Hot Summer Epic Fail: New Climate Models Exaggerate Midwest Warming by 6X

July 3rd, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

For the last 10 years I have consulted for grain growing interests, providing information about past and potential future trends in growing season weather that might impact crop yields. Their primary interest is the U.S. corn belt, particularly the 12 Midwest states (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Michigan) which produce most of the U.S. corn and soybean crop.

Contrary to popular perception, the U.S. Midwest has seen little long-term summer warming. For precipitation, the slight drying predicted by climate models in response to human greenhouse gas emissions has not occurred; if anything, precipitation has increased. Corn yield trends continue on a technologically-driven upward trajectory, totally obscuring any potential negative impact of “climate change”.

What Period of Time Should We Examine to Test Global Warming Claims?

Based upon the observations, “global warming” did not really begin until the late 1970s. Prior to that time, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions had not yet increased by much at all, and natural climate variability dominated the observational record (and some say it still does).

Furthermore, uncertainties regarding the cooling effects of sulfate aerosol pollution make any model predictions before the 1970s-80s suspect since modelers simply adjusted the aerosol cooling effect in their models to match the temperature observations, which showed little if any warming before that time which could be reasonably attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

This is why I am emphasizing the last 50 years (1970-2019)…this is the period during which we should have seen the strongest warming, and as greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, it is the period of most interest to help determine just how much faith we should put into model predictions for changes in national energy policies. In other words, quantitative testing of greenhouse warming theory should be during a period when the signal of that warming is expected to be the greatest.

50 Years of Predictions vs. Observations

Now that the new CMIP6 climate model experiment data are becoming available, we can begin to get some idea of how those models are shaping up against observations and the previous (CMIP5) model predictions. The following analysis includes the available model out put at the KNMI Climate Explorer website. The temperature observations come from the statewide data at NOAA’s Climate at a Glance website.

For the Midwest U.S. in the summer (June-July-August) we see that there has been almost no statistically significant warming in the last 50 years, whereas the CMIP6 models appear to be producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did.

Fifty years (1970-2019) of U.S. corn belt summer (JJA) warming since 1970 from observations (blue); the previous CMIP5 climate models (42 model avg., green); and the new CMIP6 climate models (13 model avg., red). The three time series have been vertically aligned so their trend lines coincide in the first year (1970), which is the most meaningful way to quantify the long-term warming since 1970.

The observed 50-year trend is only 0.086 C/decade (barely significant at the 1-sigma level), while the CMIP5 average model trend is 4X as large at 0.343 C/decade, and the CMIP6 trend is 5.7X as large at 0.495 C/decade. While the CMIP6 trend will change somewhat as more models are added, it is consistent with the report that the CMIP6 models are producing more average warming than their CMIP5 predecessors.

I am showing the average of the available models rather than individual models, because it is the average of the models which guides the UN IPCC reports and thus energy policy. It is disingenuous for some to claim that “not all IPCC models disagree with the observations”, as if that is some sort of vindication of all the models. It is not. If there are one or two models that agree the best with observations, why isn’t the IPCC just using those to write its reports? Hmmm?

What I find particularly troubling is that the climate modelers are increasingly deaf to what observations tell us. How can the CMIP5 models (let alone the newer CMIP6 models) be used to guide U.S. energy policy when there is such a huge discrepancy between the models and the observations?

I realize this is just one season (summer) in one region (the U.S. Midwest), but it is immensely important. The U.S. is the world leader in production of corn (which is used for feed, food, and fuel) and behind only Brazil in soybean production. Blatantly false claims (e.g. here) of observed change in Midwest climate have fed the popular opinion that U.S. crops are already feeling the negative effects of human-caused climate change, despite the facts.

This is just one example of many that the news media have been complicit in the destruction of rational climate debate, which is now extending to outright censoring of alternative climate views on not only social media, but also in mainstream news sources like Forbes which disappeared environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s op-ed in which he confessed he no longer believes in a “climate crisis”.


780 Responses to “Hot Summer Epic Fail: New Climate Models Exaggerate Midwest Warming by 6X”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    Were you prescient in starting satellite measurements at the beginning of the upward trend in the late 70’s or just lucky? Either way, well done and keep up the excellent work.

  2. Tom Tucker says:

    This article is very pertinent to a debate I am having with the Purdue Climate Change Center regarding a series of “Assessments”they are issuing that predict large increases in warming in Indiana.
    Dr Spencer, please refer to my request to you that I made on June 20 at 1:06 on the blog “UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2020” I thought that you would want to respond to the derogatory statements about you and UAH that are made by the Director of the Center.
    I tried to send the same message to you at your listed email address but it would not go through.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      I sent you an email at your tt work email.

    • bdgwx says:

      It would probably be better to contact one of the authors of Hamlet et al 2019. Since they are experts on midwest warming potential they might be able to explain the discrepancy mentioned in this blog.

    • Denis Ables says:

      More than a century ago commodity speculators in England noticed a correlation between some crop yields and sunspot activity. That correlation was consistent enough to attract hedging and speculating. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it was also not unreasonable to suspect that varying sun activity may have perhaps had some impact on crop yield.

      The obvious influence of cloud cover on temperature has been a concern of climatologists but direct measure of cloud cover was not even a possibility before satellites were launched. So far it has been convenient to just assume that “climate” itself was responsible for cloud cover.

      However, more than two decades ago Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist, and his associates (an astrophysicist and an oceanographer) proposed a new climate theory which, incidentally, did not involve CO2. Svensmark claimed that both warming and cooling periods were brought on by variations in sun activity cycles. The stronger magnetic fields generated during sun spots provides a shield which reduces cosmic ray penetration into the lower atmosphere. (CERN subsequently confirmed Svensmark’s theory that cosmic rays can influence cloud cover.) Svensmark claimed that sun activity has an impact on the relatively constant stream of cosmic rays which otherwise penetrate the lower atmosphere. During periods when more cosmic rays penetrate the lower atmosphere that increase leads to cooling. Why? Because it results in more cloud cover, which causes deflection of more sun radiation back to space. The reverse is also true. When there is less penetration of cosmic rays into the lower atmosphere that leads to less cloud cover so more sun radiation reaches the earth’s surface which leads to warming. These variations in sunspot activity often occur in decade-or longer cycles.

      The average level of cloud cover during one of these cycles determines whether there has been global warming or global cooling. More dramatic interpretations are that the universe controls our climate, or cloud cover determines climate. Recently (December 2019) sun activity dropped significantly. The prior low in sun activity was about 11 years earlier, in 2008, but that low was not as significant as the inactivity level beginning during 2019. If this new inactive sun cycle persists for the usual decade or more, it will result in a cyclic increase in the average cloud cover which, according to Svensmark, should result in another cooling period.

      Recently Don Easterbrook, a well-known geologist, published a comprehensive study (an entire book, accessible via Amazon) which makes use of data covering the past 800,000 years. That extended duration even includes the last few ice ages. (Each ice age is now referred to as a “glaciation”, apparently because the past 65 million years shows a long-term cooling trend!) Easterbrook’s book title says it all: “The Solar Magnetic Cause of Climate Changes and Origin of the Ice Ages”.

      The conclusions in Easterbrook’s book are clearly not wishy-washy. He has put his reputation on the line, probably recognizing that the usual peer-review by a like-minded scientist at the adjacent desk would end with the results being filed away in that special black hole containing all the other unmentionables.

      Easterbrook’s firm conclusions (page 176) follow:

      “EVERY cool period was characterized by low sunspot numbers, indicating low strength of the sun’s magnetic field, and high production rates of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon, indicating a higher intensity of cosmic rays penetrating the lower atmosphere. EVERY warm period was coincident with high sunspot numbers and low production rates of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon. Thus, it is unequivocally clear that climate changes, large and small, are driven by fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field.”

      While Easterbrook claims that his data and conclusions stand whether or not Svensmark’s theory survives, his results appear to further validate Svensmark’s theory.

      Alarmists insist that neither the Medieval Warming Period nor the subsequent Little Ice Age were global events. Where is their justification? Easterbrook’s analysis implies that all prior warmings were caused by sun activity. If true, then ALL prior warmings (and coolings) were, by definition, global events. This is a clear sign that the alarmist version of climate science must be re-examined.

      Even if there is no further increase in the CO2 level the alarmist theory demands that the current warming level must persist, at least until some of the CO2 is re-absorbed into the biomass. But the same suspects declare that CO2 disappearance from the atmosphere will take a very long time. There are other conflicts with the alarmist position, including a three decade cooling from 1945-1975 as CO2 continued to increase, and also the IPCC recognition of a “hiatus” in temperature during the 2000s as CO2 continued its increase.

      Finally, while the year 1998 was one of the warmest years, alarmists now claim that 2016 (finally) reached a new record. While CO2 continued increasing there was no further increase in temperature for 17 years? The process of follow-up “corrections” to previously recorded temperature data brings up another suspicious issue. There has been a consistent record of biased revisions to the temperature database. Older temperature data revisions ALWAYS show more cooling, and revisions to more current data are ALWAYS biased towards more warming. EVERY revision favored the alarmist claim.

      The greenhouse gas theory, apparently a substitute for actual evidence and used as justification by alarmists, must in some cases be accompanied by a necessary (but not sufficient) condition. When the GHG application involves the open atmosphere there must also be an accompanying “signature”, a warmer region about 10km above the tropics. Despite decades of radiosondes that necessary “hot spot” has never been found and it’s not a matter of missing data. Actual temperatures have been recorded both above and below 10km. The two attempts by CAGW proponents (Sherwood and Santer) claiming to explain that missing “hot spot” both ignore the existing data and further exacerbate that dubious act with speculation about what happened to the required “hot spot”. But this is no surprise. The open atmosphere is not a greenhouse. Satellites detect heat escaping to space. This fact, along with the missing “hot spot” have apparently also been filed away in that same unmentionable black hole, and not only by alarmists, but also with the concurrence of an agenda-driven major news media. Even worse, the alarmist models all assume the GHG theory is applicable without satisfying the “hotspot” requirement. This assumption permits them to claim that water vapor feedback is the ultimate culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature impact as (supposedly) brought on by CO2 increase.

      It is amazing that most of the major news media science writers ignore what appear to be obvious implications of Easterbrook’s study. The MWP and earlier warmings were global (and, as Phil Jones, an early proponent of anthropogenic-caused warming, has publicly stated, namely, if the MWP was global it’s a different ballgame. Jones’ uncertainty indicates that the alarmists do not have much in the way of supporting evidence.) Actually it is also not difficult these days to demonstrate from existing MWP studies (@co2science.org) that the MWP was global. The alarmists’ silly argument that the MWP warmings must be “synchronous” would also disqualify their claim that the current warming is global.

      Any credible climatologist should by now feel obligated to investigate and verify or rebut Easterbrook’s data. If that data is valid the conclusions are a no-brainer. ALL prior warmings (and coolings) were brought on by sun activity so were global events. Since there is no evidence that CO2, a trace gas, has ever had any impact on our global temperature, why should we even suspect that the cause of our most recent warming, beginning in about 1975, was related to CO2 (a trace gas) increase? As pointed out earlier, correlation, particularly a cherry-picked short term duration, does not imply causation. The GHG theory, insofar as its applicability to the open atmosphere, is clearly not settled.

      Increasing CO2 level remains an important concern but that is likely unrelated to warming or cooling, so also unrelated to various other events, all supposedly brought on by increasing temperature, such as sea level rise, hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, or your grandpa’s arthritis. Claims that sea level rise is caused by human activity is laughable, given that the sea level has risen over 400 feet since the last glaciation began melting and during the last century (during human supposed involvement) the total sea level rise has been a few inches! It is much more rational to assume the last few inches are a continuation of whatever caused the first 400 feet of rise.

      It appears that it is the cosmos, rather than human activity, which remains in charge of our climate. CO2 concern is best left to such disciplines as health researchers and botanists rather than climatologists.

      • Svante says:

        You are wrong.
        I’m more alarmist than anyone else here, but I do think the medieval warm period and the little ice age were global.
        The scientific sources say not “synchronized” global.

      • bdgwx says:

        Whew…there’s a lot to go over here. I’ll try to tackle this one post at a time.

        CERN subsequently confirmed Svensmark’s theory that cosmic rays can influence cloud cover.

        No they didn’t.

        Pierce 2017 – “Their most recent publication (Gordon et al. 2017) provides their first estimate of the GCR‐CCN connection, and they show that CCN respond too weakly to changes in GCR to yield a significant influence on clouds and climate.”

        During periods when more cosmic rays penetrate the lower atmosphere that increase leads to cooling.

        Right. His theory predicts that the planet should be cooling. Yet…the planet warms and still has a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance so more warming is still on the horizon.

  3. Tom Tucker says:

    Dr Spencer,
    Would it be ok if I copied this article and sent it to Purdue?

  4. Neil says:

    I see an increase in the average observed temperatures in your graph. In 200 years that would be 1.72C. According to your June 2020 report the global average per decade is 0.14C. That would be 2.8C in 200 years.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Neil, I don’t think it makes any sense to extrapolate business-as-usual scenarios out 200 years… or even 100 years. Technological changes will surely occur which will make any carbon emissions reduction efforts now a moot point. Also, global population is supposed to start decreasing late this century. Too many changes to look very far into the future.

      • Alan Tomalty (@ATomalty) says:

        It is sad that too many people don’t understand sine/cosine curves. The derivative of the sine of x with respect to x = cosine of x. The derivative of the cosine of x with respect to x is – the sine of x. The curves are the same curve but just out of phase with each other. This out of phase difference has relevance to 2 variables as to which causes or leads the other such as temperature and CO2. Climate and weather are governed by their mathematical construct. Cycles, large and small, dominate any other trend. The satellite record unfortunately started at the coldest time of the 20th century. The 21st century will see the curve swing back down to very cold temperatures again. Until it does we will have to put up with this ridiculous concept of a climate emergency.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          alan…”Climate and weather are governed by their mathematical construct”.

          Whereas I agree with your sentiments in general, please keep in mind that climate is a mathematical construct in itself. It is the average of weather in a location. Therefore, there is no such thing as ‘climate change’ as a generic term.

          Weather is governed by the Sun, until other factors may be discovered and proved, and also the composition of the atmosphere. Of course, the atmosphere is linked to the oceans. As both Roy and John Christy have pointed out, this system is far too complex to observe accurately let alone predict.

          I would say weather, hence climate, are governed by factors that are not fully understood and well outside the domain of climate modeling. It does not surprise me that the new model shows more warming than its predecessor. The business of modeling is to scare people with dire predictions and without that fear they don’t have much use as a predictor of climate.

          Based on that I would say your prediction of a return to normal, or colder, in the future, holds as much truth as any other scenario.

  5. Temperature compilations are worthless before UAH in 1979.

    UAH is near global, measured in a consistent environment where the greenhouse effect actually happens, and the people involved seem honest.

    None of that is true for surface “measurements” – which barely covered the Southern Hemisphere before world war 2.

    The best you can do is say the average temperature is either rising or falling, most likely rising since the late 1600s.

    Little of the warming since then could be blamed on CO2 … And the warming has been harmless for over 300 years.

    My own climate science blog:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • Nate says:

      “and the people involved seem honest.”

      But the main issue is that the people involved in LT measurements dont agree with each other about how to properly analyze the data.

      Thus unfortunately, there seems to be a huge systematic uncertainty in these LT trends, still.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”But the main issue is that the people involved in LT measurements dont agree with each other about how to properly analyze the data”.

        I think Richard was referring to UAH when he referred to honesty. Their main rival, RSS, has taken up with NOAA who have fudged the surface record with no apology or explanation other than that certain temperatures did not make sense to them therefore required amendment, long after the direct observation.

        Circa 1977, when the Great Climate Shift occurred, global temps rose abruptly by 0.2C. Many scientists suggest it was an error and that the temperature rise should be expunged from the record. That is a dangerous and unscrupulous way for scientists to conduct themselves yet it has been standard practice for NOAA. I don’t expect RSS to be much different if they support NOAA.

        It was later found that the temperature rise was caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which had not been discovered at the time.

        • Nate says:

          Gordon,

          “RSS, has taken up with NOAA who have fudged the surface record with n”

          In what way are they ‘taking up with NOAA’ that UAH isnt?

          Can you tell us please, what RSS is doing wrong in their analysis vs. what UAH does?

          Let’s be really honest here: you don’t have any objective scientific reasons to pick one over the other, so you reflexively go with one with the lowest trend.

    • bdgwx says:

      Temperature compilations are worthless before UAH in 1979.

      Can you clarify what you mean by “worthlesss”? And can you quantify it? Can you objectively show how UAH is not “worthless”?

      • gallopingcamel says:

        I have copies of the GHCN files, v2, v3 & v4. Version 3 was presented to me by Tom Peterson himself before he retired. Here is an account of my visit to NOAA, Asheville, North Carolina:
        https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/dorothy-behind-the-curtain-part-1/

        Richard Lindzen remarked “We may not be able to predict the future, but in climate science, we also cant predict the past.”

        He was referring to the way the surface station temperature records such as CHCN had been “Adjusted” without valid explanations.

        • bdgwx says:

          Which adjustments did NASA, NOAA, Cowtan&Way, Berkeley Earth, JMA, Had.CRUT, etc. make that scientists have concluded were without valid explanations?

          How did these groups figure out how to measure the annual global mean temperature anomalies to within 0.1C back to 1900? Is their error actually higher than they all claim?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Do you understand what Dr. Lindzen’s quote means? Whatever one’s explanation for adjusting data, he is predicting what the temperature was had he actually measured it.

            Rather than be a lemming for the IPCC and other warmist lemmings, why not think for yourself? IOW, answer your own questions.

          • bdgwx says:

            No. I do not know what Lindzen’s quote means. Can you post a link to it so that I can see the context?

            Question #1…I’m not aware of any adjustment that was made without a valid reason.

            Question #2…I’m not aware of any publication that presents a dataset that publishes a global mean surface temperature with an uncertainty that is significantly higher.

            If you or anyone can provide a publication that addresses either of my questions I will be happy to review it.

          • Nate says:

            Rather than be a lemming for the conspiracy-theorist blogs, why not think for yourself?

            IOW, investigate the valid reasons for adjustment for YOURSELF.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “I do not know what Lindzen’s quote means.”

            I told you what it means. If you don’t have a measurement for something that happens in the past, any method of estimating it is is a reverse prediction or hind-casting. No matter how valid the method is, it is only a guess, not a measurement.

            I’ll say it another way so that even a lemming can understand it. There are no climate do-overs. Changing climate data or filling in missing data is cheating. Having a good reason to do it, doesn’t make it right. You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig.

            If you want to believe NASA and the others “measured the annual global mean temperature anomalies to within 0.1C back to 1900,” knock yourself out.

          • Svante says:

            The instrumental record has been verified using proxies.

          • Nate says:

            “I told you what it means.”

            Hearsay about one persons opinion.

            And why is this not an appeal to authority?

          • Nate says:

            Lindzen has been often wrong.

            In 1989, he said:
            “Humboldt Foundation Colloquium at Kresge Auditorium.
            “I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of
            greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural
            variability seems small,”

            Of course, in the next 30 y we had another 0.6 C of warming, well beyond the range of natural variability of the previous century.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            King Nate manages to lie, obfuscate, and libel all in one comment.

            Temperatures ranged two degrees between 1880 and now. No proof it was anything other than natural variability including the last thirty years.

            As usual no data, no models, only speculation and hand-waving by the King of Obfuscation.

          • bdgwx says:

            According to the Berkeley Earth dataset the detrended range from 1889 to 1988 was 0.509C. 0.509 is less than 0.600.

            http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Detrending is removing a trend from a time series; a trend usually refers to a change in the mean over time. When you detrend data, you remove an aspect from the data that you think is causing some kind of distortion.”

            Distortion, hmmm. Like maybe a trend that eliminates random variability?

            The lengths You Guys go to obfuscate is incredible. I hope you’re getting paid big bucks for full time trolling.

          • bdgwx says:

            Distortion, hmmm. Like maybe a trend that eliminates random variability?

            That doesn’t even make any sense.

            The lengths You Guys go to obfuscate is incredible.

            Detrending removes the long term distortion so that we can correctly determine what the range of random variation is. This technique is used ubiquitously all disciplines of science. If it offends you then you are likely going to be dissatisfied with science in general.

          • Nate says:

            “King Nate manages to lie, obfuscate, and libel all in one”

            More words whose definitions Chic seems to be confused about.

            Lie- where?

            Libel- hardly

            Obfuscate- Pfft.

            2 degrees of variability?

            Obviously not.

            https://tinyurl.com/y8unsm2f

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”Which adjustments did NASA, NOAA, Cowtan&Way, Berkeley Earth, JMA, Had.CRUT, etc. make that scientists have concluded were without valid explanations? ”

            There is no valid scientific explanation for adjusting temperatures retroactively. The only other explanation is to show warming where none existed.

            NOAA did that. Well after the IPCC posted its finding in AR5, in 2013, that there has been no significant warming (they called it a hiatus) over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012, NOAA went back retroactively and fudged the SST to show a warming trend.

            Are you so naive that you think they did that for a valid scientific reason?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”The instrumental record has been verified using proxies.”

            You mean like the tree ring proxies used in the hockey stick that were showing cooling when real temps were rising? Or the pine tree bristlecone proxies used to show warming in the 20th century that NAS ruled were inadmissible?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          cam…”He was referring to the way the surface station temperature records such as CHCN had been Adjusted without valid explanations”.

          There is more than enough information here to verify your claims. At this site they claim 90% of GHCN surface stations have been slashed since 1990. NOAA has admitted to slashing REPORTING surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500:

          https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/

          Reading through the entire site reveals fudging from NOAA and GISS worldwide.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Pay no attention to those voices behind the curtain. They are the paid trolls King and Queen of Obfuscation.

      They offer no data, no models, no evidence, just smoke and mirrors.

  6. E. Swanson says:

    Roy, Your analysis may not represent all the variables in the climate equation. As is well known, raw temperature data, for example, the USHCN records, may include biases, such as changes in time of day of reading and change in location(s) for the co-operative stations. Does NOAA make these necessary adjustments when calculating their state averages?

    As you mention, crop yields have increased, resulting in increases in total production of crops, such as corn and soybeans. One might also recall Liebig’s Minimum. One reason for these increases has been the expansion of crop irrigation, as well as genetic changes resulting from crop breeding. Total US crop production for corn and soybeans has increased steadily over many decades. I suspect that one result of these increases in production is that there is now much more evapotranspirationin the fields, which would tend cool the local surface temperature measurements as energy must be removed from the surface and the atmosphere to vaporize all that water.

    Without considering the all these variables (and perhaps others as well), I suggest that it’s inappropriate to claim that comparison of the historical Midwestern US temperature record with model results represent proof that there’s no AGW underway.

    • Nate says:

      “there is now much more evapotranspirationin the fields, which would tend cool the local surface temperature measurements as energy must be removed from the surface and the atmosphere to vaporize all that water.”

      I think that is a very interesting point. I wonder if RH data detects this?

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Not to be outdone, E. Swanson joins the obfuscation royalty.

      He sets up the “no AGW underway” strawman and knocks it down.

      Whatever the effect of evapotranspiration, it is what it is. This post is about the failure of the models vs. data. If you have a problem with the data, give the evidence. Don’t just speculate about “considering all these variables.”

    • bdgwx says:

      Alter 2015 is good review of agriculture’s effect on midwest climate.

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075604

      More research linking evapotranspiration, temperature, humidity, and precipitation changes to agriculture activity.

      Stidd 1975
      Barnston & Schickedanz 1984
      Adegoke 2003
      Haugland & Crawford 2005
      Kueppera 2007
      Jin & MIller 2010
      DeAngelis 2010
      Harding & Snyder 2012
      Mahmood 2013
      Oian 2013
      Huber 2014
      Cook 2015
      Alter 2015
      Lo & Famiglietti 2015
      Meuller 2016

      It is well know that agriculture suppresses temperatures in and around the corn belt.

      The fact that the corn belt region warmed by 0.5C/decade in the Dec-Jan-Feb months and only 0.1C/decade in the Jun-Jul-Aug month’s has been at least partially linked to this effect.

    • Nate says:

      “Dont just speculate about ‘considering all these variables.'”

      OMG, this from Chic, our speculator in chief!

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      E. Swanson, bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  7. Strop says:

    @ E. Swanson

    I suggest that its inappropriate to claim that comparison of the historical Midwestern US temperature record with model results represent proof that theres no AGW underway.

    I dont think Roy is claiming this is proof theres no AGW underway. My interpretation of Roys article is that the models grossly exaggerate the warming and that forming policies based on these models is not wise.

    Please note that with regard to crop yield trends Roy said this was a technologically-driven upward trajectory. He didnt claim yield increases were the result of climate change. If thats what you were trying to disprove by stating irrigation and genetics were probable reasons for increased yields.

    Regarding your evapotranspiration theory being a possible reason surface temps by observation may not have risen per the models. Doesnt that transpiration just cool the plant but not the atmosphere? Does water vapour trap heat? (Im asking, not stating).

    • E. Swanson says:

      Strop wrote:

      with regard to crop yield trends Roy said this was a technologically-driven upward trajectory. He didnt claim yield increases were the result of climate change.

      Doesnt that transpiration just cool the plant but not the atmosphere? Does water vapour trap heat? (Im asking, not stating).

      I think that Er. Spencer’s comparison may not be a solid indication that the latest models are wrong.

      There’s been a major shift in agricultural production since the ’70’s as corn based ethanol production has ramped up. While I don’t have the data in hand, I suggest that the total area now used for corn production in the states Roy selected has grown considerably larger, perhaps replacing dry land farming of wheat, etc, with corn. Corn is said to require much more water than those dry land crops which depend only on rain fall, thus an increase in corn crop acreage would likely result in greater water use and evapotranspiration. Increased evaporation would lead to increased absolute humidity, which could be correlated with the increased precipitation he mentions.

      Also, Roy didn’t explicitly list which states were selected for his surface data, nor did he state whether or not he area averaged these data. Simply averaging state data would overweight the impact of smaller states in the final result, an obvious problem which should have been addressed.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      @Strop asks,

      “Does water vapour trap heat?”

      You bet it does!

      One of the major factors affecting surface temperature on planets is the presence of liquids. Other things being equal a wet planet is warmer than a desiccated one. Water vapor is sometimes called Earths most potent GHG (GreenHouse Gas).

      Some powerful atmospheric models are being developed to predict the surface temperature on exo-planets. Our nearest star (Proxima Centaurus) has a planet that may be in the “Goldilocks Zone”. One of the key issues is the presence of liquids which can be detected by observing “Ocean Glint”. Here is a paper that explains:
      https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2016.1589

      Take a look at Fig. 4 in the paper that shows Proxima b with an assumed atmospheric pressure of 10 bars. The left frame shows the “Oceans” case (T0 = 320K) and the right frame shows the “Desiccated” case (T0 = 260 K).

  8. Strop says:

    Quotation marks seem to have disappeared from my comment. At least on my display.

  9. Joe Rancourt says:

    It would be interesting to know how the other U.S. regions cmip6 models vs observations are, and if other continents central areas are similarly off.

    Since your last article, if im reading it right, says cmip6 warming is near 50% more than observation, and this article shows US midwest is near 600% more, what parts of world offset is model much cooler than observations ??? Oceans, Coastal areas, polar, tropical ..

  10. bdgwx says:

    It would be interesting to see the comparison for Dec-Jan-Feb as well. The corn belt region has a 0.5C/decade trend during the winter months with an overall 0.22C/decade trend for all months.

  11. Eben says:

    In the good old days people producing this king of weather prediction would be tarred and feathered and run out of town.
    Today we have a legal system .
    The skeptics should sue the climate modelers non-scientists to be proven in the cord of law their models are invalid and the predictions are false . The problem is the skeptics, despite having all the evidence, are totally inept when it comes to confronting the alarmists.

    • Entropic man says:

      “The skeptics should sue the climate modelers non-scientists to be proven in the cord of law their models are invalid and the predictions are false . ”

      That ship has sailed.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-big-oil-cant-be-sued-for-climate-change-costs/

      The really interesting bit was that the first hours in court were a briefing on global warming and climate change by the oil companies and other experts, the first time in which a judge was asked to rule on the science.

      Judge Alsup ruled that climate change is real but that oil companies are not legally liable for the costs of mitigating climate change.

      Henceforth any sceptics sueing will be pointed to the Alsup precedent accepting the legal reality of climate change.

      • Eben says:

        As far as demented replies go , this has to be in the top ten

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          On the other hand, climate changes. Always has, always will.

          • Svante says:

            Always for a reason.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Bad, bad oil companies.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah, see what their independently funded research found out:

            Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological Forecast C02 Greenhouse Effect
            by H. Shaw and P. P. McCall
            https://tinyurl.com/y73ybuzq

            “ExxonMobil’s understanding of climate change has tracked the scientific consensus on climate change, and its research on the issue has been published in publicly available peer-reviewed journals”.
            https://tinyurl.com/yabzr7z5

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Yeah, see what their independently funded research found out:”

            Of course, Svante, being a thoroughly indoctrinated eco-weenie, you have stopped driving cars with combustion engines and stopped heating your home in winter with any power derived from fossil fuels, or related to them.

            You no longer use plastics, which are a byproduct of fossil fuel refineries, you don’t use products like oils, solvents, alcohols, etc., derived from fossil fuels and you don’t fly on planes.

            That’s how much you hate and blame the oil companies and you are a person of principle.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            chic…”On the other hand, climate changes. Always has, always will”.

            And let’s not forget, in the Polar regions where AGW is expected to create the most warming, the Sun will disappear on schedule for a couple of months each year and for several more months will have barely any impact. Yet, CO2 will keep the Polar regions warm and snuggy…at -60C.

          • Svante says:

            The polar regions are shrinking.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”Judge Alsup ruled that climate change is real but that oil companies are not legally liable for the costs of mitigating climate change”.

        No judge is qualified to make such a ruling unless he has a degree in physics. On the other hand, any judge with a degree in physics should throw the case out since there is nothing in physics theory to back AGW.

        We are getting carried away in this world with political-correctness and consensus, abandoning the scientific method. In a somewhat related scenario, it has just been revealed that government workers in Seattle are being given courses in which they are encouraged to give up their ‘Whiteness’ and become subservient to people of colour. During the courses, Whites are encouraged to stand while people of minority are seated.

        AGW is about political-correctness, not science. It is being pushed by a minority group, similar to the idiots in Seattle, who have set themselves up as the Holy Inquisition of science and they have about as much interest in science as the Inquisition.

  12. gbaikie says:

    –mainstream news sources like Forbes which disappeared environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s op-ed in which he confessed he no longer believes in a “climate crisis”.–
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/03/a-must-watch-environmentalist-michael-shellenberger-on-rejecting-climate-alarmism/

    Michael Shellenberger seems confident he will end the alarmism.

