UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2019: +0.55 deg. C

December 2nd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2019 was +0.55 deg. C, up from the October value of +0.46 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.29 +0.52 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
2018 02 +0.25 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.22 +0.35
2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 -0.14 +0.06 +1.02 +0.84
2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.14 -0.24
2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.11 +0.77 -0.41
2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49
2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.11 +0.37
2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.23 +0.27
2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.28 +0.45 -1.16 +0.68 +0.55
2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.25 +0.69 +1.20
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.05
2019 03 +0.35 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.59
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.30 +0.35 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24
2019 09 +0.62 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.22 +0.56 +0.38

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

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

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


628 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2019: +0.55 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Xaero says:

    Probably from 2016 El Nino LMAO

    • fonzie says:

      figures, a smug comment to begin the discussion (lmao)…

    • Good Dog says:

      No warming in 3 years!

      • Simon says:

        Ummm but we had an El Nino three years ago. We are neutral now and still seeing record temperatures for a phase like this. Why is it dannyers like to muddy the water with disinformation? I know, they have no option, because the facts don’t match their narrative.

      • Robert Ingersol says:

        No warming = this year didn’t break the record.

        I was born at 315 ppm CO2 (1957). The earth hadn’t seen a record warm year since 1942. It hadn’t seen a record cold year since 1904. I was 23 (1980) before I saw a record warm year. Then I saw another one the next year. Since then I have seen a dozen more. A total of 14 in the last 40 years. The odds a year setting a record now would be 1 in 140 if the Earth were not warming. But they are more like 1 in 3 now.

        As for record cold years, not one since 1904.

        Record years based on NOAA dataset.

  2. Tom Burwell says:

    The warming is from the decreased amount of ice in the Arctic reflecting less than normal heat, a significant positive feedback that will take a while to wear off. Eventually it will, as the primary source of the past 100 years’ warming is a lower number of clouds, which have steadily increased as of late.

  3. fonzie says:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2010/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2010

    Folks, northern hemispheric SSTs continue their annual nose dive which began last month. Keep a watchful eye on the southern ocean where SSTs have begun their rise. Depending on where those (sh) temps wind up, we shall see where temperatures overall end up later this winter. Smug comments at this point add up to little more than handwaving. We won’t know where temperatures are headed until well into winter, after the northern hemisphere has presumably vented…

  4. Roald Larsen says:

    In 1998 everything was melting – everywhere.
    Now it’s just as warm – according to this latest graph and data and almost every glacier is growing.

    Obviously the (Green) Rent & Grant Seeking Activists And Criminals (mostly Criminals) has successfully taken over UAH also ..

    FAKE!!

    • dr myki says:

      LOL !!
      YES! Dr Roy Spencer must have been kidnapped by the criminal Green activists and either brainwashed or injected with some hallucinatory drug in order to fudge the data!
      We hope and pray he is ok and can regain his senses.

      (BTW – aliens have been trying to tamper with my brain)

    • Bindidon says:

      Roald Larsen

      “… and almost every glacier is growing.”

      Could you show us all these growing glaciers please?

      Maybe you read too much of this ridiculous stuff published at ‘iceage.info’ ?

    • MikeR says:

      Personally I don’t trust those socialist oxygen molecules from which the UAH satellite temperature measurements are derived.They are trying to get poor blameless CO2 molecules to take all the blame.

      As soon we can up the CO2 and get rid of the oxygen and return to our nitrogen fixing origins the better. I am sure we can manage the transition.

  5. Nate says:

    Keep breaking records.

    New record for a 5 y period 0.36

    New record for a 10 y period 0.26

    • argus says:

      I can tell things are a little different from when I was a kid. Only a little.

      But I’m for building 100 nuclear reactors immediately. Then start planning the next 100 and the next 100. Get 60%+ of our power from nuclear. But no one is serious, one side just wants to be right and the other side wants the other to be wrong. It’s a stupid cycle but eventually, our hands will be forced when in the 30s or 40s, by the obvious long-term trends.

      • lewis b guignard says:

        100% support for more nuclear power plants.

        Wind and solar are nice but ……

        And, glad it’s warmer and not colder. Longer growing season.

      • Norman says:

        There is a TedTalk on the nuclear issue. One person wants more nuke plants the other does not.

        https://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_mark_z_jacobson_debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en#t-431000

      • bobdroege says:

        Nucs are nice, but they take ten years to get the sticks down, and they cost more than other choices. And the cost of no return on your investment for ten years is a hard pill to swallow. The only way would be for governments to foot the bill.

        And who knows what the price of solar, wind, and storage will be in ten years. The costs of those are still dropping.

        • argus says:

          If you want reliable power and clean air, there’s no other legitimate option than nuclear.

          Renewables making the majority of our power is pie in the sky, and the fingerprint is huge. Massive environmental, land use, and aesthetic impacts. Not to mention all unreliable sources of power.

          • bobdroege says:

            Coal plants are beautiful, but windmills are ugly.

            Strip mining does not have environmental impacts but solar panels do.

            Trains full of oil never blow up and kill whole towns of people.

            Some places are sunny for over 90% of the daylight hours, even coal plants need to shutdown regularly to fix boiler tube leaks.

            Solar and wind with battery backup is competitive and even cheaper than natural gas.

          • Nate says:

            Well put, Bob.

            And no one is saying we should be 100% wind or solar.

          • Eh? says:

            And why would that be, eh?

          • argus says:

            Bob, they put an 8-acre solar panel farm where I live. The claim is it’ll power 125 homes.

            The closest nuclear plant, 70 miles away, has 2 reactors. The plant is about 500 acres. It never flooded in the historic flooding earlier this year. It powers nearly 400,000 homes.

            Renewables making up the majority of our power is pie in the sky.

          • Nate says:

            Indeed nuclear has some advantages. Its fuel packs the highest energy density.

            But it is still a finite resource. If we were to triple the number of nuclear plants to replace coal ones, the US uranium resource will be gone in ~ 50 y.

            Unless we build many breeder reactors, which add significant security and safety risks.

          • Nate says:

            And, I might add, nuclear is among the most expensive to build and operate, 3 x solar or wind, 6 x gas, based on EIA stats.

          • argus says:

            Yeah, a fuel that’s produced comparably few deaths, hasn’t had a reactor completed in the US in years, understandable overregulation, cheap coal and natural gas, it would be more expensive. Crazed politicians controlling the energy and food supply are just as much a threat as terrorists.

          • bobdroege says:

            I would argue that Nuclear is under regulated. If the Fukishima plants had upgraded their plants like how US plants were upgraded post Three Mile Island, they would have survived the tsunami without burning up and exploding.

            They did not have the equipment that would prevent those explosions such as hydrogen re-combiners and reactor core isolation cooling systems that work with out electrical power during a loss of off site power accident.

            You put your diesel generators behind 3 foot thick concrete walls.

            And where do you put the fuel tanks?

            Behind three foot concrete walls behind the afor mentioned concrete walls.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob, please stop trolling.

  6. Scott R says:

    Surprised to see USA 48 up.

    Departures last month per NOAA in deg F:

    New York -3.8
    Detroit -5.7
    Des Moines -4.0
    Denver -2.1
    San Fran +0.6

  7. Rob Mitchell says:

    The global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for November 2019 according to UAH is 0.55 deg. C above the 1981-2010 average.

    Questions for the climate experts. Is there any kind of meaning to this measurement other than what was measured? Is the 1981-2010 global average temperature the “correct” global temperature? And any departure above that “standard” MEANS that there is something WRONG with our climate?

    Radiation is constantly coming and going to/from the earth. It never is in “perfect” balance. I contend that the 0.55 deg. C measurement means nothing more than the temperature of the earth at this point in time. And it really doesn’t mean anything other than that.

    • RW says:

      Correct. And given that from month to month it can swing up to +/- 0.3-0.4C, being up 0.55C in last 40 years time hardly means anything.

    • Bindidon says:

      Rob Mitchell

      “I contend that the 0.55 deg. C measurement means nothing more than the temperature of the earth at this point in time.”

      Correct. That’s the reason why Roy Spencer doesn’t publish that lonesome value only.

      There is also a graph showing you the last 40 years…

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        I discovered that graph about 5 years ago, and I’ve been watching it closely ever since. I was especially interested in how the last El Nino spike affected our weather. As I recall, there was some benefit from it. It helped end California’s drought.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Rob,
      1) You seem to be implying some sort of morality by using “wrong”. The global temperature can be “typical” or “atypical”. It can be “significantly above average” or “significantly below average”. But it isn’t “right” or “wrong”. It just is what it is.

      2) I am not sure what you are intending with “I contend that the 0.55 deg. C measurement means nothing more than the temperature of the earth at this point in time.” Any measurement is a measurement of conditions at that moment. The earth is currently 0.55 C above the stated baseline. Yep.

      On the other hand …
      That radiation balance has kept the temperature above the baseline for 6 straight years. That doesn’t happen by chance.

      Interestingly, a 2-tailed T-test shows statistical significance (p<0.05) no matter where you divide the data!
      * the first 2 data points are significantly lower than the remaining 490 points
      * first 246 points are significantly lower than the remaining 246 points
      * the last 2 points are significantly higher than the first 490 points.

      Also, to respond to RW, there are only 6 swings of +0.3 or higher; there is only one swing of -0.3 or lower. It is misleading to suggest that such swings are in any way typical. This is doubly misleading since the swings are negatively correlated with the swing the next month — a swing up one month correlates well with a swing down the next, and vice versa.

      • RW says:

        Tim,

        The bottom line here is these are spectacularly small changes in temperature given the amount of hype and hysteria surrounding this issue.

        If the issue didn’t exist, i.e. CO2 wasn’t a GHG, no one looking at the global average temperature increase we’ve seen would think it’s anything extraordinary at all. The conclusion would just be that it has warmed a little in the last 40 years and no one would care or even give it second thought. It would be trivial.

        Some decades from now when the climate change hysteria fades and believers come to their senses (one by one), historians will be baffled how so many people could have gone completely bonkers over such spectacularly small changes in temperature. And in what would generally be the desirable direction, i.e. warming. Up until recently, man has always feared cooling, and for good reason, as historically cold periods were associated with life being more difficult and less prosperous, where as the most prosperous periods where when it was warm.

        Yes, the world is going ‘mad’ for sure.

        • Joel says:

          RW,

          The bottom line is that the issue does exist.

          The causal factor for the warming is understood.
          The causal factor continues to worsen.
          The resultant effect is already occurring.
          The resultant effect will continue to occur until that causal factor is mitigated.

          If madness is doing the same thing expecting a different result, then humanity’s continued contributions to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, despite the known effects, are the very definition of madness.

          • Eh? says:

            Good thing Nature is bringing CO2 levels back from their dangerously low levels, eh? To exterminate all human life intentionally, by getting rid of CO2, seems a bit mad to me.

          • Joel says:

            @ Eh?

            Couple of clarifications please:
            Given atmospheric CO2 barely, if ever, exceeded 300ppm from 800,000BCE to 1950CE, why you think levels were ‘dangerously low’?
            Since 1950, atmospheric CO2 has increased to 408ppm. Why do you think ‘Nature’ is responsible, what causal factors do you identify?

            Literally no one is proposing ‘getting rid of CO2’. I would like to see a reduction from >400ppm to the 250-300ppm range that human life has flourished in. Shocking, eh?

            Your disingenuous statements are… meh. Not even worth the time I spent typing this.

          • Eh? says:

            And yet you couldn’t help yourself wasting your time, eh?

          • Joel says:

            It’s my time, I’ll waste it as I please.

            Seems you don’t like answering questions… que?

          • Eh? says:

            So you’re a self proclaimed time waster, eh? Well done!

          • spike55 says:

            “The causal factor for the warming is understood.”

            Yes, a drop in cloud cover over the tropical oceans

            Hence more energy into the oceans.

            Hence a couple of strong El Ninos

            No evidence atmospheric CO” has any effect whatsoever.

            Only an abject fool thinks CO2 causes El Ninos

          • bdgwx says:

            spike55: Yes, a drop in cloud cover over the tropical oceans

            What caused cloud cover over the tropical oceans to drop?

            What is the magnitude of the effect?

            How does that cause the stratosphere to cool?

            How does that cause a decrease in the diurnal temperature range?

            What kind of test can be used to falsify this hypothesis?

            No evidence atmospheric CO has any effect whatsoever.

            Say what?

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “If the issue didn’t exist, i.e. CO2 wasn’t a GHG, no one looking at the global average temperature increase we’ve seen would think it’s anything extraordinary at all.”

          You’re right…and there’s no “if”.

        • Nate says:

          “The bottom line here is these are spectacularly small changes in temperature given the amount of hype and hysteria surrounding this issue.”

          ~ 3 degrees F in NH land where most people live.

          Not so small.

          • goldminor says:

            I can feel that global average as it keeps me warm all through the winter. Even the snow sitting outside is a warm snow. Amazing.

          • coturnix says:

            Approx as much of warming as moving 230 miles to the south. Noticeable, but not scary. Also, remember that warming is not evenly distributed over the earth, and for some reason doesn;t seem to be happening in the us, although it does happen in europe.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        Tim, I am not the one implying some type of morality. But I do find that the human-caused global warming alarmists are the ones who think in terms of the climate being “wronged” by humans. And if some of us don’t support ending fossil fuel use RIGHT NOW, then we are DENIERS!

        What I am trying to get at is the 1981-2010 baseline. Is there anything at all alarming about a temperature reading of 0.55 deg. C above that average? I don’t think it is alarming at all. But some people swear up and down that humans are heating up the planet, and a runaway catastrophic global warmup is underway because of the departure from that baseline.

        If the alarmists think that way, then they must think the 1981-2010 baseline is the absolute standard we must accept as the “normal” climate. And I am simply just asking, “why is that the absolute normal?”

        • Arless Mcgee says:

          Rob Mitchell,

          There is absolutely no one claiming a “runaway catastrophic global warmup is underway”, not even McPherson claims that iirc. That is gobbledygook.

          And +.55*C over the 1981-2010 baseline is “alarming” when you consider it as part of an upward continuing trend of at least 140 years, added to the fact that the 1981-2010 baseline is about +.5*C above the 1950-1980 baseline.

          In less than 70 years we’ve added +1*C to global temperature baselines, not ‘runaway’ but yes ‘alarming’.

          • goldminor says:

            That would only be true, if all of that 1 C warming was caused by growing CO2 levels. How can you prove that CO2 was the sole cause?

          • Midas says:

            McPherson is most definitely claiming that. In a video on his YouTube channel in April 2018 he claimed that most of us would be dead by October 2019. He has now deleted that video from his channel. Thankfully I saved a copy.

          • Arless McGee says:

            Good save Midas.
            And hahaha, I didn’t know that. Amazing that he has stated that so recently.

          • Arless McGee says:

            goldminor,

            There’s an interesting article called ‘What’s Really Warming the World’ from June 24, 2015.

            It shows why we know that it is CO2 that is really warming the Earth.

          • Eh? says:

            Interesting that the only thing that CO2 can warm is a planet, eh? Wasn’t the planet molten before all this CO2 warming started?

          • Nate says:

            ‘Wasnt the planet molten before all this CO2 warming started?’

            And there it is. Eventually we knew that Eh?, aka Mi*ke Fly*nn, would bring that up.

          • Eh? says:

            Fixated in some fantasy, eh? Look it up.

          • Rob Mitchell says:

            Arless M., what in the heck do you think the Green New Deal is all about if it isn’t about catastrophic, runaway global warming?

            Oh, I get it. It has nothing to do about climate. But all about economics.

        • bdgwx says:

          It’s not the “absolute normal”. The average between 1981-2010 is just an arbitrarily picked baseline for the anomaly values. Any baseline can be chosen. Temperature changes and trends are not dependent upon the choice of baseline. The baseline is not meant to represent anything “absolute” or “normal”.

          • Arless McGee says:

            bdgwx,

            the 1981-2010 baseline is not ‘arbitrarily picked’, it’s the baseline for Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere or the baseline of the blog you are replying on.
            It’s the base of the first 32 years of the UAH Troposphere temperature readings, the first baseline of satellite based readings in history.
            Not arbitrarily picked at all.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Arless, the point (relative to this thread) is that this period was not chosen as any sort of “right” or “best” or “official” temperature of the earth. It is simply a *convenient* baseline for comparison with other times. “Convenient” because 1) it is well-measured and 2) it is familiar to most people alive now.

          • bdgwx says:

            Arless, I think you missed the point. The average between 1981-2010 is arbitrarily picked because the UAH team could have picked any 30yr period, a single year, or even just fixed it at 15C. There’s no one reason that forced them to pick 1981-2010. Different groups use different baselines and that’s okay because it doesn’t matter.

          • Nate says:

            And he has changed the baseline period. It used to be 1980-2000 I believe.

          • Arless McGee says:

            Well that is true, they could use a 30 year UAH baseline of 1990-2019 which would also show less LT warming.

            Since the Satellite records only start in 1979 it seemed obvious (or not) that that was their reason for the 30 year baseline start.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Arless says: “they could use a 30 year UAH baseline of 1990-2019 which would also show less LT warming.”

            The warming is the same no matter what baseline is chosen. The only thing that would change is the ‘spin’ that people could put on the results. The absolute number for November might become 0.4 instead of 0.55, but the important metrics would not change one bit.
            * This November would still be the warmest on record.
            * The warming rate would still be 0.13 C/decade.

          • bdgwx says:

            The amount of warming would be exactly the same regardless of whether they chose 1990-2019 or 1981-2010.

            As Nate already pointed out 1981-2010 wasn’t the original baseline chosen. It has changed along the way.

            Again…that’s fine because it doesn’t matter. There’s nothing special about 1981-2010 or any other baseline.

          • Ric Werme says:

            The 30 year climate average period comes from the UN’s World Meteorological Office and is part of “that’s the way it’s always been done, I think going back to days when the 30 year period was originally chosen because it fit on the ledger paper that was handy.

  8. Jimmy W says:

    Yikes, another unusually warm month.

    Looks like it is about time for Dr. Spencer to release v7.0 and knock the temps down a bit.

    J.W.

  9. Bindidon says:

    Somewhere uptheread, I read one more time: “no warming since 2016!”.

    And one more time I ask in turn: How could there be any warming since the highest anomaly UAH has ever measured and computed?

    And one more time I show this graph comparing the periods 1997-2001 and 2015-2019 relative to their respective begin:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ub_0JOub_k7zMHUWC07sg7Abfo9XoOdL/view

    18 years ago, the same people shouted ad nauseam “No warming since 1998!”.

    The warming which occured within the LT since 1998 certainly is not dramatic! No reason nonetheless to ignore it.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      WordPress needs a “like” button.

