult enough reading just one!
Troll, begone!
Appell
This is a really dumb reaction.
You perfectly know that if you paste a text here and for a few seconds forget that this blog’s input scanner eliminates everthing non-ASCII, the quotes won’t be visible.
“We’re not here to read your mind.”
We could start a comparison, Appell, about who reads your mind rather than mine.
Unless you quote what I wrote, I have no idea what you’re referring to of mine.
I don’t know if you noticed it but the “paper” about 5 times more probability models that was issued only 4 days after the French episode and blindly used everywhere in the world media without any review process has been jointly authored by the French Atomic Energy Commission..
What would happen if an oil and gas lobby would have published an article showing the contrary ?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3QbbsJP-Dizma8q0ueiJlvP6xZx7uZcW5_IGBn-h0n9JCb5yWBW9d7rT0&v=Bl2gg7lT7OM
Comment??
Blocking circulation at the Bering Sea during periods of low solar magnetic activity (which is happening nowadays) threatens with very severe winters in North America.
It would be nice to know the breakdown of new records by month. I suspect that most of the heat records are being set in the winter months, and not in the summer months.
As far as I know, there is not a really good AGW explanation for that, or have I missed something?
The snow/ice albedo feedback?
https://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515:
svante…”Patterns of temperature change that are uniquely associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect, and which have been observed in the real world include:”
Where the scientific proof associating the patterns with AGW?
Do you consider failure to falsify these AGW hypothesis simultaneous with the success in falsifying the various natural hypothesis as proof?
If the answer is no then would you mind providing criteria by which you would adjudicate which theory is a best match to reality?
b,
What testable AGW hypothesis are you waffling about?
You cannot actually produce any “theory” of AGW. I assume you are going to claim the GHE has something to do with AGW, but you cannot describe the GHE either!
You’re just spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
Silly gotchas won’t get you far. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. What part of that fact do you not understand?
Try learning about the scientific method, if you can find the time. There is no GHE, no heating properties for CO2, and thermometers react to heat. The more humans, the more heat, the more CO2 and H2O. What part of this are you challenging? None?
I didn’t think so.
Cheers.
The testable hypothesis I speak of are those listed in Svante’s post above.
Surely you see the absurdity in saying the Earth has cooled based on nothing but 2 data points. Don’t you want to know what happened in between those 2 data points? Wouldn’t you like to use a theory based on physical processes to make predictions about future data points instead using limited skill techniques like persistence?
b,
You wrote –
“The testable hypothesis I speak of are those listed in Svante’s post above.” A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis which can be tested by reproducible experiment.
You cannot actually describe the “enhanced GHE” which Svante refers to. “Patterns pf temperature change” is meaningless without some refining. Nonsense terms such as “greater warming” are meaningless, unless they can be repeatably observed and measured. If you can’t even describe the GHE, trying to propose reproducible experiments is futile.
Just more pseudoscientific blather.
You go on –
“Surely you see the absurdity in saying the Earth has cooled based on nothing but 2 data points. Don’t you want to know what happened in between those 2 data points?”
A comparison between two temperatures indicates whether the temperature has risen, fallen, or remained the same. Two measurements – no more, no less. Why do I need to know what, if anything, occurred between the two measurements needed to record the amount and sign of temperature difference? The Earth has cooled. Nothing at all has managed to prevent it. Not any GHE, not any amount of CO2, not four and a half billion years of sunlight, not incalculable amounts of radiogenic heat – nothing.
I do use theory to predict future outcomes. Every time I board an aeroplane, I trust that the theories involved in designing and building the aircraft are based on reality, and all those theories can and have been verified by reproducible experiment.
Pseudoscientific climate cultists can’t even state what hey supposedly believe in. They won’t state in writing that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (between the Sun and a thermometer) will make the thermometer hotter, because that would be ridiculous. Instead, they just claim that the world is getting hotter due to emissions (presumably by magic) – or something.
Keep trying – or learn something about the scientific method. You might find you like it.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Where the scientific proof associating the patterns with AGW?”
Solar fingerprint comparison:
https://tinyurl.com/yx8fcdnz
S,
You linked to a pointless piece of pseudoscientific nonsense.
Ben Santer has a track record of manipulating IPCC reports, which he denied, prior to the emergence of the “Climategate” emails.
Santer’s latest attempt at “fingerprinting” drew the following comment –
“Santer et al address none of these issues, and instead and their analysis is little more than a politically driven attempt to prove that the warming seen since 1979 is due to CO2.”
There is no scientific basis for believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter. Santer’s nonsense is just more pseudoscientific climate cult propaganda.
Of course you believe Santer – he is a senior climate cult leader, isn’t he?
Cheers.
Nice hand waving and zero science.
Svante says: “Solar fingerprint comparison:”
What I would be interested in would be a deeper analysis. Obviously the sun coming over the horizon each morning starts evaporating water or sublimating ice in the northern latitudes. This water vapor rises in the atmosphere raising the temperature of the top of the troposphere via condensation and release of latent heat.
Thus it doesn’t seem one needs a science study to conclude that the “fingerprint” graph offered by a CO2 forced hotspot would be essentially identical to a solar forced hotspot.
The difference of course is only one of those scenarios actually requires that the hotspot play a role on warming the surface. I will let you guess which one.
Mike Flynn says:
Ben Santer has a track record of manipulating IPCC reports, which he denied, prior to the emergence of the Climategate emails.
What’s your proof?
DA,
Why should I prove anything to you? You don’t seem to understand proof.
Cheers.
S,
Unfortunately, you can’t actually usefully describe this nonsensical “enhanced greenhouse effect”, can you?
The fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years in spite of your “enhanced greenhouse effect” seems to escape you entirely!
All part of pseudoscientific climate cultism. A triumph of faith over fact, based on precisely nothing except the delusional thinking of self appointed “climate scientists”. Climate is the average of weather, and the IPCC stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Gee.
Are you claiming to know better?
Cheers.
barry has remarked that the diurnal effect has abated, as evidenced here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797
“Most of the estimated DTR reduction occurred over 19601980. In several regions DTR has apparently increased over 19792012, while globally it has exhibited very little change (−0.016 K/decade).”
“As far as I know, there is not a really good AGW explanation for that, or have I missed something?”
You are right, in Norway all monthly heat records (at the national level) have been beaten in the last 20-30 years for the period of October to May, but the records for June, July, August and September are decades old. I think it has something to do with polar amplification and PA first and foremost a winter phenomenon, after all, we have more sunshine than anyone else in the summer months. You will se the same pattern un the Arctic, very warm from Oktober to May, but rather average from June to September/October.
And Scandinavia?
In Scandinavia, there will be more snow.
What about Damascus, Virginia?
DA,
What about it? Does it hide some dark secret? Is that where Trenberth’s missing heat has gone?
Cheers.
mike flynn…”Actual surface temperatures are totally ignored in favour of nominal air temperatures taken under a variety of conditions at various heights above the surface with very poor controls relating to siting, instrument type and calibration, enclosure parameters and so on”.
You forgot to mention the fabricated surface temperatures. NOAA has taken to replacing surface temperatures, for no known reason, for sites, by interpolating and homogenizing temperatures from nearby stations up to 1200 miles away.
Most of the oceans are processed that way, with a few temperatures extrapolated to cover the entire ocean.
That’s not to mention the plethora of station data they have altered retroactively, again, for no known reason. They claimed to have created a positive trend from 1998 – 2012 where the IPCC found none.
One can only surmise the fudging and alterations are to bring the surface record in line with the paseudo-scientific AGW theory.
The more ignorant people are, the more they guess, claim, discredit, denigrate and lie.
b,
Agreed. Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, David Appell, . . .
Guesses, claims, discrediting, denigration, lies . . .
You can no doubt lengthen the list.
Cheers.
Of course I can! By adding for example the very first one you silently and intentionally omitt: the guy nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’…
Gordon, are you saying you’re in favor of 100% thermometer coverage over the planet, say, one every cm2?
If not, then tell us how you would handle areas with no thermometers.
PS: Let us know the cost of 1 sensor/cm2. Including maintenance, especially in the polar regions.
DA,
You wrote –
“PS: Let us know the cost of 1 sensor/cm2. Including maintenance, especially in the polar regions.”
Why? Don’t you know? You could try and find out for yourself, if you weren’t so busy wasting your time with stupid gotchas. Or maybe you are just too lazy or incompetent. Which is it?
Cheers.
At a bigger scale all these regional records are most likely the result of a stronger NAO/ AO which is most likely getting more active as a result of global warming and in the future the warming may result in a minor transgression of global sea level. So what? Why is that scenario a crisis? Nearly every species alive has been through this process. The crisis is that humans have consumed so much of the global landscape that fauna and flora can not respond like they did in the past. The irony is increasing wind and solar would only contribute more to the crisis by converting more land to human resources and at the same time doing little to stop the doubling of CO2. Isnt the solution then to reduce the human footprint with actions like increasing nuclear, increasing high yield agriculture that allows more land to revert to natural, and obviously population reduction? I just can’t buy into a bunch of people eating their food with palm oil and sipping a iced coffee through a paper straw talking about going green. It just seems we are missing the bigger picture and focusing on details that are not the crisis.
The NAO Index remains negative from the end of April. You can not see any changes.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
It is worth remembering that there is now a solar cycle minimum.
Yes. So why is this year turning out to be so hot? (Warmest June LT in the RSS records.)
DA,
You wrote –
“Yes. So why is this year turning out to be so hot?”
Well, why is it? You obviously think you know – share your secret knowledge, why don’t you?
Cheers.
Circulation over North America remains the same.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/conus/mimictpw_conus_latest.gif
Is it near La Nia?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
“3 Facts the Media Don’t Tell You”
Another fact not told us is that CO2 can NOT warm the planet. Either from dishonesty, or incompetence, we are being misinformed. Very few people understand the relevant physics of Earth’s climate. So we become easy targets for a massive hoax.
Just consider the so-called “energy budget”. For someone that honestly understands photon absorp.tion/emission, and thermodynamics, the diagram is a tragic inaccuracy. There are several versions, but all are essentially the same:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
The diagram contains numerous violations of the laws of physics, but just consider three of the most obvious ones:
1) Notice the values are in units of “Watts/m^2” The values are “fluxes”, not “energy”. Energy can be added/subtracted using simple arithmetic, but fluxes cannot. Energy is conserved, fluxes are not conserved.
2) The solar flux arriving Earth’s “disk” is the “solar constant”, about 1360 Watts/m^2. After adjustment for albedo, that leaves 960 Watts/m^2 that can be used to “warm the planet”. The diagram only indicates 240 Watts/m^2 (“240.5”, to match the exact numbers) being absorbed by Earth’s system, with only 163.3 Watts’m^2 actually reaching the surface!
3) Notice that only 163.3 Watts/m^2 is absorbed at the surface, yet the surface emits 398.2 Watts/m^2!
There are many more things wrong. It’s a fun puzzle: “Can you find all the things wrong in the picture?”
Funny how Dr. Roy Spencer missed all that.
S,
You wrote –
“Funny how Dr. Roy Spencer missed all that.”
Did you use your supposed mind reading skills to arrive at that conclusion? Or are you just making the usual stupid and ignorant cultist assertions?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
No, I read his posts.
Here’s the GHE explained for you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/
S,
You claim you read Dr Spencer’s posts to determine that Dr Spencer was unaware of certain facts.
If you want to hide behind Dr Spencer, you could find a better quote from him. You wrote –
“Heres the GHE explained for you: ‘. . . a simple no greenhouse effect'”, referring to Dr Spencer’s post.
Your mind reading skills are not exceeded by your English comprehension, obviously. You appear to have redefined “no greenhouse effect’ to mean “greenhouse effect”, in the finest climate cult tradition. In the same vein as “slower cooling” is redefined to be “warming”, and so on.
This is all well and good, but does not advance your cause much, does it?
You remain as stupid and ignorant as ever. I know you cannot help yourself, and I understand. You have my sympathy.
Cheers.
I forgot about your poor comprehension.
I don’t suppose the illustrations here will help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
S,
Ah, I see. Your first link was irrelevant, so you try an even more irrelevant link. No GHE explanation there, either.
Maybe you should try to hide behind Dr Spencer by linking to every post he has ever made. Surely there must be something there that supports your mad assertions, eh?
Are you still claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
What a fool you are! Lurching from one stupid appeal to authority to another, and not even getting any of them right.
No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Are you still claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?”
That’s exactly what Roy Spencer claims here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/
S,
You wrote –
“Thats exactly what Roy Spencer claims here:”
Nonsense. If he did, you would quote him, wouldn’t you? You’re a cultist fool.
Not even a good try. I asked you “Are you still claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?”
I don’t blame for refusing to reply. Just posting a link which doesn’t support your nonsense might make you appear deranged. Your choice, of course.
Maybe you could try evasion and obfuscation?
Cheers.
Too difficult for you?
Here’s a quote:
“This demonstrates the importance of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect, which increases surface temperatures well above what can be achieved with only solar heating and surface infrared loss to outer space.”
S,
You are just being silly, now.
Dr Spencer does not even mention CO2, does he?
He just says –
” . . . the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which increases surface temperatures well above what can be achieved with only solar heating and surface infrared loss to outer space.”
Not quite what you claimed, is it? Actually, no resemblance to your assertion.
Maybe you could try appealing to the faker, the fraud, or the fool. That might work for you.
Cheers.
Actually, troll Svante, it’s funny how you reject facts and logic. You can’t find anything wrong with my points, so all you do is attempt to pervert reality.
Nothing new.
“You can’t find anything wrong with my points”
First JD writes point 1): “Energy can be added/subtracted using simple arithmetic, but fluxes cannot.”
Then JD writes point 2) wherein JD uses simple arithmetic on energy fluxes: “the “solar constant”, about 1360 Watts/m^2. After adjustment for albedo, that leaves 960 Watts/m^2″
JD doesn’t follow JD’s own rules is what is wrong with JD’s points, nothing new.
JD’s 3) is wrong since in near steady state global surface equilibrium shows ~398.2 Watts/m^2 is absorbed at the surface as the surface emits ~398.2 Watts/m^2.
JD doesn’t understand radiative physics. Learn some physics JD but keep your popular entertainment 3 ring circus going & certain readers do miss your bogus but entertaining cartoons.
fluffballs deficit in physics, combined with his overdosing on pseudoscience, is why he cant respond coherently and responsibly.
Nothing new.
How is he deficient in physics? Show us your physics-based proof of that.
DA,
You wrote –
“How is he deficient in physics? Show us your physics-based proof of that.”
Why should he?
Cheers.
JDHuffman says:
“You cant find anything wrong with my points, so all you do is attempt to pervert reality.”
Here’s an attempt by Dr. Roy Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma
Wrong troll Svante.
That is just another of your failed attempts to hide behind Dr. Spencer. You can’t defend your pseudoscience, so you hide.
Come out from under that rock and tell us how the surface can emit more than twice what it gets from solar.
Ger*an says:
Come out from under that rock and tell us how the surface can emit more than twice what it gets from solar.
Because of the greenhouse effect!
You may finally be understanding something….
DA,
You wrote –
“Because of the greenhouse effect!”
Unfortunately, you might just as well said “Because of Magic!”
How would you describe this “greenhouse effect”? Does it involve magical heating properties of CO2 perhaps?
Cheers.
DA, the only understanding is your obsession with Ge*ran.
After that, you just survive on your trifling inheritence from your parents. Kind of like a “trust-fund baby” on welfare, huh?
Ger*an, do you have a scientific, rational response, instead of name calling and insults?
Because the latter just show the vapidity of your original argument
Now DA, I can’t respond rationally and scientifically to a troll, now can I?
You need to clean up your act, if you expect to be treated like an adult.
JDHuffman says:
Now DA, I cant respond rationally and scientifically to a troll, now can I?
Calling me names doesn’t change the fact that you don’t respond to my scientific arguments. You only make excuses.
DA,
You wrote –
“Calling me names doesnt change the fact that you don’t respond to my scientific arguments.”
You mean pseudoscientific climate cult dogma, don’t you? You can’t even describe the GHE which you claim exists, can you?
Make sure you include the reason that the Earth has cooled since its creation, and explain why night is colder than day. Maybe the Earth radiates more energy away than it absorbs from the Sun, do you think?
Cheers.
Energy can be added/subtracted using simple arithmetic, but fluxes cannot.
If an amount of energy E1 passes through an area A, so with average flux E1/A, and an amount of energy E2 passes through the area A, so with an average flux E2/A, then the total average flux passing through A is (E1+E2)/A = E1/A + E2/A = the sum of the individual fluxes.
DA, the more you display your ignorance of physics, the funnier it gets.
Please continue.
JDHuffman says:
DA, the more you display your ignorance of physics, the funnier it gets.
Your inability to provide a critique that is science-based doesn’t say much for your argument.
Tell us why I’m wrong and you’re right
You’re wrong because you’re incompetent. You have exhibited an ignorance of physics.
Do you need examples?
What “ignorance of physics” have I demonstrated. Be specific.
DA,
You commanded –
“What “ignorance of physics” have I demonstrated. Be specific.”
Ooooh. Manly. Assertive.
And if he doesn’t? Maybe you could wave your hand, and stamp your foot? Off you go now, and try and figure out why anybody should follow your orders.
Cheers.
DA says: “Tell us why I’m wrong and you’re right.”
DA, your arithmetic is right, but your physics is wrong. An equal energy through an equal area is valid. But, the incoming solar, after albedo is 960 Watts/m^2. That incoming impacts the “disk” of 2A, where “A” is Earth’s surface area. So, the incoming ENERGY is 1920A Joules/sec. Yet, according to your pseudoscience, only 163.3A Joules/sec is absorbed by the surface!
You clowns don’t understand the relevant physics, all you do is swallow the pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
I got the areas mixed up.
Incoming solar energy = 960A Joules/sec
Pseudoscience claims surface absorbs = 653.2A Joules/sec.
Where “A” is the area of the “disk”.
I should have waited to see if the clowns would notice my mistake–likely not….
DA,
Complete nonsense. You claim to have a PhD in physics? Did you buy it online?
Photons are not subject to Pauli’s exclusion principle.
Look it up for yourself. Don’t bother asking me. You wouldn’t understand.
Cheers.
Ger*an wrote
3) Notice that only 163.3 Watts/m^2 is absorbed at the surface, yet the surface emits 398.2 Watts/m^2!
The first number is sunlight only.
When you add the IR coming down from the atmosphere, you get the full amount that balances energy.
That’s right, about 2/3rds of the energy received at the surface is IR radiation emitted by the atmosphere.
DA,
Yet more nonsense. There is no energy balance, and you are clearly unbalanced.
The Earth has cooled. Night is colder than day, winter is colder than summer, and the polar regions remain cold even while receiving six months of continuous sunlight.
Best stick to your pointless and irrelevant gotchas about clothes, overcoats, swimming pools and all the rest of the rubbish you spout – good for laughs, if nothing else!
Cheers.
Calling on your hero Ger*an, while botching the physics again, is doubly funny.
Please continue.
(Getting a job might help you. The economy is booming. Even the unemployables can find employment.)
Ger*an: what physics was botched?
(Or is name calling the best you can do?)
You would be the one name-calling.
But denial is one of your specialties.
“Huffman”: It was established long ago that you comment in the same manner as “Ger*an,” often identically so.
Now, are you going to address my scientific arguments?
DA,
You wrote previously –
“When you add the IR coming down from the atmosphere, you get the full amount that balances energy.”
Pseudoscientific gobbledygook!
That’s about as stupid as saying that you can add 300 W/m2 from ice to 300 W/m2 from sunlight and get increased temperature! You are a fool if you believe such nonsense.
You asked –
” . . .what physics was botched?”
Another witless gotcha? If you don’t know the answer, your supposed PhD obviously stands for “Piled higher and Deeper”.
Carry on denying. The Earth has still cooled, and Michael Mann still hasn’t got the Nobel Prize he claimed! How thick would you have to be to think you got a Nobel Prize when you didn’t?
Cheers.
DA…”what physics was botched?”
The 2nd law was contravened. It’s not possible to transfer heat from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to the warmer surface in order to raise its temperature.
That notion not only contradicts the 2nd law, it’s damned silly.
Furthermore, energy has been created as back-radiation with no explanation of its magnitude. It’s like Trenberth and Kiehle needed to balance the energy budget so they pulled watts out of a hat.
DA botches the physics: “When you add the IR coming down from the atmosphere, you get the full amount that balances energy”
DA, solar and IR fluxes have different spectra. They have different photons. They are DIFFERENT. They cannot be simply added. You’re STILL trying to warm a room-temperature house with ice cubes. It won’t work!
Learn some physics.
Nothing is wrong.
Only your warped interpretation.
Get a copy and read “Atmospheric Radiative Transfer for Dummies”.
DM,
Are you reduced to issuing pointless commands to anonymous non-believers?
I don’t blame you – no realist seems to be inclined to dance to your discordant tune.
Maybe if you just strung random words together, you might be more persuasive. Good luck!
Cheers.
MF, I was responding to the question:”“Can you find all the things wrong in the picture?”
I’ve noticed your declining ability to follow an argument and stick to the point.
Old age cannot be fun.
DM,
If you don’t mention what you are replying to, it doesn’t make you look smarter.
Unlike pseudoscientific climate cultists, not everybody believes they can read minds.
As to sticking to the point, let he that is without sin . . .
The majority of your comments seem pointless. You cant even describe this “GHE” which you so ardently defend. How pointless and pathetic is that?
Cheers.
Bindindon
The record in june in Bilbao and Vitoria was in 1950. San Sebastian in 2003, yes. Not all the records are at the same moment in all weather stations.
The influence in temperatures of urban areas and airports during heat waves is obvious, like this link shows…if you take long periods or oceanic stations…the influence, of course, is not as evident
Thanks for your comments
https://m.europapress.es/ciencia/habitat-y-clima/noticia-huella-ola-calor-capitales-europeas-espacio-20190703141206.html
Amillena
Thanks in turn for this reply. It’s a bit late now to react (over 3 AM).
I’ll answer downthread later.
Amillena
Sorry, I still lacked idle time to go a bit deeper into UHI.
Did you read this comment?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-361312
*
I just had some little idle time for a comparison of the GHCN daily stations Sevilla AP and Moron AP in Al Andalus.
For the period 1960-2019, Sevilla showed a higher trend than Moron; but for 2000-2019, it was the inverse.
Another comparison in Alaska for which I made a graph some days ago: Anchoragge AP vs. Kenai. Temps in the very rural Kenai are regularly 2 C lower than in the urban Anchorage, but both stations’ records have the same trend during Kenai’s lifetime (2011-2019, incredible 3 C / decade):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14aS2UEkD0_Uw2rC05ywbQNdIURBVW-GW/view
cu
binny…”I just had some little idle time for a comparison of the GHCN daily stations Sevilla AP and Moron AP in Al Andalus”.
Still pushing that fudged, corrupt record?
Still the most uneducated, ridiculous, pretentious uncommenter
– who has never been able to process time series and thus urges in discrediting those who do;
– denies time dilation, use of relativity basics in GPS, etc etc etc;
of course doing all that on a blog lacking any moderation, and with a faked pseudoreal name?
bill hunter…”But the nature of a radiation barrier is of a blanket of undefined thickness that decreases heat transfer by radiation”.
There are unclear inferences in your statement. In practice there is no such device. Radiation barriers are substances that reflect radiation back to the source, they do not decrease heat transfer by radiation. They might reduce heat LOSS by radiation.
This is the problem with heat transfer via radiation, no heat is physically transferred. With conduction, heat is physically transferred electron to electron in a conductive substance. With radiation, heat is CONVERTED to electromagnetic energy AND LOST.
If that EM is from a hotter source and contacts a cooler target, the cooler target will absorb it and warm. That is, the EM is converted to heat and LOST. Therefore heat is reduced in the source and increased in the target. The heat decrease/increase is local, not a transfer of heat through space.
So how do GHGs prevent heat transfer from the surface by radiation? They can’t. All GHGs can do is absorb a trace amount of surface radiation.
In order to reflect radiation you need a metal-coated surface that creates a barrier to radiation. The space blankets you see with ametallic inner coating is such a radiation reflector. There’s no way the trace amount of GHGs in the atmosphere could ever act that way.
The presumption in AGW is that the atmosphere somehow absorbs all energy radiated by the surface. All the radiated energy represents a heat loss at the surface but it has little to do with GHGs. It’s the temperature of the 99% of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen that affects the rate of heat loss at the surface.
It’s funny how JDHuffman’s messages to others are so well suited for himself, e.g. “Pseudo-scientific climate clown” and “learn some physics”.
Here’s a good one:
https://tinyurl.com/y3sw2gkk
JDHuffman says:
David Appell says:
Then JDHuffman goes into a hand waving routine to hide the fact that he’s demonstrably wrong, because he never admits being wrong.
The latter is proved here, where he is again describing himself:
https://tinyurl.com/y2paoytu
Then he tops it of by calling me a “troll” that “misrepresents” him, again a perfect description of himself.
S,
Just stop and think for a sec.
The Pauli exclusion principle does not apply to photons. You may add as many as you like by adding fluxes, but the result is as meaningless as adding two temperatures (subject to certain qualifications, of course.)
Try adding 300 W/m2 from ice to 300 W/m2 from sunlight, and convince yourself the result is meaningful. 600 W/m2 of what? Temperature? Power? Flux? Stupidity?
Off you go now – add some fluxes. You can seek advice from the nearest delusional pseudoscientific climate cultist. You could start with the likes of Trenberth, Mann, or Schmidt, if you like. Let me know how you get on.
Or you could just add all the flux from the Sun over the last four and a half billion years, and explain why the Earth actually managed to cool. Only joking, even you couldn’t be that silly – I hope.
Cheers.
The other climate clown chimes in to support the failing pseudo-science.
It’s a flux of 600 Joules of energy per second per m^2 by the way.
S,
S,
You wrote –
“Its a flux of 600 Joules of energy per second per m^2 by the way.”
From Wiki –
“The watt (symbol: W) is a unit of power. In the International System of Units (SI) it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second, and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer.”
Do you expect me to thank you for telling me something I already know, or because you look snarkily foolish?
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating at all. the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years.
Feel free to tell me something else I already know – it’s unlikely a stupid and ignorant person can expand my not inconsiderable knowledge, but you never know. There are still many things I don’t know.
Carry on.
Cheers.
The earth has warmed for two hundred years.
S,
You wrote –
“The earth has warmed for two hundred years.”
Well, no, it hasn’t.
What you mean is that some thermometers seem to be getting generally hotter in some areas, over an indeterminate number of years.
Cheers.
The earth has accumulated energy in line with the enhanced GHE.
Svante says: “The earth has accumulated energy in line with the enhanced GHE.”
Well that would be correct if and only if the current popular theory of how the greenhouse effect works actually works that way. Right now with the need to alter the monitoring record for the sole purpose of bolstering but still not filling the failure of the models to perform one might even go so far as to say they don’t know how the greenhouse effect becomes enhanced.
Roy recently calculated the surface temperature w/o GHGs.
Now we are adding more GHGs, standard physics shows you it will result in warming.
The monitoring record has been verified by proxies and ARES.
Svante says: “Roy recently calculated the surface temperature w/o GHGs.Now we are adding more GHGs, standard physics shows you it will result in warming.”
Perhaps. The idea of the atmosphere acting like a solid because of its lapse rate is not to be found in classical physics.
Svante says:
“The monitoring record has been verified by proxies”
You mean the monitoring record has been adjusted by proxies.
Svante says:
“and ARES.”
ARES is a climate investment fund focused on profiting on a climate crisis. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-06/ares-starts-fund-to-profit-from-push-to-combat-climate-change. So that makes perfect sense.
It is not “based on the atmosphere acting like a solid”, whatever gave you that idea?
Sorry, “Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS”:
http://tinyurl.com/y6pg7szl
Svante says: It is not based on the atmosphere acting like a solid, whatever gave you that idea?
——
Solids are the only known things in the universe that maintain a variable resistance to heat transfer. You should read Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009
Svante says:
Sorry, Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS:
—————
No doubt a Freudian slip! LMAO! So exactly what does airs do to confirm it?
It does this:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafd4e/pdf
Gerlich and Tscheuschner are refuted by Roy Spencer here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/
Svante says: – Gerlich and Tscheuschner are refuted by Roy Spencer here:
Holy criminy, you don’t even know what the G&T paper set out to establish. Roy’s experiments in no way shape of form address what G&T were going on about.
Sure there is a greenhouse effect, absolutely. G&T was not about whether there was a greenhouse effect it was a paper describing that the current greenhouse theory of how the greenhouse effect is created and varies is outside of known science.
They quit because Gerlich passed away, but nobody ever rose to the challenge of establishing a detailed description of the forces at work that add up to our existing greenhouse effect and G&T stated that in their last notes.
The response to G&T was so wimpy the author doesn’t want it in public. Its behind a paywall with no buy button and they ask you to contact the author which he ignores.
Where do they say that the GHE exists?
Svante says: – Where do they say that the GHE exists?
Sheesh why would they say anything about that? The article is about the insulation characteristics of the whole atmosphere which is most likely zero using insulation in the terms of a multi-layered resistance to heat and energy transference.
If they said the greenhouse effect existed a bunch of morons would probably list them as part of the consensus that we are all going to die from global warming and distract from what they are trying to say.
In fact they say that the GHE does not exist in multiple places, e.g.:
“3.7.5 Non-existence of the natural greenhouse effect”.
How do you reconcile “the insulation characteristics of the whole atmosphere which is most likely zero” with Dr. Roy Spencer’s GHE calculation?
Svante says: – In fact they say that the GHE does not exist in multiple places, e.g.:
3.7.5 Non-existence of the natural greenhouse effect.
————
You are taking a section title and assuming thats what the section is about. But if you read the section you will see what G&T are taking issue with as fiction, is the calculation of the GHE being 33 degrees.
This is an area I don’t have resolved either because there are problems with assuming a greybody is a blackbody.
G&T opened wounds that obviously have not healed. I asked the question a few weeks ago about how emissivity was calculated for a greybody, I think here, and only got wisecracks as a response. Maybe you can answer the question. Stefan-Boltzmann equations include an emissivity factor and thus the question is a crucial one for which nobody seems to have any science to rest their numbers on. I even asked Trenberth why he didn’t consider emissivity and that just annoyed him.
So you see Svante you think all this is nice and tidy wrapped up in well accepted physics when in fact it isn’t even close to that.
Svante says: – How do you reconcile the insulation characteristics of the whole atmosphere which is most likely zero with Dr. Roy Spencers GHE calculation?
———
I don’t know what you are talking about regarding Roy’s calculation.
Bill Hunter says:
You say:
Roy Spencer calculated temperatures in line with the 33 C average GHE. How is that not at odds with the quote?
The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).
Svante says: But if you read the section you will see what G&T are taking issue with as fiction, is the calculation of the GHE being 33 degrees.
————-
You don’t think its rather ficticious to calculate the emissivity of a surface that reflects 30% of light as the same as one that reflects zero light?
Not if you deduct the reflected energy.
There is something seriously wrong with your BS filter if you go with G&T and discard Dr Spencer. They spend the first part of the paper showing that the GHE is not exactly like a greenhouse. Cripes.
Svante says: Not if you deduct the reflected energy.
There is something seriously wrong with your BS filter if you go with G&T and discard Dr Spencer. They spend the first part of the paper showing that the GHE is not exactly like a greenhouse. Cripes.
——-
First, I have no idea what you are talking about Roy’s calculation.
Second, the GHE is not exactly like a greenhouse.
Third, If you deduct the reflected energy most of which is attributable to the fact their are greenhouse gases in our world you are artificially increasing the greenhouse effect because the reflectivity of that results from putting water vapor in the air wouldn’t be there without water vapor. This countervailing effect might be called negative feedback but to a crowd with an agenda. . . .no freaking way will we give up one lousy watt to negative feedback unless we can exclusively use to explain it as a temporary phenomena to explain why the models don’t work. If you can’t spot such BS you have been totally inculcated.
Bill Hunter says:
“First, I have no idea what you are talking about Roy’s calculation.”
I linked it ten messages up at “July 10, 2019 at 4:48 AM”.
“Second, the GHE is not exactly like a greenhouse.”
Yes, it’s a stupid strawman.
“Third, If you deduct the reflected energy most of which is attributable to the fact their are greenhouse gases in our world you are artificially increasing the greenhouse effect because the reflectivity of that results from putting water vapor in the air wouldn’t be there without water vapor. This countervailing effect might be called negative feedback but to a crowd with an agenda. . . .no freaking way will we give up one lousy watt to negative feedback unless we can exclusively use to explain it as a temporary phenomena to explain why the models don’t work. If you can’t spot such BS you have been totally inculcated.”
What a confused argument!
Svante says: – What a confused argument!
—–
Yes it was poorly written. A simplified version would go like this: Under the mainstream theory where the greenhouse effect is controlled by TOA forcing and otherwise the surface is near being a blackbody; that means almost all albedo (.3) is a negative feedback due to radiant forcing.
This negative feedback is completely ignored in climate models. Remove this error in calculating the greenhouse effect from a earth with zero greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect we know today is about 9.5C above that.
I am intimately aware of what goes on in computer modeling for litigation support. Here the objective is to best make the clients case without getting so unreasonable that the judge or jury denies you credibility. 300% spreads between highly skilled legal teams and accountants are not uncommon. Eventually somebody must make a decision but often its a punt.
In the above case its hard to imagine, if anybody ever gets legal standing to sue, that from the mainstream warmist lobby there would need to be major concessions. For instance saying that 1/2 the observed warming was likely caused by mankind. I think we are getting close to that as an international legal objective but I still think its wrong and the press and a whole cadre of inculcated alarmists, the more dire predictions seem to be lingering. . . .like UFOs.
Another confused argument.
You don’t seem to know what a feedback is.
It is something that increases (positive feedback) or decreases (negative feedback) the original signal.
Climate and models have lots of feedbacks.
For example the snow/ice albedo feedback.
Of course the albedo is included, whatever made you think it wasn’t?
Svante says: – Another confused argument.
You don’t seem to know what a feedback is.
It is something that increases (positive feedback) or decreases (negative feedback) the original signal.
Climate and models have lots of feedbacks.
For example the snow/ice albedo feedback.
Of course the albedo is included, whatever made you think it wasn’t?
———-
No you are confused. You just stated (consistent with mainstream theory) that clouds are a feedback of the greenhouse effect; therefore its part of the greenhouse effect.
You are deceiving people if put all the negative feedbacks into the calculation in order to exaggerate the size of the greenhouse effect and then you can pretend there are no negative feedbacks, only positive ones in your forward projections because the huge gap demands there be positive feedbacks. Accountants love this kind of nonsense. Bernie Madoff and the Enron executives would be proud. But its not fraud. There is nothing illegal about holding bizarre scientific beliefs – like daily visits from UFOs. If you call KT he will probably tell you there are no cloud feedbacks, only more water vapor.
Bill Hunter says:
Yes, I say the cloud feedback is probably positive.
Lindzen says it’s strongly negative.
I introduce negative feedbacks so I can pretend there are no negative feedbacks???
Negative feedbacks make the GHE less harmful!
You’re analogies from the accounting world is leading you astray.
KT says the cloud feedback is positive.
Svante says:
Yes, I say the cloud feedback is probably positive.
Lindzen says it’s strongly negative.
I introduce negative feedbacks so I can pretend there are no negative feedbacks???
You’re analogies from the accounting world is leading you astray.
KT says the cloud feedback is positive.
—————-
For criminy sakes,
The net cloud feedback of clouds isn’t positive. But even if it positive that fact is entirely irrelevant to the point I am making.
The greenhouse effect is calculated as current temperature in excess of 255K and they get 33 degrees. They calculate that number from the amount of radiation absorbed by the earth system of 239 watts/m2. But 1/4th of the solar constant is 341 watts/m2. So to get it down to the 239 watts they subtract albedo.
Albedo that is being subtracted is from reflection of sunlight from snow cover and clouds, both products of water vapor. Without water vapor you get neither snow nor clouds.
Thus all albedo derived from snow and clouds is a product of the greenhouse effect if the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases.
So the correct greenhouse effect with all feedbacks is about 9.5k instead of 33K. 341watt/m2 with is 1/4th the solar constant would produce a surface temperature of about 278.5k.
Another weird thing in the calculation of the greenhouse effect is using an emissivity of 1.0 to figure the radiant intensity. The surface reflects about 6% of the solar incoming off of snow if you assume everything else is 1.0 emissivity. So the snow reduces the outgoing emissivity under that assumption as well. So at 289K and .94 emissivity outgoing radiation is 374 watts/m2. That works out to a greenhouse effect of 33watts/m2 not 33K. So somebody probably just made a mistake in switching kelvin for watts/m2. LMAO! I guess that makes some pretty good cover huh?
Bill Hunter says:
You don’t understand what a feedback is.
Clouds cool earth due to their albedo.
If higher temperature causes less clouds it will enhance the initial warming. That is an example of a positive feedback.
If it causes more clouds it is a negative feedback (through increased albedo).
OK.
OK.
OK.
I see what you mean. It is a consequence of the GHE but albedo is not in the GHE definition.
In Spencer’s calculation you had temperatures above freezing at low latitudes, so WV would spread and never melt nearer the poles. That means a positive snow/ice albedo feedback. It has happened more than once in Earth’s history. The CO2 thermostat broke that vicious circle.
Yes, you did that mistake.
The 6% is part of the albedo, so it’s already deducted.
You got a lot of what I said but you missed some important points. First, ice absorbs about the same as water, its snow and its crystalline structure that creates the albedo and you can’t have snow without precipitation, and you can’t have precipitation without evaporation, thus it is all part of the greenhouse effect, the entire albedo.
The issue on the 6% surface albedo has an effect on the emissivity of the surface according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Thus a surface with .94 emissivity and a temperature of 289K will emit 372 watts/m2. (i was off 2watts above because above i used a percentage estimate rather than modtran)
Budgets show the surface emitting 398watts using an emissivity factor of 1.0 for 289K.
Yes Svante, DA’s example demonstrates how easy it is for you clowns to fool yourselves. He chose an example of equal energy and equal area. But, the “energy budget” diagram does not use equal energy with equal areas. You too have tricked yourselves, again.
himself, e.g. Pseudo-scientific climate clown and learn some physics.
Nothing new.
And yes, you are a troll, and you do misrepresent me. It’s just that you cannot admit it.
No, he did not have equal energy, he had E1 and E2.
So you misrepresented David, but you can never admit it.
Flux is per area, you want the same units when you add dummy!
That’s why the NASA diagram has W/m^2, averaged over the surface of the Earth of course.
Svante, learn some physics.
You’ve got a long way to go….
You’re talking about yourself again.
You’re really getting desperate, as your false religion begins to crumble, huh?
Youre talking about yourself again.
Svante, please stop trolling.
The area A is the same for both E1 and E2.
Good point.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Roy, did you cite work by Watts et al that never got published in a scientific journal? Seems so:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1146450263395319808?s=12
Thats seriously not cool Roy, if so, and characteristic of the kind of shenanigans you have tried to pull before with journals and editors….
DA,
Ooooh! Shenanigans! Sounds interesting. You are going to provide some proof of course. Otherwise, people might think you are just making stuff up, mightnt they?
Cheers.
Appell creep still trying to bite at Dr. Roy Spencer ankles doesn’t get a clue he will just be ignored
DA…”Thats seriously not cool Roy, if so, and characteristic of the kind of shenanigans you have tried to pull before with journals and editors.”
F*** off, Appell.
Gordon, you are not Roy’s poodle – so stop barking.
Begone, troll!
A clear temperature drop in the region Niño 3.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
Data from Oulu indicate that the minimum develops similarly to the minimum after the 22nd cycle, but the solar wind activity is lower.
http://oi65.tinypic.com/15civtj.jpg
The amount of heat falls in the upper equatorial Pacific.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq2_anm_105m.gif
ren…”The amount of heat falls in the upper equatorial Pacific.”
We are now experiencing the unstable weather normally experienced in early June. It has been cloudy, cool, and rainy from the last week of June till today in July.
I wonder if we are going to have a summer.
More facts for clowns to deny:
Morning high haze, directly overhead –> 18.1 °F
Ground –> 74.6 °F
The Sun warms the surface and the surface warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere can NOT warm the surface.
Nothing new.
Hmmm.
https://medium.com/@iggyostanin/exclusive-climategate-email-hacking-was-carried-out-from-russia-in-effort-to-undermine-action-78b19bc3ca5a
Oh yeah, I remember Climategate. That was the beginning of the end for the AGW hoax. The funniest part was when they investigated themselves, finding they had done nothing wrong!
Quick Russian damage control by JDHuffman.
Quick misrepresentation by troll Svante.
Does Russia pay for your full time trolling?
If not you should ask them, you are pushing their message very well: “Do not trust your institutions”.
“Svante” is a Russian name, troll.
Show me a Russian by that name.
Look in a mirror.
No, not there.
Svante, please stop trolling.
JD…”The funniest part was when they investigated themselves, finding they had done nothing wrong!”
That was a real hoot. When Phil Jones, then head of Had-crut, was investigated, he was represented by his university (East Anglia). They were allowed to submit the questions he’d be asked and those heading the investigation had conflicts of interest. All had connections to the AGW propaganda movement.
You’re gullible Gordon, you fall for any conspiracy theory.
Questionable science practices were manipulated for the purpose of deception. No question about that. The emails conspiring to do it would be more than enough to convict a securities fraud scheme. However, science is allowed to be far more imaginative than the sellers of securities.
You’re gullible too. Thousands of quote mined emails came up with about a dozen red herrings. Hacked by Russia and released just before climate summits. Talking about fake news.
The main real finding was avoiding FOIA request, because they felt harassed.
Svante says: “Youre gullible too. Thousands of quote mined emails came up with about a dozen red herrings. Hacked by Russia and released just before climate summits.”
Sure thing Svante. So to you its OK to truncate the tree ring proxy temperature decline, then hide the remainder of the decline on a superimposed temperature record for the purpose of deceiving policy makers about the reliability of tree rings as a proxy and sell the hockey stick theory there was no MWP or LIA.
Then adding to that the conspiracies to silence skeptics and of course deny them access to materials to replicate their work. All good and fine and excusable to you because asking for that stuff made them feel harrassed. LMAO! Sounds like a slow speed white bronco chase to me. . . .but you are lock, stock and barrel convinced its all legitimate huh?
Truncating tree rings was a bad call, but it was not a big secret, had been discussed in scientific papers before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem
Many other proxy studies have shown the same pattern, the hockey stick has been confirmed over and over. MWP/LIA are there too, so you can relax.
It was bad a bad call to obstruct the FOIA requests, but it is understandable under the circumstances. Jones had devoted his career to this and FOIA people said he was a fraud.
He got his data data from different meteorological agencies and some, e.g. Poland, did not allow him to send them on. People could get the data themselves.
Richard Muller was upset about the “trick”, and he didn’t trust the temperature record. Jones weeded out bad data, BEST had had a brilliant method that could use any biased input. The result was the same, so Jones did a good job.
It is equally plain to see that the Bronco guy was guilty.
Indeed Svante. Such behavior in the financial community gets you 3 squares a day behind bars. However, the advice is never trust the claims of an expert unless you have an implied contract with that expert. Your doctor, engineer, accountant, etc. are bound by standards and due diligence. Academics give you nothing as do any other experts you have no implied contract with.
Contracts are broken.
Science works like a court that never stops. It is verified over and over. There is a tree trunk and branches that grow stronger and stronger, but twigs fall off all the time. Roy Spencer often disputes twigs such as the US hurricane trend, but no sensible scientist can dispute the GHE.
Your view of scientists is fantasy. Go to lectures and get to know them. Here’s one of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuRU10ocuds
That’s a good analogy Svante. It’s not uncommon for tertiary or even secondary hypothesis (branches/twigs) to get falsified. But the primary hypothesis (trunk) continues to survive with the mountain of supporting evidence piling up higher every year. The trunk is so solid now that it is very unlikely to ever be overturned. It would take an absolutely Earth shattering epiphany upend the whole tree at this point.
Svante says: “Contracts are broken.”
——–
Indeed, and its a good way to get rich if you are the victim of a broken contract.
Svante says:
“Science works like a court that never stops. It is verified over and over. There is a tree trunk and branches that grow stronger and stronger, but twigs fall off all the time. Roy Spencer often disputes twigs such as the US hurricane trend, but no sensible scientist can dispute the GHE.”
——
STRAWMAN! Nobody I am talking about is disputing the GHE. What is being disputed is predictions regarding the variability of the greenhouse effect. Try to fit that past your thick skull.
Svante says: Your view of scientists is fantasy. Go to lectures and get to know them. Heres one of them:
——-
I would venture I probably work with scientists an order of magnitude more than you. You can’t seem to fathom that I have given a very positive view of scientists with the exception of the climategate bunch and few others. I have a bigger beef with elitist politicians who destructively influence the imagination of scientists. Fact is Svante, we are all just working slobs, some with more integrity than others. But almost all of us work for a paycheck on stuff somebody else tells to work on.
I’m glad we agree that the GHE is real.
What is the variability if it is not like this:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
University scientists can propose their own research projects.
What people like Svante and bdgwx attempt to do is twist reality. One way is to point out that CO2 absorbs IR. Everyone agrees. Then, they point out that CO2 also emits IR. Everyone agrees. Then, they claim that the emitted IR will raise the temperature of the surface, hence the so-called “GHE”.
CO2 emitted IR will NOT raise the surface temperature.
But, they won’t stop pushing their false religion. That’s what they do.
Nothing new.
I have never claimed that the IR emitted by CO2 could warm the surface by its own means.
Likewise I have never claimed that the insulation in your home could warm the inside by its own means.
The key phrase here is “by its own means”. Both require an injection of energy from outside the system for the warming to take place. The thermal barrier just augments that external energy source’s ability to do the warming.
If you disagree with the fact that the insulation in your home or the GHGs in the atmosphere act as thermal barriers then state concisely what your argument is so that we can review it together.
Svante says: Im glad we agree that the GHE is real.
—–
Of course its real.
Svante says: What is the variability if it is not like this:
—–
It is about light traveling through the entire atmosphere. GHE is about light effects at one point in the atmosphere where.
Svante says: University scientists can propose their own research projects.
——–
So can I. Yes thats the idea of academic freedom. But what we have is a shadow of the model while still trying to retain the protection of scientists in the name of academic freedom.
bdgwx says: I have never claimed that the IR emitted by CO2 could warm the surface by its own means.
——–
Then you don’t explain how it gets warmed except maybe some vague reference of the sun warming it for a second time.
Bill,
GHGs are a type of thermal barrier that is sensitive to the wavelength of radiation. Because incoming radiation is shortwave and because GHGs are transparent to shortwave radiation the energy is allowed to pass through. However the outgoing radiation is longwave and because GHGs are opaque to longwave radiation they absorb it and then emit it in all direction with half of it returning to the surface. In this way the energy that would have escaped to space is returned back to the surface. Because of this radiational cooling is slowed down. All other things being equal if the surface of Earth starts off at a higher it will achieve a higher temperature on the next diurnal cycle.
The insulation in your home works the same way. It is a thermal barrier that does not resist the injection of natural gas or electricity to power your furnace, but it does impede the loss of energy from your home via convection, conduction, and radiation. In this manner the insulation augments the furnace’s ability to warm the inside.
CO2’s thermal barrier properties were discovered and quantified in the mid 1800’s. The effect it has on the planet was studied in the late 1800’s so this is very old and well established science.
bdgwx says: GHGs are a type of thermal barrier that is sensitive to the wavelength of radiation. Because incoming radiation is shortwave and because GHGs are transparent to shortwave radiation the energy is allowed to pass through. However the outgoing radiation is longwave and because GHGs are opaque to longwave radiation they absorb it and then emit it in all direction with half of it returning to the surface. In this way the energy that would have escaped to space is returned back to the surface. Because of this radiational cooling is slowed down. All other things being equal if the surface of Earth starts off at a higher it will achieve a higher temperature on the next diurnal cycle.
——
I don’t disagree with that.
bdgwx says: The insulation in your home works the same way.
———-
I don’t know who told you that but no it doesn’t.
It’s not very surprising, the emails where first released in Siberia.
The pattern has become clear, another example is the
Russia planned cyber-attack on the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45747472
More examples:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45746837
svante…”Its not very surprising, the emails where first released in Siberia.
The pattern has become clear, another example is the
Russia planned cyber-attack on the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague:”
**********
This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you are terminally naive.
Have you the slightest idea how hackers operate? On the Internet, there are proxy servers set up by the corporate community. Anyone can use such a server to strip off the sending IP address and replace it with a meaningless address.
Hackers route their communication through several such servers and there is no way whatsoever they can be traced. In fact, the more clever hackers ‘spoof’ the sending source to lay the blame on someone else.
That’s why the security personnel in the US are full of bs when they claimed to have identified the so-called hacker of their government computers.
This is nothing more than McCarthy-era Russia bashing. They may have had a reason back then due to the Draconian Stalin era, but there are still McCartyhyists, like Hillary CLinton, who hate Russians on principle.
McCarthyism was not about what was going on in Russia, it was a paranoia based on the notion that Russians were hiding under every bed in the US. The paranoia became so rampant that good scientists like Linus Pauling and David Bohm were targeted, along with 100s of other innocents.
Furthermore, there is a notion that all Russians are bad-assed, Commies burning to ruin the lives of those in Democratic countries. I would venture that most Russians are too busy trying to survive to give a hoot. It was not the fault of the Russian people that sadistic idiots like the Bolsheviks took over Russia and forced all Russians into serving that brutal administration.
If the internet security is good then it’s easier to hack the WLAN. Check out the stuff they found in their car.
Most Russian are great, but the regime has paranoia.
It’s based on security concerns that the west should work hard to resolve.
entropic…from your link…
“The identity of the hackers has remained a mystery despite the efforts of law enforcement and journalists”.
Then they go on, like the IPCC, after claiming future climate states cannot be predicted, to speculate as to where the hackers came from…Russia.
What is this, the slam Russia decade? If you have a problem, blame Russia.
Pathetic!!!
Gordon Robertson
The only other countries in the same timezone are Russia, Pakistan and India.
Of the three, Russia has form as a hacker of Western databases, while Pakistan and India do not.
Whoever did the CRU hack has remained remarkably quiet about it, which susggests a state organisation rather than an individual.
Here are links to the formal investigations of the UEA email incident for those who are curious.
https://tinyurl.com/yyha2f39
https://tinyurl.com/yyswj4lg
https://tinyurl.com/y2d2mqtr
…and…
https://tinyurl.com/y68afv74
https://tinyurl.com/yy8tegsp
https://tinyurl.com/yy6pc4lk
https://tinyurl.com/y4uyqaku
Somewhat interesting…AFAIK McIntyre was never investigated for his role.
☭☭☭☭☭☭ ruskis ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ ruskis everywhere ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Meanwhile, back in the real world, things are still getting warmer.
Swanson, whenever some Skeptic points out a new cold record, some Warmist always jumps in to point out that “weather is not climate”.
But, they probably won’t do that with a new warm record….
This is a very bad forecast for the US for the winter of 2019/2020.
If La Nina is created in the winter, I feel sorry for the people of North America.
ren…”If La Nina is created in the winter, I feel sorry for the people of North America”.
Don’t know about those in the lower, more warmer states in the US (yes the US is IN America and not America as they claim) but up here in the cooler part of North America, in Canada, we are used to the cold.
Here on the west coast near Vancouver, it seldom goes below -10C, and only for a day or two if it does. Might give us something to talk about if temps drop to -20C.
I worked a night shift outdoors in the Edmonton area for several months where temps were -25C. If you are dressed properly and have places to warm up occasionally, you’re fine. As long as the wind doesn’t blow hard.
I have also experienced prairie weather at -50C. Below -35C, survival becomes another matter. Not T-shirt and shorts weather.
Does it feel like people are rubbishing your whole career in the oil industry?
There is no need to feel like that, it’s a great business that filled an important role in the world economy.
It’s just that it has a side effect that must be fixed.
Svante, please stop trolling.
svante…”Meanwhile, back in the real world…”
Wow, Svante, whouda thunk? 90F in Alaska during an El Nino?
https://www.travelalaska.com/Planning/Alaska-Climate.aspx
“Highest Temperature
100 F (38 C) at Fort Yukon on June 27, 1915”.
1915????? Where was all the CO2 in 1915?
You are confused, I didn’t say that.
Curious,
“Comment??”
Thats pretty neat. If true, it will help confirm my hypothesis that the rate of ozone creation is governed by the concentration of co2 in the mesosphere.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD092iD04p04325
At an altitude of 37 km, the upper stratosphere begins.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2019.png
cool, that’s probably the low point for atomic oxygen concentration….the mesopause being the high point…
bdg…”The testable hypothesis I speak of are those listed in Svantes post above”.
Svante quoted an article eschewing the fact that the predictions are based on unvalidated climate models. An unvalidated model cannot be tested against the scientific method. If it could, the model would be validated.
Therefore Mike’s assertions stands that no testable hypothesis can be offered for either AGW or the GHE.
Gordon Robertson
I’m interested. How do you validate models projecting future events?
EM,
You wrote –
“Im interested. How do you validate models projecting future events?”
By experiment.
As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Make observations, formulate hypothesis, do experiment, and so on. As to numerical prediction of weather (and the average of weather – climate), it turns out that chaos is involved, as Lorenz hypothesised.
Any model which fails to take this into account is pointless. Even if you consider a very simple equation (the logistic equation, (x)=rx(1−x), is one such), this models various animal populations over time. Depending on initial outputs, final behaviour may be fixed, periodic, or chaotic. As I have mentioned before, there is no minimum change to initial outputs which will result in chaos.
This is just the way it is.
However, with other models, experiment may verify the theoretical projections. One needs to bear in mind Einstein’s quote –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
I trust the models which led to the construction of the aircraft in which I fly. So far, so good. The modelling for the 737 Max 8 MCAS turned out to be not so good, resulting in a good few deaths. The model has been shown to be invalid.
Assumptions need to be made. Climate modelling doesn’t seem to be useful in any way – no better results than you or I can assume, based on history.
Cheers.
3 of those hypothesis were proposed by Arrhenius between 1895-1910 long before NWP climate models (if that’s what you meant) were even a thing. And all of the them are testable. In fact, UAH tests some of them; maybe even all of them. And all of them have survived falsification thusfar. On the flip side all natural-only hypothesis have been falsified to some extent, albeit with varying levels of confidence.
More fiction from bdg: “On the flip side all natural-only hypothesis have been falsified to some extent, albeit with varying levels of confidence.”
He can make up stuff as well as any typist.
bdgwx,
“And all of them have survived falsification thusfar”
While I’m not sure what hypotheses you are referring to, I have thoroughly debunked the hypothesis that co2’s insulative effect is to warm the surface.
On the contrary, by increasing the O supply to the stratopause it in fact cools the surface as it increases production of ozone, blocking more uvb
So what kind of test can be constructed that is unique to this hypothesis and which you would accept as a valid falsification attempt.
b: “So what kind of test can be constructed that is unique to this hypothesis and which you would accept as a valid falsification attempt.”
If the concentration of ozone increases, ocean temps must decline.
If the concentration of ozone remains stable then the ocean temps must stabilize.
If the concentration of ozone declines then ocean temps must increase.
Any of these shown to be false would falsify the hypothesis
b,
You need to structure your hypothesis in such a way that it can be tested by reproducible experiment, if you want to go on to develop a theory.
If you can’t, it remains speculation – a guess, in other words.
Pseudoscience cannot be objectively tested by experiment. That’s why it is called pseudoscience.
The experiment conducted by Nature over four and a half billion years shows that any supposed GHE was unable to prevent cooling. Not quite what you wanted, I suppose. Oh well.
Cheers.
caveat…
“If the concentration of ozone increases, ocean temps must decline.”
there is a limit to this decline… the full ab*so*rp*t*ion of uvb by the stratosphere…
Phil,
I agree those hypothesis are definitely testable. I don’t think they would necessarily uniquely identify ozone as the cause of ocean temperature changes because other agents could be in play, but at least you can test to see if ozone can be eliminated as the cause for ocean warming. You could further refine the set of hypothesis to include the magnitude of the effect and see whether and see whether the theory still holds up.