  13. Joe Rancourt says:

    Dr. Spencer, thank you.

    I think i figured out, roughly how you pulled and averaged those states numbers on the NOAA site. Other regions NO Atlantic, SO Atlantic, Pacific, Desert, other interior, and Alaska are .22 to .25 / decade. Gulf .28
    (I did some rough geo averaging since some states are so small)

    I dont know how to get Climate explorer numbers for those states but .495 per decade would still average about double. These models are still way off for, at least, for the summer in the US.

    Joe

  14. Steve Case says:

    Why didn’t my post from several hours ago show up?

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Steve, I always have trouble if any words in my comment have pt in them. Also sometimes my links don’t go through either. In that case, I use tinyurl.

    • bdgwx says:

      You can’t put D and C together either. You’ll see a lot us . or – to put spacing between letters to get our posts to go through.

    • Bindidon says:

      Steve Case

      1. Avoid any sequence of ‘d’ immediately followed by ‘c’.
      2. Avoid the word absorp-tion without the character inbetween.
      3. Avoid rather special UTF-8 characters. Most of them aren’t represented, but some lead the blog’s scanner to skip your comment.

      J.-P. D.

  15. Joe Rancourt says:

    Still less than 1/2. Not good at all.

  16. Nate says:

    Be better if you showed the single simulation runs as well, to give us an idea of the expected variability.

    As you noted, the data trend is barely significant. Would the difference between it and some single runs also be barely significant?

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      The King of Obfuscation proposes work he won’t do himself.

      No data, no models, no evidence. Just hand waving and speculation.

    • Nate says:

      The descent of Chic to full time troll is complete, and sad.

      • Svante says:

        Also providing a perfect description of himself.

        Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others”.

          What is an ego? Your statement suggests there are at least two people in a human, the ego being separate from the rest of the organism. The ego is an illusion, in fact, it is intended as a model only, not an actuality.

          You have quoted seriously naive psychology which has been abandoned for decades. No one but the most dogmatic psychiatrists use the term ego anymore and certainly not in the context of a war between it and unconscious impulses.

          Next you’ll be inferring that Chic has an Oedipal Complex.

  17. Carbon500 says:

    Looking at the mid-west corn belt temperature graph posted by Dr. Spencer puts me in mind of the observations linked below from the UK’s Met Office.
    These graphs of UK regional temperatures, rainfall and sunshine go back over a century:
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
    I’m 71 years old, I’ve lived in the UK for all of those years, and subjectively the climate hasn’t changed in any way – we are currently experiencing a typical English summer, as variable as seen in the above graphs from the Met Office.
    Dr. Spencer’s comment that ‘the news media have been complicit in the destruction of rational climate debate, which is now extending to outright censoring of alternative climate views on not only social media, but also in mainstream news sources’ is right on the nail. The journalists, editors, television companies and others responsible are a disgrace.

    • Nate says:

      “subjectively the climate hasn’t changed in any way”

      Your graphs show a ~ 1C rise for summer months since ~ 1960.

      Would that be subjectively detectable?

      • Stephen Richards says:

        UKMO data has been modified. Also, the population of that tiny island has increased by over 10.000.000 in 30 years.

        Their adjustment for UHI was 0.1 positive when their own forecasters always deduct 3 or 4 °C from the town temperatures for countryside temps.

        UKMO is now one of the most unreliable temperature records having been the most reliable upto about the 1980.

        If you want to know how climate has changed ask a farmer. All my farmers locally say it has been cyclic. They are in their 80s.

        Climate change is real and most likely 99% natural

        • bdgwx says:

          Their adjustment for UHI was 0.1 positive when their own forecasters always deduct 3 or 4 °C from the town temperatures for countryside temps.

          Hmm…I think there may be some confusion on how UHI affects temperature trends. Just because rural temperatures are 3-4C lower than city temperatures does not mean that the UHI effect is creating a 3-4C bias on the warming trend. This is especially the case if the UHI effect maxed out decades ago. In that case the UHI impact on the recent warming trend is near 0 or could even be negative if the city station moved to the outskirts as has been common in the US with the relocation of airports and other official reporting sites.

          From Berkeley Earth regarding the global mean temperature…

          We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the
          period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 0.24C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average.

          https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Would that be objectively trolling?

      • Carbon500 says:

        Nate:this is the British climate, and it hasn’t changed.
        The United Kingdom straddles the higher mid-latitudes between 49 and 61 N on the western seaboard of Europe. Since the UK is always in or close to the path of the polar front jet stream, frequent changes in pressure and unsettled weather are typical. Many types of weather can be experienced in a single day. In general the climate of the UK is cool and often cloudy and rainy, and high temperatures are infrequent.
        The climate in the United Kingdom is defined as a temperate oceanic climate, or Cfb on the Kppen climate classification system, a classification it shares with most of north-west Europe. Regional climates are influenced by the Atlantic Ocean and latitude. Northern Ireland, Wales and western parts of England and Scotland, being closest to the Atlantic Ocean, are generally the mildest, wettest and windiest regions of the UK, and temperature ranges here are seldom extreme. Eastern areas are drier, cooler, and less windy, and also experience the greatest daily and seasonal temperature variations. Northern areas are generally cooler and wetter, and have slightly larger temperature ranges than southern areas.
        The UK is mostly under the influence of the maritime polar air mass from the north-west. Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland are the most exposed to the maritime polar air mass which brings cool moist air; the east of Scotland and north-east England are more exposed to the continental polar air mass which brings cold dry air. The south and south-east of England are the least exposed to polar air masses from the north-west, and on occasion see continental tropical air masses from the south, which bring warm dry air in the summer. On average, the temperature ranges from 18 to 25 C (64 to 77 F).
        If the air masses are strong enough in their respective areas during the summer, there can sometimes be a large difference in temperature between the far north of Scotland (including its islands) and the south-east of England often a difference of 10-15 C (18-27 F) but sometimes as much as 20 C (36 F) or more. In the height of summer the Northern Isles can have temperatures around 15 C (59 F), while the areas around London and the South-East have, on 25 July 2019, reached 38.7 C (101.7 F).
        England generally has higher maximum and minimum temperatures than the other areas of the UK, though Wales has higher minima from November to February, and Northern Ireland has higher maxima from December to February. England is also sunnier throughout the year, but unlike Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the sunniest month is July, with an average of 193.5 hours. It rains on fewer days in every month throughout the year than the rest of the UK, and rainfall totals are less in every month, with the driest month, May, averaging 58.4 mm (2.30 in). The climate of south-west England displays a seasonal temperature variation, although it is less extreme than most of the United Kingdom. Gales are less common in England compared to Scotland; however on some occasions there can be strong winds, and rarely, the remains of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms. Some events such as the Great Storm of 1987 occurred near to the UK and caused damage in England. The prevailing wind direction for England is from the south-west.

        • Nate says:

          “Nate:this is the British climate, and it hasnt changed.”

          Well, you can claim that if you want, but the reality is that the historical temperature record shows that it has been warming.

          Even one of the oldest records, CET, see below, shows two centuries of hovering around 9.2 C, and then in the 20Th century rising, and currently reaching ~ 10.2 C.

          • Carbon500 says:

            Nate:
            Look at the Koppen classification guide here:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
            Note the importance of talking about a range of temperatures when describing climate.
            The British climate remains Cfb, irrespective of minor average annual temperature changes shown on the CET.
            On the subject of the CET, note that as far back as the 16 to 1700s annual averages equal to or over 10C can be seen.
            The number of averages over 10C since the 1980s is nevertheless striking.

          • Nate says:

            I agree that the 1C in central UK is a minor change thus far.

            But the issue IMO is whether further global warming will result in reaching tipping points, where irrevrrsible changes will happen, such as:

            -Melting of Glaciers and Ice Sheets, and resulting loss of watersheds and sea level rise.

            -Regional changes in weather PATTERNS, ie regional climate change that affects humans, water and agriculture. EG California drying and burning.

            Seasonal weather patterns show that weather is nonlinear in Temperature.

            GW need not be uniform in its effects..

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Definitely objective trolling by the King of Obfuscation.

        • Bindidon says:

          Bowdrie

          If there is one troll here, than that’s you.

          You never present any valuable data, and accuse all others of trolling when they present data you don’t like.

          What a poorish behavior!

          J.-P. D.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I’m sorry you feel that way. When I’m not pointing out obfuscation by the Bobbsey twins, I work for money doing lab experiments so I only have time do my own modeling in lieu of collecting any data.

            What valuable data would you like to see? I’ll put it on my todo list and get right on it. Not.

          • Nate says:

            He would save a lot of time by not reading denialist blogs that feed his erroneous beliefs, and instead learning the known facts from legitimate sources. That would also be useful since these are facts that will constrain his models.

      • Nate says:

        More vacuous posts from our evader in chief. Pathetic.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, Bindidon, please stop trolling.

  18. Robert Maginnis says:

    When folks talk about lack of warming in the US Midwest, they should consider the cooling effect of artificial irrigation, and how much it has increased over time.

    4.2 millimeters of water evaporation at the surface requires
    the same energy as heating the entire [dry] atmospheric
    column above the surface 1 degree C

  19. pochas94 says:

    Surface temperature measurements are great!! For those interested in how heat really radiates to space:

    https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES16/ABI/CONUS/10/20201861336_GOES16-ABI-CONUS-10-2500×1500.jpg

  20. Nabil Swedan says:

    What is the alternative science based on which a different view is censored? In science, there is only one view, either right or wrong. So where do you stand Dr. Spencer?

  21. Stephen Paul Anderson says:

    “grain-growing interests” – the new name for Midwest farmer

  22. Mike Maguire says:

    We plant and grow crops like corn in tightly packed rows that are now twice as dense as they were 40 years ago. This has resulted in a micro climate in the Midwest, several weeks after the majority of the corn plants have emerged. The massive increase in evapotranspiration from these plants, has increased low level moisture, with dew points in some situations, more than 5 deg. higher over several states.

    This is affecting numerous other elements.
    1. More daytime heating from the sun goes into evaporation and humid air masses have a higher heat capacity, so daytime Maximums are lower.
    2. At night its just the opposite. Minimums are often set by how low the dew point is. If the dew point stays above 75, the lowest temperature will never drop to 75, for instance.
    3. Increased low level moisture will increase instability of the air mass. More thunderstorms, potentially more severe/intensity.
    4. Increased low level moisture from evapotranspiration will provide additional water vapor for weather systems to generate rains more often, along with heavier amounts. This becomes part of a positive feedback loop. More rains=more soil moisture………..more soil moisture/corn=more evapotranspiration=higher dew points=more rains.

    Then we start it all over again.

    Here’s more:

    Corn and climate change

    https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/18987/

  23. Stephen Paul Anderson says:

    Dr. Spencer has just posted you evidence there has been very little climate change in the Midwest over the last 40 years.

    • Lou Maytrees says:

      Uhh no Stephen, that would be wrong. Dr Spencer has shown 3 months of every year, or 25% of the time. One quarter of the year is what has been shown in the graph. One fourth of every year.

      Not the full 40 years. So not at all evidence of ‘very little climate change in the Midwest over the last 40 years’.

  24. “Worthless” surface temperature compilations because there are almost no Southern Hemisphere data from 1880 to 1920 and too little SH data until after WW2.

    A majority of surface grids even today include one or more wild guessed numbers rather than actual measurements.

    There are grids in Africa with no measurements at all … yet they are claimed to have heat records.

    And then come the adjustments — the 0.3 to 0.5 degree cooling from 1940 to 1975 has been repeatedly reduced in recent decades until some global temperature compilations now show only 0.1 C cooling, or no cooling at all.

    There is a Japanese climate scientist PhD who says the same thing about surface temperature data, but accepts UAH data as being accurate enough for real science.

    Not that wild guessing the climate in 100 years is real science.

    I’ll post his name if I can remember it.

    Anyone out there who believes the global average temperature trend since 1880 has a margin of error of only +/- 0.1 degree C., as NASA-GISS claims, is a gullible fool.

    • bdgwx says:

      Anyone out there who believes the global average temperature trend since 1880 has a margin of error of only +/- 0.1 degree C., as NASA-GISS claims, is a gullible fool.

      What is the error then?

      Can you post a link to a publication with the calculations so that we can review them?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  25. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    I was looking at the May 2020 NOAA report.

    https://www.ncdxxxxc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202005

    (Remove the xxxx)

    I notice what has become a regular pattern. Relatively high anomalies in Siberia and relatively low anomalies in the midwest.

    Your data agrees with NOAA in describing the midwest as warming more slowly than the global average.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      The data is NOAA data. The post indicates that CMIP models overestimate the actual data in the US midwest which is troublesome for the reasons Dr. Spencer delineates. Good grief, E-man.

      • Entropic man says:

        The CMIP5 and CMIP6 figures are global averages, not regional data.

        The regional data varies. Some areas such as Siberia and the Arctic are warming faster than the global average. Some areas such as the Midwest and the South Pole are warming more slowly than the average.

        As a counterbalance to Dr Spencer’s Midwest graph it would be interesting to see a similar graph for a known rapidly warming region.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          “The CMIP5 and CMIP6 figures are global averages, not regional data.”

          Are you sure about that? My first reaction was, “Say it ain’t so, Roy.” Why would he make that obvious apples vs oranges comparison. If you compare the data in this post to the data for the same models in an earlier post…

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/06/cmip6-climate-models-producing-50-more-surface-warming-than-observations-since-1979/

          …you may want to reconsider.

          Although your point about some areas warming faster than others is valid, what would a counterbalance do other than show how models overestimate how much a known warming region warms, as well?

          • bdgwx says:

            Dr. Spencer’s point is valid. He is clearly comparing model output for a specific region and season with the observations for that corresponding region and season. Models DO overestimate the warming in the midwest during the summer. I’m not going to sugarcoat that. But what I would like to do is understand why. And I would like for scientists to put effort into fixing the issue. They already have models performing well at global mean temperatures over a broad time period so I have confidence that this specific gap and others like it can be closed as well.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Hindsight is 20/20.

  26. ClimatePoet says:

    Keep in mind also that by the best records known to mankind, the Earth cooled up to 0.5°C between 1940 and 1980.

    On this data, there has been no statistical warming in the last 100 years.

  27. pochas94 says:

    I’m wondering whether the practice of intensive irrigation has had anything to do with the muted warming in the midwest.

  28. Georgeswamy says:

    I Got TROLLED By SLOGO LUCKY BLOCKS (Minecraft)

  29. Midwesterner says:

    Wisconsin?

  30. Mark Pawelek says:

    Is this because CMIP5 models generally assumed negative feedback of 0.5 W/m² for low-lying clouds but CMIP6 models assume minimal low-lying cloud negative feedback of 0.1 W/m² or less?

  31. Mark Pawelek says:

    Dr Roy, your custom meta content tag is messing up my posts!

    content=”text/html; charset=Roy Spencer, PhD.”
    <– Really?

  32. Tom Tucker says:

    Dr Spencer,
    I still have not received an email from you as you promised above.

  33. Bdgwax
    It is YOU promoting the surface temperature data and YOU who has to prove the claimed margin of error of +/- 0.1 degrees C. or anywhere close to that.

    Remember that pre-1920 data includes almost no Southern Hemisphere measurements.

    The global temperature is either warmer or cooler than it was in the past — the answer depends on the start and end points of the estimate.

    Not one person lives in the average temperature and not one person was harmed by mild warming in the past 300+ years.

    But of course gullible not very bright people still believe a climate crisis is coming, as you do (I repeat myself).

  34. Bri says:

    i don’t understand why anyone would use a model for the past, why not use the data until today and a model for the future. My family farm in Washington has a 5X crop yield since 1933 ,probably all due to technology. Some farms use old tech and legacy crops, it would be interesting to see how they are doing if there are records.

  35. Christopher Game says:

    To show that added atmospheric CO2 has or has not caused warming, from empirical data, one would need to know what the temperature record would have been if the CO2 had not been added. Such is unknown. I think it capricious or dangerous to assume that it would have changed negligibly.

  36. ren says:

    The southern coast of the Gulf of Mexico will be plagued by persistent tropical downpours.
    The tropical wave reaches the Caribbean.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

  37. Crakar24 says:

    On a brighter note when I google “Roy Spencer” it is no longer second behind a sketchy link to SKS, the SKS link is now second.

    Google should be ashamed off themselves

  38. Nonsense grom bdgwax

    Individual mercury thermometers were read with a likely error of +/- 0.5 degrees C.

    Sea temperatures “measured” with buckets and thermometers mainly in NH sea lanes ?

    A huge amount of wild guess infilling.

    Repeated changes in instrunents used, and weather station locations.

    Repeated “adjustments”.

    ADJUSTMENTS to adjustments.

    Almost no southern hemiphere measurements before 1920.

    Only a fool would take those data seriously and it appears you are a member of that group.

    Your meaningless appeals to authority do not justify climate claims — the so called authorities have been warning about a coming climate crisis for 50 years — where is it? — you just keep believing … while I enjoy the climate getting more moderate and more pleasant over the decades.

    • bdgwx says:

      So what did Berkeley Earth do wrong?

      What specifically about their method for homogenizing sparse data do you not like? How would you do it differently?

      What specifically about the way they handled changes to instrumentation and station locations do you not like? How would you do it differently?

      What specific adjustments do you not like? How would you do it differently?

      What do YOU think the uncertainty is on global mean temperature measurements around 1920?

      the so called authorities have been warning about a coming climate crisis for 50 years — where is it?

      Can you provide an example of what you would call a “climate crisis” prediction that was supposed to have occurred by 2020 from any of the IPCC publications?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  39. Denis Ables says:

    Unfair Roy. You have to give the alarmists time to “investigate” and correct NOAA’s temperature data.

    There will soon be “corrections”. Invariably the older data will be found to have been too warm, so older temps will all be cooled and that revision is further aided by current data being too cool, so temperatures will be revised upwards.

    A serious written account as to why such corrections ALWAYs result in cooler past and warmer present temperatures should be great material for Saturday Night Live.

  40. Wrong as usual bdwax
    Some scientists predicted a gloobal cooling disaster in the mid-1970s and got a lot of media attention. Perhaps scientific grants too.

    The large majority of scientists at the time expected global warming as CO2 levels rose since the trough of the Great Depression.

    There has never been an explanation of the lack of warming from 1940 to 1975, and then warming suddenly starting after 1975.

    Mainstream scientists at the time did not make 100 year climate predictions in public — it’s hard to predict global warming after 35 years of global cooling ( gradually being “adjusted away” to zero cooling to better support the CO2 is evil narrative.

    Scientists in the 1970’s gradually learned that predicting a climate disaster would brong attention and money.

    Even better in the 1980s when goverments started buying the scary climate predictions they wanted … to justify expanded government control over the private sector.

    Your fellow socialists ALWAYS want more power and the false claim they were trying to save the planet for the children was the best reason they could ever dream up.

  41. Bdwax
    You are an expert at asking questions but have no answers yourself other than to parrot government bureaucrat scientists making scary, always wrong climate predictions since the 1980s.

    I never said anyone predicted a climate crisis in 2020.

    The game is to predict a “coming” crisis, usually in 100 years.

    This started about 50 years ago and ramped up a lot in the 1980s.

    I ignore climate “perfessers” AOL and St. Greta Thunberg talking about “12 years” to go.

    I’m sure they are your heroes, but I believe they are climate science dingbats.

    In fact Ms. Greta “thundering” Thunberg was my climate science blog’s 2019 Climate Change Buffoon of the Year. Of course she didn’t have to
    compete with you, or she might have lost !

    Have a nice day

    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • bdgwx says:

      I ask questions because I believe everyone should get the opportunity to defend their position and because I have much to learn myself.

      I do not get my science from AOC or Thunberg. I get it from bona-fide experts and peer reviewed literature.

      Which “scary, always wrong climate predictions since the 1980s” do you speak of?

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx, did you explain that given a choice between your “bona-fide experts and peer reviewed literature”, and reality, you’ll go with your “authorities” every time?

      • Richard Greene says:

        Bdwax
        You ask questions because you have no knowledge to add to the conversation..

        It is a semi-sophisticated way to throw mud on any comment you disagree with,
        t
        Apparently only a PhD study may has a change of answering your tedious questions.

        Questions are easy

        Answers are hard

        You choose the easy way and thereby contribute almost nothing of value to this comment section.

        But that’s your choice.

        Challenge challenge challenge, as if anyone else will spend 30 to 60 minutes typing an answer to each question.

        The current climate is wonderful
        And you are a fool with questions and no answers
        Those two things I know are true.

        My answers are here:
        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

        • bdgwx says:

          You asked me to reference evidence that measurements of global mean surface temperature are generally known to within 0.1C. Am I being unreasonable?

          And perhaps I missed it, but nowhere on that blog is there a reference to a publication with a calculation of the global mean surface temperature.

          • bdgwx says:

            That is weird. Something got garbled with my post. Here is what I meant to post.

            You asked me to reference evidence that measurements of global mean surface temperature are generally known to within 0.1C. I did.

            I asked you to reference evidence that those measurements have an uncertainty significantly > 0.1C. Am I being unreasonable?

            And perhaps I missed it, but nowhere on that blog is there a reference to a publication with a calculation of the global mean surface temperature.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  42. jay cadbury phd says:

    @svante and bdgwx

    svante, google wuwt and berkley earth to see why theyre wrong. Also, see Tony Hellers blog for a thrashing of Zeke. Zeke is dead wrong, all he does is ramble about TOBs. News flash. There isnt a glass dome over earth. What is described as the greenhouse effect outside is a fraud. Please tell us how the greenhouse effect outside is the same as inside a real greenhouse. Cheers.

    • bdgwx says:

      Yes. We are familiar with Anthony Watts, Tony Heller, and Berkeley Earth. I’m not sure what it is you think Dr. Hausfather is dead wrong about so I can’t really comment on that.

      Why would I want to tell you how the atmospheric greenhouse effect is the same as inside a real greenhouse? It’s not the same effect. Are you asking for someone to explain to you how it works?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jay…”@svante and bdgwx…svante, google wuwt and berkley earth to see why theyre wrong”.

      They are not allowed to visit skeptical sites like wuwt, it’s in the charter they must sign at climate alarmists meetings.

      Not sure about bdg, but I know svante attends alarmist meetings at realclimate and sits in the front row so he won’t miss anything. His favourite lecturer is Michael Mann and Svante is so thrilled with Mann being inducted into NAS that he has trouble controlling himself in the presence of the Master.

      Mann told him personally that the hockey stick is still valid and that many people have corroborated the work. He just didn’t tell Svante that those corroborating the work were all friends of Mann and his students.

  43. jay cadbury phd says:

    @svante and bdgwx

    hey guys, remind us again what earths average temperature is please. About 60F give or take? Why is that a problem? Because Michael Mann says so? Didnt he also just say mt rushmore would catch on fire because of fireworks? whoops!

  44. jay cadbury phd says:

    all Zeke does is adjust the data, and svante and bdgwx dont care.

    https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/no-excuse-for-data-tampering/

    ownage. Why dont either of you accept the raw data? gee, I wonder lol.

    • Svante says:

      Because the raw data shows too much warming.

    • bdgwx says:

      I do care. I want them to adjust the data. If you aren’t adjusting for time-of-day, station moves, instrument bias, urban heat island, quality control, etc. then your measurement is going to be further from the truth. Adjusting is a good thing…as long as it is done to improve the quality of the measurement. And besides, like Svante said, the raw data has a high bias on the warming rate.

    • ClintR says:

      Obviously bdgwx and Svante weren’t able to understand the link Jay provided.

      Idiots have so much trouble with facts.

  45. Vakur Thorsson says:

    Of course the data shows, that Midwest in summer hasn’t warmed much in the last 50 years. Why “of course”? Because it is the only land-part of the planet outside of Antarctica with practically no warming:

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCNv4_ERSSTv5__1200km_Anom603_2009_2019_1979_1989_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps.png

    CMIP5 and CMIP6 are global and yearly. Your local and seasonal anomalous analysis is as clear cherrypicking as it gets. Maybe you should do the same analysis for Ukraine, which is Europe’s center of maize and corn production and where anomalies hit the opposite end: more than +2,0 degrees °C rise in 50 years. Seems fair to compare opposite extremes, doesn’t it? Thus we get some kind of objective picture and representation of validity of CMIP models. Not to mention, we would still compare only JJA part of the year.

    Objectivity in life >> subjective cherrypicking. Always.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      The link didn’t work for me, but are you sure Dr. Spencer is cherry picking? On a previous post, he showed CMIPx global and monthly model results. They don’t appear to be the same model output as he shows here.

      If you think his comparison is unfair, why not do your own comparison of Ukraine JJA data with models results for the same season and location?

      Objective data >> Subjective assumptions. Always.

      • Vakur Thorsson says:

        @Chic Bowdrie; try that direct link then: https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/36749360/JJAworld79-89vs09-19.png … now when you can see how anomalous exactly and only US Midwest is against ALL other world land areas (except Antarctica), maybe you might reconsider your critic against my argument.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          I understand your point about midwestern US being an anomaly. What you seem not to understand is the consequence of false CMIPx model predictions that do not predict that anomaly correctly. IOW, midwest farmers cannot rely on those models because they are frequently too warm by a degree or so and sometimes way more.

          What I encourage you to do is find out what the models predict in your region. I could not do that because I couldn’t figure out how to access the data in a timely manner. Maybe if enough of us were interested, Dr. Spencer would provide the methodology.

  46. Bdwax
    You wouldn’t know a climate expert if you saw one — there are NO experts at predicting the future climate.

    Your so called experts tend to ignore the cool climate in the 1600s, as defined by many anecdotes, climate proxy studies and a few real time measurements, such as in central England.

    Then your so called experts claim the climate in the mid-1700s was ‘perfect’ , and any change since then was bad news !

    So from the end of the 1600s until 1750 the climate changed naturally, and reached perfection in about 50 years !

    And a climate crisis is coming in 100+ years … as we’ve been told since the 1970s by clueless experts paid for scary climate predictions.

    I can understand a child believing those claims but not an adult — how old are you bdwax?

    You love to ask questions — do you try to answer questions asked of you?

    How about this one:
    Do you have any evidence that any past warming or cooling trend continued permanently?

    If not, why would you believe the warming since the late 1600s will be permanent?

    • bdgwx says:

      You love to ask questions do you try to answer questions asked of you?

      Yes I do. Unfortunately I cannot find any publication or dataset that publishes a global mean surface temperature which comes to a conclusion regarding the uncertainty that is significantly different than what is provided by NASA, NOAA, Cowtan&Way, Had.CRUT, Berkeley Earth, etc.

      You’re conviction that this exists seems absolute. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. That’s why I’m kindly asking you to provide it. Is that unreasonable?

      Do you have any evidence that any past warming or cooling trend continued permanently?

      No. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence that says the Earth has had countless warming and cooling periods and that it will undoubtedly have many more in the future.

      If not, why would you believe the warming since the late 1600s will be permanent?

      The answer was not. But I still don’t believe the Earth will experience perpetual warming. That’s not even physically possible.

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx states: “That’s not even physically possible.”

        Now apply that statement to some of the nonsense you believe in, bdgwx.

  47. DavidMob says:

    10 Mini Products That’ll Bring Your Imagination To Life

  48. bdwax
    So, if NASA and NOAA claim a +/- 0.1 degree C. margin of error, then they must be right because “everyone” makes the same assertion about global average surface temperature compilations?

    Did it ever occur to you that it is impossible to claim such a tiny margin of error when the starting point excludes almost all of the southern hemiphere and uses mercury thermometers which most humans could not read with less than a +/- 0.5 degree C. margin of error.

    And then there is a large amount of wild guessed numbers called infilling than can never be verified and repeated adjustments almost always creating faster global warming.

    But you can be comfortable with your broken logic — several government agencies say so, so the tiny margin of error must be right?

    You live with a logical error called appeal to authority — very common among socialists, marxists, communists and other losers.

    Trust the bureaucrats — they could never be wrong — the mantra of a feeble-minded human not capable of independent, logical thought.

    Data are only good enough to claim the planet has warmed since the late 1600s.

    Whether +1, +2 or +3 degrees C. no one knows for sure.

    And no one knows if the warming since 1850 was really +1, +2 or zero degrees C.

    However most people enjoy a warming climate, and do not want a cooling climate.

    So we are moving in the best direction.

    I await your usual barrage of questions .

    • bdgwx says:

      So, if NASA and NOAA claim a +/- 0.1 degree C. margin of error, then they must be right because “everyone” makes the same assertion about global average surface temperature compilations?

      Not exactly. The fact that everyone gets essentially the same result is convincing. It’s the realization that no one can show otherwise that makes them not wrong. And the fact that more understanding and information usually results in a smaller uncertainty it is far more likely that the uncertainty will continue to decline; not increase.

      Did it ever occur to you that it is impossible to claim such a tiny margin of error when the starting point excludes almost all of the southern hemiphere and uses mercury thermometers which most humans could not read with less than a +/- 0.5 degree C. margin of error.

      It is literally possible because multiple independent groups have done just that.

      You can find NASA’s station reference here. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe Note that this does not include the ERSST record which is also used. Is the sourthern hemisphere sparesly covered early in the record. Absolutely. That is main reason why the uncertainty is larger.

      0.5C error on individual thermometers seems low. I’d imagine it would be closer to 1C plus the instruments native RMS error. Let’s just assume a 2C error which is probably excessive. In 1920 NASA utilized 4795 reporting sites. If those sites recorded the temperature 2x day for 365 days the trivial error of the mean would be E = 2/sqrt(4795 * 2 * 365) = 0.0010C. Most of the error in the NASA dataset (and others like it) are homogenization errors especially that which arises from spatial inhomogeneity.

      And then there is a large amount of wild guessed numbers called infilling than can never be verified and repeated adjustments almost always creating faster global warming.

      The net effect of adjustments actually reduces the warming trend overall. I’m okay with that because I care only about bringing the dataset closer to the truth.

      But you can be comfortable with your broken logic — several government agencies say so, so the tiny margin of error must be right?

      Berkeley Earth confirms it as well. So do reanalysis and proxy datasets.

      You live with a logical error called appeal to authority — very common among socialists, marxists, communists and other losers.

      I appeal to evidence. I do it all of the time. I also have no problem seeking the advice of experts because this stuff is complicated and I definitely don’t have the expertise nor intelligence to adjudicate it all. The only thing I ask of the experts whose opinions I seek is that they too appeal to evidence.

      And no one knows if the warming since 1850 was really +1, +2 or zero degrees C.

      Berkeley Earth shows 1.084C +- 0.046.

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx, your dedication to your false religion is as funny as it is pathetic. You would likely type blah-blah for months rather than face reality.

        But, as you indicated on another post, you’re content being an idiot. Probably most here are content with you being an idiot also.