    • Arless Mcgee says:

      Bindidon, “not dramatic”?
      In the case of your blue line scenario your graph shows more than +.2*C per decade and the orange line shows well more than +.3*C per decade. Those are both more than Dr Spencer’s UAH Lower Troposphere +.13 per decade and his UAH global surface of +.18*C per decade by a good margin.

      It only took -5*C to give the planet an Ice Age (kinda ‘dramatic’), so +3*C in a centuries time should probably be considered ‘dramatic’.

      • goldminor says:

        Not surprising what the satellites are showing. This current leg of these warming trends started in the late 1970s. Let’s see what the graph looks like in 2030. I would bet on a downtrend over the next decade, and into the 2030s.

        • Midas says:

          A decade ago, you people were making the same prediction about the 2010s.

          • goldminor says:

            My thoughts have changed a good bit over the last 10 years. Ten years ago I was still in a very early stage of learning. I made no predictions back then. Since early 2014 though I have had some success in predicting what I see as cyclical events within the climate system.

        • Loydo says:

          Not a good bet. You should look for 100:1.
          Take a look at the inexorable climb of ocean heat:
          https://www.climate4you.com/images/World3monthTemperatureSince1955Depth0-700m.gif
          Its where most of the heat is going. Even ignoring the 10 year lag of the effects of today’s emissions (Thats right, the maximum effect of CO2 warning happens about 10 years later – maybe you mean cooling by 2040?), only the deeply deluded would look at that graph and say temperatures are about to plunge and revert to below average and the Arctic is going to regain the 75% of melted sea-ice when all of the science says the exact opposite is going to happen. Even lukewarmers like Roy (“more carbon dioxide is better than less”) are back-pedalling.

          You’re backing a lame horse.

          • goldminor says:

            Where did I make the claim that temps are about to plunge? Your comment about how I view the picture is false. Your words have zero to do with my overview of the climate system.

      • Bindidon says:

        Arless Mcgee

        What are you telling here?

        The graph I posted has nothing to do with any trend info: no one computes trends based on so short a period.

        The UAH LT trend for Jan 1999 till now is 0.15 C / decade.
        Nothing dramatic.

        • Arless McGee says:

          Bindidon,

          I was pointing out that your blue line shows +.46*C over that 20 year period and the orange line shows a difference of +.64 over the same.

          As not a scientist that looks like +.23*C or +.32*C per decade for that particular graph.

          You state the UAH LT trend is +.15*C per decade since 1999, even as no one computes so short a trend, except your graph shows a much higher trend per decade over that same period, almost double the +.15*C trend.

          Was pointing out that that seems much more dramatic is all.

          • Bindidon says:

            Arless McGee

            Again and again, I ask you where you see ‘that 20 year period’ in my graph comparing two superposed sequences of 58 months each:

            – Jan 1997 – Oct 2001;
            – Jan 2015 – Oct 2019.

            Didn’t you understand the graph?

  10. Dave says:

    Nicely put.

    I guess its kind of inconvenient that Dr Spencer’s 13 month average (which is basically a year ahead now of the last calendar year average) pretty much negates the argument put by McKitrick in the article Spencer re-blogged 2 weeks ago….

  11. ren says:

    You can see that the US is warmer than a month ago.

  12. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    The deniers are spinning like dervishes!

    • lewis b guignard says:

      The fact that it is warmer doesn’t mean the deniers are wrong, nor does it mean you’re right (about whatever you’re on about)

      The fact that it is warmer means only that it’s warmer. It doesn’t mean AGW is at hand or any such. Or can you prove that it does, outside of the programs designed to prove such.

      • Craig T says:

        By itself the continued warming doesn’t mean the deniers are wrong. There’s lots of other evidence against their position.

    • Eh? says:

      He’s just another information free fanatic, eh?

  13. Scott R says:

    Check out the last 3 reading for the south pole:

    -0.04
    0.98
    1.59

    Could the Antarctic SSW still be impacting us? We also have one trying to form in the NH as well I heard.

    • bdgwx says:

      Yes. I think so. MT and TP temperatures actually increased this month down there. LS is still elevated as well.

      • Scott R says:

        Still no evidence here of a northern SSW. The effects of the Antarctic SSW are definitely still being felt. We see a drop in both the arctic and NH mid latitudes. The tropics, SH mid latitudes and especially the south pole are still elevated. Once we see the stratosphere cool over the south pole region, we will know the effects are waning. There is no way a change in 2 months from -0.04 to 1.59 can be sustained there. Fast pops tend to be followed by fast drops.

        Watching the alarmists get all excited about +0.55 C due to the Antarctic warming by 1.63 degree c is hilarious… like they’ve won some kind of award and suddenly the arctic will be free of ice year round and snow / cold will be something only found in the history books. It is SO cold in the Antarctic that almost nothing lives there except at the coast. 1.63 deg c won’t make any difference at all, except probably pile even more snow there that will never melt. lol

      • bdgwx says:

        Well, yeah, it’s just one month. And I agree that the current warmth in the SoPol region isn’t going to be sustained for very long. But, the +1.59 reading isn’t that unusual either. +1.55 occurred in 2016 and +1.52 occurred in 2012. Both of those appear to be related to SSW events as well. The SSW events in 2012 and 2016 were much weaker according to the TLS data so that does raise the question of why the +1.59 is relatively low. At any rate the SoPol only represents < 7% of the planet so it's not a huge contributor to the global mean temperature anyway.

        • Scott R says:

          right… the tropics at +0.55 plays a much bigger roll in the up tick then the south pole. Interesting that it is still at that level even though El Nino has ended. Could be the SSW extending that… could be a late onset of annual trade winds due to the solar min, I’m not sure. Anyways… the tropics were below baseline as recently as April of 2018. I’m sure they will go there again.

          Also, I’m not sure why the USA 48 number is so high. It was a major negative departure last month per NOAA stations.

  14. Chris Warren says:

    So November 2019 is the highest November LT result on record?

    The decadal average 1979-1988 for Novembers is -0.14.

    So we have now experienced 0.69 warming in 40 years.

    Presumably, science says, this trend will continue while ever GHG concentrations continue to increase.

  15. Eben says:

    Your satellite must be adrift , the Russians hacked it

  16. ren says:

    A wave in the stratosphere indicates that it could be even warmer in the far north.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2019.png

  17. studentb says:

    Perth Australia has posted its earliest 40-degree day in December on record as the city experiences a sweltering start to summer on the heels of a record-breaking November.

    • Eh? says:

      Now you can see why the BOM abolished the heat wave of 1896, eh? Just declare all official temperatures before 1910 unreliable. Clever move, eh?

      • Midas says:

        You mean the heatwave that occurred ONLY in January 1896, and ONLY in NSW and Queensland?

        Anomalies for Sydney (Daily Highs) for each month of 1896:
        Jan +3.51
        Feb -0.88
        Mar -1.28
        Apr -0.22
        May -0.92
        Jun -2.01
        Jul -3.04
        Aug -2.78
        Sep -1.81
        Oct +1.04
        Nov -1.54
        Dec +0.19

        1896 average: -0.81

      • Loydo says:

        But they are unreliable, they were not even in Stevenson Screens. Some were on Glaisher Stands, but they read 1C too high. Most were just hanging under verandahs exposed to ambient and reflected radiation.
        Clutching at denial straws.

        • Eh? says:

          So official records of Stevenson screens installed at high order stations from 1880 are wrong? How about dated photographs of the time? Keep dreaming, eh?

          • Midas says:

            Some of the data IS reliable enough to go back before 1910. For example, Sydney’s record goes back to 1859, and the FULL Sydney data set is given by the BOM. But there is not enough reliable data to combine into state and national averages, which is why they only go back to 1910.

          • Eh? says:

            So the lack of Stevenson screen enclosures is only used as an excuse when it suits you, eh?

          • Midas says:

            Temperature records taken without Stevenson screens were systemically HIGHER than those with them, by about 1C I seem to recall. The 2010s in Sydney are averaging 2.5C higher than the 1890s according to the record. Would you like me to account for the lack of Stevenson screens and make that a more accurate 3.5C ?

          • Eh? says:

            So if the subject relates to Perth, you concentrate on speculation about the other side of the continent, eh?

  18. Midas says:

    Here is the 60-month rolling mean for UAH:
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-Month-Rolling-Mean

    It is more interesting to look at the rolling median and other percentiles:
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-month-Rolling-Median
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-month-Rolling-10th
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-month-Rolling-25th
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-month-Rolling-75th
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-month-Rolling-90th
    It can be seen how strongly El Ninos affect the 90th percentile and La Ninas strongly affect the 10th percentile. But those extreme events have little effect on intermediate percentiles, so it can’t be argued that the latest median is “only due to the 2016 El Nino”.

    Here are the corresponding 120-month graphs:
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-Rolling-Mean
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-Rolling-10th
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-Rolling-25th
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-Rolling-Median
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-Rolling-75th
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-Rolling-90th

  19. Midas says:

    Here is the 60-month rolling mean for UAH:
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-Month-Rolling-Mean

    • Midas says:

      And here is the 60-month rolling median:
      https://tinyurl.com/UAH-60-month-Rolling-Median

      As the median is not pulled up strongly by extreme temperatures, it cannot be argued that the current median is “only due to the 2016 El Nino”.

    • spike55 says:

      Thanks for showing the zero trend period from 1999-2016..

      while CO2 continued to climb 🙂

      So NOT CO2 causing this beneficial warming.

      • Joel says:

        You’re so close, but so far.

        UAH trends for various periods using the annual average anomalies:

        1999-2016: 0.126 degrees/decade (including an El Nino year on the back of your period totally ruined the point you were trying to make)

        1999-2015: 0.063 degrees/decade (cut out the El Nino year, but still stubbornly showing warming)

        1998-2016: 0.049 degrees/decade (included El Nino years at start and end, very slight improvement in reducing the trend)

        1998-2015: -0.01 degrees/decade (start data set with El Nino, cut data off to exclude El Nino at end… the perfectly cherry picked data set for your point)

        What’s my point? Oh, yeah. In any data set with plenty of short term variation, subsets of data can be cherry picked that doesn’t reflect long term trends. So if you’re going to cherry pick data, don’t be bad at it.

      • Joel says:

        That 0.126 should have been 0.12

        • MikeR says:

          Yes Joel, the UAH data contains lots of El-Nino wiggles superimposed on the lowest long term trend. That’s why Pauseniks are such UAH fanboys. So many opportunities to cherry pick the lowest trend they can find. These trends are always statistically insignificant but they continue with the zombie argument regardless. Sad really.

      • bdgwx says:

        You can cherry-pick several zero and negative trend periods. Yet the planet still warmed overall with a trend of 0.131C/decade. The many zero and negative trend periods along the way are not inconsistent with CO2 forcing or any positive forcing agent.

        • Arless McGee says:

          Only the LT warmed at +.13*C, the surface warmed at +.18*C according to Dr. Spencer’s UAH graph stated above.

          There’s a difference between the lower troposphere temperatures and the surface temperatures of 3-4 kilometers iirc. Dr. Spencer has done posts on how lower troposphere temperatures are derived.

          And if the planet has warmed overall as you say then that is completely consistent with additional added CO2 over the same time period.

          • bdgwx says:

            UAH doesn’t measure the temperature near the surface. Their TLT product is the lowest in elevation though it is likely getting at least partially contaminated from the stratosphere. The TLT trend is 0.131C/decade.

            RSS’s TLT product is weighted a lower in the atmosphere still. Their TLT trend is 0.18C/decade.

            BEST is a surface dataset. Their trend is 0.19C/decade over the same period.

            But yes, long term secular warming is consistent with CO2 forcing. Zero or negative trends over short periods that have been cherry-picked are not inconsistent nor do they falsify the hypothesis.

            The warming in the lower part of the atmosphere by itself is not sufficient to eliminate causes. However, the simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere does. CO2 (or GHGs in general) are consistent with this observation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  20. donald penman says:

    Does the northern hemisphere include everything done to 0 latitude or what?
    https://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow.gif

  21. donald penman says:

    Would a northern hemisphere above 45 degrees be a useful category to show?

    • Midas says:

      As I said above, your map shows the entire northern hemisphere. Not sure where you are getting 45 degrees from.

      • donald penman says:

        That is what I am asking how much of the northern hemisphere does UAH sat temps include in their NH category and above 45 degrees seem to be colder than below 45 degrees showing a different climate zone looking at all the snow above 45 degrees.

        • Midas says:

          They give an anomaly for
          (1) the Arctic and Antarctic (between 60 degrees and the pole)
          (2) the northern extension (between 20 degrees and the pole)
          (3) the tropics (between 20S and 20N)

          A simple calculation (as per bdgwx’s formula), will give you the anomaly between 20 degrees and 60 degrees (although you have to assume that each half of the tropics has the same anomaly).

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Des, please stop trolling.

      • bdgwx says:

        donald, The files include the latitude boundaries for each category. NH is 0-90N. To get the proportion of area above a certain latitude use 1-sin(lat). So 45-90N would be about 30% of the hemisphere. The NoPol region is 60-90N and represents about 13% of the hemisphere.

        • donald penman says:

          So the northern tropics is included in the NH temperature as well as the tropics temperature. Why cannot we have tropics temperature then exclude the tropics from the other two n/s temperatures?

        • bdgwx says:

          donald, Yes. NH includes the northern half of the tropics. Remember NH is 0-90N which includes 0-20N. You also have NoExt which is 20-90N to work with as well.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  22. ren says:

    The rest of the week is expected to remain anomalously cold across vast swathes of Australia, too with temps holding well-below the December average.

    In Melbourne, for example, residents will likely have to wait until next Sunday for any warm-up.

    Despite these real-world observations, the BOM are sticking with their original summer forecast, with stubborn senior meteorologist Michael Efron saying: climate indicators suggest were actually in for a warmer and drier than average December.
    https://electroverse.net/heavy-summer-snow-buries-parts-of-southeast-australia/?fbclid=IwAR3OEsPYbVNRp9nzX6r1-TkL-fdNx_EVABIgCLhp5tJkg8RmLcyAnbq0MX0

  23. Kency says:

    Транспортная логистика, доставка грузов любой сложности https://vds-eximtrade.com

  24. colin says:

    I am losing my faith in the satellites and this blog. it has been wicked cold all year, we barely had a summer. I do gardening and see with my eyes when my flowers blossomed this year. It is becoming a classical “do you believe your lying eyes or what others tell you”.

  25. Scott R says:

    Folks… here is the UAH map for November.

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/NOVEMBER2019/201911_map.png

    Now see these locations and departures last month per NOAA in deg F:

    New York -3.8
    Atlanta -1.5
    Detroit -5.7
    Little Rock -5.3
    Des Moines -4.0
    Dallas -3.1
    Amarillo -1.8
    Denver -2.1
    Flagstaff +1.7
    San Fran +0.6
    LA +2.5

    What does this prove? The UAH doesn’t represent the ground temperatures well at all… you know, where all the glaciers are? Lower troposphere is important, but it’s not the same thing as ground temperatures. Has anyone ever studies a link between the 2? Like one leads the other?

  26. Petter Brkeeiet says:

    Did you know US is a tiny bit of our globe?

    • Scott R says:

      Petter Brkeeiet,

      Once you prove one area can not be trusted for an accurate monthly ground temperature reading, we can’t trust any of them.

      I hope people do not confuse my observation as a complaint about Dr Specer’s work. The alignment between UAH and HADSTT3 is much better than RSS and HADSTT3… but the information does have it’s limits.

      • MikeR says:

        Scott, yes if you use HADSST3, but from memory, RSS aligns better than UAH with HADSST4 . Check it out.

        • Eh? says:

          Too lazy to check it out yourself, eh?

          • MikeR says:

            Meh, usually your comments are as useful as tits on a bull but you spurred me to try and find my old spreadsheet (unsucessful).

            But I have just redone it and I was wrong UAH is significantly worse than RSS for both HADSST3 and HADSST4 .

            Here are scatter plots for both sets of data plotted against HADSST3 .

            https://tinyurl.com/t7dkdr9 .

          • Eh? says:

            You were wrong, eh? Glad to help you to find that out.

          • MikeR says:

            Thanks Meh,

            I am always willing to admit when I am wrong.

            However I don’t know why you are spending so much time posting inane, but thankfully brief comments here. Your time could be spent much fruitful by preparing for the cyclone season up your way.

            Failing that, you could even attempt to do the calculations for the three plate problem, that I suggested you do a couple of days ago.

            What happened? You seem to have gone to ground. I guess the fact that you continue to post at a furious rate means you are still with us (unless these comments are being posted by a ghost writer with a touch of dementia).

          • Eh? says:

            Just more things you don’t know, eh? Add them to your list, will you?

          • MikeR says:

            I must be also suffering early onset dementia. Perhaps there is a contagion about. Who knew you could catch it via the internet?

            Anyway here are the correct scatter plots for UAH and RSS showing that RSS correlates better than UAH with HadSST3.

            https://i.postimg.cc/V6K2Xw1j/Correlations-UAH-and-RSS-with-SST3.jpg .

          • MikeR says:

            You should also add them to a list that you can take to your next therapy session.

          • Eh? says:

            Do you think anybody cares? We both know the answer, eh?

          • MikeR says:

            You seem to care because you continue to reply.

          • Eh? says:

            Looks like I was right again, eh?

          • MikeR says:

            Yes Eh? you are always right. Everybody who has the misfortune to read our exchanges can see that.

            With regard to your speech impediment I suggest you see a speech pathologist.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Failing that, you could even attempt to do the calculations for the three plate problem, that I suggested you do a couple of days ago…”

            Poor MikeR…still unable to click on a link.

        • Scott R says:

          MikeR,

          Show me your work. My study shows UAH is a better match to HADSTT3 than RSS.

          https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2817727044913167?sfns=mo

          • bdgwx says:

            Why should we expect TLT warming trends to match SST warming trends?

          • Scott R says:

            The ocean is the ultimate heat bank for the planet, and make up the majority of the surface. The land, atmosphere always follows the ocean. (eventually) Ocean currents from what I can tell are responsible for most of the climate trends on the planet. Anyone trying to prove mans influence will have to prove to me that we are impacting the ocean currents somehow.

          • MikeR says:

            Hi Scott,

            Firstly if you look at the above comment at

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-412438

            I have include a link to a graph showing the correlations between UAH, RSS and SST3. RSS correlates significantly better (R2=0.76) than does UAH (R2 =0.58).

            With regard to your Facebook entry I have confirmed your graph which suggests we are at least using the same data.
            Here is my version.

            https://i.postimg.cc/wvBk0xrj/Differences-SST3-UAH-and-RSS.jpg

            However the devil is in the detail , RSS and UAH diverge after 2002.

            In this regard the differences between SST and RSS progressively drops to around zero at present while the difference between SST and UAH continue to increase.