Other ozone hypothesis might be:
– If stratospheric ozone decreases then stratospheric temperatures decrease.
– If stratospheric ozone increases then stratospheric temperatures increase.
And I think both of these would survive falsification. That means ozone clearly plays a role in the climate system.
Again, the rub is that these hypothesis aren’t distinctively caused by ozone. And ozone is also a GHG so its the magnitude of the net effect that is going to be the most discriminatory and the most salient in falsifying whether ozone is THE cause of hydrosphere warming or just a contributing factor. By the way…scientists already consider ozone as a contributing factor to global warming so it’s not like this is being ignored.
bdgwx,
“I agree those hypothesis are definitely testable.”
Thank you, although I think a laboratory experiment would be difficult to set up… perhaps on the space station?
” I don’t think they would necessarily uniquely identify ozone as the cause of ocean temperature changes because other agents could be in play,”
No, no no no… lol (repeating from other thread…)
ozone is not the cause… uvb is! Ozone limits the amount of uvb reaching the surface!
b: “Other ozone hypothesis might be:
– If stratospheric ozone decreases then stratospheric temperatures decrease.
– If stratospheric ozone increases then stratospheric temperatures increase.
And I think both of these would survive falsification. That means ozone clearly plays a role in the climate system.”
Agreed! where the uvb is absorbed, that’s where you’ll find the heat.
b: “Again, the rub is that these hypothesis aren’t distinctively caused by ozone.”
Again, I’m talking about UVB causing the heating or cooling and ozone (or more properly Oxygen!) as the regulator of how much UVB makes it to the surface.. More co2 in the mesosphere means more atomic Oxygen available to create ozone…
The rub is determining how much of that UVB is absorbed at (or below) the surface!
Oceans readily absorb uvb down to about 50 M or so
Snow and ice REFLECT uvb ( yes Ive had snowburn..)
how bout land? organic material absorbs uvb (perhaps thats what absorbs it in the ocean too?) but what about sand? different types of rock? frankly I dont know….
but I do know that if you increase the solar uvb input to the oceans, you are increasing the heat flow to the ocean…
b: “And ozone is also a GHG so its the magnitude of the net effect that is going to be the most discriminatory and the most salient in falsifying whether ozone is THE cause of hydrosphere warming or just a contributing factor. By the way…scientists already consider ozone as a contributing factor to global warming so it’s not like this is being ignored.”
ozone’s ‘GHE’ that they have been studying is worthless…
ozone does indeed provide a heat flux to the cooler atmosphere below the ozone layer, but this flux is fully absorbed well above the surface…
this of course highlights the problem with the ‘energy budget’ diagrams… they show heat flux for evaporation and conduction but NOT for radiation…
the IR heat flux from the atmosphere to the surface is (on average) negative…
svante…”Then JDHuffman goes into a hand waving routine to hide the fact that hes demonstrably wrong, because he never admits being wrong”.
The problem lies in Appell’s, and apparently your, inability to understand flux. The term flux comes from Newton’s word fluxion, which is equivalent to the first derivative of a fucntion. In other words, a line of flux is an instantaneous change in a field.
If you want to take the full change of a surface area you must apply a surface integral. It makes no sense, as DA claimed, to add the flux over one surface to the flux over another surface.
If you consider the solar EM flux at TOA, it’s about 1360 W/m^2. If you take another m^2 nearby at 1360 W/m^2 and add the fluxes together, what is it you are implying?
If you took all the m^2 surface areas of an entire sphere around the Sun at 1 AU (TOA) you’d have the total flux from the Sun over a sphere at 1 AU. Using that info, you could calculate the power at the solar surface that produced such a flux density at 1 AU.
GR said…”If you consider the solar EM flux at TOA, its about 1360 W/m^2. If you take another m^2 nearby at 1360 W/m^2 and add the fluxes together, what is it you are implying?”
You mean like 1360 + 1360 = 2720? Why would anyone do that?
b,
Silly pseudoscientific climate cultists do almost exactly that. For example, Trenberth has a wonderfully stupid graphic which “adds” fluxes. Amongst other things, his brightly coloured graphic has 341.3 W/m2 of sunlight “added ‘to 333 W/m2 of “back radiation”.
Complete and utter nonsense, of course. I suppose even you wouldn’t be stupid and ignorant enough to believe such rubbish. The Earth has cooled. Nothing has stopped it. That’s just the way it is, brightly coloured cartoons notwithstanding.
Cheers.
MF,
The fluxes you see in the various energy analysis are always in reference to the same area. It is valid to compute net energy flows using addition/subtraction because of this fact. What GR is proposing is nonsensical nevermind being a strawman since I’ve not seen a reputable scientists recommend doing so.
I’d still like to get clarification from GR in case the point was something other than what I thought.
Listen up children.
For the umpteenth time:
The Earth/atmosphere system intercepts and absorbs (as a disc) a TOTAL of 1360 pi R^2(R-radius of the Earth) times about 0.6 (i.e. 1 minus albedo) Watts.
Assuming it is a black body system, it emits at a RATE of sigma T ^4 W/m^2 (Stefan Boltzmann, T=average temperature of the system – not the surface).
Integrating over the entire sphere of radius R gives the TOTAL emission by the system of
sigma T^4 4 pi R^2 Watts.
Equating watts absorbed to watts emitted and dividing both sides by pi R^2 yields:
sigma t^4 = 239 Watts.
Which is exactly what Trenberth’s diagram shows.
Simple.
All your babble about adding fluxes and areas etc is totally irrelevant when you do the arithmetic. (You did study arithmetic I hope).
DM,
And still the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, has it not?
You may calculate, differentiate, integrate, or denigrate as much as you like.
You can’t even describe this silly GHE which you preach, can you?
Don your funny hat and robe, and practice all the pseudoscience you want. At least it costs you nothing, and hopefully won’t cost me anything either. I wish you well.
Cheers.
I knew you would get frustrated.
Try going back to school and learning some arithmetic.
Better still, a remedial arithmetic course for arthritic, old-age, denialist dreamers.
p.s. When I practice on my patients I always wear my hat and gown.
Begone, troll!
+1
Myki, please stop trolling.
Dr Myki
Comment OK, with the exception of
“he Earth/atmosphere system intercepts and absorbs (as a disc)…”
The ‘disk’ of course is not correct because you have an hermisphere hit by the Sun whose surface is 2 pi R^2.
But you have to apply to the solar irradiance a latitude weighting equal to the square of the cosine of the incidence angle.
Int [0, pi/2] (cos^2 (x) dx = 0.5
And that is what gives you the pi R^2.
Yes. No argument there.
Gordon Robertson
As you say, the rate of energy flow, the flux, is the first derivative of the total energy flow. To calculate the total energy flow you multiply the flux( energy flow per unit area) by the total area receiving the energy.
I am in a room with three light bulbs in a chandalier. The total flux reaching my eye is the sum of the flux emitted by aech bulb.
You only add fluxes when you have multiple sources. Imagine that a second sun appeared beside the first one. Each sun produces a flux of 1360W/m^2 at the TOA subsolar point. The total flux from both suns is now 1360+1360 = 2720W/m^2.
Mike Flynn
As I said above, you can add fluxes from different sources to calculate the total flux received by a given area.
Thus it is entirely reasonable to calculate the total flux reaching 1m^2 of Earth’s surface by adding the solar flux 341.3W/m^2 and the flux from back radiation 333W/m^2 to get a total flux of 674.3W/m^2.
EM,
The trouble is that one “flux” comes from a 5800 K source, and the other comes from a source of completely unknown temperature.
Ice can emit 300 W/m2. Concentrate this energy with a lens (just like using a lens with sunlight), and if you concentrate the energy into a very small area, you can easily achieve a “flux” of 30,000 W/m2.
Completely pointless, and you cannot raise the temperature of an object above that of the ice. Concentrate the 341.3 W/m2 from sunlight however, and you can melt metal, light fires, and so on.
Adding 300 W/m2 from ice, to 300 W/m2 from the sun achieves precisely and absolutely nothing.
Keep “adding” pointless fluxes, but first consider how such “fluxes” may be measured. By the way, check the ISO standards for the measuring instruments, and you might well come to the conclusion that Trenberth and his ilk are deluded, stupid, and ignorant. Or maybe not – I leave it to you.
Cheers.
Exactly. You have to add fluxes in this case otherwise you violate the 1LOT. Addition/subtraction of fluxes is valid when the fluxes are in reference to the same area. The various energy budget analysis are always in reference to the full area of Earth (~510e12 m^2).
E-man and bdg, that’s wrong.
You can NOT add fluxes that are not the same wavelengths. You can NOT add solar to IR emitted by the atmosphere. The spectra are different.
Huh?
Where do you get that idea from?
The Stefan Boltzmann Law represents the sum/integral of fluxes over all wavelengths? (i.e.the integral of the Planck function). It applies equally well to either the Earth (T about 255K) or the sun (T about 6000 K).
Having different spectra is irrelevant. The SB Law effectively takes account of any (very small) IR radiation by the sun as well as any (very small) “solar” radiation by the Earth.
It has nothing to do with wavelength or even radiation. These are energy fluxes. Radiation is one mechanism for the transmission of energy, but it’s certainly not the only one.
JD, let me help you out. Perhaps you are trying to say that a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*v*i*t*y can be different for different frequencies?
Myki appears to be confusing “emission” with “wave addition”, or some such nonsense. He’s not making enough sense to figure out where he is wrong!
“Having different spectra is irrelevant. The SB Law effectively takes account of any (very small) IR radiation by the sun as well as any (very small) “solar” radiation by the Earth.”
Good luck figuring out that nonsense.
Then the backdoor guy tells us photons have “nothing to do with wavelength or even radiation. These are energy fluxes.”
What?
Finally troll Svante offers another example of his ignorance “Perhaps you are trying to say that a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*v*i*t*y can be different for different frequencies?”
(Where do such clowns come from?)
JD said…”Then the backdoor guy tells us photons have nothing to do with wavelength or even radiation. These are energy fluxes.”
What I’m saying is that the fluxes you see on the various energy budget analysis diagrams are general energy fluxes. They might be radiation fluxes and they might not. Some of them are evaporation, convection, etc. As such they have nothing to do with wavelength. Read the Wild et al. 2013 publication that the IPCC’s energy budget diagram is based off of. This is explained in the publication.
I knew this was going to be tedious.
Lets try again.
I assume you can absorb (and feel) the sun’s radiation at a wavelength of 550 nanometers ?
This will be a green visible component.
I also assume you can absorb (and feel) the sun’s radiation at a wavelength of 600 nanometers ? This will be a yellow visible component
I also assume you can absorb (and feel) the sun’s radiation at a wavelength of 650 nanometers ? This will be a red visible component.
You can add the radiation from all the visible components (all the colours) between 390 and 760 nanometers. (That is why sunlight appears white.)
So far so good?
Adding up components across this band of (visible) wavelengths therefore is ok. Yes?
You can also add in components up to (not quite visible) 1000 nanometers. Why not?
You can also add in components up to (invisible) 10000 nanometers. Why not?
You are then adding contributions from the “solar” part of the spectrum to the “infrared” part of spectrum.
(The words “solar” and “infrared” are simply descriptors. Convention is that the boundary is at 5000 nanometers. There is nothing magical about this number.)
Therefore you can add radiation from a body with a temperature of about 6000K to radiation from a body at 255K. There is no magical cut-off where addition cannot take place.
DM,
Cunning pseudoscientific redefinition again, it seems.
You have apparently redefined “flux” to mean “radiation”, or “components”.
You write –
“Let’s try again.”
Indeed. You are trying to convince people that “fluxes” can be “added”, without actually using the word “flux” anywhere!
Instead, you are “adding” “components”, which are supposedly discrete frequencies, as in “I assume you can absorb (and feel) the suns radiation at a wavelength of 550 nanometers ?
This will be a green visible component.”
You can’t meaningfully add frequencies any more than you can add temperatures.
You go on to write something woefully stupid and incorrect –
“Therefore you can add radiation from a body with a temperature of about 6000K to radiation from a body at 255K. There is no magical cut-off where addition cannot take place.”
Maybe you could talk about “adding fluxes”. Just as stupid and ignorant as “adding components”, or “adding radiation” without amplifying what you mean!
Try making water hotter by “adding flux” from ice. Let me know the results of your experiment.
What a Wally!
Cheers.
bdg, you make fun of yourself better than I can “They might be radiation fluxes and they might not.”
Myki, just because the solar spectrum is composed of different wavelengths does not mean that you can warm your body with ice cubes.
Or that you can make water hotter by “adding flux” from ice, as Mike Flynn stated.
You need to learn some physics.
JD said…”bdg, you make fun of yourself better than I can They might be radiation fluxes and they might not.”
It probably would have been better to say some are and some aren’t. For example, most energy budget diagrams have an entry for the latent flux. It was poor wording on my part. Hopefully the rewording is more clear. Sorry for the confusion.
Just as I thought.
What pathetic set of responses to an excellent explanation by my good self.
No wonder you guys are in the remedial class.
As they say, you can lead a horse to water but……….
Sorry bdg, but that was just as funny.
But, you are outdone by the clown Myki. In his clown routine, he claims to be an expert on “fluxes adding”, so let’s give him some more material:
E/M fluxes consist of photons. So if fluxes can be simply added, photons must be able to be simply added:
1) If two photons have different frequencies, what frequency does the “sum” have?
2) If two photons are added, do their magnetic fields also add?
3) If two photons have different phases, does the affect the sum?
4) If two photons have different momentums, what is the momentum of the “sum”?
5) If two photons have different directions, what is the direction of the “sum”?
Myki’s response should be even funnier than his previous ones.
Enjoy!
DM,
You wrote –
“What pathetic set of responses to an excellent explanation by my good self.”
Your description of your fantasy world explains nothing.
You seem to be besotted with the pseudoscientific cultist ramblings of a faker, a fraud, and fool, along with sundry other fumbling bumblers.
Carry on preaching. Maybe you can attract some more followers to your shambling assemblage of incompetents, but the pool of mentally deranged potential cultists seems to be shrinking.
Good luck with your efforts. It should help to keep some of the more witless candidates content in their imaginary world.
Cheers.
“So if fluxes can be simply added, photons must be able to be simply added.”
Sure 1 flux + 1 flux = 2 fluxes, 1 photon + 1 photon = 2 photons, this is all so easy JD; it’s too bad you are so busy running a 3 ring circus & drawing bogus cartoons to learn even the basic physics.
Likewise, if 84 W/m^2 of latent energy and 20 W/m^2 of sensible energy is released from the surface then the combined energy is 84 + 20 = 104 W/m^2. These figures are taken from Wild et al. 2013 by the way.
fluffball avoided the issue by hiding behind his fluff.
Nothing new.
IMO, the whole conversation of fluxes derails over assumptions about energy that hasn’t necessarily been proven. Einstein was aware of this and objected to excessive extrapolation in quantum mechanics, though QM has proven some of its concepts. We don’t even know if photons exist but have been a handy way of explaining certain phenomena. I have yet to see one of these conversations that doesn’t start extrapolating beyond logic when you start discussing the behavior of photons. Much cleaner is “net heat loss” it really doesn’t matter if it happens because of a net photon exchange or it happens because high energy is attracted by low energy. That always invokes the response “are you crazy man do you think a star reaches out across space before it decides to emit a photon?”. I say get over it as none of it seems relevant to anything important all it does is murky up the water and lead to evermore wild extrapolations.
Bill, actually much, much cleaner is “net energy loss”. Something not contained in an object (“heat”) cannot then be lost from that object.
Ball4 says: Bill, actually much, much cleaner is net energy loss. Something not contained in an object (heat) cannot then be lost from that object.
———–
I didn’t say it was going to clear everything up but it does wonders for killing off bunny trails.
1. Remember nothing can emit that which it didn’t absorb.
2. How much it emits is limited by the temperature of the object its cooling toward.
You throw the claim of absorbing backradiation into the equation and the number of paths of energy flows doubles leading to endless confusion. Net energy flow based upon the relative temperatures of the objects is all you need to know and you must have sufficient income and net output to keep it in balance.
This is not the question, the question really is how does this vary in our climate system.
How much radiant energy per unit area per unit time a real, large enough, round enough object emits across the entire spectrum is determined by its own equilibrium temperature, emissivity. Its equilibrium temperature is in balance with other objects in the system of interest.
I agree and would emphasize the word emissivity.
If I were to put that into a relationship, i would say the heating of the oceans is inversely proportional to the concentration of ozone above the oceans times some constant that represents the ab*sor*p*tio*n of uvb by water (or the organic material therein)
Math guys! Give me an equation…. Lol
PhilJ
I have been researching your ideas. I do find them interesting and based upon what I find, perhaps Climate Scientists should investigate the UV and Ozone connection on surface warming.
On the other thread I gave a link that said about 10% of solar energy is in the UV band of EMR. Of that around 3% reaches the surface.
I used 1367 W/m^2 for the solar flux. The average solar flux (though a few disagree, not sure if you are in that thought sphere) is 340 W/m^2. I am not sure what the albedo is UV at the surface. It might all be absorbed or close to. If it is absorbed it would mean 340 W/m^2 times 0.03 or 10.2 W/m^2 of UV energy reaches the surface.
Here is a link maybe you were looking for. Scientists have not ignored the increase in UV because of ozone depletion. Also you might be interested to know that the biggest increases in UV energy are at the poles (claimed to be the areas of most rapid heating).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2006/chapters/Q17.pdf
The link shows the percent increase in UV over a 10 year period.
If you take it at 4% for regions toward the poles, you get an increase of 0.408 W/m^2 in 10 years.
Then you look at the estimates for the forcing to cause the warming we are seeing, the scientists get 0.58 W/m^2 in 5 years.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
So you would have 0.0408 W/m^2 forcing from UV and 0.116 from observation. That means your UV idea would contribute 35% of the observed warming. That is significant and would mean the CO2 model is at a high estimate. It could also explain the errors in the Climate Models. They did not take into consideration the large effect of UV energy change on the equation. Now that the ozone level is stabilized the actual warming is much less than the model predictions.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
“i would say the heating of the oceans is inversely proportional to the concentration of ozone above the oceans times some constant that represents the ab*sor*p*tio*n of uvb by water (or the organic material therein)”
Oh and directly proportional to the amount of uvb in at the TOA…
In relation to measuring the “flux” of back radiation.
Nobody has ever done it. Nobody.
Measuring the temperature of the atmosphere above using an IR thermometer for example, tells you nothing about the total amount of energy impinging on the surface, and even less about the amount absorbed by the surface.
All smoke, mirrors and wishful thinking.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled over the last four and half billion years, and the applicable laws of physics have not changed recently.
Cheers.
“In relation to measuring the “flux” of back radiation.
Nobody has ever done it. Nobody.”
Agreed! The heating of the ocean can only come from 2 sources… increased solar input or increased geothermal input
Dr. Spencer has done it! And shown how heating of the ocean can come from other than increased solar or geothermal using contact thermometers not just IR thermometers. It’s really very easy, you two just need to learn from some basic theory & real experiments.
missed that when did he do it?
June 2015, tells a lot that many have not learned anything from it since then. See the archive above.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn
You are way behind the times. Do you have a pet dinosaur and bathe in lava lakes?
You are just plain wrong and ignorant.
You say: “In relation to measuring the flux of back radiation.
Nobody has ever done it. Nobody.”
Here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d23f3b1475dd.png
Time to crawl out of the cave and open your mind.
Making ignorant unsupportable comments does not help your credibility any.
N,
You fool. Maybe you could link to something that is titled something like “measured back-radiation” or something similar.
Pointless unlabelled graphs don’t show much at all. For example, what is the definition of “downwelling IR”? What frequencies? What is the temperature of the emitting matter?
And so on. Just more pseudoscientific propaganda, under the guise of scientific research.
For example –
“Todays anthropogenic climate change is largely driven by increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, modified to some extent by the distribution of aerosols and aerosol properties.” “It is necessary to develop a solid scientific understanding of their natural cycles, and how human management and the changing climate influence those cycles.”
What a load of rot! ” . . .how human management and the changing climate influence . . .”?
Climate is the average of weather. It is a calculated result, and influences precisely nothing! Carry on following the faker, the fraud and the fool. Keep believing that climate dictates weather – a ragtag collection of fumbling bumblers share your delusion.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I cannot help you with your ignorance. That seems to be your own personal problem. The chart is quite clear. It is labeled Downwelling Infrared. Why are you purposely being an ignorant poster.
The graph is clearly labeled.
Since you are a most lazy poster and have no motivation to find things out I guess I will have to show you.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/instruments.html
The range of the measuring instrument is 3.5-50 micron IR band. The receiver is coated in a black paint to absorb as much energy in these bands as possible (close to a black body).
The temperature of the air that is radiating can easily be obtained from the page. Not sure why that matters. You made a very ignorant claim that is easy to dispute! Your ignorant words: “In relation to measuring the flux of back radiation.
Nobody has ever done it. Nobody.” An ignorant statement that is totally incorrect.
If you want the temperature to go with your graphs go to this website and make your own graphs.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
You can click the air temperature box and it will make you a graph.
N,
What leads you to the conclusion that the “downwelling IR” is “back radiation” between 3.5 and 50 microns? Are you sure that back radiation” is restricted to these frequencies? Of course not, you just make assumptions as you go along.
Your silly suggestion that your link provides the temperature of the object emitting the IR is just more wishful thinking, isn’t it?
There is no distinct “back radiation”! Even NASA use quotes around the phrase, to indicate it is just a figure of speech, scientifically speaking. The atmosphere has a temperature, called “air temperature”, whether GHE true believers accept that O2, N2 etc radiate IR or not.
The atmosphere is above absolute zero, and as a result radiates IR continuously. You may call this “back radiation” if you like, but is just plain old radiation due to the atmosphere being above absolute zero.
Just more pseudoscientific climate cult redefinitions designed to make the fakers, frauds and fools to appear smart. No GHE. No CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled for about four and a half billion years, whether you believe it or not.
Carry on with the cultist nonsense.
Cheers.
Svante wrote –
“The earth has accumulated energy in line with the enhanced GHE.”
Unfortunately, energy in the form of heat cannot accumulate in any meaningful sense. It radiates away if a body is hotter than its surroundings, which the Earth most assuredly is.
A description of the enhanced GHE does not even exist, because it would have to include the operation of magic at some point. You can’t even describe the “ordinary” GHE, let alone an “enhanced” GHE, can you?
Give it a try, if you like.
Cheers.
It radiates away if the body is cooler that surroundings too Mike. You are just behind in your studies.
B4,
You wrote –
“It radiates away if the body is cooler that surroundings too Mike. You are just behind in your studies.”
You don’t appear to be disagreeing with anything I wrote. Is this really your intent?
Trying to disagree by not disagreeing. Very Zen.
Cheers.
“You don’t appear to be disagreeing with anything I wrote.”
Appearances can deceive you Mike.
Begone, troll!
Ball4, you have upset the old man again by exposing his ignorance.
What was that track by Jethro Tull? “Thick as a brick”
Troll, begone!
I think I detect a kindred soul! Hard to find.
Ball4,
“So if fluxes can be simply added, photons must be able to be simply added.
Sure 1 flux + 1 flux = 2 fluxes, 1 photon + 1 photon = 2 ”
I’m sorry, I can’t let this stand…
If what you are saying is correct then 60, 15 micron photons should be able to dissociate O2… They cannot… But one UVC photon can…
What I wrote is correct. Challenge what I wrote not something else.
PhilJ
The energy will add. The 60, 15 micron photons may not be able to dissociate O2 but the IR photons and the UVC photon will both add the same energy to a surface that absorbs them. The energy is what is added. A flux is Watts/m^2 it does not matter what wavelength this energy is in. Watts are joules/second.
You can easily test that fluxes add, I mean this is an easy experiment to test. No vacuum needed just two heat lamps. Set up two heat lamps on a target and get a thermometer to read the target temperature. Turn on one and get the temperature. Turn on the second and you will see the temperature goes up. The fluxes are adding. Energy is always conserved regardless of the form it takes.
N,
You are at it again. Do the experiment, write it up properly, and post the results.
You have no intention, have you? Try heating some water using ice emitting 300 W/m2. Make sure the environment is warm enough for the water to remain liquid.
Of you go now. Let me know how you get on. Fool.
Cheers.
With outside surface water & using ice emitting 300 W/m2 in the atm. it does work – Dr. Spencer did just that, increased the temperature of surface water adding energy radiated from ice. Very cool. Try it youself, he gave you all the directions.
Off you go now. Let me know how you get on.
B4,
You wrote –
“With outside surface water & using ice emitting 300 W/m2 in the atm. it does work Dr. Spencer did just that, increased the temperature of surface water adding energy radiated from ice.”
Rubbish. You are just making stuff up. That’s why you can’t quote the nonsense you claim exists. Just like your description of the GHE – non-existent. You have a vivid imagination, only tangentially related to reality.
By the way, thanks for the imitation. It’s supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery, but it won’t get you any respect from me.
Cheers.
“Rubbish. You are just making stuff up.”
Nope. What I wrote is exactly what Dr. Spencer did. The site has a search button. Use it. Do a little research Mike, it won’t hurt you.
Off you go now. Let me know how you get on.
Oh, and I don’t need to describe the GHE Mike Flynn has done so well at it in numerous threads, in ways that could be subjected to experiment and were proven out. Mike Flynn really gets it at times. Other times, not so much.
B4,
You wrote –
“Off you go now. Let me know how you get on.” Thanks again for the flattery. I know you are envious of my panache, but flattery will get you nowhere.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are neglecting that to warm water with ice, it must also be heated at the same time. Roy Spencer has already done the experiment to prove it. If you don’t accept his results you would not accept mine.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Changing how much IR energy a heated surface receives from colder object directly affects the steady state temperature of the heated object.
You can do this one yourself if you don’t believe the results.
If you heat water surrounded by liquid nitrogen (emits very little IR toward the water) until it the heat just keeps it liquid at a steady state of 33 F and then replace the liquid nitrogen with normal ice emitting 300 W/m^2 toward the water (careful not to change the amount of energy you are adding by a heater) the water will increase in temperature.
Basically it seems you are just a plain old science denier. You deny science exists and you deny that any experiment can’t alter your incorrect belief. Not much can be done to change an extreme denier like you are. No experiment will ever convince you of the error of your thoughts. Ignorance is bliss. It makes you happy and it is much easier to believe you are right than actually prove you are (which could be done if you ever did any type of experiments…since you won’t you will continue to think you know what you are talking about).
Did Dino come back to your cave for the night?
N,
You wrote –
“You are neglecting that to warm water with ice, it must also be heated at the same time.”
You fool. You must be stupid if you think that people believe that your insertion of a magic heater means that you can heat water with ice.
I might also point out that surrounding water with liquid nitrogen will freeze the water. If you use your magic heater to keep the water liquid, your liquid nitrogen will change to gaseous nitrogen, and stabilise at the temperature of your magic heater.
Another minor obstacle is that liquid nitrogen is not present naturally on the earth’s surface, nor are too many magic heaters.
Dr Spencer did not heat water using just the radiation from ice, and neither can you. All your attempts to create diversions using liquid nitrogen, magic heaters and all the rest, coupled with your reluctance to carry out the experiments you demand that others perform, might not have others bowing in awe before you.
Try addressing the supposed GHE. You can’t even describe it, can you? No GHE. No CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled naturally for four and a half billion years. Deny that, if you wish.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You do seem to be incapable of following an argument. Is Barney around, maybe he can help you understand it in a way your mind can process.
There is no “magic heater” you bumbling bald thoughtless cave dweller from the time the surface was molten.
Any heating element can warm water and it can warm it to liquid state if surrounded by liquid nitrogen (stored in a container around the water also in some kind of container). I guess a poster needs to explain every single detail to you. Your highly limited thought has no ability to come up with a solution not completely explained to you.
Water in a beaker (do you know what that is?), is surrounded by a container (not touching the beaker…the beaker is sitting on a platform surrounded by a container that has liquid nitrogen in it).
Turn the NORMAL heating element (inserted into the water) not the stupid “magic” one that you make up until the water is at a steady 33 F. Maybe the platform the beaker sits on can be a heater. Either way.
After the temperature of a steady 33 F is established. Remove the liquid nitrogen from the outer container and add water ice. The water in the beaker will increase in temperature. The greater amount of IR energy given off by the ice will add more energy to the heated water than the liquid nitrogen did. The combined energy of the heater and ice will increase the water temperature. That is real physics. If you got out of your cave more you could understand it. Read a textbook maybe.
Gordon Robertson rejects textbooks that don’t agree with his false and delusional ideas. Are you as crackpot as him? He can’t understand textbooks so he says they are fake. He can’t understand why textbook writers use current flowing from positive to negative (even though I linked him to an article explaining it to him). He would rather accept he is much smarter than the entire scientific body and correct even though he won’t do one experiment ever.
N,
Now try heating water using just the 300 W/m2 from ice.
No heater, no liquid nitrogen. Can’t do it, can you? No more than you can describe the GHE. Just more evasions and diversions, eh?
Cheers.
“Can’t do it, can you?”
Sure he can. Dr. Spencer raised the temperature of surface water with the radiation from atm. ice Mike; it’s so easy even Mike can do it in a backyard, all the instructions, procedures, contact thermometers and materials necessary are listed.
Off you go now Mike. Replicate the experiment. Prove you are up to the task.
fluffball has a great “imagination”.
Some call it “fluff”. Some call it “delusion”.
How man-made global warming is made
https://bit.ly/2JmMVP9
Ball4,
“Dr. Spencer has done it! And shown how heating …”
With respect, he has not.. He has demonstrated how you can slow the cooling….
Slower cooling is NOT heating…
It doesn’t matter what you call it PhilJ, Dr. Spencer showed surface water temperature was increased by a process other than solar (it was night time) and geothermal.
B4,
Slower cooling is not heating.
For example, the surface cools at night – quickly or slowly, it still cools. I would be amazed if Dr Spencer managed to get water to increase its temperature without the input of energy.
While the water as getting hotter, obviously the surface wasn’t. Presumably you can explain this magic? A quote or two might help.
Cheers.
Sometimes Earth surface warms at night Mike. Check it out!
B4,
You wrote –
“Sometimes Earth surface warms at night Mike. Check it out!”
What are you rambling about? If you supply enough heat, the surface warms – it gets hotter. Slow cooling is not heating – you are mentally deranged (or a GHE true believer) if you think otherwise.
Can’t back up your original stupid statement, so you play the deny, divert and confuse cards!
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. No GHE. No CO2 heating. No heat accumulation. Deny away.
Cheers.
“The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so”
And warmed over the last 30 or so. SUVs are good heaters. Still, the surface warms some nights, cools some others; I see you haven’t checked it out. Your loss, not mine.
B4,
Thermometers on the surface will respond to heat. If you think this comes from CO2, you are simply deranged.
Do you have an explanation for the increased heat, other than the heat producing activities of about 7 billion humans? No?
I thought not.
Cheers.
Contact thermometers on the surface respond to the avg. KE of the molecules hitting their measuring surface which is not heat.
Mike thought not maybe, but that’s only because Mike hasn’t done the research & experiments properly (like Dr. Spencer did, several times).
Off you go now Mike. Let me know how you get on with the proper research. And thanks for describing the GHE so well it could be tested & passed.
B4,
You wrote –
“And thanks for describing the GHE so well it could be tested & passed.” Of course, my description of how greenhouses operate has nothing to do with CO2 or other climatological pseudoscience.
I am not sure why you are thanking me for something that is widely known, but maybe, like the rest of the bumbling buffoons, you were totally confused about why greenhouses are used.
You also wrote –
“Contact thermometers on the surface respond to the avg. KE of the molecules hitting their measuring surface which is not heat.”
Well, no, they don’t. Thermometers respond to radiation. That’s why a thermometer or other object exposed to the direct rays of the Sun indicate a higher temperature than the temperature of the surrounding air.
This may be noticed by placing a thermometer in the direct rays of the sun, and then shading it. The temperature will drop. The surface is usually hotter than the adjacent air for this very reason. Another example would be the Apollo astronauts taking surface temperatures on the Moon – without the benefit of KE from atmosphere.
Keep blathering about mysterious experiments which you don’t actually quote, and which have nothing to do with any supposed CO2 related AGW. Keep trying, I might make a typographical error one day. What do you think?
Cheers.
“Thermometers respond to radiation.”
Thermometers absorb radiation Mike (and reflect, transmit a little), and that process in turn means contact thermometers on the surface respond to the avg. KE of the molecules hitting their measuring surface which is not heat.
Listen to Gordon when he writes “EM IS NOT HEAT”.
Apollo astronauts placed contact thermometers on the moon surface which respond to the avg. KE of the regolith molecules hitting their measuring surface which is not heat.
I’m thanking you for your past agreement about, as you write, something that is widely known like the atm. GHE and actually explaining how Earth GHE works based on testing better than the avg. commenter. Sometimes, however rarely, you do have a good comment Mike and I like to give credit when it is due, other times not so much.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Norman,
First I apilogize for this our of order (on my phone)
“. That means your UV idea would contribute 35% of the observed warming”
I have read that the UV exposure at the poles is up to 80% higher ( south pole) but of course ice and snow reflect…
So without disputing your math … By your own admission, thia could be responsible for 35% of the warming…
So what do you think of the IPCC assertion that with 95% confidence MOST ( or all as promoted by the media) of the warming is from human production of co2….
Note im not trying to convince you that my theory is correct,( by all means invalidate it! ) but rather to challenge the assumptions of the current paradigm… That is how true science is advanced…
PhilJ
It is interesting topic to research.
I found this:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3846/1648-6897.2008.16.83-88
The albedo of ice in the UV band is highly variable so that would be an important research topic to determine ice melting during polar summers. They have the albedo of ice from 7 to 75% That could make a huge difference in energy absorbed by the ice.
Norman,
“It is interesting topic to research.”
thanks for the link. I think so to..
I use observations from many different fields just for fun, and then I like to ponder the logical interplay of these observations..
I have vacation coming up and I think I’m gonna try and lay out all my assumptions, observations and reasoning for the hypothesis I am formulating…
If your interested I’ll send you a copy (no guarantee on delivery date lol )
I can tell you this, one of my observations is that the GHE is a red herring, built on a fundamentaly flawed assumption just as devastating as Copernicus’ circular orbit…. that’s why all their epicycles can’t get it right….
Yeah, I mean, I definitely think UV radiation should be researched more. And as far as alternate theories go this one is the most intriguing to me as well.
Regarding the IPCC claim…they actually say there is a 95% chance that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 is of anthroprogenic assignment. This includes CH4, O3, CFCs, land use, etc. agents as well. So it’s not just CO2. Aerosol pollution puts a downward pressure on global mean temperatures and that is factored in as well.
there you go extrapolating based upon what some individual scientists would like to have had in the IPCC report.
AR5 was drafted through the help of thousands of experts reviewing tens of thousands of lines of evidence.
b,
Richard Feynman said that . . .science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” If you don’t agree, that’s up to you.
However, Feynman’s track record leads me to agree with him.
You wrote –
“AR5 was drafted through the help of thousands of experts reviewing tens of thousands of lines of evidence.”
They came to the the conclusion that it is impossible to predict future climate states, and couldn’t describe the GHE in any way that didn’t involve the use of magical principles at some point.
I prefer fact to faith, myself.
Cheers.
Again you demonstrate how naive you are bdgwx.
No process probably in the history of the world with thousands of experts reviewing tens of thousands of lines of evidence ever contributed anything to a report that was for all intents and purposes written before all that review work began.
Why you might ask if you don’t know. Fact is bdgwx, no one on earth spends huge amounts of money on a project they don’t know what the outcome is going to be.
I remember the first time that dawned on me, sitting in a room with a lot of people with expensive shoes and suits. New stuff arises out of the ashes of old ideas lifted to a higher stage by some grubby person bearing bruises and a torn shirt.
PhilJ
I am agreeing that more investigation is needed to determine the influence of UV energy changes at the surface. I am wondering, as you do, why this has not been discussed more. The effect would still be anthropogenic but not so much from CO2.
Also the greatest effect of UV increase would be at the poles according to the link I posted (which has been observed).
Keep posting, maybe some climate scientist will see your idea, consider it and do a detailed study to get a good assessment of the effect. It seems too large than to just ignore.
Norman, the effect is very slightly negative in the stratosphere to slightly more positive in the troposphere and WAY less (1/10th at most) than others. Look up the latest surface anthro radiative forcings chart.
Ball4
PhilJ is not talking about the direct forcing of ozone as the charts depict.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/300px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png
He is talking about the increase of UV light that reaches the surface from less ozone. It is not the same thing as indicated in the charts and good luck in finding this being discussed as an issue. I have to agree with PhilJ on this one. It is not discussed or included. Had PhilJ not brought it up I would not even had researched it and tried to do some highly simplistic math just to see what magnitude effect it might have. I had to link multiple sources of information to even get the simple calculation. There are not any detailed studies on this issue I could find. If you know of any please let me know. I would like to read them. It seems as if there is not much covering this topic.
“He is talking about the increase of UV light that reaches the surface from less ozone.”
That’s included in the chart shown (geez any smaller? I had to use 500% zoom), the effect on the surface forcing is opposite for stratosphere and troposphere.
Ball4
Maybe this graph will come out better. Same thing different site.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/1024px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png
I am hoping it is a larger image.
I do not think the ozone component in this chart is what PhilJ is claiming. I think that is just the forcing from ozone production in the atmosphere.
Here is a link that explains ozone forcing.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/6121/2018/
In this article they describe how ozone (a GHG) is forcing temperature increase of the surface directly. They make no mention of the increase in UV due to the lack of ozone in the stratosphere.
Read up on the article and see if your findings are different. At this time it seems that PhilJ’s idea is ignored in the climate change debate. From my scan read it seems that they have the forcing increase as the ozone hole gets smaller. It seems they are not at all including changes in UV energy reaching the surface.
Let me know if you can find something different. If not PhilJ could very well be correct. The scientists somehow missed this effect. We will see.
I notice their units: m Wm−2. They do write about changes in UV so they are aware of “the increase in UV due to the lack of ozone in the stratosphere”: “tropospheric ozone is also significantly affected by the change in ultraviolet radiation reaching the troposphere brought about by the thicker stratospheric ozone layer.”
See also their ref.:
Hegglin, M. I. and Shepherd, T. G.: Large climate-induced changes in ultraviolet index and stratosphere-to-troposphere ozone flux, Nat. Geosci., 2, 687691, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo604, 2009.
The UV/Ozone component of RF is +/- depending on region of atm. and not large enough to matter very much in the 0.7C over 4 decades. And, hey, the world is actually working on it which will both +/- the affect on RF.
Ball4,
“I notice their units: m Wm−2. ”
As usual your link leads to a paper describing ozone’s GHE ‘effect’. The little info on actual UV radiation says:
“During this time, the clear-sky ultraviolet radiation index decreases by 9% in northern high latitudesa much larger effect than that of stratospheric ozone recoveryand increases by 4% in the tropics, and by up to 20% in southern high latitudes in late spring and early summer. ”
a 20% REDUCTION in uvb in southern high latitudes…. how many mw/m2 is that?
And please don’t make my destroy you again by saying mw’s are insignificant… i hate kicking a guy when he’s down…
mike flynn…”The Pauli exclusion principle does not apply to photons”.
I keep telling the great alarmist unwashed that THE particle in quantum theory is the electron. Pauli was talking about real particles…electrons…not defined, imaginary particles…photons.
As to whether electrons spin or not, that’s another question. The little critters can burn a hole in your finger, as I learned after picking up a relay with 220 volts across it’s terminals. I had a few of them run through my chest as well when I got caught across a 120 volt AC circuit. I was much younger then and able to withstand such stupidity.
Gordon, come with me. Its time again for your electroconvulsive therapy.
One day we will cure you of your stupidity.
Begone, troll!
Gordon Robertson says:
I keep telling the great alarmist unwashed that THE particle in quantum theory is the electron.
No Gordon. Quantum theory applies to all particles — electrons, photons, quarks, mesons, gluons, kaons, etc etc.
David, please stop trolling.
The temperature anomalies at the equatorial Pacific have dropped to 0 degrees.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat4_sstanom_1-day.png
Ren,
I’ve also been watching that. It continues to look like El Nino has finished. We just another lower high at 0.4 after dropping below baseline briefly. Now it looks like another sharp drop. Wonder how far it goes. La Nina is expected. We always get a La Nina at the beginning of a new solar cycle, and we indeed had a SH sun spot. Could still be a fluke, but all signs point to the beginning of SC 25.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
La Nina & sunspots are both natural factors that will say nothing about AGW.
David, please stop trolling.
Folks,
The heat island effect is not limited to population centers over 50,000. Where the weather station itself has been set up relative to various surfaces also has an effect. For instance, a weather station set up on top of a roof will have a different reading than one set up in a forest clearing. There are so many dimensions to this thing… so many reasons to be suspicious of the trend. Even the sat data is being effected by this. If you change the albedo of the earth with deforestation, pouring cement, that energy does not stay in one place. It gets transferred to the ocean. This causes the natural baseline / equilibrium state of the ocean to move higher. So even if you claim that only 1% or less of the earth has been altered by man to create this effect on the SAT data… the energy is cumulative. Sorting out heat island from CO2 is critical to what public policies we put in place. For instance… what good will it be to switch to 100% solar, if the panels decrease the albedo of the earth and increase our temperatures more than Co2? Think Mcfly think.
CFSV2 has just forecasted a la nina starting now. lol Now do you guys believe me?
see page 25 for the update
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Scott R,
In the southern solar hemisphere the first weak spots of the next 25 solar cycle appear.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20190708_hres.png
Solar activity remains very low.
https://spaceweather.gc.ca/solarflux/sx-4-en.php
https://spaceweather.gc.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
Scott R,
you’re right that La Nina is almost certain when solar activity increases.
Ren,
It will be interesting to see what happens to the El Nino / La Nina cycle if we get a very weak SC 25, 26, 27. We obviously didn’t have the data collection in the late 1800s that we do now during the centennial minimum. I agree, even though SC25 appears to have started, most forecasts are for a weak SC 25. When the seasonal trade winds pick up this winter, that plus a few sun spots should help at least keep us in neutral you would think. The forecast does not show a technical La Nina… just below baseline. But it should be enough to drop the UAH considerably. I may have to wait 3 years to see the -0.2 I’m forecasting.
Scott R,
I am afraid that La Nina can stretch for two years during low solar activity. It will get really cold.
Scott R, so you’re saying natural factors could cause cooling.
No one doubts that.
David, please stop trolling.
Ren,
We are entering uncharted territory with the GSM and the magnetic field. People should be informed to be prepared just in case. Public policy should shift towards permaculture and sustainability in the environment, and away from the growth based economic system. Folks on both sides of this global warming argument really want the same thing. Security for ourselves, our kids, and this planet. The politics surrounding AGW are getting in the way of our preparedness right now, and honestly actually solving real environmental issues on earth. It is also ironic, because the same people advocating for carbon taxes, will have no problem mining for raw materials to put in batteries, and putting up solar arrays decreasing the albedo and increasing the heat island. We can hope that the climate sensitivity is low just like it was for the upside. The GSM will be a major wake up call for society in my opinion. Our society with it’s just on time delivery, overpopulation, dependency on farmers growing with gmos is in real trouble. If insurance companies stop insuring the farmers, the crop production losses we’ve seen this year will be dwarfed. Farmers will quit farming because they can’t be insured, or they have lost their farm completely. I’m positive we will be bailing out these insurance companies in the up coming years. HOPEFULLY, now that el nino has ended, the rain will slow down. At least in southern Michigan it has.
July will also be wet in the US.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2a8oj05.jpg
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
I just read in the document’s summary
“ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
El Niño is present.*
Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are above average across most of the Pacific Ocean.
The pattern of anomalous convection and winds are generally consistent with El Niño.
El Niño is predicted to persist through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2019 (66% chance), with lower odds of continuing through the fall and winter (50-55% chance).*”
Do I misunderstand anything here?
Jesus… When will this blog be able to correctly represent the UTF8 charset? It is so boring.
The temperature at the equatorial Eastern Pacific has fallen sharply.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
Bindidon,
You continue to be bored yet here you are… so perhaps it’s more like you have a superiority complex which is currently being threatened by me taking the leap on this El Nino ending based on the 3.6 / 2.2 yr harmonics of an 11 year cycle and SSTs we are seeing taking shape right now before your eyes. There is an 11 year cycle for El Nino, because the sun is controlling El Nino. Is it because without El Nino, you can’t even say we’ve warmed 0.8 deg C? Kind of throughs off the narrative when you are splitting hairs over maybe 0.3 degrees c of total warming since 1980, and you also have things like the heat island and ocean decadal cycles also taking slices of the shrinking warming pie.
Bindidon… if I’m not mistaken… weren’t there some volcanos going off in the early 80s also starting the trend in a cold place? You also had 1 weak SC at that time. So you have heat island, volcanos, ocean decadal cycles, TSI and El Nino all taking slices of a pie that is less than 1 deg c to begin with. Now you have comic rays being proven to be on the increase due to GSM and potential magnetic excursion, and seeding cloud formation, dropping more snow in places it never melts, filling lakes and aquifers, saturating the soil, increasing our albedo, and freezing us all, killing our crops. Then out of what’s left… is CO2 really more important than other gases water vapor or methane? The whole CO2 controls the climate argument is laughable. It’s not even moving this thing within the margin of error. If it was, you would not see 40 years of declines in the southern ocean (HADSST3) which you still can’t conveniently find the data for that even though I gave you the link. You would also not see the trendless UAH data for that region for the entire time the rest of the world warmed. It’s clear Co2 is not very important at all. It’s taking the blame for other forcers.
Scott R wrote:
is CO2 really more important than other gases water vapor or methane?
Yes.
But you are clearly not the kind of person who is interested in learning why.
Scott R says:
if Im not mistaken werent there some volcanos going off in the early 80s
There was also a large El Nino in 1982-83.
David, please stop trolling.
Scott R
Jesus again! You are such an agressive person, loosing control all the time.
I did nothing else than pasting the summary of the link you posted.
There was NO reference to any incoming La Nina in it. The contrary was the case. They talked only about the Nino guy.
Maybe you posted the wrong link?
When you will post credible information about La Nina coming soon, I of course will believe you.
P.S. I do not care AT ALL if we have El Nino or La Nina. I don’t bother about them! Got it now?
Bindidon you have to go to page 25 to see the update like I said.
Technically, it is not an official La Nina on that forecast yet for the average of the models anyways. Some of the individual model runs show us in La Nina by the end of this year officially. My point is more that El Nino has ended (all be it unofficially), and noaa and putting out information that agrees with me finally as of yesterday.
Bindidon… I’m aggressive if that is what you want to call it because I feel strongly that the public is being brain washed and is currently ill pre-pared for cold crop losses related to the grand solar minimum and potential magnetic reversal. The truth if it gets out will come from credible places like Dr Spencer, then to our political leaders, than back down to the media and the public. Nobody is going to listen to an automotive systems engineer from Detroit. My family won’t even listen to me. Pretty much I get the 97% of scientists agree argument from them and that’s the end of it. They don’t even believe the UAH data is real. lol
Scott R
“They dont even believe the UAH data is real. ”
I believe the UAH data is real.
BUT under the primary, inamovible condition that a significant period of it is considered.
An insignificant period for example is that since 2016, because it only takes a post El Nino phase into account, what evidently means that it can only have a negative trend.
Other insignificant periods are for example 1998-2015 or 1999-2016, because they either start or end with a strong El Nino.
Bindidon,
If you believe the UAH dataset long term… please tell me. Why doesn’t the SoPol data show the same uptrend as the rest of the world, and why shouldn’t that be our control group for looking at CO2 now, when we are using it for proxy data for the entire historical temperature reconstruction, and modeling future temperature increases. The SoPol data is the absolute most remote place where you have practically eliminated all other man made factors and can get a true estimation on what co2 is doing as a stand alone.
Then explain these long term divergences despite CO2 being at record highs:
SH has not hit a new high since 98.
USA48 is below baseline.
No new global high for AUST since 2002.
No new global high for Trpcs since 98.
No new global high for April since 98.
No new global high for May since 98.
No new global high for June since 98.
No new global high for July since 98.
No new global high for Aug since 98.
Why do you suppose we keep seeing that 98 again and again? Perhaps, El Nino is the most important climate forcer on the planet. Perhaps like I told you before, the 98 El Nino was the strongest of the last 40 years. That said, it is controlled by the sun. So what will it do when the sun changes mode to GSM. Do you know? I don’t know. But I’m getting prepared, and I think our best scientists should be studying this now.
Scott R
1. The Antarctic has NOTHING in common with the rest of the world.
Thus taking it as a scale is ill-born.
2. I have NO interest in your CO2-blah blah.
3. You write:
“If it was, you would not see 40 years of declines in the southern ocean (HADSST3) which you still cant conveniently find the data for that even though I gave you the link. ”
Which link???
I wrote a comment explaining you how wrong you are with that claim.
Did you forget that?
There has never been any kind of “40 years of declines in the southern ocean (HADSST3)”.
Pleaswe at least stop lying, Scott R.
Why is UAH data more “real” than RSS data, which has a trend that is 50% higher?
Scott R wrote:
USA48 is below baseline.
No new global high for AUST since 2002.
No new global high for Trpcs since 98.
No new global high for April since 98.
No new global high for May since 98.
No new global high for June since 98.
No new global high for July since 98.
No new global high for Aug since 98.
This is a classic example of cherry picking — choosing the data you like, while ignoring the data you don’t like and pretending it doesn’t exist.
It’s dishonest. It’s unscientific. It’s lying.
Bindidon,
You choosing to ignore the Antarctic data when it is inconvenient only serves to weaken your position. Why not develop a theory that works that into the big picture? You can not ignore Antarctica. Say you were doing a diagnostic on a seemingly broken freezer, or AC system. You wouldn’t ignore the compressor, the air ducts now would you? You are basically taking temperature readings inside the car, but ignoring what is powering the AC system itself. Antarctica is the coldest place on the planet. What happens there determines how cold we can get. You are so focused on the temperature readings and placing blame on co2, you didn’t notice that someone rolled a window down. Like my analogy?
You are really missing out by not checking the southern ocean HADSTT3 data. Not only has it been declining for 40 years, but it does so on an 11 year cycle. Mind blown yet? Yes. El Nino, southern ocean… both tied to the solar cycle on a delay.
Here is that link again:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/download.html
Download the time series to see the regional data I’m talking about.
David Appell,
That is not cherry picking. If CO2 was such a big forcer, why do we have a winter / summer split globally? Don’t you think that this implies a natural forcer related to our orbit favoring a higher global TSI in the NH winter? If it was just a coincidence, the “cherry picked” data points would be more random. Instead, there is a pattern. 98 was warmer than today for the NH summer. CO2 can not explain that.
As for USA48 being below baseline, having it’s coldest, wettest 6 months ever… it does add insult to injury does it not? We should not be getting new all time lows for such a large land area if Co2 was such a large forcer. Weirdly enough, my local data there is also a winter summer split. We had our hottest summer ever in 2018. Winters have been getting colder though since 98. Curious… there is that 98 number again. 98 seems very important to me.
B indidon says:
Do I misunderstand anything here?
—-
no, the statement you listed are almost a month old. The discussion is about current conditions and the government model. Later this month that will be combined with all the academic models and new statements issued. We will have to wait to see where they fall.
CFS says La Nina, but the rest of the dynamic and statistical guidance is suggesting ENSO neutral or even week El Nino to persist. The CPC probabilities for DJF are 50% positive, 35% neutral, and 15% negative. That’s almost a month old though. We’ll see what they say on the next update. I agree that the odds of La Nina may be higher once the July update is released.
bdgwx
When you see on Fig. 2 below
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
the yellow bar moving up to 70%, then you can be sure that the blue coloured bar will appear soon, and that La Nina is definitely coming.
EM,
“Thus it is entirely reasonable to calculate the total flux reaching 1m^2 of Earths surface by adding the solar flux 341.3W/m^2 and the flux from back radiation 333W/m^2 to get a total flux of 674.3W/m^2.”
No it is not reasonable… One is a HEAT flux, the other is not…
PJ,
Norman believes he can use “back radiation” to heat hotter objects, such as the surface.
All he needs is a heater and some liquid nitrogen. No problem to a GHE true believer.
It doesn’t seem to have stopped the Earth from cooling. Maybe the heaters and liquid nitrogen couldn’t cope with the initial molten surface. Who knows?
Cheers.
PhilJ
“No it is not reasonable One is a HEAT flux, the other is not”
AFAIK:
Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI its units are watts per square metre (W⋅m−2).
The ignorant layman’s obvious questions:
1. Is that sentence above wrong?
2. If it is not wrong: where is the difference between the two fluxes?
*
Nota bene
This is a question to commenter PhilJ only. Other replies will be of course discarded.
B,
Feel free to discard this reply as hard as you like.
Cheers.
PhilJ says:
No it is not reasonable One is a HEAT flux, the other is not
And what is the other one?
David, please stop trolling.
Once again, we see types like fluffball, bdgwx, E-man, Svante, Myki, Norman, and DA, falling on their faces trying to support the failed pseudoscience.
The so-called “energy budget” is flawed in numerous ways. The major flaws involve physics, which is over their heads. But, even 12-year-olds should be able to do basic arithmetic.
Follow the yellow arrow, in the NASA cartoon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
77.1 + 163.3 + 99.9 does NOT equal 340.4
The sum of the 3 values equals 340.3. The pseudoscience clowns have already lost 0.1, just in solar energy.
And, that’s just the start.
Ever heard of rounding?
The arithmetic doesn’t work for you, troll Svante.
I should try a false religion that at least understands basic arithmetic.
PS – note the energy delivered to the surface by back radiation (radiation from the atmosphere) is about twice that delivered by the sun.
Exactly DA. That is the kind of nonsense you’ve been swallowing for years.
And you just now realized it….
Do you think the atmosphere doesn’t radiate?
Clearly the atmosphere radiates to space, clown.
Learn some physics.
Why doesn’t the atmosphere radiate in all directions?
The atmosphere does radiate in all directions, DA.
It is only your pseudoscience that promotes that the atmosphere emits twice as much to Earth as to space.
Someday you are going to feel very stupid to have fallen for such nonsense.
But likely you’re used to feeling stupid, huh?
Why doesn’t the atmosphere radiation in all directions?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-362775
That link contributed nothing, it only repeated your present wrongness. So again:
why do you think the atmophere doesn’t radiate in all directions?
Study the link, DA.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-362775
DA,
There is no energy source between the sun and earth. The sun heats the earth, clown. Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics? Apparently not. The atmosphere is not an energy source. And the earth does not heat the sun as you claim, clown. Just go away. No one believes your quackery anyway.
In my sun room, where I type these posts, I hang either a big black sheet, or a big white sheet in front of the window when the sun is harsh. I hang a white sheet in Summer, a dark blue one in Winter. The white sheet reflects the sun. The dark blue one absorbs much of the incident solar radiation. If the door is shut, the room gets warm enough in Winter, with direct sunlight on the blue sheet, to make me sweat. I can, right now, feel heat radiating off the blue sheet. I put my hand to it – it is warm. If I open the windows in Summer and use the white sheet, it will be cooler than windows shut and blue sheet in Winter.
Neither the sheet nor the windows are heat sources. All they do is modulate the heat. This isn’t any theory. This is what I live with near daily.
So I know from direct experience that even if the sunlight is less intense (Winter), the way the non-solar environment is arranged can make me warmer than another clear day in Summer.
Because it is not only about the direct effect of the sun, it is how the solar energy is modulated by the environment.
If the atmosphere changes in a way that slows the escape of radiation to space, then it is physically required, as long as there is a continuous source of heat to the system (the sun), for the surface to warm up.
That’s basic physics. Externally warmed things get warmer if they 1) receive more heat/energy, or if they 2) shed heat/energy less efficiently.
barry, what is confusing you its that a REAL greenhouse works, as you know from your sunroom experience. But, that is not how the atmosphere works.
I’m replying to SGW, and you’ve missed the point once again.
barry, please stop trolling.