      • Nate says:

        “I appeal to evidence. I do it all of the time. I also have no problem seeking the advice of experts because this stuff is complicated and I definitely dont have the expertise nor intelligence to adjudicate it all. The only thing I ask of the experts whose opinions I seek is that they too appeal to evidence.”

        Well put, BDGWX.

        Many contrarions here don’t seem to consider that THEY also dont have the expertise to judge the evidence.

        When they don’t understand it or havent learned about it, they still judge it to be wrong or insufficient.

    • Norman says:

      Richard Greene

      You seem more wanting to use manipulation to win a debate rather than science.

      In one you try to smear bgdwx with this comment: “You live with a logical error called appeal to authority very common among socialists, marxists, communists and other losers.

      Trust the bureaucrats they could never be wrong the mantra of a feeble-minded human not capable of independent, logical thought”

      Science is not about independent, logical thought. It is about evidence or experiment linked with logic and rational thought. Independent thought, not supported by any evidence, is not a valuable trait in science.

      bdgwx seems to present logical facts and support them with evidence. This is the way scientific debates go. You and ClintR seem more about manipulating an audience to convince them you are right by smearing the one presenting the science.

      More like you are peddling the prevalent religion of contrarianism. You are against any possibility of global warming and stick with the contrarian opinions that are not supported by any evidence but linked with manipulation.

      Roy Spencer’s work also shows current Global Warming in his graphs. If you want science you go were the evidence takes you. If you want Contrarian Religion you just continue to reject the evidence.

      • ClintR says:

        Norman, UAH shows slight warming since 1979, at this point. But, that does not mean the slight warming will continue the next 40 years. The slight warming is not guaranteed to continue. There is no valid physics proving CO2 can warm the planet. That’s the reality.

        The problem is that people like bdgwx, Svante, you, and some others, don’t appreciate reality. You want to accept the “authority” opinion. “Authorities” are only human, and sometimes wrong to the point of corruption.

      • Nate says:

        “Authorities’ are only human, and sometimes wrong to the point of corruption.”

        Whereas trolls like Clint have little humanity and being corrupt and wrong is their normal MO.

        • ClintR says:

          Nate says:
          July 10, 2020 at 7:58 AM

          Loser trolls with no answers, but plenty of silly name-calling are at it again.

  49. Vanessa says:

    This is exactly like the computer models for COVID-19. ABSOLUTELY USELESS. Why does anyone believe that modelling is a good idea for important decisions. SURELY science and evidence is what we should be looking at. We should bin ALL computer models they are a complete waste of time and money.

    • Entropic man says:

      How do you use science and evidence to plan for the future without some sort of model, whether on a computer, calculated on paper or thought out in your head?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”How do you use science and evidence to plan for the future without some sort of model, whether on a computer, calculated on paper or thought out in your head?”

        You are generalizing the word model far too much. I don’t call a schematic prototype a model because everything you use in the schematic has already been proved, like transistors, resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc. You know how they work and you can look up their parameters in a manual. There’s no mystery and little in the way of unknowns.

        Furthermore, if you do use a modeling app like PSpice to create your circuit you can test it immediately and validate the model. To me, an idea in your mind is not a model, it’s thought.

        With climate models, they have used a stock set of differential equations called the Navier-Stokes equations to model the atmosphere as a fluid. In essence, a load of theorists, many of whom have had no practical experience in climate science or atmospheric physics are programming theories into computers to satisfy the Navier-Stokes equations.

        There is no way to validate this practice simply because you cannot create weather and climate to prove it and you certainly cannot observe the outcome in the short term.

        Weather forecasters on the other hand have had good success with models because they have loads of past data with which to program the models and loads of experience with what to expect. Even at that, one weather forecaster admitted there is still doubt in certain cases and they have learned to lay out a set of probable outcomes.

        Even at that, they get real feedback within days, sometimes hours. They can see where they have gone wrong and adjust for it. Climate modelers seem loathe to do that or to admit they are wrong.

        As it stands, climate models have been around since the 1960s, some 50 -60 years and they still cannot predict the past given that data. I don’t think they can predict the future wither, all they are doing is modifying the differential equations to suit observed data, and still getting it wrong.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Vanessa…”This is exactly like the computer models for COVID-19. ABSOLUTELY USELESS”.

      Not only are they useless they have caused people to lose their jobs and businesses and ramped up budgets to their highest levels since WW II. Why are politicians so dumb that they blindly follow this pseuso-science without ever questioning it?

    • Nate says:

      Vanessa,

      Modeling the complex Earth is difficult, but weather models show just how useful they can be.

      Given that we have no other Earth to run the control experiment of no added GHG, we have no choice but to model, and test the model predictions against the climate and paleo record we have, and improve them on the fly.

      Of course we should incorporate well-tested atmospheric and oceanic physics into the models, and that is exactly what is done.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        The King of Obfuscation is at it again.

        No data, no models. Just empty speculation and hand waving. So tiresome.

        https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/20/structural-errors-in-global-climate-models/

      • Nate says:

        Loser trolls with no answers, but plenty of silly name-calling are at it again.

      • Nate says:

        Chic, the paper you like is, Im sure quite interesting for applied mathematicians.

        Maybe you can explain to us why you think it is correct and revolutionary.

        The paper suggests an alternative scheme for doing climate modeling. It makes no attempt to do a global climate model, nor demonstrate superior results to current GCMs.

        It is premature to conclude that this one obscure paper (out of thousands) has proven that GCMs are doing it all wrong.

        But that won’t stop contrarians from dropping any pretense of healthy skepticism, and going all-in on it.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Entropic man, please stop trolling.

  50. A wrong model that makes inaccurate predictions is not useful for science unless it can be revised to make good predictions.

    And that ASSUMES the future climate will ever be predictable, perhaps with regular cycles, rather than random variations

    • bdgwx says:

      The Newtonian model of gravity fails to predict the orbit of Mercury, expansion of the universe, and a nearly uncountable list of many other observations. Using your logic the Newtonian model of gravity is therefore “not useful for science”.

      Between general relativity and quantum mechanics those models result in what is often referred to as “the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science” regarding the cosmological constant. Not only is the prediction a failure by all accounts it is a failure of unprecedented proportions in science. Using your logic QM and GR are therefore “not useful for science”.

      The fact is that climate models are not perfect. They never will be. And there are some predictions that they make that are frustratingly different from observations. But they also make predictions that are actually quite good like CMIP6’s prediction of the global warming trend of +0.07C/decade which is indistinguishable from the observation of +0.07C/decade since 1880. I don’t think you’re giving the state of climate modeling a fair shake here.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Yes, all models are wrong and some are useful.

        Climate models are continually being modified to keep up with the most recent data, yet the majority run hot. Why?

        • bdgwx says:

          Per Hausfather 2019 the majority of modeling discrepancies is on the input side. It turns out humans do a really bad job of guessing at how we’ll behave in the future. And since the climate is currently being dominated by human influences more than natural influences (at least on multidecadal scales) any mismatch between what is assumed we’ll do and what we actually do will create problems.

          But that may not be what’s happening with the corn belt temperature mismatch. That may actually be a model physics problem. It would be great if we could get an expert’s input on what is going there.

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx distorts reality: “And since the climate is currently being dominated by human influences more than natural influences…”

            bdgwx has to make stuff up to match his false beliefs. And being caught just doesn’t bother him at all. He likes being an idiot.

          • Svante says:

            It took 7000 years to come down from the Holocene max.
            Now we broke that trend and are shooting past the old high in matter of two hundred years.
            You think it coincides with the industrial revolution by chance?
            Are you serious?

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3

          • ClintR says:

            Svante shows up with his “hockey stick”!

            These idiots are amazing. They must believe that 7000 years ago you could get thermometers at the local Walmart.

            Idiots.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”It would be great if we could get an experts input on what is going there”.

            You have one, the author of this article, Roy Spencer.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “It would be great if we could get an expert’s input on what is going there.”

            ROTFL. That’s more funny than an According to Jim rerun. Yeah that’s just what we need. A climate model expert on corn belt temperatures.

          • Svante says:

            Look ClintR, more hockeysticks:
            https://tinyurl.com/y5xveatx

          • Nate says:

            “Yeah thats just what we need. A climate model expert on corn belt temperatures.”

            Yeah, that might ruin our certainty that modelers are incompetent or corrupt.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Not always incompetent or corrupt, but wrong nonetheless.

            In case you missed it, https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/20/structural-errors-in-global-climate-models/

          • Norman says:

            bdgwx

            I found this article:

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7496213_Water_Vapor_Feedback_in_Climate_Models

            My opinion is why the models run hot is they correctly get a GHE increase from more water vapor but they are neglecting that to get more WV into the atmosphere, more has to be evaporated. The increase in the DWIR from more WV would be a positive in the warming of the surface but the evaporation increase would be a cooling. I have not yet read any article on Water Vapor feedback that considers the cooling effect of the increased evaporation necessary to maintain a higher level of WV in the air. I believe if they correct for this error the Climate Models will give results closer to observational measurements.

            If you have articles on water vapor feedback that do include the cooling from greater evaporation please link them, I would like to read about it.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            From the paper:

            “As [Soden et al.] point out, observed moistening trends in the lower troposphere have been linked to corresponding changes in surface temperature. But attempts to observe a moistening trend in the upper troposphere have proven to be unsuccessful, and this is the issue that Soden et al. address….

            This work by Soden et al. provides the clearest evidence yet that GCMs are properly representing water vapor feedback.”

            You might just as well speculate that the models put too much weight, possibly by putting any weight, on CO2 concentration. Without the data indicating the actual influence of CO2 on global temperature, you are left only with speculation and hand waving. Don’t join the King and Queen of Obfuscation by participating in this pedestrian defense of the royal dogma.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            Carbon Dioxide concentration would be considerably easier to model than water vapor.

            I have noted your debate on if mankind (is that politically correct to use on this blog?) is the cause of the measured increase in CO2.

            Regardless of this debate point, the concentration (for whatever reason) is increasing. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more emitters you have. The bulk of the effect in the middle atmosphere is not the significant one. The significant effect is at the opposing ends (the Earth Surface and the TOA). The CO2 emitters closer to Earth will be warmer and emit more IR toward the surface. The increase above will produce more emitters at TOA but if the level of emission is increased from greater concentration then the emission temperature will be lower and the greater number of emitters may not actually increase the outgoing IR from CO2 emitters.

            http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/node3.htm

            This graph is a measured value of downwelling IR at some location. It shows the contribution of CO2.

            The hypothesis is if you add more CO2 you may not alter the amount of DWIR from the CO2 much (I linked you to some measured values of the amount of increased IR from the additional concentration of CO2 in a paper, I guess it is around 0.2 W/m^2 per decade) but you can alter the outgoing IR from the CO2 band. With additional CO2 the emission layer moves up to colder levels and emits less IR, which requires the planet surface to warm up enough so the emitting CO2 at TOA equals the amount of energy coming in from the Sun.

            Not really a horrible theory. The amount of warming is very debatable. But that such a process can lead to some warming is not outside the laws of science or logic.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman, you made several mistakes.

            First, radiative gases are one of the ways Earth cools itself. The more CO2, the more emission to space. Radiative gases absorb energy from the surface. That absorbed energy either warms the atmosphere or moves on to space. A warmed atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface. Increasing DWIR does not imply increasing surface temperatures. The UAH Global reference temperature is about 25C COLDER than Earth’s average surface temperature.

            Second, a CO2 molecule does not emit based on the S/B Law. The S/B Law is for SURFACES. A gas molecule emits IR based on its own energy, and molecular structure. The gas molecule does not care about its altitude or the surrounding air temperature.

            So that makes your statement, “With additional CO2 the emission layer moves up to colder levels and emits less IR, which requires the planet surface to warm up…”, is entirely wrong.

            The GHE “theory” is indeed a horrible theory. It is indeed “…outside the laws of science…”

          • Nate says:

            “but wrong nonetheless.”

            Well, if you lack all skepticism of contrarian papers. They must be correct?

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            Do you have any support for you claims or are you just pulling them out of the air?

            YOU: “Second, a CO2 molecule does not emit based on the S/B Law. The S/B Law is for SURFACES. A gas molecule emits IR based on its own energy, and molecular structure. The gas molecule does not care about its altitude or the surrounding air temperature.”

            This is not based upon any actual science.

            Here is what real science shows:

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f08490a2c585.png

            Downwelling IR for desert location

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f08490a2c585.png

            Air temperature of same location

            The DWIR most clearly follows the air temperature. The oxygen and nitrogen molecules impart energy to the CO2 and H2O molecules in the air, raise the molecules to excited vibrational states and when they return to a lower energy state they emit IR, some upward some downward.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman, your mistakes continue.

            1) You responded to “ClintR” believing you were responding to “Chic Bowdrie”.

            2) You didn’t even understand the ClintR comment. You’re still trying to show increased DWIR as “proof” the surface is heated by it.

          • Nate says:

            “Youre still trying to show increased DWIR as ‘proof’ the surface is heated by it.”

            Same as JD and Ger*an, Clint wants us to swallow his never-proven bizarre belief that by some magical process, soil becomes a mirror for DWIR.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman fled as soon as I mentioned physics. He’s tired of showing how stupid he is. But, you’re not.

            Actually, the “mirror” analogy is not too bad. Your heroes must have been good teachers.

            Too bad you’re not a good student.

          • Svante says:

            Neat trick though, perfect reflector and perfect absorber at the same time. Somebody should have told this guy:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Kirchhoff

          • ClintR says:

            Svante, only an idiot could get so many things wrong in such a short comment.

            Good job!

          • Nate says:

            Now remember Svante, JD was an ‘almost physics minor’, so he should be able to tell us which law of physics trumps Kirchoff and turns soil into a mirror.

            Or not. Trolls dont need to make sense.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, only an idiot could get so many things wrong in such a short comment.

            Good job!

            BTW, it’s “Kirchhoff”. You can’t even get the basics correct.

          • Nate says:

            “BTW, it’s ‘Kirchhoff’. ”

            Good catch. Now lets see some real physics answers..

            If you can’t find any, then your posts are, as usual, all hot air.

          • ClintR says:

            Idiots can’t learn physics.

            Did you forget?

          • Nate says:

            Lets be really honest here, Clint, if you could support your claims with real actual physics, you would have already done it, and childish insults would not be needed.

          • ClintR says:

            Let’s be honest here, Nate. You, Norman, and Svante have zero understanding of physics. You have shown yourselves to be idiots, as verified by the “idiot test”.

            Idiots can’t learn physics. So this is just for anyone else.

            You three are confused about DWIR being unable to heat the surface. When I told Norman increasing DWIR does not mean it can increase surface temperature, he left. But you came up with the “mirror analogy”, attempting to dismiss it. That’s what you do, dismiss correct analogies to physics. Apparently others have tried to teach you, but they didn’t realize what an idiot you are. You called the mirror analogy a “bizarre belief that by some magical process, soil becomes a mirror for DWIR.”

            The fact that you don’t understand that photons can be reflected indicates your inability to understand physics. How do you see the soil, idiot? You see the soil due to REFLECTED photons. The soil is analagous to a mirror at certain wavelengths. As wavelengths increase beyond visible light, the soil becomes even more reflective, as the warmer soil temperature plays even a greater role.

            Then, Svante jumps in with his link to Kirchhoff. The soil does not violate Kirchhoff’s Laws! Kirchhoff’s Laws are really just a specific application of “conservation of energy”. Svante doesn’t have a clue. He’s just throwing stuff on the wall hoping something will stick.

            Idiots.

          • Svante says:

            You’re only saying that because you want to take the “idiot” prize.

          • Nate says:

            “As wavelengths increase beyond visible light, the soil becomes even more reflective, as the warmer soil temperature plays even a greater role.”

            Declaring will not get you any credit.

            Lets see some data to confirm that soil becomes more reflective in the relevant IR wavelengths.

            Wanna bet that emmisivity of soil is > 0.9? That would mean it emits 90% of what a black body emits.

            KirchHoff is highly relevant, because if it emits 90% it also ab*so*rbs 90%.

            IOW 90% of DWIR would be abs*orbed. Not much reflected at all.

            But heres your golden opportunity to prove us wrong.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante wisely avoided any rebuttal to my physics. Maybe he’s less of an idiot than Nate?

            Nate demonstrates his ignorance: “KirchHoff is highly relevant, because if it emits 90% it also ab*so*rbs 90%.”

            Nate does not understand Kirchhoff’s Laws. If the surface absorbs more than it emits, then it warms. If it emits more than it absorbs, then it cools.

            Idiots don’t understand physics, and can’t learn.

          • Svante says:

            That’s not it ClintR.
            And it applies in thermodynamic equilibrium.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate does not understand Kirchhoff’s Laws. If the surface absorbs more than it emits, then it warms. If it emits more than it absorbs, then it cools.”

            More declarations. Read up on K. Law. God emitters are good abs*orb*ers. Soil is a good emitter, thus a good abs*orber.

            Where is your soil data showing it is reflective? Remember this is your GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to make your case and prove us wrong.

            But, no data no credit.

          • Nate says:

            Clint, “cant teach physics” because of course that would quite difficult for you.

            Lets be clear, there really are no facts to support your ‘soil is a reflector of IR’ notion.

            If there were, we know you would readily share them with us, since that would prove your often stated point.

            But you have none, so all you can do is deflect, distract and insult.

          • ClintR says:

            Photons get reflected, idiot. That’s why you can see the soil, idiot–visible-range photons are being reflected. That’s why you can’t see the soil in the dark, idiot.

            And, it’s the same for IR-range photons. When the soil warms, the photons change. When the soil warms, its spectrum of photons that it will emit/absorb changes.

            I explained all this earlier, but you’re an idiot and can’t learn. You and Svante can’t even understand simple concepts like Kirchhoff’s Laws. If your incorrect interpretation were true, Sun could not warm the planet because the incoming photons would have to be matched by equal outgoing photons.

            Idiots.

            (I have to be gone most of this week. I’m going to miss the entertainment supplied by these idiots.)

          • Ball4 says:

            “Photons get reflected, idiot. That’s why you can see the soil”

            Why isn’t soil blue to us then if sky lit visible-range photons are (mostly) all being reflected? ClintR also needs to ‘splain why instrumentation pointed at the sunlit soil registers ~97% LW terrestrial photons and only ~3% SW solar photons.

            Perhaps if ClintR really is gone a week this site will register higher bright light intensity for awhile. Instead of registering a 3 ring circus.

          • ClintR says:

            This is the stuff I will miss!

            Ball4 demonstrates he has no knowledge of how our eyes handle visible light. He must believe the sky is illuminating the surface. He just can’t explain why it gets dark after sunset….

            But, he admits that a lot of solar gets absorbed, and a lot of LW is emitted by the surface.

            He gets the percentages wrong, but we expect that from an idiot.

            (Leaving at noon–can’t wait to get back!)

          • Nate says:

            “Photons get reflected, idiot. That’s why you can see the soil, idiot–visible-range photons are being reflected. That’s why you can’t see the soil in the dark, idiot.

            And, it’s the same for IR-range photons.”

            Still more declarations with NO data to back them up.

            Zero credit.

            -Data on emissivity of soil in IR is easy to find. And it disproves your bizarre “soil becomes a mirror” belief. Oh well.

            https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table

            “Emissivity is a measure of the efficiency in which a surface emits thermal energy. It is defined as the fraction of energy being emitted relative to that emitted by a thermally black surface (a black body). A black body is a material that is a perfect emitter of heat energy and has an emissivity value of 1. A material with an emissivity value of 0 would be considered a PERFECT THERMAL MIRROR.”

            “Soil: dry 0.92
            Soil: frozen 0.93
            Soil: saturated with water 0.95”

            Soil is about as far as you can get from a ‘PERFECT THERMAL MIRROR.’

            -AND with a clear dry sky, point your IR thermometer at soil. What do you get? The temperature of the sky or the soil? Now explain.

          • Ball4 says:

            ClintR can’t explain that, Nate 9:21am. That’s obvious since now we know ClintR thinks skylight doesnt illuminate the dirt surface and a portable spectrophotometer Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm is also an idiot.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate was confused about Kirchhoff. Now he’s confused about “emissivity”.

            And Ball4 doesn’t realize that infrared wavelengths are out of the instrument’s range! He searched the web for an instrument he could use to fake it. But, he got caught. That’s why he’s an idiot.

            (Must leave now, but I’m going to miss the idiots.)

          • Ball4 says:

            Hmmmm….ClintR at first commented “That’s why you can see the soil, idiot-visible-range photons are being reflected” and then switched bands like the magic man in the middle ring at the circus switches hats to “infrared wavelengths are out of the instrument’s range!”

            ClintR will not be missed; the blog will be better science in the much anticipated absence.

          • Nate says:

            “(Must leave now, but Im going to miss the idiots.)”

            Too bad, you will miss out on this golden opportunity to prove us wrong!

            Hopefully you’ll spend time while away finding the missing data that shows soil is a good IR reflector…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, Svante, Norman, Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • Svante says:

            Perhaps it’s easier to say who could continue trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            Apparently Im the only one not trolling?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          chic…”Climate models are continually being modified to keep up with the most recent data, yet the majority run hot. Why?”

          Two reasons. An incorrect presumption has been programmed into the models re the warming effect of CO2. Two, a positive feedback has been presumed due to back-radiation from CO2. No such PF in the atmosphere, all feedbacks are negative since there is no means of amplification required for PF.

          Modelers, like Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS have presumed feedbacks cause amplification, which is wrong.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”The Newtonian model of gravity fails to predict the orbit of Mercury, expansion of the universe, and a nearly uncountable list of many other observations. Using your logic the Newtonian model of gravity is therefore “not useful for science””.

        Gravitational theory has nothing to do with the peculiar problem of Mercury which is an illusion. It predicts the orbit of Mercury accurately it fails to predict the illusion of retrograde motion, in small parts of the orbit, perceived on many planets but on Mercury in particular. It is relative motion between the Earth and Mercury that produce the illusion of the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury. Had astronomers known that they could have used Newtonian relativity equations to work it out.

        There is no way for any science to predict expansion of the universe since no one has any idea how large it is or where it is expanding from. Quantum theory is just as useless in that capacity. The notion that it is expanding comes from the Big Bang pseudo-science which claims the entire mass of the current universe occurred suddenly from nothing. If you believe that nonsense you’re apt to believe anything an authority figure lays on you.

        Never mind an uncountable number of other observations, just name one.

        The truth is that modern science and its applications still depends largely on Newtonian theory. I have studied in the fields of electronics, the electrical field, and the computer field much of my life and I have still to find a need to apply quantum theory.

        For example, electric motor theory is based on simple principles like those discovered by Faraday in the 19th century. He created a simple electric motor long before the electron was discovered and the electron is the basis of quantum theory. There is not much you need to know about electric motor theory unless you are a design engineer. Even then, you won’t touch quantum theory, simply because it has no use in such an application. Neither does relativity theory.

        Relativity theory has hardly any application in modern science unless you are studying atomic and sub-atomic particles. Even then, I question if it is really needed. I think those studying at that level need to look closer at the problem to understand the real relationship between mass and force/energy.

  51. Norman
    You have no idea what science is and how mich politics has been involved in recent decades.

    The always wrong wild guesses of the future climate in 100 years are NOT real science.

    Even if stated by a science PhD in a prominent government job.

    I have never in my life claimed there was no warming after 1979, and have complemented Mr Spencer’s work repeatedly.

    You imply that I reject global warming, making you a liar.

    Our planet is ALWAYS warming, or cooling, and never in thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Here in Michigan USA, I want more warming.

    You also claim science is about evidence.

    Of course it is, and the quality of the data are important too.

    I’m going to type this slowly so even you can understand; There is no evidence of the FUTURE climate, so people repeatedly wild guess it, and grosslly overpredict global warming, and usually “see” a coming climate crisis, from a warming trend that started in the late 1600s … that has harmed no one so far.

    Considtently wrong predictions are not real science.

    There is no way for humans to predict the climate in 100 years, or in 10 years.

    That people do make such predictions shows something other than real science is involved.

    The most important knowledge of the future climate is that humans have no idea how to predict it.

    NORMAN, you make bdgwax sound like a genius, and that is not easy to do.

    I have summarized my climate science reading (over 20 years) on line at

    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    since 2014

    I’ve had over 60,000 page views.

    You might learn something there.

    Although I doubt it.

    You have repeatedly criticized and ridiculed me in your long winded comment …. complaining anout how I criticize and ridicule bdgwax — somehow I find that funny !

    I STILL LIKE THE NAME NORMAN.

    • Norman says:

      Richard Greene

      I did go over to you blog and read some of your material. I do actually agree with some of your points. I do think the media is trying to make links of current extreme weather events to global warming. I think it is to manipulate people into following a determined course. In my research it seems extreme weather events have always been. I do not see strong evidence to support claims that extreme weather is increasing. On this I will agree with you.

      The claims that the GHE is bad science is what prompts me to work to alter incorrect thought processes.

      I had lengthy debates on Skeptical Science about extreme weather.

      https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1016

      I was generally the outcast on that blog.

      I can agree with some of your points.

      • bdgwx says:

        It’s a fair point Norman. I think people are too quick to blame climate change on every single extreme weather event that occurs. Extreme weather will occur regardless so it’s really hard to pin the blame on any one factor especially on an individual event basis.

        Another corllary to ponder…extreme events are characterized by a normal distribution or Bell-like curve where extreme events appear on the tails and become increasing unlikely with the magnitude of the event. As the planet warms the curve may slide to right making events on the right more likely. But…events on the left become less likely. People often forget about that last part.

        Now I will concede that it may not be that simple. The proposed quasi-resonant amplification of the polar jet may truly lead to more extreme events (both on the left and right hand sides of the distribution), but as of right now that’s still being debated and is mostly only relevant to the mid-latitudes in the NH.

    • Norman says:

      Richard Greene

      I am not sure I can completely agree with all your claims here:

      YOU: “Considtently wrong predictions are not real science.

      There is no way for humans to predict the climate in 100 years, or in 10 years.

      That people do make such predictions shows something other than real science is involved.

      The most important knowledge of the future climate is that humans have no idea how to predict it.”

      You are correct that wrong predictions are not real science. The hallmark of good science is predictability.

      Not sure that humans will have no way of predicting future climate. Climate can be chaotic but within ranges you may find some predictability.

      Weather seemed unpredictable but scientists started to develop theories and ideas and log data and started seeing patterns emerge. Because of this science the death rates from tornadoes has declined. Scientists can know tornadoes are likely in regions because of observed conditions that make tornado formation likely (all predictions).

      Here is some proof of this predictability.

      https://inside.nssl.noaa.gov/nsslnews/2009/03/us-annual-tornado-death-tolls-1875-present/

      Climate models currently may have problems but the problems do not mean predictability is impossible. If they are good scientists seeking the truth they will learn things along the way. Improve their ideas, hone their models and get better and better results. This is not outside the realm of possibility.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”There is no way for humans to predict the climate in 100 years, or in 10 years.

        That people do make such predictions shows something other than real science is involved”.

        Fine…just don’t present it as legitimate science. I’d have no problem with AGW if it was presented as a theory only with a disclaimer that there is no hard science to back it. That’s not the way it is, governments are using the pseudo-science to create taxes and affect the way people live.

        In medical science, they have completely screwed the world using unvalidated models and theories that have never been corroborated, like social distancing and wearing cloth masks. People have been put out of work and out of business based on flimsy theories which are based on a viral model that has no proof or precedence. There are tests based on the model that have never been proved to test for a virus.

        Models have their values when validated or maybe even serve a purpose to aid in visualization. I think what Roy is saying in this article is that policy should not be dependent on unvalidated models because they are claiming too much warming. That should go for medical policy as well.

  52. Bdgwax
    You published a pure appeal to authority, as if trying to dhow I was right.

    Those agenvies claim to be authorities, so that’s good enough for you.

    They make ridiclous assertions of temperature compilation accuracy, so that’s good enough for you.

    So why do you come here ?

    UAH is not an official climate agency –so why would you care about UAH ?

    The bureaucrats you so admire have been making always wrong climate predictions since the 1970s … but their gullible followers either don’t know that, or don’t care

    A real scientist is a skeptic, not a gullible believer of the majority opinion … which in science history, usually ends up being wrong.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    testing…

    carbon500…”The journalists, editors, television companies and others responsible are a disgrace”.

    You’ve got that right, they create news, they don’t report it. On this side of The Pond we’ve taken to calling it fake news.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      rest of testing…

      I b.a.d.g.e.r.ed the Canadian Broad-casting Corporation till one of their poobahs contacted me by email to see what I was on about. I pointed them to the UAH data which is contrary to what the CBC science department reports and they had no interest. They claimed to represent the status quo of science, a claim he failed to explain.

      Why would a media outlet want to re.p.r.e.sent only one side of science? Why would they call themselves journalists and fail to inform readers of other sides of a POV?

      • Lou Maytrees says:

        When will Gordon understand that UAH temperature is weighted at 11,000 feet high (Lower Atmosphere) and CBC is talking about the global SURFACE temperature?

        Am guessing not soon.

        Two different places are being measured for temperature. CBC is using the surface temp of the planet, UAH is using the 2 mile high temp.

        .

  54. Tim Wells says:

    I think we are going to see the first signs of global cooling, I walked out of a UK Carbon management company when I discovered it was a hoax back in 2006.

    • Galaxie500 says:

      Tim shall we add you to the list below?
      Taken from PT54
      Predictions of Cooling
      2001 Easterbrook
      2005 Mashnich
      2007 Archibald
      2008 Easterbrook
      2008 Pilmer
      2009 Heartland institute
      2009 Svensmark
      2010 Easterbrook
      2011 Lassen
      2013 Abdussamatov
      2014 Long
      2015 Humlum
      2016 Abdussamatov

      100% in failed predictions

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim wells…”I walked out of a UK Carbon management company when I discovered it was a hoax back in 2006″.

      That would be the hoax started by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, which lead to the UN starting the IPCC to investigate it. The first co-chair, John Houghton, was a protege of Thatcher and a climate modeler. He brought all his modeling pseudo-science to the IPCC who are still deeply immersed in it.

  55. HelenZom says:

    Vini descobre que nГЈo passou no vestibularAs Aventuras de Poliana

  56. My main points are that warming has been good news for over 300 years and humans have repeatedly found CO2 levels followed estimated temperature changes, rather than leading the temperature.

    It is claimed that relationship reversed in 1975.

    Manmade CO2, since the trough of the Great Depression, caused CO2 levels to be rising.

    Temperatures did not rise from 1940 to 1975 and again from 2003 to mid-2015 … With no logical explanation how that could happen while CO2, allegedly the temperature control knob, rose.

    Norman, I was very dissapointed your last comment was so polite — that’s just not acceptable online !

    The more you learn about climate science, the less you “know” about the future climate !

    • bdgwx says:

      My main points are that warming has been good news for over 300 years

      What dataset to you trust and use to be able to claim that the Earth has been warming for 300 years?

      and humans have repeatedly found CO2 levels followed estimated temperature changes, rather than leading the temperature.