            Here are the historical data in the two different time periods. From 2002 UAH is way too low while RSS follows the SST data more closely.Pre 2002 both RSS and UAH are very similar and both are too low.

            https://i.postimg.cc/2ysFkQS1/Comparison-UAH-RSS-SST3-02-until-present.jpg

            https://i.postimg.cc/dQLb0J0F/Comparison-UAH-RSS-SST3-79-02.jpg

            There is no reason that the lower troposphere has to have an identical temperatures to the ocean. The point of this exercise is the importance of how you present the data. Maybe we can jointly author a chapter in How to Lie with Statistics – Aided and Abetted with Graphs.

            Scott, I am pleased that you are presenting data unlike the remainder of your innumerate colleagues who like to proclaim loudly their abilities without backing it up with anything that even remotely resembles Science, unless you are into the paranormal.

          • Craig T says:

            Why not just look directly at the HADSST3 data? It shows the oceans have warmed 0.5C in the last 40 years, a rate of 0.14C/decade.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Kreg, please stop trolling.

  27. martinitony says:

    Go to NOAA Climate prediction Center here: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/forecasts/

    Try to reconcile 6-14 day forecast with monthly forecast and monthly forecast with seasonal forecasts. Makes no sense.

  28. Scott R says:

    November is getting VERY cold in the Midwest… in fact in 40 years of recording data, it has never been this cold. The last 2 years we failed to hit 60 deg F in Detroit MI. in the month of November. We hit 60 deg 13 times in 2015. We hit 50 deg F 24 times in 2001, 6 times this year, 5 times last year. Tied for 2nd, and lowest number of 50 deg days.

    https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2816124645073407?sfns=mo

    November temperatures at least in Detroit MI. seem suppressed by solar minimums.

    • Arless McGee says:

      Yet solar minimums don’t really correlate well with lower global Earth temperatures since the major rise of CO2, so maybe it is just Detroit.

      The 14th minimum was the lowest since the Dalton minimum yet globally Earth’s temps started to rise right in the middle of it in 1910. The two minimums before 14 were low-moderate also.

      And not to mention the past two minimums we’ve just experienced.

      It will be interesting to see how ‘cold’ Detroit gets when solar irradiance plus solar sunspots go back up into their higher planes in the coming years yes?

      • Scott R says:

        Arless McGee

        For most of the year, Detroit follows the AMO. I just think it is a curious stat that we follow the solar min for November. Most of the time, the solar cycle impacts ENSO on a delay of a few years. With a GSM on the way, the good times are over. The last 6 solar cycles were the strongest of the last 400 years. Even the last one.

  29. Harry Cummings says:

    Hi Ren

    Maybe the heat is leaving the planet because of the lower sun input on the outer of the atmosphere by confection and is showing odd readings as it passes through various levels

    Or something like that

    Regards
    Harry

  30. Snape says:

    @ScottR
    I found this color map, but couldnt figure out how to get the monthly CONUS anomaly. Maybe you could help? I know its available from the same source.

    http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/inc/images/graphics/comparisons/monthly/tmean/viewable/PRISM_tmean_provisional_4kmM3_anomaly_201911.png?ts=2019123

  31. Danyel says:

    You need a lot of storage to smooth the fluctuations or nuclear, gas, coal. There are even some days a year in Germany with almost no solar and wind. https://www.dropbox.com/s/tu0pwuiae4usecr/Energymix-Germany-Jan-April-July-Nov.jpg

  32. Snape says:

    ScottR
    [Once you prove one area can not be trusted for an accurate monthly ground temperature reading, we cant trust any of them.]

    ???….. the UAH products dont read ground temperatures for any area or month.

  33. Snape says:

    You dont know much about gardening, eh?:

    To measure the temperature of the soil, use an instant-read thermometer made for cooking. Push the thermometer’s probe as deep into the soil as possible to get an accurate reading of the soil temperature.

    https://todayshomeowner.com/how-to-measure-soil-temperature-for-planting/

  34. MikeR says:

    Yes wind speed is measured at 10 metres. So Eh? you only distrust measurements for heights less than 10 metres. How strange.

    So getting back on track, what is your specific evidence regarding NASA, NOAA and the BOM? Stop beating around the bush and let it rip.

  35. Midas says:

    For the person who was trying to suggest that the 1890s were warmer than the 2010s in Australia by cherrypicking a few days in one month of the 1890s:

    Percentage of days in Sydney above average:
    1890s 29%
    2010s 70%

    1 degree or more above average:
    1890s 19%
    2010s 55%

    2 degrees or more above
    1890s 12%
    2010s 38%

    3 degrees or more above:
    1890s 9%
    2010s 35%

    5 degrees or more above:
    1890s 5%
    2010s 11%

    Below average:
    1890s 71%
    2010s 30%

    1 degree or more below:
    1890s 55%
    2010s 18%

    2 degrees or more below:
    1890s 37%
    2010s 10%

    3 degrees or more below:
    1890s 22%
    2010s 5%

    5 degrees or more below:
    1890s 4.2%
    2010s 0.8%

    • bobdroege says:

      What are the view factors for the plates in Geraint’s experiment?

      He’s a couple of six-packs short of a six-pack.

      So he fails to show a lack of an effect.

      Shoddy science.

      It shows your lack of critical thinking skills and your lack of skepticism.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      The first cult member descends…

      (“member” is the appropriate word)

      • bobdroege says:

        That’s all you got, no critical defense of the crappy experiment?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I wasn’t aware you had made an attack.

        • bobdroege says:

          Search the site for “blob” you might find where I described the experiment as faulty.

          Also I asked you specifically about the view factors involved.

          I also discussed the temperature drop, which shows poor experimental design, he needed the temperature to be the same when he introduces the second plate.

          I also noted one can not prove that there is no green plate effect just because you don’t observe one.

          Do try harder, you are just unquestioningly accepting stuff that aggrees with your “religion”

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          I didn’t know I was supposed to repeat an argument you already lost.

          I assume people are capable of clicking on the link and reading through all the comments. They can also take a trip over to the previous article to see you squawking like a ridiculous man-child, uttering such choice phrases as “Quitter Quitter chicken shitter” (if they fancy a laugh at your expense).

          • Myki says:

            Did he really say that?

          • bobdroege says:

            And who is the ridiculous man-child that calls me “blob?”

            Sorry, but I like to get down in the mud and wrestle with the pigs.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Calm down, blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            I see you are shifting into your I lost the argument mode and are changing the subject.

            Do try to keep on track, even when you are losing.

            Care to address Geraint’s view factors?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Care to elaborate on what your problem is with the view factors? The plates are parallel, and close to each other.

          • bobdroege says:

            They are blocked by the plastic spacers, or did you not notice that?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, the plastic spacers have been discussed already. Point?

          • bobdroege says:

            It shows shoddy experimental design,

            Geraint even admits they are not the best way to do the experiment.

            “Yes I can repeat it with hangers. In fact I am trying to devise how best to do that right now.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh, so you didn’t really have a point. There are two stacks of spacers either side of the plates, to keep them separated. You mentioned view factors because you thought it might confuse some people into thinking you had something more important to say, when in fact you’ve not elaborated on any difference it would actually make. His comment about repeating it with hangers was actually made in response to Norman’s point about conduction through the extremely low conductivity plastic spacers, to which Hughes responded with appropriate lack of concern, but said he would try to improve the design anyway. All seems pretty reasonable.

            People can just read the comments for themselves, though, blob…no need for you to take partial quotes of comments out of the correct context in order to try to generate some controversy.

        • bobdroege says:

          Well there is also this

          “I also noted one can not prove that there is no green plate effect just because you dont observe one.”

          which you haven’t addressed.

          Care to swing and miss at this one too.

          And the temperature went down, that falsifies his experiment.

          You haven’t addressed that either.

          And the spacers reduce the are of both plate and introduce an unknown amount of heat transfer between the plates.

          Three strikes, you’re out.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            ““I also noted one can not prove that there is no green plate effect just because you dont observe one.”

            which you haven’t addressed.”

            There is no way to prove to anything to you people.

            “And the temperature went down, that falsifies his experiment.”

            Does it? Why’s that? Not even Swanson had a problem with that. Read through the comments at the experiment link.

            “And the spacers reduce the are of both plate and introduce an unknown amount of heat transfer between the plates.”

            We already discussed that.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Looks like it is about time for me to collect data using my own version of the “green plate experiment” using low-cost items you could buy at a local hardware store. I designed the experiment to minimize conductive and convective transfers, and to maximize radiative transfers. Preliminary data showed a clear signal from “backradiaton”, but then I got busy and shelved the project.

      Maybe I could publish the results at Principia.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      In the comments over at the last article at Dr Roy’s, it’s been agreed that insulation does not make the actual heat source hotter…in other words, the insulation on a satellite doesn’t make the sun hotter, and the insulation in your house doesn’t make the actual heat source within your radiators hotter.

      With that agreed, we now move over to the 3-plate GPE setup, with a heated middle plate, and two green plates either side of it, separated, in perfect vacuum. All plates are black-bodies, perfect conductors, no radiative losses past the edges of the plates. The heat source is the central plate. You could argue that there is a heater inside it, and that’s the heat source…but, since the plates are perfect conductors anyway, effectively the entire plate is the heat source.

      So, put the two together…it’s already been agreed over there that insulation does not raise the temperature of the actual heat source, the blue plate is the heat source…and that’s that. It has been tacitly agreed that there is no GPE. The debate is over.

      (You can add the fact that a perfectly conducting BB plate is not an insulator anyway, as well, if you wish)

      Game over.

      • bobdroege says:

        I don’t agree with any of this muck.

        Insulation does indeed raise the temperature of a heat source.

        Sorry charlie, you are out of your depth here and don’t know what you are talking about.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        One of your cult members disagrees…when one of the cult strays, they must be punished.

        Read on, from here:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-412303

        • bobdroege says:

          I don’t see any disagreement, care to elaborate.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          One of your cult members said, quoting me:

          “The air in the house does [warm]. The actual heat source within the radiators, does not”

          And responded:

          “Precisely, the air warms just as the Blue plate warms, not the heater supplying the 400W to the Blue plate”

          So they agreed, and likened the heater supplying the 400 W to the blue plate as the heat source within the radiator, that does not warm when the house is insulated.

          But, as I have explained, the blue plate is the heat source, since it is a perfect conductor. Trying to argue whether there is a separate “heater” within it, or not, becomes irrelevant.

          Your position is that you now have to defend the concept that insulators actually make the heat source warmer. So putting insulation around your house actually makes the radiators warmer.

          I think you might be in trouble.

          • MikeR says:

            The comment below is dedicated to DReMT and the other members of the brain trust. It involves the original 2 plate setup but , upon request, the 3 plate setup could receive the same treatment.

            The following are spreadsheet calculations of the radiant powers and temperature of a plate that is acting as a heater (either re-radiating as in the Eli Rabett setup or generating heat internally ). This plate, as per usual, is receiving radiation back from a second insulating plate.

            The only difference to the earlier calculations is that this spreadsheet extends to include different emissivities for the insulating plate.

            Here is a link to a screen dump of the calculations.

            https://i.postimg.cc/SsqjbqzF/calculations-Insulation-via-Green-Plate.jpg .

            The source (blue plate) is generating 400 W. The temperatures of this plate are calculated when insulated by a plate of differing emissivities ranging from 0 (mirror – 100% reflectivity) to 1 (black body – 0% reflectivity) , Also shown is the temperature of the blue plate in the absence of the insulating plate. All the calculations are done using the standard energy balance equations and the S-B law.

            The increase in the source temperature , relative to the temperature without the insulating green plate, ranges from 18 degrees K for a black body to 46 degrees K for a white body (mirror).

            What is interesting, but perhaps not that surprising, is that exactly the same macroscopic equations can handle both types of radiation, back reflected and thermal back radiation, even though the physics at the microscopic atomic level differ.

            I know that this material is unlikely to get through to committed ideologues, particularly those who are also scientifically illiterate and innumerate, but hey, why not give it ago.

            You never know, there may be someone reading these exchanges who is genuinely interested in learning.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and by “the standard energy balance equations” you mean, “Eli’s math”.

            Keep on chanting, “the math is the life…the math is the life…”

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT, I am not sure why you are so terrified of math. Solving simultaneous energy balance equations is not terribly difficult. It’s not like you have been asked to solve Fermat’s Last Theorem as it’s actually just year 10 math.

            I am really not sure how you have survived so far without even the ability to simply balance a ledger. Your personal finances must be a total mess.

            Here is a link to an article by someone who shares a similar affliction.

            https://chrisguillebeau.com/cant-learn-math/ .

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The math is fine, in and of itself, but it still leads you to the wrong answer, because the physics is wrong.

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT,

            I am glad you agree that my maths is correct. What particular aspect of the physics is wrong?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You already know, as it has been explained at great length, in multiple discussions, that you have been a part of (or have seen linked to since)…so why pretend otherwise? I will answer for you: it’s because you hope I will get bored of repeating myself, and so will not answer, thus making it appear to readers as though I have no answer. This, I refer to, as playing “the game“.

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT, Please explain to us unfortunates, who do not understand you, just once more your concise interpretation of the either the 2 or 3 plate problem, but this time with feeling. We are desperate for enlightenment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Still playing the game, I see…

          • MikeR says:

            Yes the game of whack a mole. Just stop evading.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I literally just finished explaining to you what “the game” is…and now you’re playing it!

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT , I think your concept of the game is ill defined. I believe the rules are very simple and concise. Keep pointing out that the opponent has no idea what he is talking about and refuses to engage on the scientific merit of his theory. His only option is to evade.

            This game also goes by the name of ‘Catch the Greasy Pig’ and DREMT is so well insulated by his layer of grease that he may expire of heat stroke.

            I hope that DREMT is not too offended by the above. He may now pull out the victim card as this could be another way to evade.

            I have offered him other exit strategies in the recent past, such as going quietly or actually responding appropriately, but he seems to always want to dumb down.

            However he is welcome to terminate the game and respond to my original post. Here once again is the relevant diagram

            https://i.postimg.cc/MZ9DGRbp/three-plates-DREMT.jpg .

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s great…keep the demonstration going…

        • bobdroege says:

          Nope I’m good, insulation makes the heat source warmer.

          I win, you are losing.

          Though the case where the heat source is regulated to achieve a certain temperature, and turns on and off to maintain that temperature, with more insulation, the heat source turns off more, if it stayed on, it would indeed get warmer.

          But that isn’t the plate experiment either, that case has a constant input of 400 watts from the heater and also input from the green plates which increase the temperature of the blue plate according to the laws of thermodynamics which you still refuse to understand.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “Nope I’m good, insulation makes the heat source warmer.“

          Wow…OK, then.

        • Nate says:

          “But, as I have explained, the blue plate is the heat source, since it is a perfect conductor.”

          In the two plate problem, which my quote applied to, the Blue plate was not the heat source, and it WARMED just as the air in the house warmed.

          So you agree that the BLUE plate warms in the 2 plate case?

          Ok.

      • Nate says:

        “So, put the two togetherits already been agreed over there that insulation does not raise the temperature of the actual heat source, the blue plate is the heat sourceand thats that. It has been tacitly agreed that there is no GPE. The debate is over.”

        This is how DREMT understands heat transfer, pattern matching. If something happens in one setup, it MUST happen in all setups, he thinks..

        Wrong and dumb.

        Every problem is different, and thats why one needs to understand the basics.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “But that isn’t the plate experiment either, that case has a constant input of 400 watts from the heater and also input from the green plates which increase the temperature of the blue plate according to the laws of thermodynamics which you still refuse to understand.”

      Your position is simply that in a hypothetical scenario where the only three objects in existence are a heater at 244 K and two passive plates, the passive plates warm the heater to 290 K.

      You defend this position as if the people questioning it are stupid, or insane.

      • bobdroege says:

        if the shoe fits, you gotta wear it.

        Your opinion on the green house effect is pure evil.

        People are dying.

        Wash your hands.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        That’s the way. Keep it rational.

        • bobdroege says:

          Seems the thing to do when talking to an insane person.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          I think if people are dying, perhaps it would be best if we concentrated on helping them, rather than wasting a fortune on a non-existent problem.

          Maybe a movement based on lie after lie is probably not “good”. Getting a young girl to go around the world scaring children and telling them they have no future might not be…positive.

          • bobdroege says:

            Nobodies making Greta Thunberg do that.

            The greenhouse effect is not a lie, it is consistent with all the known physics of poly-atomic gaseous molecules.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You don’t think all the scare-mongering she’s been exposed to over those formative years might have, “stolen her dreams, and her childhood”?

            I’m sure it was all good scare-mongering, and not evil scare-mongering, though. So, that’s the main thing.

        • Nate says:

          “Your position is simply that in a hypothetical scenario where the only three objects in existence are a heater at 244 K and two passive plates, the passive plates warm the heater to 290 K.”

          And here again he alters facts like boundary conditions to match his beliefs.

          There is no plate held fixed at 244 k. There is only a plate with constant heat input of 400 W. Its temperature will be whatever it needs to be to have 400 W output. Which, with green plates present MUST be 290 K. Just the way it is.

      • Nate says:

        Again DREMT, completely unable to apply heat transfer basics to different situations, 2 plates separate heat source, 3 plates one plate heated, a house with air and a furnace, he mixes them all up and relies on the mistaken view that their qualitative behaviors should match each other.

        Of course this approach is ignorant and destined to fail, as it clearly does.

      • Nate says:

        More from the quote bot. Weird and Irrelevant.

        How bout trying to understand the BASICS of heat transfer physics?

        Then come back when you can make your own, hopefully more sensible, arguments.

  36. ren says:

    It is not difficult to predict that ionization of the lower stratosphere by galactic radiation increases during the minimum solar activity, which causes the temperature of the lower stratosphere to increase.
    About once a week, Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus launch a helium balloon with radiation sensors to the stratosphere over California. This is a unique monitoring program aimed at tracking the cosmic ray situation in Earths atmosphere. During each flight, our balloon passes through something called the Regener-Pfotzer Maximum, a layer of peak radiation about 20 km above Earths surface.
    https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/06/07/what-is-the-regener-pfotzer-maximum/

  37. Erich John Schneider says:

    If man made climate change is happening and I think it is………individual people and private developers of green energy need to do at their own will to offer and buy products they see fit…….the government and tax revenue need to stay out……people should still have a choice to drive or live as they see fit. Buy or develop products as they see fit

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Erich says: “people should still have a choice to drive or live as they see fit.”

      While I sympathize to some extend, I would ask where you draw the line on government involvement. Should government be involved in requiring seat belt & air bags? In setting speed limits? In limiting the weight of semis on the road? In regulating pollution from cars? Are those also my personal choices that I may make as i see fit?

      Should I be free to dump toxic chemicals into the stream behind my house?

      The point is that we live in an interconnected society and it is exactly the job of government to address how we interact. If people think something is important, then government *should* address the issue. (The challenge, of course, it deciding what is good for society as a whole, an then finding ways oto bring about those goals).