Ger*an (=JDHuffman) wrote:
77.1 + 163.3 + 99.9 does NOT equal 340.4
You just added fluxes. I thought you said fluxes don’t add?
In general fluxes don’t add.
The figures are from your pseudoscience. If you can’t support them, get a new false religion.
Why don’t fluxes add?
You would have to study the relevant physics, for years.
Fluxes are not scalar quantities.
You have much to learn.
Obviously. And I’ve only ever added fluxes here that were co-linear.
Yes, you have much to learn.
Of course, Ger*an/JDHuffman is wrong — professional scientists did not make a simple arithmetic mistake.
Let’s add up the fluxes at the surface (all in units of W/m2):
total downward flux = 163.3+340.3=503.6
total upward flux = 398.2+18.4+86.4 = 503.0
so net energy flux = 503.6-503.0 = 0.6 W/m2 downward.
Sorry DA, your “professional” pseudoscience clowns made a simple arithmetic mistake:
77.1 + 163.3 + 99.9 does NOT equal 340.4
The sum of the 3 values equals 340.3. The pseudoscience clowns have already lost 0.1, just in solar energy.
THAT’s the best you can do?
Hilarious.
(Roundoff errors.)
First clown DA claimed: “…professional scientists did not make a simple arithmetic mistake.”
Now, he switches to “roundoff errors”.
There’s nothing funnier than a desperate clown in meltdown….
Do you have any analytical reply?
Do you have an analytical question?
I already gave you my analytics — I added up the surface fluxes that escaped you.
No clown, you added up different fluxes, trying to avoid the issue.
Reality is a bitch, huh?
Tell me, o-foolish one.
If you cannot add fluxes, what does the Stefan Boltzmann Law purport to do?
And don’t tell me that Stefan was wrong.
Mike, the S/B Law deals with emission from a surface. It has nothing to do with adding fluxes.
Obviously you have no clue.
(Where do these clowns come from?)
“Mike” should be Myke”.
(Stupid WordPress keeps “correcting” me when I’m right, but not correcting my typos.)
Fluxes add because the first law of thermodynamics says they do.
DA, your ignorance of the relevant physics is amazing. Obviously you can’t sit on a hot summer beach and heat yourself with ice cubes.
But then you would have to get out of your basement apartment to perform such an experiment.
Sorry I brought it up….
Explain what you think is my ignorance.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-362765
That was just another reply that with only insults.
Can’t you discuss physics, and prove my physics wrong???
Frankly, I don’t think you can.
DA, you don’t understand the relevant physics.
So, I use a simple example: “Obviously you can’t sit on a hot summer beach and heat yourself with ice cubes.”
Then, you can’t understand the simple example, so you blame me!
That’s a very typical reaction from a spoiled brat that has never had to work for a living.
JDHuffman says:
DA, you dont understand the relevant physics.
So, I use a simple example: Obviously you cant sit on a hot summer beach and heat yourself with ice cubes.
I never said you could.
Are you really faulting me for things I never said???
No, I’m faulting you for claiming you know physics when you clearly don’t.
In some circles, that makes you a fraud.
“Mike, the S/B Law deals with emission from a surface. It has nothing to do with adding fluxes.”
Huh? This is plain nonsense.
The S/B Law is derived by integrating the Planck function, which is the amount of power per unit surface area per unit solid angle per unit frequency emitted at a frequency, by a black body at temperature T.
Note the word “integrating”.
For dummies, this means “summing” or “adding” – across all frequencies.
When surfaces emit, they do so across a range of frequencies.
Do you imagine they only emit at one frequency? LOL
Who is the clown now?
Myki, please stop trolling.
Clearly David Appell had time on his hands on July 4th and the subsequent weekend.
Thank you all who took time from your celebrations of this country and its great contributions to western civilization to point out his warped fanaticism.
Camel, why are you so obsessed with me? It’s kind of weird.
PS: Did you find that missing 150 W/m2 yet?
“Thank you all who took time from your celebrations of this country and its great contributions to western civilisation to point out his warped fanaticism.”
Hear, hear!
The UK ambassador did everyone a great service.
David, Myki, please stop trolling.
Amillena
You wrote upthread:
“The influence in temperatures of urban areas and airports during heat waves is obvious, like this link showsif you take long periods or oceanic stationsthe influence, of course, is not as evident”.
Sure.
But despite the disgusting attitude visible in many climate blogs against climate data processing institutions like GISSTEMP, NOAA, Hadley/CRU, BEST, JMA etc, you should not think that these people ignore the problem.
GISS for example explains on the page
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
the following concerning UHI (bold emphasis mine):
GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)
One of the improvements introduced in 1998 was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming:
The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations.
Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas.
This is certainly not a general solution to the problem, as it is known to lots of people that many rural corners evolved to peri-urban areas even without noticeable population nor nightlight increase.
I process GHCN daily data (which is the rawest available) since now two years, and compared it recently with GISS land-only as well as with UAH6.0 land-only.
1. 1880-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D5dPWA1rV3wqZGJNbb8Mw7QxZSQG0eR2/view
2. 1979-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gT1bWIH2JhpqMgisImxsQfyqMfx_-53P/view
The GISS land plots are nearest to my (layman) evaluation.
Their trend for 1979-2018 was 0.22 C / decade, a bit higher than GHCN daily and UAH land (0.19 resp. 0.18 C / decade). For 1880-2018, GISS land and GHCN daily had both 0.10 C / decade.
My question as usual is: if a time series making heavy use of UHI reduction through homogenisation is so simar to a time series made out of raw station data, where then is UHI visible?
I don’t deny the UHI effect at all, but would like to see it (in time series, i.e. outside of simple-minded station comparisons, of course).
*
Please do not worry about the stupid sayings made by certain commentators, especially the one nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’.
He is a specialist in nothing, excepted insulting and discrediting people and their work, beginning with… Albert Einstein.
from Berkeley Earth:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeleys analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Jesus Appell are you boring with your tedious fonctionnaire-like behavior…
Shove it.
David, please stop trolling.
SSN monthly for June is at 1.2; we now enter the lowest SSN level, like during September 2008 – April 2009.
Buy fuel for your heating system! RIGHT NOW!
The world is cooling down!
Why use sunspots numbers, which are an imperfect proxy for total solar irradiance, when the actual TSI is measured and published every day:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Appell
How is it possible to reply to irony what Germans accurately name ‘Bierernst’ ?
You are exactly as boring as is Robertson.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I agree with B.
David, you need to lighten up a bit.
The aim of posting here is to skewer the idiots in an entertaining, but informative way.
There is no value in trying to correct every detail in the posts.
This is a blog about science.
Many people use sunspots as a proxy for TSI. I pointed out how silly that is, since TSI is measured directly.
Bind has thin skin.
DA, if this is a “blog about science”, maybe you are frustrated because your pseudoscience doesn’t fit in.
“Not fitting in” is nothing new for you, huh?
You write like a 7th grader. More reason to ignore you.
DA, if you need more reason to ignore me, let me know.
Thanks, Dr
Appell doesn’t have half a clue of when TSi has to be used and when SSN or its equivalent F10.7 must be preferred.
Appell
I have only ONE wish: that you stop gluing your desperately teachy blah blah to my comments.
I get more and moree amused about Anthony Watts, who seems to drift toward cooling ideology to such an extent that he replaced his previous good old Ensometer
https://werme.bizland.com/werme/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
by a much more La Nina friendly variant
http://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
But… damnd! Even this variant plays the wrong game! It is namely returning since yesterday half a millimeter in the WRONG El Nino direction!
Oh dear, oh Noes! You cant’t trust anyone anymore.
This is hard! Anthony is 100% sure of my condolences.
On WUWT the planet has been cooling since at least 2003:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/05/dr-norman-page-phd-still-batshit-insane.html
Bad predictions don’t seem to have any effect on new predictions:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/03/them-that-cant-learn-doctor-dr-norman.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-362732
Again, I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate.
Amid all the dross at WUWT there is the occasional interesting article with solid science behind it. Anthony himself has actually contributed to a peer-reviewed paper related to climate (Fall et al 2011), which was built on his laudable surfacestations.org project.
Unfortunately, the blog agenda is starkly obvious, and so pressing that the dross to gold ratio is abysmally high.
barry, please stop trolling.
Svante says: It is not based on the atmosphere acting like a solid, whatever gave you that idea?
——
Solids are the only known things in the universe that maintain a variable resistance to heat transfer. You should read Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009
Svante says:
Sorry, Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS:
—————
No doubt a Freudian slip! LMAO! So exactly what does airs do to confirm it?
The atmosphere radiates.
It has been measured.
DA doesn’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
It has been verified.
Your inability to reply with scientific arguments says all I need to know — you’re a poseur.
DA, where have you ever accepted the relevant physics?
All you have are your beliefs in pseudoscience, and your obsession with Ge*ran.
Nothing new.
I’ve shown, with scientific arguments, time and time again that your so-called “physics” is wrong .
Every time, instead of engaging the argument, you immediate collapse and resort to name calling and insults.
Well DA, all you have to do is supply the link to your fantasy.
I can’t promise I won’t laugh.
Oh come on. As you know, I’ve done that many times, and you ignore them all and resort to insults.
“time and time again” you blurted.
Yet, you can’t link to even one.
Nothing new.
I can link to a thousand.
But, sorry to say this, you’re not worth the time. Everyone here knows your character.
Sorry to say this, DA, but if you can’t deliver on what you claim, you are a fraud.
Nothing new.
so typical of you — a conversation petering out into simple nonsense.
you won’t be serious because you can’t answer serious questions.
you deserve to be ignored.
Well DA, it’s not really nonsense since you have revealed yourself as a fraud.
Ignore all you want.
There’s at least one other troll/typist/clown/fraud trying to ignore me.
“Birds of a feather”, as your therapist might say….
a fraud? How so?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-362875
DA,
You wrote –
“The atmosphere radiates.
It has been measured.”
And so does everything in the universe, if it is above absolute zero.
Bananas, for example, both absorb and emit infrared radiation, and so does CO2.
You wouldn’t be silly enough to believe that radiation from a cooling atmosphere raises the temperature of the surface, would you?
Thanks for informing the GHE true believers that O2 and N2 actually emit infrared radiation. Some claim that only GHGs emit infrared.
Cheers.
Bindidon,
“Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI its units are watts per square metre (W⋅m−2).
The ignorant laymans obvious questions:
1. Is that sentence above wrong? ”
No
B:2. “if it is not wrong: where is the difference between the two fluxes?”
Yes!
All heat fluxes are energy flows
Not all energy flows are heat fluxes…
If I have 2 objects in thermal equilibrium, at the same temperature, they can be exchanging any amount of energy between them, in any possible manner…. But the Heat flux between them would be 0
For example the “energy budget’ diagrams have around 80 w/m2 for evaporation up from the surface…
That is a HEAT flux…
If instead you showed 1080 w/m2 up and 1000 w/m2 down (preciptiation) that would Not be a heat flux…
PhilJ
This answer has nothing to do with your comment above. Nothing.
Thank you, it’s simply too boring…
Lol. Well you at least are mildly entertaining…
You asked for a layman’s answer… you got one… if you wanted an elaborate metaphysical answer you should have asked for one..
I’ll call that a W…
PhilJ says:
Not all energy flows are heat fluxes
Yes they are, over their domain of radiation.
“PhilJ says:
Not all energy flows are heat fluxes
Yes they are, over their domain of radiation.”
What’s the domain of radiation of an electrical current?
The entire wire — but for the average flux per unit area, it’s the cross-sectional area of the wire through which the current travels.
lol, now we’re having fun… what’s the heat flux along the line?
I’m assuming you meant the current flux.
“Im assuming you meant the current flux.”
Is current flux a heat flux?
They’re not unrelated (R=V/I).
Why don’t you just state your point.
DA,
PJ wrote –
“Is current flux a heat flux?”
It seems like a reasonable question. Why are you refusing to answer? Do you feel offended to be on the receiving end of a perfectly good gotcha?
It seems you can give it, but you can’t take it. As is usually the case with the pseudoscientific GHE cultist, or other frauds, fakers, and fools.
Wriggle, wriggle, Warmist worm. Your contortions bring an unavoidable smile to my lips. You see, you can bring happiness if you just try.
Cheers.
MF,
“Your contortions bring an unavoidable smile to my lips. You see, you can bring happiness if you just try.”
Glad you’re enjoying the show 😉
But some of them can be taught (I hope!) so go easy on those that at least consider what you said 🙂
DA,
“They’re not unrelated (R=V/I).”
Of course they’re related! Energy cannot be created it can only change forms..
“Why don’t you just state your point.”
The point is that electrical flow of energy is not a HEAT flux.
It can be changed into a heat flux if it meets resistance.. but it is an energy flow that is NOT heat.
Obviously “current flux” isn’t exactly “heat flux.” But in most cases they are proportional.
Is that really your big grand answer here?
p.s HEAT is useless energy… that is why they call it ‘the heat death of the universe…’
of course the more useless energy you have hanging around… the more useful energy is doing work….
I think there’s a way to transfer that to politics….
Zing! I’m on a roll tonight 🙂
Strangely enough, heat is what causes my kettle to boil, and makes it so comfortable when I sit in my backyard reading.
To each his own, I guess.
David, please stop trolling.
DA,
“Why use sunspots numbers, which are an imperfect proxy for total solar irradiance, ”
Because MORE UV is emitted from sunspots…
There are also independent measures of UV — sunspot proxies are not exact, and in some cases not even close. It’s lazy.
DA,
“There are also independent measures of UV ”
sure, 50 years worth?? enough to perhaps correlate sunspot counts and past UV exposure?….
Lazy indeed….
I don’t know. But it’s not true today. So, yes, using a proxy for UV today is lazy.
DA,
“I dont know”
That is the beginning of wisdom! (I think)
DA,
“I don’t know”
That is the beginning of wis*dom! (I think)
So explain why a proxy is better than, when available, a direct measurement.
DA,
“So explain why a proxy is better than, when available, a direct measurement.”
when a direct measurement is unavailable… say from 150 years ago…
For example, how much UVB is currently incoming at the TOA… we can measure that…
Is it more or less than 150 years ago… we can’t measure that…
If, by measureing UVB and correlating it with SSN today THEN we can estimate uvb exposure by SSN in the past…
unfortunately the changed the way to count SSN recently so the proxy to the past needs to be recalibrated… that takes time and observation…
If, by measureing UVB and correlating it with SSN today THEN we can estimate uvb exposure by SSN in the past
To what accuracy?
Not much I suspect.
Every time I plot TSI v SSN, I get a cone that has considerable spread even at the origin (x=0). It only increases as x increases.
David, please stop trolling.
Check out the upcoming denialist love-in:
13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
JULY 25, 2019
Expected speakers:
Christopher Monckton, journalist, 67
Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, 79
Tom McClintock, politician (Rep.), 62
Patrick Michaels, climatologist, 69
Jay Lehr, geologist, 82
Tim Ball, geographer, 80
Myron Ebell, economist, 66
Jennifer Fielder, politician (Rep.), age?
See any patterns here?
Some more:
Christopher Monckton, journalist, 67
Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, 79
Tom McClintock, politician (Rep.), 62
Patrick Michaels, climatologist, 69
and
Jay Lehr, geologist, 82
Tim Ball, geographer, 80
Myron Ebell, economist, 66
Jennifer Fielder, politician (Rep.), age?
Thanks. So it’s the same old crowd…. Who are getting high up there in age.
Interesting to see Tim Ball listed as a “geographer” when he has insisted for a long time (before legal action) that he was a climate scientist….
DM,
You might be obsessed with something, do you think?
Is there a point to your seemingly pointless repetition, or do you really suffer from OCD?
I assume you are aiming for some witless gotcha, and attempting to appear intelligent by being obscure. Good luck – it would be more helpful to your cause if you actually describe the wonderfully mysterious GHE. In my opinion, anyway. Others may think as they wish, obviously.
Cheers.
@Dr Myki,
Scientists who are still working are reluctant to speak the truth as their universities and colleagues would lose funding.
I spent a dozen years feeding at the government research trough and kept silent when my colleagues routinely promised what the DARPA bureaucrats wanted to hear.
Even worse is the intimidation of academics such as Murray Salby who expose “Climate Change” for the hoax that it is.
The people who are free to speak out are retired scientists such as Will Happer and Freeman Dyson. Many of these folks have Nobel prizes.
Camel: which scientists are reluctant to speak up?
Give us names.
Tell us how you know about them.
PS: 150 W/m2?
About Dyson:
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but its rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
– Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009
http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
Given this quote, someone want to tell me why we should take Dyson seriously on anything he says about climate change?
cam…”Scientists who are still working are reluctant to speak the truth as their universities and colleagues would lose funding”.
Dr. Peter Duesberg was ostracized for claiming some 30 years ago that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. He is a world-renowned expert in retroviruses and was once named California Scientist of the Year.
Nearly 30 years later, the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, announced that HIV cannot affect a healthy immune system, thus validating Duesberg.
The good scientists get ostracized when they don’t support the current paradigm, even though that paradigm is dead wrong.
Peer review has evolved to support the paradigms and reject the good scientists who differ or are skeptical.
Dyson is right on the mark about the attitudes. Anger is the response you get when you ask a question. . . .thats because they don’t have the answers.
Will Happer said it best when he explained that when a physics principle gets documented as correct (usually by experiment) its very easy to explain to a class full of physics students.
Richard Lindzen equates it to “magical thinking”.
These are not lightweights by any stretch of the imagination.
gallopingcamel says:
“Scientists who are still working are reluctant to speak the truth as their universities and colleagues would lose funding.”
“Even worse is the intimidation of academics such as Murray Salby who expose ‘Climate Change’ for the hoax that it is.”
Murry Salby, 71.
William Happer, 79.
Freeman Dyson, 95.
Could be the other way around, perhaps they wanted to supplement their pension. Perhaps they just wanted something to do.
Svante, please stop trolling.
mickey…”Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, 79″
Lindzen has a degree in atmospheric physics and did real science (not modeled). He had over 300 papers published over a 40 year career, part of it as a professor at MIT.
Lindzen knows more about climate science than all the alarmist scientists put together. His intelligence also exceeds the collective intelligence of all alarmists climate scientists.
Such devotion and respect !
I feel the same way about my dog.
He is really smart.
In fact, his intelligence exceeds the collective intelligence of ….. (fill in the missing words).
DM
You wrote –
“In fact, his intelligence exceeds the collective intelligence of .. (fill in the missing words).”
– Dr Myki, David Appell, Ball4, Norman, . . .
Your dog isn’t all that smart. He doesn’t need to be.
Cheers.
First, Richard Lindzen uses computer models (assuming that’s what you meant by “model”). His iris effect theory is studied quite extensively with computer models actually.
Second, appealing to authority isn’t very convincing. And appealing to a single authority is even less convincing. What is convincing is appealing to evidence. And appealing to the abundance of evidence is even more convincing.
Lindzen is a genuine climate scientist.
He says Gordon and JDHuffman are nutty, who would have thought?
Meet the scientists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
bdgwx, Svante, please stop trolling.
Svante says: Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty.
——
I agree with Lindzen on that point. But you will need to toss your extrapolation tool if you are going to actually be in the same camp as Lindzen because as it stands he thinks you are nutty too. LMAO!
Lindzen’s iris theory was sensible:
Pity he turned out to be wrong, cloud feed feedback is most likely positive and temperatures keep going up.
Troll Svante believes clouds are “heat sources”:
“…cloud feed feedback is most likely positive and temperatures keep going up.”
His adherence to false religions goes well with his deficit in physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman says: Troll Svante believes clouds are heat sources:
cloud feed feedback is most likely positive and temperatures keep going up.
His adherence to false religions goes well with his deficit in physics.
Nothing new.
———–
Yep! Award him a PhD in handwaving.
Bill Hunter, why don’t you tell JDHuffman that you think the GHE is real?
Svante says: Bill Hunter, why dont you tell JDHuffman that you think the GHE is real?
——
I don’t know what he believes. It can be difficult telling what people are objecting to about the greenhouse effect and I agree its well worth objecting about folks running around claiming they have it all figured out without offering any proof.
Bill Hunter, a “belief” is NOT science. So when someone “believes in the GHE”, they are practicing a false religion.
The IPCC has waffled about the definition of the “GHE”. But, to me, the IPCC definition states that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures. That definition means the GHE is wrong. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will NOT increase surface temperatures.
But, I haven’t seen the IPCC’s latest waffling.
Many people confuse the “atmospheric effect” with the “GHE”. The atmospheric effect is real (molecules do absorb and emit infrared), but the IPCC GHE is bogus.
Does that clear up my stance, somewhat?
JDHuffman says: Bill Hunter, a belief is NOT science. So when someone believes in the GHE, they are practicing a false religion.
The IPCC has waffled about the definition of the GHE. But, to me, the IPCC definition states that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures. That definition means the GHE is wrong. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will NOT increase surface temperatures.
But, I havent seen the IPCCs latest waffling.
Many people confuse the atmospheric effect with the GHE. The atmospheric effect is real (molecules do absorb and emit infrared), but the IPCC GHE is bogus.
Does that clear up my stance, somewhat?
————
Yes I agree and what you believe is what I suspected you believed though I have only read a little of your stuff. Your comments, I feel are in complete agreement with me. And belief is a fine word in the absence of proven science. . . .that’s what we all do to greatly varying degrees as to how much we try to shove it down the throats of others.
Leading speaker is Roger Bezdek, an economist, who stated in 2007 that:
climate change and peak oil are probably the two most long term, intractable energy and environmental problems the world faces.
LOL!
Bezdek: climate change and peak oil are probably the two most long term, intractable energy and environmental problems the world faces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y2DVTZQuEA
via https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-bezdek
That’s quote-unquote. (Quote marks somehow got removed.)
“When I find that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?”
– Maynard Keynes, responding to a critic who berated him for having changed his views
Perhaps the good Dr. Bezdek reconsidered when he saw he was clearly wrong about the one, and realized the other was on shaky ground as well?
Peak oil is a major problem, because it never happens.
There is too much oil, more than the Earth can take.
Svante, please stop trolling.
David Appell wrote –
“PS – note the energy delivered to the surface by back radiation (radiation from the atmosphere) is about twice that delivered by the sun.”
Others, like myself, have noted that the surface generally warms in sunlight, and cools when the Sun is absent.
David Appell’s comment would therefore appear to to practically meaningless. Additionally, the Earth has cooled over the last four and half billion years, in spite of any GHE, CO2, adding or subtracting of irrelevant and meaningless numbers, or anything else at all.
The pseudoscience of the climate cultists will no doubt continue, in spite of the fact that none of the fakers, frauds or fools involved can actually usefully describe the non-existent GHE.
Onward and upward! I’ll repeat –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman.
I await with interest the experiment which shows that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Cheers.
Repetition.
DM,
Do you have a point, or are you just being pointless for no good reason at all?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Do you have a point – a new point ?
Or are you simply cutting and pasting the same comment time and time again?
DM,
You wrote –
“Do you have a point a new point ?
Or are you simply cutting and pasting the same comment time and time again?”
I thank you for your interest. Why do you ask? Unless you can provide some cogent reason that I should answer your irrelevant questions, I won’t.
Carry on with the gotchas, if it gives you solace. It might console you to know that none of the other fakers, frauds or fools can explain why increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer should make the thermometer hotter.
A possibly inconvenient fact, but I’m sure you won’t let that reduce your levels of stupidity and ignorance.
Cheers,
“I thank you for your interest. Why do you ask?”
I am not interested. I only ask because it pains me to have to scroll past your endless repetitious comments to find something of interest.
Spare a thought for others in the same situation and either cease typing 24/7 – or else come up with a new thought.
DrM: Ignore him. It is the only thing that works.
MF and Ger*an are determined to be so mindless that anyone of any intelligence gets fed up here and leaves.
If that’s their goal, let them have it. Even if Roy allows it.
DA,
You wrote –
“MF and Ger*an are determined to be so mindless that anyone of any intelligence gets fed up here and leaves.”
And yet you remain. Just a thought.
Cheers.
DA can’t deal with his pseudoscience being crushed. He hates reality.
Translated from JD’s inverted lunar/lunatic reference frame:
DA cant let pseudoscience stand. He likes physics.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Troll Svante must attempt to misrepresent others, as that’s all he has.
Nothing new.
Translated: Svante represents the JDHuffman troll very accurately.
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
Two things…the variation in the heat distribution is directly related to the jet stream, and the jet stream has been seen to be erratic for some reason. Warming oceans and/or currents are the suspects in this case and that is consistent with anthropogenic warming. Secondly, although temperature data is affected by heat mass of urbanisation, this is factored into our records…and the rural records(that are not affected by local heat mass) show the same increases, once the urban records have been corrected. Roy Spencer knows this, as his own records show the same gradual temperature increases, so why confuse the issue?
Blaz, you made your mistake here:
“…that is consistent with anthropogenic warming.”
AGW is a hoax.
Hope that helps.
Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit IR, or do you think the atmosphere doesn’t absorb any?
DA, you might want to look up the word “desperate”.
That will help you explain yourself to your therapist.
Hope that helps.
Don’t be afraid to answer the simple questions.
Do you think the Earth doesnt emit IR, or do you think the atmosphere doesnt absorb any?
DA, which is larger, your trifling inheritance, or your welfare checks? On an annual basis, of course.
We all see you won’t address scientific points.
So what are you doing here?
Roy, why did you let Ger*an come back to your site?
JDHuffman says:
July 9, 2019 at 9:04 PM
DA, which is larger, your trifling inheritance, or your welfare checks? On an annual basis, of course.
Roy, why won’t you delete this jerj — again? (You already deleted him once as ger*an.)
He refuses to discuss science and is ruining your comment section.
DA, you interject yourself here with your nonsense and stupid questions. When you get slammed down, you run crying to Dr. Spencer, who you usually abuse.
Grow up, get a life, get a job, and learn some physics.
DA,
“Obviously current flux isnt exactly heat flux.”
Bingo!
So?
We’ve always been discussing heat flux here, never current flux.
“To what accuracy?
Every time I plot TSI v SSN, I get a cone that has considerable spread even at the origin (x=0). It only increases as x increases”
Try plotting TUV v SSN i instead of TSI
What’s the point? If I had TUV, why would I need a proxy?
“PhilJ says:
Not all energy flows are heat fluxes”
“So?
Weve always been discussing heat flux here, never current flux.”
I rest my case!
2 W’s in one night ! Woot wooot!
What are you talking about??
Colinear heat fluxes add.
DA…”Colinear heat fluxes add”.
1)No such thing as a heat flux.
2)An EM flux has no heat.
3)In order to get heat from a flux, it has to be converted from EM to heat by electrons is the atoms of a mass. Therefore, you are adding heat as kinetic energy within a mass. Makes no sense to talk about adding EM fluxes.
GR,
What is BTU/ft^2?
DA,
I have never come across “colinear heat fluxes”.
As you wrote –
“What are you talking about??”
Cheers.
I’m thinking DA is going to submit a paper to Nature on colinear heat fluxes.
DA…”The entire wire but for the average flux per unit area, its the cross-sectional area of the wire through which the current travels”.
Electric current is not measured as a flux, it is measured as a flow of charges. Flux applies to an electric or magnetic field produced by an applied EMF and a current flow through a conductor.
It is ironic, however, that the same electron that passes charges through a conductor also passes heat through a conductor.
Gordon Robertson
Never heard of electric flux density?
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/coulomb-per-centimeter-squared
EM,
Never heard of magnetic flux density? No energy transfer, there, either.
Do you think you could make a super powerful magnet by adding a lot of magnetic fluxes?
Try adding 300 W/m2 from ice to 300 W/m2 from boiling water in a shiny pot. 600 W/m2 of meaningless nonsense. Just like the fluxing nonsense propounded by the pseudoscientific frauds, fakers and fools.
Cheers.
E-man, you are confusing a stationary electric field with electromagnetic wave propagation.
JDHuffman
And when the capacitor charges or discharges?
Then you no longer have a stationary electric field. You have electrons moving across the gap, effectively (transfer of charge). Electrons are not photons, and photons are not electrons.
entropic…”And when the capacitor charges or discharges?”
As JD said, with a stationary charge on the plates of a capacitor you have an electric field. When you connect that capacitor across a load, there is a surplus of electric charges (electrons) on one plate which creates a potential difference between that plate and the other plate. Therefore the charges flow toward the lower potential plate.
As they flow through the circuit, they can create a magnetic field about the conductors but the charge flow is no longer a flux field. It is measured as a current density per unit area and the density is a measure of real charges, not a flux field.
entropic…”Never heard of electric flux density?”
Electronics is my field and has been for decades. You fail to understand the meaning of flux density as opposed to the current density in a conductor.
The article to which you refer is describing an electric field from a capacitor plate, not the electric current in a conductor, to which I referred. I mentioned in my post that the only places a flux could be considered in relation to a current carrying conductor is in an electric field and a magnetic field.
When you have a battery or other power source connected to a circuit, the power source creates an electric field around the circuit. There is a potential drop around the entire circuit and across each component in the circuit. The current produced by the power source through the conductors creates a magnetic field.
When you have charges on the plate of a capacitor, they create an electric field around the plate. That can be measured as a flux density but the charges running through a conductor cannot.
The block of circulation in the North Atlantic. Cold in Central Europe.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
From the top article:
“The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time?”
And here is the answer in the next sentence.
“At least in the U.S., the answer is ‘no’, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased.”
That’s called shifting the goal posts. The number of (maximum temp) record breakers could have increased, even if the number of days over a certain mark had decreased. Eg, 1990 could have had 10 days over 100F, and 2 of them could have been record breakers. 1991 could have had 8 days over 100F, with 3 of them record breakers. Number of days over a certain bar does not evince whether they were record-breakers.
“One would need to study the data for Europe to see if the number of record highs is increasing over time.”
But that’s not even a good metric. You could get more days over 100F every year, but still get fewer record-breakers. It works (or rather doesn’t) both ways. This question is ill-posed.
A better metric would be to compare record breaking cold days to record breaking hot annually.
Here are the results for global – record minimum and maximum temps worldwide, annually since 2002.
http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
http://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
And these are the results:
2002 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 204
Minimum 22
2003 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 394
Minimum 20
2004 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 113
Minimum 13
2005 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 120
Minimum 29
2006 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 145
Minimum 20
2007 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 297
Minimum 17
2008 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 90
Minimum 32
2009 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 138
Minimum 21
2010 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 505
Minimum 44
2011 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 169
Minimum 39
2012 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 296
Minimum 16
2013 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 405
Minimum 16
2014 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 217
Minimum 19
2015 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 328
Minimum 14
2016 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 323
Minimum 21
2017 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 219
Minimum 18
2018 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 435
Minimum 41
The number of hot record breakers go up and down every year. That’s weather. But what is more climatically interesting is that every year there are more hot record breakers than cold. Sometimes 10 times as much.
Climate scientists have recently been saying that record heat events are now discretely connectable to underlying climate change. They used to say that individual events cannot be attributed to climate change, only trends. I’ve read that there is more confidence now in making this connection, but I remain unconvinced.
With meridional circulation, which occurs during low solar cycles, extreme temperatures will occur.
Extreme events will always occur from time to time. That in itself is not interesting. What is interest from the perspective of a changing climate is the changing severity of those events, and change in the odds of them occurring.
We have no influence on the circulation of the jet stream in the tropopause.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
The daily AAO index is constructed by projecting the daily (00Z) 700mb height anomalies poleward of 20S onto the loading pattern of the AAO.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
This is how the winter stratospheric polar vortex works.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_SH_2019.png
Extreme events will always occur from time to time, whether caused by changes in jet stream circulation, or prevailing Antarctic winds, or from strong ENSO events. That in itself is not interesting. What is interest from the perspective of a changing climate is the changing severity of those events, and change in the odds of them occurring.
barry, you can’t always trust recent record highs. I have caught local high temps being falsely “adjusted”, more than once. Also, there is the UHI factor, which pushes high records and restricts low records.
Stick with UAH global. It’s the best we’ve got. When there is 100-150 years of UAH data, you will see there is no un-natural warming.
Be patient.
barry…”Thats called shifting the goal posts. The number of (maximum temp) record breakers could have increased…”
The record for heat waves in North America were set in the 1930s and that record has never been surpassed. That’s true for record highs as well, even if the shysters at NOAA have retroactively fudged the records to lower them.
Gordon, the Summer with the warmest maxima in the US record is still 1936, which NOAA neither hides from the data, nor neglects to mention in their press briefings on hot Summers.
EG,
US Summer maxima time series (NOAA): https://tinyurl.com/y3sdum8h
NOAA reports mentioning 1936 as Summer with warmest maximum temps
https://tinyurl.com/y4fnjg93
https://tinyurl.com/y6pou4t3
What data are you using to discern record-breaker highs in the 1930s? If not NOAA data, then what? Having the warmest average maxima does not necessarily mean a record number of chart-toppers, though it makes it more likely. So what data do you rely on?
Still, Roy shifted the goalposts. Number of days above X degrees is not the same thing as number of record-breaking maxima.
How can you make these claims if the only dataset you trust is UAH?
barry, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
El nino update:
1+2 = -0.931 deg c
3 = -0.552
3.4 = -0.018
4 = +0.366
Seems to me, the leaders are saying we are going into a La Nina. 1+2 is ICE cold JUST like Antarctica (which Bindidon will tell you doesn’t matter) because that is where that water comes from. The lagging region 4 will plummet shortly.
What is “leaders?”
ENSO forecast from 3 institutes monitoring:
NOAA forecasts weak el Nino to continue
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Australian BoM and Japanese Meteorological Association forecast neutral conditions over the coming months
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
Likelihoods included at links.
barry says: ENSO forecast from 3 institutes monitoring:
Australian BoM and Japanese Meteorological Association forecast neutral conditions over the coming months
———–
Yep! But the NOAA statements are only updated once a month and while not sure what the update is for the foreign services, at least Australia uses a different benchmark than NOAA. NOAA needs only a .5deg anomaly and the aussies want a .7.
Further the NOAA model is only right at .5 now. Many other models will be weighing in late next week for possible revisions to the statements. The slowness of this process having meetings and committees with academic modelers makes for a rather slow response to changing conditions in the ocean. And of course are 1 and 2 are an indicator but not a lock. Oscillations occur at all intensities. There will be changes in the NOAA statements unless something occurs in the coming week.
Aussies (I am one) have 0.8C as the ENSO threshold.
You are probably right. My memory isn’t what it used to be. But last week the NOAA model was just started infringing on a negative -.5. Today its at -.75 for DJF.
Do you have a forecast, then, Bill?
barry says: “Do you have a forecast, then, Bill?”
Nope! Not in the forecasting business Barry. The Ocean is changing every day and every year is different. That has been a lifetime attraction to me. Go out on the ocean and play with it and everytime you will see something you have never seen before. Doesn’t matter how many times you go. It is the most dynamic environment on earth. CFSv2 today has pushed a little deeper, about .8 without a single forecast member of the 40 covering the last 10 days above a zero anomaly for DJF. . . .one of the most recent members is down at -1.75. Not quite yet a full La Nina prediction as it appears only 4 overlapping seasons are below the threshold as measured by averaging all of the forecasts over the past 10 days together. So as it stands subject to other model inputs and expert discussion if they were doing to make a forecast statement today it would be for ENSO Neutral. This model was running hot in v1 but who knows where it might be now, I don’t think its been in play long enough to get a measure of that and by the time it is it will be probably be dealing with yet another major ocean regime change. My opinion on that would be different if they had been predicting this as opposed to El Nino for this coming winter a few months ago. Pretty good evidence that the spring predictability barrier is still big time in play.
Bill, the PDF forecast page is updated at least twice a month. The section on model forecasts is updated more sporadically, but it can be as little as a week between updates.
Yes, 1.2 is an indicator, of sorts, but definitely not a lock. SOI might be a better indicator, but really it’s 3 and 3.4, and a collection of other variables. Even then, it’s not possible to forecast with any great certainty, but better results post-April (for reasons I forget).
Barry, region 1-2 are leading indicators because the upwelling occurs close to South America.
You may have missed this… see page 25 for the update they thru in last minute:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Expect big changes in the July report.
That PDF is updated twice a month. The forecasts are updated more sporadically, but often a week at a time (eg, there was an update for June 10 and also June 17) – probably whenever they do a run of the models.
Is there any peer-reviewed literature that says ENSO1.2 is a leading indicator? I’ve only ever heard of such a proposition on blog conversations, and possibly only from you.
You said the lagging region 4 will plummet “shortly,” which I take it you mean in the next week or two. Here is where I get weekly ENSO region data.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4
NOAA forecast possible Nina conditions in 3 to 5 months time. I guess we’ll find out shortly if your model is better than theirs.
barry says: That PDF is updated twice a month.
————-
Actually Barry the PDF is updated every Monday morning unless its a holiday then on Tuesday.
The model runs used to be updated daily but now its less frequent, maybe twice a week.
The forecasts are updated once a month in a couple of phases. 3rd Thursday of the month is the big update where the status statments are modified. That’s this Thursday. Here they combine the NOAA opinions and models with academic opinions and models. The new forecast will show up next Monday but you can get a look at the elements of it usually going straight to the IRI/CPC page, which is usually promptly updated after the monthly forecast meeting.
Not sure if there is a paper on 1 and 2 leading the ENSO but you could have gleaned that by watching the progression of El Ninos over the years and you can still view those progressions in the archive pages of old forecast report summaries.
Finally, 1 and 2 leading the event isn’t a guarantee. Its not called 1 and 2 for no reason at all because it was originally water changes in 1 and 2 that earned them those monikers. Finally as ENSO was identified as a mid Pacific event gradually it evolved to the emergence of 3.4 being the most indicative of an ENSO event. But most often these events are set off by a change in prevailing easterly winds at the equator. Lessening of winds usually is first indicated by a lessening of deepwater upwelling off Peru which used to have huge impacts on the fisheries there when they mostly fished out of very small boats traveling small distances. Now the fisheries off Peru operate in boats that fish the entire southeastern quadrant of the Pacific Ocean so less impact is noted by ENSO. But that upwelling near the coast is, IMHO, more important than the backsloshing of warm water from the western Pacific where sea level gets higher because of prevailing easterly winds, both clearly occur. The upwelling is caused by offshore winds pushing water away from the coast with deeper colder water replacing it. As time wears on the cool water dominates the equator there but its affected by the atmospheric heat there and warms and by the time it gets to the western Pacific its piling of top of other water there having been heated for many weeks as the water travels west. Then the winds subside for whatever reason which is still poorly understood and the piled up water in the west sloshes back. And the upwelling abates allowing for more in situ warming in the eastern Pacific. For climate its like switching on and off a huge old style swamp cooler. Also this event is linked to upwellings all along the west coasts of the Americas. Its linked to the prevailing Coriolis Effect driven winds and ocean currents, and it also appears to be linked somewhat to the global wide thermohaline currents. My favorite out there theory is the Pacific ocean oscillation, and thus the frequency of ENSO events is linked to the thermohaline circulation system and Arctic ice sea extent. But I really have no idea of what triggers the ENSO phases. NOAA is still struggling with that. They have had a huge spring predictability barrier which they have widely acknowledged.
After a few years in a row with good predictions from the new model, I suspect some, like myself was beginning to wonder if they are breaking through the barrier. But right now its looking like they might have predicted El Nino for this winter and instead may get a La Nina. Certainly a bit early to tell but the handwritting may be on the wall come the August forecast. Today’s model run significantly deepens the forecast for La Nina this winter from yesterday’s run and this is the time of year, just beyond spring, when they actually have a pretty good predictability record. That window of best predictability is probably july august and september for accuracy of the entire 9 month prediction, but obviously the winter forecast gets better the closer you get. Then in October the 9 month outlook will have crossed another spring barrier.
Used to be a couple of forecasters running their own blogs gabbing about forecast indicators, but rumor has it they were shut down by NOAA telling the forecasters to not allow their messages get mixed with the official forecasts and the blogs ceased to operate. Sort of sounded like typical bureaucratic concerns about junior upstarts threatening middle management. Kind of wish those had continued maybe with a disclaimer for NOAAs concerns as it was a good way to engage the citizen scientist in thinking about the whole ENSO scheme of things.
Seems my memory slipped or they changed the schedule. I see now on the weekly status update page that the forecast statements are done on the 2nd Thursday. Sort of thought maybe they would stick with the El Nino forecast a bit longer and suggested August as more definitive.
The ENSO forecasting structure is such that all the modeling teams have their own schedules and aren’t all in sync. Some in fact aren’t even updated as frequently as monthly or that was the case a few years ago when I last looked at the individual models in detail. So when the monthly meeting is held it might be a month or even longer since all the models were updated creating a significant lag in the forecast which is especially prominent in the spring and shortly after. Because of that I look at the NWS CFS model which is updated 2 or 3 times a week or more and completely ignore the academic input not because I think its bad but because it lags so much. In fact the last time I reviewed the models one of the outsider models had the best record but that was before the current CFSv2 version was issued. I haven’t reviewed them since.
The forecast text is updated once a month on the second Thursday. Obs are updated once a week, as you said (my mistake), and model forecasts – the bit that Scott is talking about – are updated more sporadically as I said. I checked the wayback machine and issues through June/July for that last point. Had no idea what Scott meant by “the update they thru in last minute.”
The numbering system for the regions are based on well-used ship tracks through the region. Thus ship track 1 is close to the coast of S. America, and ship track 3 is further West.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni
Have you worked with NOAA on ENSO, or have you been an interested observer. I note there is a blog on ENSO linked to on the home page for diagnostics. If you can remember who write the blog, or provide a link, i’m pretty good at hunting down info on the net. Maybe they’re still forecasting.
I haven’t seen anyone do better than the institutes for ENSO forecasting. It’s like weather forecasters. They do better than enthusiasts, but when they get it wrong the critical enthusiasts use that as evidence they’re just as fallible, or more so, than enthusiasts.
I also notice ‘skeptics’ seem happier – even keen – to see la Ninas. I don’t know why. Can you explain that?
Bill,
By NOAA metrics we have been in a weak el Nino since late last year.
You said: “right now its looking like they might have predicted El Nino for this winter and instead may get a La Nina”
I was interested in what they predicted, so I checked the statements
Their forecast captured April 1 was:
“Weak El Nino conditions are likely to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2019 (80% chance) and summer (60% chance)”
On June 5, the captured PDF forecast reads:
“El Nino is likely to continue through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2019 (70% chance) and fall (55-60% chance)”
20 June capture (waybackmachine):
“El Nino is predicted to persist through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2019 (66% chance), with lower odds of continuing through the fall and winter (50-55% chance)”
This is the only forecast that mentions an el Nino in Winter, of negligible odds (still greater than 50/50).
The current forecast reads:
“A transition from El Nino to ENSO-neutral is expected in the next month or two, with ENSO-neutral most likely to continue through Northern Hemisphere fall and winter”
Unsurprising that forecasts get revised. The teams issuing these forecasts regularly caveat that ENSO is hard to predict. I don’t think Scott is going to do any better using NINO1.2.
I check the BoM and JMA forecasts. JMA still uses NINO3 as its key indicator. But I think there is good argument for the MEI index being superior, though it is less pliable to internet “debates” on climate.
Also discovered that they are none too careful about updating the forecast text on that 2nd Thursday. Sometimes its a few days later.
Yep, as I said Nino 1+2 was the first recognized and has the largest deviations. Thats because of the upwelling in that region due to prevailing offshore winds pushing water away from the coast.
Once on the surface it warms. The larger ocean oscillations seem to have an influence on the relative frequency of El Nino vs La Nina, likely something to do with the thermohaline system it seems to me as my theory is variance of arctic ice and its effect on the entire world ocean circulation system.
I think what you leave out of the idea of NOAA forecasts is it isn’t just NOAA. NOAA is the most engaged well funded effort to conglomerate information and make it available. I grew up among people who had great weather eyes but obviously they can only see effects coming over the horizon. Satellites have added something way beyond what forecasters had just a few decades ago. And far be it from it being just NOAA. Across the spectrum of earth systems that NOAA reports on there are more volunteers providing data to NOAA by far than the number of NOAA scientists that are gathering data.
Weather models continue to improve as more data is assimilated into the system. But ENSO reporting has long been bothered by climate models and pieces of climate models integrated with climate change models. The world simply is not acting like the climate models predicted 3 decades ago. Of course the good folks at NOAA working in the area of ENSO know that also and are working on their own models. Also many external modeling groups not married still to the 1976 Charney report are changing also. So NOAA will continue to adapt despite the Al Gores of the world assuming of course we don’t give them too much power.
barry says: = I check the BoM and JMA forecasts. JMA still uses NINO3 as its key indicator. But I think there is good argument for the MEI index being superior, though it is less pliable to internet debates on climate.
———–
I don’t spend much time trying to figure which is better. I just recognize that a lot of expert folks with talents contribute to all this stuff and like to consume it so as to assimilate into a range of likely outcomes. Certainly if somebody actually starts consistently nailing it that will gradually change. Best to be prepared for anything though.
I think what you leave out of the idea of NOAA forecasts is it isn’t just NOAA.
What is your point here?
Weather models continue to improve as more data is assimilated into the system. But ENSO reporting has long been bothered by climate models and pieces of climate models integrated with climate change models.
I don’t know what you mean by ENSO reporting being “bothered” by climate models. Trying to piece together the intent of your post here – are you saying the models are a blight on the network of human beings who provide data?
All I know is that fidelity of ENSO processes in GCMs have improved a little over the years, but aren’t close to perfect. Forecasting is a different matter, with dedicated modelling, and there is currently no better way to do it. Statistical approaches don’t do quite as well as dedicated models (same with Arctic sea ice forecasting in recent years).
So I don’t know what you mean by models “bothering” reporting. They’ve improved forecasting.
The world simply is not acting like the climate models predicted 3 decades ago
You’re really jumping topics here. But to follow your lead, GCMs predicted that the world would warm. That much has occurred. Whatever “the world is not acting” means, you need to be more specific or there’s nothing tangible to reply to.
barry says: – I think what you leave out of the idea of NOAA forecasts is it isnt just NOAA.
What is your point here?
————-
A very simple one. “Independence”. The civil service was founded to quell rampant corruption when politicians appointed every job in government. It worked quite well and in many avenues of government business it continues to work very well. However, in some areas of government business bureaucracies and budgets have grown and gradually “appointed” panels move in and assume the work of the independent civil service. Its truly a step backwards.
In the case of ENSO, ENSO forecasts are not controlled by NOAA. Instead its the University of Columbia, James Hansen’s employer. I think its fine that academic institutions be involved in research and as consultants. And I am not speaking about any specific problems with Columbia University or James Hansen because I know little about how they interface with the government. But the fact is James Hansen, IMO, is a bit of a nutcase, though I said I do like him because he comes off as honest but not exactly independent civil service management material.
—————
————-
barry says:
I dont know what you mean by ENSO reporting being bothered by climate models.
——
I mean exactly that. Climate models are often multi-piece models with ocean and atmosphere pieces. The ocean pieces are used by some of the groups both involved in IPCC processes and in ENSO. For a time several years ago ENSO predictions were heavily weighted toward El Nino. If fact Hansen called El Nino the new normal. I started watching the forecasting processes quite carefully for a couple of years or so and noticed that the two models controlled by GISS were the worst performers by a fairly large margin. So thats all I mean by that. I haven’t continued to follow the forecasting process that close in recent years as I am just looking at the top level results. There has been some improvement. Hansen is gone too.
———–
———–
Barry says: –
Statistical approaches dont do quite as well as dedicated models (same with Arctic sea ice forecasting in recent years).
—————-
I agree. With natural climate change sort of tracking in different directions you should be aware that the empirical raw data for ENSO was heavily weighted into an accelerating natural warming period. When it changed around 2006 or 7 is when forecasts started missing the mark by a wider margin. You would expect that with statistical models under the conditions. But at first the dynamic models were the worst. Today the database is still heavily weighted via natural warming that has reduced, greatly so if you look carefully enough and dynamic models seem to be on an improved track. I can’t explain why though and they may have just missed another ENSO switch, but at least the forecast wasn’t for yet another Super El Nino as it was for a period around the solar minima and until V2 was developed. Perhaps all the models incorporated some of the same improvements. I don’t know.
Barry says: –
“Youre really jumping topics here. But to follow your lead, GCMs predicted that the world would warm. That much has occurred. Whatever the world is not acting means, you need to be more specific or theres nothing tangible to reply to.”
for GCMs I am just talking about the amount of warming predicted. Its much worse than if you look at one of today’s temperature trends which is still falling short. Thats because of not paying attention to short term phenomena like a major El Nino. Trends tend to get bumped by those events then soon retreat afterwards.
that just another spin on the topic of adjusting ARGO with a quite modified and supplemented long term sea level rise. What all that shows is a lack of control over the data and what comes out sounding like civil service work. When that sort of behavior is condoned out of bias and other agendas what is left that is sacred?
As I posted earlier, I check BoM, JMA and NOAA for ENSO obs and forecasts. I don’t have a favourite, and began on this portion of the discussion linking to them all for a spread of opinion.
Now you’re talking about corruption at NOAA and telling me that models can’t be trusted. Thanks, I can get that sort of discourse ad nauseum from WUWT, realclimatescience and other blogs. I prefer to discuss science.
It’s ludicrous, Bill. As if NOAA have any interest in fiddling ENSO data or forecasts. Hang on to your political idea by all means, but I’m not going to take you seriously on the science if you’re going to infect the conversation with that junk.
barry says:
Now youre talking about corruption at NOAA and telling me that models cant be trusted. Thanks, I can get that sort of discourse ad nauseum from WUWT, realclimatescience and other blogs. I prefer to discuss science.
————–
Strawman! I never said NOAA was corrupt.
Albeit every large institution has some degree of corruption. One cannot have a city without criminals.
Its also true that nothing is perfect. Where an error gets multiplied over and over again isn’t hardly ever a product of corruption unless its in a closely-held corrupt institution like say Enron or Bernie Madoff. What it is a product of is inadequate internal controls.
But the best internal control mechanism that NOAA has is multiple groups working independently on the same topic.
Cross Atlantic conspiracies like Climategate are simply overt attempts to override NOAA’s internal control mechanisms by threats and by deception. Fortunately they were caught. But one would have to be naive to believe we catch all such efforts or that nobody is motivated to engage in such conspiracies. Vigilance is important.
Where you can readily see bias (but not necessarily conspiracy) is in religious followers cherry picking within the range of NOAA results and almost always its some quasi-outsider lab issuing press releases outside of NOAA’s internal control mechanisms to quash. So yeah there are really two NOAA’s. There is the “real” NOAA and then there is the “appears to be NOAA” NOAA.
The “appears to be NOAA” is actually just one or more of those teams that NOAA puts out there. Latching on to that is the same thing as cherry picking literature, or counting studies that’s a function of political funding bias, etc.
IMO, having all those different opinions is an important ingredient in policy making. Its important in the long run to have a lot of ideas on the table. However, then you have media, NGOs, etc. to spread a filtered version of all that and sucker a lot of people into a certainty that simply doesn’t exist.
Thus you have the idea of creating more independent teams, like red teams to provide additional levels of review. But how do you do that without quashing transparency? Its certainly a challenge.
My only advice is to keep an open mind about it all. Dangers of climate change were predicted to already be occurring but its hard to see any of them beyond enjoying what seems to be better weather. . . .and I live within a 100 miles of the Mexican border, the rest of the nation must be enjoying it more than me. If you aren’t enjoying it maybe its time to turn off the computer, put down the paper, and go outside and enjoy the weather.
My interest in science has nothing to do with the kind of weather I prefer. It also has nothing to do with the kind of weather you prefer.
So, NOAA is not corrupt. Thanks for clarifying your view. When discussing the science, these excursions into accusations of bias are pointless. The weight of evidence is all that matters.
So are you going to keep our discussion free of politics? I hope so.
barry says: – So NOAA is not corrupt. Thanks for clarifying your view. When discussing the science, these excursions into accusations of bias are pointless. The weight of evidence is all that matters.
————-
Lets put it this way a man laboring over thousands and thousands of entries in a database is not evidence. The raw database is evidence. The reason there are CPAs is to ensure the raw database matches what is reported.
The way thats done is the CPA gets his hands on the raw data, any deviation from the raw data requires more evidence.
When you see a replication of a modified record using many databases, the obvious question to ask is whether those databases are original. Its quite amazing how much replication work doesn’t specify that. Instead you are dazzled by sheer numbers of databases, which then gives a vague story of winnowing out replicated stations. So what survived? The raw station or the adjusted station?
With a complete lack of standards in this area of work, and no representation of exact procedures and sources; how can anybody have any confidence in the output?
If I go to Steve McIntyre’s blog his work is easy to follow because he is incredibly detailed in describing sources and exactly what he is doing. In fact I hold a tremendous admiration for his attention to every detail. I wish I were as good as he is in documenting what he does. Of course, McIntyre is from the private sector and the private business sector demands details. But McIntyre is right there at the top.
I see all the time Trenberth and others lamenting about how their message is not getting through. . . .and they respond by dumbing down the message which does nothing but swing the skeptic door wider open. Fellow scientists G&T demanded details and was stonewalled. Steve McIntyre demanded details and was stonewalled. And that is but 2 of the more notorious examples among literally millions of requests for details that is met with stonewalling.
That’s their communication problem right there. And it has the complete aura of a slow speed white bronco chase. They have earned every skeptic they have.
The only possible response and expect the message to be received is to stop stonewalling, throw the books open to the public and let anybody and everybody that wants to pour over them do so. And if somebody finds something wrong. . . .fking live with it.
I will say a lack of openness is not universal, some researchers actually do a good job of documentation. But it needs to be universal in regards to both complete theory and complete validation of the theory. Its not at all like that. I have too many years experience in this. They are playing the post-normal science game where they simply adopt what they think is the most likely theory then challenge people to disprove it without ever even describing fully the details of the theory.
But the entire issue of CO2 controlling climate on the earth in the words of one of the most celebrated atmospheric physicists is what is being sold is magical thinking. I believe him and believe this is merely and end run for another agenda. I certainly can be convinced otherwise, but it would require what I just described above.
I would like to have a serious discussion with you guys that are natural cycles fans, on what could possibly be causing the winter / summer split. As mentioned up thread, according to UAH database, global summer temperatures did not break the 98 highs, while global winter temperatures DID break the 98 highs. On the other hand, my local data (which I’m taking as proxy for the NH) says summers were getting warmer up until 2018, while the winters have been getting colder since 1998.
That being said, I’d like you to think about Zharkova’s recent grand solar min paper.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3
In the paper, she ties a 2000 year natural cycle to the sun caused by the orbital position of the various planets. If this is true on a 2000 year time frame, could it be a factor on the shorter time frame?
Right now, the earth is on the same side of the sun as Jupiter and Saturn. (NH summer) This set up has been developing for 30 years in the making as Saturn has a 30 year orbit. Not coincidentally (in my opinion) the last hot summer peak was 30 years ago the last time Jupiter and Saturn combined. These forcers could be pulling the sun 1 solar diameter or so closer to the earth during our NH summer. That might somehow be making a difference. On the other hand, our NH winters have been getting colder as Jupiter and Saturn remain on this side as we swing around the sun.
I’m frankly amazed that such a small movement of the sun can make a noticeable difference, but it seems to be. Perhaps it is related to the double dynamo on the sun, and the magnetic / gravitational effects of the planets.
I can’t wait to see what papers might piggyback off of Zharkova’s work. Just in time too, because GSM is here.
Scott R, the Sun changing its location by a full solar diameter is hard to imagine, since Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, and the Sun are all moving. If the 3 planets align, let’s say that moved the Sun one solar diameter closer to the barycenter. Would Earth’s orbit remain the same?
My first guess is Earth’s orbit would be little affected, even by such a large solar move. My reasoning is that the Sun is believed to be constantly moving nearly 800,000 kph, yet Earth stays up with it.