      That’s true. We have repeatedly found that CO2 levels lag temperature.

      But…we have repeatedly found that CO2 levels lead temperature as well. Don’t forget that.

      And that fits perfectly with expectations since CO2 is both in a feedback and forcing relationship with the temperature. It will lead when it is primary catalyzing agent for temperature change. It will lag when another agent catalyzes the change. But in both cases it still produces a positive radiative forcing which results in a higher temperature than would have otherwise occurred.

      It is claimed that relationship reversed in 1975.

      It is claimed that CO2 leads the temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

      It is claimed that CO2 lags (mostly anyway) the temperature during the Quaternary Period.

      It is claimed that CO2 leads the temperature for the PETM, ETMx, and various other rapid warming events.

      Temperatures did not rise from 1940 to 1975 and again from 2003 to mid-2015 … With no logical explanation how that could happen while CO2, allegedly the temperature control knob, rose.

      CO2 is not the only thing that modulates Earth’s energy imbalance. You must consider all factors. The CMIP suite of models consider many things. CMIP5 and to a greater extent CMIP6 do a reasonable job of explaining past temperatures trends.

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained

      The more you learn about climate science, the less you “know” about the future climate !

      That doesn’t make any sense.

  57. The greenhouse effect takes place in the troposphere so that’s where it should be measured.

    A global average in the troposphere makes sense.

    A global average on the surface makes no sense, is inaccurate, and can have many other variables besides the greenhouse effect.

    And not one person lives in the average temperature.

    If the surface warming is mainly in colder locations, mainly in the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night, as has been true since 1975, that important surface detail is hidden
    by the use of a single surface temperature average.

    The details of actual global warming are good news, and that’s why the smarmy leftist climate alarmists (climate science deniers) will only use a single surface average temperature.

    And they’ll repeatedly adjust the raw data until they are happy with the result.

    A majority of surface grids include wild guessed “data” (aka infilling) which means a guess that can never be verified.

    • Nate says:

      Richard,

      I don’t get this warming is good meme..

      If warming was good, then we would all live in the tropics.

      For agriculture, we already grow crops in the zones where they grow best.

      Major cities are already built in moderate climates with access to clean water and transport, and where they are neither constantly flooded or covered with ice.

      In these regards, a STABLE climate seems desirable.

      • ClintR says:

        Earth’s climate is stable enough to be prediciablle. 100 years from now, it will be hot in summer in Texas, and cold in winter in Siberia. There is no science to suggest otherwise.

      • Nate says:

        “There is no science to suggest otherwise.”

        Clint takes the toddler at bedtime approach to these issues.

        ‘I am not tired!’

    • bdgwx says:

      RG: The greenhouse effect takes place in the troposphere so thats where it should be measured.

      What’s wrong with measuring it everywhere?

      RG: A global average in the troposphere makes sense.

      Sure. It also makes sense to measure the stratosphere, surface, land, cryosphere, and hydrosphere as well.

      RG: A global average on the surface makes no sense, is inaccurate, and can have many other variables besides the greenhouse effect.

      People live on the surface so it makes a lot of sense to measure the average temperature here. The measurement has an uncertainty of about 0.05C for annual means in the present day.

      RG: If the surface warming is mainly in colder locations, mainly in the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night, as has been true since 1975, that important surface detail is hidden by the use of a single surface temperature average.

      First…those are expectations of GHG warming so…

      Second…it’s not hidden. You this information because NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, UAH, RSS, etc told you. And the information isn’t hard to obtain.

      Third…the global mean temperature is an important metric for testing climate related hypothesis.

      RG: And theyll repeatedly adjust the raw data until they are happy with the result.

      I’m not aware of even a single substantiated claim that a reputable institution adjusted data specifically to mislead the public.

      Nevermind that the adjustments actually work to reduce the overall warming trend. So if they did have an agenda to mislead the public then they did a really bad job at executing it.

      A majority of surface grids include wild guessed data (aka infilling) which means a guess that can never be verified.

      It’s pretty easy to verify whether your interpolation or homogenization algorithm is effective and what kind of uncertainty you can expect from it. Ponder the task for a moment and post back when you have answer. Take a stab at it!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”RG: The greenhouse effect takes place in the troposphere so thats where it should be measured.

        Whats wrong with measuring it everywhere?”

        Wherever you measure it make sure there is a glass roof present with glass walls to trap the air molecules from rising so the air temperature can rise. The real atmosphere is so well ventilated with convection currents that air temperature could not possibly increase as in a real greenhouse.

        • Svante says:

          It’s better than a glass roof, we’re insulated by vacuum.
          Traps air molecules really well.

          • Amazed says:

            S,

            You idiot. 150,000,000 km of vacuum impedes the warmth of the Sun not at all. A sunshade works far better.

          • Svante says:

            It’s reduced by the square of the distance.

          • Nate says:

            Wonderful to see MF, the strawman specialist, is back.

            No one said anything about glass impeding the warmth of sunlight!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”It’s better than a glass roof, we’re insulated by vacuum.
            Traps air molecules really well.”

            You think a vacuum can stop air molecules from expanding????

            Ever heard of gravity? Why do you think the Earth does not rotate under the atmosphere, causing 1000 mph winds at the Equator?

          • Nate says:

            Weird non sequitur, G.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bdgwx, Svante, please stop trolling.

  58. NatalieGycle says:

    Samet, Nergis’i Ezilmekten KurtardД± – No: 309 29. BГ¶lГјm

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    crakar24…”Google should be ashamed off themselves”

    I think people need to be aware that Google has taken it upon themselves to edit out scientific claims which it deems as being opposed to current paradigms. That seems to be going on with Facebook as well.

    If you can’t find something in Google, use the duckduckgo search engine as Clint suggested. There is also the old standby dogpile.

    And don’t forget ftp searches. Ftp may be becoming extinct but many a good file can be found with an ftp search.

  60. Nasty Nate
    There is no “evidence” of the future climate, or future anything else!

    A child would know that — I’ll wait until you find a child to explain it to you! Sorry, I thought that was funny.

    The future climate is a wild guess that bears no resemblance to the past 325 years of global warming … or even the past 70 years as man- made CO2 emissions increased.

    The people making the wild guesses typically over-estimate global warming by 2x to 3x, except for one Russian model that seems reasonable (obviously in collusion with Trump).

  61. Gordon Robertson says:

    lou maytrees…”When will Gordon understand that UAH temperature is weighted at 11,000 feet high (Lower Atmosphere)”

    When will Lou and other alarmists learn what weighting means? Even though the centre frequency for the weighting curve is higher in the troposphere, the channel can receive microwave frequencies from oxygen right down to the surface. In other words, the weighting curve centred higher in the troposphere also detects emissions at lower altitudes, right to the surface.

    Roy explained that they can measure surface radiation but it is too unreliable due to the various radiating components.

    Don’t forget that all surface stations are measuring at various levels into the troposphere and that Hansen explained the difficulties with that. It appears NOAA, GISS and Had-crut have had so much difficulty with the problem they have resorted to discarding 90% of the reporting stations and synthesizing fudged temperatures using climate models.

    • Lou Maytrees says:

      gordo,

      Your gibberish continues.

      UAH measures global land surface temps, it’s right there in the monthly Lower Atmosphere graph.

      You’re just upset that UAH surface complies with CBC and disproves your anti CBC rant.

  62. Bdwax
    You are scientifically illiterate and under the control of the appeal to authority of government financed science.

    Whatever the bureaucrats say must be true and contrary scientists know nothing, using your feeble logic.

    Global TEMPERATURE data from 20 tp 30 years ago show different trends than the same years now.

    The cooling from 1940 to 1975 could never be explained in any logical way, so the cooling is being revised, gradually to zero.

    Did you trust the US government completely when they claimed victory in Vietnam was at hand, and when they claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or when your friends in government accused Trump of collusion with Russians through four investigations that found no evidence?

    Of course the government bureaucrat scientists could not possibly be wrong and their predictions of fast global warming just must be correct BECAUSE THEY SAY They can predict the future climate … and thats good enough for Bdgwax who just loves a scary climate fairy tale.

    Basically, you believe the science is settled.

    Science is never settled, but you just don’t get it.

    • Svante says:

      It’s settled enough.

      • Amazed says:

        S,

        By people like Gavin (not a scientist at all) Schmidt? Or maybe Michael (I awarded myself a Nobel Prize by mistake) Mann? Or how about Zeke (environmental science, social science, political science – who cares) Hausfather?

        Maybe you could include the Mullers, who accidentally named their non-taxpaying begging Organisation similarly to a real university campus?

        Are you feeling settled enough now? Maybe you need to massage your Bump of Gullibility a little more.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      richard…”when they claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction…”

      I did not care whether they did or they did not. Saddam was hurling those SCUD missiles at Israel and being brutal to his countrymen. I was glad to see him get his butt kicked.

    • bdgwx says:

      RG,

      I don’t accept the state of climate science because of who participates. I accept it because of the evidence is presented. I think you may be conflating the logical fallacy of appealing to authority with citing a source.

      The global mean temperature trajectory may be illogical to YOU, but scientists aren’t quite so mystified by it.

      I base my assessment of predictive skill based on what is predicted vs what is observed. And I’m not scared by the climate. You shouldn’t be either.

      I believe the science is settled in the same way it is settled in other scientific disciplines. We certainly don’t have perfect understanding and we never will, but we can certainly eliminate a lot of possibilities regarding how things work.

      There is a lot I don’t get. And with each new fact I learn I realize my ignorance is even more profound than before. But I also understand that my knowledge does not have to be perfect to accept certain truths.

  63. Eben says:

    Talking With Michael Shellenberger About Apocalypse Never, A Terrific Book

    https://youtu.be/6yDbzrIPBnQ

  64. Notman
    The more you learn about climate science, the more you realize scientists have far more questions than answers — I mean right answers, not assumptions and speculation.

    Even explanations for ice age cycles still have open questions.

    The claim that one variable controls the global average temperature and natural causes of climate change are just ‘noise’, is an unproven assertion.

    Wild guesses and scaremongering about the future climate may convince YOU, Norman, but not me.

    Almost 50 years of wrong coming climate crisis predictions and you still believe, like a religious fanatic.

    Predictions of the future are rarely right, so why would you expect predictions of the future climate to be right?

    And government bureaucrat scientists could never be wrong?

    YOU must be kidding.

    No doubt = no b r a I n s.

    • Norman says:

      Richard Greene

      I looked up your “50 years” of wrong predictions.

      https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

      clicking on the links I only found News Paper articles. This would not be the same as a scholarly paper on predictions made by scientists. Media is a business for profit and they usually exaggerate things to create interest to sell product (news). I do not know if most scientists in the field were making such claims.

      I do think some Climate Scientists have gone bad. I think for reasons of fame. Within their own groups they are unknown to the general public. Once they come out as “experts” and the Public hears about them then they lose the scientific objectivity and go rouge to an extreme position in order to maintain an audience and keep the flame of fame burning.

      This would not be the same as scientists in the field looking for the truth and doing proper science.

      A lot of the “alarmism” comes from groups of people that make money and need support. In order to get money they have to create a need to support and most groups go to some extreme as that is the best way to raise funds.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI

  65. Nasty Natew tell
    20,000 years ago Canada was covered with a thick ice glacier.

    Now tell me you hsve proof a warming planet is NOT MORE pleasant for people.

    In the the late 1600s, people left a lot of anecdotal evidence that they hated the 1690s, and the several famines the unusally cold climate caused in Europe.

    • Nate says:

      “20,000 years ago Canada was covered with a thick ice glacier.”

      Uhhh yeah. And that means we dont want that?

      Ok I can agree with that.

      And during human civilization no major settlements have been covered by thick ice or deep water. Thats what climate stability has done for us.

      “In the the late 1600s, people left a lot of anecdotal evidence that they hated the 1690s, and the several famines the unusually cold climate caused in Europe.”

      Yes, a problem in N Europe. But not the whole world.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File:20190731_Central_England_Temperature_(CET)_(annual_mean,_beginning_in_1659).png

      You can see that Central England Temps dropped 1-2 degrees C in those years.

      It does make one worry that quite small changes in temperature can change weather patterns that can be a problem for regional agriculture.

  66. Eben says:

    We are at the tipping point
    This is a revelation of how really stupid the environmental dogma is when the most leftist people start turning against it
    https://youtu.be/ko8aXUm5DfU
    https://youtu.be/eq60W2pRk84

    • ClintR says:

      Shellenberger demonstates an appreciation for reality. He could probably pass the test proving he is not an idiot.

      It’s amazing how many commenters here have proved they are idiots, by failing the simple test.

      Have you taken the test, eben?

    • Lou Maytrees says:

      Sky News Australia videos? – LOL

      it’s how deniers think, Sky News is ‘leftist’ to them all.

      Clueless.

  67. EileenZen says:

    I did not expect to be this impressed…

  68. Gordon Robertson says:

    Originally posted by Rob Mitchell, an excellent video by Michael Moore that has been banned on youtube. A link to the movie is supplied below.

    robthere is a great new documentary film by Michael Moore called Planet of the Humans.

    The movie also reveals the truth that green energy is highly dependent on fossil fuels and cannot meet the demands of our power grids. So greenies have given their blessing to natural gas and biomass, which replaces coal with trees. Thats right, the greenies think its OK to burn trees because they are sustainable!!!

    Duh!! If every tree in the US was burned for one year it would barely meet the needs of the US power demand.

    https://energynow.ca/2020/04/watch-michael-moores-much-needed-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-looks-at-the-ugly-truths-about-renewable-energy/

    • Svante says:

      Yes, if something is not immediately perfect you must give up completely and never fix it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”if something is not immediately perfect you must give up completely and never fix it.”

        Not at all. I see a future in nuclear fusion and fission. We are wasting our time with the current approach which is driven by, as Michael Crichton pointed out years ago, wacko urban religious cults. Now Schellenburg is presenting the same message, the Green movement is about money, power, and religious-like beliefs.

        Wind farms and solar will never replace the power generated by hydro electricity and fossil fuel generators. Both oil and natural gas are limited by supply so the future can be none other than fusion or fission, unless some brand new technology comes into being. Let’s stop wasting time with crap solutions and scaring people to death about propaganda related to anthropogenic emissions.

  69. gallopingcamel says:

    bdgwx says:

    “Butwe have repeatedly found that CO2 levels lead temperature as well. Dont forget that.”

    If you have data that supports that statement please tell us all where to find it.

    Please note that the “Correlation” between [CO2] and temperature from 1850 to 1998 looks great graphically until you extend the time interval to include the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period.

    • bdgwx says:

      The hyperthermal eras. The PETM is considered to be the best analog to the modern pulse. And, of course, the modern pulse itself is the prime example of CO2 leading temperature.

      Between the Minoan Warm Period and 1800 CO2 varied by only a few ppm. The RF caused by CO2 changes in the past was about an order of magnitude less than for the contemporary warming period. Remember…temperature changes are driven by the net effect of all modulating agents so when one agent contributes only a small amount you expect correlation between temperature and that agent and only that agent to be smaller as well. Also consider that global mean temperatures were confined to a pretty narrow range during the holocene as well. The contemporary warm period is quite the anomaly against the backdrop of the global holocene temperature record.

      • ClintR says:

        A better phrase is “hypothetical eras”.

        Much better.

      • Eben says:

        “If you have data that supports that statement please tell us all where to find it”

        so much for the data reply , would you settle for a few alarmist taking points instead ?

      • bdgwx says:

        Kaufmann 2020: Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach

        Zachos 2010: Tempo and scale of late Paleocene and early Eocene carbon isotope cycles: Implications for the origin of hyperthermals

        Wright & Schaller 2013: Evidence for a rapid release of carbon at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum

        McInerney & Wing 2011: The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: A Perturbation of Carbon Cycle, Climate, and Biosphere with Implications for the Future

        Zeebe & Zachos 2013: Long-term legacy of massive carbon input to the Earth system: Anthropocene versus Eocene

        Bowen 2015: Two massive, rapid releases of carbon during the onset of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

        Zachos 2002: Warming the fuel for the fire: evidence for the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal

        Cui 2011: Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

        Bralower 2014: The dynamics of global change at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

        Norris 1999: Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition

        Rohl 2000: New chronology for the late Paleocene Thermal Maximum and its environmental implications

        Rohl 2007: On the duration of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)

        Zachos 2003: A transient rise in tropical sea surface temperature during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

        • Eben says:

          now he fixed it posted the whole google in here for you

          But here is your data , for the last 8000 years the CO2 and temperature went exactly in the opposite directions , then the temperature started going up for the last 200 years since the end of little ice age the the CO2 started going up 100 years later than the temperature

          https://i.postimg.cc/15NQdVFn/050317-1416-lindzensoon1.png

          • gallopingcamel says:

            @Eben,
            Thanks for that chart that confirms my point about [CO2] varying over a +/- 8 ppm range over a 5,300 year period.

            You chart shows that the [CO2] ranged from 253 to 280 ppm from 11,000 years BP (Before Present) to 170 years BP.

          • bdgwx says:

            I think the chart would be more meaningful if it included the contemporary warming period. The Marcott 2013 temperature (black line) is truncated in your version and the CO2 data is readily available to supplement Monnin 2004. Regardless from this chart and only this chart it appears that CO2 is going up well before temperature at the end of the time period.

            The Z Liu 2014 paper is pretty good. So are his other publications. He does research on the so called holocene temperature conundrum which is in reference to the secular temperature decline despite the increase in GHG forcing. You’ll notice his selection of models in the paper do not include aerosol forcing. Liu 2018: A Possible Role of Dust in Resolving the Holocene Temperature Conundrum is another good read.

            At any rate I’m not seeing anything in this chart that is inconsistent with CO2 being a forcing agent for temperature changes in addition to its feedback relationship. And I’d be negligent if I didn’t point out that the same criticism you apply to CO2 leading temperature could made for it lagging temperature as well according to this chart and only this chart. That’s why you have to consider everything in totality.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          @bdgwx,

          You say that the PETM provides evidence that CO2 drives temperature and you provide a list of papers to support your contention. Proxies from 50 million years ago have much poorer time resolution than ice cores. Even if you could show a correlation between [CO2] it could mean that temperature was driving [CO2] rather than the reverse hypothesis.

          The PETM is one of my favorite areas of study. I could offer counter arguments to your barrage of papers but that would amount to a futile kind of trench warfare. For the purpose of illustration I offer one example.

          I have the raw data from Zachos et al. (2003) and it does not include CO2.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        bdgwx said:

        “Between the Minoan Warm Period and 1800 CO2 varied by only a few ppm.”

        I can’t argue with that. The Greenland ice cores (GISP & GRIP) all show [CO2] tiny variations from 3,500 B.C. to 1,800 A.D. Over the entire 5,300 year period the [CO2] ranged from 264 to 280 ppm. Put another way, [CO2] was 272 +/- 8 ppm.

        Thus for more than 5,000 years [CO2] hardly varied while there were wild and sudden swings in temperature that are confirmed by historians. This is strong evidence that natural factors other caused the temperature swings rather than CO2.

        • Svante says:

          Those swings were nothing compared to this one.

        • bdgwx says:

          There are certainly swings in regional temperature reconstructions, but on a global scale I’m not seeing any swings that are even comparable to the contemporary warming period.

          A +- 8 ppm change is equivalent to only +- 0.15 W/m^2 of RF. That’s not a lot. Other factors can easily dwarf that.

        • Nate says:

          “Thus for more than 5,000 years [CO2] hardly varied while there were wild and sudden swings in temperature that are confirmed by historians. This is strong evidence that natural factors other caused the temperature swings rather than CO2.”

          Yes. That makes sense. But does not prove that CO2 cannot have caused the current temp rise.

          -But the current rise in CO2 and temperature are both unprecedented in their magnitude and rate of rise.

          -Temperature as the driver of the current 120 ppm spike in CO2 is not consistent with the record.

          -The slow, small rise in CO2 in the last 7000 y consistent with anthro deforestation for agriculture.

          • Eben says:

            When you look at the actual temperature data in the last 8000 years of Holocene it jumps up and down 2 degrees C , by the time it gets through “smoothing” climate shystering process it comes out looking like like a hockey stick , when you also account for their doubling of the actual warming by cooling the past warming the present and splicing one data set on top of the other , there is absolutely nothing unprecedented about it

          • bdgwx says:

            Eben,

            Can you post a link to a global temperature reconstruction which you feel best supports your claims here?

          • gallopingcamel says:

            Nate says:

            “But does not prove that CO2 cannot have caused the current temp rise.”

            True, especially since there are good physics reasons for believing that more CO2 DOES cause temperature to rise.

            What we are arguing about is “How Much”.

          • Svante says:

            bdgwx says:
            “Can you post a link to a global temperature reconstruction which you feel best supports your claims here?”

            Hopefully not a blog cartoon.

          • Bindidon says:

            Eben

            As so (too) often, you are telling nonsense. You are yourself the climate shyster par excellence.

            You have been told often enough that the hockey stick is nothing wrong.

            It is simply because the last century of e.g. a 2000-year time series looks very different if you draw the entire time series over 2000 years:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view

            than if you only draw this century:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p8s2y7N90H2nj-TqrGHNP7lvyEYQqkS8/view

            This is evident, as the 0-2000 graph shows within 2 cm what the 1891-2000 graph shows in 30.

            *
            You might argue: oooh, the hockey stick rather will be due to exaggerated temperatures from 1891-2000!

            In the second graph, the Pages2K evaluation is therefore compared with the ‘coolest’ temperature time series, namely that managed by the Japanese Met Agency.

            Their linear trends for 1891-2000, in C / decade:
            – Pages2K: 0.06 +- 0.003
            – JMA: 0.06 +- 0.004

            For 1979-2020, JMA has 0.15 C / decade, a perfect fit to UAH’s 0.14.

            In other words, the Pages2K evaluation certainly is not exaggerated.

            *
            With your hockey stick blah blah, you behave exactly as dishonest as does Robertson all the time.

            At least one thing cannot be blamed on you: to claim, like do Robertson and a few other Flatearthists, that our Moon does not rotate on its center of mass.

            Das ist ja immerhin etwas!

            J.-P. D.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            cam…”especially since there are good physics reasons for believing that more CO2 DOES cause temperature to rise.

            What we are arguing about is “How Much””.

            I am waiting for someone to scientifically disprove my Ideal Gas Law analysis, which limits the degree of CO2 warming to its relative mass percent in air. That would amount to about 0.04C per degree C.

            With the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, I am holding n and V constant so that T varies directly with P. I think that is upheld by the linear relationship between P and T in the troposphere.

            Using Dalton’s law of partial pressures, the total pressure equals the sum of the partial pressures. Since T is a function of pressure I am presuming the same holds true for the temperature, that the total heat, being the sum of heats contributed by each gas in air, is the sum of the heats contributed by each gas.

            We’ll call that Robertson’s law of partial temperatures.

            Since N2/O2 makes up nearly 99% of the pressure, ergo mass percent, it must contribute nearly 99% of the heat. CO2 at 0.04% must be limited to 0.04% of the heat.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”You have been told often enough that the hockey stick is nothing wrong”.

            The difference between true skeptics and your butt-kissing appeals to authority from shysters like Mann et al is that we skeptics actually try to understand why the hockey stick is a scam. The statistical methods are wrong, the proxies used are inadmissible, and the graph was fudged to correct for declining proxy temperatures.

  70. Eben says:

    I can back up everything I say,

    The temperature records have been butchered and falsified Anybody can check this out and see who the real shysters are
    this is directly from IPCC
    https://i.postimg.cc/P5k8wNY8/Comparison-charts.jpg

    • bdgwx says:

      There was no butchering or falsification here.

      Here is my recommended reading list concerning this topic.

      Folland 1990: Observed Climate Variations and Change

      Jones 2009: High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the
      last millennium: a review of current
      status and future prospects

      • Eben says:

        Why don’t you just post your communist manuscript for me you warmist nutcase

        • Svante says:

          I agree with bdgwx but I thought I was conservative.

          Please explain your thought process when you go from temperature to communist.

        • bdgwx says:

          Eben,

          I have no idea what your response even means.

          I provided some relevant materials related to the image you posted.

          In a nutshell…the graphic on the left is a “schematic” and is clearly labeled as such in the 1990 IPCC FAR. It is NOT a global temperature reconstruction. It’s purpose is to provide an order of magnitude estimate on the probable range of temperatures without actually having any real global mean temperature reconstruction to go off.

          Here is what the IPCC actually said in the report.

          “The period since the end of the last glaciation has been
          characterized by small changes in global average
          temperature with a range of probably less than 2°C (Figure
          7 1), though it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations
          indicated were truly global.”

          The schematic was adapted from Lamb 1982 who was a pioneer in deciphering past temperature trajectories. It was his work that brought the MWP and LIA to the forefront of research. But he was working mainly with temperatures from England. Lamb even cautioned people against assuming that the MWP and LIA were global events and went so far as to suggest that many parts of the Earth actually cooled during this period. He clearly believed that the MWP and LIA were most acute in Europe.

          It wasn’t until MBH98 that the first truly global temperature reconstructions began appearing. Scientists have learned a lot since Lamb 1982 and IPCC 1990. Specifically they confirmed what had already been suspected…the MWP and LIA, while real phenomenon, were not globally synchronous events and that the magnitude of the global mean temperature changes was much less than it was in Europe.

        • Bindidon says:

          Eben

          As usual: you come back to insulting when you have nothing else to present.

          Looks like it was written by a German alt-right, bald fool.

          They all love insulting everybody.

          J.-P. D.

    • Nate says:

      Eben, there are no numbers on chart at left. I dont see what these charts are supposed to prove?

    • Svante says:

      Eben says:
      “this is directly from IPCC”
      https://i.postimg.cc/P5k8wNY8/Comparison-charts.jpg

      It’s a schematic of 50 year averages of the Central England Record, from Lamb 1992. It has increased by one degree since then.

      • bdgwx says:

        And it’s not even directly from IPCC. It has been “butchered and falsified”. Specifically the temperature scale was removed and the label “Present Day” was added. The scale was an essential element of the original graph because it was meant as a schematic for showing the order of magnitude of the temperature change. And the “Present Day” label is erroneous since the graph does not contain present day data.

        • Eben says:

          Pay no attention to ankle biters , it is all on the record

          https://youtu.be/u1rj00BoItw

        • bdgwx says:

          That’s right. It is all on record. That’s how I know the image you posted had been altered. It’s also how I know that the MWP and LIA were real phenomenon but which did not exhibit the same magnitude on a global scale as they did on a regional scale. No body has made the MWP disappear. What scientists have done is provide clarity on details like when, where, and by how much. And that is no thanks to Dr. Deming since his only contribution to the subject is a single “perspective” paper. And I’ll leave you with a quote of his from 2008…”To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over.”

        • Nate says:

          It is amazing that the folks like Eben who yell the most about:

          “The temperature records have been butchered and falsified Anybody can check this out and see who the real shysters are”

          are actually quite fine with falsifying and shystering the data.

          Apparently when you’re in a total war with lib-tards, there are no rules.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, Svante, Bindidon, please stop trolling.

  71. Eben says:

    The latest in climate predicting psychobabble. It could be warming , it could be cooling , it could be anything and we have a model for every scenario.
    But at least they backed off from the straight line projections.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d02/meta

    • Svante says:

      Yeah, global warming is long term.
      Other factors could offset it for a few decades.
      Like 1940-1970.
      What else is new?

    • bdgwx says:

      Eben, I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. So here’s your chance to explain why you posted an altered graph and why it was presented out of context. I am, of course, speaking about the altered 1990 IPCC FAR graph you posted above.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  72. Eben says:

    Climate shystering 101 202 and 303 all in one

    Free hockey stick included

    https://electroverse.net/proof-that-nasa-and-noaa-are-erasing-the-arctics-1940s-warming-blip/

    • Svante says:

      Yeah right, it’s a communist plot by NASA.
      They want to control your life you know.

    • Nate says:

      Hey Eben,

      If I were to get all my climate science facts from Greenpeace and Antifa, you think they’d be accurate?

      Or ya think I might only get the left-filtered ‘science’??

      Maybe you should stop getting all your ‘science’ from the Denialist Blogosphere?

    • bdgwx says:

      Eben,

      I want you to go here.

      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4/

      Select the Reykjavik station and see for yourself.

      The read the following document which explains the adjustments.

      https://tinyurl.com/yxr35ctt

      Notice that the adj-homogenized data is nearly identical the unadjusted data. I wonder why Tony Heller didn’t show that? And why did he not link to the documentation explaining the adjustments and why they are necessary?

      Regarding the MBH98/99 hockey stick…I download the NASA data from 1998 (https://tinyurl.com/ybbo9pxw). It matches up nicely with the MBH98/99 data (https://tinyurl.com/y6ujgdm6). I think Tony Heller’s mistake is that he is erroneously comparing the 1866-1976 period with the 1902-1998 period. Note that MBH98/99 used instrumental data from 1902-98 as the calibration period; not 1866-1976 like what Heller was implying.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”Regarding the MBH98/99 hockey stickI download the NASA data from 1998 …. It matches up nicely with the MBH98/99 data ”

        This is a Homer Simpson doh!!! moment. For cripes sake, bdg, Mann et al spliced that data onto the end of their proxy data, which was showing cooling. That’s why it is called ‘hide the decline’.

        • bdgwx says:

          Mann et al frequently append instrumental data to proxy data. This is good. We want them to do this so that we can see a continuous and unbroken view of the temperature trajectory. As a bonus we get a smaller envelope of uncertainty at least for more recent temperatures than would be possible if relied on proxy derived temperatures alone.

          I think you are misunderstanding what “hide the decline” is in reference to and the technical details involved. The proxy data did NOT show cooling. The issue is that due to the tree ring divergence problem the model that was in use at the time to map tree ring growth characteristics to a temperature anomaly breaks down for data in the 2nd half of the 20th century. As a result the perceived temperature using that model shows a decline that isn’t real. The “decline” is NOT in reference to the actual temperature. It is in reference to the temperature derived from a model that was not designed to handle the divergence era. This issue had been openly discussed in academic literature prior to MBH98 and the IPCC discussed it in the 2001 TAR.

          BTW…don’t get the wrong idea here. I’m not defending Jones. I think his email suggests a cavalier attitude and a possible underlying bias. But science has a really good way of vetting this out. It’s done through replication and reproducibility. And as it turns out the hockey stick can’t be explained away as an artifact of bias. It is a real phenomenon evidenced by a whole hockey league of hockey stick graphs replicated and reproduced by many entities using differing kinds of proxy data and analysis techniques.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  73. gallopingcamel says:

    Gordon Robertson said:

    “I am waiting for someone to scientifically disprove my Ideal Gas Law analysis, which limits the degree of CO2 warming to its relative mass percent in air. That would amount to about 0.04C per degree C.”