    • Nate says:

      Tim makes a good point.

      Individual voluntary choices to go green have little effect.

      Just as very few would pay taxes, if they were optional.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Tim, Svante, please stop trolling.

  38. ren says:

    Ionization by GCR is not evenly distributed. It depends on the geomagnetic field and is concentrated in high latitudes.
    http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/Cutoff.html

  39. Adelaida says:

    Hi!
    There are more information about Svenmark ‘s work:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161104101855.htm

  40. Adelaida says:

    And:
    https://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html

    So It doesn’t look like closed Svenmark’s theme…

  41. MikeR says:

    So which link do I follow to locate Meh’s own calculations? I hope he is not plagiarising.

  42. Phew, glad that cooling spell is yet again being predicted really soon. I’d be really worried if I didn’t see that a complete failure to grasp reality lets people survive for years on end.

    New meta-study over at Geophysical Research Letters:

    “Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyse the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally‐estimated forcings were taken into account.”

    • bdgwx says:

      Yep. I read about that yesterday. It confirms what most already knew or suspected. Modeling errors have more to do with the assumed inputs than with the physics. Even primitive models (by today’s standards) yield outputs that match observations closely when given the correct inputs for GHG/aerosol emissions and volcanic activity.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  43. What’s wrong with this goldurn blog, Dr. Roy? I tried to post that four times last night. And it still won’t let me post with a link in the text.

  44. Adelaida says:

    Sorry I forgot the next link and I couldn’t send It inmediatly after:

    About Svenmark’s theory of corse!…

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

  45. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    Be careful when you put your coats on, people, in case they make your internal body temperature rise, with fatal consequences. Or on the other hand, if you live in a hot country, and have insulated your house to keep it cooler, make sure that you don’t cause the sun to overheat.

    • bobdroege says:

      If you don’t want people to think you are stupid, don’t make stupid comments.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      That’s effectively what you’re saying. If you think it’s stupid, I agree.

      • bobdroege says:

        It’s stupid because apparently you don’t realize that the body regulates its temperature, putting a coat on will raise your internal temperature but it won’t kill you.

        Why do you keep piling on the straw. You keep attacking arguments no one is making.

        Like your sun argument, that’s really stupid.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Maybe it’s best to just say it like it is. Further analogies are not really necessary to demonstrate how stupid your position is:

        Your position is simply that in a hypothetical scenario where the only three objects in existence are a heater at 244 K and two passive plates, the passive plates warm the heater to 290 K.

        • bobdroege says:

          Yes, backed up by experimental evidence and the known laws of physics.

          I have actually observed insulation causing a heated object to become warmer, just like the plates.

          The temperature warms to 290, but no further, it doesn’t overheat and melt, like your coat analogy killing the wearer, or the house insulation overheating the sun.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          You’ve observed insulation making the heat source itself hotter? And a perfectly conducting BB plate is an insulator/heat shield?

          Wow…you’ve really seen it all.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yes, in fact, all matter has some degree of insulation property. And of course a black-body can be a heat shield, the green plates are cooler than the blue plates in the properly solved solution.

            That a black-body can be a heat shield is a rather simple concept, yet you continue to fail to grasp that concept.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

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

            “A heat shield is designed to protect an object from overheating by dissipating, reflecting or simply absorbing heat. The term is most often used in reference to exhaust heat management and to systems for dissipation of heat due to friction.“

            Try again.

          • Nate says:

            DREMT the quote-bot.

            He has no actual undrstanding of what he quotes.

            He finds quotes, misunderstands them, misapplies them, takes them out of context, and thinks hes made a point.

            Dunning-Kruger supremo.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Too bad you did not continue reading

            “Heat shields protect structures from extreme temperatures and thermal gradients by two primary mechanisms. Thermal insulation and radiative cooling, which respectively isolate the underlying structure from high external surface temperatures, while emitting heat outwards through thermal radiation.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, thanks for helping…something that “protects structures from extreme temperatures and thermal gradients” is exactly the opposite of what you need.

            You need something that raises the structures temperature, and permanently establishes thermal gradients.

            Keep trying.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.”

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “Maybe it’s best to just say it like it is. Further analogies are not really necessary to demonstrate how stupid your position is:

        Your position is simply that in a hypothetical scenario where the only three objects in existence are a heater at 244 K and two passive plates, the passive plates warm the heater to 290 K.“

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          No, that is not quite my position. So this is once again a strawman.

          We’ve been through this before, but let’s look at some things that are actually ‘my position’ and then work forward from there.

          Let’s assume there is a hypothetical object with blackbody surfaces that contains a power source generating a constant 200 W/m^2 of thermal energy. (The shape does not really matter — it could for example be a sphere of radius 28.2 cm with a 200 W heater or a thin 1m x 1m plate with a 400 W heater.)
          1) Suppose the object is placed in an evacuated chamber with the walls held near 0 K (or in deep space @ 2.7 K). “My position” is that the surface of the object will become 244 K.
          2) Suppose the walls of the evacuated chamber are warmed to 244 K. “My position” is that the heated object will warm as well — to 290 K in this case.

          If you agree so far, we could continue to explore ‘my position’. If you disagree, then tell us what temperatures you would predict for these two cases, and why.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …and just so nobody attacks a straw-man, nobody is saying the blue plate temperature is fixed. All I am saying is that it does not increase in temperature. Not that it can not increase in temperature. It could, but not by adding two passive plates.

        You have a situation where the heat source, on its own, comes to 244 K.

        You are saying if you add two passive plates, the temperature of the heat source will be 290 K.

        That is a temperature increase.

        If a heat shield is designed to protect an object from over-heating, it wouldn’t be a great idea for it to lead to an increase in temperature of said object.

        Pretty simple, really.

        You can try “radiant barriers”, too. That’s already been discussed. Doesn’t do what you need it to.

        • bobdroege says:

          The two additional plates are not passive, they absorb and emit thermal radiation, causing the center plate to increase in temperature according to the laws of physics.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          By “passive” I just mean “not a heat source”. Meaning they can’t warm the heat source.

          And, as we’ve discussed, insulation can’t make the heat source warmer. And, the perfectly conducting BB plates are not insulators anyway.

          • bobdroege says:

            Three statements that are not true.

            It doesn’t have to be a heat source to warm the heat source, if it restricts the cooling of the heat source, it will increase in temperature.

            Insulation can make the heat source hotter, that’s well known.

            Black-bodies, theoretical objects that they are, theoretically can act as insulators, a big near black-body, such as the moon, can cool me during a solar eclipse, that’s what I actually experienced.

            Again, three strikes, you’re out.

            The only way you can take down the green house effect is to make a big stack of lies.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’ll just clarify my first paragraph. The passive plates can’t warm the heat source, unless heat flows against a thermal gradient, or unless a thermal gradient establishes itself of its own accord, spontaneously (neither of which are possible). I was not referring to “slowed cooling”, or anything of that nature, there.

            “Insulation can make the heat source hotter, that’s well known”

            That would be false.

            “Black-bodies, theoretical objects that they are, theoretically can act as insulators, a big near black-body, such as the moon, can cool me during a solar eclipse, that’s what I actually experienced.”

            There is no “you” in the 3-plate scenario, I’m afraid. By which I mean, there is only the heat source, and the passive plates. For what you experienced, you require heat source (sun), moon, and Earth. Also, I’m pretty sure the moon is not a thin perfectly conducting object.

          • bobdroege says:

            It’s radiation that flows against the thermal gradient, causing the center plate to increase in temperature, all in accordance with the well established laws of physics, which you seem to ignore.

            Just get a textbook on radiant heat transfer.

            We have discussed it at length and you are still wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “It’s radiation that flows against the thermal gradient, causing the center plate to increase in temperature”

            What you’re describing is heat flow. The clue was the “increase in temperature”. Heat doesn’t flow against the thermal gradient.

          • bobdroege says:

            Nope, it’s not heat, it’s radiation, I would of thought by now that you would know the difference.

            So, I know I have already asked you this and got bumsquat for an answer.

            In the 244, 244, 244 solution to the three plate problem, what happens to the radiant energy emitted by the green plates back to the blue plates?

            It’s not reflected as in your diagram, because black-bodies do not reflect radiation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Nope, it’s not heat, it’s radiation, I would of thought by now that you would know the difference.“

            Indeed I do, which is why I said what I said. Re-read until understood.

          • bobdroege says:

            Right, the thing is, I understand what you posted, and the problem is, that you have it wrong.

            You are calling radiation heat flow

            “What youre describing is heat flow.”

            What I am calling radiation, you are calling heat flow.

            Radiation is not heat flow.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You have misunderstood. Try again.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Well there is no heat flow in the 244, 244, 244 between the blue and green plates because there is no temperature difference so in your solution you have 400 watts in and 0 watts out, so a failure to follow the first law of thermodynamics.

            There has to be a difference in temperature between the plates in order for heat to flow, a net difference in the radiant energy flows in this case.

            You still can’t figure out the physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Shame you didn’t get it this time. Oh well. Others might.

          • bobdroege says:

            Too bad I didn’t get it this time is a lie.

            You are lying, I get it, it’s wrong.

            No temperature difference, no heat transfer, and the radiant heat transfers between the plates will be equal.

            244, 244, 244 is wrong and doesn’t follow the laws of physics.

            You still haven’t debunked the green plate effect, though I assume in your mind you have.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If you did get it, then it was odd that you wrote those comments demonstrating you didn’t.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            I have pointed out where in your solution things go wrong.

            You don’t respond, you just say things like I don’t get it, or I miss the point etc.

            For one, two plates separated, at the same temperature, will not transfer energy or heat between them, which is required for the energy from the heater to transfer out to the ultimate heat sink.

            Maybe it’s you who doesn’t get the physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Scroll on down, to the bottom of the thread…

  46. ren says:

    1. On the average solar flux S W/m² on the top of a planet’s atmosphere and

    2. The planet’s average albedo a.

    Those two parameters are not enough to calculate a planet effective temperature. Planet is a celestial body with more major features when calculating planet effective temperature to consider.

    The planet-without-atmosphere effective temperature calculating formula has to include all the planet’s major properties and all the characteristic parameters.

    3. The sidereal rotation period N rotations/day

    4. The thermal property of the surface (the specific heat cp)

    5. The planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φ (the spherical surface’s primer geometrical quality).
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com/

    • bdgwx says:

      What is “solar irradiation accepting factor” and why is it set at 0.47?

      • ren says:

        It’s geometry. You must ask the author.

      • bdgwx says:

        It’s pretty weird. There’s almost no explanation given on his website from what I can see. And the 0.47 value just appears out of nowhere as well. I’m having a hard time understanding the geometrical reason considering he already does the division by 4 in his formula to normalize TSI to a correct aerial flux and that 0.47 seems random and, quite frankly, tuned.

        • bdgwx says:

          Well, I did find his “Planet sun reflect” page that attempts to explain it. I’m no closer to understanding what it is though or how 0.47 was determined. If anyone has an idea let me know.

    • bdgwx says:

      Another puzzle…he calculates T of Venus without an atmosphere of 260K. I’m trying to use his formula and I’m not seeing how gets that value and unfortunately its the one calculation in which he doesn’t show his work. And I’m still no closer to understanding this “solar irradiation accepting factor”.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Why don’t you try commenting there, bdgwx, so you can ask him directly, rather than pointlessly commenting on it here?

  47. Adelaida says:

    And what about this?:

    https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

    And this:
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008431

    Althought this second publicacin is from 2007 and there are more studies and information about Svenmark’s work as I showed in my two last messages…..

    • ren says:

      I think this is important for the rise of thunderstorms, especially in North and South America, due to the weakening of the geomagnetic field over these continents.

  48. ren says:

    More waves of arctic air are falling over the Midwest.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00993/xgmw7iyncyfp.png

  49. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    If Tim wants to deny the existence and previous discussion of the “3-plate scenario”, and claim that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution is not what the GPE cult has to defend, then I guess he’s conceding defeat.

    I will not play his games.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      My ‘game’ is called “physics”. I can’t force you to actually try to understand. I can just try to guide you with simple scenarios and develop mutual agreement and understanding.

      The ball is in your court — what temperature do you think the heated object will be in the two scenarios I listed?
      a) the heated object will be 290 K if the surroundings are 244 K.
      b) the heated object will remain at 244 K as long as the surroundings remain below 244 K.
      c) something else??

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        If Tim wants to deny the existence and previous discussion of the “3-plate scenario”, and claim that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution is not what the GPE cult has to defend, then I guess he’s conceding defeat.

        I will not play his games.

        • MikeR says:

          Of course he will not answer your question. When the going gets tough he heads for the exit as fast as his little feet can carry him.

          That’s his version of game theory.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          The going got tough for Tim, so as usual he tried to start introducing unnecessary complications.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes, another of his standard operating procedures is in place.

            Divert at all costs.

            Maybe fleeing would be your better option.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR’s standard baiting procedures are initiated…and ineffective.

          • MikeR says:

            Just simply trying to get you to answer Tim’s question but for some reason (I can hazard a guess) you get out all your avoidance techniques.

            I don’t think you are impressing anyone ( with the possible exception of Meh) with your manoeuvres.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR’s standard baiting manoeuvres are continued…and still not effective.

          • MikeR says:

            Will try to make it simple, is it A,B or C?
            I have a feeling of deja vu.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If Tim wants to deny the existence and previous discussion of the “3-plate scenario”, and claim that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution is not what the GPE cult has to defend, then I guess he’s conceding defeat.

            I will not play his games.

          • MikeR says:

            Ok we are going around in circles again.

            So to cut to the chase, this is my effort with regard to the three plate problem

            https://i.postimg.cc/J454kTT1/Three-Plates.png

            I notice you didn’t comment on that 4 days ago see – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-411634

            You went missing in action. Maybe you missed it. Do you have any specific criticisms of this solution?

            This is your effort.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374964

            It wasn’t well received.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “You went missing in action. Maybe you missed it. Do you have any specific criticisms of this solution?”

            Incorrect, MikeR. It’s just that anyone who has followed this discussion from the beginning, or even halfway through, is already well aware of Eli’s math, so the extension to the 3-plate scenario is trivial. In fact, funny story, when JD first introduced the 3-plate thing, they (meaning the GPE cult) actually got the temperature value of the blue plate wrong. I had to correct them on their own math! Oh, how we chuckled.

            So, anyway, I had nothing to say about it at the time, that hadn’t already been said. I may have repeated some old arguments further on, but I do get a bit bored repeating stuff that has already been discussed. I know you think that you are very important, but if people stop responding to you, it’s not that they “fled the scene”, or went “missing in action”.

            Most likely they’re just bored of you, or realize you’re not really worth wasting their time on.

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT,

            Thank-you for providing some historical context.

            Like you I am getting bored with these exchanges so wading through the annals of the 2 and 3 plate problem is not a number one priority at the moment. However I am glad you and your intimate other enjoyed pointing out the mistakes of others regarding the temperature of the blue plates. The inner dialog must have been remarkable. A real hoot.

            Fancy all these so called experts not realizing the blue plate is at 244 K in the presence of the other two plates, remaining at the same temperature as it would in the total absence of neighboring plates.

            They didn’t realize it was actually a 1 plate problem! What with their fancy maths. What would they know?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No MikeR, they thought it was more than 290 K!

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT. How much more than 290 K? The correct answer is 289.8 K.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            345 K.

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT,

            Yes 345K is obviously wrong, as is 244K.

            We all make mistakes and I have been wrong on many occasions, and not being infallible, I am sure that I will be wrong again in the future. A recent example was my very poor choice of words with regard to reflection and back radiation, which you rightly picked up on.

            I have been told by many wise man that it’s a sign of emotional maturity when you have the ability to admit when you are wrong and move on. You end getting so much more respect from those who you encounter if you are capable of this. I can’t speak for others, but I would certainly back off and refrain from my harsh criticisms under those circumstances.

            Otherwise if you dig in your heels further, then you are likely to be continue to be treated with disdain.

            I am hoping that your emotional investment in these long running battles with your numerous foes doesn’t blind you to the possibility of a detente. Think about it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Try concision.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “A recent example was my very poor choice of words with regard to reflection and back radiation”

            Actually, MikeR, one more thing, on that subject…what do you think the temperature of the blue plate would be, in the 3-plate setup, if the green plates were both perfect reflectors?

            a) 244 K (GPE debunked)
            b) 290 K (a BB plate works the same as a perfect reflector!? GPE debunked)
            c) Infinity K (we could have been using mirrors all this time to tap unlimited free energy!? GPE debunked)

          • MikeR says:

            OK DREMT,

            From your concise response I take it you’re happy to continue to be treated with derision. Fair enough it’s your choice and, as always, I will be happy to oblige your wishes.

            I will attempt to be more concise and as the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words maybe we can approach our little dispute pictorially.

            Does this depictions in the link here

            https://i.postimg.cc/MZ9DGRbp/three-plates-DREMT.jpg

            adequately portray your comments here at

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374964

            Do you have any changes i.e extra green arrows or any other colour that you would like to add?

            Please let me know and we can very concise conversation with regard to energy balance equations, particularly with regard to the blue plate.

            I promise to make sure that I won’t tax your mathematical abilities.

            How will he evade this one? Let me count the ways.

            p.s. with regards to your question posed, it is very easy. For infinitely long green plates the eventual temperature at steady state will be infinite. With 400 W in continually and no means for egress of the radiation via the green plates, the answer is obvious, so please no more distractions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So your answer is c)?

            You think after all this time, all we needed for unlimited free energy was just to put some mirrors around a heat source?

            They already did the experiments, MikeR, a long time ago. As discussed at this link:

            https://principia-scientific.org/light-recycling-disproves-greenhouse-gas-theory/

          • MikeR says:

            Yet more diversions! Who would have thought?

            DREMT, You have really have no idea, do you. You launch into diversions after diversions because you are incapable of answering the simplest of questions..

            All you have to do is simply indicate whether the depiction above corresponds with your version of the 3 plate problem.

            If you indicate yes then we can discuss your problem with the blue plate, if no then.please feel free you to suggest amendments that are more in line with your thinking.

            To refresh your memory here is the depiction again.

            https://i.postimg.cc/MZ9DGRbp/three-plates-DREMT.jpg

            Finally, if or when you respond to the above, I would be more than delighted to continue to discuss the other matters you raised.

            However please return to the fundamental question . Can DREMT rise to the chsllenge and actually respond appropriately or we just going to get another diversion?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I asked you my question first. You then created a diversion! Amazing…

            …as if the stuff you are bringing up hasn’t been discussed a dozen times already…yawn…

          • MikeR says:

            I think it was Tim’s a, b and c question and your response, or lack of, was the instigator of the this sub thread, but you may have some other starting point in mind.