JDHuffman,
I believe I read in that Zharkova paper, or perhaps I heard her say it during her interview on GSM news that the sun does move 1 solar diameter around the solar system barycenter. The shift is dependent on where Jupiter and Saturn are located primarily as it is a function of mass and distance. My understanding is that the earth has very little effect on the barycenter, so basically the earth is a “slave” to the sun / Jupiter / Saturn relationship. So our distance to the sun is changing relative to what Jupiter / Saturn are doing to the sun. When the solar system Barycenter is shifted towards the July 4th aphelion of the earth like it is right now, NH summer temperatures are at peak. My theory is somehow, solar activity is influenced by these cycles and has a direct effect on the earth. Maybe it is not as simple as measuring TSI. Perhaps the relationship is more subtle… like the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth effecting cloud nucleation and our albedo.
Course… we have lots of cycles competing, not lining up. The El Nino cycle seems to be the most important. But perhaps The Jupiter / Saturn relationship is also driving the solar cycles, since we have orbital periods of 29.5 and 12 years. It almost works out to 11 years, but not quite. Jupiter and Saturn line up every 20 years. Perhaps this close but not quite relationship is what keeps each solar cycle unique, and keeps us from using simple mathematic relationships to predict the beginning / end of solar cycles. The same thing seems to be said about El Nino. You can not directly tie it to the 11 year cycle. It is a sloppy relationship, but it seems to be there.
scott r…”Im frankly amazed that such a small movement of the sun can make a noticeable difference, but it seems to be.”
Interesting.
I have my own theory, based on unscientific observations that the Sun has felt hotter over the past 10 years. I first noticed it in a desert region 150 miles NE of Vancouver, Canada. The temperature outdoors was 40C+ and I could not bear the direct rays of the Sun. My lady friend and I had to relocate our camping spot to a cooler area.
Lindzen has pointed out that convection cools surface temperatures. On that day, there was nary a breeze to be felt, it was as still as I have ever experienced the atmosphere.Here on the coast, around Vancouver, there are ocean breezes much of the time and temperatures tend to be about half the 40C+ we experienced that day.
Since then, even in the Vancouver area, I have felt the Sun directly and there seems to be an increased intensity to it. I am talking in summer months, of course. This it totally subjective but for me it’s a matter of tolerance. It has become increasingly intolerable for me to be in direct sun rays for any amount of time without wearing a baseball cap to shield my face from it.
I am wondering if Mike Flynn experiences the same in his local closer to the Equator.
Saturn is prominent in the southern sky around here at the moment for much of the night. It’s opposite the Sun and is really bright. The big sucker has a diameter of 87,000 miles compared to about 8000 miles for the Earth. The Sun dwarfs us all with a diameter of 864,000 miles.
One solar diameter closer to us does not seem to offer an explanation for a hotter Sun, but as you say, there may be other affects unknown to us. I am thinking more along the lines of increased UV. Since UV is in the strongest intensity range of the Sun, and affects our skin, maybe that’s what I am sensing.
Or, maybe I’m just getting loopy. The alarmists will no doubt jump that that admission to ad hom me.
GR,
You wrote –
“I am wondering if Mike Flynn experiences the same in his local closer to the Equator.”
Not that I have noticed. Mind you, I try to keep my exposure to a minimum. My Fitzpatrick Skin Type is apparently 1 – sciencey, wot?
Noel Coward sang “In tropical climes . . . mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun,”
Not me, if I can avoid it. Hooray for insulation – keeps me cooler than I otherwise would be!
Cheers.
In Earth’s annual orbit the distance to the sun swings from 147 million km to 152 million km. That’s a biannual change of 92 W/m2 in solar intensity hitting the Earth.
Solar diameter is 1.3 million km, and the change in that distance is equivalent to 23.5 W/m2. I agree it seems unlikely the Earth would not move with the sun, being ‘slaved’ to it.
Just noting some figures for reference.
The paper is positing solar oscillations as causing multidecadal fluctuations in terrestrial temps, and expects continued warming until 2600, with 2 Maunder Minimum-like cooling periods in that time corresponding with a quiet sun of 35, and 45 years respectively.
Paper notes that its model does not faithfully capture all the grand solar events (gets the sign wrong on one major event), does not include anthropogenic effects, and does not calculate what effect these solar minima will have on terrestrial temperature.
Just in time too, because GSM is here
You have no doubts about the Zharkova solar model?
–You have no doubts about the Zharkova solar model?–
I have more doubts about her climate model than her solar model.
It seems to me, we have too many polar bears, and should shoot more of them.
gbaikie…”It seems to me, we have too many polar bears, and should shoot more of them”.
I am sure that the Inuit, the Eskimo, and anyone having had an experience with those killers would have no issues with shooting all of them. The polar bear is one of the only land species that kills humans for no reason.
Eco-weenies think they are big, furry, lovable creatures. They should all go and stand near one.
Zharkova’s modelling is of the sun’s cycles. There is no climate model in her paper.
Did you even read the paper?
Barry,
Calculating the exact orbital changes in an 8 planet system are beyond my current abilities. lol If Jupiter and Saturn move the sun up to 1 solar diameter, I don’t think we can say the earth moves 1 solar diameter with the sun. I also don’t think we can say the earth stays where it is. It is reasonable to assume that the earth / sun distance is smaller when we have Jupiter and Saturn behind us. The complexity of the math involved here involves many calculations. I’m only able to look at the system and think about what is probably happening. My guess is that the planetary alignment IS making a difference in the short term, and it HAS NOT been included in climate models.
As far as Zharkova’s paper, the speculation is that the 1 event that did not fit the pattern was a nearby supernova. It says in the paper that it is possible the model will need to be adjusted if it turns out the super nova did not cause the 1 off (and honestly very major) cooling event. So yes, I have doubts just like Zharkova. I thought she did a fair job outlining that in the paper.
She made it clear during an interview that she believes these natural cycles are driving the climate including the current warming period. Not Co2. My guess is she left it vague in the paper because her job was to focus on the natural forcer, not recent man made forcers, so she left her opinion out of the paper.
scott r…”It is reasonable to assume that the earth / sun distance is smaller when we have Jupiter and Saturn behind us”.
That’s an interesting question. Can planets lining up inside another planet affect the solar gravitational force on the outer planet?
As far as the effect of outer planets aligning with the Earth, I have read that their gravitational force on the Earth is too weak to affect Earth’s orbit. Don’t have a link.
Gravitational force is proportional to the respective masses of two bodies and inversely proportional to the distance between them. The Sun holds the Earth in orbit and the Earth holds the Moon in orbit. The Sun does not have a significant effect on the Moon’s orbit because the Moon is not orbiting the Sun and the Earth’s mass is too close to the Moon.
Theoretically, there should be a difference in the effect of the Sun on the Moon between the Moon’s orbital position between the Earth and the Sun and the orbital position on the far side of the Earth. That does not seem to be the case although there are points in the Moon’s orbit where the there is a special relationship between the forces of the Sun and Earth on the Moon.
See LaGrange points…
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/lagpt.html
Just a thought. The Earth’s gravitational field holds our atmosphere in place and layers it with a pressure gradient. If gravity did not hold it in place, we would experience 1000 mph winds at the equator as we passed through a stationary atmosphere.
Does the Moon’s gravitational field affect the atmosphere as it passes overhead? Is the atmosphere affected by the solar gravitational field on the far side of the Earth, where the Earth’s gravitational field blocks solar gravity?
Gordon Robertson says: It is reasonable to assume that the earth sun distance is smaller when we have Jupiter and Saturn behind us.
———
read up on barycenters. the laws of gravitation maintain that all objects rotate around the center of mass. Thus planets and the sun both rotate around the barycenter which usually inside the sun but sometimes slightly outside of it.
Gordon Robertson says: As far as the effect of outer planets aligning with the Earth, I have read that their gravitational force on the Earth is too weak to affect Earths orbit. Dont have a link.
———-
Pure handwaving
Gordon Robertson says: Does the Moons gravitational field affect the atmosphere as it passes overhead? Is the atmosphere affected by the solar gravitational field on the far side of the Earth, where the Earths gravitational field blocks solar gravity?
——
Tides! Both the oceans and the atmosphere have tides. The sun has tides. The forces of both the moon and sun produce measurable tides in the oceans and since the atmosphere is made of lighter materials the tides in the atmosphere are larger. Tide changes occur about 4 times a day.
Scott,
“She made it clear during an interview that she believes these natural cycles are driving the climate including the current warming period. Not Co2.”
I couldn’t find an interview with her saying that. I have doubts she would hold that CO2 has played no part in recent warming. Would you oblige with a link?
Here’s a brief peer-reviewed critique of her solar model, for your interest.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05516.pdf
Well it is clear that natural climate change is still in the drivers seat. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a CO2 effect hidden under the surface.
Bill, so which natural process(es) are driving the warming?
pdo -amo. a bit uncertain what is driving long term (80 year plus trend) or if its accelerating or remaining the same.
Bill,
How would a PDO/AMO cycle or any cyclic phenomenon explain the heat uptake in the entire geosphere? And I mean literally the entire geosphere including the lithosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, etc. Literally…everything is warming. How does the PDO/AMO create an planetary energy imbalance that just happen to coincidentally mimic the GHE magnitude and timing? This includes the timing of emission of anthroprogenic GHGs and aerosols and the GHE fingerprints like the cooling stratosphere, the bigger effect at night, shrinking thermosphere, O2 declines, 13C-to-12C carbon ratio, less IR flux escaping to space, etc. How does the PDO/AMO explain these observations?
bdgwx says: How would a PDO/AMO cycle or any cyclic phenomenon explain the heat uptake in the entire geosphere?
————
Switching the goal posts? We were talking about climate not the core of the earth and everything surrounding it. I suspect you could find very little evidence of the entire geosphere warming up even today as today we can’t even tell if the oceans are warming or cooling.
bdgwx says: How does the PDO/AMO create an planetary energy imbalance that just happen to coincidentally mimic the GHE magnitude and timing?
————
Thats an easy question. Assuming we are talking climate the imbalance is created no matter where the heat is coming into the atmosphere. Obviously if the heat were still going into the ocean because of a LIA recovery it would do so just like heat was being restricted from exiting the atmosphere.
As far as mimicking goes seems to me an ocean imbalance over the long haul from a LIA recovery would create a relatively steady warming with an imbalance very slowly disappearing. An imbalance created by massively accelerating emissions would be increasing at an accelerated rate. Unfortunately for determining what is happening we can’t even reliably determine if there is an imbalance. Sure we like a water diviner draw some lines on a chart pointing any direction we like depending upon the dataset we choose to be free of measurement error and we can go out and buy a seal of good housekeeping to even stamp the output with it so we can sell the idea to the public if we want too.
bdgwx says:
This includes the
“explain these observations?
timing of emission of anthroprogenic GHGs and aerosols and the O2 declines, 13C-to-12C carbon ratio. ”
———
Those above are all explained by the burning of fossil fuels.
“GHE fingerprints like the cooling stratosphere,less IR flux escaping to space”
—–
Stratosphere cooling and IR flux would be far easier affected by very small changes in clouds as opposed to CO2 that might also explain it. However, I am not aware of any long term trends in either, though no doubt somebody is divining a signal.
“shrinking thermosphere,”
———-
I saw somebody post that in this thread and was going to respond to it. The paper quoted was 2006. NASA reported a massive shrinkage of the thermosphere in 2007-9. The cause low solar activity reducing high frequency light. 2006 I was seeing the first articles regarding rapidly dropping solar activity into cycle 24. So Solomon et al. probably simply misindentified the cause.
“the bigger effect at night, How does the PDO/AMO”
The expected effect of increased clouds or water vapor or CO2.
“How does the PDO/AMO”
The PDO and AMO no question has an effect on water vapor and clouds for the exact same reason CO2 would.
Bill,
“I suspect you could find very little evidence of the entire geosphere warming up even today as today we cant even tell if the oceans are warming or cooling.”
Of course we can tell if they are warming. Not only do we have temperature measurements at depth, sea level is rising. There is only one way for global sea level to rise, and to rise at the rate it is, and that is if the “geosphere” is warming (I would use the term ‘biosphere’).
There are multiple indicators of a warming biosphere, from rising sea level, rising ocean heat content, rising air temp, changes in species migration, dwindling glaciers, reduced global sea ice etc etc.
The fact of general warming over the last century or so is not in doubt. It’s why informed skeptics have moved on to argue about cause.
Bill,
“Well it is clear that natural climate change is still in the drivers seat.”
Clear from what? From her 2015 paper that I linked? Nope, it doesn’t discuss climate at all. From her recent paper? Nope.
From the recent paper:
“Although, it is not clear yet if this trend in the terrestrial temperature and solar irradiance is caused directly by the increased solar activity itself or by some other factors of the solar-terrestrial interaction in the whole solar system and human activities.”
They do not inviestigate the role of CO2 in their model, as they state later in the paper, which is why I’ve asked Scott to corroborate that she thinks anthro CO2 plays no role at all, contrary to the implications in the paper.
barry says: There are multiple indicators of a warming biosphere, from rising sea level, rising ocean heat content, rising air temp, changes in species migration, dwindling glaciers, reduced global sea ice etc etc.
The fact of general warming over the last century or so is not in doubt. Its why informed skeptics have moved on to argue about cause.
———
I have said I think it has been warming Barry. I was just saying the evidence is weak knowing what the system is doing at any given moment. . . .thats why essentially both informed sides of the debate hold to minimum trends of 17 years or more.
I personally think that’s too short and the reason the number is thrown about, especially Ben Santer, is because he happened to have used a 17 year period to put the fingerprints on global warming so he has an obvious bias.
Rising sealevel would be a good indicator if we could have high confidence in it. But it like ice would be a major trailing indicator due to the oceans being out of equilibrium with the atmosphere such that it might take 10’s of thousands of years to come to an equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Thus sealevel rise could go on for many millennia with the geosphere in virtual equilibrium with space.
And sea level measurements are heavily quantified with favored ideas isostatic rebound, which isn’t a bad theory but has little empirical evidence of how it should be quantified.
The water in that crystal ball is indeed muddy, but folks often feel confident walking around in a field with a forked stick and not even know they are using a forked stick.
There is really only two means of measuring the geosphere effect. One would be actually measuring radiant input and output rather than divining that from a very messy record. Take clouds for instance, they may change the imbalance from negative to positive on a daily basis and probably do on a seasonal basis. But having a measuring system in place that views our world from both space and just under TOA is way beyond what we have today.
The other method is thermometers. Currently they are not common enough, uniform enough, randomly deployed, and under enough control to avoid issues of orientation, position, nearby natural and anthropogenic changes to reliably detect a warming or cooling trends that might be off a bunch for the purpose of measuring geosphere balance by not measuring ocean bottom temperatures.
So thats what I mean by weak. I would join you in arguing for net warming over the past 4 decades, but there was cooling in the 3 decades before that. Solar activity tailed off an there is a slightly smaller forcing from the sun and we can’t measure outgoing radiation or albedo or the greenhouse effect accurately enough to know for sure its still warming. We can be confident I think it was warming in the 80’s and 90’s but it was cooling before that, and it maybe cooling again. You simply cannot measure the atmosphere and tell if thats the case. If you could then I would be more confident of warming for 4 decades. And yes I do believe there has been an LIA recovery. But I don’t know if its continuing or not. But these are legitimate questions that need answering.
As time marches on any confidence anybody has will get stronger or weaker depending upon what happens next. . . .and thats what the informed will continue to think while the inculcated will be certain about something they simply don’t have the data to be certain about.
I’m not what I agree with in your last comment, Bill.
Santer’s paper said “at least” 17 years are needed in the abstract, and in the conclusions said that multidecadal periods are “required,” for an anthropogenic signal. I figured that they had managed to discern an anthropogenic signal from one or some 17-year runs of data, but that in general you’d need multidecadal (30 yrs?) of data to get a robust result most if not all the time.
“In the driver’s seat” is ambiguous phrasing on reflection. I took it to mean “primary cause” of warming in recent times. Perhaps you meant something a bit different?
We’re both going to know the difference between weather and climate, noise and signal, I’m assuming.
“Rising sea level would be a good indicator if we could have high confidence in it”
What makes you think we don’t? We have the satellite record and the tide gauge record, both of which show sea level rising over the long term. This is coupled with OHC, which corroborates. Isostatic rebound changes the rate, not the sign of sea level rise. I don’t know why you should think confidence is low on this metric, unless you are giving an unreasonable amount of weight to a couple of outlying views.
“So thats what I mean by weak. I would join you in arguing for net warming over the past 4 decades, but there was cooling in the 3 decades before that.”
Or no change for that 3 decade period, depending on data set. Why should the prior 3 decade period call into question the observed temp changes of the latter 4 decade period? I don’t get your reasoning here.
It seems to me that you are mixing observation with attribution, or at least that was my best guess at your meaning. But attribution is a separate study. Obs are the basis, not the method/s.
It’s unclear to me if you are arguing that because the world cooled for 3 decades mid-20th century, that there is *therefore* too much uncertainty that it has warmed in the last 40, or if you are only talking about causes for those periods, or some combo of both.
Every large-scale indicator points in the same direction. There are 29,000 species indicators (species migration, early flowering, late leaf fall, etc) that corroborate, sea ice, sea level, temperature, global glaciers, ocean heat content.
None of them are perfect, but unless you take the trouble to assess and quantify the uncertainty, then saying so is pretty meaningless. The signal of warming rises well out of the uncertainty for global temperature (quantified), and the signla for sea level rise is well above the uncertainty, even accounting for greater uncertainty in the past. Same for global glaciers. Same for Arctic sea ice (post 1940). Same for OHC to 700 metres. That these separately measured indicators all corroborate each other significantly increases confidence in the result. Warming since 1900, and since 1970, is settled science. There are plenty of things worth quibbling about. Not this.
barry says:
“In the drivers seat is ambiguous phrasing on reflection. I took it to mean primary cause of warming in recent times. Perhaps you meant something a bit different?”
———–
In the drivers seat generally means determinate of the direction of warming. . . .or absent or a reversal of natural patterns the climate will turn with it.
With regards to the post 1980 warming I think thats primarily ocean current changes. I suspect Zharkova believes that also as she actually reproduces Dr. Akasofu’s graphic showing the natural variation around a more or less straight line warming occurring as a recovery from the LIA.
So she is advocating what arguably is the only the long term warming going on being solar induced, and in doing so as all scientists not held to high standards tend to do is make offhand assumptions about, “that other warming” that isn’t really warming but instead just fluctuations around the true warming. Those reading it will be upset because they think the 1980-1997 warming was true warming instead of a fluctuation.
—————-
—————-
barry says:
“What makes you think we dont? We have the satellite record and the tide gauge record, both of which show sea level rising over the long term. This is coupled with OHC, which corroborates. Isostatic rebound changes the rate, not the sign of sea level rise. I dont know why you should think confidence is low on this metric, unless you are giving an unreasonable amount of weight to a couple of outlying views.”
————
Outlying views? Relying on the ol’ appeal to authority and popularity fallacies I see.
Look, I agree there has been warming over the current “climate window”. But the definition of climate and rightly so is at least a 2 decade window and I will go with the 2 decade window. I am just not into “padding” the ends of the record like I know for sure its still warming.
Zharkova’s paper argues it will. You argue it will for another reason. But the truth is we extrapolate from something to a subset of that something without any consideration of the fact we have an unmeasured loss of confidence in that being true. I mean even if you believe the driver of climate is still there, internal variation such as clouds could make it all disapper even though the longer record says over the longer period the warming was positive. That problem is obvious with El Nino that sends a false signal into the record and to balance it we might need to wait a long time for a La Nina to cancel it out and they we are indanger again of affecting the trend the other way.
When you get consistent multi-decadal periods of warming at 2 degrees for a century you can argue between CO2 and solar magnetism as being the cause of it. If you get a rate of 4 degrees combined that should cause anybody to sit up and notice.
I have worked in an industry that typically responded to good times with overconfidence and when the bad times came it was a disaster. The first thing I noticed was the IPCC projections were like a shooting star right out of the most robust warming. It was as if James Hansen’s predictions had come true and there was a real disaster on our hands. . . .that is it looked like that to novices, and people investing in it. To this seasoned guy it looked like the same insanity that is normal in this world even among the best experts in the business. If its good caution is thrown to the wind, if its bad then panic.
So the only thing I might question and actually don’t have an opinion about is if the sea level rise is continuing still. I think I suggested it could be declining for a decade but I am not advocating it. I just see it in the realm of possibility being well trained to refrain from too much extrapolation.
————–
————–
barry says:
Or no change for that 3 decade period, depending on data set. Why should the prior 3 decade period call into question the observed temp changes of the latter 4 decade period? I dont get your reasoning here.
——————-
No I acknowledge a cooling, in the middle of the 20th century, followed by an acknowledged warming in the latter part of the 20thcentury into the 21st century. The only thing I have a doubt about is the most recent decade.
I think you are the one confusing attribution. I actually believe that ocean oscillations while being an “internal” driver of climate most definitely has a feedback that actually effects TOA imbalance. At least it seems logical that the ocean current changes without say cloud or greenhouse gas feedback might not be sufficient alone to significantly affect global climate.
——————
——————
barry says:
There are plenty of things worth quibbling about. Not this.
————
I would suggest you are the one quibbling. I am and try to make clear I am talking about uncertainty. And I am talking about uncertainty of recent total system heat content, not the atmosphere, not the ocean surface, just the uncertainty that is occurring on short time scales. You are in essence, as I see it, quibbling about the chance of that uncertainty. And I see it as an important.
My concern about the monitoring systems extends that uncertainty.
I get upset when a data set like the early ARGO short term record of recent cooling gets modified by extrapolations from longer term, messier data sea level data and then justified by a guess that buoys must be leaking. The only respectable thing to do is withhold any conclusions about ARGO data and let the sea level data stand by itself in support of OHC increases as opposed to adjusting the ARGO data with sealevel data and then continue to do it to this day. Behavior like that is tantamount to hiding the decline in the ARGO data and worse then argue that ARGO data supports the warming argument. . . .complete and unadulterated BS.
But there is a lot of political resistance to that for a lot reasons. ARGO costs a considerable sum of money. All its supporters don’t want the money stream interrupted and the whole project abandoned. And of course the whole reason a problem was identified in the first place was inconsistency with another record. So now BY GUM effectively we have tree rings overriding thermometers!!! Because like tree rings which can be affected by more than temperature so can tidal gauges and in some ways that we are just guessing about! How about that?
So as it is sea level rise is almost not even apparent to somebody like me who has lived by the sea for over 70 years, visiting the same place, the same rock formations, the same cliffs. Of course thats only one place in the world and my shoreline might be upheaving from some uplift even though the ice age never reached this far south. Or maybe not!
In my work experience I have even seen where the same correction was inadvertently applied more than once because truly the data was out of control.
Like I said I have experience in large businesses with huge amounts of data, often conflicting, and the inability to actually fully compile, control, and fully vet all assumptions about the data is common in large businesses. IT is one of the most important elements in business. Climate investigation is far bigger has far more data, far more uncertainties, far more assumptions, and the enviro/poltico/science community is like a herd of cats that only responds to the dinner bell.
So I don’t believe for one second you have any idea of the state of all this, other than like me believe its been warming and the sea has probably been gently rising in response over a significant period of time. ARGO isn’t yet even 17 years old folks should be tinkering with ARGO verifying, testing buoys, trying to make it as good as it can be; and refrain from taking short term records, adjusting them with weaker long term records, and getting excited by the results. In other words be patient, be diligent, be under control, be conservative (a very good quality that keeps your stink out of the lives of other people), and try to contribute in a positive way of trying to make people’s lives better, especially those who need it the most. . . .now!
Bill,
So she is advocating what arguably is the only the long term warming going on being solar induced
No, she is restricting her paper to solar forcing + some in-system oscillations which she doesn’t explore in the slightest, but simply applies Akasofu’s graphic. She is not arguing that solar is the only, or even dominant forcing going on. Otherwise that would be clearly stated in the paper.
What is actually going on is that ‘skeptics’ are overinterpreting the paper to suit their views. That’s why Scott is unable to provide the interview he mentioned, where she claims CO2 has little influence. He’s imagined it because he’s been reading skeptic blogs and the general push is to superimpose that view on her.
But if you think I’m wrong, please provide direct quotes from her paper or any of her interviews, so neither of us has to rely on interpretations by third parties.
I’ve asked for information to corroborate quite a few things you’ve said, and you have provided zero refs, links, or anything to corroborate. So how about making good on this argument you’re making with some specific cites?
Outlying views? Relying on the ol’ appeal to authority and popularity fallacies I see.
No, you don’t see at all. My remark is not an appeal to authority. Learn your fallacies.
I notice you have not provided any references that corroborate your view on sea level rise uncertainty.
I can cite the IPCC or any number of papers or institutes that collate data for the observational stuff. But can you not cite some sober references for why you thing the uncertainties are so amplified as you think they are? Nothing yet from you, and it looks to me as if the argument you’re making about uncertainty is purely qualitative.
Let’s get down to brass tacks. That’s to do with data, statistical analysis and uncertainty analysis. Your previous employment may give you some useful perspective, but is entirely unpersuasive without the necessary nitty gritty on the actual matters we are discussing.
Here’s an example of what I mean – this links to a list of studies on global sea level, in which obs and uncertainties are well discussed.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/papers-on-global-sea-level/
Have you picked through studies like this to gauge the state of the science on the matters we’ve mentioned here? If so, point to some that corroborate your views.
A quick word on “outliers.”
Some bloggers in the ‘skeptic’ community specifically hunt down any paper that contradicts the mainstream and/or concurs with the ‘skeptic’ view.
Thus, if 20 papers a year on a given topic support the mainstream view, and 1 does not, this is the paper that makes the cut – exclusively – into the skeptics view of the matter.
Which is why you read comments at skeptic blogs about “final nails” and houses of cards. They believe that the outlying papers they have funnelled to them by dedicated filters of science, are new trends in scientific thought. They have no idea that the papers they are getting are (usually) outliers. They get fooled into thinking that there is an evenly balanced ‘dispute’ on a given topic.
That’s not to mention how shoddy the filter is, such that papers are cited that DON’T actually say what is hoped – because the filterer was looking for the money q
A quick word on “outliers.”
Some bloggers in the ‘skeptic’ community specifically hunt down any paper that contradicts the mainstream and/or concurs with the ‘skeptic’ view.
Thus, if 20 papers a year on a given topic support the mainstream view, and 1 does not, this is the paper that makes the cut – exclusively – into the skeptics view of the matter.
This deliberate, specific filtering (anti-AGW) gives a lop-sided view of the landscape of scientific opinion to those who get their understanding of the science exclusively, or nearly exclusively from skeptic blogs.
One can give audience, but not equal weight to outlying views. Science does not advance in such a gimcrack manner.
On policy-makers: they should go with the prevailing scientific view, not some maverick view. They are not scientists.
Sorry about the double-post. Blog told me my first one hadn’t made it when I bumped send. Second one is the better edit, anyway.
I am and try to make clear I am talking about uncertainty. And I am talking about uncertainty of recent total system heat content, not the atmosphere, not the ocean surface, just the uncertainty that is occurring on short time scales.
This is still not clear. Are you talking about trends? Total heat content for a specific, month/year/pentad?
Short term trends are always less certain than long term trends. No argument. If you want to talk about trends, just clarify and we can.
Because that uncertainty is different from the uncertainty of individual measurements, and different again from large-sample averages of measurement.
You are in essence, as I see it, quibbling about the chance of that uncertainty.
I’m saying that uncertainty can be and is quantified for the things we are talking about. You’re being general, not specific, and we’re not advancing this conversation, I think, until you provide more specifics for your views.
My concern about the monitoring systems extends that uncertainty.
Please be specific. What precise concerns (as opposed to generalised ideas)?
I get upset when a data set like the early ARGO short term record of recent cooling gets modified by extrapolations from longer term, messier data sea level data and then justified by a guess that buoys must be leaking.
Please be specific. Cite something. I couldn’t substantiate what you’re saying here, so it looks like you might be confused about what has actually happened.
barry says: – No, she is restricting her paper to solar forcing + some in-system oscillations which she doesnt explore in the slightest, but simply applies Akasofus graphic. She is not arguing that solar is the only, or even dominant forcing going on. Otherwise that would be clearly stated in the paper.
———–
LOL! Its quantified in the paper. 2.5 degrees in 6 centuries is about 80% of the long term trend. Clearly stating that wasn’t within the scope of the paper considering there is an argument over what the CO2 warming rate is projected to be. And if she had stated it I doubt Nature would have published it.
That sort of nonsense from the point of view of Nature is only allowed from one side of the CO2 argument. She got darned close actually putting Akasofu’s graphic in the paper as an example of the trend she was explaining. LMAO! Bet she had a few laughs over that like I am.
————-
————-
barry says: –
Thats why Scott is unable to provide the interview he mentioned, where she claims CO2 has little influence.
———-
there is no question she pursued this project as a skeptic. You have to have your head buried in the sand not to see that. Or is skeptic too nice of a word to use Barry?
———
———
Barry says: –
Ive asked for information to corroborate quite a few things youve said, and you have provided zero refs, links, or anything to corroborate. So how about making good on this argument youre making with some specific cites?
———-
Most of the comments I have made deal with my area of expertise and with a little education in those areas and common sense there is no need for a “study”. But I did mention a few things like adjusting the ARGO record using buoys. If you didn’t see that go by several years ago I can dig up a reference or two on that if you wish. If there is something else specifically related to science as opposed to scientists in general, internal controls of the government, independence, etc. if you point out which science I may have mentioned or which specific event I will gladly oblige you.
Barry says: –
Outlying views? Relying on the ol appeal to authority and popularity fallacies I see.
No, you dont see at all. My remark is not an appeal to authority. Learn your fallacies.
———-
I was a straight A philosophy major with a concentration in logic, language, and metaphysics. Studied under one of the greatest logicians ever. Worked as a professional skeptic for 30 years uncovering illogical assumptions, data poor situations, and out of control data situations. I know my fallacies. You suggested I was “giving an unreasonable amount of weight to a couple of outlying views. Outlying? Do you even know what an outlier is?
Barry says: –
I notice you have not provided any references that corroborate your view on sea level rise uncertainty.
————-
LOL! You are funny! Listen carefully I don’t dispute sea level rise. What I disputed was validating a correction to a 4 year ocean temperature record provided by ARGO using 20 year plus sea level model outputs. I don’t dispute the 20 year output either.
How about you show me a 2003 to 2007 study that states sea level rose then? Then just maybe there will be something to dispute. The only thing I am disputing is whether such a study exists and a study that concludes studies of such short duration are worthy of adjusting thermometers. How about you provide that first so I have something to study?
If a generic study that expresses the sorts of concerns over models that project sea level rise or are used to estimate shorter term rises. Here is a link that at least starts naming some of the problems with these models. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EF000849
—————-
—————-
Barry says: – Have you picked through studies like this to gauge the state of the science on the matters weve mentioned here? If so, point to some that corroborate your views.
———–
Yes, As I said before it is likely sea level changes sign every day. It almost certainly changes sign during the ENSO cycle. I have detected a climate warming signal in the surface temperature record in time with the solar cycle cycling from zero warming to .4C/decade over the course of 4 consecutive solar cycles. To avoid that problem the minimum you need to detect consistent warming is at least as long as a solar cycle and when appending an ENSO cycle on that anything less than 17 years is completely unjustified. . . .and the only argument is whether it should be longer than that. (e.g. the 20 year record might be fine for that 20 years, but be an anomaly on a longer time scale)
I had a very simple complaint. If you change the sign of a thermometer record for a short sample time period have something that matches that time period that hasn’t been averaged from a longer time period to do it.
Can’t you get the logic of that? It doesn’t baffle me that scientists don’t get it because the scientists ruling the roost have a political message to send. . . .and they think its justified to pretend that buoys are leaking and heat is transporting through the upper ocean to the bottom of the ocean because they have no other explanation. In that environment of total lack of control what can you depend upon?
barry says:
On policy-makers: they should go with the prevailing scientific view, not some maverick view. They are not scientists.
———-
You are truly insane! Why bother voting if thats the way it should be? Science isn’t a popularity contest.
What policy makers should have is a fully independent science staff, not for each policy maker but for each decision body, appointed from a pool of accredited scientists and qualified civil servants in a way that provides a balance of political views to winnow through the body of science, determine areas of uncertainty, recommend further research, and recommend the acceptance of papers by the policy body that have relatively little uncertainty as a single point of consideration by the policy body among all the considerations of the needs, costs, and benefits to the stakeholders they represent.
Should popularity of an idea between scientists interested enough to work on the topic be a standard? Nope! Thats how you create unrepresentative samples that destroys any validation by popularity.
LOL! Its quantified in the paper. 2.5 degrees in 6 centuries is about 80% of the long term trend.
Are you aware that this is a projection of future climate? How can it possibly 80% of anything observed?
Assuming you DO realise that, then do you realise it comes just from simply extending Akasufu’s graphic, which itself is not based on any physical mechanism?
The mid-range projections for temperature change from CO2 over the 21st Century is about 3C. Zharkova’s prediction is definitely not 80% of the IPCC prediction. Don’t tell me you’re making the classic blunder of assuming a linear trend is predictive. That’s completely non-physical.
And if she had stated it I doubt Nature would have published it.
This conspiracy theorizing is contemptible. It is anti-science.
“There is no question she pursued this project as a skeptic.”
Great, then you will provide the unquestionable evidence. Meanwhile her papers defers to the possibility of CO2 having a significant influence at several points.
A clear quote, either from her paper or from herself would be appreciated.
Otherwise, you, like Scott, are making huge assumptions based on very little. I am actually skeptical. I wish others were as rigorous.
But I did mention a few things like adjusting the ARGO record using buoys. If you didnt see that go by several years ago I can dig up a reference or two on that if you wish.
Yes, definitely. I couldn’t substantiate your claim here. Please dig that up.
I was a straight A philosophy major with a concentration in logic, language, and metaphysics. Studied under one of the greatest logicians ever. Worked as a professional skeptic for 30 years uncovering illogical assumptions, data poor situations, and out of control data situations. I know my fallacies. You suggested I was “giving an unreasonable amount of weight to a couple of outlying views.” Outlying? Do you even know what an outlier is?
If 9 doctors tell you to get surgery for cancer and 1 advises it is not necessary, then treating the two different views with equal weight is not logical.
Pointing out that a particular view is an outlier is not remotely an appeal to authority. If you think otherwise, you should be able to name the authority I am appealing to.
Appealing to expertise is what I’ve been doing, and the weight of opinion vs outliers is reasonable discourse on the state of the science in any field.
How about less rhetoric and more substance? I look forward to the references corroborating your views.
As I said before it is likely sea level changes sign every day. It almost certainly changes sign during the ENSO cycle.
Of course! This is BASIC. Sea level is not some monotonous function. Daily, weekly, monthly annual and pentadal changes of both signs occur. The general trend for the last century or so is upward.
because the scientists ruling the roost have a political message to send
Oh, Jesus Christ.
How can we hope to have a proper discussion when every paper and data set that goes against your views can be dismissed with a call to corruption, and everything that comports with your view is golden? Your worldview on this is set to protect itself from any disruption. Doesn’t matter if you know who made a certain data set, they are automatically corrupt if you need them to be.
What policy makers should have is a fully independent science staff, not for each policy maker but for each decision body, appointed from a pool of accredited scientists and qualified civil servants in a way that provides a balance of political views to winnow through the body of science
The CIA does not need “a balance of political views” to assess threats and offer advice. Neither does science need “a balance of political views” to gather and process data and offer advice on the weight of scientific opinion.
Why bother voting if thats the way it should be?
We don’t vote for our preferred military intelligence, and we don’t vote for our favourite scientific opinion.
I have no problem with policy-makers making policy against the weight of scientific opinion. There can be extenuating reasons for doing so. The problem occurs when they set themselves as judges of the science. THAT’s insanity.
We’ve been discussing observed seas level rise, but you linked to a paper on sea level projections to the future.
Ok.
The interesting paper advises that the various contributors to sea level rise can be modeled as independent, semi-dependent and dependent factors, and concludes that uncertainty is higher when modeled as dependent contributors.
From the abstract:
Assuming that sea level contributors are independent of each other, an assumption made in many sea level projections underestimates the uncertainty in sea level projections. As a result, high‐end low probability events that are important for decision making are underestimated.
Uncertainty cuts in all sorts of ways.
barry says: – Are you aware that this is a projection of future climate? How can it possibly 80% of anything observed?
———-
Inductive logic is what everything is based upon Barry. Unless you are predicting Martians are going to invade and that doesn’t flow from logic at all.
————–
—————
barry says: –
This conspiracy theorizing is contemptible. It is anti-science.
———-
What conspiracy theorizing are you talking about? Nature is biased but I seriously doubt they are part of a conspiracy. Nature makes more money from media income than anything else what they have is a bias like all media where money flows from crisis.
But here I am giving them credit for publishing an article
————–
—————
barry says: –
Meanwhile her papers defers to the possibility of CO2 having a significant influence at several points.
———-
Hey I even think there is an extremely remote possibility the Martians would invade too. Did she quantify any of that possibility?
Your problem is that you are denial. Al Gore made it mission to establish all warming of the industrial revolution as CO2 caused and use that fact to project an acceleration of that awesome power to increasing emissions. All Zharkova is doing is chopping it off at the knees, leaving perhaps 20% unexplained. You can refuse to acknowledge that in order to keep your dream alive if you wish.
————–
—————
barry says: –
A clear quote, either from her paper or from herself would be appreciated.
———-
Hey you are entitled to imagine what you want to imagine. Does one more vote actually matter that much to you?
————–
—————
barry says: –
Yes, definitely. I couldnt substantiate your claim here. Please dig that up.
———-
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/
This for a starter course in the hodgepodge related to creating new data from instruments. Not sure if I can find the original version. Funny how satellite drift is good in one study and bad in another huh?
————–
—————
barry says: –
If 9 doctors tell you to get surgery for cancer and 1 advises it is not necessary, then treating the two different views with equal weight is not logical.
———-
What I do when confronted by a popular imbalance is dig deeper. What you suggest is say in a trial you count witnesses for both sides and determine who wins by who has the most witnesses. A jurist is on a policy decision making body. The number of expert witnesses that one side can afford to bring to the table shouldn’t be a consideration. Ultimately the jurist must decide who to believe. Often that choice is to just ignore the expert witness testimony and look to other testimony to develop a clear picture of what is going on to a level appropriate to where ones freedoms should be limited.
————–
—————
barry says: –
Pointing out that a particular view is an outlier is not remotely an appeal to authority. If you think otherwise, you should be able to name the authority I am appealing to.
———-
Authority established by popularity. An outlier isn’t just simply a deviation. An outlier is something that is clearly wrong. You are confounding the process in identifying an outlier. First you find a different lonely result then you produce evidence the result is wrong and then and only then you potentially have an outlier.
————–
—————
barry says: –
Appealing to expertise is what Ive been doing, and the weight of opinion vs outliers is reasonable discourse on the state of the science in any field.
———-
Expertise defined by what? Authority? Numbers? You see what it really gets down to is evidence not popularity or authority.
————–
—————
barry says: –
How can we hope to have a proper discussion when every paper and data set that goes against your views can be dismissed with a call to corruption, and everything that comports with your view is golden?
———-
Strawman!
————–
—————
barry says: –
Your worldview on this is set to protect itself from any disruption. Doesnt matter if you know who made a certain data set, they are automatically corrupt if you need them to be.
———-
Strawman!
————–
—————
barry says: –
The CIA does not need a balance of political views to assess threats and offer advice. Neither does science need a balance of political views to gather and process data and offer advice on the weight of scientific opinion.
———-
That would be accepting a whole additional level of risk that can be easily mitigated by having a politically-balanced panel of experts.
————–
—————
barry says: –
We dont vote for our preferred military intelligence, and we dont vote for our favourite scientific opinion.
———-
No. But you are totally confused. My comment was in regards to giving up the vote we do have and giving it to scientists and experts.
————–
—————
barry says: –
I have no problem with policy-makers making policy against the weight of scientific opinion. There can be extenuating reasons for doing so. The problem occurs when they set themselves as judges of the science. THATs insanity.
————-
I don’t know any policy makers that do that. The role of science is to inform policy.
Ultimately, like I have repeatedly described to you the open-minded policy maker will keep the full range of legitimate scientific opinions on the table when making a policy decision.
It would be inappropriate as you suggest to judge which science is correct. Thus keeping the entire range of opinions in mind from the entire range of competent and established scientists is the appropriate response.
barry says: – Some bloggers in the skeptic community specifically hunt down any paper that contradicts the mainstream and/or concurs with the skeptic view. Thus, if 20 papers a year on a given topic support the mainstream view, and 1 does not, this is the paper that makes the cut exclusively into the skeptics view of the matter.
———–
I think you are trying to pigeon-hole skeptics. A skeptic is not somebody who fervently believes an alternative view, though current discourse has wrongly categorized them often as skeptics.
A skeptic is one who does search for contrary evidence and offers up as proof a claimed consensus is phony. However, if that skeptic then advocates the alternative idea as the correct and final answer he is not being a skeptic when other expert views still exist.
Ah, so you’ve become argumentative. Let’s keep this simple.
The article you linked to corroborate your opinion on ARGO data and sea level does not mention sea level WRT to ARGO. It mentions sea level and XBTs.
The XBT data was not adjusted according to sea level. Sea level was used as a locator for spurious readings, and then the XBT data was checked against other data, where the discrepancy was verified.
Sea level data is not used to calibrate ocean heat content data. It is used to help ascertain OHC uncertainty.
Here is the paper describing methods, and beginning with the data corrections referred to in the article you linked. Note that the protagonist in the article is the co-author of this study. https://tinyurl.com/y4822how
The article you linked to is one of the ones I checked yesterday, as it pops up near the top of a google search using key words of your claim.
You have this completely wrong, as I thought. Do read the paper I’ve linked 2 paragraphs above before you comment.
Let’s make a habit of providing references. It cuts through the shit.
An outlier isn’t just simply a deviation. An outlier is something that is clearly wrong.
That’s a peculiar definition:
Cambridge dictionary:
a person, thing, or fact that is very different from other people, things, or facts, so that it cannot be used to draw general conclusions
Oxford dictionary:
a person or thing that is different from or in a position away from others in the group
Merriam-Webster:
a person or thing that is atypical within a particular group, class, or category
In statistics it is a deviation that goes well beyond the normal distribution.
No definition posits that an outlier is something that is ‘wrong’.
It is entirely reasonable to point out that a view is an outlier when discussing the state of understanding on any topic.
If you want to weigh the evidence of outlying views against conventional wisdom then you are free to do that. But you haven’t. You’ve simply been argumentative.
Let’s see. Your definition of terms is imperfect. Your comprehension of how sea level data apply to ocean heat content is misinformed. You named my ‘authority’ as ‘popularity’. So the fallacy you are charging me with is argumentum ad populum.
And you studied philosophy under one of the greats.
Recognizing the weight of expert opinion is not argumentum ad populum. My remark did not propose something was true just because it is popular. And you are arbitrarily waving away expertise, which actually matters. It’s why you don’t get medical advice from your plumber.
A skeptic is not somebody who fervently believes an alternative view
Agreed.
though current discourse has wrongly categorized them often as skeptics.
When quoting me, you left off the quote marks I put around ‘skeptic’. I am referring to those in the climate debates who call themselves skeptics (though they are not). These people believe in any paper that comports with their view. These people makes accusations of conspiracy even when they do not know the names of the people they are accusing, or what they actually do.
These people, as I said, specifically search for contrary opinion and give that primacy over the majority opinion, usually claiming that the majority opinion is corrupt.
These people are not truly skeptics. It offends me to call them so, which is why I usually apply quotes. But they don’t like other terms I think are more appropriate, and this is the term they most frequently use to describe themselves.
And they are by far in the majority of people critical of anthropogenic global warming.
You are probably right in definition of outlier. I was coming at from a professional auditor point of view where outliers are a red flag and not something to be discarded. Likewise juries should also consider outliers and not discard them without due consideration.
Same deal with the ARGO corrections. The original adjustments and backtracking by Willis was done on sea level disagreements alone. At the time he noted a small residual cooling left in where subsequently they used inferior instruments to make the adjustments.
If you will note the top of the original article states it was modified over time. If you read the whole thing you will then be in possession of the whole mess.
I read the whole article yesterday well before you posted the link. In my last comment I linked you to the paper on which the article is based – and advised you read before you comment.
Sea level was not used to calibrate any float data. Read the paper.
Willis’ OHC for the post 2003 period was at odds with other observations, as mentioned in the article. Other people suggested to him something was wrong. So he checked.
Sea level was one of a number of metrics used to try and LOCATE potential bad data areas. The flagged data were then cross-referenced with other temp data for the same area. That is one of the ways in which the discrepancy was verified. According to the paper, the discrepancy was caused by a software issue with a subset of the ARGO floats.
Read the paper. Nowhere does it say that buoy data was calibrated using sea level. It does not say so in the article, either. In fact, the paper says that data from buoys with faulty software were discarded.
You are wrong about this. Here is the paper to read. The first section concerns the correction updates that the article you linked is about. The second section is the original paper that they are correcting.
https://tinyurl.com/y4822how
BTW, this is the original article that Marohasy is quoting.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling
At the bottom of either article are the references, including the paper I have linked for you, the basis of the article.
I kept looking for any work that corroborates what you said. Let’s review your comment:
“I get upset when a data set like the early ARGO short term record of recent cooling gets modified by extrapolations from longer term, messier data sea level data and then justified by a guess that buoys must be leaking.”
The nearest work I could find, found by checking the cite reference to the Willis paper your linked article refers to, is a paper by Willis et al a year later.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008GL035115
In this, sea level (and changes in oceanic mass and other factors) are used as a validity check on OHC. The ARGO record is in no way “modified by extrapolations” from sea level data in this paper.
Nor could I find any connection between “leaking buoys” and OHC/sea level corrections that we’re discussing. It appears to be a separate issue, and one noted in the literature 13 years prior to the Willis corrections. It does not feature in the Willis corrections. And in any case the leakage results in a possible warm bias, not a cool bias, apparently. So it’s not a post-hoc rationalization, as you imply, on several counts.
There are 2 hyperlinks in the previous paragraph to the papers on buoy leakage from 1994 and 2002.
Scott,
“She made it clear during an interview that she believes these natural cycles are driving the climate including the current warming period. Not Co2.”
I couldn’t find an interview with her saying that. I have doubts she would hold that CO2 has played no part in recent warming. Would you oblige with a link?
Here’s a brief peer-reviewed critique of her solar model, for your interest.
https://tinyurl.com/y4683j98
barry says: “I have doubts she would hold that CO2 has played no part in recent warming. Would you oblige with a link?”
No part? Maybe! But saying what Scott said: “she believes these natural cycles are driving the climate including the current warming period. Not Co2”, doesn’t say “no role”, just no driving “role”.
Here is what she said in the paper: “This
trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the
terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5C by 2600.”
and,
“A reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar
irradiance (TSI) since the Maunder minimum by a value of about 11.5 Wm−2 27. Tis increase is closely correlated with the similar increase of the average terrestrial temperature”
Golly I will go for a .38 CO2 total sensitivity parameter for baseline total heat trapping. In fact thats what I glean from a series of reasonableness tests. You could probably squeeze that into what she said if you wanted to without creating any conflict.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3.pdf
I think its a fascinating article. I have long wondered about the magnetic fields as a driver of internal variation via affecting wind and less directly current patterns which are believed to be mostly shaped by winds. But hadn’t considered it in terms of external variability, though I have considered the possibility that given the 400 to 600 year decline into the LIA we could be in store for a lot more recovery as I had not seen these graphs before showing those levels of magnetic activity variation. I especially took notice of an announcement a few years ago of very unprecedented changes of magnetic fields between the sun and earth.
Let’s quote some more from that paper:
“it is not clear yet if this trend in the terrestrial temperature and solar irradiance is caused directly by the increased solar activity itself or by some other factors of the solar-terrestrial interaction in the whole solar system and human activities…
Of course, any human-induced contributions can make this increase more unpredictable and difficult to handle if they will override the effects on the temperature induced by the Sun…
These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper….”
How in the world do you deduce that Zharkova is a ‘skeptic’ (your term)?
— barry says: –
Thats why Scott is unable to provide the interview he mentioned, where she claims CO2 has little influence.
_____
— Bill says: –
there is no question she pursued this project as a skeptic.
You are using the term colloquially, as in someone who challenges or rejects the mainstream notions of AGW. I can’t see how you would leap to that conclusion, other than her use of Akasofu’s graph (which smacks more of laziness to me).
When Zharkova was interviewed after her 2015 paper on solar cycles (which makes no mention of Earth or climate), she replied that she hadn’t considered terrestrial climate, but that a link would make sense. I think she has updated her solar work, and done the briefest work (and I mean ‘googled’) on terrestrial climate, finding Akasofu’s graph. The scientific linkage between her work and Akasofu’s in her paper is incredibly threadbare. It looks like an afterthought to me.
Thus, I do not agree that it is at all clear that she is challenging or downplaying the mainstream view of AGW in any way with her paper.
I await confirmation from Scott that she has been more specific in an interview that he has mentioned. I couldn’t find it.
barry says: – “it is not clear yet if this trend in the terrestrial temperature and solar irradiance is caused directly by the increased solar activity itself or by some other factors of the solar-terrestrial interaction in the whole solar system and human activities…
Of course, any human-induced contributions can make this increase more unpredictable and difficult to handle if they will override the effects on the temperature induced by the Sun…
—————
Its almost an identical quote by Akasofu who was doing nothing but calling for calm and deliberate additional work before trying to come up with a terribly convoluted attribution to satisfy politics. Its also almost exactly my position.
I still haven’t heard the interview either so I am neutral on whether Scott took a little too much liberty or not. I am just pointing out she searched for another answer and found something. That takes a lot of skepticism to do that.
I am just pointing out she searched for another answer and found something.
Vague. You mean another answer to CO2 being a primary cause of global warming, don’t you? But in her own words, in the paper cited above, she says that CO2 may “override” solar affects, and that investigation of this is outside the scope of her study.
That takes a lot of skepticism to do that.
The scientific method is rooted in skepticism. Calling any researcher a skeptic in this sense is a tautology. But you used the term ‘skeptic,’ as I quoted you, specifically regarding people who challenge or downplay the impact of CO2 on climate change. She has not done this, and arguing otherwise seems to rest on selective reading and overinterpretation of Zharkov’s paper.
She didn’t obviously search for an alternative answer to CO2 warming: That is your projection. She didn’t obviously approach the work as an AGW skeptic: that is your projection.
Its almost an identical quote by Akasofu who was doing nothing but calling for calm and deliberate additional work before trying to come up with a terribly convoluted attribution to satisfy politics.
Unclear. Are you saying Akasofu was trying to come up with a terribly convoluted attribution study? Or something else?
Its also almost exactly my position.
I’m going to take a stab that your position is that “We don’t know enough about AGW to make policy decisions.”
I disagree, but before we discuss that, I wonder if you would kindly quantify the point at which you would say we do know enough to make policy decisions.
When you have done that, I will have something to say about the nature of the risk with respect to anthropogenic global warming.
Upthread I posted a study critical of the Zharkova 2015 paper on solar cycles. Here it is.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05516.pdf
In the name of weighing evidence…
BTW, searched google scholar for all Zharkov papers. She has none on terrestrial climate. She is purely a solar researcher.
https://tinyurl.com/y2fjvbhq
I re-checked Akasofu’s paper after many years not looking at it. Nowhere in there is there any mention of policy notions. Thank goodness. The paper was already pretty weak without being overtly infected by politics.
We can test his oscillation model.
https://tinyurl.com/y5qb5xdt
PDO has been out of phase with global temps since 1980.
But while Akasofu mentions PDO as an example of decadal scale oscillations that could be responsible for global av temp fluctuations, he doesn’t actually attribute PDO to that.
He is careful in his paper to never test any physical mechanism for the warming trend or the oscillations ion his paper. It is a curve-fitting exercise in order to suggest, but never properly test correlations.
Essentially his message is “Hey, it could all be natural,” but he never offers a testable hypothesis.
That’s why the paper is weak. I can only assume Zharkova was incredibly lazy using Akasofu’s graph in her paper. Its very substandard work.
I should learn how to overlay graphs on some dedicated image processor, but I managed to overlay Akasofu’s near-term ‘prediction’ of global temperature evolution with observed data (UK Met Office global data set).
https://tinyurl.com/y36rxrm4
The Met Office data has a more expanded Y axis than the Akasofu chart, so make sure to compensate on viewing. The tool I was using didn’t have function to stretch the image.
But it’s clear that Akasofu’s prediction is not being born out thus far. It should be cooling since 2007 according to him. If the Y axes matched, the Met Office latest data for the last few years would be somewhere in the middle of the “IPCC prediction” envelope according to Akasofu’s chart. But I understand that surface obs are nearer the bottom of that envelope currently.
barry says: – The scientific method is rooted in skepticism. Calling any researcher a skeptic in this sense is a tautology.
————-
Indeed should be so. but that would mean stripping the credentials off a whole lot of scientists.
————-
————
barry says: – But you used the term skeptic, as I quoted you, specifically regarding people who challenge or downplay the impact of CO2 on climate change.
———-
Challenge? Thats what skeptics do. Acquiesce is what the inculcated do.
Downplay the impact of CO2 on climate change? Thats what numbers do. She is bringing numbers that explain the industrial age warming. Perhaps there will be something else significant that shows up, who knows?
———–
———-
barry says: –
She didnt obviously search for an alternative answer to CO2 warming: That is your projection. She didnt obviously approach the work as an AGW skeptic: that is your projection.
———–
LOL! What she did was see warming, hear an implausible explanation and set off in search of an answer. If the answer had been plausible why would she look for one?
—————–
—————–
barry says: –
Its almost an identical quote by Akasofu who was doing nothing but calling for calm and deliberate additional work before trying to come up with a terribly convoluted attribution to satisfy politics.
Unclear. Are you saying Akasofu was trying to come up with a terribly convoluted attribution study? Or something else?
———–
Akasofu is just an old buzzard like me who has seen a thing or two and was well aware that Al Gore and his movie was a crock.
Its also almost exactly my position.
—————–
—————–
barry says: –
Im going to take a stab that your position is that We dont know enough about AGW to make policy decisions.
————-
Nope, but its a very good position to take if you are really sure.
—————–
—————–
barry says: –
I disagree, but before we discuss that, I wonder if you would kindly quantify the point at which you would say we do know enough to make policy decisions.
————
When we are 1) confident that its going to be bad 2) that voluntary action isn’t going to be adequate. 3) when there are a lot of folks already volunteering (which by the way is sort of full circle and helps confirm number 1). People sure of something bad take action unilaterally. As it sits right now all we got a lot of folks giving lip service to it and expecting the oil companies to do it for them. Thats not exactly being worried.
barry says: – Upthread I posted a study critical of the Zharkova 2015 paper on solar cycles. Here it is.
————–
I am not going to discuss Zharkova’s paper from an authentication point of view. I have only zoomed through it. Generally as I have expressed here I don’t like these great compendiums of projected outcomes, though I do very much see the value of them after they have been validated. However, before being validated they are usually junk. The validation process is in every successful instance I have seen is a process of rewriting the entire theory to fit what we learn from observations. However, today there is a huge effort afoot to change the observations rather than adjust the theory.
———-
———-
barry says: – BTW, searched google scholar for all Zharkov papers. She has none on terrestrial climate. She is purely a solar researcher.
———–
Gee did you also dig into James Hansen’s and find out he was purely an astronomer?
———–
———–
Barry says: – PDO has been out of phase with global temps since 1980.
—–
No it hasn’t.
———
———
Barry says: –
He is careful in his paper to never test any physical mechanism for the warming trend or the oscillations ion his paper. It is a curve-fitting exercise in order to suggest, but never properly test correlations.
————–
Akasofu is retired. He was merely giving some information from his experience. Fact is temperature has fluctuated robustly for the entire instrument record and before that via many other records. . . .despite all the efforts to rewrite daily instrument records and eliminate that.
But its difficult to eliminate the millions of documented observations of a thousand proxies, some of which were also in Akasofu’s paper. That and along with the biological history of many species that follow these temperature changes. The folks trying to rewrite the observation history have a big job on their hands.