    You are suggesting that something that is present in a tiny proportion has a tiny effect. My analysis says the same.

    In common with most scientists I believe that CO2 has a profound effect on a planet’s surface temperature. Hansen et al. (21013) estimates that 12 doublings of [CO2] would raise surface temperature by 57 K. My estimate is 70 K or 13 K more than Hansen claims.

    Hansen claims that 3 halvings of [CO2] would reduce the surface temperature by 42 K. As Hansen is using 310 ppm as the reference concentration of CO2, three halvings means 39 ppm. I am sure you find the idea of a tiny mass percent change having a huge effect on temperature as implausible as I do. My estimate is 3 K.

    • Eben says:

      Step outside and look if all you see is ideal gas around you and nothing else

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        eben…”Step outside and look if all you see is ideal gas around you and nothing else”

        Don’t be mislead by the word ‘ideal’, the real situation for a gas is not much different than the ideal. The governing factor is R in PV = nRT. The value of R does not deviate much from the ideal case.

    • Svante says:

      Gordon, you need power to raise temperature.
      The ideal gas law does not give you that.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”Gordon, you need power to raise temperature.
        The ideal gas law does not give you that”.

        I was not talking about raising temperature, I was talking about the heat contributed by each of the major gases in air. There is a relationship between the number of molecules in a gas like air and the air pressure. When the air pressure rises and the volume remains fairly constant, the temperature must rise. That’s because the higher the pressure the more molecules there are in a given volume and the more they will collide. More collisions = higher temperature.

        Gravity largely controls the air pressure in the atmosphere by stratifying it. There are variances in the air pressure due to hot air rising and other convection. However, I am presuming a steady state condition where the air pressure variance evens out over the entire atmosphere.

        If that does not work for you then try breaking the atmosphere into ever smaller layers. Reduce the layers till convection is not an issue. That’s what we do anyway, how else can you claim air pressure at sea level is such and such a value? It is an average.

        So, apply the average pressure and temperature to the Ideal Gas Law with the volume held constant. It’s obvious that pressure decreases with altitude as does the temperature. There is a linear relationship between them. You can see that linear relationship in any graph of the troposphere.

        We know atmospheric pressure must respect Dalton’s law of partial pressures. Therefore the entire total atmospheric pressure is a sum of the individual gas pressures which is proportional to the mass percent (n) of each gas. Since N2/O2 has a mass percent of nearly 99% and CO2 has a mass percent of nearly 0.04%, it stands to reason that CO2 is not contributing a heck of a lot to the total pressure.

        Temperature is defined in such a case as the average kinetic energy of the molecules. If you have a gas mixture where two gases contribute 99% of the pressure and one gas contributes 0.04%, it’s obvious that the kinetic energy contributed by each mix is in the same proportion. That is N2/O2 contributes 99% of the heat and CO2 about 0.04%.

        If you want to talk about a rise in temperature of say 1C, it does not change the relationship between the gases. If T rises 1C, then N2/O2 still contributes 99% of the heat and CO2 0.04%.

        • bdgwx says:

          Sure. Of the total thermal kinetic energy CO2 represents only a small percentage when doing an itemized molecular accounting. But the concern is not of what molecules store that energy and the proportions by which it is stored. The concern is in regards to how and why those molecules accumulate more of it. The IGL does not provide an explanation for this. It is only a state equation that constrains how PVnRT must relate to each other. You must apply other physical principals to understand these pertinent details. Svante said it best…you need energy to raise temperature. The IGL does not give you that.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”Svante said it best…you need energy to raise temperature. The IGL does not give you that”.

            Once again, I am not talking about a temperature increase I am talking about the contribution of heat to the atmosphere of each constituent gas making up the atmosphere. Some people are claiming GHGs can ‘thermalize’ the atmosphere, meaning it can heat the other gases and act as a cooling mechanism as well. I think that theory is plain silly.

            R.W. Wood was an expert with gases like CO2. He did not think CO2 could act to warm the atmosphere like heated air in a greenhouse, he thought it likely that the atmosphere got its heat from the surface via conduction and convection (hot air rising). He put the so-called greenhouse warming down to gases like N2/O2 absorbing heat at the surface, rising, and being unable to radiate the heat away easily.

            Remember, in a real greenhouse, solar energy heats the GH soil, which warms the air, and the air molecules rise. They cannot escape because of the glass, so the heat build up. It’s the same outside the GH, solar energy heats the surface, it heats the air by conduction, and that hot air rises. However, it’s not trapped. As the hot air rises, cooler air from aloft rushes in to replace it.

            As R.W.Wood implied, the heated air rises and cannot release the heat easily. However, that problem is solved by altitude. The higher the heated gases get into thinner air, the more they expand, causing the molecules to be further apart and reducing the heat content. Automatic cooling with altitude.

            AGW is based on the notion that absorbed solar energy must be radiated to space. However, heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules and there is another way to dissipate heat. If the heated molecules can rise high enough into thinner air, the gas density will be reduced and it should cool naturally. That’s what the Ideal Gas Law is about.

          • bdgwx says:

            GR,

            You’re talking about how the thermal energy is distributed and stored (in kinetic form) among the molecules in the atmosphere. That’s fine and its worth understanding. But it doesn’t help you explain how the atmosphere (and the rest of the geosphere for that matter) acquired/lost energy or predict if it will acquire/lose energy in the future. The question climate scientists are focused on is why is the geosphere accumulating energy and warming and how much and for how long with this continue in the future?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  74. Svante says:

    Eben says:
    “Why dont you just post your communist manuscript for me you warmist nutcase”

    I thought I was conservative.

    Please explain your thought process when you go from temperature to communist.

    • Svante says:

      Very good scientific source you found there:

      Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a PhD degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

      • Eben says:

        I know you believe it’s real , I strongly suggest you call your local climate department and have then install one these as soon as possible

        https://i.postimg.cc/2mNBMSSv/climate-alarm1.jpg

        • Svante says:

          Eben, don’t lie to yourself to make you feel better.
          It doesn’t work in the long run.
          Face reality and solve it.

          • Eben says:

            How about instead of posting other peoples biographies and titles as if something is wrong with them, you post your own so we can all see who is talking.

          • Svante says:

            The interviewer was a pain, and it was hard to hear what Lomborg said, but I couldn’t find much to disagree with there. He seemed to understand climate change OK.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”Very good scientific source you found there:”

        The video is about the impact of climate change on economics. The title of the guy’s book is ‘False Alarm’. Eben was not making a scientific statement and the author actually agrees with you alarmists.

    • bdgwx says:

      Eben,

      By my count you’ve now posted materials that have been altered, used out of context, or accompanied by misleading or incorrect commentary and analysis.

      They are…

      – The truncation of the Marcott 2013 data from your post July 12, 2020 at 10:53 PM.

      – The alteration of the Folland 1990 graph and misuse out of context of it from your post at July 13, 2020 at 7:13 PM.

      – The misleading and incorrect commentary from Tony Heller regarding GHCN data and the MBH98/99 appending of the instrumental temperature record from your post at July 14, 2020 at 8:51 PM.

      As always I will provide you the opportunity to explain or justify these posts.

      And please don’t take this critique of your posts personally. Everyone knows my posts could be better and I certainly make more mistakes than my fair share. My goal in all of this is to learn more about the climate and help facilitate an environment in which other people can as well. We are all here to arrive at the truth together…I hope.

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx pontificates: “My goal in all of this is to learn more about the climate and help facilitate an environment in which other people can as well.”

        bdgwx, there is no evidence of that. The evidence points to the fact that you have been deceived by a false religion to the point that you are willing to be an idiot. You only accept what agrees with your preconceived beliefs. Your “goal” then becomes to try to pervert others as you have been perverted.

  75. gallopingcamel says:

    Svante says:

    “Gordon, you need power to raise temperature.
    The ideal gas law does not give you that.”

    The power comes from TSI. Here is the paper you need to explain how TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) works:
    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ManabeWetherald1967.pdf

    Take a look at Fig. 9 and the supporting text and you will know where the power comes from and what it does to the temperature profile in the troposphere, through the tropopause and into the stratosphere.

    • Svante says:

      Yes, tell Gordon about this new paper.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…have not read the paper closely but through a skim I deduce it is more radiation theory, as if the only way to dissipate heat is through radiation to space.

        Heat can be dissipated simply by reducing pressure and that happens naturally as heated molecules rise higher into the atmosphere. It’s not as if heat is a quantity of something that has to be carted off to space. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules, if you reduce their KE, heat will be dissipated without moving it anywhere.

        You can look at this internally as in the first law or externally using the Ideal Gas Law. Clausius explained the first law, Q = U – W, as Q and W being external quantities and U as internal energy. He went further, claiming that U in a solid is made up of the internal kinetic energy of atoms vibrating in a lattice, which has an internal heat and work component.

        What would happen if you could gradually separate the atoms in a solid, so all the bonds were broken and the atoms no longer vibrated? What would happen if you could go on increasing the distance between them to replicate the conditions of space? T drops to -273C if you have no ambient room or atmospheric air to keep the temperature up.

        In the macro world, PV = nRT. As I pointed out before, if we can hold V constant, then P = (nR/V)T, which amount to P = kT, where k is a constant representing nR/V. That means P is directly proportional to T.

        Of course, you can claim T is directly proportional to P, therefore as altitude increases, P decreases and T decreases. The physical explanation is that the force of gravity gradually weaken with altitude, allowing the molecules to get further and further apart. That represents a reduction in pressure and temperature.

        The heat doesn’t have to go anywhere since it is defined as the kinetic energy of molecules and that KE decreases naturally as the air thins out. It is a container that increases the pressure and the number of atoms/molecules in the container. Pressure is the sum of the forces the molecules exert on the walls of the container.

        No container, no pressure. The container is replicated by the force of gravity, but unlike a real container, the pressure is stratified from the surface out.

        If your only means of dissipating heat is through radiation, as in AGW, then you have created a monstrous problem given the trace amounts of CO2. Consider the situation where there is no CO2 in the atmosphere, or water vapour. Further to that, consider that the stratosphere is not heated by UV solar energy.

        The sun will still heat the surface and N2/O2 will still be heated by the surface. The heated air will rise but where does it go with the heat? It keeps rising till it thins out and becomes part of the pressure gradient established by gravity.

        In other words, there is a negative pressure gradient between the surface and space. The IGL tells us T is proportional to P with V held constant therefore there has to be a natural negative temperature gradient between the surface and space. The heat has to be dissipated naturally through the decreasing density of the air.

        That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

        • Svante says:

          Gordon Robertson says:

          Heat can be dissipated simply by reducing pressure and that happens naturally as heated molecules rise higher into the atmosphere.

          You don’t suppose that a corresponding amount sinks elsewhere?
          There’s a buildup of gas aloft?

        • Nate says:

          “Thats my story and Im sticking to it.”

          And a fictional one it is…more like a comic book.

          Among many other issues:

          “The IGL tells us T is proportional to P with V held constant”

          V held constant??

          “The heated air will rise but where does it go with the heat? It keeps rising till it thins out and becomes part of the pressure gradient established by gravity.”

          Didnt answer where the heat (thermal energy) went?

          Just disappears??

          Oh wait:

          “The heat doesnt have to go anywhere since it is defined as the kinetic energy of molecules and that KE decreases naturally as the air thins out. ”

          Uhh, the sun keeps adding energy to the atmosphere. It DOES have to go somewhere, else the atmosphere will just heat up and up and up!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate and svante…”Didnt answer where the heat (thermal energy) went?”

            I did, you were not paying attention or you blocked what I said.

            The gases in the atmosphere represent a very unique situation. They are formed into a container by gravity and as such form a negative temperature/pressure gradient from the surface out. In any other container at the surface there is no temperature/pressure gradient that can be measured.

            If you take a container of constant volume at STP, the number of air molecules in the container and the temperature, create the pressure. Pressure is the force per unit volume exerted by gas molecules on the surfaces of the container. If you force more molecules into the container, by doing work on the gas, while keeping T constant, the pressure rises. If you keep the number of molecules constant and raise the gas temperature, the pressure increases.

            To change pressure in a constant volume container, you must chnage the number of molecules, do work on the gas, or add heat to it. PV = nRT.

            If you take a parcel of ‘still’ air at STP the pressure should be 1 atmosphere (no convection). There are no walls on the container so it is gravity causing the pressure. That’s essentially the same for a container of air at STP where the 1 atm pressure in the gas with an open lid is caused by gravity. Although the IGL is aimed at containers I am applying it to an air parcel as if it is in a container.

            Solar energy heats the surface causing atoms/molecules in the solid surface, or in the water, to vibrate harder. The vibration is internal work. That vibration is also internal energy caused by heat converted from solar radiation. That comes from Clausius, internal energy = U = Qint + Wint.

            The vibrating surface atoms/molecules pass that energy to air molecules in contact with the surface by conduction. Please note that 99% of those air molecules are N2/O2. The N2/O2 rises because it has a lower density than the cooler air above. As it rises, cooler air rushes in to replace it.

            As R.W. Wood pointed out, the heated, rising air cannot radiate the heat away because it is 99% N2/O2. That explains GH warming in the lower troposphere.

            So, you have a rising air parcel with a relatively high kinetic energy in its molecules. As the air parcel rises higher and higher, it eventually reaches air that is thinner and the heated air parcel expands, creating greater distances between molecules.

            With a greater distance between molecules there are less collisions therefore the KE drops and the temperature drops. No one knows why atoms/molecules in free space zip around like they do or why they zip around faster as the temperature rises, they just do. At higher altiudes, with lower pressures and temperatures, it’s obvious that KE reduces, hence work, hence heat.

            It’s apparent that heat dissipates naturally with altitude and that the atmosphere somehow acts to absorb converted heat from solar radiation and dissipate it. The notion that dissipation is due only to radiation from trace gases is just wrong.

            Where did the heat go? It was converted from kinetic energy/work at the surface to lesser and lesser levels of KE/work due to increasing altitude and the properties of the gravitationally-based air molecules.

            No one knows what energy is or what it means as a phenomenon. It is an unknown that cannot be measured directly. Therefore, it’s not a good question to ask where energy goes if we don’t yet know what it is or what it means.

            Obviously, heat as energy is different than gravity as energy. Although we claim energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that quantities of energy must be balanced we really have no idea what that means. We don’t know the relationship between various forms of energy.

            Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms therefore heat must always be related to atoms, either as singular entities or as molecules. If there is no mass, there can be not heat, as in a vacuum. So you can’t claim that heat must be balanced through radiation to space only.

            In fact, that makes little sense given that the molecules of air capable of radiating to space make up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. No one has ever explained how that is possible.

          • Svante says:

            What is compressing the atmosphere then?
            Increasing gravity?

          • Nate says:

            “As the air parcel rises higher and higher, it eventually reaches air that is thinner and the heated air parcel expands, creating greater distances between molecules.”

            Exactly, NOT a constant volume!

            “Where did the heat go? It was converted from kinetic energy/work at the surface to lesser and lesser levels of KE/work due to increasing altitude and the properties of the gravitationally-based air molecules.”

            Again Gordon, what you are talking about here is how the energy in the atmosphere is shared amongst its molecules.

            But the TOTAL ENERGY of the atmosphere and surface must still INCREASE if you have continuous solar input and NO output. 1LOT!

            “No one knows what energy is or what it means as a phenomenon. It is an unknown that cannot be measured directly.”

            I think you mean ‘I dont know…”

            Science knows darn well.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante and Nate, what you idiots don’t get is that Gordon ends up with the correct answer. As he tries to explain things to you, in terms you can understand, he sometimes states things incorrectly, such as “Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms therefore heat must always be related to atoms, either as singular entities or as molecules.”

            Now I know Gordon understands the correct definition of “heat”. I have seen him explain it. So, he’s either trying to explain at a level idiots will understand, or he is letting you step into another of his traps.

            Whatever the case, Gordon clearly understands that CO2 cannot warm the surface. He also understands that Moon is not rotating about its axis. He gets the final answer correct, and that’s what you must deal with. Trying to pick apart his wording just confirms your only interest is in trolling.

          • Svante says:

            “Gordon clearly understands that CO2 cannot warm the surface”.

            That’s also false, as Dr. Spencer has tried to explain as hundred times.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante has to pervert my words. That’s all he has.

            Idiot.

          • Svante says:

            That was an exact quote.

          • ClintR says:

            It was an exact quote, but you perverted it. Somehow you must be confusing Gordon with Dr. Spencer.

            You seem to want to run to some adult to help your case. Obviously you can’t stand on your own. That’s what happens when you live in a basement all day.

          • Svante says:

            You’re describing yourself again.

          • ClintR says:

            As usual Svante, you’ve got nothing, just like your false religions–empty.

    • ClintR says:

      Fig. 9 is nothing more than the “lapse rate”. Idiots likely can’t understand it.

      Idiots can’t understand the “paper”, and can’t understand the references:

      “The dependence of atmospheric heat radiation on CO2 and H2O contents and also on temperature vertical distribution is investigated with the help of the radiation chart. It is shown, that the heat radiation of the atmosphere almost doesn’t depend on variations of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        @ClintR,

        Fig. 9 shows that the radiative-convective boundary occurs at a pressure that is not affected by the TSI.

        This is of profound significance. Later papers extend this result to different gas mixtures. It appears that the radiative-convective boundary occurs at a pressure of ~0.1 bar regardless of gas composition:
        https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.54vWzuz524iFpHz6Ew-ozAHaFB%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D160&f=1

        • ClintR says:

          To repeat: “Fig. 9 is nothing more than the “lapse rate”. Idiots likely can’t understand it.”

          The nonsense you find in “papers” confuses you. Forget trying to understand conditions on Neptune until you can understand things right in front of your face.

        • Nate says:

          Clint is back from his trolling vacation.

          Did you bring the data to support your bizarre claim that soil is a good reflector of IR?

          • ClintR says:

            Keep denying your eyes see the soil due to reflected photons, ignorant troll.

          • Ball4 says:

            Only ClintR’s trollish eyes see color of natural earthen soil as reflected sky blue and sun yellow. The rest of science knows the color of a pile of natural dirt accurately.

          • ClintR says:

            Keep trolling, Ball4. You’re already so far from reality no one can help you. Not worth my effort.

          • Svante says:

            That means Ball4 had an excellent point that can’t be refuted.

          • ClintR says:

            Only an idiot could make sense of his lame comment. Looks like that falls on your head, Svante.

            Go for it.

          • Nate says:

            “Keep denying your eyes see the soil due to reflected photons, ignorant troll.”

            We were talking about thermal IR. I can’t see reflected IR? I sort of doubt you can.

            But my IR thermometer can. And it shows that the soil is emitting IR with an emissivity close to 1, thus my sensor gives me close to the actual temperature of the soil.

            If on the other hand soil was a good reflector of IR, it would give the temperature of DWIR coming from the sky.

            For instance, a couple of nights ago my IR thermometer recorded the temperature of the clear sky to be ~ 20 degrees F.

            If I point my sensor at a good reflector (shiny Al foil) facing the sky, I get ~ 30 F.

            When I pointed my sensor at the ground I got ~ 75 deg F. The ground is not acting like a good reflector.

            Try these experiments yourself.

          • ClintR says:

            Thanks for another great example that you don’t get it, Nate.

            Most of what you said is wrong, but I’ll just key on the main error:

            “If on the other hand soil was a good reflector of IR, it would give the temperature of DWIR coming from the sky.”

            Wrong. Pointing your device at the ground will give you the ground temperature, not the sky temperature.

            Idiots can’t understand physics, and can’t learn.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Pointing your device at the ground will give you the ground temperature, not the sky temperature.”

            So now ClintR thinks the ground is NOT mostly reflecting sky photons but mostly emitting dirt photons. Typical switcheroo with a 3 ring circus magician such as ClintR.

          • ClintR says:

            Ball4, I’m perfectly content that you never have anything intellligent or factual to add. In fact, your attempts to pervert reality just prove me right.

          • Svante says:

            Thank you for that “intellligent” addition ClintR.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante, you’re not bright enough to catch all my typos. But, I’ll try to throw you a bone occasionally, just to keep you well trained.

          • Nate says:

            “Wrong. Pointing your device at the ground will give you the ground temperature, not the sky temperature.”

            Oh?

            Then how come when I point it at Al foil facing the sky I get 30 deg F? Close to the sky temp, not the temp of the foil.

            Please explain the difference between the good reflector foil, and the ground.

            No credit for ad-homs!

          • Nate says:

            FYI, from https://blog.thermoworks.com/tips/infrared-thermometry/

            “#3 ALL SURFACES ARE CREATED EQUAL
            As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. Not all surfaces are created equal. Depending on what youre pointing your infrared gun at youre likely to get variations in emitted infrared energy. This variation is called emissivity. Emissivity is a measure of a materials ability to emit infrared energy. It is measured on a scale from just about 0.00 to just below 1.00.

            Pans Emissivity
            Generally, the closer a materials emissivity rating is to 1.00 (such as cast iron), the more that material tends to absorb reflected or ambient infrared energy and emit only its own infrared radiation. Most organic materials, including the byproducts of plants and animals, have an emissivity rating of 0.95. These are ideal surfaces for accurate temperature readings.

            Substances with very low emissivity ratings, like highly-polished metals, tend to be very reflective of ambient infrared energy and less effective at emitting their own electromagnetic waves. If you were to point an infrared thermometer with fixed emissivity at the side of a stainless steel pot filled with boiling water, for example, you might get a reading closer to 100F (38C) than 212F (100C). Thats because the shiny metal is better at reflecting the ambient radiation of the room than it is at emitting its own infrared radiation.”

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, thanks for providing another example of your inability to face reality.

            Your aluminum foil is reflecting infrared that you claim can’t be reflected. Your own observation proves you wrong and me right, yet you can’t face that reality.

            Idiots can’t learn.

          • Nate says:

            “Your aluminum foil is reflecting infrared that you claim can’t be reflected.”

            No dimwit-troll, never said any such thing.

            IR can be reflected by GOOD reflectors like Al foil.

            IR CANNOT be reflected by GOOD abs*orbers, like soil, plants, etc. See the FYI link.

            More obfuscation, no answers, no credit.

          • bdgwx says:

            That’s about as clear as it can get Nate. If that doesn’t stick then I don’t know what will.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate and bdgwx, photons can be reflected. That’s why you can see objects. Mirrors work. Photons are affected by the wavelength allowed by the surface. Physics applies to all wavelengths. Even microwaves can be reflected. Radio waves can be reflected.

            That’s the reality idiots reject.

            That’s about as clear as it can get. If that doesn’t stick then I don’t know what will.

          • Nate says:

            “photons can be reflected. Thats why you can see objects. Mirrors work.”

            Yeah.

            What part of “Not all surfaces are created equal.” do you not understand?

            As the link notes, “Substances with very low emissivity ratings, like highly-polished metals, tend to be very reflective of ambient infrared energy and less effective at emitting their own electromagnetic waves.”

            These are materials that can be mirrors for IR.

            “the closer a materials emissivity rating is to 1.00 (such as cast iron), the more that material tends to abs*orb reflected or ambient infrared energy and emit only its own infrared radiation. Most organic materials, including the byproducts of plants and animals, have an emissivity rating of 0.95.”

            EG soil is one of those, and cannot be a good mirror for IR.

            A material can’t be BOTH a good mirror and a good abs*orber.

            These are straightforward facts.

            But got a source that says otherwise, pls show it.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, you’re still confusing “emission” with “emissivity”, or at least you’ve got something confused.

            Forget about “emissivity”, it may be confusing you. An iron bar at room temperature is emitting infrared . You could read it’s temperature with your infrared thermometer. The peak wavelength would be w1. Now, heat the iron bar to 1500F. The peak wavelength is now w2. The iron bar is glowing–emitting visible light.

            w2 is much smaller than w1. That means the photons emitted are much different. That means the photons absorbed are much different. You have changed both emission and absorp.tion by changing temperature.

            The same works for soil. That’s why “cold” cannot radiatively warm “hot”.

            Idiots can’t understand physics, or simple concepts like something that cannot rotate about its axis cannot rotate about it axis.

            Reality is your enemy, which makes you an idiot.

          • Nate says:

            Clint,

            Thats all very interesting, but without data on emissivity vs wl, it is just hand waving.

          • Nate says:

            “An iron bar at room temperature is emitting infrared . You could read its temperature with your infrared thermometer. The peak wavelength would be w1. Now, heat the iron bar to 1500F. The peak wavelength is now w2. The iron bar is glowingemitting visible light”

            We are talking about temperatures between 20 F and 80 F, where IR is relevant and visible is not.

            At BOTH of these temperatures for the iron bar or soil, we can accurately read their temperatures with the IR thermometer. Try it yourself.

            That means for these materials the emissivity is close to 1 at BOTH 20F and 80 F for the thermal IR wl. True for many materials.

            Good emitters at thermal IR wl cannot be good reflectors at thermal IR wl. Thus at 20 F and 80 F these materials will not be good reflectors at thermal IR wl.

            Emission peak wl @ 80 F is 10 microns, peak @ 20 F is 8.8 micron.

            Yes the emission spectrum shifts with temperature, but not enough to move it out of the high emissivity IR wl range of these materials.

            If you think thats wrong SHOW US EVIDENCE!

          • Svante says:

            Yes, I’ve unable to find a table with different emissivity for surface temperatures that differ by a few degrees.

          • ClintR says:

            Idiots can’t understand physics, or simple concepts like something that cannot rotate about its axis cannot rotate about it axis, or an iron bar that illustrates how emission varies with temperature.

            Reality is your enemy Nate and Svante, which makes you both idiots.

          • Svante says:

            Where is the table then?

          • ClintR says:

            It’s in the same closet where your stupid questions are stored.

          • Svante says:

            If there was a significant change per degree the tables would say so. So you’re patently wrong again.

          • ClintR says:

            It doesn’t require a significant change, idiot. We’re talking wavelengths in microns.

            Idiots can’t understand physics.

          • Nate says:

            “It doesnt require a significant change, idiot. Were talking wavelengths in microns”

            Just not clear what your argument actually is? Other than we are idiots..

            First you have offer no data to support your claims. We do.

            Second, emissivity data is different for different materials. Your notion cannot be generalized.

            Pick any material and show us a calculation. Show us actual numbers.

            Otherwise its just hot air.

          • ClintR says:

            I know you’re not clear about what the argument is, Nate. That’s why you’re an idiot.

            You are trying to claim that “cold” can warm “hot”. You are trying to do this by claiming “hot” objects will absorb photons from “cold” objects, and that means they are absorbing more energy, and that means the “cold” object can warm the “hot” object. That’s not reality.

            You don’t understand physics, and you can’t learn. You’re still confused about “emissivity”. You probably don’t even know what it is. Then you’re confused about Kirchhoff’s Laws.

            When I use a simplistic example like the iron bar, you reject it. You have to reject reality because it destroys your false religion. You have to pervert the laws of physics to protect your false religion.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/hot-summer-epic-fail-new-climate-models-exaggerate-midwest-warming-by-6x/#comment-500698

          • Nate says:

            “You are trying to claim that ‘cold’ can warm ‘hot’. You are trying to do this by claiming ‘hot’ objects will absorb photons from ‘cold’ objects”

            Well objects abs*orb radiation if they have that property. Being slightly colder or warmer doesnt change that property very much for either soil or iron.

            Sorry this is just an inconvenient fact. You may WISH that were not true, but you havent shown that is the case. Not even a little bit.

            Sorry , in the real world it is not good to just to declare such and such is true. You have to have evidence. You don’t. And you havent, and it SHOULD bother you that you don’t.

            “When I use a simplistic example like the iron bar, you reject it.”

            You used visible light and very high temps when we are talking about far IR. Red red herring. I explained clearly why.

            “You don’t understand physics, and you can’t learn. You’re still confused about “emissivity”. You probably don’t even know what it is. Then you’re confused about Kirchhoff’s Laws.”

            This is utter nonsense. Either you are purely trolling or you have the worst case of Dunning Kruger of anyone I know.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, long misleading rants won’t cover up for your denial of reality.

          • Nate says:

            Clint,

            It seems clear that you feel no compulsion to back up your posts with facts or evidence.

            You can take that approach if you want, but it means that your posts will simply not be taken seriously.

            Most people will see you as simply a troll.

            And maybe thats ok with you.

          • ClintR says:

            Even your short misleading rants won’t cover up for your denial of reality.

          • Nate says:

            No evidence, no credibility. Its that simple.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, Svante, please stop trolling.

  76. Bindidon says:

    The maximal level of ignorance:

    Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules, if you reduce their KE, heat will be dissipated without moving it anywhere. ”

    This is absolutely incredible.

    One more proof added to thousands, that Robertson
    – never and never has been an engineer;
    – uses here a pseudo-real name.

    Imagine his neighbor in Vancouver, BC, CA, being a retired 100 % engineer, reading Robertson’s dumb, boasting stuff about climate, the Moon, equilibrium matters like here, etc etc, and asking him:

    ” Are you that REALLY, Gordon?

    Do you REALLY, you my neighbor,

    – publish such a dumb, ignorant trash,
    – insult everybody who disagrees with your nonsense, and above all
    – pretend to have yourself been an engineer,

    while we both know you were never one? ”

    J.-P. D.

    • theRealPlastic says:

      He is NOT an engineer. It is the weirdest thing to lie about.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…” Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules, if you reduce their KE, heat will be dissipated without moving it anywhere. ”

      When Binny gets flustered because he cannot rebut an argument with science, he loses it and resorts to ad homs and insults.

      The first part of my statement above comes from Clausius, a great German scientist. The ignoramus Bindidon refutes the work of this great German and his butt-kissing ally, realplastic tunes in with more ignorance..

      The second part follows if you understand anything about basic physics. Since heat is the KE of atoms, reducing the KE of the atoms MUST reduce the heat.

      Duh!!!

      BTW, that’s exactly what goes on in the atmosphere. Air molecules at higher altitudes have lower KEs.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        You are by far less educated in science than I am.

        I namely learned, understood and know that equilibrium between Earth and outer space is not a matter of heat, but is a matter of energy.

        The energy input MUST be equal to the energy output, Robertson.

        Otherwise, Earth would either continuously warm or cool, what of course doesn’t happen.

        You are ignorant, and keep ignorant. Your heat dissipation blah blah is utter nonsense.

        J.-P. D.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”ou are by far less educated in science than I am.
          I namely learned, understood and know that equilibrium between Earth and outer space is not a matter of heat, but is a matter of energy.
          The energy input MUST be equal to the energy output, Robertson”.

          What kind of energy would you be talking about Binny, thermal, electromagnetic, electrical, nuclear, mechanical, gravitational, cosmic….?

          There is only one energy between the Sun and the Earth we are concerned about most of the time, electromagnetic. So you are claiming there has to be a balance between electromagnetic in and electromagnetic out. Most of the rest of climate science is talking about heat in and heat out.