            Rather than getting bogged down with this diversion why don’t you just respond and clarify your position via

            https://i.postimg.cc/MZ9DGRbp/three-plates-DREMT.jpg

            I note that you claim you are are getting bored. Rather than responding numerous times over several days with these tedious evasions it would be way less boring if you at least attempted the above. I am an eternal optimist and as unlikely as it sounds, maybe you would learn something.
            Can you imagine the thrill? You would have learnt something this year or perhaps this decade and there are still more than 20 days to go. Sounds positively exciting to me, if I was in that position.

            I would then be happy to cease these exchanges but if you are happy to continue to be ridiculed then it’s your decision. Maybe you need to resist your masochistic tendencies. Just a suggestion. The ball is in your court.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR continues with his evasion. What will his next diversionary tactic be? Or will he finally flee the scene as fast as his little legs can carry him, as he usually does?

          • MikeR says:

            Regarding the GPE ( Greased Pig Experiment), can the porcine contributor continue to weave and evade?

            This little piggy does have a sense of humour by accusing me of evasion. On what grounds? Not stated of course.

            The only request of his to me we to answer his a,b c question with an emphatic c. As these discussions were invariably based on the original Eli Rabbet source which specified infinitely long 1 dimensional plates ( the complication of view factors were not part of the discussion and 1D so that all emissions were from the sides only) then this was clearly a thought experiment.

            So for the case of green plates with mirrored surfaces, as I have already stated, there is no way for energy to leave the system and 400 W is indefinitely continuing to arrive at the blue plate.The steady state solution which would occur after the infinite amount of time to arrive at steady state (or instantaneous if the plate has zero heat capacity) is infinitely hot. If we include some more realistic elements to the problem then we have to specify distances between plates and the size of the plates to calculate a view factor. A view factor of less than one would allow energy to leave the system and the steady state solution would be hot ( for the blue plate with out green plates) but not infinitely hot.

            So DREMT , capiche?

            Finally there is some good news for you. Your discovery of black bodies that are transparent ( your green plates allow all the energy to pass through) will merit a Nobel Prize in Physics if it can be confirmed experimentally. Maybe you could commission that Hughes fellow to perform the appropriate experiment. However he may still be waiting for his light bulb to explode.

            Anyway this another digression. We still await DREMT’s explanation of whether this depiction

            https://i.postimg.cc/MZ9DGRbp/three-plates-DREMT.jpg

            represents his best attempt at a solution to the 3 plate experiment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, I capiche that you think there is some way to “produce more power than that being supplied”, that for some reason has not been put into practice.

            I capiche that you want to change the subject away from that, desperately.

            …and for those taking the c) route, I hope you capiche that there’s follow-up questions to consider…

          • MikeR says:

            DREMT aka GP,

            As you are pleading the 5th amendement and steadfastly refuse to explain your concept in terms of the clear depiction above, I think it is time to move on.

            With regards to the 5th, I should have given you a Miranda Warning at the start of the these exchanges because everything in your comments is highly incriminating. Particularly with respect to your intelligence and emotional over-investment in these debates.

            Anyway, what in particular is your objection to answer c? Remember these are thought experiments. Do you really believe that pumping energy indefinitely into a thermally closed system will not cause the temperature of the system, and by extension the blue plate, to increase?

            If so then you need more than the 5th amendment. Maybe a psych assessment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…steadfastly refuse to explain your concept…”

            …for the twentieth time. The first nineteen times I explained it, fine. But I have to draw the line somewhere.

            “Anyway, what in particular is your objection to answer c?”

            So you now want me to start repeating that, as well?

          • MikeR says:

            Look DREMT you are your own worst enemy. If you had just gone quietly no-one would noticed.

            Yes, you have refused on 19 or 20 , or who knows how many, occasions, to explain your reasoning using the depiction of the 3 plate setup. This just emphasizes your core incompetencies , such as innumeracy, lack of understanding of basic physics, stubvorn disregard of facts, etc..

            I know that you and your mate(s) got teased mercilessly when you tried to explain the Eli Rabbett experiment using a similar depiction,see –

            https://postimg.cc/gallery/oyd3w09m/ .

            By continuing your charade, I suspect you actually have an agenda to destroy, via guilt by association, the side of the climate change debate that is already doing so poorly in the public and scientific arena.

            Your contributions have been invaluable to destroying the credibility of your colleagues and I expect you to keep up your good work. Next please.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR fails at basic reading comprehension…

            …I said “the first nineteen times I explained it, fine. But I have to draw the line somewhere.”

            What you are bringing up, the input and outputs from each plate, etc, has been discussed many, many times before, as you well know. Whereas I have introduced something new to the 3-plate discussion, which is “what happens when the green plates are perfect reflectors?”. As soon as I introduced that, you then immediately brought up your diversion back to previous discussions.

            You are the one being evasive. As we can see down-thread, the question is causing Team GPE all sorts of problems. So it’s understandable that you’re so desperate to draw attention away from it.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          DREMT, even you admitted your original question was ill-posed and you tried to clarify your position. You can hardly blame me for also finding your statement ill-posed and trying to clarify.

          Why are you afraid to engage?

          1) The “blue plate” by itself with 0 K (or 2.7 K) surroundings, black body surfaces, and a fixed 200 W/m^2 heater will settle at 244 K. You seem to agree with that.

          2) The same blue plate with warmer surroundings will be warmer than 244 K. For some reason you can’t seem to admit to this.

          If we can’t agree on basics, then there is no way we will progress to understanding more complex situations.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If Tim wants to deny the existence and previous discussion of the “3-plate scenario”, and claim that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution is not what the GPE cult has to defend, then I guess he’s conceding defeat.

            I will not play his games.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I am not denying any previous discussion — merely clarifying the central point. If nothing else, not everyone has followed every line of previous discussion.

            Here is the core of the issue — a very straightforward physics problem.

            If an object of surface area “A” with a heat source delivering power “P” has surroundings at a temperature “T(C)”, what will the surface temperature, T(H), of the heated object be? For ease of calculation, assume the object is in a vacuum and that all surface are blackbodies.

            We agree the answer for P/A = 200 W/m^2 and T(C) = 0 K will be 244 K.
            I propose for P/A = 200 W/m^2 and T(C) = 244 K, the answer will be 290 K.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim…you called a correct summary of the position that the GPE cult has to defend, a “straw man” (meanwhile other cult members have continued to defend it, because it is a correct summary). You then tried to change the setup to include walls, etc.

            That is tacit acknowledgement that your position is untenable.

            You can either:

            1) Apologize for wrongly suggesting it was a straw man, and join the others in defending the indefensible.
            2) Directly and openly concede that your position is untenable.

            Any other response from you will result in a redirect to this comment, until such time as you either take option 1) or 2), or stop responding to me.

            Thank you for your co-operation.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT, you claimed: “Be careful when you put your coats on, people, in case they make your internal body temperature rise, with fatal consequences. Or on the other hand, if you live in a hot country, and have insulated your house to keep it cooler, make sure that you don’t cause the sun to overheat.”

            These are strawman arguments. This is not even CLOSE to what any scientist claims. If you think you are accurately describing what a scientist claims, then please link us to a scientist saying anything like this.

            More directly to the topic at hand, you claimed: “Your position is simply that in a hypothetical scenario where the only three objects in existence are a heater at 244 K and two passive plates, the passive plates warm the heater to 290 K.”

            This is much better, but still flawed. First was the error you yourself later corrected — we don’t have “a heater at 244 K” but rather “a heater at 200 W/m^2”. There is also the semantic issue of whether the passive plates ‘warm’ the heater above 224 K, or if the active heat source ‘warms’ the heater.

            If we agree that:
            1) you really meant “a fixed power heater” rather than “a fixed temperature heater”
            2) we are not going to quibble about semantics ascribing a single cause to the possible temperature change when multiple factors are involved,

            then I will agree that your summary is accurate.

            ******************************************

            Will you agree that

            P = (sigma) A [T(h)^4 – T(c)^4]

            is an accurate equation for the power transferred from a blackbody surface of area A @ temperature T(h) to surroundings at temperature T(c)?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            By the way, Tim:

            “These are strawman arguments. This is not even CLOSE to what any scientist claims.”

            Yes…that’s kind of the point. I was ridiculing the position you have to defend, Tim. Those arguments are as stupid as what you have to defend.

            You are a clown, defending a ridiculous position. Just making sure we are on the same page. Obviously I did not mean those comparisons were the summary of your position, though.

            Now, you can respond with:

            “1) I apologize.”

            or

            “2) I concede”.

            Those are the options. No other words in your response.

            Or we’re back to the redirect.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT, in case you haven’t made the connection, the “passive plates” of the “green plate experiment” are “walls” that comprise the “surroundings” for the “heater”. Without the “green plates, the surroundings are “the 2.7 K universe”. MY scenario is NOT a change or diversion — merely a restatement with clear, neutral language.

            Again, rather than starting with a conclusion or starting with semantics or starting with what you THINK other people are saying, let’s start with what we agree on. Rather than expecting me to defend everything any one might have said (or that you imagine they might have said), let’s try the basic science and see if we can defend our OWN positions.

            ***********************************************

            Will you agree that
            P = (sigma) A [T(h)^4 T(c)^4]
            is an accurate equation for the power transferred from a blackbody surface of area A @ temperature T(h) to surroundings at temperature T(c)?

            Will you agree this can be rearranged with simple algebra to give
            T(h) = [ P/(sigma*A) + T(c)^4 ] ^(1/4)
            as the steady-state temperature of the heated object?

            If not, what equation(s) would YOU use to calculate such a thing?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            (Just in case anyone can’t see through Tim’s sophistry; unlike the green plates, his “walls” were at a fixed temperature, and then “warmed”…so he was changing the conditions of the thought experiment and!adding an additional heat source to complicate matters and try to intentionally deceive)

          • bobdroege says:

            What we are defending in regards to the green plate effect are the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann law

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

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

            That’s what you are up against DREMPTY.

            Propose a solution that follow both of those.

            244, 244, 244 violates both of them.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            For those who can’t see, DREMT refuses to engage in science and math and calculations. When he is ready to actually defend his position and to actually critique my position, then we might make some progress.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Those following closely will know the science, math and calculations have already been laid out.

            They will also see through the likes of Dim and Blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            One would think that when one separates the plates and the energy transfer changes from conduction to radiation, that the temperatures and energy flows would change.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            One would think that you would finally just acknowledge that the Green Plate Effect is debunked.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Your solution doesn’t debunk the green plate effect, because it’s wrong.

            I’ll wait until you actually post something that does debunk anything.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, at least you acknowledge the existence of the solution now…that’s progress.

          • Nate says:

            As ever, when faced with a clarifying fact question, as Tim clearly stated it, DReMT finds a way to evade answering.

            He is not the least bit interested in getting at the facts.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “The same blue plate with warmer surroundings will be warmer than 244 K. For some reason you can’t seem to admit to this.

            If we can’t agree on basics, then there is no way we will progress to understanding more complex situations.”

            The blue plate is the only heat source in the 3-plate scenario. The surroundings are a perfect vacuum with no additional heat source, anywhere. So if you start talking about “warmer surroundings” you are introducing an additional heat source, somewhere, like with his heated walls. So Tim has it exactly backwards. He is trying to introduce a more complex situation than the extremely basic 3-plate scenario, in order to confuse matters. There’s no “progressing to understand more complex situations”, as he puts it…it would be “starting with more complex situations and regressing to understand more basic ones”.

            That’s why it’s always best to avoid these sophists’ games. Just a little advice for anyone reading.

          • Nate says:

            “The blue plate is the only heat source in the 3-plate scenario. The surroundings are a perfect vacuum with no additional heat source, anywhere.”

            The surroundings of the Blue are space at 0 K, OR GREEN plates at 244 K.

            It matters not a bit to the RHTE how the surfaces attained their temperature.

            Thats the POINT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “That’s why it’s always best to avoid these sophists’ games. Just a little advice for anyone reading.”

            It’s good advice, too, people! Make sure you take note.

  50. Adelaida says:

    I send you some interesting extracts of my first link before to know your opinion please! (beacause it’s long….)

    https://public.wmo.int/es/resources/bulletin/observacio%CC%81n-del-vapor-de-agua

    ” Recent analyzes suggest that the warming of the earth’s surface may be sensitive to changes in volume in the water vapor of the order of subparts per million (ppm) in the low stratosphere. Research has found that the 10% reduction in stratospheric water vapor between 2000 and 2009 acted by decreasing the rate of increase in global surface temperature in this period by 25% compared to what would have happened due to only to CO2 and other greenhouse gases8.’

    “In the absence of three-dimensional global observations of water vapor, global reanalysis products are frequently used to validate simulations of numerical models. Two of the most widely used reanalysis data sets are the Retrospective Analysis in the modern era for NASA research and application (MERRA), with its new release, the MERRA2, and the Provisional Reanalysis of the European Center for Medium Weather Forecasting term (CEPMMP)”.

    “A recent study concluded that the reanalysis differed considerably from MLS observations by overestimating the global average annual water vapor in the high troposphere by around 150%. Vertically, the transport of water vapor through the tropical tropopause (16-20 km) in the reanalysis is faster, around ~ 86%, compared to the MSL observations. In the low tropical stratosphere (21-25 km), the average vertical transport according to CEPMMP is 168% faster than that estimated by MLS,”

    (Note:
    MSL: Microwave Limbo Probe Instrument. Limbo sounding: the technique of probing several layers of the atmosphere through observation along a tangent beam that does not intersect the earth’s surface)

    “The models used to predict the climate of the future make use of reanalysis data to verify the correct simulation of the current climate. Therefore, the lack of accurate water vapor data in the important region of the high troposphere and low stratosphere will limit the ability of these models to predict the climate of the future.”

    • ren says:

      “The global distribution of water vapor in the high troposphere and low stratosphere is not well known due to the shortage of observations with high vertical resolution in these regions of the atmosphere. In some cases there are even large discrepancies between satellite data, frost point hygrometer data and meteorological reanalysis. More accurate data with greater geographic coverage is needed. The temporal trends observed in stratospheric water vapor are vaguely understood, demonstrating a lack of knowledge about how water vapor enters the stratosphere. These are areas of study to which the VAG will be dedicated in the future.”

  51. MS says:

    Learn to swim.

  52. Adelaida says:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008431

    An interesting extract too from this AGU100’s article:

    Overview of the Earth’s Climate System
    ]The principal source of energy that drives the dynamics of Earth’s outer spheres, including its climate, is unquestionably the Sun, and it is electromagnetic radiation that overwhelmingly dominates energy exchange between the Earth and its cosmic environment [Kandel and Viollier, 2005]. At a radiative balance of 235 W m−2the Earth would have an average surface temperature of only −19C, resulting in a perpetually frozen planet [Ruddiman, 2001]. Fortunately, the planetary atmosphere traps sufficient long‐wave energy reradiated by the warm Earth’s surface (natural greenhouse effect) to raise the surface temperature by about 33C to a more hospitable average of 14C. This natural greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly due to water vapor [Chahine, 1992], the principal greenhouse gas, and only to a lesser degree due to the other greenhouse gases, such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs. Nevertheless, the anthropogenic addition of CO2since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is believed to have enhanced the global energy balance by approximately 1.5 W m−2, with a compound anthropogenic greenhouse effect of about 2.4 W m−2[Ramaswamy et al., 2001], yet satellite data for the last decade suggest that a decline in the cloud albedo alone could account for a 26 W m−2enhancement of the short‐wave solar energy input into the system [Pall et al., 2005]. Thus the current scientific and political dispute ultimately boils down to the following: is the additional energy of 2.5 W m−2that is responsible for the centennial temperature rise of 0.6C [Houghton et al., 2001] due principally to greenhouse gases or is it due to some external factor, such as the Sun?

    [3]Presently, 0.2C of the rise in temperature over the 20th century is attributed to the observed increase in solar brightness, with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (0.4C) related to an increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, principally CO2, in the atmosphere [Mitchell et al., 2001]. The attribution of only one third of the centennial temperature increase to solar forcing, despite a good correlation with solar indices [Kristjnsson et al., 2002;Valev, 2006], is based on the empirical observation that, averaged over the 11‐year solar cycle, the variability in Total Solar Irradiance is only 0.1% (less than 1.5 W m−2) [Lean, 2005]. An amplifier related to solar dynamics would therefore be required to explain the entire magnitude of the trend. The impact of ultraviolet radiation on ozone and stratospheric dynamics [Reid, 2000] and/or galactic cosmic rays (GCR) [Marsh and Svensmark, 2003] were briefly considered to be such amplifiers, but were dismissed because of the lack of understanding of physical processes, particularly cloud formation, that could point to a climate connection [Ramaswamy et al., 2001]. Note that in regards to the Earth’s radiative heat balance we are not dealing with mutually exclusive scenarios, as climate models respond in a similar way to the addition of energy from any source and it is only the relative importance of these potential drivers at a variety of timescales that is the contentious issue. Note also that compared to the sizes of the global energy fluxes, and their compound uncertainty (on the order of 6 W m−2), the apparent centennial to annual trends are at the limit of detectability [Kandel and Viollier, 2005]. It is therefore not likely that the issue of principal climate driver(s) can be resolved by energy balance considerations. Instead, observations based on past climate trends observed over a variety of time/space scales and their compatibility with the celestial versus greenhouse gas records may help to resolve their relative contributions.

    [4]A spate of recent empirical observations [Scherer et al., 2006, pp. 427448, and references therein] demonstrates that the sun‐climate connection is apparent in a plethora of high‐fidelity climate indicators [Lean, 2005] and, as summarized in the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research review ofGray et al.[2005], the detection/attribution assessments of climate models suggest that the solar influence on climate is greater than would be anticipated from radiative forcing estimates. This implies that either the radiative forcing is underestimated or there are some processes inadequately represented in those models. If so, climate modulation by indirect amplifying mechanisms, such as GCR, may play an important role. The most likely pathway for translation of the high‐energy particle flux into a climate forcing variable involves the role of clouds [Svensmark et al., 2006;Vieira and da Silva, 2006;Perry, 2007]. In recognition of the potential importance of GCR on clouds, a multiyear experimental program to quantify this process has recently been initiated by European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) [Arnold et al., 2004;Kanipe, 2006].