Scott R,
increase of ionization by GCR in the lower stratosphere causes blocking latitudinal circulation. That is why there are extremes in winter and in summer.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_NH_2019.png
In 2020, Jupiter and Saturn will conjunction. I think that when they start to move away from each other, the magnetic activity of the Sun may decline.
Ren interesting diagram. I’ll have to study / think about that and see how that might be related to the divergences I’m seeing from the 1980-2016? warming trend.
If there is anything to planetary alignment and climate, over the next 20 years as we move away from this formation, we should see a shift to Feb-May being the highest positive departure and September – November the lowest negative departure. Or maybe this pattern only holds when we have an alignment more centered on our summer and winter in which case, we have a vary rare set up right now and the summer / winter splits will disappear for the rest of our lives.
Scott R,
in winter, the stratospheric polar vortex always operates, and the stratosphere lowers almost to the surface at the poles. Therefore, ice will never disappear at high latitudes.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/
Scott R,
if La Nina is formed in the winter, strong stratospheric intrusions in North America threaten in winter.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Ren,
We MAY have one this winter. I’m expecting some seriously cold winter weather for the next 5 years as we go into the bottom 1/2 of the 11 year El Nino cycle with winter 2023 being the coldest winter since at least the early 80s. We will probably get some relief in 2021 as the 2.2 harmonic saves us a little coupled with most likely drier air as we will be a good distance away from the warm, moist El Nino air we are currently enjoying. Then by 2023, all remnants of the AGW theory will be dispelled as we freeze our @$$ off.
Course… all this comes with the assumption that we are NOT going into some kind of earth magnetic field reversal / excursion right now. If that happens, God help us all because that puts the Adam and Eve story on the table as a possible outcome if you’ve read that theory. Or maybe nothing happens. Who knows.
SR,
Who knows, indeed. It seems to me that chaos theory is applicable – can explain pretty much everything, along with the uncertainty principle, but predicts nothing.
Many physicists will be horrified, because the basis of real science is that predictions can be made, and experiments devised to check them.
As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
No contradiction – just as with wave/particle duality, I accept prediction/prediction duality, if you get my meaning. As far as modelling goes, following up on “The hypothesis of irreducible imprecision and uncertainty is not directly testable in any single simulation.” might help.
I love it! Nature is definitely absurd, but she’s in charge.
Mike…”As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.””
And as David Bohm alluded, an equation with no reality to back it is garbage.
Scott R,
note that there are currently no tropical cyclones on the oceans.
The tropical storm will land ashore in the south of the US and bring heavy rainstorms.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/07/13/1800Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=precip_3hr/orthographic=-89.98,29.52,3000/loc=-90.449,30.500
Scott,
“on what could possibly be causing the winter / summer split. ”
More open ocean area means more heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere…
Hence warmer anomilies in the winter..
It is the open water that drives the anomolies, not the anomilies melting the ice….
Wow, interesting!
And what is the cause for “More open ocean area” ?
Please don’t answer “Geothermal activity” if you do not want to ridicule yourself…
Bin,
“And what is the cause for More open ocean area ?”
uh, warmer oceans… you couldn’t figure that out yourself?
Let’s put that all together.
“More open ocean area means… warmer anomilies in the winter… the cause for More open ocean area… warmer oceans.”
Warmth causes warmth. Brilliant.
barry, please stop trolling.
PhilJ / Bindidon,
You didn’t quite understand my winter summer split. NH winters are getting colder since 98 even though the area covered by ice was getting smaller until 2016 when it reversed. NH summers are getting warmer.
Globally we have the opposite. Summers are lagging winters. So this means in the SH, winters are getting warmer, and summers cooler.
When you have a winter / summer split like this aligning with earth’s orbit, it is hard to ignore the case for some kind of natural cycle. If say the increased irradiance in the NH drives the glaciation cycle due to the earth’s obliquity, isn’t it reasonable to assume that this also effects short term climate?
So right now the earth’s orbit in the summer is slightly closer than normal due to planetary alignment. This is melting ice at the north pole and decreasing the earth’s albedo. This could explain the 40 year up trend, and the summer / winter split. Once the alignment ends, we should go back down to baseline in theory.
Course… in my opinion, the sun is going to go to sleep regardless. All the stars are aligned for a rapid cooling event to occur as these long term, intermediate term, short term natural cycles combine.
Scott,
“You didn’t quite understand my winter summer split. NH winters are getting colder since 98 even though the area covered by ice was getting smaller until 2016 when it reversed. NH summers are getting warmer”
I’m not sure that cleared it up for me…
NH winters are getting cooler by what metric? are you referring to SST, air temps, measured near surface land temps? At what locations?
I can tell you from personal experience that here in the centre of the continent, winters were quite mild (overall) through the 2000’s and then started getting colder, till in 2013 we had our coldest winter in 100 years…
It has warmed a little since then, but the last couple of springs have been very cold, and I am not looking forward to the next few winters… 🙁
What I have been saying is that IF the SST’s are dropping then the ice extent will recover and air temp anomalies will fall..
If SST’s have stabilized , ice extent will stabilize and air temp anomalies will stabilize
If SST’s rise then ice will continue to retreat and air temp anomalies will rise…
As to predicting solar activity by the motions of the planets… I haven’t even considered it… maybe some nice light reading for my upcoming vacation lol
More Fun with Pseudoscience.
Debunking the “Energy Budget”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
So far, we have:
1) Fluxes aren’t conserved, so trying to balance them is ludicrous.
2) A flux cannot be divided by 4, without destroying the properties of the flux.
3) The “yellow” solar on the chart does not add correctly. 340.4 does not equal 340.3.
4) The atmosphere emits 169.9 to space, but somehow manages to emit twice as much to the surface!
And now, the latest addition,
5) There is no way to accurately measure “thermals”. The “18.4” figure is likely an adjustable amount, to be used as needed.
Stay tuned, there is more to come.
1. This is an energy budget diagram. The fluxes are for energy and are not necessarily meant to be used as EM fluxes. Energy is conserved.
2. The only division by 4 in this diagram is the derivation of the incoming solar energy from the solar constant. As has been discussed ad-nauseam the division by 4 is a shortcut based on geometrical principals.
3. Rounding error.
4. Yeah, that’s inline with expectations. What was your expectation?
5. Correct. According to Wild et al. this is the most uncertain flux in these energy budget analysis because it is “the least constrained by observations”. That doesn’t mean the value isn’t known within some margin of error though.
b,
Using the NASA energy budget diagram, how do you explain the cooling of the surface over the last four and a half billion years or so?
NASA’s claim of “balance” is obviously delusional. Whoever authored that cartoon has little understanding of physics.
The Earth has cooled. No GHE. No CO2 heating.
You need to appeal to better authority. Depending on fakers, frauds, and fools is likely to lead you astray.
Cheers.
1. Wrong bdg. Open your eyes. The values are fluxes, not energy. There is a difference. 960 Watts/m^2 impacts Earth, after albedo, yet only 240 Watts/m^2 leaves Earth. 960 does NOT equal 240.
2. Wrong bdg. The divide by 4 is unnessary. It is done to make it appear solar cannot warm the Earth. In the bogus diagram, they have “back-radiation” twice what solar “absorbed by surface” is (340.3 vs. 163.3). They fool many fools that way.
3. Wrong bdg. It is an arithmetic error. The “rounding” had already been done. They have the physics wrong. They can’t add/subtract. Yet you swallow their pseudoscience as quick as you can, thinking it makes you smart.
4. Wrong bdg. The “expectation” would be that they follow the laws of physics. The atmosphere emits equally in all directions. It does not emit twice to the surface what it emits to space. Learn some physics, and start questioning what you swallow.
5. Correct bdg. Understand, and agree with, reality. That will make you smart.
1. No. The m^2 part is in reference to the entire Earth (all ~510e12 m^2 of it). 960 W/m^2 is not what is hitting the entire Earth on average. That’s mistake #1. Also, these fluxes are derived from energy flows. They are not necessarily EM fluxes and cannot be treated as such without considering certain caveats. That is mistake #2.
2. As has been discussed ad-nauseam the solar constant is in reference to a 2D plane. The Earth is not a 2D plane. It is a 3D sphere so a conversion operation must take place to normalize this value onto a sphere which is what the Earth actually is.
3. No matter how many decimal places you have, whether it is 1 or 100, you’ll still have rounding errors when making comparisons. And besides the rounding error is less than the margin of error for most of the figures in the graphic anyway so I don’t know why the rounding error is consuming your focus. And to play devil’s advocate here if your argument is that the energy budget is bogus because it’s not 100% perfect then you’d be better served by focusing on the margin of error instead of the rounding error. I’m just saying…
4. So you’re expectation is that the bottom of the atmosphere should emit the same amount as the top of the atmosphere? That would be rather strange as it would require the top and bottom to be roughly the same temperature. Do you see the problem?
5. I’m just agreeing that the sensible flux is the least accurate because it is difficult to measure. That doesn’t mean it’s value and the margin of error cannot be quantified. And it certainly doesn’t mean the graphic isn’t useful or is bogus.
bdgwx demonstrates why the AGW hoax has lasted so long. He argues with debate tricks, not science. Consider the first point I initially made:
1) Fluxes aren’t conserved, so trying to balance them is ludicrous.
That’s just one sentence, one line, direct, simple to understand. Now look at his latest response:
1. No. The m^2 part is in reference to the entire Earth (all ~510e12 m^2 of it). 960 W/m^2 is not what is hitting the entire Earth on average. That’s mistake #1. Also, these fluxes are derived from energy flows. They are not necessarily EM fluxes and cannot be treated as such without considering certain caveats. That is mistake #2.
He’s not even addressing my point, he’s just rambling. He even includes the surface area of the planet! He’s throwing out any distraction/diversion he can think of to avoid reality.
Nothing new.
JD, in this case the fluxes are conserved. Consider energy flows Ea and Eb and time T and area A. Then the fluxes Fa and Fb in units of W/m^2 would be:
Fa = (Ea / T) / A
Fb = (Eb / T) / A
Notice that Fa and Fb are in reference to the same T and A. And because E is a conserved quantity and T and A are constant then Fa and Fb must also be conserved because:
Fa + Fb = ((Ea / T) / A) + ((Eb / T) / A) = (Ea + Eb) / T / A
What you cannot do is take Fa or Fb and treat it like an instantaneous flux to answer questions about the temperature or energy flow at a specific spot at a specific moment in time. All you can you say is that Fa or Fb represent the contribution to the flow of energy through this 3 layer model over a long time period (T) and over the entire Earth (A). For this graphic T = 10 years and A = 510e12 m^2.
The point is that you using this graphic in an inappropriate way and because of that you are getting the wrong answers to questions. That is on you and you alone. That necessarily makes your argument a strawman.
That’s a nice typing exercise, bdgwx. But, you avoid reality, again.
The so-called “energy budget” is in units of flux. That’s for a purpose. The purpose is to make it appear the atmosphere is warming the planet, not the Sun. (163.3 from solar vs. 340.3 from the atmosphere, pure pseudoscience.)
But now that I point out that using flux is invalid, you want to switch back to “energy”. But, that won’t work for you either. The atmosphere is NOT warming the surface.
Your pseudoscience is a bust. Nothing new.
You know where the backdoor is by now.
JD,
The purpose is convenience. You are certainly free to multiple the figures by T and A to get actual energy units, but I think you’ll find it rather annoying and unnecessary for communicating and discussing the topics it was designed to be used for.
Also, no one is “switching back to energy”. These energy budget analysis have always been focused on energy flows as opposed to EM radiation fluxes.
If you have a legitimate grievance with any of them then that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that before expressing this grievance that you make sure you understand why this data is expressed the way it is, what it means, and how it’s used.
Sorry bdgwx, but you’re avoiding reality, even to the point of covering up for their pseudoscience. No one does an energy balance with radiative fluxes. It makes no sense. Fluxes don’t “balance”. They don’t have to. Energy must balance, but flux does not have that requirement. Flux is not conserved.
And, adding to your deficit in physics, you have no desire to learn. You are content with your belief system, and you don’t want to face reality. Your response to the simple arithmetic mistake was to try to justify it, cover it up, distract with mention of “margin of error”. You could not face the reality that NASA had made a simple arithmetic mistake.
You don’t know physics, you’re not a scientist, and you reject reality. You’re just another typist.
Nothing new.
JD,
The figures used in the various energy budget analysis are average power fluxes. And since T and A are constant you can quickly convert them to energy fluxes or even just total energy if you like. The mode of heat/energy transmission, whether it be radiation, convection, conduction is not the focus of these types of analysis, but the amount of energy itself is. And as such the fluxes definitely balance. They have to because the 1LOT and the math says so.
Regarding the rounding error and margins of error I was just trying to play devils advocate and help you craft a better argument. If I were going to use the “if it’s not 100% perfect then it’s 100% wrong” argument I would focus on the margin of error of each individual flux since they are so much larger than the rounding error issue.
bdgwx, your NASA diagram indicates fluxes. The units are in Watts/m^2, and several times the words “emitted”, “absorbed”, or “radiation” are used. You are in DEEP denial. You reject reality and refuse learning.
You’re just another cult member that likes to type.
Nothing new.
JD,
Some of the fluxes are primarily through the radiative mechanism. I’ve already point that out. But not all of them are. For example, you’d be playing awfully loosy-goosy with terminology if you said the surface emits evaporation. The point is that these aren’t strictly radiative fluxes. And even for those that are since they represent averages over a long period of time and over the entire Earth you can’t use them like instantaneous radiation fluxes anyway. For example, you cannot use the SB law and the 29.9 W/m^2 emitted from clouds and claim the whole the thing is bogus because that works out to a cloud temperature of 152K. Remember, these are average energy flows and since clouds aren’t everywhere at all times it is inappropriate to use this energy flow in place of a radiation flux to be used in the SB law. I’ll repeat these energy budget analysis are focused on energy flows; not radiation fluxes per se.
By the way, why do you think it would be appropriate to compute a mean temperature using the SB law for the ~240 W/m^2 albedo adjusted input but not for the 30 W/m^2 cloud emission? Think about this. I gave you a clue in the above paragraph.
bdgwx, your NASA diagram indicates fluxes. The units are in Watts/m^2, and several times the words “emitted”, “absorbed”, or “radiation” are used. You are in DEEP denial. You reject reality and refuse learning.
And you have no understanding of the relevant physics, so you don’t know how funny your comment about the emitted 29.9 Watts/m^2 really is. (No wonder you hide behind a screen name.)
You’re just another cult member that likes to type and perform as a clown.
Nothing new.
‘And since T and A are constant you can quickly convert them to energy fluxes or even just total energy if you like. ‘
Exactly. Why dont you get that or even think about it JD?
The actual energies are extremely large and people don’t have a feel for these numbers.
Thus the total energies input to Earth over a day are divided by the area of the Earth, and by 24×3600 s.
They then have units of Watts/m^2, happens to be same as a flux.
It is for convenience, to compare with OUTPUT fluxes.
The units are in Watts/m^2, and several times the words “emitted”, “absorbed”, or “radiation” are used.
The clowns are in DEEP denial. Now, they even have to deny their own pseudoscience!
The meltdown continues….
barry,
“Warmth causes warmth. Brilliant.”
Yes, i know. Simple when you see it…
It follows of course that cold doesn’t cause warmth… But yes… Bingo!
Circular reasoning causes circular reasoning.
warmer ocean >> less ice>> warmer atmosphere…
what’s circular there?
“less ice”
Bingo.
b,
You wrote –
“less ice
Bingo.”
Is this supposed to be an example of stupidity through incomprehensibility?
Or maybe trying to appear smart by being inscrutable?
With a little effort, you could lead the race to return to the witless practices of Warmists in the past – comments like “Duh!”, “Wow, just wow!”, “Not even wrong!”, and other inanities.
Maybe you are only making a puerile attempt to be be gratuitously offensive. You are certainly not attempting to impart useful information, by the look of things.
Cheers.
barry,
“less ice
Bingo.”
You accuse me of circular reasoning and then make a completely illogical statement like that…
do you disagree that a warmer ocean melts more ice?
or perhaps you disagree that less ice makes a warmer atmosphere…
^^^^ that of course was me, sorry for he confusion…
PJ
Firstly, what the hell are you doing posting under my name?
Secondly, there was no mention of melting ice in your original response, which made your reasoning circular. I knew full well it was the missing piece, and wondered why you didn’t simply say it to begin with.
As an aside, we are no closer to knowing the cause of the seasonal split thanks to you.
If asked why Summer is warmer than Winter, the answer “Because the air/ocean temperatures are warmer in Summer” is exactly the same mode as your answer.
barry, please stop trolling.
PhilJ
It is difficult to find just how much UV energy reaches the Earth’s surface. Basically it sounds like around 3% of the solar flux.
If you use the stated average of 163 W/m^2 that is absorbed by the surface or you may want to use the 186 W/m^2 value of what actually hits the surface. It will be an unknown on which to use. I will use the lower value for this point. If one uses this figure you have 4.89 W/m^2. The change in UV at the poles was given at 4% in 10 years so if this lower figure is the correct one to use (I would rather have a better number to work with like some measured UV at the surface) than you get a change of input of 0.196 W/m^2 over 10 years.
This is why I consider you point valid and it should be studied at a much deeper level (get some better data). Ball4 seems wrong with his point on this issue.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
The amount of measured forcing from CO2 in 10 years was given at 0.2 W/m^2 in 10 years. The UV change in energy would be very similar. It seems as if it is a much bigger effect than they have given it. The two seem to be equal. Depending upon how you calculate. I hope you can get your idea into the Mainstream of Science. I would like to see a lot more research on this. It might be the cause of a lot of warming and it is not even considered.
“I hope you can get your idea into the Mainstream of Science.”
The problem, Norman, is the “Mainstream of Science” is controlled by “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. IP rejects reality. The IPCC (Institutionalized Pseudoscience of Climate Change) rejects any possibility of “natural variation”.
Heck, the perversion and corruption is so bad they even alter historical data, and lead people to believe a racehorse rotates on its axis!
JD,
“The problem, Norman, is the Mainstream of Science is controlled by Institutionalized Pseudoscience. IP rejects reality. The IPCC (Institutionalized Pseudoscience of Climate Change) rejects any possibility of natural variation. ”
Indeed. If an accredited and a accomplished scientist like Dr. Peter Ward can’t get journals and the ‘mainstream’ to listen, the chances of Phil ‘hobby scientist’ are pretty much nil…
It’s sad really. When we forget that science is about challenging our assumptions rather than tweaking our ‘epicycles’ , progress stalls…
Norman,
” The two seem to be equal.”
That is a very intuitive statement.
Follow the logic that flows from it…
More facts for clowns to deny:
Sun not up yet, stars visible, clear sky–
Overhead –> 14.9 °F
Ground –> 72.6 °F
Just another day of the surface warming the sky.
Nothing new.
PhilJ
“uh, warmer oceans… you couldn’t figure that out yourself?”
*
Of course I can.
But I’m not a person seeking for simple answers to complex questions.
Sun’s activity is declining since October 1957.
Thus, according to your rather simplicistic view, the oceans should have cooled since then – not immediately, of course; with a lag of say 25 years.
Nothing like that appeared.
On the contrary: the oceans throwed 25 years later huge amounts of heat through the 3 most powerful El Ninos (1982/83, 97/98, 2015/16) the planet experienced since 1877/78.
And while the gullible Zharkova-friend shouts ’40 years of decline in the Southern Oceans’, HadSST3 and UAH6.0 tell us quite the contrary:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gNHlhA5S29xYd28dI__gIic55qTwk1T2/view
Incredible +0.10 C / decade for the Oceans just above Antarctica! And that they call cooling! Mon Dieu.
Moreover, lots of ignorants shout their endless ‘Look! Look! The world is cooling since 2016!’
I can only see that the planet reacts to 2015/16 exactly as it did after 1997/98:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNxySq1EfCOl4t9-l4MIpoFdAQZEQ0OG/view
Les pseudosceptiques s’enfoncent de plus en plus dans leurs contradictionsw permanentes.
No PhilJ, it’s not the Sun. Cherchez autre chose…
Bindidon,
You continue to ignore the HADSST3 southern ocean data. What is so difficult about it? Do you know how to download a CSV or a txt file? Or are you just going to continue to pretend like the data exists because you have no explanation for it. UAH data shows no uptrend for Antarctica.
The south pole is hiding the cold water. El Nino has been keeping a lid on it. Well, it’s time to pay the piper because GSM is coming and it will shatter your beliefs. We will go into La Nina, and the global UAH temperature will hit -0.2 deg C. By 2030… well. I hope you know how to grow your own food and have a green house. Also I hope you don’t have a lot of debt because an economic collapse will come with this.
As for the sun, the last 7 cycles were all the strongest of the last 400 years. Yep even the last “weak” one. Have you ever used a stove before? You turn it to high, the water boils. You change it to med high, the water continues to boil. To get it to cool, you have to drop the heat WAY down, possibly even OFF. Get it?
Scott R
1. “You continue to ignore the HADSST3 southern ocean data. What is so difficult about it?”
Today I’ll keep patient with you, Scott R, though you don’t merit it at all.
What’s the matter with you? Can’t you manage to read this graph properly?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNxySq1EfCOl4t9-l4MIpoFdAQZEQ0OG/view
It IS HadSST3 for the Souther Hemisphere, compared with UAH6.0 SH Ocean.
Sources:
HadSST3 SH
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_sh_ts.txt
UAH6.0 SH Ocean
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w Column 11 (via tinyURL because of the ‘d c’ problem)
The only difference between the Met data and my graph is that their HadSST3 anomalies produced wrt the reference period 1961-1990 had to be displaced by 0.2 in order to match that of UAH (1981-2010).
I told you already: you can’t compare the Antarctic with anything else on Earth. It is, due to the fact that it is a continent surrounded ob oceans, the exact opposite to the Arctic which is an ocean surrounded by land masses.
Final point!
Bindidon SH is not the same as southern ocean. SH means 1/2 the globe. Southern ocean is only south of 50 deg S. Your data link does not have the Southern ocean data. Only the SH data. Perhaps that is the reason for our miscommunication on this.
Please go to this website:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/download.html
Click on the “time series”
That data set has south of 50 deg by itself.
I just don’t understand why you dismiss the 0 trend for Antarctica so easily in the UAH data. Just because it is a continent surrounded by ocean, shouldn’t mean CO2 has no impact. AUST is a continent surrounded by ocean yet we have the uptrend.
Scott R
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/download.html
1. There is NO clickable ‘Time series’ on this page. What we all can click on is two lines below (but not here of course, text copy):
HadSST.3.1.1.0_annual_globe_ts.txt
HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
HadSST.3.1.1.0_annual_nh_ts.txt
HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_nh_ts.txt
HadSST.3.1.1.0_annual_sh_ts.txt
HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_sh_ts.txt
HadSST.3.1.1.0_annual_tropics_ts.txt
HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_tropics_ts.txt
Thus show me the exact link where to go to your HadSST3 data below 50S! I keep as patient as possible.
2. Btw, how can you compare Australia with the Antarctic? Is Australia at some third Pole? Or is it a tiny bit nearer to the Equator?
This is such a bare nonsense.
3. Why do you choose 50S, instead of 60S like does the whoile world?
4. Nevertheless, I computed the UAH6.0_LT time series for the latitude band 50S -65S (below 65S, there are no oceans anymore).
Here is the new graph including UAH’s 50S-65S data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/151BNpFCCGbTxsmkUW79c0JFBM6TTv4gw/view
Source for UAH6.0 LT 50S-65S:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
(tltmonamgXXXX_6.0), 1978<=XXXX<=2019
The probability that HadSST3 for 50S-65S goes below UAH is equal to… zero.
scott r…”Bindidon SH is not the same as southern ocean”.
Save your breath, Binny is an alarmist troll.
binny…”Cant you manage to read this graph properly?”
The reason I call you an idiot is that you take UAH data, plug it into an Excel spreadsheet, and misrepresent the data by creating your own cartoons. If the graph you posted is an actual UAH graph then post the link to it. I have no interest in your idiotic interpretations of UAH data using amateur statistical techniques.
As for Had-crut, they get their data from NOAA, who is known to fudge surface data. Furthermore, the head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, was caught in the Climategate email scandal: applauding the death of skeptic John Daly, admitting to hiding the decline in Had-crut temperatures using Mann’s trick, and threatening to block skeptical papers from IPCC reviews.
Jones has also failed to release Had-crut data for independent audit. When Steve McIntyre of climateaudit persisted in his request that Jones release the data, Jones finally divulged his reason. He did not want McIntyre destroying his data the way he did Mann’s hockey stick fraud.
That suggests strongly to me that Jones has something to hide and that he has fudged Had-crut data. In fact, he admitted to amending it and losing the original data.
Gordon, why do all the temperature groups, including UAH, adjust the raw data?
I keep asking you, and you keep avoiding the question. I take it then that you don’t know.
DA…”…why do all the temperature groups, including UAH, adjust the raw data?”
I said fudge, not adjust. UAH does not take their raw data and fudge it to suit the AGW propaganda. UAH has to adjust for orbital factors and to weight signals from different receivers at different frequencies. That kind of adjustment is well within the parameters of science.
NOAA manufactures data by interpolating data from stations up to 1200 miles apart, then they homogenize the fudged data to make it nice and smooth. I would claim that most of the ocean temperature data is fudged.
They also go back in the historical record and change temperature data. That is scientific misconduct.
Gordon’s ignorance is boundless. He thinks that the satellites have 24 hour coverage of the whole planet. Nope, it takes a few days to do a complete cover of the global surface in the satellite/instrument track.
So, yeah, there is some averaging and interpolating across distances for those parts of the globe not being covered at any given moment by the satellite.
Or maybe Gordon can explain how a single satellite can measure radiance brightness on opposite sides of the Earth at the same time.
But at least he’s discovered that UAH do have to process and adjust the raw data. A year ago and more he was denying that nine to the dozen. Seems he can learn – at a glacial rate.
Reasons for adjustments are documented for all the major data sets. But Gordon wouldn’t even know the reasons for the surface data adjustments, much less whether or not they were valid. And he’s been linked the references in the past. Never once commented on those, so I assume he just never read them.
But that doesn’t stop blow-hards blowing.
barry, please stop trolling.
Bindidon,
Here is a link to the HADSST3 notes on the time series:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/ts_format.txt
As you can see, column 14 contains data for the southern ocean by itself, south of 50S.
So, if you want to see the 40 year downtrend in the southern ocean, down load this data, put a 60 month average on it.
OK
Scott R
Do you mean
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.0.0/ascii/HadSST.3.1.0.0.median.zip ?
That is gridded data, I don’t want to loose my time in processing the 5th grid since 2015. 4 are enough.
Thus why don’t you manage to produce a 1979-2019 time series for HadSST3 50S-65S, like I did for UAH6.0 ?
Bindidon,
“Of course I can.
But Im not a person seeking for simple answers to complex questions.”
You asked a simple question, why would you expect a complex answer?
B: “Suns activity is declining since October 1957.”
And yet UVB exposure at the surface rose dramatically from about 1975-2005 and has not retreated (significantly) since then
B: “Incredible +0.10 C / decade for the Oceans just above Antarctica! And that they call cooling! Mon Dieu.”
The oceans, just above Antarctica, are where the largest increase in UVB exposure has occured…
B: “Les pseudosceptiques senfoncent de plus en plus dans leurs contradictionsw permanentes.”
Excuze-moi, Ma Francais c’est tres mal… En anglais SVP
Something for the splitters.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/
entropic…”Something for the splitters”.
Eli Rabbett teaches chemistry for undergrads and he has demonstrated an inability to understand basic thermodynamics. He hides behind the nym Eli Rabbett, does that not tell you something.
Does Roy or John at UAH hide behind a nym? Does Richard Lindzen? No, they have integrity and put their money where their mouths are, even though it costs them.
When Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both with expertise in thermodynamics, upheld the 2nd law by claiming heat can only be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body, Rabbett claimed that would mean, with radiation, one body was not radiating.
I mean, that’s an incredible misunderstanding of the difference between heat and electromagnetic energy. Even when G&T explained the 2nd law applies only to heat, Rabbett (Halpern et al) continued to argue against the 2nd law by regarding EM as heat.
Troll Svante indicated upthread that he believed clouds were “heat sources”: “…cloud feed feedback is most likely positive and temperatures keep going up.”
He likely got that from the “Energy Budget” promoted by NASA, in which clouds are supposedly emitting 29.9 W/m^2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Like the other clowns, Svante doesn’t understand the relevant physics. He can’t understand how ridiculous it is to believe clouds are a “heat source”, or that they emit 29.9 W/m^2.
The S/B emitting temperature for 29.9 Watts/m^2 is 152 K (-121 C, -186 F). Nowhere in the troposphere are temperatures found that low.
Svante’s false religion has somehow convinced him clouds that are colder than the atmosphere, can warm the planet.
Where do such people come from?
JD said…”Troll Svante indicated upthread that he believed clouds were heat sources”
I don’t remember that being said.
JD said…”The S/B emitting temperature for 29.9 Watts/m^2 is 152 K (-121 C, -186 F). Nowhere in the troposphere are temperatures found that low.”
As has been pointed out ad-nauseam the figures in the various energy budget analysis are averages. They are not instantaneous fluxes. The way in which you are trying to use them is not valid.
bdgwx, your NASA diagram indicates fluxes. You are stuck with your pseudoscience. Quit trying to change the pseudoscience you have swallowed. It’s too late.
If you don’t want to keep changing your story, just go with reality.
You know where the backdoor is.
JD…”…Svante doesnt understand the relevant physics. He cant understand how ridiculous it is to believe clouds are a heat source”
The alarmists fail to understand the overall picture. They don’t get it that the Sun is the only heat source and that any heat on Earth comes from the Sun. Or, as Mike points out, from geothermal activity.
If clouds are being warmed by incoming solar, they are absorbing EM and converting it to heat, or they are reflecting solar EM. In that case, a cloud might be regarded as a heat source. The notion that the atmosphere can absorb incoming solar and warm is absent from the alarmist propaganda.
Even if clouds do absorb solar and warm, they still have to transfer that heat to a warmer surface. Neat trick, if you can do it.
However, that is not what alarmists mean. They claim solar energy is converted to infrared energy by the surface then absorbed by clouds, WV, and CO2. In that case, the clouds would be at a lower temperature than the surface and the 2nd law tells us colder objects cannot transfer heat, by their own means, to a warmer object.
JDHuffman says:
“Troll Svante indicated upthread that he believed clouds were ‘heat sources'”.
No, clouds are heat sinks since net flow is from the surface.
Can you see that?
Svante says – No, clouds are heat sinks since net flow is from the surface. Can you see that?
———
No. Under your concept of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gasses aren’t heat sinks because they radiate everything they 50% up and 50% down. Thats a 100% so how can they be sinks even it its water floating around in the atmosphere? Still they need to radiate both up and down right?
Using your percentages, if the surface radiates 100% and gets 50% back, that is a 50% net energy loss.
Heat is net energy, so that constitutes a heat sink for the surface.
Svante says: – Heat is net energy, so that constitutes a heat sink for the surface..
A heat sink in science I thought was a device employed to extract heat from the system in order to better dissipate the heat from the system.
Wiktionary:
1) An object, system or environment that absorbs and dissipates heat from objects in thermal contact (either direct or radiant) with it.
2) A place toward which the heat moves in a system.
3) A material capable of absorbing heat.
Wikipedia:
“A heat sink is a passive heat exchanger that transfers the heat generated by an electronic or a mechanical device to a fluid medium […], thereby allowing regulation of the device’s temperature at optimal levels.“
svante…”Heat is net energy.”
Heat is thermal energy, meaning it is the kinetic energy of atoms. There is no such thing as a net heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.
Throw away your CPU heat sink then.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Here are Svante’s actual words: “…cloud feed feedback is most likely positive and temperatures keep going up.”
Now he appears to be backing off from earlier, where he was trying to denigrate Lindzen.
Lindzen was right, Svante was wrong.
Nothing new.
I’m not sure if Lindzen’s iris theory is right or not. The last I had heard it sounded more likely that his hypothesis was wrong, but the jury may still be out that. Of course even if it is right we need to know the magnitude of the feedback and whether there are any braking terms on its effect. If someone knows of convincing evidence that supports the iris effect hypothesis please post it so that we can all review it.
Here is a relatively recent publication on the iris effect.
https://tinyurl.com/y26phrpj
The authors claim the effect is negative. However, it should be noted that this isn’t an independent assessment since Choi and Lindzen have a history of working on this topic together.
Now we are in the realm of science for a change, how refreshing. With reference to the A-Train no less.
Yeah, I mean at least it’s peer reviewed. But like I said consider that Choi and Lindzen have a history of working together so it’s not exactly independent.
https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html
And like I said above based on what I’ve read it seems more likely that the cloud feedback is actually positive.
That’s my understanding too, but at least this is a legitimate scientific debate.
They are only discussing part of the total cloud feedback.
Yes, this is a topic on which there is ongoing scientific debate and investigation. Cloud feedback is one of the ‘largest’ uncertainties in GCMs, as the sign is not locked down, much less the amplitude.
It could make a good topic for an inquiry based discussion here. Possibly more interesting than beating each other over the head with clubs, but maybe not for some.
barry, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says: The authors claim the effect is negative. However, it should be noted that this isnt an independent assessment since Choi and Lindzen have a history of working on this topic together.
————-
Oh good! we have a major elevation of the standard of independence.
bdgwx proposes a standard that any two scientists with a history of collaborating eliminates independence. I am going to mark that down and hold you to that bdgwx.
For the record, I’m not saying either Choi or Lindzen are necessarily wrong here. In fact, I happen to think the iris effect is a legit hypothesis that should be considered seriously.
It is worthwhile noting that either Lindzen or Choi appear as lead author on every paper endorsing the Iris effect, and also that they have collaborated on it. Basically, this theory is promoted by 2 guys.
That doesn’t make it wrong or poor scholarship, but it does provide context.
barry, please stop trolling.
For those ‘physicist’s who define evrything they don’t accept, let alone understand, as ‘pseudoscience’.
Topmost atmospheric pressure for clouds is around 50 hPa, what corresponds to about 19.5 km.
Given a lapse rate of 6.5 C / km, this give us about -100 C.
Even Bindidon can figure out clouds can’t be at temperatures as low as -120 C. You’re getting out of the troposphere at -100 C.
bdgwx and Svante could learn something from Bindidon, if they could learn….
So says the clown who apparently believes black bodies emit at single wavelengths – who does’nt understand that the Stefan Boltzmann Law adds up emissions across all wavelengths – who believes that “solar” radiation cannot be added to “IR” radiation – LOL
Myki, feel free to get back to me when you can get something right.
LOL
DM,
Do you deny that there are assorted fools, frauds, and fakers, who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
I know, I know, even someone without a PhD would laugh uproariously as such a silly and magical concept!
By now, you are now laughing out loud at the silliness of the GHE true believers cult.
I don’t blame you at all.
Cheers.
mickey…”…who doesnt understand that the Stefan Boltzmann Law adds up emissions across all wavelengths”
S-B does not add anything. It is a measure of the electromagnetic energy intensity given off by a body of temperature T. Used another way, it is a measure of the heat dissipation of the same body.
S-B was developed initially by Stefan, who used data from Tyndall. Tyndall heated a platinum wire electrically and noted the temperatures at which the colours of the wire changed. Stefan equated the ratio of EM, based on the wire colour between cooler and hotter temperatures, deriving the T^4 relationship between EM and temperature.
No EM addition whatsoever. Certainly no addition of fluxes.
binny…Given a lapse rate of 6.5 C / km, this give us about -100 C”.
Have you ever heard of water, or water vapour, existing in the liquid phase at -100C?
The top of Everest is at 8.8 km, about half your stated altitude, and you don’t see any rain up there. Lots of snow and ice but no rain.
Of course, if clouds were warmed from above by solar energy…???
Speaking of record high temperatures, try and deny this:
“Global warming has been thawing tundra and drying vast stretches of the far-northern boreal forests, and it also has spurred more thunderstorms with lightning, which triggered many of the fires burning in Alaska this year, said Brian Brettschneider, a climate scientist with the International Arctic Research Center who closely tracks Alaskan and Arctic extreme weather.
So far this year, wildfires have scorched more than 1.2 million acres in Alaska, making it one of the state’s three biggest fire years on record to this date, with high fire danger expected to persist in the weeks ahead.
Several studies, as well as ongoing satellite monitoring, show that fires are spreading farther north into the Arctic, burning more intensely and starting earlier in the year, in line with what climate models have long suggested would happen as sea ice dwindles and ocean and air temperatures rise.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11072019/arctic-wildfires-alaska-climate-change-heat-wave-2019-university-funding
DM,
You wrote –
” . . . .Brian Brettschneider, a climate scientist with the International Arctic Research Center who closely tracks Alaskan and Arctic extreme weather.”
Well, climate is the average of weather, so there’s precious little science involved, is there? A bit of 12 year old standard arithmetic, that’s all.
Your “authority” “tracks . . . extreme weather”. And then averages it out, I assume.
Good for him!
Do you deny that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Do you deny that neither CO2 nor sunlight nor the concentrated wishes of all the frauds, fakers, and fools, have been able to prevent this cooling?
Carry on dreaming.
Cheers.
Is there something you disagree with in the report?
No.
I thought so.
You simply treat it as an opportunity to rant and rave.
Carry on with your meaningless repetitions.
DM,
You might seek a refund from your mindreading instructor.
Completely hopeless.
How are you going with the useful description of the GHE?
I’m guessing not too well.
Cheers.
mickey…”Global warming has been thawing tundra and drying vast stretches of the far-northern boreal forests…”
1)where’s the proof such warming is related to anthropogenic activity?
2)How can less than a degree C warming over a century and a half cause such catastrophic events?
Try raising the temperature in your room by less than a degree C and see if you can detect it. Heat water from 20C to 21C and see if it tastes hotter.
You’re joking, yes?
DM,
You’re being pseudoscientifically obscurely pointlessly witless! Yes?
Maybe you could bring yourself to disagree with something, yes?
You are stupid and ignorant, yes?
Cheers.
EM,
“Something for the splitters.”
Thats some nice ‘epicycle maps’
They forgot the pink elephants and flying unicorns..
PJ,
Halpern fancies himself an expert . . . of something or other.
Feynman said that “science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Halpern appears to be delusional as well as ignorant. He cannot even usefully describe this GHE he preaches, and doesn’t believe that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding bizarre cartoons to the contrary.
Still no GHE. Still no CO2 heating. The fakers, frauds and fools grow ever more strident, but Nature keeps ignoring them. What a pity!
Cheers.
There is also this
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165
May or may not be relevant to the discussion
But just another card up our sleeves
Svante
I read above how you believe that clouds are a positive feedback to global warming. I do not think your information is correct.
I plotted global graphs from this web site.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFC4Selection.jsp
It is set for the whole globe. If you click on Surface Fluxes box
Monthly mean box, Global Mean box.
Put in your email the click on visualize data. It will produce a series of graphs covering many fluxes. The creator of this system verifies the modeled data with actual measured values from various stations to get it as accurate as possible.
If you scroll down the last graphs (Total Net All-sky and Clear-sky) you will see the Clear-Sky net surface radiant energy is about 20 W/m^2 higher.
The net radiant energy to the surface is a Net positive. The other cooling mechanisms (evaporation and thermals) balances the positive radiant energy.
I am not sure where you get the data for clouds being a positive feedback. I see very little supporting evidence for this position.
Andrew Dessler published a paper some years ago that is often cited. He claimed positive feedback was indicated by the positive slope he got from a trend line drawn on a scatter plot of change in temperature versus change in cloud cover.
It was a horrifically naive analysis. The slope of such a line, assuming a direct influence, depends entirely upon phase delay in the response at the dominant frequencies, and can be positive, negative, or zero regardless of the sign of the feedback.
In a rare exposure, Dessler appeared on the message boards at WUWT to defend his work. I asked him why he didn’t account for delay, and he responded that there was no reason to suspect significant delay in the response. I responded that he did not have to guess. He could determine the phase delay directly from processing the data. He stopped responding at that point.
My own analysis indicated a delay of several months, and accounting for that would make the trend line decidedly negative. But, the paper lives on, and I still see it cited occasionally. It’s about the quality of work I’ve come to expect in the climate sciences. Poorly done, smugly cited. So it goes.
bart…”Andrew Dessler published a paper some years ago that is often cited. He claimed positive feedback was indicated by the positive slope he got from a trend line…”
True positive feedback needs an amplifier. Suspension bridges of yore could generate positive feedback through resonance in their suspension cables, but there is no such resonance or gain in the atmosphere.
Thanks for correcting me Norman, I expect you are right.
Norman, I meant the anomaly trend in cloud feedback, not the absolute value.
Lindzen said there would be a strong negative feedback, but it isn’t happening, is it?
Svante
The CERES graphs are only for radiant energy to the surface.
Clear days average around 130 W/m^2 positive while all sky (clouds included) average around 110 W/m^2 positive.
It is possible that clouds suppress the other cooling mechanisms and cause a warmer surface. I do not know about that at this time. It seems Bart has studied it to a deeper level than me.
Clouds reflect a large amount of solar. The more clouds, the more solar reflected. Then at night they act as a “blanket”, helping to reduce cooling. The more clouds, the more reduced cooling.
But, reflecting solar has much more effect than slowing the cooling. So net effect of clouds is “negative”, to warming.
JDHuffman
IIRC both low cloud and high cloud are increasing over time.
Low cloud reflects slightly more albedo than it retains heat, so more low cloud has a slight cooling effect.
High cloud retains slightly more heat than it reflects as albedo, so more high cloud has a slight warming effect.
Overall they tend to cancel out, so the overall effect is a very slight warming.
E-man, someone may have misinformed you.
Both the ability of a cloud to contain enthalpy, and the ability to reflect sunlight, are based on the amount and phase of the cloud water. A low cloud, typically formed by water droplets can have very high enthalpy. A high cloud is typically formed by ice crystals, and you likely know ice doesn’t contain much enthalpy, per unit mass.
All clouds are very good at reflecting the high-energy visible photons. That’s why clouds appear white. But clouds could not warm a warmer surface. So, the net result is more clouds result in surface cooling. (This is not to be confused with the “Iris Effect” which cools via different mechanisms.)
Translated from JDs lunatic reference frame:
E-man, you are quite right.
Troll Svante, with no understanding of the relevant physics, shows up to flatter me with his imitation.
Nothing new.
Norman says:
“I am not sure where you get the data for clouds being a positive feedback.”
Here’s an example:
https://tinyurl.com/y5wwktr8
Svante
Here is where a huge problem exists. My personal view is that low clouds cool the surface (based upon my own experience with this type of cloud, usually very noticeable in the summer days).
Now you have your source making this claim:
“3.2.2 Tropical low cloud feedback
Climate models tend to produce a widespread positive low-cloud feedback, causing most of the overall spread in climate
sensitivities among GCMs (Klein et al., 2017; Sherwood et al., 2014; Vial et al., 2013; Zelinka et al., 2016). The low-cloud
feedback from GCMs participating in CMIP5 ranges from -0.09 to 0.63 W m-2 °C-1 (Webb et al., 2013) with a mean of +0.35
W m-2 °C-1 10 (Zelinka et al., 2016). This spread is largely attributable to the representation of marine stratocumulus and shallow
cumulus clouds, and the transitions between them (Williams and Webb, 2009; Xu et al., 2010). Recent studies using LES
models (which capture the physics of these boundary-layer clouds in a realistic manner) have provided a deeper understanding
of and helped isolate key mechanisms behind low-cloud feedbacks (Bretherton, 2015). Changes in reflective properties,
humidity, and convection contribute as well (Medeiros et al., 2008; Qu et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2013). Also, total cloud
15 amount observations in combination with model results support a positive, temperature-driven low-level cloud feedback
(Clement et al., 2010; Klein et al., 2017; Myers and Norris, 2016; Qu et al., 2015). The overall confidence in the tropical low
cloud feedback had been generally low (Grise and Medeiros, 2016), but the recent observational and high resolution modelling
results increase the (Klein et al., 2017) low cloud feedback level of confidence.”
Then I go over here (which I think is more rational based upon my own observations and experiences).
“Stratus clouds: These clouds hang low in the sky–usually within two kilometers of the Earth’s surface–and resemble a gray blanket covering thousands of miles of sky. Because these clouds block sunlight from reaching the Earth, they act like a sunscreen or shady umbrella that helps cool the Earth. Therefore, they have a net cooling effect that helps offset warming.”
From:
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/question.jsp
Now you have two sources with radically differing outcomes for the same clouds. Now maybe you can understand why so many are skeptical and question this branch of science.
The first quote is about the warming feedback, the second is about the static net effect, so they do not necessarily contradict each other. Also, stratus and stratocumulus are not the same thing.
There are many other cloud types, and regional differences, so yes, it is complicated.
Anyway, Lindzen predicted there would be a strong negative cloud feedback but in reality the Earth energy accumulation rate continues unabated.
Svante says: The first quote is about the warming feedback, the second is about the static net effect, so they do not necessarily contradict each other. Also, stratus and stratocumulus are not the same thing.
There are many other cloud types, and regional differences, so yes, it is complicated.
Anyway, Lindzen predicted there would be a strong negative cloud feedback but in reality the Earth energy accumulation rate continues unabated.
————-
“static net effect?” How did you figure it was static? A 30% reduction isn’t static.
An increasing greenhouse effect would tend to accelerate a natural warming trend occurring as an ocean catch up adjustment (i.e. no current change in external forcing) via an accelerated retention of heat and slow a cooling ocean adjustment via the same mechanism. That of course assumes an actual change in forcing from the greenhouse effect.
svante…”and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide”.
Garbage science. There is no positive feedback in the atmosphere. In order to have positive feedback, a heat amplifier would be required and as far as I know, there is no such thing.
Many alarmist scientists think positive feedback can act on its own to create warming. That shows how badly they understand the relevant physics.
Positive feedback that produces gain via an amplifier is fed back from the output of a system to the input of a system, in phase with the input signal. During each cycle the input signal is augmented, producing an exponentially increasing output signal.
In alarmist climate science, that leads to a tipping point. It cannot happen because their is no positive feedback. Whatever caused the condition on Venus did not come from a so-called runaway greenhouse effect.
We’ve been through that before.
No scientist thinks it can act on its own.
Solar heat is multiplied by (1-albedo) for a start.
And it doesn’t need to increase exponentially or lead to a tipping point, T^4 is a strong negative feedback.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Scott R
I’m still waiting on your monthly time series for HadSST3 below 50S, showing 40 years of decline for that region of the Southern Oceans.
If you were able to detect such a decline, then manifestly you managed to generate such a time series out of HadSST3’s grid data, just like I did for UAH6.0 LT in the 50S-65S region:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1paK4yC4jmPds8Zaprlre43MJ56a9BszD/view
Remember: the green line…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/151BNpFCCGbTxsmkUW79c0JFBM6TTv4gw/view
Come on, guy. Do your job!
Bindidon,
My employer blocks google drive, facebook, and file sharing services. That is the reason I don’t often share here, and have to open your links on my mobile. Good news… the climate moves slowly. If you want to look at it yourself, I’d highly encourage that. Don’t take my word for it right? I will work on figuring out a way around the system using my mobile eventually. It probably would involve putting all my data on a cloud server though, which I’m not super trusting of. It would honestly be easier if Roy used facebook instead of this old fashioned blog format. Then I could send my chart to my mobile, take a screen shot, and post to facebook. That is pretty much my best work around at the moment. I often work on my climate studies at work if I have down time. I sure know how to party huh.
Scott R
Oh what a strange explanation!
Don’t mind Scott R, I discovered a few hours ago that the file in
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/ascii/HadSST.3.1.1.0.median.zip
has, apart from minuscule details, exactly the same format as the JMA grid data
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/grid/gst_mon_1891_last.gz
That’s wonderful.
So I can explain in what kind of a blind-alley you ran into:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/115xJkwGXQn7ynmuG_bQliom0GXlAUvKw/view
cu soon with two further graphs…
Scott R says:
“I often work on my climate studies at work if I have down time. I sure know how to party huh.”
Scott R, I hope you have squared that with your employer.
Posting during parties should be A OK, but check with your host just to make sure.
So there is still a positive trend using SST data South of 50?
I think if one tries hard enough, one can slice and dice to get a cooling trend somewhere on the globe – North Atlantic has a large area you can do that over the last 40 years or so, I believe, and large parts of Antarctica. UAH has -0.03 C/decade cooling of the oceans South of 60S.
But what was the point?
Roy:
“Did climate change play a role in Western Europe’s June heat wave> The heat wave was at least five times more likely to occur as a result of climate warming, scientists conclude.”
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/did-climate-change-play-a-role-in-western-europes-june-heat-wave/
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/human-contribution-to-record-breaking-june-2019-heatwave-in-france/
They should’ve said “4.63 times as likely”. Extra decimal places always lends credibility to a WAG.
Scott R
Yeah, sorry.
You made, with your claim concerning a 40 year decline for HadSST3 SH below 50S, the same mistake as the blog’s genius when he writes about UAH6.0’s trend for 1998-2015.
If you start a period with high values but ending without such values, your trend inevitably will be negative (and vice versa of course).
Here is HadSST3 for 50S-90S (land grid cells are of course masked), you obtain this for 1979-2019:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18kUAJVffO9TBzQ40uuKoLIjhLuVYc3Wx/view
You see that (1) the trend for the 40 years sounds by far less dramatic than you suggested, and (2) even this -0.08 +- 0.02 C / decade are in fact dur to the very high anomalies at the period’s begin.
If you sart the period a bit later, after these few single month peaks, you see this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ClfpR3DuibtfW7mLOLqD4MHy5nkiqMJK/view
and your decline gets even reduced to tremendous -0.03 +- 0.02 C, exactly the same as gives UAH for the same period 1989-2019.
So finally, what to say? Keep cooling strong, Scott R…
Bindidon congrats, you finally found my data set. The 40 years I was referring to was basically the 1981 peak to now.
Hilarious that you will now use the “start stop” argument considering that is EXACTLY what NASA does all the time… starting maps in 1980, ending them in 2016. Even more hilarious as you try to manipulate the data to reduce the cooling trend, just like NASA. lol
Now that you found the data, we can actually have a conversation about this. Looking at the 5 year moving average, it is very apparent that the southern ocean was hitting it’s maximum while the rest of the globe was experiencing the peak of the mid century cooling back in 1980. Agreed? I have the 5 year moving average value hitting a max of +.28C in 1985. Bottom of the leg was 2011 at -0.15 deg c (using 5 year ma again). So 1 leg of the cycle was roughly 0.43 deg c during a period of 31 years using the 5 year smoothing. There is an inverse relationship here. When the southern ocean is warming, the global oceans are cooling. When the southern ocean is cooling, the rest of the oceans are warming. This is because of El Nino have been strong, and La Ninas weak in the last 40 years. When El Nino keeps the cold water down, it builds up over time. Hopefully at least you have a better understanding of my theory.
As for calculating the trend… you are correct… depending on what data you select, the trend will be different. I like to use linear fits, polys ect sometimes to get a quick estimate. When dealing with natural cycles rather than a man made trend, I prefer to measure legs and look for higher highs, higher lows vs calculate trends. This is because, you will only know the end of the trend after the fact. For instance, I don’t know if the rising southern ocean values (with 5 year MA smoothing) since 2012 is a trend change yet. It has not made a higher high, so a trend reversal has not been confirmed. If you always strictly use a trendline, you will not have much luck forecasting because that trendline will always be averaging data out, and not capturing the inflection points which are very reveling in natural cycle analysis. The infection points might be tied to some orbital forcing, solar activity, etc.
In general, I like to apply the 5 year moving average because it shows you if there is a relationship to the solar cycle or not. The Atlantic for instance, seems to have it’s own game plan. The Pacific follows El Nino. El Nino, the southern ocean and therefore the Pacific are tied to the solar cycles.
Scott R
“Even more hilarious as you try to manipulate the data to reduce the cooling trend, just like NASA. lol” , and other sentences of the same kind.
This is simply paranoid. I did not manipulate anything, Scott R.
I have told all the time everywhere, not only here: “Warmistas are bad people, but Coolistas are even worse”.
You are, like the guy nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’, one of the most ridiculous Coolistas I have ever met on any blog.
Bindidon something still seems off about your data. Did you download from where I told you?
My 5 year ave peaks 1985 @ 0.276.
Bottoms 2011 @ -0.146.
Yours shows what looks like 0.5 for 1985, maybe -0.1 for 2011. This is giving your data a false upward bias.
I wish I could post my charts so you can compare.
Scott R
“Bindidon something still seems off about your data.”
What is typical with stubborn Coolistas is that they ALWAYS see the error on the other side, and NEVER on the own side.
Scott R
“Yours shows what looks like 0.5 for 1985, maybe -0.1 for 2011. This is giving your data a false upward bias.”
Aha. Thus you are simply eye-balling, aren’t you?
I gave you an exact information for HadSST3 50S-90S, namely its trend for 1979-2019: -0.08 +- 0.02 C / decade.
Where is YOUR linear trend, Scott R?
I don’t compute averages, Scott R: persons using Excel, Open / Libre Office or the like use these tools’ running mean or polynomial functions.
Bindidon,
I’m not saying my data is better or worse than yours. I just want to see if we are using the same data.
Yes. Basically I eyeballed on my mobile at the time because that is the only way I can open your files at work.
I’m using Excel for my data.
Once I get all the difficulties worked out sharing info it will be extremely helpful. Perhaps there is some mobile app. But than I’m emailing myself a snippit, then taking a screen shot, then uploading that to a file sharing service. It’s just friggen ridiculous trying to use this antiquated blog. Now I’m at home, kids are asleep, but I don’t have my HADSST3 data and forgot to email it to myself before leaving work. Oh well. You will have to wait because I’m not going to reproduce everything right now. lol
well taking a page out of one spiel I have heard from certain poster boys in here. . . .is thats evidence that there is no such thing as global climate change and instead its only evidence of a regional effect.
You can find cooling in some parts if you select carefully enough – and no region has trended cooler than it was in 1900. But denying that the globe has generally warmed is plain ignorant. And yes, we have poster boys for that.
Actually, I was wrong about no region cooling since 1900 – see just below.
Bindidon,
My southern ocean linear trend is the same as yours -0.08 C per decade for the last 40 years. But for some reason your data from the last 40 years is shifted higher than mine giving your long term chart a higher positive slope.
Anyways, wouldn’t you agree that having a dataset with a negative slope at all while the rest of the world enjoyed a 40 year warm up IS in fact a curious divergence? Keep in mind that the linear trend for the global ocean from 1850-present is only +0.043 deg c per decade.
Interestingly, Saturn was in the SH summer location 40 years ago. You probably think I’m crazy, but I believe Jupiter and Saturn are somehow effecting our climate via their gravitational / magnetic connections to the sun, which possibly could be responsible for all of the various ocean current / temperature oscillators and such.
Right now, Jupiter and Saturn are aligned in the NH summer location… this has been setting up for years, which may explain the 40 year increase for summer in the NH. Winter in the NH has been dropping for 20 years taking my home town as proxy. Also possible relationship to planetary alignment.
“Anyways, wouldnt you agree that having a dataset with a negative slope at all while the rest of the world enjoyed a 40 year warm up IS in fact a curious divergence?”
Over that time period I would expect some specific regions to have cooled, against the overall backdrop of global warming. Changes in climate introduce changes in weather patterns. If a jet stream changes as a result of general warming, then possibly more cold air could be directed somewhere over time, for example. (No one anywhere suggested that warming would be uniform all the time everywhere).
You can also find a cooling trend for a largish region of the North Atlantic over the last 40 years or so. Why that bucks the trend may be interesting, and indeed is actively researched.
[edit]
While I was posting this I checked up on the N Atlantic “blob,” and it seems this specific locale has cooled since 1900.
Some of the research on that is mentioned here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/
For the Antarctic region I found a comprehensive state-of-the-science discussion paper on climate and weather, which includes discussion of wind and ocean currents and their changes, and changes in the chemical make-up of the local atmosphere, as well as plenty of obs-based analysis. It starts at 100K year scale and zooms in to the last 200/50 years as the paper proceeds. You may find some things of interest there.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007RG000231
“Heat is net energy, so that constitutes a heat sink for the surface.”