          Of course, heat in requires a conversion from EM to heat and that usually takes place at the solid surface or the water (oceans, lakes, etc.). According to AGW, the only way to get rid of the heat is to convert it back to EM and radiate it out. I am suggesting that is dumb because the main radiator claimed by AGW is CO2 and it makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

          There has to be another method of dissipating heat and I just described it to you. I am awaiting my Nobel. Of course, I may decline it because I don’t want to be associated with Al Gore and Mann.

          So you have heat in after converting solar EM to heat. Who said it all had to be radiated away to space? We need heat to maintain the +33C between a planet with no atmosphere and oceans and and a planet with both. A good portion of the heat in goes to maintaining that temperature. Some people call it a greenhouse effect but I think it is a natural heating due to the properties of our atmosphere.

          You have to remember that solar in is not operating all the time on all parts of the surface. Therefore, when solar in is not operating, there is a natural cooling due to expansion/contraction of gases. Heat can be dissipated without radiation simply by changing the pressure.

          I am claiming the heat in has to be a lot higher than heat out to maintain the +33C.

          I guess the climate modelers forgot about the Ideal Gas Law.

          Charles’ Law from the IGL: V1/T1 = V2/T2

          Gay Lusac’s Law from the IGL: P1/T1 = P2/T2 or P = kT when the volume is constant.

          • Nate says:

            “There has to be another method of dissipating heat and I just described it to you.”

            No Gordon, you are being quite obtuse.

            Your method does not remove energy from the atmosphere. It simply spreads it throughout the atmosphere. Therefore it fails to ‘dissipate heat’ from the atmosphere to space.

            Energy is being added to the atmosphere via the sun, but not being removed. A major NO NO.

            This is BASIC physics and common sense.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo again proves he still doesn’t understand basic heat transfer, writing:

            So you have heat in after converting solar EM to heat. Who said it all had to be radiated away to space? We need heat to maintain the +33C between a planet with no atmosphere and oceans and and a planet with both.

            Suppose one lived in a house without insulation which was heated with a relatively small “heat” source (aka, energy supply). Suppose that in winter with an outside temperature of -20C running the “heater” full blast only produced an inside temperature of 0C. Now, add some insulation to the walls and roof and suddenly the inside temperature increases to 30 C. Why is that, Gordo?

            There’s no extra “heat” (energy) being supplied, yet the inside temperature is increased, which is the same sort of effect as that provided by the atmosphere, though the physics is different, involving radiative energy transfer to deep space and greenhouse gases.

          • ClintR says:

            Swanson: “…though the physics is different, involving radiative energy transfer to deep space..”

            No, the physics is not different, idiot.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR the Loonie babbles again:

            No, the physics is not different, idiot.

            Sorry, radiative energy transfer is not the same as simple conduction or combined conduction with surface convection.

            but your infantile brain still can’t grasp the difference.

          • ClintR says:

            No, you’re now talking about something other than your example. The physics in your example is the same even if you add more insulation, only the numbers change.

            But trying to claim that CO2 is an insulator is your usual “bait and switch” tactic. Adding insulation to a house helps to raise the interior temperature, for the same heat input. But adding more CO2 does not increase surface temperature. Adding more CO2 is adding more “emitters”, which means more thermal energy move to space.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR wrote:

            The physics in your example is the same even if you add more insulation, only the numbers change.

            Yes, that’s the point I was attempting to make with Gordo. Adding insulation results in an increase in temperature inside the box. There’s no increase in energy supply rate at TOA.

            And, comparing an airless planet with one with an atmosphere, as Gordo did, the same basic physics holds. The atmosphere acts like a layer of insulation, warming the surface for the same amount of insolation. The effects of Greenhouse Gases, especially water vapor, is to increase the the effective insulation. But, convection adds to Gordo’s confusion.

            Yes, CO2 causes a cooling of the upper atmosphere, but the emissions of CO2 and other GHGs go downward as well as outward, thus increasing CO2 results in a warming of the lower atmosphere.

          • ClintR says:

            CO2 cools, but doesn’t warm. UAH Global anomalies are based on about 263 K. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288 K. “Cold” can’t warm “hot”. Only idiots refuse to accept reality.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR repeats the denialist anti-science mantra:

            “Cold” can’t warm “hot”. Only idiots refuse to accept reality.

            Radiation heat transfer in the atmosphere is not like conduction or convection heat transfer where energy flows from hot to cold.

            GHG molecules absorb and emit at discrete wavelengths of IR radiation. Said molecule doesn’t know (or care) what happens to be the source temperature of the intercepted photon, be it higher or lower than that of the surrounding gas. Thus, emissions from “colder” molecules may be absorbed by “hotter” molecules.

            BTW, the UAH analysis of brightness temperature data is based on the same physics, but for oxygen molecules in the microwave region. I assume from this that you actually think Dr. Spencer is an idiot.

          • ClintR says:

            Swanson, it is YOU that is the idiot. Quit trying to drag Dr. Spencer into your false religion.

            If the molecules in a surface are vibrating at an average frequency, and somehow a photon is absorbed that has a lower frequency, what would happen to the surface’s average frequency?

            You can’t figure it out, but lower freqency corresponds to less internal energy, which corresponds with lower temperature.

            See why you’re an idiot?

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR can’t figure out that Atmospheric Radiation Heat Transfer involves molecules of gasses, not solid surfaces. Just another mindless blast from another air head troll.

          • ClintR says:

            E. Swanson can’t figure out Earth’s surface is not a gas.

            But, there’s not much idiots can figure out.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/hot-summer-epic-fail-new-climate-models-exaggerate-midwest-warming-by-6x/#comment-500720

            E. Swanson says, “…but the emissions of CO2 and other GHGs go downward as well as outward, thus increasing CO2 results in a warming of the lower atmosphere.”

            That is argument by assertion, aka hand-waving. Where is the data showing increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere at any point?

            The counter argument is that there is already enough CO2 and water vapor to absorb all the available daily LWIR radiation. Thermalized air molecules simply shuttle that energy up to the TOA by ocean evaporation and convection followed by wind and rain.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Where is the data showing increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere at any point?”

            Increasing IR active gas ppm warms Earth’s naturally illuminated lower atm. regions in the midlatitude tropics, Chic, not the entire atm. The decades long data collections showing this in the wild confirming lab work & atm. optical depth theory are in the literature if you have the pre-req.s accomplished enough to read & comprehend those beginning meteorology texts and published papers. If not, you need to pass the pre-req.s to understand well enough to find out for yourself.

            Or, if you have not yet accomplished all that, you can just listen to ClintR, DREMT, et. al. for your atm. science arm waving since they are in no way constrained by meaningful data from Dr. Spencer’s actual atm. & lab tests/observations as is E. Swanson.

            Current data shows Earth atm. is not yet opaque to surface radiation, there are still IR bands with a clear surface emission window to deep space. This is not true for Venus, but it is true for Mars, Titan. Added ppm CO2 at 1bar can still reduce Earth’s OLR until equilibrium is re-established at a higher global surface temperature.

          • bdgwx says:

            And the paleoclimate record provides evidence of CO2’s influence on the planetary temperature both via distinct events and in its crucial role in solving the faint young Sun paradox. And, of course, the contemporary warming era is an ongoing experiment that decisively confirms that adding more CO2 increases the planetary temperature.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            In absence of any definitive data indicating any global temperature change due to an increase in CO2, Ball 4 and bdgwx continue to propagate the mantra of the IPCC GHE hypothesis using IR bands and paleoclimate smoke and mirrors.

          • E. Swanson says:

            CB wrote:

            That is argument by assertion, aka hand-waving.

            No, it’s a statement of fact. Gasses emit randomly, but, given very many emitting molecules, the net effect for a layer is that nearly equal emission downward and upward. A candle looks the same from all sides, since it’s flame emits in all directions.

            CB continues:

            Where is the data showing increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere at any point?

            The counter argument is that there is already enough CO2 and water vapor to absorb all the available daily LWIR radiation.

            You’re such a goof. You admit that GHGs absorb the incoming IR on the tail end of the solar SW spectrum, yet deny that downward LW IR emitted from one layer can be absorbed by the layer(s) below. That’s what causes the warming. Worse, you don’t understand that vertical convection essentially stops at the tropopause (which, BTW, is NOT the TOA!!), because the dry stratosphere, with it’s positive lapse rate, is layered above.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR wrote:

            E. Swanson cant figure out Earths surface is not a gas.

            Well Duh, troll. Has it ever occurred to you that the rate of convection between the warm surface and the cool atmosphere is the result of the temperature difference between the two? Warming the atmosphere above the surface reduces the rate of heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, which further warms the surface, (other things being equal).

          • ClintR says:

            I’ve already explained this to you, Swanson, but idiots can’t learn. So this is just for anyone else:

            CO2 cools, but doesn’t warm. UAH Global anomalies are based on about 263 K. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288 K. “Cold” can’t warm “hot”. Adding more CO2 won’t raise the 288 K. Only idiots refuse to accept reality.

          • Nate says:

            “The counter argument is that there is already enough CO2 and water vapor to absorb all the available daily LWIR radiation.”

            Are you saying that the humidity level in the air doesnt matter??
            That the DWLR won’t be different in Tucson vs Miami for the same air temperature??

          • Nate says:

            “If the molecules in a surface are vibrating at an average frequency, and somehow a photon is absorbed that has a lower frequency, what would happen to the surface’s average frequency?”

            Gee, IDK. Lets try the experiment:

            THE BB emission spectrum at room temperature has a peak wavelength of 10 microns which corresponds to a frequency of 3 x 10^13 Hz.

            If I add microwave photons with a frequency of 2.4 x 10^9 Hz to my coffee cup, it HEATS it up like mad!

          • bdgwx says:

            ClintR said: Cold cant warm hot

            You keep saying that. And yet the cold insulating materials in your own home make the inside even warmer than it would be otherwise.

          • ClintR says:

            I love it when the idiots attempt to pervert physics:

            Nate says: “The BB emission spectrum at room temperature has a peak wavelength of 10 microns which corresponds to a frequency of 3 x 10^13 Hz.

            Nate, that’s wrong. If you were not an idiot, you could find your problem by yourself.

            Nate says: “If I add microwave photons with a frequency of 2.4 x 10^9 Hz to my coffee cup, it HEATS it up like mad!”

            A microwave oven is not analogous to surface emitted photons, just as a laser is not analogous to surface emitted photons. Continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject, please.

            bdgwx says: “And yet the cold insulating materials in your own home make the inside even warmer than it would be otherwise.”

            Insulation is not an example of a cold object warming a hot object. If the exterior side of the insulation is 0F, yet your house interior is 75F, then turn your heat source off and see how much 0F can warm 75F. Continue to demonstrate your ignorance of thermodynamics, please.

          • Nate says:

            “microwave oven is not analogous to surface emitted photons, just as a laser is not analogous to surface emitted photons. Continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject, please.”

            The pretzel logic gets more twists.

            Ill bite, in what way are the lower frequency photons in a (non laser) microwave different from the lower frequency photons emitted from a cold surface?

          • bdgwx says:

            ClintR…I think you may actually be starting to get it. Just like the insulating materials in you home are ineffective in raising the temperature unless there is a source of heat penetrating the inside (furnace) the CO2 insulating layer in Earth’s atmosphere would be ineffective in raising the temperature unless there is a source of heat penetrating the atmosphere (solar). The insulation in your home and the CO2 in the atmosphere are both thermal barriers to escaping heat. This trapping of heat results in a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be observed.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, there are no magnetrons in the sky. The photons are the same, but the energy transfer is completely different. Idiots can’t understand physics.

          • CllintR says:

            bdgwx, you are confusing “conductive heat transfer” with “radiative heat transfer”. Earth cools by emitting photons to space. The more emitters, the more the cooling.

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m not aware of any experiment in which radiation was sent through a tube in which adding CO2 (or any gas species) resulted in more radiation coming out the other side. And that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone since it would violate the 1LOT. In fact, the only thing that has ever been observed is the opposite; less radiation comes out the other side. So no…the more emitters the more the warming.

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, idiots can’t properly perform experiments.

            Your “tube experiment” isn’t even close to what I described. You just found another way to avoid reality.

          • Svante says:

            CllintR says:

            bdgwx, you are confusing “conductive heat transfer” with “radiative heat transfer”

            Both depend on the temperature difference.
            The means cold side temperature can influence warm side temperature.
            Up or down, compared to what it otherwise would be.

          • ClintR says:

            Wrong as usual, Svante.

            “Cold” cannot raise the temperature of “hot”. It doesn’t matter conductive or radiative.

            But, don’t let reality stop you. I love it when you idiots attempt to pervert physics:

          • bdgwx says:

            ClintR said: Your “tube experiment” isn’t even close to what I described. You just found another way to avoid reality.

            Then describe an experiment that could falsify your “The more emitters, the more the cooling.” hypothesis.

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, I think you meant “Describe an experiment that can verify the fact.” Of course I can.

            But are you just grasping at straws, or are you really interested in learning some science? Remember, you tested positive for “idiot” before, and you were content with the results. Are you asking for a retest? Have you been studying?

            I’m happy to retest you, if you believe you’re ready. If you fail this one however, you cannot be retested again until the waiting period is over. Are you ready?

          • Nate says:

            Ah, so Clint has no explanation whatsoever for why photons of the same frequency behave completely differently depending on their source.

            But that doesnt stop him from declaring it anyway.

          • bdgwx says:

            I meant what I said. Science works by formulating hypothesis and attempting to falsify them. If you cannot think of a test for your “The more emitters, the more the cooling.” then you need to reformulate it, describe how it could be falsified, and resubmit for review.

          • ClintR says:

            I meant what I said, bdgwx. I don’t try to teach physics to idiots.

            Idiots believe that something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis. They believe they can pervert reality and corrupt science.

            People like that can’t be helped.

          • Nate says:

            “In absence of any definitive data indicating any global temperature change due to an increase in CO2”

            Sure, if we depend on your judgement to designate what is definitive, then there will NEVER be definitive data.

            Look, the situation we are in is analogous to a major asteroid impact coming in 25 y.

            NASA will show us modeling data that indicates the likelihood of impact is 95%.

            They will show us modeling data that indicates a high level of destruction of life, agriculture, etc.

            Other groups will model things as well. These models will be based on known physics. A scientific consensus will be developed.

            But none of it will be definitive, or testable in advance.

            And yet, we will still need to act.

          • ClintR says:

            That explains why you act like an idiot, Nate.

          • Nate says:

            Ouch, you really got me there…except Im not in 3rd grade, so not really.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, Ball4, bdgwx, Svante, please stop trolling.

  77. Eben says:

    Gordon needs to look up some basic fizzix , this is embarrassing all climate deniers
    I keep the kids lectures links handy for people like that

    https://youtu.be/2z5W6U6woaQ

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben “I keep the kids lectures links handy for people like that”

      I have heard enough bs in my life from lecturers presenting arguments based on equations while failing to LOOK at the physics. I turned your mickey mouse link off when he claimed temperature does not vary with altitude. The guy is clearly a clown. I don’t recall Boltzmann ever making such claims about the atmosphere and if he did, he was a clown too.

      Let’s look at the real physics. The gas pressure at 30,000 feet, near the peak of Everest is 1/3 the pressure at sea level. The clown at your link even admitted pressure varies with gravity. If you start toward Everest from Katmandu at 1400 metres on a nice summer’s NIGHT, the temperature will likely be about +30C. By the time you get to the top of Everest above 8000 metres a week later, at the same time of NIGHT, the temperature will be about -30C.

      If you look at a graph of the lower troposphere, it is clear that the relationship between pressure and temperature is linear till near the stratosphere. Please refrain from posting such kindergarten stuff from clowns who cannot look at the real world.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The reason you can’t apply the IGL directly throughout the atmosphere is two-fold. One, the stratosphere is heated by solar UV. Two, there are convective currents running through the atmosphere which changes the steady-state conditions required for direct application of the IGL.

        However, it’s safe to apply the IGL to an idealistic steady-state to see the obvious. CO2, as part of a mixed gas, at 0.04%, cannot contribute more heat to the atmosphere than that 0.04%. If you or anyone else can explain how CO2 at 0.04% heats the rest of the atmosphere to raise the overall temperature, let’s hear it.

        I am not claiming anything more than the lapse rate theory, I am simply explaining why, something they don’t appear to understand. When you start claiming the lapse rate explains a reduction in pressure with altitude, you don’t understand physics.

        The lapse rate theory seems to claim that temperatures decrease with altitude because gases cool with altitude. They are claiming in essence that gases cool because it’s getting cooler aloft.

        They do not explain the physics behind the gases and neither does the clown at your link. As physicist David Bohm put it, an equation without a physical explanation is garbage.

        Beware of mathematicians in physicists’ clothing.

        • Eben says:

          You fail gas and thermodynamix the same way you fail orbital mechanix

          You have a density problem , and I’m not talking air density here

          • ClintR says:

            Eben, there is no evidence you understand either “thermodynamix”, or orbital “mechanix”. Idiots believe an object on the edge of a rotating platform, that is secured to the platform so that it cannot rotate about its axis, is nevertheless rotating about its axis. That’s why they are idiots.

            Are you with them?

          • ClintR says:

            Yes Svante, your selected link skirts reality. You need to also fiind the number of times Dr. Spencer has denied the alarmism that you believe in.

            Where are those links, idiot?

          • Eben says:

            That link to Dr. Roy Spencer points out that what is happening on this blog discussion, both the alarmists and the skeptix alike take their positions based on their political association , they both present idiotic arguments while trying to make their cases.
            From logical point of view only one of them can be right
            but still the side that turns out to be right may be so for totally wrong reasons, It doesn’t necessarily mean one side understands the climate better than the other.
            I myself don’t follow any group or party , only the observations of nature , that’s why Mixing CO2 into the air cannot increase its temperature, and that’s why the Moon is spinning on its axis.

          • ClintR says:

            Eben, that’s a great speech, but you didn’t answer the question.

            I omitted to give you the answer. By law, I’m required to give the correct answer to those taking the idiot test. So, here’s the correct question: If an object, on the edge of a rotating platform, is secured to the platform so that it cannot rotate about its axis, is it then rotating about its axis?

            a) Yes, the object is rotating about its axis, even though it can’t rotate about its axis.
            b) No, the object is not rotating about its axis because it can’t rotate about its axis.

            The correct answer is “b”. Now, what is your answer?

            Take your time.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            eben…”I myself dont follow any group or party , only the observations of nature , thats why Mixing CO2 into the air cannot increase its temperature, and thats why the Moon is spinning on its axis”.

            That’s your problem, you are a confused independent.

          • Eben says:

            Flesh Gordon more likely

          • Eben says:

            Dr. P.M. Robitaille that Flesh Gordon calls a clown that doesn’t know how things work is a top notch scientist who built the best magnetic resonance imaging machines.

            https://sciencewoke.org/scientist/dr-pierre-marie-robitaille/

            https://youtu.be/oO5vIUcnKlI

  78. Eben says:

    About that current unprecedented temperature swing nonsense

    When you un-smooth the data , abrupt 8 to 16 degrees C swings within decades or less

    https://i.postimg.cc/dwc9dz0M/Abrupt-8-to-16-C.jpg

    • Svante says:

      High climate sensitivity.
      So we will get such an increase now.

    • bdgwx says:

      No body has claimed Greenland temperatures changes today are unprecedented. What has been claimed is that the global mean temperature change today is probably unprecedented during the Holocene. Big difference…

      I looked up Li’s other research works. As you may have guessed she is a climate researcher working on past, present, and future climate. She believes the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible. Here is a pretty relevant publication from Li regarding the polar amplification factor for future warming. A +2C global increase equates to a +6C Arctic increase (figure 7).

      https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/569/2019/

  79. gallopingcamel says:

    @Gordon Robertson said:

    “As physicist David Bohm put it, an equation without a physical explanation is garbage.”

    This is an important insight. When calculating the effect of [CO2] on surface temperature at least three different physical processes are involved. The largest effect is pressure since 12 doublings of [CO2] increases surface pressure significantly:

    #1. Pressure. ΔT = +55 K
    #2. Raising the Radiative-Convective boundary. ΔT = +28 K
    #3. Lowering γ = Cp/Cv. ΔT = -10 K

    Given that items #2 & #3 are of opposite sign, the net effect is an increase in temperature of +18 K for twelve doublings at constant pressure. The corresponding estimate in Hansen et al. (2013) is 57 K which is more than three times higher than my estimate.

    My model is the “Robinson & Catling” model captured into an Excel spreadsheet assisted by a Python script to solve for the radiative-convective boundary. I will be happy to share it with y’all.

    • ClintR says:

      Whoever taught you that nonsense didn’t have a clue about how things work. You can’t simply add mass to the atmosphere without causing other mass to drop out. But even if you could, adding CO2 does not cause temperature increase.

      Computer models are only as good as the programmer. Otherwise, it’s GIGO.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        @Clint R,

        Apparently you are a “Postmodern Scientist” who thinks it is all about beliefs and feelings.

        I am an old fashioned physicist who likes facts and evidence. I will go where the equation take me. Do you have any equations you want to share?

  80. Bindidon says:

    For the ignorants and distorters who all the time use to discredit and denigrate scientific work because it’s “appealing to authority”, but conversely have no problem with appealing to the alleged authority of pseudoskeptic blogs a la climateaudit, climatedepot, chiefio, Gosselin’s TricksZone, iceage.info and others

    Here is a well done report about Greenland’s ice sheet:

    Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018

    Jérémie Mouginot, Eric Rignot, Anders A. Bjørk, Michiel van den Broeke, Romain Millan, Mathieu Morlighem, Brice Noël, Bernd Scheuchl, and Michael Wood

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239

    J.-P. D.

    • ClintR says:

      I used to follow the DMI SMB, but since the snow has increased so much, they appear to be hiding the data.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Here is a well done report about Greenland’s ice sheet:”

      They use unvalidated climate models therefore the work is invalid.

  81. Bindidon says:

    Another excellent paper about Greenland’s ice sheet is one proposed by the Danish Polar Portal itself:

    An Integrated View of Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Changes Based on Models and Satellite Observations

    Ruth Mottram (Danish Met Institute) & alii

    https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/12/1407/htm

    *
    Personally, I tend to avoid reading papers beginning with the unfortunately usual

    The Greenland ice sheet is a major contributor to sea level rise, adding on average 0.47 ± 0.23 mm year −1 to global mean sea level between 1991 and 2015. The cryosphere as a whole has contributed around 45% of observed global sea level rise since 1993.

    even if it well might be true.

    But the rest is quite convincing.

    P.S.

    For those Pseudoskeptics who are ignorant enough to discredit all model-based evaluations, I remind them about the fact that WeatherBELL’s temperature time series is no observation data. It is a model-based reanalysis of that data.

    For Pseudoskeptics, the quality of models AND observations seems to be directly proportional to the cooling they show.

    J.-P. D.

    • ClintR says:

      “Personally, I tend to avoid reading papers beginning with the unfortunately usual…”

      Hard copies of such “papers” are suitable for bird cage liners.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      I like the DMI since they respond to my emails.

      At present about 300 Giga-tonnes per year of continental ice is melting. Most of it can be traced to Greenland since Antarctica is gaining ice mass.

      So what? That kind of melting has been going on over the last 10,000 years. Given that the “Global Ice Inventory” is 30,000,000 Giga-tonnes it will take 10,000 years to melt it all at the current rate.

      When all the continental ice melts, sea level will rise 200 feet but we will have plenty of time to adapt by moving to higher ground.

      • Bindidon says:

        Jesus Mr Morcombe…

        Nobody here forgets let alone would ignore what you wrote above.

        1. But… you seem to forget that no more than 1000 years ago, Mankind population was no more than 300 million, with zero technology, zero technical infrastructure, zero industry and in comparison with today, zero trade.

        2. You are, like do many Pseudoskeptics (I hope you don’t belong to this species), discussing a pseudoproblem: that of a full melting of continental ice, what is of zero dot zero interest.

        3. And above all, writing ” … but we will have plenty of time to adapt by moving to higher ground”, you deliberately ignore that this will be reserved for the wealthy. Billions of people won’t be able to move as easy as you and me.

        J.-P. D.

        • Svante says:

          And ignoring the human tragedy of drowning thousands of years of history.

        • Eben says:

          You bring hockey pictures made for brainwashing little skool children into my thread acting like you have some new science discoveries , what do you think we are here a bunch of 8 year olds ?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…” ***** Mr Morcombe”

          I am wondering if you have the sensitivity to understand that both Roy and John Christy have religious faith. I can’t speak for either but for many Christians the use of the name of Jesus in the context you used it is sacreligious. It’s disrespectful and an insult.

          I am not religious, but I refrain from using the name of Jesus in that manner. It’s not just out of respect for people with religious faith it’s out of respect for the man himself. He single-handedly started a revolution in human nature, calling authority figure on the carpet to be accountable and they murdered him for it.

          The man deserves respect, not to have his name used as an expression of profanity.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            BTW…I have done it myself, the very thing of which I accuse you, but I am trying to be more aware of it these days. I am not presenting myself as holier-than-thou, I am simply reminding you that Roy and John have religious faith and may take your exclamation as an insult.

      • Svante says:

        The total [Antarctic] mass loss increased from:
        40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to:
        50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000,
        166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and:
        252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017.

        https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095.short

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        cam…”So what? That kind of melting has been going on over the last 10,000 years”.

        I recall reading about the Shackleton expeditions to Antarctica circa 1910. On one expedition he took a geologist along from Australia and the guy specialized in glaciers. He made a poignant statement in the book that corroborates what you claim, that glaciers have been melting for thousands of years.

        There was a respite during the Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. The LIA apparently happened in two phases but I was reading an account of the Scottish highlands where farming was wiped out in the late 1700s due to the encroachment of ice and snow during the growing season. They had a famine for years due to the extremely cold weather. Near Chamonix, France, a glacier grew across a valley and wiped out a village.

        Glaciers grew significantly during the LIA and now they are melting. The rocket scientists in the climate division are blaming it on a trace gas when it’s obvious that far more sinister powers are at work.

        Sea levels before and after the LIA were not significantly affected.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”For those Pseudoskeptics who are ignorant enough to discredit all model-based evaluations, I remind them about the fact that WeatherBELLs temperature time series is no observation data. It is a model-based reanalysis of that data”.

      Then it is useless.

      • bdgwx says:

        CFSR assimilates millions of observations every day.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bdg…”CFSR assimilates millions of observations every day”.

          There’s a big difference between using a computer to assimilate data and using a computer as a climate model. The former collects real data and the latter synthesis quasi-data.

          • bdgwx says:

            Correct. There is a huge difference in methodology between reanalysis and other kinds of datasets. Reanalysis is considered to be at least as good at computing global mean temperatures as satellite, balloon, and surface station datasets. Many consider it to be superior. CFSR still uses 3D-VAR though which is considered inferior to the newer 4D-VAR technique like what other reanalysis datasets like ERA use. Unlike 3D-VAR, 4D-VAR actual runs a GCM to find the trajectories of the atmospheric parameters so that a better estimate of those parameters can be computed for each grid cell and time slice. ERA advertises +- 0.4C of error on 850mb temperatures. The grid mesh is about 500,000 cells so the trivial error of the mean is 0.4/sqrt(500000) = 0.0005C though in reality the error is much higher for non-trivial reasons.

            https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+uncertainty+estimation

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, the very fact that things like “reanalysis”, “homogenization”, and “adjustment” are used, should tell you something. People that appreciate reality and science have referred to such techniques as “torturing the data until it complies”.

  82. Eben says:

    Biden just nailed it, 14 years after Al Gore’s 10 years doom prophecy, He got on stage and announced we have only 9 years left.
    https://i.postimg.cc/t4nvVZ1N/10-year-climate-bart-simpson.gif

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben…”Biden just nailed it….”

      If this idiot gets elected in November you will see corruption of an unimaginable extent in fields like climate science and in medicine, as related to covid. Anyone who stands for freedom and democracy needs to ensure this idiot is not elected, no matter how much that person may hate Trump.

    • gbaikie says:

      Biden doesn’t have 9 years left.
      Al Gore had 5 years to make a lot money.
      Biden’s family has about 9 years left to make a lot money.
      They call him gaffe machine, but he is the graft machine.
      7″ rise in sea level per century with our cold ocean of our Ice Age.
      Warming in Ice Age is direction, you need.

      CO2 isn’t a control knob, and our cold ocean is what control the global climate.

      • bdgwx says:

        What’s causing the ocean to accumulate 10e21 joules of energy per year?

        • CliintR says:

          Most likely it’s due to accumulating errors in the “assumptions”, “estimates”, “guesses”, and “adjustments”.

        • gbaikie says:

          That ocean can accumulate or lose such amounts as 10e21 joules of energy per year is why ocean controls global climate. And why it’s only thing of any importance regarding global climate.
          And climate scientists are ignoring it, and it’s why they are bunch of frauds.

          • bdgwx says:

            gbaikie said: That ocean can accumulate or lose such amounts as 10e21 joules of energy per year is why ocean controls global climate.

            It is certainly a huge factor.

            gbaikie said: And why it’s only thing of any importance regarding global climate.

            You don’t think the Sun, sea ice, land ice, continental positioning, ocean currents, cyclic heat transport phenomenon (like ENSO, PDO, etc.), aerosols, albedo, biological activity, atmospheric gaseous composition, etc. are important?

            gbaikie said: And climate scientists are ignoring it, and it’s why they are bunch of frauds.

            The IPCC AR5 WGI report has an entire chapter dedicated to it and references over 300 other publications in the bibliography. I don’t think you can justify a claim that it is being ignored. In fact, I would say the opposite has happened. It has been a focal point of climate research.

            And you still haven’t answered my question…

            What’s causing the ocean to accumulate 10e21 joules of energy per year?

          • gbaikie says:

            In terms of the heat from 1 megaton bombs, what is geothermal energy over a year period of time.
            And how many decades does it take for 1/2 of this geothermal energy to be radiated in space.
            What is the time period that Earth oceans generally cool or warm by 1 C?

            What is commonly known in terms of factiod, is 1 C change ocean temperature is same energy of atmosphere 1000 K warmer.
            But for the stupid, the ocean can’t make atmosphere hot.
            Our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.
            Our global average surface temperature is about 17 C and global average land surface temperature is about 10 C and this averaged
            is global average surface temperature of about 15 C.

            Or global ocean surface temperature is global average air temperature. It’s everything to terms of global average surface temperature being 15 C.
            And Ocean warms the world, and land cools the world. Or without global ocean surface of 17 C, the global land surface would lower or higher than 10 C.
            During our millions of years of our Ice Age, the ocean temperature has varied from about 1 C to about 5 C.
            In terms of Earth 1/2 billion recent history, most of time we weren’t in an Ice Age and ocean has been warmer than 10 C.
            An ocean temperature of 10 C is not called a cold ocean. Though 10 C water obviously quite cold water.