    [5]Considering that solar radiation reflected by clouds and the atmosphere accounts for approximately 77 W m−2and that evapotranspiration and precipitation each account for 78 W m−2[Baede et al., 2001;Stocker et al., 2001], even a minor change in cloudiness could potentially alter the planetary energy balance by more than the disputed 1.5 (or 2.4) W m−2, particularly if the highly effective but contentious role of aerosols (terrestrial and/or GCR generated) is taken into account. In this context, the pattern of dominant energy flow in the planetary system could be viewed from the top‐down (Figure 1), instead of bottom‐up, thus permitting celestial phenomena to act as the principal (yet not the sole) climate driver over shorter time periods (decades to millennia) as it does over geological time periods. In such a scenario, the relatively small carbon cycle would have to be considered as being superimposed (i.e., piggybacking) on the much larger water cycle instead of driving it. That this may be the case is indicated by the observed coincidence of the South African hydrologic regime [Alexander, 2005] and the Southeast Asian monsoon patterns with the record of past solar variability [Bhattacharyya and Narasimha, 2005]. In another example, the overall centennial increase in precipitation over the conterminous U.S. coincides with enhanced solar intensity and most of the inter‐annual minima in precipitation coincide with the minima in solar intensity (Figure 2). Regardless of the actual mechanism involved, causation between these terrestrial cycles and solar radiation can only be from the Sun to the Earth, pointing to solar activity as the principal driver of the global water cycle, including moisture advection from the tropics to higher latitudes and the flux of water vapor from the terrestrial biosphere.

  53. Midas says:

    UAH – Number of months above selected thresholds by 5-year period:
    (with only 59 months in 2015-19)

    0.0
    1980-84 … 11
    1985-89 … 16
    1990-94 … 20
    1995-99 … 38
    2000-04 … 51
    2005-09 … 47
    2010-14 … 50
    2015-19 … 59

    0.1
    1980-84 … 1
    1985-89 … 6
    1990-94 … 8
    1995-99 … 20
    2000-04 … 32
    2005-09 … 36
    2010-14 … 39
    2015-19 … 58

    0.2
    1980-84 … 0
    1985-89 … 2
    1990-94 … 3
    1995-99 … 14
    2000-04 … 20
    2005-09 … 13
    2010-14 … 22
    2015-19 … 53

    0.3
    1980-84 … 0
    1985-89 … 1
    1990-94 … 1
    1995-99 … 10
    2000-04 … 5
    2005-09 … 2
    2010-14 … 10
    2015-19 … 39

    0.4
    1980-84 … 0
    1985-89 … 0
    1990-94 … 0
    1995-99 … 10
    2000-04 … 0
    2005-09 … 1
    2010-14 … 5
    2015-19 … 23

  54. Scott R says:

    MikeR,

    Your chart of HADSTT3 vs UAH and HADSTT3 vs RSS demonstrates the same bias in trend that I see. You are focusing on the volatility of the month to month readings and looking at that as a measure of accuracy when you should be looking to the trend.

  55. Scott R says:

    having trouble posting… MikeR

    The upper atmosphere is cooling. It makes no sense that the lower troposphere should warm more than the ocean with a cooling stratosphere. I can say without a doubt that the atmosphere is not the primary store for energy gain and loss of the system. Its the ocean. You can see that the atmosphere follows the ocean currents.

    As you could see from my study, HADSTT3-UAH has a tiny positive slope, meaning the oceans are warming slightly faster than the atmosphere. That makes sense as the stratosphere is colder.

    Anyways… I appreciate the fact that you appreciate the fact that I actually look at data. I have to say that I believe I make a very good case for my side, in particular, the AMO cycle being responsible for the 1980-2016 trend. If in 25 years the AMO doesn’t drop in spite of a GSM, I guess I will have to concede… either that or start blaming the magnetic reversal. I honestly do not think that will happen. Also, I don’t think a warmer earth is that bad. You get more rain, and a green Sahara. Storms are not increasing in intensity. Sea level rise is linear. That hasnt changed. You might want to stop by my facebook at least look at the evidence for the GSM just in case we are right so you don’t get caught off guard by it.

    • Midas says:

      Sea level rise is most definitely NOT linear.

      People who make that claim wither cherry pick gauges (Cuxhavn being the favorite), or they believe they are capable of seeing an accelerating trend by eyeballing a graph of noisy data without doing the number work.

      • Scott R says:

        Midas,

        I’ve reviewed dozens of tide gage charts and they all say the same thing. The rate of change in sea level has not changed at all. Even if you could prove that more sea level readings are outside of a standard deviation, the change is so small that on a % basis, the natural trend is still at least 95% responsible for the changes in sea level rise. So false blame is being place on humans. You could cut Co2 100% and it would make no difference. Sea level would keep rising causing us to regulate new construction on the coasts.

        • Midas says:

          So you are claiming that not one tide gauge shows acceleration?
          An all-encompassing statement like that enables be to cherry pick just one counter-example for debunking.

          Try Klaipeda:
          1900s average to 1950s average: a rise of 56 mm
          1950s average to 2000s average: a rise of 136 mm

          • Midas says:

            ‘be’ = ‘me’

          • Scott R says:

            Midas I didnt say all. I said Ive reviewed dozens. You cant pick 1 to disprove.

            Anyways, hilarious that you picked that location as your cherry pick example. First of all, there are TONS of gaps in this dataset. The normal volatility of sea level here is very substantial like 1 full meter. Missing data could alter the trend. Have you noticed that? How do we know the gage wasn’t moved during one of these gaps? I’m showing the last reading there was 11 months ago, was 6.399. Since early 2007, sea level has dropped from 7.119 to present value. They stopped recording there it looks like, so no way to check how far that down trend went.

          • Scott R says:

            Also… check 1976… it was the lowest reading of the whole dataset. So for almost 80 years the trend was lower to flat. There is no rise here at all.

          • Scott R says:

            Sometime between 1976 and 1990, there appears to have been a datum shift because after that shift, the data looks flat lined again. Just because NOAA didnt identify the datum shift on this dataset doesnt mean it didnt happen. And dont try to tell me that sea level around the world spiked during that time because obviously that isnt accurate. Other locations maintained their linear trends. That is obviously a local event. Actually, just across the Baltic sea, sea level is dropping. What you have in this location is isostatic rebound. Areas very near the rebound typically sink… almost like the other side of a seesaw.

          • Scott R says:

            For some reason I can’t post the link for the noaa tides and currents. You will have to do a search for it.

          • Midas says:

            Following in the acceleration (in mm/yr/century) in gauges which:
            (i) operated for at least 100 years
            (ii) have not had their data flagged
            The acceleration is based on quadratic regression.

            I was having trouble posting this, so I have used station numbers instead of names. The numbers are from the PSMSL. NOAA gets their data from them, but chooses to apply their own station numbers and their own inconsistent baselines (damn yanks).

            0001 (1807-): +1.26
            0002 (1811-1996): +1.06
            0003 (1832-2006): +1.68
            0007 (1843-): -0.34
            0008 (1848-): +0.40
            0009 (1848-): +0.46
            0010 (1854-): +1.36
            0011 (1855-): +0.70
            0012 (1856-): +0.90
            0013 (1856-): +0.14
            0014 (1879-): +2.66
            0020 (1861-): +3.10
            0022 (1864-): -0.10
            0023 (1865-): +0.40
            0024 (1865-): +1.50
            0025 (1865-): -0.14
            0032 (1871-): +2.56
            0033 (1872-): -0.14
            0041 (1874-): +2.20
            0043 (1878-2011): +0.74
            0044 (1879-2013): +1.58
            0057 (1883-): +1.72
            0059 (1884-1997): -0.42
            0061 (1885-): -0.46
            0062 (1885-): -1.24
            0068 (1887-2005): +0.74
            0069 (1887-): +0.62
            0070 (1887-): +1.40
            0071 (1887-): +1.94
            0076 (1888-): +0.96
            0078 (1889-): +1.52
            0079 (1889-): +0.08
            0080 (1889-): +1.06
            0081 (1889-): +0.56
            0082 (1889-): +1.72
            0088 (1892-): +0.92
            0089 (1892-): +0.80
            0091 (1894-): -0.64
            0095 (1895-): -0.22
            0098 (1896-): +1.26
            0195 (1896-): -0.70
            0111 (1897-): +0.58
            0112 (1897-): +1.58
            0113 (1897-): +0.94
            0118 (1898-2011): +5.68
            0119 (1891-): +2.08
            0120 (1892-): +0.62
            0127 (1899-): +0.98
            0135 (1901-): +2.04
            0148 (1902-): +0.30
            0154 (1875-): +0.42
            0155 (1905-): -0.48
            0158 (1906-): +1.02
            0161 (1908-): +1.22
            0163 (1908-): -0.50
            0165 (1909-): +1.96
            0166 (1909-): +0.72
            0167 (1909-): +1.36
            0172 (1910-): +3.86
            0173 (1910-2012): -3.14
            0179 (1911-): +3.74
            0180 (1911-): +1.34
            0183 (1912-): -0.54
            0188 (1913-): +1.42
            0193 (1914-): -0.50
            0194 (1914-): +4.10
            0196 (1914-): +1.70
            0202 (1915-): +0.60
            0203 (1916-): +6.12
            0204 (1916-): +6.58
            0205 (1916-): +0.70
            0215 (1917-): +1.98
            0224 (1919-): +2.84
            0225 (1919-): -2.16

            Average acceleration: 1.12 mm/yr/century

    • MikeR says:

      Yes Scott with your reference to the cooling stratosphere, I think you have nailed it. The degree of stratospheric and upper tropospheric contamination of UAH is the most likely reason why UAH performs so much more poorly than RSS. Particularly with respect to post 2002 SST measurements in absolute terms, see again –

      https://i.postimg.cc/2ysFkQS1/Comparison-UAH-RSS-SST3-02-until-present.jpg

      It is clear that the sampling of the stratosphere and upper troposphere makes satellite measurements, even in the absence of SSW events, poor proxies for the surface temperatures, including the ocean.

      As for the differences between the two satellite measurements, UAH is more severely affected by this than RSS, see the discussion starting here at –

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348328

      As a consequence, RSS follows monthly changes in of ocean temperatures better than does UAH and therefore correlates better, presumably being due to being less affected by the transient events higher up in the atmosphere.

      The only measure where UAH performs significantly better than RSS is for the overall trend . The trend for SST is since 1979 is 0.137 C per decade while for UAH it is 0.112 and RSS it is 0.181. It is easy to understand why UAH , again in terms of of contamination, would be lower than SST but why RSS is so much larger is more difficult to explain. It could be real and the lowest parts of the troposphere are warming more rapidly than the sea surface while higher up, where UAH is biased to, the temperatures are rising more slowly. But who knows? Maybe someone familiar with ship based balloon radiosonde measurements could advise?

      So all we know is that in terms of three metrics, RSS is significantly better for two and significantly worse for one. A bit of a line ball really.

      Scott, once again it is a pleasure to exchange comments with you. It is such a contrast to dealing with some others who are less numerate.

    • MikeR says:

      Scott,

      With regard to you AMO coming to the rescue., I am not sure I would be putting too many eggs in that basket. You have pointed out that the AMO peaked sometime in 2010, but it is a very noisy signal and so hard to judge the maximum. I would not put too much emphasis on the single point.

      Using the entire data set seems more sensible.
      Here is a low pass Fourier filtered version of the AMO data (with a cut ff frequency corresponding to 54 years). In this case the maximum appears to be at about 2009.

      https://i.postimg.cc/7LCRD9T7/AMO-Fourier-Filtered.jpg

      Unfortunately because of the limited number of AMO cycles the Fourier method may not be the that appropriate.
      Maybe a better solution is to use a Loess filter For a filter of 60 years duration then you get the following –

      https://i.postimg.cc/pdg6djDS/AMO-Loess-Filtered.jpg

      This is a bit worrisome for those banking on an imminent drop in the AMO. Accordingly Scott, you might have to look elsewhere for your savior. Maybe the PDO , a drop in solar irradiance or perhaps that sudden magnetic reversal.

      On the latter there hasn’t been a reversal for 780,000 years so maybe we are due for one. Keep on hoping.

      • Scott R says:

        Mike R,

        I’m definitely NOT hoping for a magnetic reversal. lol

        I actually believe that the AMO is made of 2 component waves at 61 years and 84 years. It is most likely solar forced either by the movement of the sun around the barycenter or the planets causing changes in solar output thru their gravitational or magnetic connections. My home town tracks the AMO without fail. I have no reason to think that this cycle won’t continue. I do leave room for man made influences stacked on top of this cycle. The amplitude of our influences has been grossly overestimated due to the fact that the AMO is so poorly understood.

        https://www.facebook.com/reddformula350/posts/2782656818420190

        • MikeR says:

          Scott,

          It is interesting, but not that surprising, that temperatures on the East coast of the US would track temperatures in the North Atlantic. Maybe they have something in common?

          Is this a global trend? Does the rest of the world also have to follow trends in the US?

          I will look for evidence that the East coast of Australia also follows the North Atlantic? Failing that I might see whether the East coast of Australia follows the temperatures in the Western Pacific? I think that might be more productive.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Follow-up question…

      In the 3-plate scenario, what is the temperature of the blue plate when the green plates have 50% reflectivity?

    • E. Swanson says:

      DRsEMT continues to post nonsense. DRsEMT wrote:

      b) 290 K (a BB plate works the same as a perfect reflector!? GPE debunked)

      No body has claimed that the Green plate (assumed to be a BB) acts that way. That would be your “c” situation. If the Blue plate were a perfect reflector, it couldn’t emit any IR EM radiation. More red herrings from DRsEMT. Your efforts are just another round of BS like your “magic” green arrows from the Blue plate toward the Green.

      That you continue to ignore reality makes you to be the fool, or worse, someone intent on spreading disinformation.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        We were talking about if both green plates were perfect reflectors, Swanson. Not the blue plate. Try again.

        • E. Swanson says:

          DRsEMT, There’s no point in trying again as you will simply post more delusional physics in reply. For example, answer “c” would be appropriate, except that your conclusion of an infinite temperature and unlimited power supply is bogus, since the Blue plate would melt and there’s no way to produce more power than that being supplied. Just another red herring from a troll.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…and there’s no way to produce more power than that being supplied…”

            Yes, you’re in a pickle really, aren’t you? You know it can’t be c), you’ve already shown that you don’t like b), so that only really leaves a)…

            …then again, all of the options debunk the GPE, so…

          • E. Swanson says:

            DRsEMT, You left out the best option: NONE OF THE ABOVE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            In which case, you still need to have an answer…

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      The intelligent will have worked out by now, thinking through the answer to my follow-up question…that the Green Plate Effect is debunked.

      • MikeR says:

        Yes, DREMT you must be wondering what has happened to the intelligensia? Seems no one is rushing to your defence. I guess you are on your lonesome with this one.

        Maybe call in the clowns, or failing that, the sock puppets.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        People can read, and think, and work it all out. They don’t need to comment. Personally, I’m just enjoying the moment.

        I’m also noting the lack of answers from all of the GPE gang. Funny that.

        • MikeR says:

          DReMT,

          The following contributors seem to have engaged with you regarding your somewhat unique interprwtation of the GPE.

          Nate, Tim Folkerts, Bobdroege, E.Swanson and myself in this comments section alone.

          You in contrast are on your own after your only cheerleader left abruptly after being asked to justify, using his own work, his support of your interpretation.

          I am however glad your enjoy social isolation, ensconced in your foxhole. It could explain why you have generated some 224 comments here and in the preceding comments section. You have left me in your wake as I sometimes have to attend to ablutions and other matters of personal hygiene. Maybe it’s time you did likewise.

          Sorry to be so snarky, but you bring out the worst in me and I have offered you a truce on many occasions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You play your mind games, I have a good laugh at you. I think we work well together.

          • Svante says:

            MikeR says:

            “Nate, Tim Folkerts, Bobdroege, E.Swanson and myself in this comments section alone.”

            Can I qualify by noting that DREMT has agreed:
            1) Green plate heat input from blue plate is 0 W.
            2) Green plate heat output is 200 W.

            How can the green plate maintain its temperature when it is losing heat? The explanation according to DREMT is that this arithmetic is disallowed in this particular application of physics.

            Have I got that right DREMT?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante’s here to try to change the subject.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-413357

            a), b) or c), Svante?

            Or do you have a different option?

          • Svante says:

            c) but as soon as you tap it your perfect reflection is gone.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Can’t be c), Svante. To quote Swanson, “…there’s no way to produce more power than that being supplied”. If there were, all the world’s energy problems could have been solved by now.

            You’re going to have to give it another go.

          • bobdroege says:

            I’ll go with b, but your conclusion that that means that a black-body is a perfect reflector is perfectly incorrect, try again.

            Absorp.tion and re-emission is what is going on.

            Still no debunking to be found.

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Cant be c), Svante. To quote Swanson, “there’s no way to produce more power than that being supplied”. If there were, all the world’s energy problems could have been solved by now.

            Output > input means rising temperature, and vice versa.
            Except for your blue plates of course.

          • Svante says:

            Try again …
            Output > input means falling temperature, except for your green plates.
            So in the long run you can tap the same as the input without reaching 0 K.
            Except for your green plates which keep on giving with zero input.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante ignores Swanson, and apparently believes you can produce more power than that being supplied…despite the fact that if this was the case we would already be using reflective surfaces around heat sources to exploit that free extra power.

            Blob is at least being a bit more sensible, in going for option b) – though technically he is also ignoring Swanson’s words – but blob makes the decision that if the two green plates were perfect reflectors, the temperature of the blue plate would rise to 290 K, the same temperature he believes it would be if the green plates were black-bodies. The problem with that is, Team GPE have long argued the green plates are insulators for the blue. So he is saying a perfect reflector is no better an insulator than a black-body!

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante […] believes you can produce more power than that being supplied

            How does that follow from:

            Svante says:
            “you can tap the same as the input”

            And how can you tap anything without disrupting your all around perfect reflection?

          • Svante says:

            DREMT, how do you think you can tap anything without disrupting your perfect reflection?

          • bobdroege says:

            No DREMPTY,

            I only picked b because it shows you mis-understanding of what black-bodies and insulators are.

            It goes through 290 on its way to melting.

            400 watts in and nothing out, since watts are joules per second, the temperature keeps going up.

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante […] believes you can produce more power than that being supplied

            How does that follow from:

            Svante says: “you can tap the same as the input”

            And how do you think you can tap anything without disrupting your perfect reflection?

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            I picked b, because it was the highest temperature, as there is no such thing as infinity K.

            And you could not get unlimited power from that as you can only get out what you put in, namely 400 watts.

            There is no correct answer.

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante […] believes you can produce more power than that being supplied

            How does that follow from:

            Svante says: “you can tap the same as the input”

            And how do you think you can tap anything without detracting from your perfect reflection?

          • Svante says:

            How do you think you can tap anything without detracting from your perfect reflection?

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante … believes you can produce more power than that being supplied

            How does that follow from what I said:
            “you can tap the same as the input”

            And how do you think you can tap anything without detracting from your perfect reflection?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob, thank you for your assistance.

            Svante, you can argue it out with Swanson.

          • Svante says:

            Looks like Tim and MikeR also said c).
            Swanson said the the plates would melt, that’s not a bad answer.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’ll try mentioning it to you, since Tim is avoiding the issue:

            “So in the long run you can tap the same as the input without reaching 0 K.”