If this is true, then ‘energy budget’ diagrams, need to show all gross energy flows or all net energy flows…
Adding a gross energy flow parameter to a bunch of net parameters is useless…
Good thinking PhilJ, that will circumvent the 2LOT confusion that Gordon, DREMT, JDHuffman et al. suffer from.
Using W/m^2:
Solar Atmosphere: 77.1 – 0 = 77.1
Solar Surface: 163.3 – 0 = 163.3
Surface Space: 40.1 – 0 = 40.1
Surface Atmosphere: 17.8 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 122.6
Radiation: 398.2 – 40.1 – 340.3 – = 17.8
Thermals (net): 18.4
Latent Heat (net): 86.4
Atmosphere space: 239.9 – 40 – 0 = 199.9
Atmosphere in: 122.6 + 77.1 = 199.7
Surface out: 122.6 + 40.1 = 162.7
Surface in: 163.3
Surface surplus: 0.4 (means avg temp must rise).
The rounding error is +/- 0.05 per term (which were approximations in the first place), so don’t get hung up on the decimals JD.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Surface surplus: 0.6 (means avg temp must rise).
Atmosphere to space: 239.9 40.1 0 = 199.8
Svante says: Atmosphere to space: 239.9 40.1 0 = 199.8
——–
Yes and before there were greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: Atmosphere to space = 0 ; and climate scientists expect more greenhouse gases will cause the number for atmosphere to space to decrease.
Initially yes, Earth will get warmer until the output is like before and balance is restored again.
Svante says: Initially yes, Earth will get warmer until the output is like before and balance is restored again.
——-
there is always an explanation without a science explanation. What went wrong when it went from zero to 199? And why is that process no longer valid?
Bill Hunter says:
It was never zero. It is 199.8 W/m^2 but needs to go up by 0.6 W/m^2 to restore balance. The Earth will accumulate energy and warm until this happens.
We added more GHGs, that is what went wrong.
We keep adding more so the world is playing catch up.
Svante says:
It was never zero.
——–
Boy are you ever dense! If doesn’t need to have been zero! It would be zero if there were no greenhouse gases. As gases are in the atmosphere it emits 199watts. So when did the atmosphere start emitting less with increased greenhouse gases?
BH,
Because GHGs act as thermal barriers. They impede the flow of energy to space. The magnitude of this effect is proportional to the concentration of the gas. When you increase the concentration you necessarily block more energy from escaping. This is why the temperature increases on the bottom (troposphere and hydrosphere) and decreases on the top (stratosphere). But this imbalance is only temporary. As the temperature increases the difference between outgoing and incoming energy decreases until a new equilibrium is established. This new equilibrium is characterized by a steepening of the lapse rate in the atmosphere; warmer on the bottom and colder on the top.
So to answer your question…the atmosphere begins emitting less at TOA immediately after GHG concentration increase. Likewise, the atmosphere begins emitting more at TOA immediately after GHG concentrations decrease.
The exact same concept is at work in your home. When you add/remove insulation your home transfers less/more energy to the outside. This increases/decreases the equilibrium temperature of the inside and increases/decreases the temperature differential compared to the outside given the same amount of input energy from your furnace.
In other words, this a completely intuitive and expected result.
bdgwx says: The exact same concept is at work in your home. In other words, this a completely intuitive and expected result.
————-
You evaded answering the question and what goes on in your home is not even near to being the exact same concept. You are simply extrapolating a wild analogy with completely different heat transport resistances. Its intuition like believing the sun orbits the earth because the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west.
BH,
I think I answered the question. The atmosphere at TOA emits less/more energy to space immediately upon an increase/decrease in GHG concentration. So the answer is immediately. The more interesting question is how long does it take for the new equilibrium to be achieved and the flux to return to its original value?
At a conceptual level the insulation/furnace relationship is actually pretty close to the GHG/Sun relationship. GHGs and insulation both act as thermal barriers while the furnace and Sun act as energy sources for your home and climate system respectively. The details are, of course, different. I’m only speaking from a conceptual level to help illustrate that the GHG/Sun work together in an intuitive way.
bdgwx,
“Because GHGs act as thermal barriers. They impede the flow of energy to space. The magnitude of this effect is proportional to the concentration of the gas. When you increase the concentration you necessarily block more energy from escaping…
So to answer your question…the atmosphere begins emitting less at TOA immediately after GHG concentration increase. Likewise, the atmosphere begins emitting more at TOA immediately after GHG concentrations decrease.”
Demonstrably false..
Increasing c02 in the mesopsphere INCREASES atmospheric emission to space..
Increasing h20 in the troposphere INCREASES atmospheric emission to space…
‘GHE’ s COOL the atmosphere to space…
Follow the HEAT
bdgwx says: I think I answered the question. The atmosphere at TOA emits less/more energy to space immediately upon an increase/decrease in GHG concentration. So the answer is immediately. The more interesting question is how long does it take for the new equilibrium to be achieved and the flux to return to its original value?
Im only speaking from a conceptual level to help illustrate that the GHG/Sun work together in an intuitive way.
—————-
You obviously did not understand the question.
Let me try again from the start. Lets start with an earth with no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Instead the atmosphere is made up with gases that don’t radiate at the frequencies of the temperature of the earth. So at this point in time there is zero radiation to space.
Now we add some greenhouse gases, enough to absorb a significant part of the spectrum. Lets use the number in the NASA radiation budget. 358.1 watts/m2. Iconic radiation physics says now the atmosphere will radiate half up and half down. So the atmosphere is now emitting 179.05 watts to space after that radiation was absorbed.
But today in the NASA budget they are saying that the atmosphere is emitting 199.8 watts/m2. So obviously at some point the amount of radiation emission had to have gone up. So I am going to modify my question up to a scientific level. How high did the amount of radiation being emitted to space by the atmosphere get before it started coming down? If you can’t answer this question you have zero business claiming it to be a scientific fact that radiation to space by the atmosphere is reduced by increasing greenhouse gases because you haven’t at all developed a mathematical theory that can do it. A theory on the basis of it sounds intuitive, or somebody told me, or there must be an explanation, simply isn’t adequate.
Here is another reason why the greenhouse theory isn’t a valid physics theory, and more akin to the Ptolemy Theory of it sounds intuitive and I can imagine analogies that don’t mathematically add up.
Here is the state of science on the portion of the greenhouse theory attributable to CO2 by Zeke Hausfather at Berkeley Earth writing in Yale Climate Communications.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
“Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2.”
How can you develop a brand new law of physics when you can’t even estimate the contribution of CO2?
Phil said…”Increasing c02 in the mesopsphere INCREASES atmospheric emission to space..”
Technically the rule is that CO2 (or any GHG) increases the radiation flux on the side of the layer where the temperature is higher. So if the CO2 layer were in the mesosphere in it would increase the temperature on the bottom of the mesosphere and decrease it on the top. The thermosphere would cool while the stratosphere warms. The effect in the troposphere would likely be insignificant.
Phil said…”Increasing h20 in the troposphere INCREASES atmospheric emission to space”
Well actually this is demonstrable true. All you need to do is look at the WV channels (8, 9, and 10) on the GOES-16 satellite. The more WV in the atmosphere the more the surface flux is shadowed. This is actually how the ABI on GOES-R and other radiometers detect WV in the atmosphere.
Slightly off topic, but the ABI on GOES-R also has a CO2 channel that is exploited to produce some of the products. If H20 and CO2 were not did behave exactly the like what climate scientists also accept then the GOES-R satellites would be completely useless. Fortunately observational meteorology using satellites like GOES-R are a huge success.
Bill said…”So at this point in time there is zero radiation to space.”
An atmosphere sans GHGs would still have a temperature and thus would still radiate to space.
Bill said…”How high did the amount of radiation being emitted to space by the atmosphere get before it started coming down?”
I’m not sure what the W/m^2 figures in this layer would be for an atmosphere that moves from non-GHG to a similar GHG concentration as today. Perhaps it would be acceptable to answer what happens today?
Because there is a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance at the surface the atmosphere will be forced to warm as it also equilibriates with the surface. This will increase radiation from the atmosphere. Once it increases from 199.8 to 200.4 W/m^2 then the equilibrium will be reestablished and the warming will stop.
Anyway, assuming we are talking an increase in GHGs the atmospheric flux contribution to space will increase until the new equilibrium is established. It won’t decrease unless the GHGs decrease (or something else changes).
Bill said…”A theory on the basis of it sounds intuitive, or somebody told me, or there must be an explanation, simply isnt adequate.”
Well then it’s a good thing that the first mathematical models of this effect were developed in the late 1800’s. See the work by Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius.
Bill said…”How can you develop a brand new law of physics when you cant even estimate the contribution of CO2?”
First, the GHE does not require any new laws of physics. Second, scientists do have estimates of the contribution by CO2. The article you cited even says so. I think what you really meant to ask is why is the range so large. I don’t know the answer to that question because I don’t know what this article was focusing on. But, I do have a hunch. While it is relatively easy to quantify the combined H2O+CO2 effect it is more difficult to divide the effect into its constituent contributions. This may be in part due to the cloud vs non-cloud contributions from H20 and the fact that the H20-to-CO2 contribution ratio isn’t static. Again, these are just my speculations.
bdgwx says: Bill saidSo at this point in time there is zero radiation to space.
An atmosphere sans GHGs would still have a temperature and thus would still radiate to space.
—————
Thats interesting. A seeming violation of the laws of radiation. As I understand it in the thermosphere species of oxygen and nitrogen warm up to 1000K or more because of slightly absorbing high frequency solar light radiation. That they get that hot because there no other molecules to pass the heat on to and because they can’t radiate at lower frequencies.
So I would need to see a source of your claim there.
———–
———–
bdgwx says:
Bill saidHow high did the amount of radiation being emitted to space by the atmosphere get before it started coming down?
Im not sure what the W/m^2 figures in this layer would be for an atmosphere that moves from non-GHG to a similar GHG concentration as today. Perhaps it would be acceptable to answer what happens today?
Because there is a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance at the surface the atmosphere will be forced to warm as it also equilibriates with the surface.
This will increase radiation from the atmosphere. Once it increases from 199.8 to 200.4 W/m^2 then the equilibrium will be reestablished and the warming will stop.
Anyway, assuming we are talking an increase in GHGs the atmospheric flux contribution to space will increase until the new equilibrium is established. It wont decrease unless the GHGs decrease (or something else changes).
—————
You evaded the question again bdgwx. The question was how much more radiation was going to space after increasing from the 179watts to some mysterious number larger than 200 watts before it started cooling again and how did all this happen. As I said if greenhouse gases cause less atmospheric emission there must be a number it came down from. Basic common sense says that if you don’t know how the emissions got that high and how high they got. . . .you don’t have a valid theory, you are just relying on intuition and relying on intuitions is NOT science.
———–
———–
bdgwx says:
Bill saidA theory on the basis of it sounds intuitive, or somebody told me, or there must be an explanation, simply isnt adequate.
Well then its a good thing that the first mathematical models of this effect were developed in the late 1800s. See the work by Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius.
———
You don’t know the answer? You are just relying on Arrhenius winning a Nobel Prize in some completely unrelated area? Funny how everybody tells me that.
bdgwx says:
Bill saidHow can you develop a brand new law of physics when you cant even estimate the contribution of CO2?
First, the GHE does not require any new laws of physics.
—————
Sure it does bdgwx. You are suggesting that gases operate conductively in a rigid manner like walls.
If you go about getting engineering approval for heat loss in buildings, required of permits, you must apply rules that only apply to solid objects like windows. You don’t have to create stuff in the middle of a large room to account for invisible heat shields occurring everytime a molecule absorbs a photon. You only have to account for that when you have a rigid barrier that prevents convection from eliminating any such effect.
So you are now saying in the atmosphere you must now account for invisible heat shields within the atmosphere. There is no known physics laws that deals with the topic of how convection is denied the opportunity to override any effect from multiple invisible heat barriers in the atmosphere.
—————–
—————–
bdgwx says:
Second, scientists do have estimates of the contribution by CO2. The article you cited even says so. I think what you really meant to ask is why is the range so large. I dont know the answer to that question because I dont know what this article was focusing on. But, I do have a hunch. While it is relatively easy to quantify the combined H2O+CO2 effect it is more difficult to divide the effect into its constituent contributions. This may be in part due to the cloud vs non-cloud contributions from H20 and the fact that the H20-to-CO2 contribution ratio isnt static. Again, these are just my speculations.
———–
Pray tell me this then. If you can’t figure out what CO2 contributes now; how the hay do you figure out what they will in the future?
You have been conned dude! You are just a lucky one sitting around reading enough and keeping your ears open to find out you have been conned.
The truth of all this is we don’t even know what CO2 does within huge range.
We don’t know within any range what the feedback is going to be to increasing CO2. We don’t know what CO2 does even though we know how much there is of it, so how can we determine how much more effect its going to have if we add X more CO2? How could of Arhennius have known? Answer is he didn’t! He guessed.
To ignore this ignorance and promote an answer most people need to have another agenda. What is yours?
Bill said…”So I would need to see a source of your claim there.”
Planck’s Law and Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Basically any body with a temperature > 0K radiates.
Bill said…”As I said if greenhouse gases cause less atmospheric emission there must be a number it came down from.”
Using the diagram as the context we have 3 fluxes that are contributors to the final outgoing flux. They are the atmosphere at 169.9, clouds at 29.9, and the window at 40.1. This sums up to 239.9. The value that this total figure came down from is 240.5 with the bulk of the difference occurring in the window pathway. Since the window is narrowing the new equilibrium is achieved via an increase in the atmosphere pathway. Just to review…prior to a GHG increase the window pathway would have been ~0.6 higher and after the GHG increase and equilibriation the atmosphere window would be ~0.6 higher. So an increase in GHGs decreases the window by 0.6 and increases the atmosphere by 0.6.
I should point out that my explanation is idealizing the situation quite bit. In reality there is actually another huge change occurring; namely an increase in aerosols. This is perturbing the input side of the energy balance. So in reality the window pathway is getting reduced by an amount larger than 0.6 W/m^2, but since the input is declining the final imbalance still ends up being close to 0.6 W/m^2.
FWIW, I’m not sure where you get the 179 W/m^2 figure. I don’t see it in the diagram. I also don’t know what these figures would be for an atmosphere sans GHGs. That’s why I’m not commenting on that thought experiment.
Bill said…”You dont know the answer?”
The answer is in his publication. I didn’t feel like it was necessary to go into great detail on what he did since he can explain it better himself.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
It’s important to note that this is the first attempt at a mathematical model. It’s primitive by today’s standards, but Arrhenius’ work is still considered to be a close enough approximation that it is still employed for rough back-of-the-envelop estimates.
Bill said…”You are suggesting that gases operate conductively in a rigid manner like walls.”
I’m not suggesting that at all. The way in which GHGs act as thermal barriers is quite different than that of the insulation in your home. They work in a completely different way. It’s the effect that is conceptually the same.
Bill said…”There is no known physics laws that deals with the topic of how convection is denied the opportunity to override any effect from multiple invisible heat barriers in the atmosphere.”
GHGs do not act as thermal barriers by inhibiting convection. They do it by impeding the flow of radiation. The fundamental mechanism by which they do this is explained by molecular physics and quantum mechanics. In a nutshell, it has to do with the vibrational modes of the molecules. Different molecules have different excitation frequencies. CO2’s main excitation frequency just happens to be within a portion of the spectrum that still has an open path to space. It’s the so called atmospheric window and is estimated at 40.1 W/m^2 in the NASA diagram.
Bill said…”Pray tell me this then. If you cant figure out what CO2 contributes now; how the hay do you figure out what they will in the future?”
We do know what CO2 contributes now. The IPCC has a pretty summary already.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html
What I don’t know is what that Yale article is talking about. There aren’t enough details given to understand what the context was. Sorry, I just can’t help much on that Yale article. Maybe someone else can?
Bill said…”We dont know within any range what the feedback is going to be to increasing CO2.”
We have a range. From the paleoclimate record the climate sensitivity is between 0.5 and 2.0 C per W/m^2. Based on estimates obtained oceanic heat content and atmospheric temperature trends in combination with recent volcanic eruptions it is believed the current sensitivity is about 0.75C per W/m^2. But the paleoclimate record suggests that the harder the climate system gets perturbed the more sensitive it gets to a given radiative forcing. In other words as the Earth warms/cools beyond a certain value the climate becomes even more sensitive to additional radiative forcing.
Bill said…”We dont know what CO2 does even though we know how much there is of it, so how can we determine how much more effect its going to have if we add X more CO2?”
By looking at the paleoclimate record. Sudden climatic shifts like the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum provide a lot of clues.
Bill said…”How could of Arhennius have known?”
He didn’t. He also didn’t know anything about the molecular physics and quantum mechanical principals that are required to explain at a fundamental level why CO2 and other polyatomics act as thermal barriers. So it’s remarkable that Arrhenius was even able to derive a mathematical model at all. It’s even more remarkable that he correctly predicted that the warming would be more pronounced in polar regions and during the night and that the ocean would buffer significant quantities of anthroprogenic CO2 release.
Bill said…”To ignore this ignorance and promote an answer most people need to have another agenda. What is yours?”
To learn as much as possible about the climate system and to promote future learning.
bdgwx says:
Using the diagram as the context we have 3 fluxes that are contributors to the final outgoing flux. They are the atmosphere at 169.9, clouds at 29.9, and the window at 40.1. This sums up to 239.9. The value that this total figure came down from is 240.5 with the bulk of the difference occurring in the window pathway. Since the window is narrowing the new equilibrium is achieved via an increase in the atmosphere pathway. Just to reviewprior to a GHG increase the window pathway would have been ~0.6 higher and after the GHG increase and equilibriation the atmosphere window would be ~0.6 higher. So an increase in GHGs decreases the window by 0.6 and increases the atmosphere by 0.6.
FWIW, Im not sure where you get the 179 W/m^2 figure. I dont see it in the diagram. I also dont know what these figures would be for an atmosphere sans GHGs. Thats why Im not commenting on that thought experiment.
—————
First, the 179w/m2 number is an idealized iconic representation of the greenhouse effect where ghg have caused the atmosphere to absorb in a single layer all but that which goes through the window. (e.g. it is one half of what the atmosphere absorbs currently).
The basic problem is this number is too large for even the simple iconic theory of absorbing light. Where the iconic theory gives 179w/m2 and measurements give 200w/m2.
Second, I have long believed as you do according to your explanation above that the only way to increase the greenhouse effect is to close the atmospheric window. That increases energy being emitted by the atmosphere from the narrowing of the window exacerbating the mathematical problem.
The multi-layered insulation value of the atmosphere derived from rate of extinction of a beam of light shined through it theory posits a multi-layered effect that took over at some point as the main instigator of warming since the atmospheric window simply isn’t closing fast enough to account for observed warming.
But the effect of insulation is to warm the surface and have the atmosphere emit less and the window more. What insulation in the walls do besides warming the surface is shift emissions from the wall to the windows. Compounding the problem of too many atmosphere emissions.
Since multi-layered absorbing of light in the atmosphere has been increasing with the concentration of greenhouse gases essentially from the very beginning it should have all along been reducing atmosphere emissions and increasing window emissions. Yet a close look at outgoing spectra window emissions are bit less than mean surface temperature suggesting some absorbing by the atmosphere in the window compounding the problem even more if you attribute those missing emissions at a 50% rate to the atmosphere instead of the surface.
My question was centered on establishing that in fact that the insulation value had some logic to it and you responded with a non sequitur.
bdgwx,
‘Technically the rule is that CO2 (or any GHG) increases the radiation flux on the side of the layer where the temperature is higher.’
Hold on there Bubbalouie! (Do you know quicksdraw? )
If I increase the emissivity of a parcel of air, it will radiate more in ALL directions no?
If I then increase the emissivity of the atmosphere, it MUST therefore increase the amount of IR leaving the TOA at any given temp…
b: ‘So if the CO2 layer were in the mesosphere in it would increase the temperature on the bottom of the mesosphere and decrease it on the top.’
Agreed! and this increase at the bottom will accelerate the rate of convection to the top, where as you say… it COOLS to space…
b: “The thermosphere would cool while the stratosphere warms. The effect in the troposphere would likely be insignificant.”
co2 in the mesosphere is not capable of warming the stratosphere… the stratosphere warms the mesosphere…
b: ‘Phil said…”Increasing h20 in the troposphere INCREASES atmospheric emission to space”
Well actually this is demonstrable true. All you need to do is look at the WV channels (8, 9, and 10) on the GOES-16 satellite. The more WV in the atmosphere the more the surface flux is shadowed.’
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me here or not lol… But I am talking about IR from the atmosphere to space… we haven’t even started talking about the surface here yet 😉
A baked apple cools from the outside in… so does the Earth..
bdgwx says:Bill saidYou are suggesting that gases operate conductively in a rigid manner like walls.
Im not suggesting that at all. The way in which GHGs act as thermal barriers is quite different than that of the insulation in your home. They work in a completely different way. Its the effect that is conceptually the same.
————-
Expanding a concept requires a new law or an extension of an existing one.
In the real world convection, diffusion, and molecular collision lifting in the free air all set in motion processes that override any atmospheric radiation barrier. Thats a law followed by window manufacturers and energy consultants when figuring energy losses from a building. This puts at risk any consultant out there selling trailer trash insulation. However, it doesn’t stop industry from selling the krap. Today in this litigious society there is a great deal more, lets say nuance in suggesting trailer trash insulation to low budget buyers.
bdgwx says: Bill saidPray tell me this then. If you cant figure out what CO2 contributes now; how the hay do you figure out what they will in the future?
We have a range. From the paleoclimate record the climate sensitivity is between 0.5 and 2.0 C per W/m^2.
————–
Well I am a bit out of that range. Many years ago I ran a couple of reasonableness checks on climate sensitivity, and read one by Roy that all aligned around the same number. Anyway I am stuck on .4 sensitivity factor give or take a few hundredths. In the coming weeks I plan to document those tests and revisit the assumptions and see if they still hold up. The .5 seems reasonable given the crudeness of my tests. But in this conversation and one I had a few weeks ago I am not looking at a more sophisticated version that is down to .21 but I need to sit down and consider some additional adjustments to the test and see what happens to it.
My training is to do exactly that. I work in areas where folks are a lot smarter and far more experienced and sometimes more educated than I am. But my job is to weed out biases if not outright corruption and I know the techniques of how to do that.
One of the primary ones is asking a question about an inconsistency. Thus I asked you to explain an inconsistency in the value of atmospheric emissions. So far you have not attached an acceptable answer to the observation which would explain why atmosphere emissions are so high and were likely higher sometime in the past based solely on the insulation model as opposed to a single absorbing model which in itself is producing excess emissions from the atmosphere. I think its reasonable to believe a conceptual reduction in emissions based upon a constrained view of an individual process but often entire processes get wiped away by other natural phenomena also based upon known physical processes, like convection, diffusion, and collisions of molecules that mix gases.
Of course the most obvious answer is negative feedback which at this point in time is seemingly an unavoidable conclusion. Unfortunately the law provides no relief. In the finance world it does. Companies are required to get independent opinions from trained BS filterers or they go out of business.
In the world of science no relief via the law is forthcoming, thus one is faced with the lack of prospects of getting anything published in a “good” journal controlled by scientists and consultants and contractors and magazine sellers all whose budgets would be impacted by what you have to say. Evidence of that is showing up in “showing of hands” studies rather than science.
While chances of publication are very low there are a lot of top notch people already on the negative feedback train who have already seen the light that is becoming more obvious with every passing day, except of course during an El Nino as warming and ice melt becoming more a fleeting memory than reality.
bdgwx says:
To learn as much as possible about the climate system and to promote future learning.
——-
Well I have to say your comments in the post I am responding to takes a much more moderate tone. I agree that its hard to do that when the topic is so polarized and you have good, smart, and often well educated people in disagreement along with a lot of really crazy ideas.
bdgwx says:
Plancks Law and Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Basically any body with a temperature > 0K radiates.
————-
Thats really interesting. So what is the emissivity factor in the SB equations for? Or are you just being facetious in saying something with an emissivity factor of .00001 radiates at .001% rate of a black body?
Phil,
It doesn’t matter if the IR is coming from the surface or from the atmosphere. The ABI on the GOES-R satellites receives less IR when more WV is present. What is happening is that more WV shadows more of the surface flux which means the ABI is picking up more of the WV flux. There is way more emittance from the surface than the from the WV. The satellite (which is in space) is literally receiving less IR flux when there is more WV. This is quite obvious on the WV channels especially in the desert southwest where ground temperatures are quite warm. The ABI is receiving a larger/warmer flux in areas where WV is low, but smaller/cooler flux in areas where WV is high. This quite clearly demonstrates that WV is blocking a huge amount of IR from escaping to space. It’s yet another experiment occurring on a planetary scale and on a daily basis that not only shows that the GHE is real, but that it’s quite powerful.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Svante can add and subtract, but he can’t understand the relevant physics, such as:
6) Where does the 29.9 “emitted by clouds” come from?
Thank you for your interest!
Clouds are part of the atmosphere.
The atmosphere gets 77.1 W/m^2 from the Sun directly,
and 122.6 W/m^2 via the surface.
Well Svante, if you were able to understand your own pseudoscience, you would realize the diagram indicates the 29.9 comes from the surface (“emitted by surface”), not from the atmosphere. Of course, you’re welcome to argue with your own pseudoscience….
So, what is the temperature of a cloud emitting 29.9 Watts/m^2?
(Sorry, I forgot you don’t know the relevant physics.) The answer is “152 K”. As I mentioned upthread, there is no cloud in the troposphere with such low temperature. The average temperature of all tropospheric clouds is likely slightly above freezing, say 275 K.
Ice cubes emit about 300 Watt’s/m^2, just to further show you how pathetic the diagram is.
You better just stick to trolling. You can’t handle adult stuff.
Remember we are talking about heat here, let’s stick to that so you don’t get confused.
JDHuffman says:
No, that is impossible, radiant heat from surface to atmosphere is only 17.8.
See the cloud labeled “latent heat”. That is a clue.
The atmosphere is gaseous, so it does get mixed up.
Cloud emissivity can be less than 0.2.
That is one way radiation, please stick to heat here so you don’t get confused.
Thank you!
JD,
I’ve already explained this to you. You cannot use the ~29.9 W/m^2 emitted by clouds and plug it into the SB law and expect a realistic temperature to pop out. The reason is because this is an average energy flux and because clouds are not everywhere at every moment in time. The temperature you get as a result is nonsensical because you’ve misused the SB law.
The clowns deny their own pseudoscience!
Svante claims “Watts/m^2” is “heat”, not radiated flux.
And bdgwx now claims the 29.9 can not be used in the S/B equation because it has been divided by 4!
The comedy continues.
JD said…”And bdgwx now claims the 29.9 can not be used in the S/B equation because it has been divided by 4!”
I didn’t say that. In the context of the cloud energy flux there is nothing to divide by 4. It’s only the solar constant when it is used to derive the solar input that must be divided 4.
The reason it is inappropriate to plug 29.9 W/m^2 into the SB equation is because clouds do not exist homogeneously over the area of Earth and through the period of time in consideration. In other words the Earth is not continuously blanketed with clouds everywhere. Because the 29.9 W/m^2 is an average it is including locations and times in which clouds do not even exist. As a result an attempt to use the SB law would yield nonsensical results.
I’ll ask the question again…if it’s not appropriate to apply the SB law to the 29.9 W/m^2 figure then why is it appropriate to apply it to the ~240 W/m^2 albedo adjusted solar input?
bdgwx gets himself tangled up, again: “In the context of the cloud energy flux there is nothing to divide by 4.”
Wrong, clown. The 29.9 is one fourth of the total. If you converted correctly to energy, and using the bogus “energy budget”, you get 4A * 29.9 = 119.6A Joules/sec, where A is the area of Earth’s “disk”.
Even if you assume the 119.6 can be used for the S/B calculation, it still doesn’t work. Your pseudoscience is a bust, yet again.
But, maybe if you keep typing you can believe your fantasy is real….
JD,
No. That’s not correct. The 29.9 W/m^2 energy flux for clouds is the total average flux. There is no divide by 4 or multiple by 4 at any point in the derivation of this figure. There is is no 119.6 value that exists that is used for the derivation of 29.9. The area A in this diagram is the spherical area or ~510e12 m^2. The “disk” area and its conversion to the spherical area only applies to the solar constant and nothing else. May I suggest reading the literature on how these various energy budget diagrams are constructed? Information on how each flux in the diagram is estimated is contained within the literature already.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Svante,
“Good thinking PhilJ, that will circumvent the 2LOT”
TY, yes , follow the heat…
S: ‘The rounding error is +/- 0.05 per term (which were approximations in the first place),
glad you admit they’re approximations… .6/162.7 is .0037 . So if your approximations are out by more than 0.5 % you have already explained the ‘imbalance’
so assuming the approximations are correct (A large enough assumption to drive a bus through) let’s see what happens…
First you have a heat input missing… so I’m going to approximate the geothermal input at 0.4 w/m2, that gives us an imbalance of 1 w/m2 at the surface..
Assuming the surface will shed that energy in the same proportions as our other approximations have established..the increases would be:
radiation to atmosphere .1094 w/m2
thermals .1131 w/m2
latent heat .5310 w/m2
radiation to space .2465 w/m2
So your surface temp would rise enough to emit an additional .3559 w/m2
Now we have restored the balance, and have all solar plus .4 w/m2 geothermal leaving the surface.
atmospheric input has gone up by .7535 thus atmospheric output to space MUST rise by .7535 w/m2..
Thus either the temp of the atmosphere must increase or its emissivity must increase or more mass must be blown off to space (not even accounted for in your budget) or some combination of the 3.
Now if you really want to have fun, decrease the solar input to the atmosphere and increase the input to the surface by .2 w/m2 to simulate the uvb increase at the surface( and corresponding decrease in the atmosphere)
What you will find is that the heat MUST leave the surface to space and the atmosphere and MUST leave the atmosphere to space
Follow the heat…
the estimate of a .6watt imbalance is no doubt within the realm of natural variation, especially when combined with measurement inaccuracies.
Actually using budgets to get to the .6 imbalance would be foolish and unnecessary thus rounding of budget numbers is completely irrelevant. An imbalance can be detected by satellites measuring total incoming TOA radiance vs outgoing radiance. But it can’t attribute a cause to it because the .6 imbalance could be an ancient imbalance since we know, and its not controversial, that the oceans can take millennia to adjust.
In fact, its probably not even controversial that any inbalance from any source would be an ocean catch up inbalance, except for variation in the number from caused by temporary surges and subsidence of heat into and out of the oceans. Thus any inbalance figure should be a long term mean from long term careful satellite observation of what I would claim to be in excess of 100 years, just to capture temporal natural ocean variation. Of course that all depends upon how you define climate which to my knowledge remains an extremely murky concept.
AFAIK the TOA in/out delta measurements do not have the required precision on its own yet. They have to be fixed using OHC changes etc.
You can measure if the radiation changes are in the CO2/CH4 radiation bands. It’s been done from the surface. I’ve seen one space based multiyear measurement for Antarctica. What else everyone?
I guess you want a continuous long term global measurement?
Bill,
” An imbalance can be detected by satellites measuring total incoming TOA radiance vs outgoing radiance.”
Agreed, but there are issues with that..
Your TOA becomes the altitude of the satellite senor(s) by definition
incoming is relatively constant at zenith of course so that measurement will not have a large error margin
outgoing varies wildly by location, surface composition, atmosphere composition, latitude, time of day, time of year etc… so your sampling has to come from many locations and over a large period of time… it’s measurement therefore has large room for error as many assumptions, extrapolations and interpolations need to be made..
personnally, i think satellite drag anomalies would be a better indicator of changes in energy in/out as mass in/out changes as the energy level of the atmosphere changes…
ultimately the Earth must cool, and it does so as the Sun cooks off it’s volatiles… more energy in means more volatiles leaving, atmosphere expands… and vice versa
Svante says: AFAIK the TOA in/out delta measurements do not have the required precision on its own yet. They have to be fixed using OHC changes etc.
———-
We have no way of measuring OHC. Current extrapolations are far too unreliable and everybody on the ARGO project knows that. That why an expansion of the ARGO project is underway to actually measure the entire depth of the ocean.
Svante says: You can measure if the radiation changes are in the CO2/CH4 radiation bands. Its been done from the surface. Ive seen one space based multiyear measurement for Antarctica. What else everyone?
I guess you want a continuous long term global measurement?
———–
Well at the current rate of warming. . . .yes! As I said there is historical precedence to believe that natural variability could go possibly be a 4C deviation from a nadir, though gazing at the ice core noise 4C would be a very rare event. More commonly there are 2C events with some 3C mixed in.
Measurements and proxies are messy so its hard to say how much more natural variation we could see without noticing a cause. However, there isn’t precedence for rapid warming that spans more than 3 or 4 decades. So indeed if say next year warming resumes again at the rate seen in the 80’s and 90’s that would be of great concern as it would be a statement that the multi-decadal ocean oscillations may not be the cause due to a lack of precedence. We only got 2 decades in the 80’s and 90’s then some kind of muted warming for a couple of decades. So the ocean oscillation to the extent we have seen it operate in the past one would presume we are near the end of the warm phase of it. Per Dr. Akasofu and others like Dr Easterbrook would suggest all this is overlaid a LIA recovery. Expanding glaciers until the middle of the 19th century was likely continuing feedback from the LIA, reversing in the second half of the 19th century as they would have done around 1700 if feedbacks were instantly and fully realized. Since the middle of the 19th century say 1860, feedbacks from the cause of LIA are being overridden by the feedbacks from the cause of the end of the LIA. Gee another 160 years and here we are today. Is the recovery over? I guess we will have to wait and see. But all this fits nicely into the processes described for anthropogenic effects, the challenge is distinguishing between them.
Deep layers have a small part of the OHC anomaly, it will take a thousand years for it to catch up.
If it was a LIA recovery it would have slowed down as the old level was approached, since the power of such a recovery depends on the delta.
We are passing the old level now and there is no sign of a slow down. Please don’t be confused by short term fluctuations, look at the whole period or the OHC.
https://tinyurl.com/y4z7sqkz
Svante says:
Deep layers have a small part of the OHC anomaly, it will take a thousand years for it to catch up.
If it was a LIA recovery it would have slowed down as the old level was approached, since the power of such a recovery depends on the delta.
Only partly does it depend on the delta. There are phase changes from more than one oscillation occurring in the ocean.
And surface land ice just in the last 160 changed from expansion and negative feedback to positive feedback.
Collections of water from the deep ocean recently showed that parts of the Pacific are still cooling from the LIA while most of the oceans are increasing their warming due to the end of the LIA. Since these oscillations are relatively short term like once every 3 or 400 years it changes phases; and the oceans need millennia to adjust you likely are not going to see much of a diminishing end unless a change doesn’t come for long period.
Plus various feedbacks at play. First feedbacks from the cooling allowed the glaciers to expand for about 160 years after the surface temperature started to warm in 1700. That warmed the atmosphere to a point the glaciers reversed direction around 1860, Now you may have only seen the peak of ice loss occur in 2007. so i don’t think any body knows how long the land surface ice feedbacks could last. But I have heard maybe over a 100,000 years. what do you figure? since you claim to know?
The cryosphere has both fast and slow feedbacks. The slower feedbacks are on the order of thousands of years. Many scientists, for example Hansen, believe the slow feedbacks have already been set in motion and that the polar ice caps will eventually melt out albeit after thousands of years. I don’t know, I’m a bit more skeptical at least if CO2 concentrations can stay near or below 400 ppm. I will say that one concern is that Arctic sea ice is melting way faster than anyone ever anticipated. And Antarctic sea ice is behaving strangely as well. Specifically, the IPCC predicted that sea ice in the SH would continue to increase slightly until about 2030 under most of the RCP scenarios before it started a long and slow decline, but it’s actually at record lows right now. Sea ice is important because it modulates one of the fast feedbacks…albedo.
The “0.6 Watts/m^2” is bogus. It comes from the bogus numbers used in the bogus “energy budget”, which is not an energy budget.
Probably that makes the “0.6” doubly bogus….
bdgwx, the Eemian was 1-2 C warmer and sea level was 6-9 m higher than today. It had a short and sharp temperature peak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
bdgwx says: The cryosphere has both fast and slow feedbacks. The slower feedbacks are on the order of thousands of years. Many scientists, for example Hansen, believe the slow feedbacks have already been set in motion and that the polar ice caps will eventually melt out albeit after thousands of years.
——
Yeah well they did what would be expected to occur with thousands of years delay in seeking equilibrium to what occurred to drive us out of the LIA back in 1700, namely at first the momentum of cooling due to the fact that the LIA took us to a surface temperature below equilibrium in comparison to changes in the sun after 1700 glaciers would continue to accumulate until warming advanced enough to drive the temperature above the glacial equilibrium, where the glaciers would then reverse direction.
Hansen would like that natural reversal to disappear because he want to attribute the reversal to CO2 and thus all that has driven the effort to try to make the LIA go away. But mainstream science still accepts the LIA despite the desperate efforts of tea leaves readers.
———-
———
bdgwx says:
I dont know, Im a bit more skeptical at least if CO2 concentrations can stay near or below 400 ppm. I will say that one concern is that Arctic sea ice is melting way faster than anyone ever anticipated.
——
But its levels aren’t known to be different than in the 1940’s when Henry Larsen transported through the NW passage twice and a number of Hudson Bay Company were using the passage as well. It reclosed and did not reopen until 2007 since then ice levels have remained pretty steady.
———-
———
bdgwx says:
And Antarctic sea ice is behaving strangely as well.
——
You mean setting record extent levels? Not much warming going down there. Must be global warming is a regional event since the Antarctic is not in sync. LMAO!
———-
———
bdgwx says:
Specifically, the IPCC predicted that sea ice in the SH would continue to increase slightly until about 2030 under most of the RCP scenarios before it started a long and slow decline, but its actually at record lows right now. Sea ice is important because it modulates one of the fast feedbacksalbedo.
———————-
Gee even the IPCC agrees that global warming is a regional event out of sync as well? I guess they gave up on the idea of trying to sell Antarctica warming based upon a few cherry picked thermometers huh?
JDHuffman says:
The 0.6 Watts/m^2 is bogus. It comes from the bogus numbers used in the bogus energy budget, which is not an energy budget.
Probably that makes the 0.6 doubly bogus.
——–
Yep, just another example of using “the best science available” models to adjust observations to bring them in line with CAGW theory. Of course Trenberth was already doing that with the original budget using plug numbers for backradiation that don’t correspond to any observed phenomena in the sky.
The 0.6 W/m^2 imbalance comes from ocean heat content observations and is inline with what modern climate science expects it to be based on the net effect of the all climate forcing agents in play today.
Bill, you’re sea ice info is out of date, see diagram:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/
“Decades of expanding sea ice in Antarctica have been wiped out by three years of sudden and dramatic declines, leaving scientist puzzled as to why the region has flipped so abruptly.
A new satellite analysis reveals that between 2014 and 2017 sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere suffered unprecedented annual decreases, leaving the area covered by sea ice at its lowest point in 40 years. The declines were so big that they outstripped the losses in the fast-melting Arctic over the same period. “It’s very surprising. We just haven’t seen decreases like that in either hemisphere,” says Claire Parkinson at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, who undertook the analysis.”
Bill, your sea ice info is out of date, see diagram:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/
“Decades of expanding sea ice in Antarctica have been wiped out by three years of sudden and dramatic declines, leaving scientist puzzled as to why the region has flipped so abruptly.
A new satellite analysis reveals that between 2014 and 2017 sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere suffered unprecedented annual decreases, leaving the area covered by sea ice at its lowest point in 40 years. The declines were so big that they outstripped the losses in the fast-melting Arctic over the same period. Its very surprising. We just havent seen decreases like that in either hemisphere, says Claire Parkinson at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center, who undertook the analysis.”
Svante says: Bill, youre sea ice info is out of date
——–
Sorry Svante but you have wandered off the farm and gotten yourself lost. A three year trend in ice extent isn’t considered climate change.
bdgwx claims: “The 0.6 W/m^2 imbalance comes from…”
Clown, the only “imbalance” is your mental stability. Your addiction to pseudoscience has made you unstable and rapidly becoming a danger to yourself and others.
Seek professional help.
Bill,
“But [Arctic sea ice] levels aren’t known to be different than in the 1940s when Henry Larsen transported through the NW passage twice and a number of Hudson Bay Company were using the passage as well. It reclosed and did not reopen until 2007 since then ice levels have remained pretty steady.”
Judging total sea ice cover based on a narrow portion of the cap is as flawed as judging trends over only 3 years.
Recent Arctic sea ice cover appears to be the lowest since 1900 in all reconstructions based purely on sea ice obs.
https://diablobanquisa.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/the-new-walsh-dataset-arctic-sea-ice-extent-since-1850/
What studies of Arctic sea ice cover are you aware of that corroborate your view here?
barry says:
Judging total sea ice cover based on a narrow portion of the cap is as flawed as judging trends over only 3 years.
————–
Thats a doubled-edged sword that cuts both ways Barry. And cuts its deepest into any attempt at quantifying the amplitude of the oscillation, which is going to naturally vary itself.
barry says:
Recent Arctic sea ice cover appears to be the lowest since 1900 in all reconstructions based purely on sea ice obs.
—————
Reconstructions usually reflect as much reality as the author’s bias’
barry says:
What studies of Arctic sea ice cover are you aware of that corroborate your view here?
———–
Well one does not need a science study, assuming one could get funded for one in today’s academic environment to corroborate an Arctic wide negative fluctuation in the 1940’s when concurrent to the opening of the northwest passage the northeast passage also opened and involved some battles between German and Soviet naval forces over control of the supply routes both between Germany and Japan and for the Soviets in support of their operations. Beyond that I have not studied the 40’s ice that much, though did a little research that is available via the Hudson Bay Company trading operations with the aboriginals throughout the early 20th century.
Beyond that there is a fairly rich history throughout the Holocene of an ice free Arctic completely with genetic mixing studies of marine mammals, a few British expeditions no doubt undertaken on the basis of local lore, geologic examination of shorelines showing open waters estimated to extend to the poles etc. What is the basis for the simple story of consistent decline until man came upon the scene? Far less I would venture.
Fortunately, Bill, there are people who have pored over old records of Arctic sea ice in great detail, doing all that work that you and I haven’t had time or interest to do, and you can acquaint yourself with what they did, their conclusions and quantifications of uncertainty pretty easily. I’ve provided a link to one such study in the last post. Curiosity and working fingers is all we need these days.
It would not be too surprising if the Arctic was ice free in Summer in the early Holocene. Orbital variation saw 8% more sunlight over the Arctic than now, and temperatures 1 or 2 degree higher than now in the Arctic.
Looks like you’re more interested in sowing doubt than understanding the facts and uncertainties. I hope I’m wrong.
A copy of the study would be helpful.
“I’ve provided a link to one such study in the last post.”
That is, 3 posts above this one now (3 of my posts back).
I’ll link again, but don’t aim to make a habit of doing this legwork for you.
https://diablobanquisa.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/the-new-walsh-dataset-arctic-sea-ice-extent-since-1850/
The link to the paper itself is in the first sentence of the article there.
If you want more, there are some older papers in this list:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/papers-on-sea-ice-amount-observations/
The 2010 paper is a good review of the state of knowledge, and look further down in the Arctic section for older studies of pre-satellite data.
barry says: The 2010 paper is a good review of the state of knowledge
——-
Thanks for that. I have used the Polyak study extensively in the past. It is an excellent piece of work.
I would draw your attention to Figure 12 which unlike the summary of the other document you produced that fails to see the early 20th century ice extent anomaly. Why is that?
Bill,
I wonder at your abilities to comprehend.
The black line in that graph is for a sub section of the Arctic (Nordic seas) 1600 – 1997. The red line is the Arctic wide data 1870 to 2003, and it clearly shows lowest Arctic-wide sea ice extents most recently. Read the description under fig. 12. And read it to the end.
Please check again and confirm that you understand. Here is a direct link to that chart and the text beneath confirming what I’ve said here.
https://i.imgur.com/XKGebCP.png
The sea ice in the Nordic seas makes up 5% of the total Arctic sea ice. The Arctic-wide sea ice in red is a good match with the other paper in that sea ice fraction is nowhere near as low as recently anywhere else in that record.
This also harks back to your statement of NW passage opening being an indicator of Arctic-wide sea ice. The variability in the Nordic Seas and discrepancy with the Arctic-wide cover (discussed in Polyak) indicates that small portions of the Arctic are not indicative of coverage over the whole Arctic. And we see this also in the satellite record.
I am glad you think that the Polyak paper is excellent, and draw your attention to another graph in it: Fif 2 (a)
I’ve linked directly to it for you.
https://i.imgur.com/q1DG7B6.png
Yet another source corroborating that Arctic sea ice has not been nearly as low as recently, throughout the last 150 years or so.
I hope you will agree that your original assertion:
“But its levels aren’t known to be different than in the 1940s when Henry Larsen transported through the NW passage twice and a number of Hudson Bay Company were using the passage as well.”
doesn’t accurately reflect the Arctic-wide sea ice record.
barry says: – The sea ice in the Nordic seas makes up 5% of the total Arctic sea ice. The Arctic-wide sea ice in red is a good match with the other paper in that sea ice fraction is nowhere near as low as recently anywhere else in that record.
——-
You missed my point. You have the Nordic Seas, you have the NW passage, and you have the NE passage all pretty much ice free for almost 3 1/2 decades, give or take a few cool years where the ice may have persisted, but pretty much if you add in the naval records, with the explorer records, with the nordic records, and with the Hudson Bay company records. You have a full blown ocean oscillation length period of low ice in all those locations simultaneously. I don’t know about that other guy Kennard (sp?), maybe he was imbibing the spiked koolaid. Uh. . . .does his office have any windows?
I dont know about that other guy Kennard (sp?), maybe he was imbibing the spiked koolaid. Uh… does his office have any windows?
Cited in a paper you said was “excellent” less than 24 hours ago, you now make juvenile comments like this.
You seemed interesting when we started, but you are actually just another opportunist who changes his story whenever the going gets tough.
You missed my point. You have the Nordic Seas, you have the NW passage, and you have the NE passage all pretty much ice free for almost 3 1/2 decades, give or take a few cool years where the ice may have persisted
It’s time to be direct. This is bullshit. And you are full of it.
The Northeast Passage has never been completely ice free until the early 2000, when it was sailed end to end for the first time without using ice breakers or strong-hulled ships to push through the ice.
The Nordic Sea contains the NE Passage, so you are double counting.
The paper you called “excellent” has two graphs of Arctic-wide sea ice from the late 1800s, corroborating other work that extent has never been as low for the whole Arctic until recently.
Results from a paper you call “excellent” that you denigrate with schoolboy rhetoric after it is pointed out you misread a graph.
Intellectual dishonesty is something I loathe. We’re done.
barry says: – I dont know about that other guy Kennard (sp?), maybe he was imbibing the spiked koolaid. Uh does his office have any windows?
Cited in a paper you said was excellent less than 24 hours ago, you now make juvenile comments like this.
——————-
Barry, the world of science is full of models designed to buck up climate models. One can do a “excellent” ice paper by starting with the wreckage of the Franklin Expedition in very high ice conditions, apply a climate model based upon anthropogenic warming beginning way back at the start of the industrial revolution and come up with a study that matches the global warming trend. Nothing wrong with that.
I would actually expect a curve like Kinnards with almost 300 years of atmospheric warming influence. Both graphs are excellent. . . .that is if you know enough to actually read what they are trying to say.
barry says: – The paper you called excellent has two graphs of Arctic-wide sea ice from the late 1800s, corroborating other work that extent has never been as low for the whole Arctic until recently.
———-
The paper is excellent Barry. I will keep consistently saying that. What isn’t excellent is what some people ass-u-me about its components.
That is especially relevant to interpreting straight lines or smoothed curved lines.
You in essence are claiming that kinnard’s graph demonstrates that the Nordic sea graph is only a regional effect. But that extrapolation is in completely unsupported by Polyak and is simply an invention of you or one of your handlers. Polyak actually says right in the paragraph preceding the graph: “In contrast, a very close match between the Nordic Seas and Arctic wide records of ice extent during the recent decades emphasizes
the pan-Arctic nature of the modern ice loss.”
Here Polyak, who is aware of the shortcomings of the Kinnard reconstruction, is using the Nordic record as a proxy for pan-Arctic ice!!!!! And you are trying to tell me I should not do that!!!!! And you are calling me out of intellectual dishonesty because I am doing what Polyak is doing.
Meanwhile you are totally immersed in the idea that ocean oscillations are meaningless and failing completely in correctly assessing your situational awareness so you go off extrapolating in exactly the wrong direction!!!
The fact is Kinnard’s study is also good, but you have to be aware of its long term resolution which is pretty well documented in the study and obviously Polyak was aware of that.
Polyak presents several graphs with smoothed and straight lines over more variable lines. What you need to understand that the noisy lines are already smoothed at a smaller scale sufficient to mask relatively short term variation. The Nordic Ice study is of high resolution, the Kinnard study is of low resolution with various parts covering 1450 years.
The bottom line here is temporal ice variations in the Arctic are in time with ocean oscillations and their short term effects (multi-decadal) are consistent with the natural variability we see in climate history and consistent with the word of the highly esteemed Arctic researcher Dr. Syun Akasofu.
The only thing obvious that arises out of all this regarding extrapolations to the future is we need to wait and see. Climate models are still way to iffy to depend upon, observation by cruise lines, recreational boaters, perhaps even the chance of some emerging transarctic commerce will tell us a lot more over the next couple of decades.
Barry says: – The Northeast Passage has never been completely ice free until the early 2000, when it was sailed end to end for the first time without using ice breakers or strong-hulled ships to push through the ice.
————
Egads thats really wishy washy. What is a strong hulled vessel? The northeast passage was conquered as early as 1879 by a Swede in a whaling vessel. Certainly the ice was a good deal thicker in the middle of the 19th century. When Larsen in 1944 traveled the deepwater route without encountering any blockage and reporting seeing very little ice. The deepwater channel even now doesn’t open every year.
Actually if you read advice to mariners they recommend sturdy vessels for the voyage today. Sure there are some daredevils doing it with jet skis and kayaks and cheap weekend sailor type of vessels but its strongly advised against and actually costs a good deal of money for the various coast guards to go pluck those guys out of predicaments that these guys would have perished in before there were sat phones and ice breakers regularly stationed around the arctic to help with commerce.
If the science around global warming was strong you would not need to resort to this sort of vague observation and biased viewpoints about ice conditions not being highly variable. The fact you have to resort to that is exactly why skepticism runs so high.
The geothermal input to the surface is 0.09 W/m^2 and steady.
Yes, you can change the numbers and get a different result.
The imbalance is confirmed by OHC measurements etc.
This heat is not leaving for space, not until Earth cools down again.
PhilJ
“First you have a heat input missing so Im going to approximate the geothermal input at 0.4 w/m2…”
Wrong, PhilJ.
The geothermal heat flow at Earth’s surface is on average about 80 mW/m^2. Your assumption is 5 times higher.
Didn’t you write about “A large enough assumption to drive a bus through” ??
Case of a bitter bit? We say ‘Tel est pris qui croyait prendre’.
Bindidon and Svante,
“The geothermal heat flow at Earths surface is on average about 80 mW/m^2. Your assumption is 5 times higher.
You misunderstand. It doesn’t matter the value you use for geothermal…(as long as its positive)
The surface MUST shed that energy. This ‘energy budget’ diagram could be a snapshot in time, but cannot be a steady state…
At steady state the surface MUST lose all the input from the Sun AND all the input from geothermal…
The ratios of how the surface cools show clearly that WATER, through evapoaration, is the primary means by which the surface cools…
hence h20 the ‘strongest greenhouse gas’ clearly COOLS the surface…
phil j…”The surface MUST shed that energy [geothermal].
It’s been doing that for billions of years, heating the surface and the oceans. What temperatures would both be without that continuous input?
PhilJ, yes it must balance in long run.
That will be done by the rising temperature.
The diagram is a ten year average if i remember correctly.
You could say H20 cools the surface. It doesn’t matter how you get the heat to TOA, the surface must warm to get more heat up there because heat transfer rate depends on temperature difference.
You can put in geothermal if you like.
It will round to 0.0.
H2O cools the surface via evaporation and cools the lower troposphere via its contribution to the convective available potential energy that induces convection in an unstable atmosphere. But, H2O is also a GHG and given the average concentration in the atmosphere it is a very powerful one at that. It turns out that the net radiative forcing effect of H2O is positive. So yeah, you can say that H2O cools the surface, but that’s a bit misleading since it’s the net effect that matters most.
GR said…”What temperatures would both be without that continuous input?”
The difference is imperceptibly small since the geothermal energy flux at the surface is on the order of 0.1 W/m^2. That is equivalent to a 2% change in CO2 concentration for point of reference.
Svante,
‘PhilJ, yes it must balance in long run.’
Bingo! You therefore cannot have a constantly rising temp without a constantly rising input from a HEAT source!
S:
“That will be done by the rising temperature.
The diagram is a ten year average if i remember correctly.
You could say H20 cools the surface. It doesnt matter how you get the heat to TOA, the surface must warm to get more heat up there because heat transfer rate depends on temperature difference.”
no, no , no , no… as I showed, using the ratios from your own ‘energy budget’ diagram… over 50% of any increase in input leaves the surface through evaporation (no temp increase required!)
It follows of course, that should there be a decrease in input, the decrease in evaporation is greater than the decrease in radiation… this of course explains why a wet surface does not get as hot in the sun, and why temps decrease more slowly at night…
follow the HEAT!
bdgwx,
“H2O cools the surface via evaporation and cools the lower troposphere via its contribution to the convective available potential energy that induces convection in an unstable atmosphere”
You were doing so well… let me finish this for you…
h20 then condenses releasing its latent heat to the atmosphere, boosting the warmer dryer air to a higher altitude…
h20 then radiatively COOLS the atmosphere to space…
Most of the IR leaving TOA comes from h20 in the upper troposhere/tropopause…
b: “But, H2O is also a GHG”
the ‘GHE’ is a pink elephant… the ‘net radiative forcing’ is already included in the heat flow budget and it is decidedly from the surface to the atmosphere!
HEAT flow is unidirectional, from warmer to colder and never the reverse…
follow the HEAT!
GR,
“phil jThe surface MUST shed that energy [geothermal].
Its been doing that for billions of years, heating the surface and the oceans. What temperatures would both be without that continuous input?”
What temperature would the surface be without water to remove more than 50% of that energy input as latent heat?
(hello Venus!)
Svante says:
You could say H20 cools the surface. It doesnt matter how you get the heat to TOA, the surface must warm to get more heat up there because heat transfer rate depends on temperature difference.
You can put in geothermal if you like.
It will round to 0.0.
————-
Wrong!!!! The surface warms and cools everyday, but all that is needed to get heat to transport up into the atmosphere is for the atmosphere to lose energy to space.
Heat loss to space must match heat input from the sun.
At the moment it’s out of whack, heat input exceeds output, temperatures will rise until equilibrium is restored.
Svante,
“Heat loss to space must match heat input from the sun.”
You’ve almost got it… Heat loss to space must match input from the sun AND some loss from the Earth’s internal energy…
S: ‘At the moment its out of whack, heat input exceeds output,’
Observed reduced drag on satellites suggests otherwise…
” temperatures will rise until equilibrium is restored.”
The Earth will not be in equilibrium with it’s surroundings until it has cooled to the state of the Moon…
That may take a LONG LONG time as long as we keep a nice 02 supply going…
bdgwx says: H2O cools the surface via evaporation and cools the lower troposphere via its contribution to the convective available potential energy that induces convection in an unstable atmosphere. But, H2O is also a GHG and given the average concentration in the atmosphere it is a very powerful one at that. It turns out that the net radiative forcing effect of H2O is positive. So yeah, you can say that H2O cools the surface, but thats a bit misleading since its the net effect that matters most.
—————
Well I would like for your comments to not be misleading as I am looking for some analysis of what happens to the atmosphere during the diurnal cycle. Got a link I can read?