          • gbaikie says:

            –gbaikie said: And climate scientists are ignoring it, and it’s why they are bunch of frauds.
            –The IPCC AR5 WGI report has an entire chapter dedicated to it and references over 300 other publications in the bibliography.–

            Probably mostly written by oceanographers.
            What part of all don’t you understand? Climate scientist are talking weather. And worried about trace gas in the atmosphere.
            The control knob is not CO2, the only control knob is the ocean.
            CO2 doesn’t warm or cool the ocean.
            What cools the ocean has yet to be measured by Climate scientists.

            Or what causes cooling is the only really interesting question when living in an Ice Age.
            What causes cooling is the the question what cools the ocean {just make it clear}.
            As I said land cools- I mean more than just broadly speaking.
            What caused the cooling of Little Ice Age, for example.
            And climate scientists are still denying the Little Ice Age, which we currently recovering from {in case you didn’t know}.

          • bdgwx says:

            In terms of the heat from 1 megaton bombs, what is geothermal energy over a year period of time.

            Geothermal is about 0.1 W/m^2 most of which is radio-thermal with only a small contribution from tidal dissipation of the Earth/Moon system. This is equivalent to 1 MT TNT every 1 minute. Over 1 year this is about 525 GT TNT.

            And how many decades does it take for 1/2 of this geothermal energy to be radiated in space.

            It is continuously being radiated to space. Geothermal is 0.1 W/m^2 and Earth radiates at 240 W/m^2.

            What is the time period that Earth oceans generally cool or warm by 1 C?

            SST or over ocean depth? If SST the timescale will be similar to near surface temperature. If over ocean depth it is really long time. Over the last 150 years the ocean depth warmed about 0.15C (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1126). Though at the current rate of 10e21 j/yr it will take about 300 years to warm 1C.

            I’m still looking for answer to my question…

            What’s causing the ocean to accumulate 10e21 joules of energy per year?

          • bdgwx says:

            What part of all dont you understand?

            I don’t understand your claim that it is being ignored.

            The control knob is not CO2, the only control knob is the ocean.
            CO2 doesnt warm or cool the ocean.

            They are both influential factors. What warms/cools the ocean is a planetary energy imbalance. CO2 along with many other agents modulates the planetary energy budget. CO2 definitely contributes to the warming/cooling of oceans. This was discovered and experimentally confirmed in the 1800s. It is not controversial.

            What cools the ocean has yet to be measured by Climate scientists.

            The planetary energy imbalance has been measured. The magnitude and sign of it are consistent with expectations using the consensus model of how climate behaves.

            Or what causes cooling is the only really interesting question when living in an Ice Age.

            Anything that reduces raditive forcing contributes to cooling. This includes but is not limited to declining solar output, increase in aerosols, decrease in GHGs, increase in albedo.

            What caused the cooling of Little Ice Age, for example.

            It is believed that a decrease in AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overtuning Circulation), a decrease in solar activity, an increase in volcanic aerosols, and to a lesser extent land use changes were the primary contributes to the LIA.

            And climate scientists are still denying the Little Ice Age, which we currently recovering from {in case you didnt know}.

            Nobody is denying the LIA. It is a real phenomenon that occurred as Lamb 1982 originally documented. Since Lamb 1982 scientists have provided more details like the where, when, and by how much. And as originally suspect by Lamb it has been confirmed to be phenomenon that had a much higher magnitude in present day Europe than anywhere else.

            And “recovery” is not a cause. The “recovery” in the global mean temperature since the LIA is an observation.

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, the more you type the more you get tangled up. I love it!

            Tangle 1: “CO2 definitely contributes to the warming/cooling of oceans.”

            If that were true, then the net effect would be zero.

            Tangle 2: “The planetary energy imbalance has been measured.”

            That’s just blatantly FALSE. Your imagined “energy imbalance” is a hodgepodge of estimates, assumptions, and perverted physics.

            Tangle 3: “Anything that reduces raditive forcing contributes to cooling. This includes but is not limited to declining solar output [TRUE], increase in aerosols [TRUE], decrease in GHGs [FALSE], increase in albedo [TRUE].”

            That big, hot ball in the sky is Earth’s ONLY “radiative forcing” of significance. Reduce solar in some way, and Earth cools. There is NO way to heat Earth without adding more energy.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            b,

            ClintR already covered this, but just to reinforce:

            “CO2 definitely contributes to the warming/cooling of oceans. This was discovered and experimentally confirmed in the 1800s. It is not controversial.”

            Where is the experimental data showing any increase in CO2 causes any further increase in global temperature?

            How much does 10E21 Joules/year translate into W/m2? Compare that to the accuracy of energy imbalance measurements and your geothermal contribution. Try to be objective.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”And as originally suspect by Lamb it has been confirmed to be phenomenon that had a much higher magnitude in present day Europe than anywhere else”.

            How would that work exactly, that only temperatures in Europe dropped 1C to 2C but nowhere else in the world?

            If you read on the explorers in that era, during phase II of the LIA, it was extremely cold in the Canadian Arctic as well. During the summer months, they were encountering ice in Lancaster Sound, north of Baffin Island and even in Hudson’s Bay. They could not sail through from the Alaskan end since the passageways between islands was choked with ice.

            These days it’s possible to sail right through the NW Passage in summer, if you are lucky. The RCMP cutter St. Roch was halted on a west-east journey from Vancouver to Halifax in the early 1940s, forcing them to winter along the Arctic coast but they sailed straight through on the return journey in 87 days.

          • bdgwx says:

            Where is the experimental data showing any increase in CO2 causes any further increase in global temperature?

            IPCC AR5 WGI chapters and 5 and 8 provide a great introduction to material and have lengthy bibliographies at the end that you can use for a deep dive into the details.

            How much does 10E21 Joules/year translate into W/m2?

            It is about +0.6 W/m^2. Note that this only includes the energy accumulated by the ocean so it is a conservative estimate.

            Compare that to the accuracy of energy imbalance measurements and your geothermal contribution. Try to be objective.

            Cheng 2020 lists the uncertainty as +- 0.01 W/m^2.

            The geothermal contribution to the energy budget is about 0.1 W/m^2. But the geothermal contribution to the energy imbalance is near 0 because there has been no significant change in the geothermal output.

          • bdgwx says:

            How would that work exactly, that only temperatures in Europe dropped 1C to 2C but nowhere else in the world?

            Correct. Some areas even warmed during the LIA. Similar situation with the MWP. The magnitude of the regional influence was greater than on a global scale and some areas during the MWP even cooled. Lamb was unequivocal regarding his position on this matter. His commentary is frequently ignored by contrarian bloggers though.

            If you read on the explorers in that era, during phase II of the LIA, it was extremely cold in the Canadian Arctic as well.

            That is consistent with the evidence and Lamb’s original research. Europe foremost and other NH land areas like Canada experienced the largest swings in temperature between the MWP, LIA, and today.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: Where is the experimental data showing any increase in CO2 causes any further increase in global temperature?

            bdgwx said: IPCC AR5 WGI chapters and 5 and 8 provide a great introduction to material and have lengthy bibliographies at the end that you can use for a deep dive into the details.

            I should have included chapter 10 as well. That chapter covers CO2’s contribution to the contemporary warming era.

          • gbaikie says:

            4.36 x 10^23 joules added in about 145 years per year: 4.36 x 10^23 / 145 = 3.0 x 10^21 joules per year

            5.128 x 10^24 joules to heat by 1 K / 3.0 x 10^21 joules = 1709.33 years

            “For 19552017, our estimates are comparable with direct estimates made by infilling the available 3D time-dependent ocean
            temperature observations. We find that the global ocean absorbed heat during this period at a rate of 0.30 0.06 W/m2 in the
            upper 2,000 m and 0.028 0.026 W/m2 below 2,000 m, with large decadal fluctuations. ”
            https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1126

            –Though at the current rate of 10e21 j/yr it will take about 300 years to warm 1C.

            Im still looking for answer to my question

            What’s causing the ocean to accumulate 10e21 joules of energy per year?–

            Most people would assume it’s due to sunlight warming the top 100 meter of transparent ocean water.
            [One should also mixing from waves- and other factors}
            Ocean water is not transparent to longwave IR radiation.

            But using your your number for geothermal heat:
            “Over 1 year this is about 525 GT TNT.”
            So 525,000 megaton nuclear exploding at say 4000 meter under the surface per year:
            “4.210^15 J: Energy released by explosion of 1 megaton of TNT”
            4.210^15 J times 525,000 is 2.2 x 10^21 joules per year.

            But what missing from this is the polar water cooling the global ocean depths. I would say entire ocean warmed by Sunlight and warmed by geothermal heat. And if there wasn’t any geothermal heat, then Our Ice Age would instead be a Snowball Earth {Actually mean Slushball or your tropical ocean isn’t affected much by our 3.5 C ocean or say an ocean that was instead 1 C, or 15 C}
            But we have had geothermal heat and we will continue to have geothermal heat- so, no snowball {slushball} earth in future, nor in the past.

          • gbaikie says:

            **What caused the cooling of Little Ice Age, for example.

            It is believed that a decrease in AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overtuning Circulation), a decrease in solar activity, an increase in volcanic aerosols, and to a lesser extent land use changes were the primary contributes to the LIA.**

            I picked LIA because it’s most recent, though it does seem it was the coolest time period in several thousand years. I don’t disagree that it had to do with Atlantic circulation, and solar, and volcanic activity. And we talking about period +1300 AD to 1850 AD- roughly speaking. And it was within time period of last 5000 years of gradual global cooling. And in LIA I assume ocean didn’t at any time cool lower than to about 3.3 C.
            And I assume during warmest periods of Holocene climatic optimum the earth oceans were around 4 C.
            And during our last interglacial period, the Eemian, ocean warmed at least to 4 C, or say as warm as about 4.5 C.

          • bdgwx says:

            4.36 x 10^23 joules added in about 145 years per year: 4.36 x 10^23 / 145 = 3.0 x 10^21 joules per year

            5.128 x 10^24 joules to heat by 1 K / 3.0 x 10^21 joules = 1709.33 years

            It’s a good calculation. It just uses different assumptions.

            My calculation is for the current heat uptake rate of 10e21 joules. Your calculation uses the average heat uptake rate over the entire 145 year period.

            Since the 436e21 joules is for the top 2000m of the ocean I estimated this mass at 0.7e21 kg or about 50% of the total mass of the ocean. And at 4000 j/kg.C it takes 2.8e24 joules to raise the temperature of this mass by 1C. And 2.8e24 / 10e21 = 280 years.

            Again…nothing wrong with your calculation. I actually commend you for doing and doing it right. That is a rarity in the comments on this blog. We’re just using different assumptions which is totally fine. I think I can justify mine, but yours are fine too.

  83. Chic Bowdrie says:

    bdgwx,

    10E21 joules/year is 3.2E13 Watts and the oceans’ surface area is 3.6E14 m^2. That’s 0.088 W/m^2.

    “Cheng 2020 lists the uncertainty as +- 0.01 W/m^2.”

    Do you want a redo on that? It means that both errors on incoming and outgoing energy has to be less than that. Impossible.

    • bdgwx says:

      10E21 joules/year is 3.2E13 Watts and the oceans’ surface area is 3.6E14 m^2. That’s 0.088 W/m^2.

      10e21 joules in one year is 10e21 j / 31556952 s = 3.16e14 watts.

      The global surface area is 510e12 m^2. This comes out to 3.16e14 / 510e12 = +0.62 W/m^2.

      The ocean surface area is 362e12 m^2. This comes out to +0.87 W/m^2.

      You’re figure is off by a factor of 10.

      And we use Earth’s total surface area as opposed to ocean surface area for quantifying the energy imbalance.

      It is important to note that this is a conservative estimate since the cryosphere, atmosphere, and land all take up heat as well. But the ocean accounts for >= 90% of the uptake so it provides a good estimate by itself.

      Do you want a redo on that?

      No I don’t. It comes from Cheng 2020.

      It means that both errors on incoming and outgoing energy has to be less than that. Impossible.

      No, it doesn’t. You don’t even need to know the incoming and outgoing energy fluxes to measure the imbalance.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Yes, I am off by a factor of 10.

        And the uncertainty you say Cheng claims is also correct, but only for the most recent warming from 1990 to 2019.

        He reported the error of 0.38 +/- 0.08 W/m^2 for the whole 1960-2019 period. Like you must have done, I had to convert the uncertainty of 0.2 ZJ to 0.01 W/m2.

        Cheng says, “The uncertainty in the OHC record has been greatly reduced in recent decades through improvements in the ocean observation system (Meyssignac et al., 2019), which is represented by error bars in Fig. 1 (the calculation of the uncertainty range is presented in detail in Cheng et al. (2017).”

        Does this reflect the true uncertainty? If you make a million measurements you are likely to reduce the error compared to making only a fraction of that. But does that sample accurately represents the whole population? One must go to the methodology for ocean temperature measurements to answer that. There is a statistical way to express it, which is above my pay grade.

        All of this doesn’t prove that ocean heating is due to increased CO2. An increase in ASR is the most likely reason the ocean is warming. IOW, a suspected energy imbalance detected by warming oceans cannot be assumed to be caused by increasing atmospheric CO2.

        • bdgwx says:

          You’re right. It doesn’t mean that it is due to CO2. All it means is that the planet is warming.

          Increased ASR is a valid hypothesis. But I think what you actually mean is increased ASR above and beyond any OLR increase can create an energy imbalance. If ASR increases in tandem with OLR then no imbalance is materialized. If this is the likely cause then there should ample evidence to support it. We’d still need to figure out where all of that energy that CO2 (plus other GHGs) trapped went if not into increasing Earth’s temperature though.

          I will say that OHC measurements are consistent with the consensus model which includes the radiative force of CO2 among other things. An energy imbalance of at least +0.6 W/m^2 is inline with expectations.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            OHC measurements being consistent with the consensus model could easily just be coincidence. You have unverified models and a tortured correlation. It requires presuming no solar influence and less OLR, which are not supported by data.

            Granted other hypotheses are equally weak. You may be interested in a discussion of such in comments prior to and following this link:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/17/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-3037090

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, that figure, “0.6 W/m^2”, is bogus. You believe it because you believe anything your false religion preaches. You’re a mindless follower of a cult, willing to pervert reality and science, without qualms.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: It requires presuming no solar influence and less OLR, which are not supported by data.

            Solar influence is considered. The thing is TSI hasn’t increased since the 1950’s and has even been declining especially in the last couple of decades. It’s influence is for a slight negative radiative forcing if anything.

            The consensus model of the contemporary warming era predicts increasing OLR. And that’s what is observed so I’m not sure what the problem is there.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            There is no problem. TSI is not ASR. ASR is what’s left of TSI after subtracting reflected solar insolation.

          • bdgwx says:

            Right…but a change in ASR because of clouds, albedo, atmospheric composition, or whatever isn’t what most would classify as solar influence. That’s purely a semantic quibble though.

            Anyway…if ASR increased because of clouds or albedo changes and those changes were due to their feedback relationship with a warming planet then whatever catalyzed the initial warming would still be considered the cause of the ASR increase.

          • bdgwx says:

            ClintR said: 0.6 W/m^2, is bogus

            There’s plenty of debate on the exact figure of the energy imbalance. I use +0.6 W/m^2 as a fairly conservative estimate, but estimates do range from 0.4-1.0 W/m^2 though I think that range has narrowed some after getting the higher precision data from ARGO. I believe Dr. Spencer has cited +0.8 W/m^2 in the past. So while +0.6 W/m^2 is just an estimate I don’t think it’s fair to say it is bogus since there is quite of bit of evidentiary support for a figure somewhere in this ballpark.

          • ClintR says:

            It’s bogus, bdgwx.

            Of course if your “ballpark” can handle +/- 40 W/m^2, then you are approaching reality.

          • bdgwx says:

            Do you really think -40 and +40 W/m^2 are realistic values for Earth’s energy imbalance?

          • ClintR says:

            I’m trying to get your attention, bdgwx. You keep using the +0.6 W/m^2 because that is your belief. It is not reality, regardless of how many “papers” are out there.

            Earth does not have an ongoing energy imbalance. Any transitory energy balance is handled by the laws of physics. That’s what nature does.

            Actual annual varience in TSI varies by more than +/- 40 W/m^2, but we don’t see that in global temperatures. Earth handles such variations quiet effectively You have no clue about science. But, you’ve absorbed the “papers” very well. You can read and remember, but you can’t discern reality from incompetence/dishonesty.

          • Nate says:

            “OHC measurements being consistent with the consensus model could easily just be coincidence. You have unverified models and a tortured correlation.”

            A theory of x predicts y, and y is observed. Enough of these, and coincidence is no longer a viable option, the theory gains acceptance.

            All of science involves such ‘coincidences’.

            Whats a real coincidence in science is one that can possibly arise by random chance from the natural ‘background noise’ in the system.

            IOW, one can’t just dismiss the Higgs Boson as ‘could easily be just coincidence’ because the random events in the experiment are not sufficient to explain it.

            Same goes here. Can you show that the random noise in the ocean system is large enough for the current observations to arise from this ongoing random variation?

          • Nate says:

            “You keep using the +0.6 W/m^2 because that is your belief. It is not reality, regardless of how many ‘papers’ are out there.

            Earth does not have an ongoing energy imbalance. Any transitory energy balance is handled by the laws of physics. Thats what nature does.”

            Yeah, what good are papers, experiments, and data when all they do is prove Clint is wrong?

            Clint thinks a much better approach is to continually declare things without ANY papers, cites, or evidence whatsoever.

        • Nate says:

          “All of this doesn’t prove that ocean heating is due to increased CO2. An increase in ASR is the most likely reason the ocean is warming.”

          What you think is and isnt ‘most likely’ is interesting.

          ASR enhancement is part and parcel of AGW theory. It is a natural consequence of ice-albedo feedback.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, I realize you have no interest in reality.

            But for those that do, a “theory” cannot violate the laws of physics. The correct phraseology is “AGW fantasy”.

          • Nate says:

            ‘cannot violate the laws of physics.’

            Violating your laws of fake-physics is a bonus.

            Again, we have asked you repeatedly for evidence of your your claims that soil acts like a mirror for IR, and you never, ever, have any to show!

            IOW you are wrong. Oh well. So sad. Now go troll your mom.

          • ClintR says:

            Like I said Nate, I realize you have no interest in reality.

            Your from-the-gutter remark about my mom (RIP) merely indicates your desperation. You have no science, just your attempted insults, while hiding your identity. (Would you make insults involving my mom if I knew where you lived?)

            I’m glad Dr. Spencer doesn’t ban your type. People need to see the kind of people that seek to pervert reality and science.

          • Nate says:

            Obviously no intent to insult your mom..Ive lost my mom as well.

            Just picking on you for YOUR bad behavior.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  84. Chic Bowdrie says:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/hot-summer-epic-fail-new-climate-models-exaggerate-midwest-warming-by-6x/#comment-501628

    E.Swanson,

    You make an argument concluding with “…thus increasing CO2 results in a warming of the lower atmosphere.”

    You proceed to present a candle flame as support for that argument and then call me a goof?

    “Thats what causes the warming.”

    More hand-waving from Dr. Spencer’s warmist peanut gallery.

    Show me the data that proves all your hand-waving arguments.

    • bdgwx says:

      Dr. Spencer himself is in the warmist peanut gallery too ya know.

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx, you can’t get anything right.

        Dr. Spencer has clearly indicated he is a “Lukewarmer”. He accepts the GHE concept, but with reservations. Being a scientist, he defers the physics to physicists, but does not believe Earth would warm drastically because of natural responses. He’s a strong “anti-alarmist”, if I may awkwardly apply such a term to him.

        Hence his title of this very post “Hot Summer Epic Fail: New Climate Models Exaggerate Midwest Warming by 6X”

    • E. Swanson says:

      CB, My analogy of the candle flame was to prove that the emissions from a gas occur in all directions, even thoough the direction of an emission from any one molecule is random. The physics applies to the emissions by any GHGs in a layer of the atmosphere.

      As the other troll ClintR wrote:

      Adding more CO2 is adding more “emitters”, which means more thermal energy move to space.

      Yes, that’s a well understood consequence of increasing GHGs that’s resulting in the measured cooling of the Stratosphere. It should also be obvious that increasing GHG’s result in an increase in DOWNWARD IR EM energy flow in each layer, a process which continues all the way down to the surface.

      • ClintR says:

        Thanks for quoting me correctly, Swanson. Too often people misrepresent what I say.

        Yes, CO2, and other radiative gases, cool the atmosphere by emitting energy to space. It should be obvious that any energy emitted to the surface cannot then warm the surface.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “It should also be obvious that increasing GHGs result in an increase in DOWNWARD IR EM energy flow in each layer, a process which continues all the way down to the surface.”

        Should is the operative word. Data is normally supplied to verify that “does” can be used with confidence.

        The energy flow you describe is completely overwhelmed by the daily process of cooling the surface. The radiation from the surface is thermalized in the bulk air which expands and rises. Only a fraction of the energy moved upward is due to radiation and most of that goes directly to space.

        Just how far down do you think a photon goes after being emitted? The only ones reaching the surface came from IR active gases relatively close to the surface, mostly from water vapor. More to the point, more CO2 molecules will not change how much energy got there in the first place.

      • E. Swanson says:

        CB wrote:

        The energy flow you describe is completely overwhelmed by the daily process of cooling the surface. The radiation from the surface is thermalized in the bulk air which expands and rises. Only a fraction of the energy moved upward is due to radiation and most of that goes directly to space.

        The entire process of the Earth’s Energy budget is quite complex and your simple description misses much. Your claim that the IR from the surface is “thermalized” is wrong where said energy passes thru the “atmospheric window” to deep space. But, that only works under clear sky conditions. Or, when there’s an area of “high pressure” caused by sinking air, things are stable and there’s less vertical convection. The IR in the GHG bands is absorbed and may also re-radiated, a process which is repeated from one layer to the next upward.

        Ultimately, the problem isn’t how much energy “got there in the first place”, but what temperature at the surface results from all these interactions. Of course, you are ignoring the data I supplied which exhibits one aspect of the entire energy balance. How do you explain the well documented cooling in the Stratosphere or the evidence which shows that the height of the tropical tropopause is increasing, also an expected result of AGW? What about night time warming faster than day time, another example of the expected impacts? Or, the dramatic loss of sea-ice cover in the Arctic?

        • ClintR says:

          Swanson, asking such questions just documents your ignorance of the atmosphere.

          And that reminds me where you first popped up. You are the one that “built satellites”!

          (And then you had to back down and admit you were only “on the team”, just as a junior assistant janitor is “on the team”.)

          You just exposed yourself again.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR, Please name one person who “built” a satellite with his own hand and placed it into orbit. All satellites are “built” thru team effort. You are an complete idiot to think otherwise.

          • ClintR says:

            Swanson, go back and find your original comment.

            How many were on your team? What are some of the names? What satellite? What was the name of the janitor supervisor (your boss)?

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          E.,

          “Of course, you are ignoring the data I supplied which exhibits one aspect of the entire energy balance.”

          What data?

          “How do you explain the well documented cooling in the Stratosphere…”

          Several mechanisms may apply. Why does that need to be explained?

          “…or the evidence which shows that the height of the tropical tropopause is increasing, also an expected result of AGW?”

          I am not aware of any measurements on the height of the tropical tropopause increasing nor does it follow that less OLR results if it does. The whole planet radiates, not just the tropics or the tropopause.

          “What about night time warming faster than day time, another example of the expected impacts?”

          I’d rather say that day times are warming slower than night times, an example of the surface cooling effects of IR absorbing gases.

          Evidence of a warming planet occurs regardless of cause.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: Several mechanisms may apply. Why does that need to be explained?

            Because it happened. Any hypothesis that attempts to explain Earth’s energy imbalance and resultant warming must be consistent with all observations including the cooling stratosphere.

            And this particular observations falsifies several candidate hypothesis for the warming including the ever persistent claim that “it’s the Sun, stupid”.

            Chic said: I’d rather say that day times are warming slower than night times, an example of the surface cooling effects of IR absorbing gases.

            First…IR absorbing gases impede the transmission of radiant heat. The energy accumulates on the source side of the gas and depletes on destination side thus causing warming on the source side and cooling on destination side. Experiments have demonstrated this repeatedly since the 1850’s including the one you posted a week or two ago. And since in the Earthly configuration the surface is the primary source of IR it will warm (not cool) when the the gas is between it and the final destination (space) while on the other side of the gas things (stratosphere) cool.

            Second…I believe the diurnal temperature range decrease is primarily the result of thermals clamping the daytime max temperature but not the nighttime max temperature. As the atmosphere tends toward a superadiabatic state it begins convecting upward. This limits the daily max temperature at the surface. As a result the IR trapping effect of GHGs does more to trap at night than by day. This happens regardless of the composition of the atmosphere since N2, O2, CO2, CH4, etc. molecules are mostly equal in terms of the amount of heat they can convect. And remember that publication you linked to earlier in which it was determined that if anything more CO2 does more to suppress convection than to enhance it.

            So no…CO2 does not help the surface cool either radiatively or convectively. It’s primary effect is to enhance warming at the surface on a global scale.*

            * Note there is a interesting regional caveat here that we can discuss if you want.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            b,

            “The energy accumulates on the source side of the gas and depletes on destination side thus causing warming on the source side and cooling on destination side.”

            First, your regurgitation of AGW dogma is tiresome. Although I must say that is as creative a way I’ve ever heard it said. Energy accumulates because the sun rises every day, thank God, warming both the surface and the atmosphere. IR gases then go to work cooling things down. At night, they inhibit cooling, again thank God. Otherwise, it would be miserable dealing with the resulting temperature extremes.

            Second, see the previous paragraph.

            The suppression of convection in that paper was an experiment using pure CO2 and Argon versus air. Apples and oranges comparison. 0.04% CO2 will have a negligible effect on convection.

            * Note there is no definitive evidence that an increase in CO2 will increase global temperature.

          • Nate says:

            “warming both the surface and the atmosphere. IR gases then go to work cooling things down. ”

            No not at all. Weird idea, I assume it comes from denialist blogs.

            CO2 abso*rbs UWLR, warms, and the warmed layer emits both up and down producing DWLR.

            So it is ‘cooling things down’ only in the sense that the insulation in my wintertime house gets warmed by the heat of my house, then releases it to the outside world, thus cooling the house.

            It is the mechanism for cooling my house, but without it, my house would be colder.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: First, your regurgitation of AGW dogma is tiresome.

            It has nothing to do with AGW dogma. The fact that polyatomic gas species impede the transmission of radiant heat in the IR part of the spectrum comes from a completely different branch of science and is about as settled as it can get. This behavior is exploited by CO2 NDIR detectors that have widespread industrial adoption. People trust their lives on this “dogma” every single day.

            Chic said: Energy accumulates because the sun rises every day

            No it doesn’t. It literally does not. To accumulate energy requires a positive energy imbalance. The Sun is not currently contributing to a positive imbalance. It is actually putting downward pressure on the imbalance albeit by a small amount.

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, are you purposely trying to confuse and distort the points made by Chic, or are you just stupid?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”that’s a well understood consequence of increasing GHGs that’s resulting in the measured cooling of the Stratosphere. It should also be obvious that increasing GHG’s result in an increase in DOWNWARD IR EM energy flow in each layer, a process which continues all the way down to the surface.”

        No scientific evidence to support cooling of the stratosphere by GHGs. Your second point is irrelevant because heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface THAT WARMED THE GHGS, according to AGW theory.

        Such a recycling of heat so as to warm the surface would represent perpetual motion. Transfer of heat from cold to hot contradicts the 2nd law.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo offers no explanation for the cooling trend in the stratosphere, whereas the addition of GHG’s cam provide such an explanation. As usual, you repeat your favorite mantra, “Transfer of heat from cold to hot contradicts the 2nd law”, ignoring the vast evidence that radiation heat transfer can do so. Of course, you’ve never yet come up with an explanation of the Green Plate Effect either, so you simply assert it can’t be possible.

          AGW isn’t perpetual motion. Turn off the source of external energy and the temperature drops. Without the Sun, the Earth would be a frozen rock.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”“Transfer of heat from cold to hot contradicts the 2nd law”, ignoring the vast evidence that radiation heat transfer can do so”.

            Once again, the 2nd law as written by Clausius for all kinds of heat transfers is: Heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body. You seem to think you know something Clausius did not but you have not demonstrated how heat is transferred from cold to hot by radiation.

            I have demonstrated several times how it can’t. At the atomic level, it is electrons in an atom that absorb and emit electromagnetic energy (radiation). An electron at a higher energy level, meaning in a hotter body, is not affected by EM from a cooler body.

            E = hf represents the difference in orbital energy levels for electrons in an atom. If you consider E2 to be a higher orbital energy level, then E2 – E1 = E = hf. When an electron drops through an energy level, E2 – E1, the energy given to the emitted quantum is E = E2 – E1 -hf, where f is the angular frequency of the electron..

            If a quantum of energy reaches the atom, it needs at least the same E as the emitted quantum. It also needs to resonate with the absorbing electron therefore it needs the same frequency. That is not possible when the energy comes from an electron in an atom of lower energy, hence lower temperature.

            If the atoms are in a mass with the same temperature, it is possible for quanta from either atom to be absorbed by the other. If one mass is hotter, a quantum from it will be absorbed by an electron in a cooler mass. But a quantum from an electron in a cooler mass cannot be absorbed by an electron in a hotter mass.

            Electrons in orbitals act like resonant bodies. They cannot absorb any old energy, only energy with the frequency of the same electron angular frequency.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:

            “I have demonstrated several times how it can’t”.

            You are confusing yourself with E. Swanson.
            He proved the opposite of what you say though.

          • Entropic man says:

            Gordon Robertson

            As you say

            “Electrons in orbitals act like resonant bodies. They cannot absorb any old energy, only energy with the frequency of the same electron angular frequency. ”

            Thus the amount of energy carried by a 15 micrometre photon emitted by a CO2 molecule is constant and independent of the temperature of the gas of which that molecule is part.

            Similarly the amount of energy taken up by a CO2 molecule absorbing a 15 micrometre photon is independent of the gas temperature.

            Thus it is possible for a photon emitted by a CO2 molecule in a cooler gas to be absorbed by a CO2 molecule in a warmer gas.

            This is a transfer of energy from a cooler gas to a warmer gas, something you say is impossibe.

          • Nate says:

            “If a quantum of energy reaches the atom, it needs at least the same E as the emitted quantum. It also needs to resonate with the absorbing electron therefore it needs the same frequency. That is not possible when the energy comes from an electron in an atom of lower energy, hence lower temperature.”

            Gordon, you can’t talk about atoms and their energy levels and assign each atom a temperature. That makes no sense.

            Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of atoms. It tells you the liklihood of finding atoms with higher energies.

            Individual atoms in a warm gas can be in the lower energy state, and thus are able to abs*orb a photon with the right wavelength coming from ANYWHERE, even a colder gas.