            If you input 400 W and tap out 400 W, that leaves you with no power to raise your blue plate above 0 K.

            Swanson ran off after accidentally spilling the beans.

            And Svante, insulation does not increase the temperature of the actual heat source. Once again this is all just an extended demonstration of the lengths these people are willing to go to, to defend this nonsense.

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If you input 400 W and tap out 400 W, that leaves you with no power to raise your blue plate above 0 K.

            1) No, power equilibrium means steady temperature.
            2) Power surplus means rising temperature.
            3) Power deficit means sinking temperature.

            insulation does not increase the temperature of the actual heat source.

            Wrong, increasing insulation means power surplus.
            That’s case 2).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Svante…there is no power to establish a temperature in the first place. 400 W – 400 W = 0 W.

            Insulation does not increase the temperature of the heat source. Consider an electric heater in your house. No complications with thermostats or anything else. Adding insulation to your home does not make the heating element within that heater warmer. Adding the casing around the heating element does not warm the element via back-radiation or reflection. You guys think a black-body can double the output from the element, and a material with emissivity 0.5 can quadruple it! Your devotion to Eli’s math does not tally with real-life experiences. Wake up.

          • Ball4 says:

            I observe we have DREMT trying to tell Svante a 400W incandescent light bulb at equilibrium has no power “to establish a temperature in the first place”, insulating our house has no effect on temperature “within”, an added shield does not “warm the element”, and devotion to proper 1LOT math “does not tally with real-life experiences.”

            Wake up DREMT. As Tim would write, DREMT is at the limit where his credibility has gone to zero.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            (I assume everybody can see through Ball4 by now)

          • Ball4 says:

            Bad assumption DREMT.

            Many, including Dr. Spencer, have done the proper experiments to see thru your brand of sophistry & prove your credibility in this field to be in the limit zero.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

  56. Cloudbase says:

    I’ve been watching this CDAS sea surface temp. graph for about 3 years now. It hasn’t changed from its fluctuations around the +0.3 C anomaly.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png

    • Midas says:

      The 3-year trend in ocean temperatures is +0.04C. Please explain your implied ability to see that sort of increase over noise of about 0.3C.

  57. Bindidon says:

    Midas

    You did excellent work upthread

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-413325

    with your tide gauge analysis showing the acceleration. It’s imho all correct!

    Scott R is no more than a specialist in eye-balling.

    *
    I’m a bit tired of trying to publish long comments which disappear without any hint on what might be wrong in them; thus here again, I post the complete comment via Google Drive:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DtHQx3ouI4-c2M-g-uofkK7iUp46knje/view

    • Bob says:

      Thanks Bindidon for the reply. Here is an exercise for people like Scott R who think they are good at eyeballing. Feel free to try yourself.

      Following is a polynomial graph whose equation I won’t yet specify, to which has been added a sinusoidal function to simulate noise:
      https://tinyurl.com/Guess-the-increase-in-trend

      The question: By what percentage has the linear trend increased from start to end?

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks in turn for the convenient reply.

        Your proposal for me to find out how much the trend increased unluckily is kinda blind-alley because I’m incredibly bad in… eye-balling!

        • Midas says:

          I’ll wait for Scott R to offer his thoughts. However he has already posted elsewhere while deliberately overlooking this post, so I suspect he knows he will be caught out.

      • Scott R says:

        Bob,

        Fun game, but without the units it will be impossible to estimate what the trend is.

        I can tell you that this data is not linear, as I simply cut and pasted it, and drew some lines. Clearly in this case, you have data that is not linear, and for at least this portion of the dataset has at least 1 positive coefficient in front of one or more of your X^2… X^3 terms ect. Other than that, I won’t be able to do much else. I would not even be able to create data points one at a time without units.

        • Scott R says:

          “The question: By what percentage has the linear trend increased from start to end?”

          It’s a trick question… it’s not a linear trend. Even if I were to eyeball an estimated gain over the data run and assign a %, since it is a polynomial, that information would provide nothing useful about predicting future data movements.

          • Midas says:

            Looks like you haven’t even learned fundamental calculus concepts yet. I’m talking to a mathematical infant.

          • Midas says:

            You want numbers – here is another graph with numbers on the vertical scale only:
            https://tinyurl.com/What-is-the-trend-2

            As I asked for the PERCENTAGE CHANGE in the trend, and not the trend itself, I hope you understand that I don’t need to give you the horizontal scale.

            I’ve added an extra sinusoidal term to make it look a bit more like actual noisy data.

            What is the percentage increase in the trend this time? A tip – it is more than it was last time.

          • Scott R says:

            Midas it is you that has underestimated me. Like I said, what value is there to eyeballing that chart and figuring out the percent? Just so that you can haha me when Bob reveals the equation? With a polynomial equation with who knows how many terms, the percent at the end of the dataset will have 0 predictive power to what comes next. I actually have an engineering degree by the way. I made it through diff eq. and obviously calc. I admit that Im very rusty as it has been 20 years since I used it, but that level of math isnt necessary to understand what I said.

          • Scott R says:

            Midas

            What value is there to eyeballing that chart and figuring out the percent? Just so that you can haha me when Bob reveals the equation? With a polynomial equation with who knows how many terms, the percent at the end of the dataset will have 0 predictive power to what comes next. I actually have an engineering degree by the way. I made it through diff eq. and obviously calc. I admit that Im very rusty as it has been 20 years since I used it, but that level of math isnt necessary to understand what I said.

          • Midas says:

            There is no value to merely eyeballing a graph. Good to see you understand that now.

  58. Scott R says:

    Still having trouble posting…

    Midas, Bindidon

    As Midas proved with his cherry picked example… NOAA did not identify the datum shift, so your list of trends is useless because it has a qualifier of “have not had their data flagged” and we know that datum shifts are in the data without being identified. You have to go to each data set and see what is happening one by one.

    I will give you another chance Midas. Pick one dataset in which you say has an accelerating in sea level. I will look at it just as I did your other example. I don’t have time to go thru all of them right now.

    Much appreciate.

    • Midas says:

      I have given 74 gauges with have been active for at least a century, of which 58 show acceleration, with an average acceleration of more than 1 mm/yr/century. Why are you pretending not to have seen that?

      Analyse them ALL, as I have taken the time to do.

    • Bindidon says:

      Scott R

      I’m no American, and therefore don’t feel any need to refute data officially acknowledged by PSMSL.

      THAT – and nothing else – is the one and only real source for ALL tide gauge processing.

      What you think does not interest me at all.

      Btw, it is one more time amazing to see that people like you, who consider all temperature providers as corrupt (UAH excepted of course because it fits to your ridiculous cold-is-right narrative), suddenly consider correct what the ‘corrupt’ NOAA considers good or not!

      You are – and keep – incompetent.

      • Scott R says:

        Bindidon,

        In perfect predictable fashion, you have no resorted to insulting me. It is the exact same method untrained, unscientific leftists try to use every day on me. Because I don’t agree with organizations A, B, C, and these select scientists D, E, F, that by default makes me incompetent.

        You do not have to look very deep to see the issues with the selective identified datum shifts in the noaa tide data. The example Midas gave I looked at, I spoke the truth, and nobody here has give me any reason why what I said isn’t correct.

  59. Bindidon says:

    Midas alias Bob… alias Des?

    Some weeks ago I extracted, out of all PMSL gauges having produced valuable anomalies for the reference period 1993-2013, those having provided data for at least 100 years (though this is by no means a qualifier for me).

    Here is the extract out of PMSL’s filelist:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GhuqKGBiaBfNM3oC3Nx-1yaxISbcwMW9/view

    *
    The amazing point is the comparison of the plot for the period 1910-2018, of
    – all about 670 baselineable stations (thus at least 21 years old)
    with
    – these 81 stations with at least 100 years activity:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UsJgaymQYMGiR1Vxc6cghgzBI5baeor0/view

    The difference is incredibly small, especially when considering the trends for 1910-2018
    – all: 1.61 mm/yr
    – 100+y: 1.57 mm/yr

    and for 1993-2018:
    – all: 3.07 mm/yr
    – 100+y: 2.88 mm/yr

    That reminds me a comment made years ago at WUWT by Steven Mosher, stating that wrt temperature measurements, the Globe is widely oversampled.

    Nick Stokes produced a valuable global land-only time series out of… no more than 60 stations.

    Nevertheless the question remains: why does a sea level plot with only 3 (!) gauge stations in the South show so much similarity with a plot based on 125 of these Southern gauge stations?

  60. Scott R says:

    Midas,

    Respectfully, I do not have time to check all of them right now. Pick the one with the sharpest trend, let me know what city that is, and I’ll pull the NOAA data and look at it. Honestly, showing me 80 cities, all of them with different sea level acceleration values (note I didn’t check your work) if anything proves just how important local geological changes are, and how insignificant human caused changes to sea level actually are. Pretty much the opposite of what you are saying.

  61. Scott R says:

    Folks I apologize for the bottom posts. For some reason I have more luck down here. In regards to Midas’s test…

    Midas it is you that has underestimated me. Like I said, what value is there to eyeballing that chart and figuring out the %? Just so that you can haha me when you reveal the equation? With a quadratic equation, the % will have 0 predictive power to what comes next.

    I actually have an engineering degree by the way. I made it through diff eq. I admit that I’m very rusty as it has been 20 years since I used it, but that level of math isn’t necessary to understand what I said. That’s like 9 grade algebra.

  62. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-413357

    OK, so for anybody that answered c), to the above, whether internally or if they actually commented, I also asked a follow-up question.

    In the 3-plate scenario, what is the temperature of the blue plate when the green plates have 50% reflectivity?

    The answer, according to the GPE “logic”, is 345 K, with the green plates at a temperature of 290 K. That the green plates have emissivity = 0.5 means they are still emitting 200 W/m^2 at 290 K, just like they were emitting 200 W/m^2 at 244 K, when emissivity = 1.0.

    At 345 K the blue plate is emitting 800 W/m^2. 800 W goes to the right, and 800 to the left. 1600 W is the total output from the blue plate (assuming it is 1m^2 in height for ease, with 2 sides, obviously).

    Inputs:

    400 W from the electrical source to the blue plate.
    800 W reflected from the green plates (400 W each).
    400 W emitted by the green plates (200 W from each plate is returned to the blue plate, the 200 W from the other side of each green plate is going out to space, of course).

    Total Inputs = 1600 W. Everything is in balance, according to GPE “logic”.

    Everyone agree?

    • MikeR says:

      Yes DReMT it is all correct for a blackbody ( emissivity of 1) with the exception that the temperature of the blue plate is then 289.8 K. You have just put in words the depiction I posted a week or so ago see-

      https://i.postimg.cc/J454kTT1/Three-Plates.png

      However for an emissivity of 0.5 for the green plates the temperature of the blue plate is 320.73 K see –

      https://i.postimg.cc/cLv8Tpyw/3-plates-with-emissivity-Excel.jpg .

      It is a screen dump of an Excel spreadsheet that outlines calculations for the 3 plates for varying emissivities.

      The calculations demonstrate that

      1. When the green plates are blackbodies (emissivity =1) the temperature of the blue plate is 289.81 C as reported before.

      2. The temperature asymptotes towards infinity as the emmisivity approaches zero.

      3. For green plates with an emissivity of zero ( i.e mirrors) the energy balance equation for the system is no longer relevant as it is a lossless system and there is no energy leaving the system via the green plates. In this case the equations now produce indeterminate answers for both E1 and E2. Singularities like this are handled by looking at how the function behaves when the emissivity approaches zero (See 2. above)

      I may need to remind everyone this is a simulation of a thought experiment. The plates are supposed to be infinitely long (view factors =1) and infinitely narrow. The 400 W source can also generate this power indefinitely.

      Obviously in practice we are dealing w with finite objects and finite time durations so this infinite energy system will never arise.

      The claim that the mirrors create energy is absolute b.s.. They just capture it. The infinite energy of the system is actually due to to the 400W input running for infinite time ( for the case when the blue plate has a non zero heat capacity).

      On that note if we suddenly stop the 400W input , the energy of the system (and consequently the temperature of the blue plate) would not drop. This because this lossless system, can be described as a thermal capacitor or the perfect insulator. This why metallic foil insulation (mirrors are a bit inflexible) is commonly employed despite the cost in many area, from thermal blankets to the surfaces of spacecraft.

      The Excel spreadsheet itself can be downloaded from Google drive and all are welcome to play with it. Here is the link

      https://tinyurl.com/vddwlw8

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Good job here, DREMT. Your answer agrees with standard thermodynamics as taught in physics classes and as employed by practicing engineers around the world.

      At 345K, the blue plate has a total output of 1600 W and a total input of 1600 W. The net power is 0 W, so its temperature will stay steady @ 345 K.

      Or stated another way, the blue plate has a net input (electrical) of 400 W and a net loss (radiative) of 400 W.

      It will be fascinating to see where you think you are going with this.

    • MikeR says:

      Yes DReMT , you are almost there, it is all correct for a blackbody ( emissivity of 1) with the exception that the temperature of the blue plate is then 289.8 K.

      You have just put in words the depiction I posted a week or so ago see-

      https://i.postimg.cc/J454kTT1/Three-Plates.png

      However for an emissivity of 0.5 for the green plates the temperature of the blue plate is 320.73 K see –

      https://i.postimg.cc/cLv8Tpyw/3-plates-with-emissivity-Excel.jpg .

      This link is a screen dump of an Excel spreadsheet that outlines calculations for the 3 plates for varying emissivities.

      The calculations demonstrate that

      1. When the green plates are blackbodies (emissivity =1) the temperature of the blue plate is 289.81 C as reported before.

      2. The temperature asymptotes towards infinity as the emmisivity approaches zero.

      3. For green plates with an emissivity of zero ( i.e mirrors) the energy balance equation for the system is no longer relevant as it is a lossless system and there is no energy leaving the system via the green plates. In this case the equations now produce indeterminate answers for both E1 and E2. Singularities like this are handled by looking at how the function behaves when the emissivity approaches zero (See 2. above)

      Just a reminder that this is a simulation of a thought experiment. The plates are supposed to be infinitely long (view factors =1) and infinitely narrow. The 400 W source can also generate this power indefinitely.

      Obviously in practice we are dealing w with finite objects and finite time durations so this infinite energy system will never arise.

      Even in this context the claim that the mirrors create energy is absolute b.s.. They just store the energy flowing in i.e. the infinite energy of the system is actually due to to the 400W input running for infinite time ( for the case when the blue plate has a non zero heat capacity).

      On that note if we suddenly stop the 400W input , the energy of the system (and consequently the temperature of the blue plate) will not drop. This because this as a lossless system, can also be described as a thermal capacitor or the perfect insulator. This why metallic foil insulation (mirrors are a bit inflexible) is commonly employed despite the cost in many area, from thermal blankets to the surfaces of spacecraft.

      The Excel spreadsheet itself can be downloaded from Google drive and all are welcome to play with it. Here is the link

      https://tinyurl.com/vddwlw8

  63. Scott R says:

    Midas it is you that has underestimated me. Like I said, what value is there to eyeballing that chart and figuring out the percent? Just so that you can haha me when Bob reveals the equation? With a polynomial equation with who knows how many terms, the percent at the end of the dataset will have 0 predictive power to what comes next. I actually have an engineering degree by the way. I made it through diff eq. and obviously calc. I admit that Im very rusty as it has been 20 years since I used it, but that level of math isnt necessary to understand what I said.

  64. MikeR says:

    To get through, unfortunately I might have to cut up my reply into Haikus due to the vagaries of WordPress.

    Part 1.

    Yes DReMT it is all correct for a blackbody ( emissivity of 1) with the exception that the temperature of the blue plate is then 289.8 K. You have just put in words the depiction I posted a week or so ago see-

    https://i.postimg.cc/J454kTT1/Three-Plates.png

    However for an emissivity of 0.5 for the green plates the temperature of the blue plate is 320.73 K see –

    https://i.postimg.cc/cLv8Tpyw/3-plates-with-emissivity-Excel.jpg .

  65. MikeR says:

    Yes DReMT your calculations are correct for a blackbody ( emissivity of 1) with the exception that the temperature of the blue plate is then 289.8 K. You have just put in words the depiction I posted a week or so ago see-

    https://i.postimg.cc/J454kTT1/Three-Plates.png

    However for an emissivity of 0.5 for the green plates the temperature of the blue plate is 320.73 K see –

    https://i.postimg.cc/cLv8Tpyw/3-plates-with-emissivity-Excel.jpg .

    It is a screen dump of an Excel spreadsheet that outlines calculations for the 3 plates for varying emissivities.

    The calculations demonstrate that

    1. When the green plates are blackbodies (emissivity =1) the temperature of the blue plate is 289.81 C as reported before.

    2. The temperature asymptotes towards infinity as the emmisivity approaches zero.

    3. For green plates with an emissivity of zero ( i.e mirrors) the energy balance equation for the system is no longer relevant as it is a lossless system and there is no energy leaving the system via the green plates. In this case the equations now produce indeterminate answers for both E1 and E2. Singularities like this are handled by looking at how the function behaves when the emissivity approaches zero (See 2. above)

    I may need to remind everyone this is a simulation of a thought experiment. The plates are supposed to be infinitely long (view factors =1) and infinitely narrow. The 400 W source can also generate this power indefinitely.

    Obviously in practice we are dealing w with finite objects and finite time durations so this infinite energy system will never arise.

    The claim that the mirrors create energy is absolute b.s.. They just capture it. The infinite energy of the system is actually due to to the 400W input running for infinite time ( for the case when the blue plate has a non zero heat capacity).

    On that note if we suddenly stop the 400W input , the energy of the system (and consequently the temperature of the blue plate) would not drop. This because this lossless system, can be described as a thermal capacitor or the perfect insulator. This why metallic foil insulation (mirrors are a bit inflexible) is commonly employed despite the cost in many area, from thermal blankets to the surfaces of spacecraft.

    The Excel spreadsheet itself can be downloaded from Google drive and all are welcome to play with it. Here is the link

    https://tinyurl.com/vddwlw8

  66. MikeR says:

    Yes DReMT your calculations are correct for a blackbody ( emissivity of 1) with the exception that the temperature of the blue plate is then 289.8 K. You have just put in words the depiction I posted a week or so ago see-

    https://i.postimg.cc/J454kTT1/Three-Plates.png

    However for an emissivity of 0.5 for the green plates the temperature of the blue plate is 320.73 K see –

    https://i.postimg.cc/cLv8Tpyw/3-plates-with-emissivity-Excel.jpg .

  67. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    OK, then…so it’s MikeR vs. Tim.

    It will be fascinating to see where they are going with this disagreement.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Actually, it’s (Mike & Tim with one minor point to iron out) vs (DREMT with multiple misunderstandings).