Bill, there are lot of interesting things that happen as a result of the diurnal cycle. Is there one particular aspect you are interested in?
bdgwx says: H2O cools the surface via evaporation and cools the lower troposphere via its contribution to the convective available potential energy that induces convection in an unstable atmosphere.
Well you could start out by explaining how you think potential energy induces convection. Sounds crazy to me.
But otherwise, I would like to see the effect of diurnal warming and cooling on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. I realize we don’t know snot about the mesosphere, perhaps less even than what we know about the bottom of the ocean as the only thing we have are a few samples collected from shooting rockets through it. But the effect of the diurnal cycle on the stratosphere and troposphere would be very nice to see.
Bill said…”Well you could start out by explaining how you think potential energy induces convection. Sounds crazy to me.”
There are entire college classes on this topic. Just to get you started though start researching the following.
Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_available_potential_energy
Convective Inhibition (CIN)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_inhibition
This is a huge topic and will require a substantial investment of time to learn.
Bill said…”But the effect of the diurnal cycle on the stratosphere and troposphere would be very nice to see.”
This is another huge topic. Some things you might want to research are the nocturnal low level jet, diurnal variation of the planetary boundary layer, diurnal pressure variations, diurnal temperature range, diurnal gravity waves, and the list goes on and on. Even researching just one of these topics is a massive undertaking.
DA,
“The heat wave was at least five times more likely to occur as a result of climate warming, scientists conclude.
Know any good bookies?
Well those odds should be based upon heatwaves occurring 5 times more often rather than a climate model. As I understand those claims have all fallen flat in the face of real science.
I tried to read
Human contribution to record-breaking June 2019 heatwave in France
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/human-contribution-to-record-breaking-june-2019-heatwave-in-france/
but had to stop when looking at the very first sentence:
“A heatwave struck large parts of Europe during the last week of June 2019, breaking several historical records at single locations in France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Spain.”
In Spain? So what!
When you collect all GHCN daily data for Spain, perform a descending sort on it and extract all June data out of it, you see this at positions 1 to 20:
SEVILLA/SAN_PABLO__________ 1965 6 27 45.2
MORON_DE_LA_FRONTERA_______ 1981 6 13 45.0
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 1965 6 26 45.0
MORON_DE_LA_FRONTERA_______ 1981 6 13 44.8
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 2017 6 16 44.5
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 2012 6 26 44.1
MURCIA/ALCANTARILLA________ 2012 6 29 44.0
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 1965 6 20 44.0
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 1965 6 19 44.0
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 2015 6 28 43.7
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 1981 6 14 43.6
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 2017 6 17 43.5
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 1981 6 13 43.4
BADAJOZ/TALAVERA_LA_REAL___ 1981 6 14 43.4
SEVILLA/SAN_PABLO__________ 2017 6 16 43.3
MURCIA/ALCANTARILLA________ 2012 6 28 43.2
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 2017 6 18 43.2
SEVILLA/SAN_PABLO__________ 1981 6 13 43.0
SEVILLA/SAN_PABLO__________ 1968 6 29 43.0
CORDOBA_AEROPUERTO_________ 1965 6 28 43.0
and the very first June day for 2019
ZARAGOZA___________________ 2019 6 26 37.0
appears in this list at position… 2514.
And what these people don’t tell is that Spain experienced in 2019 one of the coldest June months evah.
The lowest June anomaly was
OURENSE____________________ 2019 6 -6.00
The highest June anomaly was
TORREJON___________________ 2019 6 2.35
This means that the highest anomaly registered in Spain for June 2019 in a single station was half as high as the average anomaly for ALL stations in Germany in the same month!
This is bad, ludicrous work made by irresponsible alarmistas.
*
The same remark applies for their ‘information’ concerning France.
This begins with a reference to the pretended highest temperature evah, 45.9 °C.
This temperaure has never been measured: Meteo France has clearly explained that it was an estimate calculated through interpolation for a little town called Gallargues-le-Montueux.
Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against interpolation! The entire world makes use of it.
But that the alarmistas who wrote the paper simply refer to this as if it had been officially measured: that is really a joke.
There has been a real heat wave in 2003 in France (and one in 1911, during which even more people died than in 2003, but it was nevertheless less harsh).
Very nicely done!
Bill Hunter
Thanks.
The very best is that a few pseudoskeptic Ignorants who hang around here all the time, discredit me as an alarmist, as a troll, as a blithering idiot, etc etc.
Ha ha ha haaa… that’s a good joke indeed.
binny…”The very best is that a few pseudoskeptic Ignorants who hang around here all the time, discredit me as an alarmist, as a troll, as a blithering idiot, etc etc.”
The description is apt when you submit homebrew graphs purporting to compare UAH to the fudged NOAA (GHCN)data. The UAH data straddles the baseline over the range whereas the NOAA data has a positive trend beginning at the baseline circa 1980.
You’re an alarmist because your sole purpose here is to discredit UAH data. I have not reached the blithering idiot description yet, merely calling you an idiot.
The data you quoted above comes from GHCN, a totally fudged, uncoordinated surface record. I have posted links for you proving how NOAA fudges its data and their own admission that they have slashed 75% of their reporting surface stations recently. You continue to defend NOAA despite direct proof that they are corrupt, hence the idiot moniker.
“Youre an alarmist because your sole purpose here is to discredit UAH data.”
What a useless lie. All Bindidon does is compare. He doesn’t favour any particular data set. That is the job of the one-eyed partisans here – like Robertson.
“NOAA… and their own admission that they have slashed 75% of their reporting surface stations recently.”
This is a lie, here repeated for the umpteenth time by a liar.
barry, please stop trolling.
Svante,
” but in reality the Earth energy accumulation rate continues unabated”
That is impossible without a continually increasing input..
Also demonstrably false.
If the Earth was accumulating energy the TOA would be expanding..
Observed reduced drag on satelites is evidence that the TOA is contracting, ergo the Earth is losing energy, not gaining…
The Earth is not gaining energy at TOA though. In fact, it’s actually losing energy at TOA. The energy gain is occurring at the surface because there is a thermal barrier that is preventing it from reaching TOA. The gain at the surface is +0.6 W/m^2 and the loss at TOA is -0.6 W/m^2. That’s the imbalance. Once the equilibration runs its course these values go back to 0 W/m^2 and 0 W/m^2 respectively.
bdgwx,
“The Earth is not gaining energy at TOA though. In fact, its actually losing energy at TOA”
by definition, the TOA MUST always be losing energy.
It must be losing ALL the incoming energy AND some of the Earths internal energy.
If it is not, the Earth MUST increase its energy output until this is once more the case…
“The energy gain is occurring at the surface because there is a thermal barrier that is preventing it from reaching TOA”
or perhaps the energy gain at the surface has occurred because the thermal barrier between the Sun and the surface has decreased, as has certainly happened with UVB.
If that is true, then if (and only if) the barrier recovers will we see decreasing average temps…
follow the HEAT!
bdg…”The energy gain is occurring at the surface because there is a thermal barrier that is preventing it from reaching TOA”.
Yes…it’s called the atmosphere and it is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. Alarmists would have us believe the trace gas CO2, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for most of the heat in the atmosphere. N2/O2 are regarded as inert gases that act as fillers.
The Ideal Gas Law sees it differently. Our atmosphere has a fairly constant mass and volume. Under such conditions the IGL tells us the heat contributed by its constituent gases contribute heat based on their mass percent. That means, in your thermal barrier, N2/O2 contributes 99% of the heat and CO2 about 0.04%.
That’s not the end of the story. Before the Industrial Era, atmospheric CO2 was still more than 0.03%. Why did that level of CO2 not cause catastrophic warming and climate change?
GR,
The IGL is a diagnostic or state equation. The only thing it tells you is that the properties of the gas must satisfy the equation at all times. It tells you nothing about the forces acting on the gas or how the gas will evolve with time.
I don’t know what “catastrophic warming” is. But I can tell you that CO2 always produces a radiative forcing in proportion to the logarithm of its concentration. That is was true for the past, it is true for the present, and it will continue to be true in the future. And CO2 was definitely a contributing factor for climate change in the past. Refer to the paleoclimate record for the many examples of dramatic climate shifts and how GHGs were significant contributing factors in many of them.
bdgwx types: “But I can tell you that CO2 always produces a radiative forcing in proportion to the logarithm of its concentration.”
Wrong, bdgwx!
Just because you can type something, that does not mean it is reality. You have no proof that CO2 warms the planet. That is your belief. Beliefs are NOT science.
Now, back to your typing class.
bdgwx says: I dont know what catastrophic warming is. But I can tell you that CO2 always produces a radiative forcing in proportion to the logarithm of its concentration.
————-
Yep we all hold religious beliefs. Why? Because they are intuitive. The slow erosion of religion has come about because so much of old intuition now appears implausible, something that preachers need to deal with.
the same thing will occur in climate science as it moves from a very young science with wholly inadequate data to support it to a far better intuition.
My greatest fear is that because of the religious nut cases science seems likely destined to receive a huge blackeye which will cause the public to begin to question it. Alarmism and science is a very bad mix. . . .it creates the same kind of bubbles seen in the financial world. . . .and none of this is disconnected from the financial world. . . .the fall out could be devastating no matter what the outcome is. There is way too much extrapolating going on when a much tamer approach would favor careful experimentation and more complete sampling of the precepts of the global warming theory.
Science realizes observation is a key to the scientific method as it provides a measurement standard. But the scientific method controls are lost when you lose confidence in the observation data and figure you need to make adjustments to them. This requires a complete restart of the experiment to maintain the control. But what we have seen is a constant movement in the observation data and that movement then is attempted to be sold as the results of a controlled study. That really is scientific fraud. A well-trained, dedicated, and honest scientist when problems emerge in the control study will fix the problems. . . .then restart the experiment. Not fix the problems and then claim the experiment succeeded. Scientists with high integrity will acknowledge this shortcoming by recognizing the uncertainty of actually fixing all the problems in an observation data set rather than unconsciously only finding the ones that go contrary to the objective of the experiment.
Keep ignoring science and hold on to your beliefs.
Svante, I asked a key question above that you have been evading that is necessary knowledge to claim the popular version of the greenhouse theory is actually science. Scientists blabbing it, scientists believing it, scientists wanting it to be true, scientists thinking its an intuitive idea are all 100% non-science.
I didn’t see any question there, only declarations.
You would have been right in the 50’s. The evidence has kept getting stronger since then. It’s based on solid physics. Not even Angstrom doubted the GHE.
Svante says: I didnt see any question there, only declarations.
You would have been right in the 50s. The evidence has kept getting stronger since then. Its based on solid physics. Not even Angstrom doubted the GHE.
————-
You’re building strawmen Svante. I have zero doubt about a GHE and have never harbored such a ridiculous notion.
What I question is:
1) exactly how big the GHE effect is.
2) whether greenhouse gases which are clearly necessary for the GHE or both necessary and sufficient.
3) how the GHE manifests itself via a specific and quantifiable process.
4) how the GHE varies.
The question I asked simply requests an explanation for a phenomena that has two numbers. One is very well quantified and verified, the other if anything seems exaggerated, but in this case exaggeration of surface emissions actually serve to make the discrepancy smaller. It seems unlikely emissions could be larger as the budget aggressively defines a huge backradiation element to feed it. I can’t imagine how that could be even bigger.
I am not a climate expert, just a professional investigator that knows how to find answers if anybody has a clue about what they are talking about. I am used to talking to experts who can actually answer those questions where no question is a stupid question if it serves to educate the auditor.
Experts would never need my services if they were always aware of such seeming inconsistencies. So there are hundreds of times if not more where questions such as I am asking has led to the identification of an important issue.
Here on this board I haven’t found an expert that knows the answer yet. So I am not presuming that the lack of consistency is meaningful or not as I can’t really say I have asked the question of a true expert or not.
All I know is if the question doesn’t get satisfactorily answered, then the question needs to be asked over and over again until somebody either answers it or makes corrections to get the GHE sensitivity right.
Right now though from my view point the GHE theory looks to me like what the oxygen tanks must have been looking like to the astronauts on Apollo 13. Negative feedback would look the same.
Now if you can’t identify that as a valid question let me just say I have no clue what is going on inside your brain as all you seem to be doing is attacking the questioner.
phil j…
“Svante,
but in reality the Earth energy accumulation rate continues unabated”
PJ…”That is impossible without a continually increasing input..
Also demonstrably false”.
*********
Svante doesn’t like to get hung up on reality or physics. He and his motley crew of alarmists have perverted the 2nd law so that GHGs are now sources of heat that can act as heat amplifiers, thus raising the temperature of the surface that sourced their heat.
Perpetual motion, as in recycled heat, does not phase Svante and the boys.
Gordon, the 2nd law applies to heat.
I converted Trenberth’s energy diagram to heat for you here:
https://tinyurl.com/y2ofmgqg
Radiative heat from surface to the atmosphere is 17.8 W/m^2, and none of it is coming back in the wrong direction.
Using W/m^2:
Solar to Atmosphere: 77.1 – 0 = 77.1
Solar to Surface: 163.3 – 0 = 163.3
Surface to Space: 40.1 – 0 = 40.1
Surface to Atmosphere: 17.8 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 122.6
Radiation: 398.2 – 40.1 – 340.3 = 17.8
Thermals (net): 18.4
Latent Heat (net): 86.4
Atmosphere to Space: 239.9 – 40.1 – 0 = 199.8
Atmosphere in: 122.6 + 77.1 = 199.7
Surface out: 122.6 + 40.1 = 162.7
Surface in: 163.3
Surface surplus: 0.6 (means avg temp must rise).
Dont get hung up on the decimals, they are approximations.
Svante, your figures are bogus. I’ve already discussed the bogus “29.9, emitted by clouds”.
Need another example? How do you know “18.4” is valid for “thermals”? How is that “measured”?
Answer: It isn’t measured. It is a gross estimate. Possibly wrong by 10% or more.
But, you can’t wait to swallow it.
Nothing new.
The important thing is to get the heat to TOA, the transfer method is secondary.
No Svante, the important thing is to accept and appreciate reality, not try to foist your false religion on others.
The important thing is the radiation balance with space.
Surplus means warming.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Svante says: The important thing is the radiation balance with space. Surplus means warming.
————
Yes indeedy it does! With the ocean’s requiring millennia to adjust and a LIA recovery just a few centuries in the past there would logically be a remaining surplus. There also should be a surplus out of the recent warming, the 17 years of warming institutionalized by Ben Santer of the latter 2 decades of the 20th century.
Savante:
“Radiative heat from surface to the atmosphere is 17.8 W/m^2, and none of it is coming back in the wrong direction.”
Exactly! There is NO heat input from the atmosphere to the surface….
follow the HEAT!
Quite right, as long as the surface is warmer than the sky.
There are a few exceptions, for example in the Antarctic winter.
Wrong Svante, exceptions are not the rule.
Here’s an example of the rule:
Overhead blue sky –>17.8 F
Nearest stratus cloud (about 15° from vertical) –> 63.5 F
Ground –> 85.8 F
The sky does NOT warm the surface.
You may start typing out your denial now.
The word you’re looking for is “heat”.
Yes, the sky does not heat the surface.
Good find JD.
No Svante, the word is “desperate”.
And, that’s you, to a “T”.
Svante says: Radiative heat from surface to the atmosphere is 17.8 W/m^2, and none of it is coming back in the wrong direction.
———
Unfortunately, in climate heat budgeting 17.8 watts/m2 is not a statistically significant number. I have played with the various budgets for too many hours there are no conclusions one can reach with the numbers occupying such huge ranges of uncertainty. the uncertainty is apparent in Trenberth’s own paper and how he chose the numbers using a wide range of the opinions of other scientists and sort of drawing a favored line in the various opinions. Its also more than apparent when comparing the various budgets assembled by different teams of scientists. Uncertainty exceeds the wildest prognostications of what future changes in the greenhouse effect will be.
the first ingredient we need is observational programs that pin down heat transfers within the system, particularly the deep ocean. The deep ocean has been blamed as the sink for the missing heat and the existence there is merely extrapolated from an insufficient data set.
bill hunter…”Unfortunately, in climate heat budgeting 17.8 watts/m2 is not a statistically significant number”.
Not only that, Bill, there is no heat transferred to the atmosphere from the surface. Heat is lost at the surface when heat is converted to electromagnetic energy.
EM is a potential form of energy till it contacts matter. Why they would give it mechanical energy units of w/m^2 when it is doing no work is a question requiring an answer.
Furthermore, unlike what is claimed in the energy budget, heat cannot be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed them.
svante…”I converted Trenberths energy diagram to heat for you here:”
Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy.
Think again.
That’s true, and energy can be converted but not destroyed.
Svante, please stop trolling.
We’re just exchanging truisms.
Sneaky Svante…
Do you deny “Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy”?
#2
Sneaky Svante.
“He and his motley crew of alarmists have perverted the 2nd law so that GHGs are now sources of heat”
No one here claims GHG molecules are heat sources. No one. The only people who say that are skeptics who try and foist that view onto their opponents.
Your fallacy – straw man.
Barry says: – No one here claims GHG molecules are heat sources. No one.
———–
The funny thing about it all is that there once was a industry that sold trailer trash insulation mostly to folks living in shacks and trailers that doesn’t insulate anything. Government put them out of business for fraudulent advertising. And the insulation being sold by science on a gullible public has less than half the ability to return heat to the surface that trailer trash insulation has. Go figure!
You quoted me, then said something doesn’t address what I said. you’ve a habit of being cryptic, Bill.
Simple Barry. You support an insulation model that produces a resistance that increases an accumulation of heat that industry is barred from touting because of a lack of evidence.
Still cryptic. Your comment here is garbled. Solution: be simple and direct.
PhilJ, reduced satellite drag is expected.
https://tinyurl.com/y4a58o7v
BINGO!,
co2 is COOLING the planet (a fraction of the cooling by h20 of course)
No, not the planet.
It is cooling the upper atmosphere and warming the lower.
It’s like putting an obstacle in a river, the level rises before it and drops more sharply after the obstacle.
This is a GHE fingerprint.
The whole atmosphere would be warming if it was solar induced.
Svante says:
This is a GHE fingerprint.
The whole atmosphere would be warming if it was solar induced.
———
Not true! In fact blatantly wrong. Solar is perfectly capable of evaporating water which produces clouds and clouds are a major contributor to the GHE. And a cooling upper atmosphere isn’t just a symptom of the GHE by any means.
In fact, that Solomon paper is but one of many Solomon papers that were written off long extrapolations in rabid support of doomsday scenarios. The one in particular you name was a 2006 paper, now 13 years out of date. I venture she got really excited in 2007 and 2008 when the thermosphere shrinkage accelerated to unprecedented low levels. . . .at least until somebody told her it was due to the dying solarcycle 23 as it made a record plunge in sunspot activity. Eventually it reached the lowest minimum in a 100 years. The thermosphere is hot because the monotomic atoms up there absorb the suns highest frequencies but can’t emit at IR frequencies. Solar minimums and their declines into them reduces that high frequency light by a large percentage. . . and directly with a stone in a creek, shrank the thermosphere.
You need to understand that most science is wrong. Only science that withstands the test of time and testing, like a good song that becomes a classic, is true science.
bill hunter says: Not true!
OK, what references do you have?
Here’s some references that say the opposite:
https://tinyurl.com/ybbcuwep
I will gladly provide you with a link if you can tell me what you are disputing. There are quite a few concepts involved here and it is uncertain which of them you are disputing. Your link doesn’t seem to dispute anything I said. So to summarize:
1) I acknowledged that greenhouse gases reduce the flow of energy out of the system and thus will affect higher layers dependent upon how upwelling energy from the surface is absorbed by those layers.
2) CO2 concentration drops to near zero at the mesopause. It does so as well as almost all other polyatomic elements and molecules. The thermosphere is so thin it doesn’t support the elevation of molecules like CO2 through collisions. The force pushing CO2 up in the air is dependent upon a minimum density of gases and counteracting that force is the force of gravity since CO2 is a heavy molecule.
4) Since the thermosphere is devoid of greenhouse gases reducing energy flow upward through the atmosphere will not affect the temperature of the thermosphere as it does not depend upon IR to be warm.
These primarily monoatomic gases are NOT IR absorbers. So they can’t be cooled by starving them of IR fuel. The only reason the atoms in the thermosphere get as hot as they do is precisely because they are greatly limited in their ability absorb or emit IR associated with lower temperatures.
Further cooling effects in the mesosphere does not starve the thermosphere of convecting warm molecules either because the mesosphere is colder than the thermosphere.
5) The temperature of the thermosphere comes from non-greenhouse gases that absorb the highest solar light frequencies.
6) The thermosphere shrinks and expands on the basis of changes in high frequency solar light.
Now all the above has to be taken with a grain of salt. One simply cannot look at the thermosphere in a declining phase of a solar cycle and point to cooling of the thermosphere as being caused by CO2. Can I say once again this is a case of natural climate change occurring in the thermosphere that overrides any effect from CO2 and that the alarmists are doing more panicking than thinking? IMO, all this nonsense is being generated to distract attention from the fact the models are failing.
If you want links on that I will provide them. But I don’t think the problem we have is about the fact. I think the problem is about how you put those facts together. So hopefully the itemized list clarifies the situation.
Robertson
“The data you quoted above comes from GHCN, a totally fudged, uncoordinated surface record.”
As usual: Robertson discredits, denigrates and lies. You endlessly repeat the same nonsense, without being able to disprove what you discredit.
I can’t remember such an ignorant coward like you, Robertson. I name you a coward because you never would write your lies at WUWT for example. Anthony Watts’s WUWT would ban you within hours, you coward. (The German word ‘Feigling’ fits even better to persons like you.)
*
“I have posted links for you proving how NOAA fudges its data…”
No you didn’t, Robertson! You posted nonsense written about GHCN by Goddard aka Heller, showing utterly wrong comparisons between GHCN V3’s unadjusted and adjusted time series. I have debunked that nonsense years ago.
You, Robertson, would never be even able to detect all that.
“… and their own admission that they have slashed 75% of their reporting surface stations recently.”
Here again you show us all what a stupid and ignorant lier you are.
1. The document to which you refer in an unbelievably infamous way was posted online in 2010, and remained there until 2016.
2. This document indeed reported that 4500 of the 7280 stations GHCN V3 were given up because there was no possibility to install aotomated reporting for these stations.
3. Inbetween, about 20000 stations were additionally integrated in the GHCN V4 record which became operational this year.
4. I use in ALL graphs neither GHCN V3 nor V4 but the GHCN daily variant with 36000 stations worldwide, which is worldwide one of the rawest temperature data collection.
I have repeatedly pointed all this out to you, you know that very well, but have deliberately ignored all these hints. Your are a not only yourself the idiot you see in me: you are above all thoroughly disgusting person.
Luckily, most web blogs have banned persons like you! You post here only because this blog lacks any moderation.
Even your faked pseudoreal name shows your absolute lack of courage. Roy Spencer knows my real name, ‘Robertson’. Does he know yours?
binny…”As usual: Robertson discredits, denigrates and lies”.
That would be Mr. Robertson to an ingrate, alarmist like you.
As usual, you defend NOAA because you are a hopeless butt kisser who MUST appeal to authority.
Bindidon, did you see this one:
https://tinyurl.com/yy9jdub6
USHCN is significantly more correct with adjustments than without.
Svante
No I didn’t, thanks.
Until now my interest kept focused on GHCN daily
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
because it
– is the rawest data available
– contains nearly 36000 stations dealing with temperature.
{ Don’t click on ‘all’: that results in your browser displaying a directory containing over 100000 files. }
It was simply amazing for me to detect that a great subset of those USHCN stations described by Anthony Watts’ surfacestation.org as ‘well sited ‘ was also registered in GHCN daily, and showed more warming in the US than all 16000 US stations having contributed since 1900:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L5oQowWa2O7n2GRMvRRjQyMt5Oe8Iqpf/view
Bindidon says:
“Anthony Watts’ […] “well sited” […] showed more warming […]”
That agrees with Berkeley Earth showing very rural sites had a higher trend the more urban.
Funny how it is always assumed that bad siting means exaggerated trend.
There must be a thousand reasons, but I guess higher buildings will put more heat aloft where it is colder, and wind turbulence give better vertical mixing?
I don’t suppose improved energy efficiency made much difference, the sun has so much more power.
binny….”Until now my interest kept focused on GHCN daily
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
because it
is the rawest data available
contains nearly 36000 stations dealing with temperature”.
You are about as naive as the day is long. NOAA does not use raw data, they change it to suit. They are forever going back in the GHCN record and amending it.
Furthermore, they only use about 1500 stations out of the 36,000, using them as a seed so they can extrapolate and homogenize most of their fictitious data.
In other words, most sites of the 36,000 are fudged from 1500 stations.
They use one station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic and three near the coast to cover California.
Robertson
“Furthermore, they only use about 1500 stations out of the 36,000, using them as a seed so they can extrapolate and homogenize most of their fictitious data.”
In other words, most sites of the 36,000 are fudged from 1500 stations.”
You are still the same cowardly discrediting, denigrating and lying person.
Pfui Deiberl! How is it possible to permanently lie as you do?
You coward perfectly know that all you write here comes out of your crank brain.
I can only think old age produces such demented replies from Gordon.
First, there are now well over 2000 stations that are regularly updated, and still 7200 in the total monthly database (GHCN).
Second, the ‘raw’ daily data is NOT adjusted to be in line with this monthly subset.
Of course, Gordon will provide no substantiation for this latter claim. Because he made it up. He lied. Again.
barry, please stop trolling.
Bindidon says: “It was simply amazing for me to detect that a great subset of those USHCN stations described by Anthony Watts surfacestation.org as well sited was also registered in GHCN daily, and showed more warming in the US than all 16000 US stations having contributed since 1900:”
Its not very amazing. I think all you accomplished by selecting 46 out 71 was greatly reduce confidence in your conclusion.
Bill Hunter
“Its not very amazing. I think all you accomplished by selecting 46 out 71 was greatly reduce confidence in your conclusion.”
That is one morre time one of these typical pseudoskeptic arguments.
All 71 sites are in GHCN daily, but only 46 gave an exact match to a USHCN station.
If I had integrated the rest, I’m sure somebody would have told exactly the same as you did here.
People like you always write “Nicely done.” below a comment when it perfectly matches to their narrative, but here I see how you really work.
When I have some time to do, I will repeat the same test with the over 200 USCRN stations present in GHCN daily.
But I’m sure you will manage to find another pseudoskeptic trick…
Thank you!
Absent from your response is any kind of rational why a station used in your comparison would need to be in the GHCN database. If 71 USHCN are well sited but not random enough why would 46 be more random? As I said all you did is kill confidence levels in your comparison by shrinking the sample size. I would even question 71 in such a heterogeneous world but 71 is a lot better than 46.
Bill Hunter
“Absent from your response is any kind of rational why a station used in your comparison would need to be in the GHCN database.”
Manifestly, you did not understand at all why I made this comparison.
Why do you express skepticism about things you are not at all aware of?
The reason for the comparison was that at surfacestations.org, these 71 USHCN stations were considered the only really well-sited ones – within a set of over 1100.
My interest was to show how all about 18000 CONUS stations available in the GHCN daily dataset would behave when compared with well-sited stations.
What you think about my comparison is, to be honest, not very interesting.
I have shown that of these 71 stations acknowledged by Watts & Co, a subset of 46 stations present in the GHCN daily as well, shows on average more warming than all GHCN daily US stations together.
Thus this UHI problem is simply a pseudo-problem, exactly as shown by the Berkeley Earth group.
If you don’t accept my results, Bill Hunter, don’t tell me that they are questionable: do the job YOURSELF, and come back here with the result.
One Robertson on this blog is enough…
svante…”USHCN is significantly more correct with adjustments than without”.
From a paper written by NOAA butt-kissers. When Mann’s hockey stick was exposed as a fraud, many papers came out defending it even though the National Academy of Science and an expert statistician panned the study.
NAS claimed that the pinetree bristlecone used as a proxy for most of the 20th century was inadmissible. Guess where the hockey stick blade came from?
By the time the bristlecone proxy was showing declining temperatures, Mann developed his ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’. Then he simply snipped off the offending data and splicing in real data.
MBH98 has never been exposed as a fraud. In fact, multiple independent reviews overwhelmingly corroborate the work.
Do you know what “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” are in reference to?
bdgwx says: “Do you know what “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” are in reference to?”
Sure do! It was a clandestine behind the scenes conspiracy to successfully and inappropriately influence graphics in an IPCC climate report so as to tailor a political type vs science type message specifically targeted at policy makers.
What it entailed was essentially a cherry picking of records that were being sold as indicative of global mean temperatures. They removed an undesirable end of record tree ring proxy line and replaced it with a an instrument record padded line to create the hockey stick.
Quite inappropriate. To give an example of how bad it is, it would be like taking NOAAs original record comparing solar activity to a temperature record; then using the temperature record to pad out the solar activity at the end of the record.
That would be extremely bad science and Mike and Phil and Tim et. al. involved in their own conspiracy doing essentially the same thing would scream their heads off.
Tricky stuff that ain’t science, but instead involves scientists inventing ways to send policy-laced messages represented as science to the policy makers. Certainly nothing illegal, just Academic Freedom extending all the way to the 1st Amendment. What we need to strive for is independence in science in support of policy and a recognition by science that science isn’t speculative.
“Mike’s Nature trick” is in reference to the procedure for calibrating the PCA derived proxy temperature record with the instrumental temperature record. I suppose PCA might qualify as a clever trick, but using the overlap period for calibration seems kind of obvious to me. Do you have a better idea of how to handle this?
“hide the decline” is in reference to the divergence problem in dendrochronology. The model at the time that mapped dendrological properties to a temperature was known to be ineffective post WWII and as a result dendrologically derived temperatures showed a drop. This creates a divergence in the proxy data vs. instrumental data. It wasn’t an undesirable portion of the record that was being omitted. It was a portion of the record in which the model produced a nonsensical result. I will say that the choice of words here is in poor taste, but I honestly don’t think it would have mattered if hide was replaced with omitted. The end result is that people would have still would not have understood the technical issues. How would have handled the erroneous portion of the data?
The fact is that the MBH98 work has been overwhelmingly corroborated despite the critique from McIntyre and McKitrick which did not pass peer review in a reputable journal since M&M declined to fix the methological and mathematical mistakes that were identified. M&M’s next strategy for critique involved an accusation that MBH used data upside-down. Aside from it not being true it wouldn’t have actually mattered because the statistical technique employed to process that data wasn’t sensitive to the sign.
Conspiracy? Seriously?
bdgwx says:
Conspiracy? Seriously?
——————
Thats all some mighty fine rationalizations you got there bud. But I will say without a shadow of doubt a CPA would not do that.
The whole point is deception via eliminating all the non-cooperating data and reworking it as support for the cooperating data.
The correct and forthright way to handle that is the way a CPA would, while potentially allowing the “suggested” fix to be part of the show.
That’s transparency about what you are looking at. The only reason not to do that is because you are worried you will be second guessed. . . .which is exactly the situation here, they had a political message, not a science message to send.
Science messages should go out to the public just like CPAs send out financial reports to the public, without regard to a favored position.
If there are uncertainties the uncertainties are very carefully and completely and transparently as possible disclosed in a very prominent manner. . . .like often on the front page and again where ever the data is shown.
Hiding the decline using a trick is exactly what they did. Whether it was somewhat justified is irrelevant to what their real role was. The fact is the decline demonstrates a high degree of unreliability of the proxy. They wanted to hide the facts of that to the maximum extent while feeling they hadn’t crossed a line into made up stuff.
So I am not questioning whether they considered it the best science or not. What is being questioned here is their independence and basic honesty and recognizing their role as educators of the public and policy makers and nothing more. We want the public to have faith in these processes. A good teacher always gives their students more than one point of view no matter how convinced they are the second point of view isn’t correct.
Jones got demoted as a result and IMO he got off light. Others IMO skated without punishment.
So its ludicrous that you are arguing on their behalf. This is not what we want to see coming out of public processes ever! Sure put your argument up there but adopt a neutral mindset in describing its weaknesses. Give your opponents all the tools to criticize. In that regard the FOIA stonewalling was just more of the same kind of manipulative nonsense that has no place at all in public science designed for policy makers. And nobody should know that better than a scientist appointed to the role of informing policy. Perhaps they need to be licensed and held to standards of disclosure under the penalty of their livelihoods or worse like CPAs are.
“Mikes Nature trick,” was a way to calibrate and splice the instrumental record onto the proxy temp reconstructions. Nothing about that ‘trick’ was about hiding the decline.
“Hide the decline,” refers to Keith Briffa, not Mike Mann. They are separate ideas, but some parts of the media combined them.
Keith Briffa’s work discusses the problem of divergence between proxy data and the instrumental record, and recommends that the instrumental record is a better indicator of temp evolution than the proxy sources that deviate from it – so he says to remove those proxies.
No decline was hidden – because temps clearly went up where the proxies diverged. Are you going to believe a tree thermometer over a real one?
No, the issue that might be a problem for this divergence is the reliability of the proxies.
Which is well-discussed in the literature.
Barry says: “No decline was hidden because temps clearly went up where the proxies diverged. Are you going to believe a tree thermometer over a real one?”
—————
The decline that was hidden was precisely the decline shown by the tree thermometer. It is only OK to hide that decline if you toss the entire tree thermometer record as that decline represents a huge uncertainty, by your own description, about why you shouldn’t trust a tree thermometer.
What I am saying is a CPA would have never ever covered up such an uncertainty. People can debate endlessly about ways things are accounted for and what is the most valid way to do it, but professionals are under an obligation to reveal all potentially material uncertainties and be consistent in the method they choose to use. I can buy the argument that thermometers, even adjusted thermometers, are likely to be more reliable than tree rings. But what was being sold by the hockey stick was precisely “a reliable reconstruction” upon which policy decisions should be made and they went to lengths to cover up the all too obvious uncertainty surrounding that. Can’t have any questions floating around of what that line is doing going south, right? Its a cut and dried case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.
In some nations that could get you shot or hung. In the CPA trade it would likely spell the end of your career. And if folks were harmed to a great extent even jail time. Obviously though since scientists are not professionals governed by professional standards and owe no duty to anybody but operate in an environment of academic freedom which is akin to free speech the only thing that can be harmed and was harmed is their reputations.
Those who defend such actions are really part of the problem.
And those who distort the truth or overstate the significance of things muddy the waters rather than clarify. So let’s sort this out.
The decline that was hidden was precisely the decline shown by the tree thermometer.
Is the divergence issue hidden from view in some important graphic or notable media event on climate? There was no decline in the MBH 98 and 99 proxy series (the “hockeystick” reconstruction), so there was no decline to hide there.
The issue is discussed in the scientific literature.
The issue is discussed in the IPCC reports.
Is this line from an email blown way out of proportion, or does it relate to a significant graphic that influenced policy makers?
Can you please reference precisely where this decline-hiding met the public eye and policy-makers?
barry says:
July 20, 2019 at 8:04 PM
And those who distort the truth or overstate the significance of things muddy the waters rather than clarify. So lets sort this out.
———–
I agree. The hockey stick is discredited. It now has been tilted to be realistic the MWP is back at the end of the handle, the LIA is now properly placed in the crook between the handle and the blade. And the blade is a representation of the warming since the end of the LIA.
Fortunately sharp eyes brought about those corrections. The only thing remaining is what do you think of the people that tried to pull the scam off?
Ok, you are no longer responding to what I’m saying. The “hockeystick” reconstruction (MBH99) does not have a divergence in the late proxy record, because they used all sorts of different proxies, not just tree rings, and the other proxies don’t have the dip.
The decline in Briffa’s dendrochronology is a separate issue – it does not form part of the MBH99 reconstruction *the “hockeystick”)
These are separate issues and you conflate them because you seem only to know the soundbytes, but not the details. I don’t believe that you have looked at this matter in any detail.
Not only is your invitation to judge the character of researchers based on your misrepresentation of the issues, it is also completely unscientific. You are playing politics here. There’s no point trying that on until you get the science right.
I would simply suggest you read Steve McIntyre’s work on the entire topic.
Myself I can appreciate what McIntyre does for a living. His argument with Michael Mann is over some quite advanced uses of statistics that arise to the level of very low confidence. Its always easy to cherry pick your selections to deliver the answer you want and McIntyre does an excellent job of pointing out that Mann’s selections were either cherry picked or by some chance randomly misselected and claimed as being representative.
Small samples are always dangerous as being representative. It might actually rise to a level of giving it some consideration but you have to be insane to believe it fervently to the exclusion of everything else.
Same deal with Zharkova’s paper most likely. I haven’t read it yet but I would bet that what it does is correlate these magnetic fields to historic temperatures and then plot them out in the future based upon the past without actually demonstrating a mechanism to account for the connection. Like I said I haven’t read it but I would think if it actually did go all the way I would have heard a lot more about it.
I followed the McIntyre blog at the time. And I also acquainted myself with the papers and with critical commentary that didn’t align with McIntyre.
That is what skepticism is. Following all leads to arrive at provisional understanding.
Everything you have pointed to in our various discussions has been from the milieu of ‘skeptical’ blog world that is on one side of the debate only. I am very skeptical of your objectivity.
Why don’t you also direct me to realclimate articles on the “hockeystick” to balance investigation? Why not include the Wegman Report (critical), and the North and Amann reports (supportive)?
Why direct my attention to one side of the debate? This is not skeptical.
You have also conflated different issues. That is not rigorous. The decline in latewood density tree proxies in Briffa’s reconstruction is not present in MBH99 proxy data from multiple sources. The hockeystick graph has no decline to hide. You did not respond to that, which a response to your assertion to the contrary. Why did you not respond to that?
My view of the MBH99 study (form which comes the “hockeystick” graph), is that it was an early attempt at multiproxy temperature reconstruction which had flawed methodologies, the general conclusions of which have been supported, for the most part, by several dozen reconstructions since, from different groups using different proxies and different methods.
The flaws in MBH99 are a non-issue in the light of more recent work. Your conflation of separate issues with this study is a mistake. I hope you rectify your understanding accordingly.
barry says: – Why dont you also direct me to realclimate articles on the hockeystick to balance investigation? Why not include the Wegman Report (critical), and the North and Amann reports (supportive)?
———–
Participating in a blog is a 2-way street Barry. Real Climate and Skeptical Science aren’t balanced blogs because they refuse to debate, they only want to inculcate. Show me a blog run by your side of the argument and I guarantee I will take my questions there.
————
———–
barry says: – You have also conflated different issues. That is not rigorous. The decline in latewood density tree proxies in Briffas reconstruction is not present in MBH99 proxy data from multiple sources. The hockeystick graph has no decline to hide.
———-
I got that Barry. Read Michael Crichton’s state of fear. 2 wrongs does not make a right and neither does 99 wrongs. There is no defense of that behavior. It was set up in the emails, one email at a time as a political deception. It has absolutely nothing to do with science at all, zip, nada! It has everything to do with dishonesty and deception. The fact you can find a whole pack of them out there isn’t surprising. Scientists are no different than any other group of people in this world and grant whores will always be found circling around money. . . .guaranteed!
Don’t pretend that you have a balanced view when your every reference is from only one side of the general ‘debate’. Crichton’s State of Fear (a fiction book(!) riddled with errors) is typical.
I read widely. I’m able to pick blog bias very easily. They all have it. Show me a blog that doesn’t. I rarely read skepticalscience these days, or WUWT, though I contributed 2 articles at the latter.
Dismissing realclimate is stupid. Only people who lack a critical mind couldn’t make use of that source. Doesn’t matter if you agree with the authors or not, it’s a good place to get information from experts, which you can then verify or otherwise if you want. Like wikipedia, it’s a reference that any half-assed skeptic can make intelligent use of.
I almost never reference blogs, except if the page is purely or mainly descriptive and has links to source material.
Of the climate blogs I pretty much only reference WUWT.
Does that fit your conception of how I think and operate?
barry says: –
Dismissing realclimate is stupid. Only people who lack a critical mind couldnt make use of that source. Doesnt matter if you agree with the authors or not, its a good place to get information from experts, which you can then verify or otherwise if you want.
———-
There are no experts at realclimate. If there were they would not run like scared rabbits from tough questions.
Here is an expert who actually answers tough questions:
https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
There are no experts at realclimate. If there were they would not run like scared rabbits from tough questions.
It’s impossible to take you seriously with juvenile commentary like this. Just more dick-size rhetoric, and patently false, too. Their educational and publishing history verifying their expertise is a matter of public record. What an asinine comment from you, fit for the schoolyard.
Happer’s tract was replied to at the same portal. Because you weren’t objective enough to post both sides, here is the rebuttal.
https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/tamblyn-detailed-response/
barry says: – Their educational and publishing history verifying their expertise is a matter of public record.
————–
Indeed they are experts. But experts at what? Obviously if you go to college and you graduate and earn a PhD you are an expert at something. Typically what it is in the use of the tools of whatever trade you have been educated in.
However, what do you do right after school graduation? You get a job and you are at the far bottom of the totem pole.
Publishing isn’t a mark of expertise its a mark of being able to successfully market yourself to special interests which increases your exposure and fame, and gives you more opportunities to either be judged an expert or a fool.
If you want to hold up something that actually establishes expertise, I strongly encourage you do do so. I think hardly a day goes by in my work where I am not touting the success of some researcher that has done something very helpful and a lot of them are really young men and women. So publishing doesn’t make you an expert at prognosticating, but experience at actually having some of your prognostications stand the test of time tends to help a lot if for no other reason you are getting a handle on real life.
On the alternative viewpoint. Seems he is concentrating on simply casting shade on the world renowned atmosphere expert opinion of Happer regarding CO2 causing warming.
Certainly nothing wrong with that. I only found one small completely wrong erroneous suggestion in the whole thing, and thats where he said Uncertainty is not our friend in support of his suggestions of unprecedented harm. That’s implying that uncertainty is an enemy. He couldn’t be more wrong in that. Uncertainty is neutral.
Identifying uncertainty is in fact a benefit as it creates a call of learning. Sometimes that learning before uncertainty proves good or harmful, enables you to accept the good and avoid the harmful. So identifying uncertainty is generally good because its a wake up call.
Lets face it both articles are personal opinions. If you want to appeal to authority for an answer you should no doubt choose the physicist over the engineer. But that sort of reckoning is personal and should not be imposed on others as its not science it is just a individual weighing choices and I don’t think we ever want to see the government making those kinds of choices for us unless one side can be proven wrong. Judith Curry a while a go did a very nice article on different kinds of uncertainty. You should give it a read. https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/20/uncertainty-in-climate-projections/
Certainly if things started changing clearly faster than ever before it might be a wild ride but nobody knows to where. And that isn’t even the case. The average sea level rise over the past 11,000 years is considerably higher than it is right now. And right now is little faster than a little while ago. That means at one point humans were coping with sea level rise far faster than any we are seeing now. Further that acceleration could be entirely a result of the recovery for the LIA along surfing an ocean wave and perhaps even a dose of a solar grandmaximum being tossed in as well. You don’t necessarily need CO2 to explain it.
Bill Hunter…”Actually using budgets to get to the .6 imbalance would be foolish and unnecessary thus rounding of budget numbers is completely irrelevant”.
One of the party of two who came up with the cockamamey energy budget was Kevin Trenberth. Circa 2007, he confessed in a private email to his cronies that the warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why.
Of course, when the Climategate email scandal surfaced, and he was caught with egg on his face, Trenberth had to come up with another explanation. So, he invented the theory that the missing heat is hidden in the oceans. No proof, just an assertion.
How can anyone take the word of such a double-talker that the Earth has an energy budget? If you read the original paper on it, both he and Kiehl admit they fudged the numbers. Even at that, I did not think Trenberth would have been so lacking in the laws of thermodynamics to propose as much heat transferred back to the surface by GHGs accounting for 1% of atmospheric gases as what the surface emitted.
GR said…”If you read the original paper on it, both he and Kiehl admit they fudged the numbers.”
Can you link to the paper and add a quick regarding which page and paragraph this admission is located?
bdg…”Can you link to the paper and add a quick regarding which page and paragraph this admission is located?”
If you make a similar allegation I track it down myself. It’s in the original Trenberth/Kiehle energy budget paper. Look it up.
I did look it up. I found no statements about fudging data.
Because Gordon exists in a weird and wonderful…and somehow personally gratifying…land of delusion.
He has been logging in again & again to fight about the moon for over 3 weeks LMFAO.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
You mean that Russian hacking of thousands of emails and documents that were quote mined and released just before the Copenhagen climate summit?
Talking about Russia, remember when you argued the Russian case against the Magnitsky act and called Browder “a crook”?
You know where you addressed this quote of mine:
“Russia’s efforts are aimed at confusing the audience, rather than convincing it.”
https://tinyurl.com/yx92y2zp
I just came across this talk by Browder, which may be of interest:
https://tinyurl.com/y6hkdfqo
That was for Gordon!
svante…Browder is a Wall Street shyster. I have no interest in reading what he has to day.
My point about the Russian hacking allegations is that no way exists to trace a serious hacker.
If Russia is guilty as claimed then they are using seriously poor hackers who allow themselves to be tracked. I just don’t trust the accounts of security ‘experts’ who claim to have traced the hackers to certain hackers in Russia.
If you watch TV programs like NCIS, the wannabees on the program bypass any kind of security with a few keystokes on a keyboard. Pure fiction!!!
If the US government agencies were hacked, or any other government, it’s because there security is very poor. Most of them allow users to log in from anywhere and that invites hackers to intercept them and piggy back onto a site.
Hillary Clinton was illegally running an email server from her home. What do you expect?
Gordon Robertson says:
He was a Moscow shyster until his lawyer died in custody.
You can slander him but you can’t hear his story.
You can get information from logs and supervision software, or you can search their car and hotel room like the Dutch did:
https://tinyurl.com/y6cae2ve
Another example of additional information:
https://tinyurl.com/yxg95emn
Svante, please stop trolling.
Bill,
“One simply cannot look at the thermosphere in a declining phase of a solar cycle and point to cooling of the thermosphere as being caused by CO2.”
Indeed,
but one can look at the mesopause/thermosphere over a full series of cycles and note that an increased concentration of co2, cools the other gases around it, increasing the amount of atomic O (and others) falling back towards the stratosphere and reducing the amount of O lost to the thermosphere…
Imo this should accelerate the production of ozone in the stratosphere.
I may be ignorant but my understanding is atomic O and N and He are in the thermosphere precisely because they are lighter than other molecules in their midst.
And in the stratosphere my understanding is UV radiation splits O2 into two atomic O’s and then some floats up out of the stratosphere toward the thermosphere and some combines with other O2 to form O3 ozone.
Perhaps I am wrong but I hadn’t heard of raining atomic O before. Additionally the expression thermosphere/mesopause doesn’t correspond to any layer I know of in the atmosphere. Could you please explain so I can figure out how your comments relate to the discussion on the thermosphere.
bill,
(gonna have to break this up to find out what word keeps rejecting the post!)
haha, I guess I didnt express myself very clearly… lets see if I can clarify ..
The mesopause is the boundry area between the thermosphere and the mesosphere…
Above the mesopause you have almost no co2 and thus (almost) nothing to slow the escaping O (and N and He)…
Increasing the concentration of co2 in the mesosphere means more collision with O (and N) slowing them down (cooling them) causing them to fall back towards the stratosphere.. less co2, less collisions, more O escaping to the thermosphere….
less O (and N)escaping to the thermosphere means less drag on satellites…. (and vice versa)
more O falling back towards the stratosphere means more O available for the production of ozone, thus increasing ozone concentration in the stratosphere…
bill,
(continued)
increasing ozone concentration means more UVB ab*sor*p*t*i*on in the stratosphere and less at the surface, and thus a warming stratosphere and cooling surface…
IF the ozone layer recovers, less uvb ab*so*r*p*t*i*on by the oceans will mean cooler ocean temps… and correspondingly lower lower troposphere air temps…
If the ozone layer remains stable, ocean temps will stabilize and so will near surface air temps…
If the ozone layer thins further, more UVB ab*so*r*p*t*i*on by the oceans will mean higher temps…
so then the natural cycle is:
warming oceans hold less co2, increasing co2 in the mesosphere,
increasing co2 in mesophere causes increasing production of ozone in the stratosphere
increasing ozone in the stratosphere means less uvb ab*so*r*p*t*i*on by the oceans and thus cooling oceans..
cooler oceans ab*so*r*b more co2 reducing co2 in the mesosphere..
less co2 in the mesosphere means decreasing levels of ozone in the stratosphere…
decreasing ozone in the stratosphere means more uvb ab*so*r*b*ed by the oceans and rising ocean temps…
this cycle is of course affected by the rate of ozone depletion caused by amount of available uvb, chlorine and bromine outgassed by volcanic activity and as we learned, by the chlorine and bromine added to the stratosphere by human activity….
If the above is true, it is conceivably possible to control surface temps by learning how to control ozone levels in the stratosphere… but I think we’re a long way from that lol…
PhilJ says: – “Above the mesopause you have almost no co2 and thus (almost) nothing to slow the escaping O (and N and He)
Increasing the concentration of co2 in the mesosphere means more collision with O (and N) slowing them down (cooling them) causing them to fall back towards the stratosphere.. less co2, less collisions, more O escaping to the thermosphere.
less O (and N)escaping to the thermosphere means less drag on satellites. (and vice versa)”
thats not computing to me. Its not like the atmosphere is empty if CO2 isn’t there. There is still O2 and N2 both lighter than CO2, its not like increasing the density of CO2 also increases the density of the atmosphere. A doubling of CO2 increases the density at the lower levels by adding about .01% mass to the atmosphere (one carbon atom per molecule of new CO2). Additionally, CO2 cools the upper atmosphere and its cooling that speeds up rising airs. The change from cooling to a warming with height is evidence of CO2 becoming a lesser factor. So I think you have the effect exactly backwards.
Bill,
‘So I think you have the effect exactly backwards’
Are you suggesting that increased collisions with colder, slower co2 would increase the amount of O and N escaping to the thermosphere?
That makes no physical sense to me but maybe you can clarify…
P.s when it comes to the ‘GHE’ yes i will always be looking at it ‘backwards’
IR active molecules COOL the atmosphere to space…
PhilJ says: Are you suggesting that increased collisions with colder, slower co2 would increase the amount of O and N escaping to the thermosphere?
———–
Well I think first you need to do a little cue ball physics. It is collisions and collisions alone that causes CO2 to mix to the top of the atmosphere. CO2 is a heavy molecule compared to common air. the upward force of collisions overrides the downward force of gravity. At the top of the mesophere it is the spacing of molecules and the lack of collisions that add up to a smaller force than gravity.
Three, CO2 only makes up .04% of the atmosphere so is responsible for only one in 2500 collisions.
Second you need to realize that collisions occur among all the molecules in the atmosphere, adding CO2 does not change much of anything. Its not in the same program as greenhouse gases which only make up about 1% or so of the atmosphere.
What I am pointing out is CO2 at the top of the atmosphere causes cooling and cooling causes convection, so the net result would be if anything a very slight acceleration of O and N reaching the top of the mesosphere.
adding CO2 does not change much of anything. Its not in the same program as greenhouse gases which only make up about 1% or so of the atmosphere.
Huh? CO2 IS a ‘greenhouse’ gas.
Convection ceases at the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
Oops! The word “not” was a typo, probably changed the sentence mid sentence and didn’t correct that.
Since you didn’t figure out it was typo, what I was saying is greenhouse gases in general are not a major factor in the motive effects of colliding molecules in the atmosphere making up in total about only 1%. And CO2 is only about 4% of 1%.
Test
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem Lunæ ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Patet per motus Legem I, & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Quoniam verò Lunæ, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis, dies menstruus est; hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet, & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde à Terra. Hæc est libratio in longitudinem. Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex inclinatione axis Lunaris ad planum orbis. Porrò hæc ita se habere, ex Phænomenis manifestum est.
Scott R advised that we should see big changes in the NOAA forecasts on ENSO through July, with an imminent la Nina likely to be favoured. The latest update has occurred.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Bill Hunter (also the name of a beloved Australian actor) has also suggested that colder SSTs could be on the way (which is in the direction of la Nina).
Here’s the forecast:
“The pattern of anomalous convection and winds are generally consistent with El Nio.
A transition from El Nio to ENSO-neutral is expected in the next month or two, with ENSO-neutral most likely to continue through the Northern Hemisphere fall and winter.”
No change from the previous forecast.
Should anyone click on that link in the future, it is updated weekly. Check the date of this post and use the Wayback Machine to verify what was posted today on it.
Just copy the link to the web page and paste it into the browse box.
barry says: –
Bill Hunter (also the name of a beloved Australian actor) has also suggested that colder SSTs could be on the way (which is in the direction of la Nina).
———–
No I didn’t! Must you build a new strawman every day!
I said I was not in the forecasting business. What I said was the current CFSv2 model was predicting ENSO neutral for this winter. The model predictions have been getting colder. . . .not my predictions. I have none. All I know is the climate keeps changing.
As to colder SSTs, I said where I live tends to have water temperature effects that precede changes at the equator. A cold water anomaly spot started developing here at the end of winter. It has gradually been moving south. It may have maxed in early June. If anything it has been shrinking over the past month. That sort of oscillation is normal. If it keeps doing it gently I suspect that it will be doing the same in ENSO 3.4. When a La Nina hits the water in ENSO 3.4 gets cold and it gets cold here too. In fact the whole world gets cold too.
If the PDO is associated with anything its associated with the frequency of positive and negative ENSOs, thus the PDO is associated with a global anomaly.
The oceans hold tremendous amounts of heat and as ocean currents change heat goes in and comes out of the oceans. That process is going to undoubtedly have effects on clouds and influence the atmosphere and it is now well recognized it does.
You simply remain in denial of literally tons of science regarding ocean temperature fluctuations choosing to instead pour over questionable mathematical analysis’ disconnected from what nature is doing.
If anybody challenges you. . . .you go: “show me the peer reviewed study!”
Do you flippin need a peer reviewed study to tell you the sun came up this morning too?
I can guarantee you that a fisherman isn’t a skeptic because he read a skeptic blog. Its because a bunch of jerks in an air conditioned office is trying to tell him he didn’t experience what he experienced.
And so you go. . . .gee thats just a regional effect! But we have Roy here picking exactly (like perhaps within 30 days) when the global temperatures will peak from a warm relatively postage stamp sized anomaly in the ocean. Wake up and smell the coffee!
barry says: –
Bill Hunter (also the name of a beloved Australian actor) has also suggested that colder SSTs could be on the way (which is in the direction of la Nina).
____
Bill says: –
No I didn’t! Must you build a new strawman every day!
This was what I was talking about.
“But right now its looking like they might have predicted El Nino for this winter and instead may get a La Nina. Certainly a bit early to tell but the handwritting may be on the wall come the August forecast. Today’s model run significantly deepens the forecast for La Nina this winter from yesterday’s run”
You suggested that we could get a la Nina. I believe I gave your comment a fair description.
“I said I was not in the forecasting business.”
Yes, you have said it more than once.
You simply remain in denial of literally tons of science regarding ocean temperature fluctuations
Must you fabricate what I think?
choosing to instead pour over questionable mathematical analysis’ disconnected from what nature is doing.
“Instead?” I don’t limit myself to reading papers and institutional advice, but these are useful sources.
This binary idea you have about my interests. Quite the drama you’re concocting. I wonder if you will develop my character into something a little less caricatured.
If anybody challenges you… you go: “show me the peer reviewed study!”
Actually, you keep making claims without substantiating them and I have been asking you to substantiate them. Published science is a basic reference. This is where evidence is collated and weighed. It’s all about the evidence, as you rightly say, and what happens anecdotally to us is not sufficient, though you seem to make much of your personal experience, and seem to downplay expertise.
barry says: Instead? I dont limit myself to reading papers and institutional advice, but these are useful sources. This binary idea you have about my interests. Quite the drama youre concocting. I wonder if you will develop my character into something a little less caricatured.
————
Perhaps if you don’t want your public persona on blogs to appear that way, you might consider loosening up a bit and actually talk about those experiences.
————
————
barry says: Published science is a basic reference.
————
Indeed it is when it actually provides information about how something actually works. However poor controls over the publishing process is harming the name of science by allowing a lot of speculation, suggestions, conjecture, and very poorly documented work to be published and misused.
I suppose its always been that way, and what may be new is a return toward religious prognostication supported everywhere by the output of cloistered monks.
And I suppose it also was the same way with accounting, folks providing marks with false claims on fancy parchment affecting their financial security before government decided it would be appropriate for financial offerings conform to strict standards.
————
————
barry says: This is where evidence is collated and weighed. Its all about the evidence, as you rightly say, and what happens anecdotally to us is not sufficient, though you seem to make much of your personal experience, and seem to downplay expertise.
———-
Indeed much is from my personal experience. I notice also that the best scientists are the ones actually in the field gaining personal experience.
I deal with science studies on a regular basis, I find my real world experience very useful for identifying the holes and shortcomings of a science field study.
Science isn’t a process of taking selected observations down into a manhole and coming out with some new revelation.
But there is another monster afoot. Post normal science is a return to feudalism where the ruling class can simply issue a decree, throw some money on the table, and call that adequate science until somebody comes along a proves it wrong. Its akin to how witch doctors and chiefs operated in tandem to keep the tribe under control.
And as to those “manhole” studies. Keep in mind I have experience in computer modeling for litigation support and due diligence. Been there done that.
Post Normal science really isn’t one iota different than when the world lived under complete religious despotism.
I suggested above a series of simple standards for improving climate communications. It isn’t going to be done quite simply because the science is merely an unproven hypothesis. That lack of communication is what exposes it for what it is. . . .like I said like a slow speed white bronco chase.
Now I recognize that’s the policy issue, not the science issue.
But there is no need to take it to the public if its not yet ready as a policy issue.
No need to make movies and make dire pronouncements that never come true. Sure the theory is possible but science does not typically operate in the area of what is possible, like aliens in Area 51.
If you don’t substantiate what you say then it’s just hot air.
I’ve read up on science, as a layman, since I was a kid. Been interested all my life. Read countless books, and when the internet arrived I was reading papers, focusing rather strongly in the last 12 years, on the science related to climate, weather and AGW.
I’ve spent thousands of hours reading research on sea ice, ice cores, Milankovitch cycles, spectral analysis of gases, temperature record collations and how they are processed and lots more.
My work includes critical analysis of text. Biases are as easy to spot as the logic fallacies that abound.
But I’m not really interested in talking about myself. The world around me is much more interesting to me than trumpeting my life story. And I’m not here to idle the time making friends. It’s more fun for me to have serious discussions on topics that I read up on.
If you’re not into a serious discussion with a lot of rigour, then perhaps we don’t have much to offer each other, and I’ll just wish you well.
If you make claims about things in this blog, you should expect to be asked to substantiate them. As I’ve already seen you err with some of these, such as mistaking a small subset (5%) of Arctic sea ice for the total Arctic sea ice [link] and claiming RSS TLT data is modified by land surface data [link], it would be foolish for anyone to take you at your word, which you seem to want people to do, in appeals to your own authority. Not to mention that it is decidedly unskeptical for anyone to do that anyway.
If you want to have discussions sans verification – basically a yarn – forgive me, but that it just uninteresting to me at this blog. In a different context it might be fun. Not here.
The famous IPCC ‘pause’ period 1998 to 2012. The surface records have tried to make it go away. Look at this difference in trend for that period between one version of the data and the next.
https://i.imgur.com/22o53N1.png
Can anyone explain why there is a such a big change?
Gordon, do you think that such a large change is unwarranted?
The correct question is probably – where can we find adequate public disclosure of the techniques and data and rationale utilized to make the adjustments.
Google scholar, or more access at a public library. All the major temp records have published methods papers.
Then perhaps you have an answer to your own question?
Bill, barry is the most balanced and reasonable person we have here. Please learn from him, and use Google Scholar to get your facts straight. Your ideas are bonkers.
Svante says: – Bill, barry is the most balanced and reasonable person we have here.
———-
You are nuts! He’s trolling!
Sorry I got tired of looking everything up for you.
Inviting discussion is often better than pontificating.
OK, I will bite. I would say making adjustments to a record depends upon the situation, the rationale, and the completeness of documentation.
I already said above the first and foremost justification is the backing and support of the persons actually collecting the data.
When potential error is noted, lets use satellite drift as an example, justification should include a validation of the fact that a satellite is indeed drifting along with an estimate of the effect that follows a similar validation path. As Roy pointed out with the difference between the climate model driven RSS and UAH, its good to have different ideas on the table.
And taking that to climate models the same is true. Where folks make a big mistake is averaging all this together and assuming a line of central tendency is the most correct line when all that does is make something very uncertain artificially seem much more certain.
Its far better and more informative to always show the entire range of possibilities from all qualified sources, something the IPCC process avoided until it was politically untenable. Today the IPCC process is far more balanced but still policy plays a central role as a great deal of science is sorted through and lines drawn to eliminate the perception of uncertainty.
Science has been under assault for decades, perhaps forever, as policy makers create panels not to further science (they do that too like Jason) but to select policy friendly science and freeze out other qualified ideas (typically bodies formed to inform policy when there is a political bias in who gets appointed). Such bodies that institutionalize bias is a process diametrically opposed to the advancement of science.
Science should not be influenced by BDS strategies as seen in Climategate and earilier when folks got burned at the stake . A much better choice would be to burn at the stake those promoting BDS as the proper route of science.
UAH and RSS have never supplied the code with which they process. The surface records do that.
EG, GISS.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/
This makes it impossible to audit the satellite data sets.
Whereas you can replicate and audit the surface data sets.
RSS is not “driven” by a climate model. They use a climate model to estimate the diurnal (day/night) cycle in order to correct for diurnal drift in the satellites. RSS then adjust that adjustment based on empirical satellite data. UAH have a less convoluted (empirical) correction process for diurnal drift.
RSS (and UAH) do not use climate models to adjust for altitude decay, satellite intercallibration, instrument temperature bias etc. Neither models of the evolution of temperature over time, nor surface temperature data are used.
I am content with the documentation and explanations for the data sets – but again, it’s not my opinion that I’m interested in. It’s the opinions of the critics of these data sets that I’m calling upon.
barry says: RSS is not “driven” by a climate model. They use a climate model to estimate the diurnal (day/night) cycle in order to correct for diurnal drift in the satellites.
———–
OK I will buy that and just say that essentially the difference between RSS and UAH is driven by climate models.
The diurnal correction is the biggest difference between RSS v3 and v4.
Where folks make a big mistake is averaging all this together and assuming a line of central tendency is the most correct line when all that does is make something very uncertain artificially seem much more certain.
John Christy, who constructs the UAH satellite data set, seems to have a different opinion:
“Both datasets are pretty good and I’ve advocated using the average of the two for a way to decrease the random error contained in both datasets and to reduce the effect of any unforeseen biases we each may have inflicted upon our datasets (I often do this in formal presentations, especially for comparison with models.)”
Its far better and more informative to always show the entire range of possibilities from all qualified sources, something the IPCC process avoided until it was politically untenable.
The IPCC has included and compared in the reports most if not all of the major data sources since they have been available.
Consequently, the idea of the IPCC capitulating to comparing more data sets because of political necessity is a complete fabrication. No more bullshit, please.
barry says: – John Christy, who constructs the UAH satellite data set, seems to have a different opinion:
———–
John is not in a profession where what is fair for the relatively unsophisticated citizen has led to the promulgation of lengthy standards and adjudication over what constitutes adequate disclosure of uncertainty.
Science has no complete process of peer review with regards to what is presented for public consumption and for unsophisticated individuals to make such choices like investment decisions.
What they do inside of science is entirely up to inside of science, adequate presentation of methods, basic datasets for the purpose of replication, etc. The details are all there for someone with the math and science reading skills to find the uncertainty themselves. But uncertainty doesn’t go away by drawing straight lines between two viewpoints. The correct answer can well be outside of entire range between the two view points.
But it needs to rise to a much higher standard of disclosure when consideration of public policy is at stake.
barry says: –
The IPCC has included and compared in the reports most if not all of the major data sources since they have been available.
Consequently, the idea of the IPCC capitulating to comparing more data sets because of political necessity is a complete fabrication. No more bullshit, please.
————
the internal audit of the IPCC several years ago disagrees. They came up with numerous findings of bias, particularly with lead authors pushing their own work designed to attract dollars to that work.
I can’t remember the number of findings but it was a large number with many findings of great concern. The IPCC was not able to implement corrections to all those findings even today, but they have made progress.
But thats just the tip of the iceberg. The other part is political in nature in the selection of who is put in charge and who gets appointed and funded. The direction here is now headed toward more balance with the advent of climate as a political football.
In public processes that migration is normal as skeptics generally don’t get involved until the whole thing has sort of morphed into a mirror image of the Catholic Church a thousand years ago and it becomes obvious they need to fight for some modicum of discipline.
Further I was speaking more in regards to the speculative science than the observation datasets. We have seen the IPCC swing from blaming it all to blaming half, thats pretty radical. Usually when that happens its actually an indicator the needle is still swinging in that direction as rarely does full enlightenment occur overnight.
We have seen the IPCC swing from blaming it all to blaming half, thats pretty radical.
As vague as this (half what?), I think you have grossly mischaracterised the IPCC reports.
2007 IPCC Report
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
[2010 InterAcademy Council Review]
2013 IPCC Report
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
When did the IPCC “blame it all?”
Please substantiate your comment.
[also answered you below, Bill, by mistake]
“They came up with numerous findings of bias, particularly with lead authors pushing their own work designed to attract dollars to that work.”
I’m going to be pretty firm about what I think is total bullshit, and this is another example. Feel free to be specific and quote the relevant sections of the InterAcademy Council report from 2010 to substantiate this – if you can.
What that report generally found was that the management structure was archaic and needed reforming, and greater transparency about its practises, in line with developments in corporate and institutional governance, but that the IPCC had done its job well.
Here is the executive summary:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Executive%20Summary%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf
I have substantiated my view. Will you return the courtesy?
John is not in a profession where what is fair for the relatively unsophisticated citizen…
I posted his remarks thinking you might become a little less certain of the opinion you gave.
I note that you did not substantiate when asked – yet again. The conclusion is obvious. But it doesn’t speak well of your self-avowed skeptical perspicacity that you just leave these fabrications dropped behind you, perhaps hoping they will go unremarked.
Sorry I am a busy guy. Substantiate? Heck read the report. True the language isn’t as colored as mine, but ignoring and running rough shod over opposing expert opinions is exactly what I was getting at. Of course, the riders of those horses were the lead author’s. A lot of politics enters into these audits but true auditors will not shy from making the point, especially with many experts screaming at the top of their lungs and some even disassociating themselves from the process. Obviously the finding was as findings go as certain as any finding that finds itself in the final report.
I recall and it may have been a preliminary recommendation that lead authors be assigned that don’t have a current personal interest in what the report holds up as the best science available. Makes sense to me to get emeritus scientists to fill that role. The IPCC balked at that, after all that’s the biggest carrot they have to run the thing the way they want it to run. So it may not have made it into the final report. And who would they have as emeritus? Lindzen, Happer, Singer, etc.?.
but ignoring and running rough shod over opposing expert opinions is exactly what I was getting at.
That’s not what you said.
“They came up with numerous findings of bias, particularly with lead authors pushing their own work designed to attract dollars to that work”
That is a complete fabrication of the report. There was no such “particular” finding.
When called on your BS you just side step and pretend you said something else. It’s a pattern.
Heck read the report
I did – the full version. That’s how I know you are fabricating.
barry says: That’s not what you said.
“They came up with numerous findings of bias, particularly with lead authors pushing their own work designed to attract dollars to that work”
That is a complete fabrication of the report. There was no such “particular” finding.
—————
Hmmm, why else would they run over expert comments? . . . .they didn’t understand the questions? They lost them?
Your just miffed by the obvious, thus you simply deny the implication rather than make a fruitless attempt to offer a defense of the practice.
This is a flaw of the structure of the IPCC a lack of independence. Its a young science and Pauchori as I recall responded that they wanted the most up to date folks leading. Sure! Young superstars with a lot of articles to their credit, hotly motivated on the issue.
And that is exactly why you want folks without a dog in the fight, with a long history of atmosphere knowledge acting as the top arbiters.
So maybe the published finding got watered down to some vague comments about management of the process. Watering down is an earmark of politics and people without any skin in the game.
After all if you actually put that internal control in place it would destroy the biggest carrot possessed by the political powers that be to get the report they want out of the science.
Further its an easy cure but as I say who would they use for emeritas? Lindzen, Happer, Singer, et al.? All the older more cautious scientists that can see the uncertainty that the IPCC is trampling over. And you don’t like it. LMAO!
Patronizing comments about the implications being obvious do not disguise the fact that what you said the report “particularly” highlighted WRT bias is not actually in the report.
You have no idea what motivates these people – whether its genuine concern about AGW, pure ego attached to their own view, or if they are motivated by the possibility of continued/increased funding.
Would you promote your own scientific research at the IPCC as a lead author in order to get funding for it?
If your answer is yes, then I suggest you are projecting.
If no, what makes those guys any more venal than you? Something you figured out over the years having coffee with them?
I’m a skeptic. I won’t venture what motivates them, because I’m not so arrogant as to presume I understand the psyche of people I don’t know, nor so stupid to generalize about a group of people I’ve never met.
Evidence is what matters, but you are all about polemics, Bill.
barry says: Patronizing comments about the implications being obvious do not disguise the fact that what you said the report particularly highlighted WRT bias is not actually in the report.
Evidence is what matters, but you are all about polemics, Bill.
———–
Well of course now you are discussing my profession Barry. And of course your criticisms of my comments are right on the mark.
However, accepting such a wide array of motivations risks the loss of billions of dollars invested in the process. Thats a huge part of how I made a living for 4 decades, protecting assets via putting in internal controls to limit the losses.
So perhaps you can finish the desertation you started here and explain why expert comments were pushed aside.
Was that due to passion? Ego? Personal gain? Does it matter? No it doesn’t, not from the point of view of the reliability of the results.
Making the differentiations you point out is merely important to determinations of the motivations of the man under the microscope, not the integrity of the process. My interest is the process only. Passion can or cannot lead to anything from a lack of ethics to bias. Ego same motivation as personal gain. Personal gain well we don’t need to go into that as its obvious.
But despite the motivation, thats why you create independent review at the authorship level in good processes. Thats why businesses have CPAs to recommend how to accomplish such controls over the assets of a business, while at the same time providing independent review of investment solicitations right at the authorship level. You do it at the authorship level to be timely and avoid delays and sunk costs.
Barry says: – Please substantiate your comment.
———–
WG1 AR1 Fig 3 Summary for Policymakers, provides a breakdown of forcings ranked from high to very low scientific understanding. Essentially the entire suite of forcings both negative and positive are provided for by anthropogenic causes.
At the very end of the chart ranked very low scientific understanding they give a very small value to solar forcing changes and rate it very low scientific understanding.
And it was all summarized in Al Gore’s film which prompted a Nobel Prize to be awarded jointly to Al Gore and the IPCC. So if thats all a lie it was carefully crafted well enough to fool the Nobel Committee.
You have misrepresented AR1 by selective reading. This is from the Summary for Policy Makers on observed warming:
“The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.”
Bill, you have quoted nothing in our conversations.
I find that your representations of the IPCC and the state of the science in general are completely untrustworthy.
Once again, you are free to specifically cite references that substantiate what you say. Almost without exception you have failed to do so throughout the course of our conversation. I’ll leave it to your good judgement to calculate how a reader of your opinions might assess them, considering your consistent omissions in this regard.
barry says: – You have misrepresented AR1 by selective reading. This is from the Summary for Policy Makers on observed warming:
———
I haven’t even read AR1 Barry much less said anything about it. When you are done erecting strawmen maybe we can have a conversation if that ever happens.
I see I made a typo in the reference. Reference is to AR3
Fig 3 is not a breakdown of radiative forcings. It is a chart of GHG concentrations, clearly labelled as such. Here is that very figure from AR1, including the description.
https://i.imgur.com/Iy3ocVU.png
The more I check out what you say, the more divorced from the truth your comments are revealed to be.
Does this make you review your own opinions at all? Do you reflect on these errors, or will you repeat them at some future time, unaffected by these rebuttals?
*sigh*
You mean the Third Assessment Report, don’t you (not the first)? Fig 3 in that report is a radiative forcing chart. It’s the only SPM that has fig 3 as a radiative forcing chart.
If so, you are still wrong. Solar has a positive forcing in that chart, and there are various anthropogenic negative forcings as well. But you don’t have to interpret, as the TAR SPM states quite clearly:
“In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
So what has changed in the last 3 reports is not the amount of warming attributed to GHGs since mid-20th century, but the confidence of this conclusion.
Basically, most (more than half) of the warming since mid 20th century is from GHGs is:
2001 report: likely
2007 report: very likely
2013 report: extremely likely
Figuring out where you’ve gone wrong (you cited the wrong assessment report this time) and correcting your errors is becoming burdensome.
You have a very slapdash understanding of this topic. I recommend you review your opinions, based, as they are, on some very woolly understanding of the state of the science.
That was the essence of my pontification, although I didn’t express it as well.
barry says: –
In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
So what has changed in the last 3 reports is not the amount of warming attributed to GHGs since mid-20th century, but the confidence of this conclusion.
Basically, most (more than half) of the warming since mid 20th century is from GHGs is:
2001 report: likely
2007 report: very likely
2013 report: extremely likely
———–
Thats incorrect Barry. AR5 did not say that greenhouse gases were extremely likely to have caused more than half the warming.
They used the “extremely likely” claim to cover all anthropogenic sources of warming including UHI, deforestation, changes in ozone, etc.
Further they go on to say: “Robustness of detection and attribution of global-scale warming is subject to models correctly simulating internal variability. ” So what you got is some poorly performing models still pulling all the strings.
So natural variability gets kicked out on the basis of a fiat expressed by climate models.
I can acknowledge that one cannot look up in the sky and see the sun doing stuff that would account for warming, but I see zero discussion about longterm feedback. Is the IPCC ready to skewer the entire idea of longterm feedback?
If you believe their proclamations can there be any other possibility other than longterm feedback being extremely unlikely?
Logic demands it and thus the entire project is corrupted as they hardly even touched on the subject while knowing full well its a major issue both in eventual warming from anthropogenic forcings and in the assessment of natural variation.
Thats why I call this kind of process a “horse blinder” process. They appoint their race horses, entice them to toss out their skepticism and don a set of blinders so as to not be distracted from the objective of the process. Works beautifully with too young, too ignorant, and too inexperienced young scientists where you quickly elevate them right out of college (e.g. Michael Mann). Works terribly usually with elder, more knowledgeable, more experienced scientists.
Paragraph after paragraph of easily demonstrated rubbish from you.
I see zero discussion about longterm feedback. Is the IPCC ready to skewer the entire idea of longterm feedback?
Fast, medium and longterm feedbacks are amply discussed in the IPCC reports.
2001 TAR
Chapter 7.3 Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks
“As the budgets in the surface layer depend on the exchange with deeper layers in the ocean, it is also necessary to consider the processes which affect the circulation and water mass distribution in the deep ocean, in particular when the response of the climate system at decadal and longer time-scales is considered. Moreover, processes governing vertical mixing are important in determining the time-scales on which changes of, for example, deep ocean temperature and sea level evolve.
Chapter 9.2 Projections of Future Climate Change
(A discussion of climate sensitivity and feedbacks)
“In earlier assessments, the climate sensitivity was obtained from calculations made with AGCMs coupled to mixed-layer upper ocean models (referred to as mixed-layer models). In that case there is no exchange of heat with the deep ocean and a model can be integrated to a new equilibrium in a few tens of years. For a full coupled atmosphere/ocean GCM, however, the heat exchange with the deep ocean delays equilibration and several millennia, rather than several decades, are required to attain it.”
AR4 and AR5 also discuss longterm feedbacks. Not just ocean but also ice sheet feedbacks. The sections on Paleoclimate also discuss long term feedbacks.
Please do some reading before you comment. You continually talk rubbish. “I see zero discussion” – because you don’t read the reports.
barry says: Paragraph after paragraph of easily demonstrated rubbish from you.
2001 TAR
——————
LMAO! The TAR you mean the IPCC report that buried the MWP and LIA and opened up the opportunity to talk about longterm feedbacks?
————–
————-
barry says:
AR4 and AR5 also discuss longterm feedbacks. Not just ocean but also ice sheet feedbacks. The sections on Paleoclimate also discuss long term feedbacks.
—————–
Indeed they do discuss longterm feedbacks. But lets face it the only science papers on deep ocean feedbacks conclude with simply they don’t know. And of course you have slowing of glacial loss from the second half of the 19th century providing less positive feedback consistently over time.
Ultimately they point to the vague parameterization of climate models simply attributing continued ice loss to CO2 rather than LIA recovery, deep ocean below the thermocline to CO2 rather than LIA recovery and complete ignorance of what is happening on the bottom of the ocean or the speed of feedbacks from anything ever! And they are certain of the effect on climate.
Its ridiculous! Worse! Its corrupt!
———–
————–
barry says: I see zero discussion because you dont read the reports.
———–
I see zero serious scientific discussion of quantities. This isn’t fking sociology. Or is it?
Indeed they do discuss longterm feedbacks.
Then why the hell did you say “I see zero discussion about longterm feedbacks” in the IPCC?
Because you’re full of shit, Bill.
barry says:
July 27, 2019 at 10:51 PM
Indeed they do discuss longterm feedbacks.
Then why the hell did you say I see zero discussion about longterm feedbacks in the IPCC?
Because youre full of shit, Bill.
————-
That was zero discussion on the attribution chart Barry, you know the chart they use for establishing the “likely” statements.
Let me set the record straight, the IPCC talks about everything, but what makes it into the important parts is another matter.
You said:
“I see zero discussion about longterm feedback. Is the IPCC ready to skewer the entire idea of longterm feedback?”
Skewer the entire idea. You were not limiting your comments to the “attribution chart,” whatever you mean by that.
And here again you favour waffle over specifics. Because when you get specific you are shown to be wrong, so you start waffling again.
“The important parts”
Seem to be whatever you decide when you are wrong.
The SPM is a very important part, and you still can’t bring yourself to admit you were wrong about IPCC attributing warming from mid 20th century to 100% anthropogenic causes, when shown the clear statements in the SPMs on that very matter.
Barry says: – Skewer the entire idea. You were not limiting your comments to the attribution chart, whatever you mean by that.
And here again you favour waffle over specifics. Because when you get specific you are shown to be wrong, so you start waffling again.
The important parts
Seem to be whatever you decide when you are wrong.
——————-
You seem to forget that this part of the thread was discussing what is “extremely likely” you said that greenhouse gases were “extremely likely” to be responsible for more than half the warming. Which isn’t true at all.
But critical to what they did say was extremely likely is how the arrived at a 90% confidence level to claim that. Leaving out unknowns makes any such rational calculation of 90% assurance completely a wild guess. It wouldn’t be if actual CO2 sensitivity was actually known as the IPCC process pretends it to be.
So I maintain an inadequate basis for making such claims as very likely or extremely likely. Actually making a quantified case for that being impossible and the fear they have of their imaginations, or their egos, or their personal gain makes such rational step as not in their best interest.
Therein lies the obvious problem. The IPCC work is simply an opinion. . . .its not science. Its is only artificially cloaked in science but when it gets down the brass tacks of quantification and proof its wanting.
And I am far away from being alone in that opinion. My opinion is primarily from the standpoint of missing evidence which auditors are trained to ferret out. Near as I can tell most of the science expert skepticism is of the same nature with a precious few convinced of they know the correct answer.
Yes it represents uncertainty but its that uncertainty that needs to be attacked and the climate models simply aren’t up to the task. IMO, there is a need to buck up some of the underlying science to a higher level of understanding before climate models will provide any answers in any kind of reasonable time frame. And I am not alone in that thought either. Dr. Lindzen has said the same thing.
I’m glad barry is here to clean this up. Was I too harsh when I said “bonkers”?
Yes Barry will be right along to admit to being completely wrong about AR5 expressing that over half the recent warming as deemed extremely likely was the result of greenhouse gases.
He will also certainly agree that if a science panel ignores the well known possibility of longterm feedbacks representing a potentially major portion of eventual total climate effects with an analysis focused on the north Atlantic ocean only it can’t be extremely certain of anything.
Bottom line is that you run into a hypothesis meat grinder when you look at the assumptions of total sensitivity to CO2 being 3.0 with a range of observations saying somewhere between 1.3 and 2.0 being realized (rough proxy).
That puts somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the warming into the longterm feedback category potentially supplying a large portion of the current long term warming of the .6 degrees/century from unobserved phenomena. Recent papers add to that with information the vast majority of the deeper oceans warming from water dated back the end of the LIA and some waters still cooling small areas of the Pacific from effects of the LIA.
So with the IPCC taking blindfold swings at deep ocean warming and the effects of aerosols the answer might be staring them right in the face. Namely, reduced warming is a result of the actual existence of long term feedbacks. And when you accept that its a double counter. First you have to consider the possibility of significant LIA recovery as part of the already reduced warming, reducing CO2’s share accordingly.
Further this viewpoint is consistent with a lot of observations. Short term atmosphere feedback is also greatly reduced consistent with exercises in showing thats the case. And the primary criticism of those observations is the use of too short of an observation period, reinforcing the idea that non-atmosphere feedbacks are much stronger than estimated.
And the IPCC stays far afield of this preferring to count climate model runs to buck up certainty. Like I said horse blinder science.
One finds the same horse blinder science and economics being used more often than not in litigation support where you pay speaking fees to put an expert on the witness stand. You can find a lot of those kinds of chumps when you have billions to spend.
The only thing left is for politicians to pick who is in charge of the entire enterprise and then use its product to shout down anybody not ascribing and paying fealty to it.
That was a lot of horsepucky, but some great buzzwords in there.
Learn the difference between Transient Climate Response and Equilibrium. Climate Sensitivity. Then maybe read up on how these things are estimated. In doing this you will be less likely to write reams of dreck.
“LIA recovery” – the blindfold premise that the Earth’s climate has a medium state to which it must return.
Actual mechanisms need not apply to this “theory.” Just some vague notion that the climate is like elastic.
barry says: – Learn the difference between Transient Climate Response and Equilibrium. Climate Sensitivity. Then maybe read up on how these things are estimated. In doing this you will be less likely to write reams of dreck.
LIA recovery the blindfold premise that the Earths climate has a medium state to which it must return.
Actual mechanisms need not apply to this theory. Just some vague notion that the climate is like elastic.
———-
Apparently I have a far better grasp of those concepts than you do.
Thats because you believe the IPCC when they tell you any residual warming resulting from any LIA changes is zero and the residuals from CO2 emissions is huge even though it seems very apparent that natural change occurs more frequently (like very 3 or 400 years) and the system needs maybe a 100 thousand years or so to adjust. It seems obvious to me its a lot like walking up to a cash register and offering up a $100 bill for a $1 purchase and getting only 99cents in change back. Of course that probably would just blow by you when all it was was the tax for fixing climate change.
Thats because you believe the IPCC when they tell you
You have no idea what I think. You have zero interest in what I think because you are too busy impressing us with what you think, and what you tell me “I” think is merely a foil for you to keep talking about what you think.
Here’s a novel concept. Why don’t you ask me what I think?
any residual warming resulting from any LIA changes is zero and the residuals from CO2 emissions is huge
Vague waffle. What time period are we discussing now? What are these LIA changes? Are they actual physical mechanisms? Or is the fact of the change the mechanism? Because that’s what it seems like when you and Akasofu (and a bunch of other climate change ‘skeptics’) talk about it.
See what I did there? I asked you questions. Sure, some are rhetorical, but you get invited to explain yourself. Maybe you could try that with me. Don’t feel obliged, though.
Was I too harsh when I said “bonkers”?
I’d say ill-informed and overconfident.
barry says:
Id say ill-informed and overconfident.
———–
Yeah you promised to write something on that “overconfident” thing about why we should take action despite the costs. IMO, thats what it all comes down to. Its easy to spend somebody else’s money to fix what you are worried about.
Skeptics point to that disconnect all the time. AOC and her Uber use vs public transporation. The environmentalist soccer mom and her SUV who will do something when Detroit makes an affordable electric SUV, etc.
Mankind has come a long ways reacting to what happened after the sun came up each morning. Now we have insanity screaming that we have to assume whats going to happen when the sun comes up and the holes in that theory are so huge you could and do drive a SUV through them every day.
Bottom line is if you really believed in all this you would have already personally taken action, and if everybody did that there would be no need for action. Its not like anybody is twisting your arm to emit. . . .you just cannot control your own personal addiction because under it all you aren’t feeling it sufficiently.
And if you do something and feel alone maybe its you who is crazy rather than everybody else.
Bottom line is if you really believed in all this you would have already personally taken action, and if everybody did that there would be no need for action. Its not like anybody is twisting your arm to emit… you just cannot control your own personal addiction because under it all you arent feeling it sufficiently.
When I was a smoker, my “habit” in no way compromised my understanding of the risks. You start with a fallacy here, and then move on to the ridiculous. Only the rich can afford a near zero carbon footprint, and anyone else would have to live in a cave to do it.
This is by far the stupidest thing you’ve said in our discussion. F/f underpins much of our daily lives, particularly as a source of energy. A significant fraction of anthro CO2 also comes from land-clearing and the concrete industry. If it is to be reduced on any meaningful scale then the source of energy must change. There’s nothing ordinary individuals can do about that, because they don’t have the keys to the power plants or hands on the levers of industry. If it needs doing on any serious scale, that’s a job for corporations, innovators, industry and government to tackle.
Yeah you promised to write something on that “overconfident” thing about why we should take action despite the costs. IMO, thats what it all comes down to.
Is that where you started your interest? Disenchantment with the idea of government spending money on mitigation?
In Economics, consumers maximize their own “utility”, and that’s a pretty good approximation.
If they don’t pay the cost to 3rd parties you have a market failure. It is the tragedy of the commons, and it is tantamount to the theft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
People can not be expected to stand in a shop and analyze global logistic chains for everything they buy.
It’s rather unfair if some people should take full responsible while others don’t care.
The solution is to add that cost at the source. You can make it revenue neutral to avoid your political hysteria, it doesn’t matter what you do with the money. It will make those global logistic chains and markets optimal, and now people can maximize their utility based on true price only.
https://www.econstatement.org/
barry says: – Is that where you started your interest? Disenchantment with the idea of government spending money on mitigation?
————–
Not hardly! I would say by the time my interest began to sharpen on this issue it was more about the extent of the propaganda and how that was affecting things I was working on and diverting huge amount of dollars away from better considered research, folks getting the “precautionary” knickers in a bunch, and even whether doing something about the expected warming was a wise thing to do. I am completely at ease with the government spending money on the commons and in fact have actually originally penned some of the verses we have in both law and regulation and have advised on many others over the past 20 years. So your imagination is really way off the mark.
So much for an easy strawman to knock down in lieu of a syllabus on the precautionary principle you say you hold to.
————-
————-
Svante says: –
It’s rather unfair if some people should take full responsible while others don’t care.
The solution is to add that cost at the source. You can make it revenue neutral to avoid your political hysteria, it doesn’t matter what you do with the money. It will make those global logistic chains and markets optimal, and now people can maximize their utility based on true price only.
———
You have been brainwashed.
We have a legal system that addresses environmental harm. Its not perfect but it works fairly well.
Your solution of taking choices and decisions about what is good or bad and handing it to another power than the consumer is an invitation for rampant corruption.
And make no mistake for the past 20 years I have worked on issues of the commons in processes that do just that, and yes sometimes you have to hand that power over; but never do so as a product of some kind of overarching dogma. Only do so as a last resort when nothing else works.
Actually what works the best with the least pain are folks that establish markets to lead by example. Individuals motivated to do something hardly fits your mold of the consumer who doesn’t care.
Before anybody is going to do something there needs to be a lot of people who care and lead by example. If you think thats not needed it won’t be needed if you hand the power over out of the dogma you just expressed and danged if a lot of stuff won’t come down on your head that you neither believe, endorse, or think is fair.
So my advice for somebody too lazy to lead by example is. . . .be careful of what you wish for.
bill hunter says:
Yes, it happened at University, they called it education.
Economics is a beautiful thing, just like Physics.
It can allocate resources in an optimal way, driven by consumer demand. The individuals you talk about will get incentives, and money to bring new technology.
It’s not optimal but OK, you can do it by decree and drag it through the justice system if you think 27 Nobel Laureate Economists are wrong.
Quite the opposite, consumer will have free choice, this time based on real cost, not by using the atmosphere as a free garbage tip.
You already have taxes, cut some of those that promote bad choices, such as the capital gains tax.
Svante says: Yes, it happened at University, they called it education. Economics is a beautiful thing, just like Physics.
It can allocate resources in an optimal way, driven by consumer demand.
————
Gads you even agree you have been brainwashed.
You elevate consumer demand for the allocation of resources so what is the argument again for somebody else, largely unaccountable to the consumer, inserting incentives?
You know business monopolies do exactly that and are completely out of the control of the consumer. The other kind of monopoly, communism/socialist democracies also do that. And of course your version puts select businesses and government in partnership for a common cause.
As I have grown older and wiser I see it for what it is, it is a scheme to deny the ignorant consumer (which you already noted didn’t have the time to become informed) his own choices.
The problem with university economists is they know a lot less about human nature than the average citizen. The reason is obvious, they live in a cloistered academic shell thinking deeply all the time about economics. They aren’t like an average citizen out in the world in a business where they have actually have to please customers.
What you are actually describing is a variation of socialism best known as national socialism. If you look past the atrocities associated with national socialism you see an ordered society, highly incentivized, moving in the exact direction mandated by its leaders, selective breeding, selective education, selective investment, selective consumer choice based upon what is good for the state. Indeed it was working! Economists in America were falling all over themselves over it. It was a brilliant scheme, except of course at the cost of giving up any consideration at all for the individual and it was totally ignorant of any realistic analysis of basic human nature. The result was predictable. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The human experiment in your view is lumbering like a single blind robot into the future and thus must meet its maker or whatever you wish to call death. And your solution is to actually make it a single robot. Indeed your scheme does make humans like a single robot with some committees, ideally academic ones made up with 27 Nobel laureates, calling all the shots.
–
–
————
———-
Svante says:
Quite the opposite, consumer will have free choice, this time based on real cost, not by using the atmosphere as a free garbage tip.
You already have taxes, cut some of those that promote bad choices, such as the capital gains tax.
——–
Cut it? How does taxing capital gains promote bad choices? The concept of the capital gains tax system is that most capital gains are a mix of actual earnings (after depreciation) and inflation. Additionally, it encourages the individual to invest as an individual as opposed to spending the money, which is a well known factor in a successful society.
You have some kind of distilled notion that 27 Nobel Laureates best know the correct investment. One rather legitimate environmental concern is over a patented gmo seed being so good that it squeezes out all the inferior seed and like putting all your eggs in one basket you greatly increase the chance of a total disaster.
But the 27 Nobel Laureates know better right? Hogwash!
I see a pattern, climate science is wrong, and you know better than 27 Nobel Laureates in Economics.
Capital gains taxation reduces the propensity to invest.
Reduced investment means reduced growth.
Less goods and services, means reduced prosperity.
Get it?
Svante says: – I see a pattern, climate science is wrong, and you know better than 27 Nobel Laureates in Economics.
————
No you are missing the point. I am saying climate science is uncertain and that the opinion of 27 Nobel Laureates in Economics should not trump what the individual wants because no body knows better of what somebody’s needs are than the individual.
I really dislike earmarked taxes because of the corruption it creates. How that works is as a fund builds government can’t keep its hands off of it so projects are allocated funds whether any fixing needs to be done or not and they tend to take on a life of there own because you don’t have elected representatives looking over them all that closely. They just set broad guidelines and the money flows. Its bad enough to have elected representatives decide what to spend money on as it has its own level of corruption, but still its better than them not looking at and negotiating for priorities on whats going to be spent.
I think its fine for the 27 Nobel Laureates to recommend stuff to Congress and I am sure they will and probably already have.
Svante says: –
Capital gains taxation reduces the propensity to invest.
Reduced investment means reduced growth.
Less goods and services, means reduced prosperity.
Get it?
————-
I wasn’t sure what you meant because most liberals and socialists believe the capital gains reduced tax rate should be eliminated.
I generally agree with you on this.
bill hunter says:
No, it’s like barry quoted:
2001 report: likely
2007 report: very likely
2013 report: extremely likely
You got it all backwards.
These Economists advocate free choice, but it must be based on the full cost to achieve Pareto optimum.
CO2 is not the best way to fight corruption, it is a separate issue that should be solved on its own.
It’s must easier to tax a few fossil fuel producers than millions of people.
They did, why did you not read my link?
https://www.clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
Svante says:
July 30, 2019 at 3:49 PM
bill hunter says:
No you are missing the point. I am saying climate science is uncertain
No, its like barry quoted:
2001 report: likely
2007 report: very likely
2013 report: extremely likely
the opinion of 27 Nobel Laureates in Economics should not trump what the individual wants because no body knows better of what somebodys needs are than the individual.
You got it all backwards.
These Economists advocate free choice, but it must be based on the full cost to achieve Pareto optimum.
I really dislike earmarked taxes because of the corruption
CO2 is not the best way to fight corruption, it is a separate issue that should be solved on its own.
Its must easier to tax a few fossil fuel producers than millions of people.
I think its fine for the 27 Nobel Laureates to recommend stuff to Congress and I am sure they will and probably already have.
They did, why did you not read my link?
https://www.clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
Svante says:
No, its like barry quoted:
2001 report: likely
2007 report: very likely
2013 report: extremely likely
————–
It is if and only if you believe the climate models are correct.
———————-
———————-
Svante says:
the opinion of 27 Nobel Laureates in Economics should not trump what the individual wants because no body knows better of what somebodys needs are than the individual.
You got it all backwards.
These Economists advocate free choice, but it must be based on the full cost to achieve Pareto optimum.
—————-
Good, then its my choice if I want to pay the tax. You are pretty hilarious Svante. Sort sounds like you can keep your medical plan if you like it.
Put Miami Beach under water for your personal gain at zero cost to you, that’s impolite.
Yes, AR5 includes “other anthropogenic sources” when attributing most of the warming since the mid 20th century. Isn’t it great that I quoted that here in our conversation so that we (you) could check?
This amendment doesn’t affect one bit the fact that you erred when you stated that the IPCC “blamed all” and then “blamed half”. We’ve seen the direct statements from the TAR, AR4 and AR5. You’ve missed your opportunity to concede your misapprehension.
You’re now saying of AR5 “So natural variability gets kicked out on the basis of a fiat expressed by climate models.”
So are they “blaming it all” after the political pressures of InterAcademy Council report now? Or was your comment somehow more nuanced than an apparent self-contradiction?
Not to mention that your interpretation of this bit from the IPCC is off the wall.
You have an opportunity right now to concede that you were wrong when you stated that the InterAcademy Council report on the IPCC:
“came up with numerous findings of bias, particularly with lead authors pushing their own work designed to attract dollars to that work”
Here is the report for you to check – it seems the 5 page executive summary wasn’t sufficient for you.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
Alternatively, you can quote exactly where in the report it particularly speaks of favouring work in order to obtain funding for that work.
But why not be a good sport and just say you tend to shoot the breeze? I’ll lighten up, I promise.
But as long as you seem to be serious, I’ve come to the conclusion that unless you substantiate what you say, it’s likely distorted or just plain wrong.
So much for an easy strawman to knock down in lieu of a syllabus on the precautionary principle you say you hold to
Jesus, Bill, I asked you a question. Maybe you don’t recognize it because you never ask genuine questions of anyone here.
I doubt you could articulate my general view of this issue.
I didn’t start to become interested because funding was going to be denied me. It was purely from an interest in science. The climate can go to hell in a handbasket for all I care. So can people whose ‘criticism’ of the science is more about their own interests than a neutral appraisal.
I’ll tell you a quick story of the week I became involved in the Great Climate Debate (TM). I was participating in a forum with many different threads, and mostly talking about politics and literature. Lot of smart people with different views and different political persuasions.
This was February 2007.
I dipped into the climate change thread to see what was going on, and within a couple of posts a guy whose politics leaned rightward, with whom I’d had many vigorous and amicable arguments, was trashing the IPCC and calling AGW a product of groupthink.
He said, “The next report won’t even mention WV or volcanic SO2.” That’s a pretty accurate paraphrase, and his thesis was that WV, being a stronger GHG than CO2 was ignored by the IPCC. Volcanic SO2 was another deliberate oversight according to him.
So I said, “Let’s test your prediction out when the report becomes available.”
A few weeks later AR4 came out. I immediately downloaded all the chapters and spent an hour doing a word count.
Both WV and SO2 each got several hundred mentions throughout the report. There were even whole sections dedicated just to water vapour – as a feedback and in the stratosphere.
So I figured he must have got his opinion from reading the previous report, the TAR. So I downloaded each chapter and spent another hour or so doing a word count. Same story. Hundreds of references.
I thus began checking claims that everyone made, and discovered how far off many of them were, particularly (but not limited to) critics of the IPCC the idea of anthropogenic global warming.
I started reading studies – lots of them – to get a good grip on where the weight of opinion lay on a number of topics. Milankovitch cycles, millennial temperature reconstructions and ice cores were some I read many papers on in the early days. I went looking for them. I’ve read far more papers than I can remember on quite a few topics. I don’t remember all details of course, but I have a pretty good grasp of the state of the science.
Over the last 12 years I spend most of my online discussion time at AGW ‘contrarian’ blogs. It’s more interesting to me to talk to people who don’t agree with me.
Amazingly, that first experience with my first ‘skeptic’ typified my experience with most of them. They make wild claims. I check. They are wrong an extraordinary amount of the time. And the reason is that they do not come purely from an interest in science – they have some agenda driving their disaffection. That agenda causes them to be highly selective about the ‘science’ they read and promote. Confirmation bias, basically.
People who are aligned with the IPCC are hardly immune from getting the science wrong, and there are definitely alarmists on both sides. In the ‘skeptic’ camp, the alarmism is often about economic disaster.
I’ve never been alarmed. I’ve only been interested. Part of that interest is seeing how people lie to themselves, and I guess trying to see if they can be persuaded to let go of the self-deceit, but the abiding interest is reading up on the science when people make bold claims.
Oh, I generally only carry on here, now. Too busy with other stuff usually. But I’ve had my fill of the local nonsense, so generally I turn up for the monthly anomaly update, because a bunch of ‘skeptics’ were assuring us that the ‘pause’ would soon be back, the the anomalies would get below zero a year or two after 2016, and all sorts of promises that the 2016 el Nino was a blip on the way to a no-warming or cooling future.
I was willing to make bets on the opposite. No skeptic took me up, sadly. They weren’t willing to put their money where the mouth was.
But, hey, cooling is going to happen as soon as the el Nino is over/the PDO cycles down/the AMO cycles down/their down cycles match!/the solar minimum comes into effect/the sine wave I graphed onto temperature records tells me…..
Nah. It’s going to get warmer over the long term, barring some massive, extended volcanic eruption or a meteor darkening the skies for decades.
Would you like to make a bet?
Not me, fair odds for Bill Hunter I guess?
Well I am not going to bet against warming after 300 years of it probably averaging around .5 degrees per century. Then I have to allow for the very recent grand maximum carrying residual warming.
I mean science’s only defense of greenhouse gases warming is it slows cooling. So I would take a bet that says cooling will occur because warming will slow down.
Name the conditions of your bet and we’ll see if it’s something we can actually bet on.
Where do you live Barry?
Australia I think he said.
barry says: – I doubt you could articulate my general view of this issue.
——–
Taking a shot at that your general view is whatever the IPCC says. I admit maybe that’s a little off center, but your post implies you are here to correct all the bad science by the uneducated masses.
My background was an interest in practical solar technologies stemming back to the early 1970’s. That practical hands on experience creates some viewpoints that I don’t see considered by modern science. And I say “modern” science because its actually a fact that a lot of science just becomes forgotten so none of this is actually new science. Maybe forgotten is too strong of a word, but lets say not taught in today’s universities so perhaps on its way to being forgotten.
In that regard I pointed out trailer trash insulation that vendors of insulation are prohibited from marketing, but the IPCC uses to market the effects of CO2. Dr. Lindzen sees through the charade. As a great scientist he keeps an open mind to the fact the IPCC could be correct via the concept that very large things don’t always demonstrate the same effects very small things follow. It is well known in physics for example that Newtonian ideas are very good approximations but fail as the scale is greatly modified. The same is probably true of quantum mechanics or at least Einstein went to his grave thinking that.
My career for the past 30 some years has largely been to detect bias as I had returned to college to get a degree in accounting and worked for a CPA firm. For the past 20 years I have done that same nature of work in the public policy arena.
One does not need to be an expert to detect bias. Even people with mental disabilities have high degrees of ability to detect bias. One does not need training to detect bias. Bias makes it self obvious to an open eye. Its incredibly easy to look away from bias and not see it. Even the most intelligent of humans look away a lot. Galileo was known to be somebody that was almost totally non-critical of his own theories. Einstein even spoke of it.
Galileo for example denied the moon was involved in the tides. He was so enamored of the sun causing the tides he avoided obvious evidence right in front of him. He spoke of a single high tide per day, attributing it to the sun. When others pointed out that the moon was also involved and evidence of that was that there were two high tides per day, not one still Galileo rejected it.
Galileo was well educated studying mathematics, logic, and a variety of natural sciences. But bias blinded him to reality as surely as the Pope was blinded to reality about the sun circling the earth. Great men have likely greater bias’ than common men. I have to resort to psychology on that claim, but common men are far more often the victim of great men bias’ than vice versa.
Bias is so prevalent in this world it is the most important consideration in everything we believe. I don’t care where you start, religion, science, finance, morality or how experience or educated one is; bias is the primary factor for consideration.
The reality of bias very well expressed in Grant Wood’s American Gothic. Here is a brilliant painting by a brilliant artist that must be the most lampooned piece of art in America. Just about everybody has a different bias about it. Iowans thought the artist was biased. Hollywood has its bias about it. American patriots have their bias about it. It goes on and on. Its a masterpiece of art.
But IMO, bias is like biodiversity. The more kinds of biases you have the better off society is, unless society decides to officially adopt a bias. . . .as that is an anti-bias effort. Its real intent is to replace one bias with another and that is bad news for our chances of survival just as a lack of biodiversity is a threat to all life on the planet.
Now there are legitimate efforts to prevent bias from being used to defraud. That’s the profession I have spent quite a while in. Auditors have natural bias’ and here is where education enters the picture. Auditor’s are trained to avoid bias and to describe and document bias. Auditor partners are hugely motivated to do this as ultimately in a court of law somebody else will determine if the auditor was biased or failed in his duty to document a lack of bias in accordance with the standards of the profession.
But personal bias is an asset, it makes the human race stronger in the same way that biodiversity makes life on this planet stronger. It is the primary driver of science. A scientist without a bias can’t discover anything as he a total tool of institutionalized bias.
But thankfully we see a lot of bias in the halls of academia, it speaks to academic freedom to express viewpoints against other forms of bias, often its institutionalized bias and is 100% consistent with the founder’s belief that the 1st amendment was a needed reform that allows bias to be spoken freely. The 1st amendment is perhaps the greatest document of all time in encouraging bias diversity. So by now you should know what I think of those spouting economic and scientific theories about completely untested concepts in ways that suggest conformity should be enforced. The whole bunch of you can take your uniform briefcase drill team and basically shove it.
then there is real science. the best we can hope for is for a system that follows real science, uses it to inform decisions, and only use it to inform decisions when its clear the science is unanimous, which would be another word for proven by observation. The standard I used as an accountant and still use today is 95 to 99% certainty depending upon the materiality of the issue. And that is a view tempered with the fact that 100% certainty can never be achieved.
Anything less than a high level of certainty needs extenuating circumstances and full disclosure. Accountant opinion reports would be extraordinarily long under that strict of a standard, so the accounting profession over time has established accounting standards that contain a lot of useful information for investors that choose to invest based upon a firms accounting reports and relieves auditors from having to make such extensive disclosures.
Such standards might be considered for science brought in policy debates. While the IPCC has literally tons of good science quote its conclusions fail to meet a reasonable standard of certainty and the numbers they quote for uncertainty are clearly wrong. The best papers I have seen on climate science uncertainty were authored by Dr. Judith Curry. Bottom line is the IPCC cannot simply make climate model runs as a basis for quantifying uncertainty. The argument that the science is settled is pure bullshit.
But understand the objective of the work done by a financial auditor is one heck of a long ways away from a mandate to invest. All that was is being mandated is a uniform way of firms relaying information to potential investors. i.e. restrictions on the fraud of using biased ideas to extract rights, money, and assets from individuals.
Keep the science out of that business and scientists should be free to wander the halls of academia fretting over humans killing themselves off. Its healthy to have such bias’ as long as you contain it by some mechanism where popular bias of an elite few finds it tentacles all over official reports of certainty.
Auditors are prohibited from running around in public talking about the accounting records of the firms they audit. Rightfully so as the process entails access of confidential records and an individual auditor’s opinion before being expressed as a public opinion must complete the entire process before reaching conclusions and before the literature essentially for the purpose of soliciting investment goes out to the public.
So you have competing interests here. Academic freedom vs the standards of real science as expressed perhaps best by Dr. Richard Feynman.
Is it possible to promulgate standards for science to be referred to in policy arenas? I would think so. To do so would require some incentives on the profession to get them to better evaluate the uncertainty of what they believe in a formal manner in a way similar to other professionals and institutions. The idea would be to not limit the bias’ of individual scientists but to limit how it translates to policy through large groups of elitists that hold similar or the same bias’.
For example its illegal for members of the military to express political opinions while in uniform, but they can do so in civilian clothing. For a long time there was uncertainty about the civilian clothing exemption. . . .but protecting free speech is imperative which is identical to protecting freedom to have bias. And keeping bias out of politics is key to our survival and our success. Yes we could kill ourselves by failing to act to end a scientifically vague threat, but less surely than by enforcing bias as every action has unintended consequences.
Taking a shot at that your general view is whatever the IPCC says
I refer to the IPCC for the science only – and remembering that no science is perfect and all science is provisional. And remembering that I am not a scientist.
The IPCC does not prescribe policy mandates to the governments of the world. So what view would I have on policy, do you think, if my view is “Whatever the IPCC says?”
your post implies you are here to correct all the bad science by the uneducated masses
Most often ‘bad science’ is simply misrepresentations of the science, or outright falsehoods. Misrepresentations of what the IPCC actually says is just one manifestation, and one of the easiest to debunk. I’ve spent far more time reading the literature (and ‘skeptic’ blogs) than the IPCC reports.
No conversation about policy or what have you has any value without understanding the science and its limits, including a fair framing of the uncertainties as well as stuff that is settled (such as that the surface will warm if, all other things being equal, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises).
You might as well defer to your neighbour’s advice about the pins and needles you keep feeling in your arm if you think people’s personal preferences trump expertise.
People’s personal predilections have no impact on the science. What individuals want has no impact on what the facts of the matter are.
Understanding the science doesn’t rob anyone of choice.
Bias is as common as muck. Trying to pin it on one group in particular is a rhetorical device. The scientific method is one of the better sieves. Don’t trust the IPCC? Fine. Then acquaint yourself with the scientific literature. That’s what I’ve been doing. Guess what?
barry says: – as well as stuff that is settled (such as that the surface will warm if, all other things being equal, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises).
—————
Thats quite an order there Barry. All else remain the same like say a “brick”.
We are talking about a hugely dynamic gaseous atmosphere Barry, not a brick.
And even then its not certain how much it would warm or even it it would warm even if nothing changes. While I am not advocating for the zero warming it is possible. Settled science isn’t that far yet. I am certain that greenhouse gases are mostly responsible all of us not dying after the sun goes down, but they also seem responsible for us not frying to death when the sun comes up.
—————–
—————–
barry says: You might as well defer to your neighbours advice about the pins and needles you keep feeling in your arm if you think peoples personal preferences trump expertise.
Peoples personal predilections have no impact on the science. What individuals want has no impact on what the facts of the matter are.
————-
Hmmm, I hear the voice of inexperience speaking here. Indeed, what you say would seem to make sense considering how much education scientists get. But its not true. The fact is an education is worthless with experience. Youngsters come out of college on top of the world. Everybody’s opinion of them suddenly changes. All of a sudden you find yourself barraged with people asking for advice on everything and anything related to what your specialty was in college. I know I went through it.
But the truth is once you actually get into the field and start using the tools you have you find out you don’t know squat. OK, well its the experienced scientists that write the papers. Ummmm, yeah sometimes. Writing papers is what you do right from the start to advance. Now here is where the path diverges. Some scientists actually work in the field and get field experience. Others sort of work in imaginary castles. You need both kinds of scientists, but the test of the imaginary castle science is done in the field and that is where it gets validated.
Climate science is imaginary castle science with a lot but not all of its settled principles validated in labs.
Now lets switch to the man without a degree (not always is that the case though). He does nothing but work in the field. He gathers knowledge of the real world with doses of experience that far overshadow the most experienced scientist. Now I am talking about the guy next door that works in an autobody shop and comes home and drinks beer. I am talking about folks like fishermen and farmers.
OK you still don’t think they are a match, but thats only because you haven’t worked in an environment that brings them and scientists together. Its not even a contest. The scientists in these process soon learn that there most valuable source of information, clues, and where to find it is that common fisherman or farmer. So they build alliances and work together.
Its kind of like that want to be a millionaire show. Sure occasionally some super brain comes in an just cruises through the questions. But if you did a poll you would find the most accurate question answerer as a group in the whole show is by far the audience. Why is all this true? The answer is experience. You even need experience to learn its true as you can’t just look at the diploma on the wall.
That takes me to the last point. I believe my doctor. I believe my engineer. Why? Because I have a contract with them, they owe my the truth and I know because of that they have my interest ahead of their interest. Thats the most important thing to know when seeking out an expert.! (with a period and an exclamation point).
So as a follow up on that. If I don’t know that I don’t believe still they would lie. But on an uncertain topic I suspect the last thing an expert will tell me is that he isn’t an expert.
It seems as though this blog post is already outdated since last week’s heat wave in France and other parts of Europe was even more extreme than the event mentioned here. The more recent event is likely linked even if only partially to the persistent and intense Arctic ridging and dipole anomaly that has caused Arctic sea ice extents to drop to record low levels.
Arctic sea ice extent: record low levels for this time of year, based on the satellite record.
Yeah, the minimum extent, area, and volume for Arctic sea ice typically occurs in September. It’s unlikely, though not impossible, that 2019 will break 2012’s extent record IMHO.
Fully support your statements. If he also dig into and understand the chemistry of CO2 it might be a wake up call. Ref this presentation: https://youtu.be/BaaxQPdgs4Y
Re the heatwave in France I have a holiday home in the south of France where I am at the moment. In early June driving to Montpellier my car outside temp gauge showed 6,5c at 11.00am last heat wave was a bit of non event couple days and gone our village topped 34c at the local pharmacist big gauge outside his shop
Regards
Harry
I find it difficult to understand why the UK press related it as the hottest bank holiday weekend as a record when you consider it was the earliest in the year possible and only matched the previous record.
Also why do we use a weather station at the UKs biggest airport for records when obviously the day will be warmer as its runways will absorb the radiation more in the day.
The use of sensationalised figures by the press is not helping us understand the issues.
Everything is very open with a clear description of
the issues. It was definitely informative. Your
site is very helpful. Thank you for sharing!
Stunning quest there. What happened after? Thanks!
I’m really loving the theme/design of your website. Do you ever run into any browser compatibility
problems? A number of my blog readers have complained about my site not operating correctly in Explorer but
looks great in Safari. Do you have any tips to help fix this problem?
Hey there! I know this is somewhat off topic but I
was wondering if you knew where I could locate a captcha plugin for my
comment form? I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having trouble
finding one? Thanks a lot!
Link exchange is nothing else however it is just placing the other person’s
webpage link on your page at appropriate place and other person will also do
similar in favor of you.
Quality articles or reviews is the key to attract the people to pay a visit the web page,
that’s what this web site is providing.