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Hmmm…no, I believe it’s MikeR vs. Tim plus “standard thermodynamics as taught in physics classes and as employed by practicing engineers around the world”.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        DREMT pondered:
        “Actually, MikeR, one more thing, on that subjectwhat do you think the temperature of the blue plate would be, in the 3-plate setup, if the green plates were both perfect reflectors?

        a) 244 K (GPE debunked)
        b) 290 K (a BB plate works the same as a perfect reflector!? GPE debunked)
        c) Infinity K (we could have been using mirrors all this time to tap unlimited free energy!? GPE debunked)”

        Here is but one example of your misunderstanding, DREMT. As Mike already explained, (c) is the correct answer, but this would be a perfect *sink* of energy, not a perfect *source* of energy. Oh, you could “tap” this and get a steady 400 W out (or briefly get a larger pulse), but that is not “unlimited”. Nor is that “free” since you had to pay to put the electrical energy in to begin with.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          If you are putting 400 W in, and tapping 400 W out, that leaves you no power to warm the blue plate above 0K.

          Oh well.

          • Ball4 says:

            If you are putting 400 W in, and tapping 400 W out, that leaves you no power to warm your 400W incandescent light bulb above 0K.

            Oh well.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            A light bulb wouldn’t work too well if the inside of the bulb was a perfect reflector. Never mind.

          • Ball4 says:

            There no perfect reflectors DREMT. Think again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I agree. But since you didn’t have a point (it’s not the material of the bulb itself that generates the light, it’s the filament), there was nothing really worth responding to. So I thought I’d just laugh at you instead.

          • Ball4 says:

            My point is many blog readers do understand DREMT often laughs while demonstrating a lack of knowledge in text book thermodynamics such as at 3:49pm, 1:52pm. DREMT has lost debates so often that it really is laughable. Oh well. Carry on clowning DREMT and PST.

            NB: Cool, sometimes at least, my comments are posting now.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Words said in response to you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            (P.S: I’m glad you agree that if you extract the power required to warm the filament, then there’s no power left over to warm the filament).

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Since that reply went through, lets try something bigger …
      ************************************************

      MikeR,

      I cant download you spreadsheet, but I am pretty sure it has an error. I suspect you don’t deal with the reflected IR from the green plate properly.

      If both sides of the green plate have emissivity = 0.5 (and the plate is thin so both sides are the same temperature), then the outer green surfaces have to be 290 K to emit 200 W/m^2 to space. We agree so far. Therefore the inner green surfaces also emit 200 W/m^2 toward the blue surfaces.

      If the blue plate has emissivity = 1, then it must indeed emit 800 W/m^2 from both sides, not 600 as your spreadsheet calculates!
      In between the blue plate (one side) and a green plate:
      * 800 gets emitted by Blue
      ** 400 of that gets absorb.ed by Green
      ** 400 gets reflected back to Blue and gets ab.sorbed
      *** All 400 of the reflected IR gets ab.sorbed by Blue
      * 200 gets emitted by Green
      ** all 200 gets ab.sorbed by Blue

      NET IR FOR BLUE (one side): -800 loss (emitted) +400 gain (reflected) +200 gain (emitted by Green) = -200 W/m^2 of thermal IR leaving.
      NET IR FOR GREEN (inner side) +400 gain (ab.sorbed from Blue) 200 loss (emitted by green to Blue) = + 200 W/m^2 of thermal IR ab.sorbed from Blue.

      Adding up all the surfaces, sources, and sinks
      * Blue gets +400 electrical and loses 2200 net thermal IR = balanced
      * Green receives 200 net IR from Blue and emits 200 net IR to space = balanced.

  68. MikeR says:

    Does anyone know why symbols such as the negative sign and apostrophes are sometimes mangled by WordPress? I thought ASCII was ASCII, even in these days of Unicode.

    Maybe it’s the copy and paste from Word which causes the issue?

  69. MikeR says:

    Where did you get 290 K from? Not according to my calculations linked to above

    They are at 244K for all values of the emmissivity (see Column F of the spreadsheet). I think you are a bit confused.

  70. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    Glad everyone is finally up to speed on the calculations they are trying to pretend represent “standard thermodynamics as taught in physics classes and as employed by practicing engineers around the world”, yet which seemed to be a source of much confusion for them…

    …so I’m still waiting for a response from Tim to this point:

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-414738

    …and on the GPE “logic” for the emissivity problem:

    1) How can the green plates be at an infinitely high temperature when their emissivity is at zero? Nothing is being absorb.ed, and everything is being reflected, at zero; and yet as their emissivity approaches zero the temperature of their green plates is increasing higher and higher and higher and higher…

    2) It is always required, according to the GPE “logic”, at all values of emissivity, that the green plates be absorbing and emitting 200 W/m^2. So how is this possible at emissivity = 0?

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Those are actually some interesting questions DREMT. You actually hint at the answer within your question itself when you say both “when their emissivity is at zero” and “as their emissivity approaches zero”. These are two very different beasts!

      There are many cases in mathematics where f(a) is not equal to f(x) in the limit as x approaches a. For example, as x goes to zero, sin(x)/x goes to 1, but sin(x)/x is undefined.

      Similarly, the calculations for the blue/green plates give undefined answers for emissivity exactly equal to 0. We can take limits (as you hint at) and see what the answer would be as you get for the blue and green plates arbitrarily close to zero.

      emissivity green blue
      1E+00 244 290
      1E-01 433 515
      1E-02 771 916
      1E-03 1370 1630
      1E-04 2437 2898
      1E-05 4334 5154
      1E-06 7707 9165
      1E-07 13704 16297
      1E-08 24370 28981
      1E-09 43337 51537

      If you try to actually set emissivity exactly to zero, then the nature of the solution changes. Until now, the green plate could radiate to space, and the green plate would reach some definite, finite temperature. But with emissivity = 0, the problem fundamentally changes, because there is no temperature where the green plate radiates 200 W/m^2 to space. The “steady-state solution” does not exist! the plates do not EVER reach a specific stable temperature (or more precisely, the blue plate never stops getting hotter and the green plate never changes at all).

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Tim tries to talk his way out of the problem.

      • MikeR says:

        Re DReMTs questions. Tim has provided a sensible answer but DREMT does not appear to have the requisite maths background so here are answers which may help DREMT’s understanding.

        Answer to 1) The green plates are at zero K for an emissivity of zero for the surface facing the source. All the radiation is reflected and none is absorbed.

        Consequently the equations for energy balance for the system are not applicable when you have no energy leaving the system. This should be obvious.

        Answer to 2) Again for an emissivity of zero the green plate is not generating 200 W because it as at 0K. All the energy being generated by the source is being reflected back to the source by the reflective (emissivity =0) surface of the green plate.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “Re DReMTs questions. Tim has provided a sensible answer”

        He has no answer. Tim merely notes the difference between “emissivity is zero” and “the limit as emissivity goes to zero”.

        There is no answer which doesn’t just skirt around the problem.

  71. MikeR says:

    DREMT, you make a thought provoking point in 1)

    The thought I have is that I should not have listened to you earlier regarding the effect of emissivity of the green plate. . It looks like I need to go back and link to my previous version.

    This earlier version was correct. The temperature of the green plate is 244K for all emissivities other than zero. The emissivity of the surface of the green plate facing the blue plate source is less than 1 which means some, or most, of the energy returned is reflected energy ( including thermalised back radiation). From the other side of the green plate, the emissivity is 1 and 200 W is always being emitted from this surface which means the temperature is 244K.

    The only exception is when the emissivity of the side facing the source is zero , see point 2) below. For very low emissivities of this side, the very large amount of energy being returned towards the source is due to reflection of a large amount of energy from the high temperature source, not simply from thermal radiation.

    For point 2)

    As the emissivity of the surface of the green plate facing the source is zero, this results in all the energy being reflected back towards the surface and therefore no energy is absorbed by the green plates. As no energy is absorbed by this plate it means the green plate is at 0 K and consequently no energy leaves from the face opposite the source.

    As there is no way energy can leave the system via the green plates, then the continual input of 400 W into the blue plate will mean eventually, at steady state, an infinite temperature for the blue plate (for steady state conditions, this will take infinite time for a plate with non zero heat capacity).

    I hope this explanation answers your queries regarding answer (c).

    DREMT, will you now reply how answer (a) with all plates at 244 K, can possibly satisfy energy conservation for all 3 plates? To inspire you I am linking to this depiction which represents (a). If you are not happy with this depiction, let me know.

    It would be wonderful if you even attempted to explain this, but knowing you, I am not holding my breath.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      YIKES! Suddenly people are discussing various different scenarios for the emissivities of the two sides of the green plate without clearly distinguishing which they mean! Not surprisingly, these have various different answers. Also not surprisingly, this leads to confusion!

      The emissivity of the inner surface could be:
      A) ε = the limit as x goes to zero
      B) ε = 0

      The emissivity of the outer surface could be:
      a) ε = the limit as x goes to zero
      b) ε = 0
      c) ε = 1

      My starting point has always been “Aa”. This is the typical approach when “B” or “b” leads to undefined solutions.

      Mike’s latest post seems to consider “Ac” and “Bc”.

      DREMT doesn’t seem to distinguish between “A” & “B” or between “a” & “b”.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        dang, all those “ε” should be “epsilon” = ε = emissivity. (and now this will probably come out wrong, too.)

      • E. Swanson says:

        TF wrote: “YIKES! Suddenly people are discussing various different scenarios for the emissivities of the two sides of the green plate without clearly distinguishing which they mean!”

        Yeah, when did these guys suddenly decide that the emissivity of the outer side of the Green plate was 1.0 for all cases?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Lol. Obviously the emissivity of both sides of the green plate are the same. Talk about desperate.

        • E. Swanson says:

          DRsEMT, Yes, that was my assumption until I saw this from MikeR above:

          From the other side of the green plate, the emissivity is 1 and 200 W is always being emitted from this surface which means the temperature is 244K.

          You are the one who is desperate, as your deviant physics (still) doesn’t work.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR is on your “side”, Swanson.

            And no, both sides of the green plate have the same emissivity throughout. The other side of each green plate, facing space, is not fixed at 1. That side of each green plate is always emitting 200 W, because as the emissivity drops from 1 to 0, on both sides of the plate, the temperature of the green plate increases proportionately.

            This is all according to your deviant physics.

        • MikeR says:

          DREMT,

          Despite your claims to the contrary , there is no requirement for an object to have the same emissivity.

          Emissivity is a surface phenomenon, see –

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

          DREMT you need to take a good look at yourself in a mirror. Other than seeing a dolt staring back at you, you may notice the reflectivity of both sides of the mirror will be different.

          The only exception where all sides must have the same emissivities is a definitional one. A black body is defined as having all surfaces with emissivities of one.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m not saying there’s a “requirement”. I’m saying you are introducing an unnecessary complication in order to get out of a situation you have trouble explaining.

          • MikeR says:

            It’s always good to see DREMT squirm. He is now walking back his statement.

            “Lol. Obviously the emissivity of both sides of the green plate are the same. Talk about desperate.”

            That sounds awfully like like a requirement to me.

            The only part of your statement that makes sense is the ” Lol” as you are, yet again, the butt of the joke (emphasis on butt).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson said, &ldquo;Yeah, when did these guys suddenly decide that the emissivity of the outer side of the Green plate was 1.0 for all cases?&rdquo;

            By &ldquo;these guys&rdquo; I assumed he was lumping us together. I was just making it clear that this wasn&rsquo;t the scenario we had been discussing. The scenario you are artfully avoiding…the one Tim already agreed the temperatures for:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-414817

            So there is no way out now…

          • MikeR says:

            DReMT’s questions.

            “1) How can the green plates be at an infinitely high temperature when their emissivity is at zero? Nothing is being absorb.ed, and everything is being reflected, at zero; and yet as their emissivity approaches zero the temperature of their green plates is increasing higher and higher and higher and higher

            2) It is always required, according to the GPE logic, at all values of emissivity, that the green plates be absorbing and emitting 200 W/m^2. So how is this possible at emissivity = 0?”

            Answer to 1) The green plates are at zero K for an emissivity of zero for the surface facing the source.

            This is because the equations for energy balance for the system are not applicable when you have no energy leaving the system, obviously.

            Answer to 2) Again for an emissivity of zero the green plate is not generating 200 W because it as at 0K. All the energy being generated by the source is being reflected back to the source by the emissivity =1 surface of the green plate.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “This is because the equations for energy balance for the system are not applicable…”

            Eli’s math is not applicable. Now you’re getting it.

          • MikeR says:

            As explained on several occasions by myself and others,the energy conservation equation for the sytem is not applicable for the unique case when the emissivity is exactly zero.

            So repeat from above, until it sinks in,

            “This is because the equations for energy balance for the system are not applicable when you have no energy leaving the system, obviously”.

            For the infinite number of possible values for the emmissivity between 0 and 1 and including 1, the totality of the “Eli Rabbitt” equations holds as, for these cases, energy is both entering and leaving the system.

            Do you understand why the equations include the word balance?
            Maybe not.

          • MikeR says:

            Slight correction to my comment,

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-415172 .

            The last line should read as follows,

            “source by the emissivity = 0 surface of the green plate.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, the temperature of the green plates get hotter and hotter and hotter, whilst always emitting 200 W/m^2, except when you actually get right down to emissivity of zero, when they suddenly become zero K, and emit nothing.

            Radiative insulation by a black-body material means you can double the output from a heat source, and with a material at emissivity 0.5 you can quadruple it.

            It’s always great to know what you people are prepared to defend.

    • E. Swanson says:

      The numbers in your graphic don’t add up. There’s 800 watts going into the Blue plate but only 400 watts leaving.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      The evasive manoeuvres begin…

      • E. Swanson says:

        DRsEMT, Pointing to the facts about that graphic post is not an evasive maneuver. Unless you live in the trumpian world of disinformation..

      • MikeR says:

        E.Swanson,

        Notice DREMT’s trademark avoidance. He links back to a previous comment that does not contain a graphic or even refers to a graphic.

        More unadulterated b.s..

        With respect to the graphic, not only as you have pointed out, does his blue plate have more energy arriving than leaving, but his green plates also have more energy leaving than arriving. The only energy balance equation that is satisfied, is for the system as a whole.

        I guess getting 1 out of 3 energy leaving balance equations correct is good going for DREMT. Maybe he can try and get 2 equations right next time. Baby steps.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          No matter how many times you try to change the subject back to something that has been talked over and over and explained at length already, it’s not going to happen. I’m not going to discuss it again. I don’t care how many people try and in how many different ways they try it. It’s been done already. Your solution is what is on trial. You are the ones arguing that insulation raises the temperature of the heat source.

          I linked to the comment that explains the particular situation you are trying to avoid, here.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Your solution is what is on trial. You are the ones arguing that insulation raises the temperature of the heat source.”

            The trial is over. DREMT lost. The home insulation, heat shield, and 400W incandescent light bulb industries exist – to do what DREMT insists cannot be done.

            DREMT should rely on experiment in this field not rely on the field of his sophist dreams.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.

  72. Snape says:

    The diagram needs arrows that represent reflected light. Then it all works.

    Each green plate emits 200 watts to the blue. This energy is then reflected back and absorbed.

    *****

    Its all about the colors. A 244 K green plate will absorb energy from a 244 K blue plate, but not the other way around! This is common knowledge to anyone who has studied at Huffypuff U.

  73. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    Why do I always have to talk to about seventeen different people? I mean it shows how desperate they are, but it’s a little OTT.

    • Nate says:

      “Good job here, DREMT. Your answer agrees with standard thermodynamics as taught in physics classes and as employed by practicing engineers around the world.

      At 345K, the blue plate has a total output of 1600 W and a total input of 1600 W. The net power is 0 W, so its temperature will stay steady @ 345 K.”

      Yep, for once, good job, DREMT.

      Now we await how you will debunk yourself…

    • MikeR says:

      Maybe it’s your personality that rubs people up the wrong way.

      Have you considered that possibility?

      • MikeR says:

        Referring to DREMT of course.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sure, it must be my habit of responding to unpleasant people in kind that leads to this concerted team effort to relentlessly attack me personally and everything that I say down to the most ridiculous, nit-picking detail. It’s definitely nothing to do with the things that I’m saying…

        • MikeR says:

          Ok DREMT, I will invoke the Mercy Rule and will now try to resist the urge to mock you. I hope I can resist but you make it so difficult.

          Perhaps, also if you responded with answers to the “nit-picks”, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics, you may engender more sympathy for your plight.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Mock away. My care factor remains at precisely nil.

          • MikeR says:

            Ok, excellent news. Might be time to wheel out the heavy artillery.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Make yourself look as bad as you want. That’s what this is all about, after all. A prolonged demonstration of what you people are, how you operate, what you are prepared to defend, the depths to which you will sink, etc. Please do carry on.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes, DREMT . I suspect I wouldn’t get reviewed well by yourself. However I might get different views from those many others that contribute here. Particularly the 17 or so who have made their views about your competencies well known.

            I note that you have recently relapsed into full on PST troll mode. It is unfortunate because that behaviour is even more likely to make people view you with disdain.

            I understand that you need as many friends as you can have as no-one appears to have rushed to support your views. Needlessly creating more adversaries in these debates is silly and it makes you like a very sore loser. Or just a loser .

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s the stuff…

          • MikeR says:

            Happy to oblige.

  74. Snape says:

    Desperate? I was just admiring your work.

  75. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    See?

    “Send in the clowns…”

  76. Snape says:

    Huffy,
    grass looks green because the colors yellow and blue get reflected back to our eyes.

    So, maybe the blue plate is actually absorbing the yellow component of the green plates energy, and just reflects the blue half?

    Throws a monkey wrench into the whole situation!!

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      I’m sorry that this is all over your head.

      • Ball4 says:

        Snape: “grass looks green because the colors yellow and blue get reflected back to our eyes.”

        Illuminated by what source? The sun? If so, then radiation of all colors of the visible spectrum enter our eyes from looking at grass in the clear daylight; mostly as LW (~95%) only about 5% as SW. Our brains assign the color humans know as green to interpret that signal.

        Apparently, you have not pointed at a patch of grass with a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which can measure radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. If you do some research, you might find someone that has done so & can then examine the instrumentally measured spectrum.

  77. Snape says:

    I stand corrected. Just trying to figure out why that blue plate is so dern persnickety.
    😏

  78. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    I’m sorry that this is all over your head.

  79. Snape says:

    Huffy
    I was on a blog where I was personally insulted by a half dozen people. If I ever tried to return the favor, the moderator would remove the comment and issue a warning. Other comments would disappear at random.

    At least here we can have an open conversation.

  80. Snape says:

    No worries.

  81. Snape says:

    Looking back over my recent comments …….. same routine I went for a couple of years ago. Pathetic.

    See ya, huff

  82. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    Well, next time maybe you could try a different routine. There’s no need to be so hard on yourself.

Leave a Reply