          • ClintR says:

            The effort to pervert the laws of physics continues.

            “This is a transfer of energy from a cooler gas to a warmer gas, something you say is impossibe.”

            If a CO2 molecule is already vibrating at the frequency of a 15 μ photon, and it somehow absorbs a 15 μ photon, it’s vibrational frequency would remain the same. But, before that happened, it would emit a 15 μ photon.

            “Transfer of energy” is not always “heat”.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “…the vast evidence that radiation heat transfer can do so.”

            Your experiments do not show radiation from a cold object transfers heat from the cold object to the warm object. I think you mean that the warm object warms up because it can’t cool as fast, but words mean things. You are duplicitous to imply that a cold object transfers heat to the warmer one.

          • Nate says:

            “If a CO2 molecule is already vibrating at the frequency of a 15 μ photon, and it somehow absorbs a 15 μ photon, it’s vibrational frequency would remain the same.”

            And?

            But its energy will be increased, because it is vibrating with a higher amplitude.

            It can then transfer the energy to other molecules.

            It has no problem abs*orbing energy from photons of the correct wavelength, wherever they originate.

            Again, molecules have no clue that a photon came from a colder place.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”You are confusing yourself with E. Swanson.
            He proved the opposite of what you say though.”

            The error in Swannie’s observation is well documented and peer reviewed here on Roy’s blog. No heat has been transferred from a cooler region to a warmer region, Swannie simply misunderstood the effect of reduced dissipation in increasing temperatures.

            Again, if a heated body is radiating in a vacuum it is dissipating heat via the radiation. If you block the radiation, the body heats naturally, within itself. That’s all Swannie did, reduced the dissipation in a radiating body and naturally the temperature rose.

            In your naivete, you are supporting Swannie in contradicting the 2nd law. Does not surprise me since you normally take the anti-science view.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, Peer review is what happens as one attempts to publish a scientific paper. There was no such “peer review” presented on this blog which just proves that you have no clue about the scientific process.

            Gordo, yet again, you claim that: “…a heated body is radiating in a vacuum it is dissipating heat via the radiation. If you block the radiation, the body heats naturally, within itself. That’s all Swannie did, reduced the dissipation in a radiating body and naturally the temperature rose.”

            You have never provided a physics based explanation for “blocking” energy “dissipation” from a warmer body by a cooler one. Until you do so, you are just blowing smoke our of your rear orifice. Appeal to 150 year old science without proof doesn’t cut it. The cooler Green Plate also radiates IR, doing so from both sides, yet you refuse to say what happens to the energy radiated toward the warmer Blue plate. That such IR radiation would be absorbed appears beyond your comprehension

          • ClintR says:

            Swanson, when you believe that something that cannot possibly rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis, then you are an idiot. So, all of your attempts at science are then nothing more than a dog howling at the Moon.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR the troll wrote:

            So, all of your attempts at science are then nothing more than a dog howling at the Moon.

            It’s blindingly obvious that the Moon rotates once an orbit WRT the Sun, illuminating different areas each day between Full Moons. That the Moon rotates once an orbit is a fact. I accept scientific facts like that.

          • ClintR says:

            It’s blindingly obvious you are running away from the real issue. The issue is not “WRT the Sun”, and you know it.

            When you’re not howling at the moon, you’re running from reality.

          • Svante says:

            If both Gordon and ClintR object we can be quite sure that E. Swanson is right.

          • Nate says:

            Whenever Clint has no answers he tells us to look at the Moon. Might as well be ‘Look a squirrel’.

            No thanks, we are sooo done with the lunacy.

          • ClintR says:

            What you can be quite sure of is that all you idiots deny reality. In fact, you work hard to pervert reality, as you demonstrate here daily.

          • Nate says:

            “It’s blindingly obvious you are running away from the real issue.”

            Why is it perfectly fine for you to run away from real issues?

            You claimed that soil will be a good reflector of IR in DWLR. But when asked for evidence you show none, nada, zilch.

            You did throw out chaff and ad-hom grenades, then ran away.

            You run as fast as you can from showing us evidence–then it is bleeding obvious that your assertions are BS.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, Svante, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.

  85. Gordon Robertson says:

    Proof positive that Mann’s hockey stick is corrupt.

    BTW…Mann lost his case against Tim Ball basically because he refused to release his statistical methodology in court so the world could peer review it. It cost him the court costs, even though he had egg all over his face.

    Turns out the reason he did not want to reveal his methodology is due to the fact it had fudge factors in it to smooth the data.

    All explained in here, complete with code explanation:

    https://abruptearthchanges.com/2019/09/06/global-warming-hoax-exposed-hockey-stick-graph-creator-loses-major-lawsuit-must-pay-defendants-legal-fees/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      From a comment in the link of previous post:

      “Actually, the disproof is very simple; when the climate warms, the oceans release CO2. So, if CO2 caused the climate to warm, that would in turn cause the oceans to release more CO2, which would cause the climate to warm more, and so on. This is a positive feedback process that would lead to an exponential rise in global temperature until the planet was baked.

      AS this has not happened at any time in the last 600 million years, even when CO2 levels were 7000 ppm, 17 times the present puny 400 ppm, the theory fails, as the observed facts do not support the theory.

      In addition the planet has been in an ever deepening Ice Age for the last 40 million years or so, and has many tens of millions of years before it returns to normal. So the chances of the claimed runaway greenhouse are ZERO!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Another good one, Obama buys a seaside home after preaching the dangers of rising sea levels.

        https://abruptearthchanges.com/2019/08/25/sea-level-rise-president-obama-just-bought-a-beachside-property/

        Hypocrites!!!

      • Entropic man says:

        We’re safe enough for the moment.

        https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj1965/45/1/45_1_137/_article

        The Komabayashi-Ingersoll limit, the maximum OLR a water-vapour saturated atmosphere can emit, is 385W/m^2.

        We won’t get a runaway greenhouse effect until the Earth absorbs more than 385 W/m^2.

        At present Earth absorbs 239W/m^2.

        • ClintR says:

          Do you have any idea how stupid this is, Entropic man?

          “In the first place, no cloud nor precipitation is assumed to occur.”

          Assumptions, estimates, guesses, homogenizations, are all just ways to pervert science.

          • Entropic man says:

            ClintR

            Two reasons why Komabayashi did not worry about the extent of cloud cover.

            1) The limit relates to outward longwave radiation from the top of the troposphere, above the cloud layer.

            Apart from a small amount of radiation through the atmospheric window, cloud cover has no effect on OLR.

            2) Cloud cover his little effect on the amount of energy absorbed from the Sun.

            Increased cloud cover increases albedo, the energy reflected back from space and increases downwelling radiation which retains energy close to the surface.

            The two effects cancel out.

          • ClintR says:

            Nice spin, but evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation are all related to Earth’s ability to cool itself.

            IOW, the “K-I limit” is nonsense.

      • Entropic man says:

        A quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that we will reach the Komabayashi-Ingersoll limit when global average temperature passes 27C.

        IIRC the highest temperature reached to date was 22C during the PETM 55 million years ago.

        At 15C we are well below the limit.

      • bdgwx says:

        GR,

        600 MYA the solar forcing was -12 W/m^2 (Gough 1981).

        At 7000 ppm the CO2 forcing was +15 W/m^2 (Myhre 1998).

        As you can see CO2 is an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem.

        Carbon (either CO2 or CH4) is also essential in explaining the hyperthermals like the PETM that Entropic man just mentioned.

        • ClintR says:

          bdgwx, do you have any videos from 600 MYA?

          Beliefs are NOT science.

          • Galaxie500 says:

            Clint you are arguing like a creationist.

          • ClintR says:

            Creation, like evolution, is a religion. You can’t prove either. Neither is science.

            Science is something that can be proved, demonstrated, repeated, tested, etc.

          • Svante says:

            On the contrary, science is something that can be falsified.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante, your statement clearly illustrates you have no understanding of “falsifiability”.

            Not only are you an idiot troll but now you’re also a “contrarian”.

          • Svante says:

            Karl Popper said so in “Logik der Forschung” in 1934.

          • ClintR says:

            Wrong!

          • Svante says:

            You think 1959?

          • ClintR says:

            What I think, Svante, is that you’re an idiot.

            You have no grasp of reality, or science, or “falsifiability”. Somehow in your perverted religion you believe that when you die you will get 72 cookies, or some such nonsense, for “saving the planet”.

            Do you ever consider something else might happen to those that continually pervert truth?

          • Svante says:

            ClintR says:
            “Somehow in your perverted religion you believe that when you die you will get 72 cookies, or some such nonsense, for ‘saving the planet'”.

            I don’t believe that, but what matters is the legacy we leave for our children.

          • ClintR says:

            Anonymous trolling isn’t much of a legacy.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”I don’t believe that, but what matters is the legacy we leave for our children”.

            Ah, yes, the appeal to emotions.

            I would not worry about it, the kids will look back on this generation as a load of buttheads who bought into lame theories about climate change and unidentified viruses.

            They will look back on you personally as a sad old fart who meant well but could not see beyond his nose.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah, give them heat waves, sea level rise, and mass extinction.

          • ClintR says:

            “Yeah, give them heat waves, sea level rise, and mass extinction.”

            Svante, all those things have happened in the past, without any help from mankind. In your cult, you are taught to live in constant fear. Your beliefs make you into an idiot. Your legacy is that of a precious, self-absorbed snowflake, cowering in fear.

            Why not at least try some reality?

          • Nate says:

            Odd that Clint, err is it Ge*ran, or is it JD Huff*man, all harp on anonymity…

          • ClintR says:

            Where do you live, Nate? I travel a lot. Maybe we could meet up so you can insult me, face to face.

            How about it?

          • Svante says:

            ClintR says:

            all those things have happened in the past, without any help from mankind.

            Doesn’t mean they are suitable for us now.

          • Nate says:

            Awwwww, our resident troll got annoyed..

            “I travel a lot. Maybe we could meet up so you can insult me, face to face.”

            Looks like you do care about your anonymity..

          • ClintR says:

            Nate has no interest in meeting face to face, I see.

            Not a surprise. He prefers hurling insults from the safety of cyberspace.

          • Nate says:

            “He prefers hurling insults from the safety of cyberspace.”

            Indeed, there are lunatics out there who get violent when they are called out on their BS.

            Your comments suggest you may be one of them.

        • Eben says:

          “the legacy we leave for our children”

          You will end up in the same lunatic bin like all the prophets and future predictors of the past.

          • Svante says:

            I think everyone should pay for themselves.
            Instead we let our children pay for our damage done.

          • ClintR says:

            Ah, that sounds like the perfect precious snowflake.

            So caring. So concerned.

            So hypocritical….

  86. Hey, quick question. Would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re using and do you
    like it? I’m planning to start my own blog (I am hoping to build a following soon)
    but I’m having a difficult time selecting amongst Squarespace/Wordpress/Wix/Tumblr and Drupal.
    What is your suggestion?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben…apparently the head of the World Meteorological Society is ticked off with the eco-warriors. He thinks they are extremists who are giving climate science a bad name by grossly exaggerating future climate states.

      Finally, someone with some sense.

      The term eco-warrior like the term front-line worker is becoming tedious. Eco-warriors are not warriors at all, just ego/power trippers with a new athiest religion. Front-line workers in the covid nonsense are simply doing what they are paid to do. Get over it, take your paycheck, and go home. Or quit, if the going has gotten too tough.

      It’s like a scene from Monty Python in which a soldier whines to his sergeant that the enemy are using real bullets. Or people here on local buses who thank the bus driver every time they get off the bus. It’s his job for cripes sake and he’s well-paid to do it.

  87. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”If a CO2 molecule is already vibrating at the frequency of a 15 μ photon, and it somehow absorbs a 15 μ photon, it’s vibrational frequency would remain the same.
    ….But its energy will be increased, because it is vibrating with a higher amplitude. …It can then transfer the energy to other molecules”.

    Molecules do not absorb radiative energy for the simple reason that a molecule is simply a name for two or more atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. Only electrons absorb and emit EM. In organic chemistry they will name a complex of nucleii/electrons by a molecular name but when it comes to the properties of the molecule they will reference the exact electrons/nucleii within the molecule. It makes no sense to reference a molecule if you don’t show its atomic structure.

    A molecule cannot absorb a 15 um photon, there is nothing in a name to absorb it. For an electron in the molecular structure to absorb the 15 um photon the frequency corresponding to the 15 um wavelength would have to correspond to the orbital angular frequency of the absorbing electron. That would mean it would have to come from an electron in a molecule that had the same kinetic energy (temperature) or higher.

    If the 15 um photon came from an electron in a cooler molecule (lower energy), it would lack the correct frequency hence the correct energy level to push the absorbing electron to the next orbital energy level. If it lacks that frequency/energy it won’t be absorbed.

    BTW…how does a photon, which is modeled as a particle of EM, have a frequency/wavelength?

      • Svante says:

        “This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules.”

        • Ball4 says:

          Gordon, it was shown long ago the mass of the electron is not enough to absorb the momentum of the absorbed photon, the atomic and polyatomic structure is required to absorb that conserved momentum. Your comments thus are entirely misguided on the subject as Svante points out; except good job when Gordon uses Clausius’ defn. of heat.

          • ClintR says:

            A photon moving an electron to a higher energy level has nothing to do with momentum. A photon’s only momentum is due to its relativistic mass. “Conserved momentum” is a subset of conservation of energy. Energy is conserved when an electron is exited by a photon.

            Your comment thus is entirely misguided on the subject, Ball4.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”it was shown long ago the mass of the electron is not enough to absorb the momentum of the absorbed photon”

            There is no such thing in reality as a photon, it is a definition. The electron absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy and no one knows what form that EM takes, whether it’s a wave or a packet of some kind, or how it interacts with the electron. All they know is that the electron absorbs the EM under certain conditions.

            Let’s face it, with EM, which has a very large band of wavelengths and frequencies, something has to be vibrating, and how does a mass-less particle vibrate? With audio, we know audio frequency energy causes air particles to vibrate in waves of a certain wavelength, but what is vibrating in empty space? It is now being theorized that neutrinos are the aether once talked about through which EM propagates.

            BTW…Einstein is on record as admitting that if the aether theory is proved correct, his theory of relativity is wrong.

            It was Bohr who put the EM/electron theory forward then proved it by explaining the emission and absorp-tion bands of hydrogen. The only difference between his theory and today’s version is a broadening of his theory to account for multiple electron orbitals in other elements.

            The electron is a particle with mass that carries an electric charge. When it moves, the electric charge generates a magnetic field. That’s the derivation of electromagnetic energy as emitted by an electron.

            As Clint pointed out, there has to be conservation of energy. When an electron falls through an orbital energy quantum step, it loses energy measured in electron volts between levels. That energy has to go somewhere, it goes into the emitted EM as a conversion of electromagnetic energy from the electron to radiative energy of the EM quantum.

            The quantum step between orbital energy levels is all or nothing. There is no gradual, time-based change in energy between levels. Suddenly the electron is at one level and without a passage of time it is at the other level. In order to move an electron up the way, to a higher orbital energy level, the input of EM must be enough to at least equal the energy between levels.

            The energy in an EM quantum generated by an electron in a cooler mass is not sufficient to move the electron, therefore that energy is ignored. It likely passes the electron and like in a pinball machine, it bounces around till it is booted out the back door.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante was supposed to catch my typos. I gave him plenty of time, but he knows so little science he was unable to catch it.

            Here’s the correction:

            Energy is conserved when an electron is excited by a photon.

          • Ball4 says:

            “In order to move an electron up the way, to a higher orbital energy level, the input of EM must be enough to at least equal the energy between levels.”

            Yes, however at the temperatures found in earth’s troposphere, there is not enough collisional energy to excite/de-excite an electronic level by a factor of about 100 too little.

            All the relevant radiation in the troposphere is due the quantum jumps mostly in the relevant air molecule quantum energy rotational (or roto-vibration) levels and some in the (~10x higher) vibrational levels which Gordon always completely misses.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”All the relevant radiation in the troposphere is due the quantum jumps mostly in the relevant air molecule quantum energy rotational (or roto-vibration) levels and some in the (~10x higher) vibrational levels which Gordon always completely misses”.

            Once again, a molecule is a mnemonic…a device such as a pattern of letters, ideas, or associations that assists in remembering something.

            A molecular name is an aid to remembering the shape and properties of an aggregation of nucleii and their associated electrons. A molecule is the name for 2 or more atoms bonded by electrons.

            A molecule has no ability to absorb or emit EM, only the electrons in the atomic structures can do that.

            The rotation to which you refer is due to a linear bond or a bond capable of rotating. Bonds are shared electrons or charges based on electrons that join nucleii.

            Any EM absorbed or emitted from structure is done by electrons. Same with vibration, which applies to atoms bonded by electrons. There is a natural repulsion between positively charged protons in the nucleii of adjacent atoms and an attraction due to the orbiting electrons. The result, depending on the temperature is a vibration.

            Nothing to do with the molecular name or construction, all emission and absorp-tion is done by electrons.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Any EM absorbed or emitted from structure is done by electrons.”

            No Gordon, the electron mass is way too small for that to be true. The whole atomic & polyatomic structure mass of an air constituent is required to absorb an atm. photon. This is why your understanding of atm. radiation is so faulty, the electronic quantum jumps are not excited in the troposphere because the quantum of energy needed is not available.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon is unable to comprehend that Ball4.
            Perhaps we can give “electron” a generous interpretation, and include vibrational modes.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#Number_of_vibrational_modes

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”No Gordon, the electron mass is way too small for that to be true”.

            You are arguing through your hat. There is nothing else in a molecule that can absorb/emit EM. If there is, let’s see it.

            The entire theory of quantum mechanics, as derived by Bohr, then formalized mathematically by Schrodinger, is based on the electron and it’s orbital energy levels. There is nothing else in an atom or molecule that can explain quantum theory.

            The quantum word refers to the quantum levels of electrons. They are called quantum states because they are discrete energy levels proposed by Bohr to explain why an electron does not lose it’s orbit and crash into the nucleus.

            An electron is a charged particle that carries an electric field and when it moves it generates a magnetic field. Get it…electro- as in electric field and magnetic as in a magnetic field? Electromagnetic field.

            Bohr stated that an electron moving from a higher energy quantum orbital to a lower energy quantum level emits a quantum of electromagnetic energy = hf. Conversely, an electron absorbing a quantum of EM jumps to one or more higher orbital levels.

            There is nothing else in an atom or molecule can do that. If you disagree, show me what can.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Perhaps we can give electron a generous interpretation, and include vibrational modes”.

            You are out of your league here, you don’t understand what is vibrating and why? Vibrations are due to bonds between atomic nuclei and their associated electrons. Bonds ARE electrons that are shared between nucleii or that are due to electrostatic forces set up by electrons. Vibrations are caused by electrostatic forces between electrons and protons in the nucleii.

            You don’t even know the difference between an atom and a molecule. You think a molecule is an isolated structure that operates independently of the atomic nucleii and electrons that comprise a molecule. That has mislead you into talking about the nonsense of molecules vibrating.

            Vibration is the product of like and unlike charges interacting. What particles are charged in an atom, hence a molecule? Only two, the positive proton on the nucleus and the associated negative electrons.

          • Ball4 says:

            “You are arguing through your hat. There is nothing else in a molecule that can absorb/emit EM. If there is, lets see it.”

            A molecule is just a mnemonic device remember? The air polyatomic constituent (dinitrogen, CO2 for example) whole structure (nucleus (protons, neutrons), electrons) ro-vibrates one quantum energy level higher than base level and increases its angular & linear momentum exactly equal to the absorbed atm. photon momentum. It is well known (except by Gordon) the electron alone lacks the required mass to absorb the photon momentum.

            Photons in the troposphere do not have the required energy to kick the whole polyatomic structure up one electronic quantum energy level above base which is about 100x the ro-vibrational energy required. So ro-vibrational modes dominate radiation in the troposphere.

            This is first course basic meteorology, Gordon, so you are displaying a complete lack of accomplished study in the field.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…from your link…

        “Waveparticle duality is the concept…”. That’s all you need to know, it’s a concept with no proof.

        No one has ever seen a photon, it was ‘defined’ to particalize electromagnetic energy as a particle of EM with momentum but no mass. Since momentum = p = mv, and m = 0, how can a photon have momentum?

        If you get down to the level of atomic particles like electrons and nuclei, consisting of protons and neutrons, you obviously cannot speak in terms of waves. So the ‘concept’ of the photon was defined.

        If you have a thought, like an idea to go out for an ice cream cone, that idea is the same as the photon. Or if you have a concept of a Martian, that is the same as a photon. Nothing more than an idea…a thought. Don’t know how you can have wave-particle duality when the particle is a thought.

        If you apply that to a real particle, like an electron, which has mass and charge, I still don’t see how there could be a duality with a wave. It’s based on the diffraction grating or slot experiment wherein waves of EM going through a grating or dual slot, manage to diffract onto a screen behind the grating/slots to cancel and add, thereby producing light and dark patterns.

        Some have claimed electrons do the same thing when fired through a single slot and physicist David Bohm tried to explain that as a quantum potential in the slot acting on the electrons in different ways to produce the effect.

        Then again, no one can fire a single electron through a slot, the source of electrons has to be a beam. Since the electrons carry negative charges which repel each other, I can see a better explanation as electrons in a beam of electrons entering a slot repelling each other, or interacting with electrons in the slot material, and producing a diffraction pattern on a screen.

        It’s ingenuous to claim an electron particle acts as both a particle and a wave, in fact, it plain silly.

        • Ball4 says:

          I observe it bothers Gordon that a photon particle without mass can carry linear AND angular momentum; this is because Gordon is stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity. Sometimes this is true (approximately), sometimes not. Momentum is momentum, a property complete in itself conserved separate from energy and not always the product of mass and velocity.

          “Don’t know how you can have wave-particle duality when the particle is a thought.”

          It is not only a thought Gordon, photon particles have been flushed out of the woods, show up in experiment, and individual photons can be counted. Gordon’s silly electron is also observed as a wave and a particle in experiments so not disingenuous.

          In the more measured words of Charles Townes, a pioneer in masers and lasers: “Physicists were somewhat diverted by an emphasis in the world of physics on the photon properties of light rather than its coherent aspects.” That is, the photon language has been the more fashionable language among physicists, just as French was the fashionable language in the Imperial Russian court. When prestigious and munificent prizes began to be awarded for flushing “ons” (photon, electron, positron, neutron, meson, and so on) from the jungle, shooting them, and mounting their stuffed heads on laboratory walls, the hunt was on, and now continues with the LHC.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”I observe it bothers Gordon that a photon particle without mass can carry linear AND angular momentum; this is because Gordon is stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity”.

            It’s a theory that momentum without mass is available. I get it that momentum is a property of a mass in motion which is independent of human observation. The equation p = mv is for purposes of human observation, not a definition of real momentum. However, real momentum is a property of mass and mass-less quantities don’t apply.

            How can they? How does something lacking mass have inertia or momentum, just because a theoretical physicist claims it is so? The same physicists claim the entire mass of the universe occurred instantaneously out of nothing in a split second. Show me this momentum and show me a real-life example of matter appearing out of nothing.

            Einstein started this nonsense about EM absorbed by a body increasing its mass. He was the same theoretical physicist who arbitrarily redefined time, a non-existent quantity, to make it appear as if the same non-existent quantity could change its duration with different velocities. He claimed the same for the length of a mass.

            Here’s the basic equation for distance as a function of time:

            s = vt, where v = velocity.

            Here’s Einstein’s redefinition:

            s = vt(1 – v^2/c^2)

            It’s telling you that t in the equation can be multiplied by the multiplier to change the value of t, hence the value of s = distance.

            But time as the second is DEFINED as a fraction of the rotational period of the Earth. If time changes, then the Earth must speed up or slow down its rotation. THERE IS NO OTHER TIME…ANYWHERE.

            Look what happens if v ever = c (speed of light)

            s = vt(1-1) = 0. So distance shrinks to 0 if v = c.

            If v ever exceeds the speed of light, it gets even better:

            s = vt(1 – n) where n >1, therefore s and t become negative. I suppose if you travel faster than light you can go back in time.

            This is the same guy who told us EM has momentum and can increase the mass of an object if it is absorbed.

          • Ball4 says:

            “But time as the second is DEFINED as a fraction of the rotational period of the Earth.”

            Not anymore. And shining light on an object does not increase the object’s mass, that light increases the object’s momentum as demonstrated in a light sail.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon can not understand the difference between a unit of measurement and the physical property that it measures.
            I’m not sure how we can get around that.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Not anymore. And shining light on an object does not increase the objects mass, that light increases the objects momentum as demonstrated in a light sail”.

            How? Where have you seen a light sail in operation?

          • Ball4 says:

            LightSail 2 in orbital operation, sailed up 2km in 4 days with the increased photon momentum captured from sunlight due solar photon reflection and (more minor) absorp_tion net of the loss of momentum from the radiation emitted/absorbed/reflected from the star illuminated side.

            https://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/lightsail-2-successful-flight-by-light.html

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”LightSail 2 in orbital operation, sailed up 2km in 4 days with the increased photon momentum captured from sunlight due solar photon reflection…”

            I am looking for scientific evidence, not the wacko opinions of amateurs. From your link…”The mission team has confirmed the apogee increase can only be attributed to solar sailing, meaning LightSail 2 has successfully completed its primary goal of demonstrating flight by light for CubeSats”.

            More modern science…”…can only be attributed to solar sailing…”. Same pseudo-science as used in AGW theory…the warming can only be attributed to anthropogenic sources.

            Have any of these rocket-scientists heard of the solar wind, which is a plasma of real protons and electrons ejected from the Sun?

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon, yes & look up the solar wind pressure and the radiation pressure at 1 AU on the light sail. Let blog readers know what you find & why they call it light sail not solar wind sail.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

  88. Hey I noticed a typo in your article, can you fix
    it? It_s in the second paragraph from the last.

  89. Adelaida says:

    Good Morning!

    I don’t intervene because I don’t have time, but I read to him whenever I can and, as always, I thank Dr. Spencer for the existence of this chat!

    A delightful book to understand Einstein’s physics and current quantum theory, written by two wonderful young particle physicists: Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

    The book:
    “Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)”

  90. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    There have been two working solar sails to date.

    IKAROS was launched in 2010 by the Japanese Aerospace Explaination Agency on a trajectory towards Venus. Last I heard it was still going.

    NASA launched a demonstrator called the Nanosail D2 which deployed in Earth orbit.

    Not strictly a solar sailor, but the Messenger Mercury probe used light pressure on its solar panels to find tune its trajectory.

  91. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Know you aren’t a fan of Einstein.

    However his general energy equation does predict that protons have momentum even though they have zero mass.

    https://sciencing.com/do-photons-have-mass-13710229.html

    • Ball4 says:

      Appears you meant to write “photon” not “proton”. The universe fine structure constant helps provide clues as to why the speed of light in a vacuum is a certain value.

      • Entropic man says:

        Between the remnants of my childhood dyslexia and the whims of my predictive spell checker, I am amazed that I make sense at all!

        Indeed I am discussing photons, as you deduced from context.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…from you article on photon mass…”When you first hear it, the idea that light could have mass might seem ridiculous, but if it doesnt have mass, why is light affected by gravity?”

      You’re right in the sense that I am not a fan of Einstein’s theory of relativity wrt to the more extreme claims like time dilation. However, I have nothing against him in general. In fact, I credit him with having the guts to stand up in the face of the more bizarre elements of quantum theory made popular by Bohr et al, such as action at a distance, and opting for solid physics. Then he spoiled it by discarding solid physics and introducing silly concepts like spacetime.

      I used to be a big fan till I woke up.

      The Sun is made up of free protons and electrons and the so called photons, which are actually waves of electromagnetic energy, is affected by the charges on the protons and electrons.

      Magnets affect other magnets, right? Picture the protons and electrons as creating magnetic fields when they move. Picture the EM as another magnet.

      Heck, certain frequencies of light are bent by the Earth’s atmosphere due to diffraction. Diffraction occurs when a wave of light encounters a medium with a different density.

      • Ball4 says:

        “Diffraction occurs when a wave of light encounters a medium with a different density.”

        That is refraction Gordon, diffraction is something else.

  92. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    James ClarK Maxwell also predicted the same effect in 1879.

    Since this predated the concept of photons he described it as radiation pressure.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”James ClarK Maxwell also predicted the same effect in 1879″.

      As great as Maxwell was, his equation covered near-field electromagnetic theory, like the fields around a magnet or electric motor. In his day, he was not privy to electronic theory or the basis of Bohr’s relationship between the electron and EM.

      Maxwell knew nothing about far-field EM theory and it turns out some of his guesses about it were wrong. Another problem he faced was that most scientists of his generation thought heat was emitted from a body in rays. They did not yet know that heat as kinetic energy is converted to EM by an electron from the atomic kinetic energy and angular frequency of an electron in a higher orbital energy level to an electromagnetic field as the electron drops to a lower level.

      I don’t think Maxwell was talking about radiation pressure related to EM as much as he was talking about the forces electromagnetic energy can produce on a metal object carry a current. By radiation, he would have meant a near-field magnetic field that can cause a motor rotor to turn.

      As I said, he knew nothing about the action of EM in space as related to solar radiation.

  93. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Did you see comet Neowise?

    It has two tails.

    Gas from the nucleus is ionized by UV and carried outwards by the solar wind.

    Dust particles are pushed outwards by radiation pressure.

    Gas and dust follow different trajectories.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”Gas from the nucleus is ionized by UV and carried outwards by the solar wind.

      Dust particles are pushed outwards by radiation pressure”.

      Why are dust particles not pushed outward by the same solar wind?

    • Galaxie500 says:

      Err Isn’t this a local reconstruction and the Hockey Stick Global reconstruction Eben or did I miss something?

    • Entropic man says:

      Interesting principle.

      Proxy temperature records are only valid when they can be spun to suit your denialist narrative.

  94. Gordon Robertson says:

    adelaida…”Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw …The book:
    Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)

    Adelaida…no disrespect intended toward you but the authors of this book are Einstein groupies who lack the ability to think for themselves.

    The first chapter of their book is titled. “Space and Time” and the opening sentence asks what does space and time mean to you? Then they fail to explain either space or time, inferring as Einstein did that time is the ticks of a clock.

    That is a major weakness in the work of Einstein, if time is the output of a mechanical clock, and the clocks are not synchronized, then every clock would create a different time. Einstein failed to explain how a clock traveling at different velocities could run at different rates.

    In the book, the authors offer this statement: “However, there is a price to pay: We must jettison our deeply held notions of space and time. Einsteins universe is one in which moving clocks tick slowly, moving objects shrink, and we can journey billions of years into the future. It is a universe in which a human lifetime can be stretched almost indefinitely”.

    Utter rubbish!!! That’s what they’d like, for everyone to give up real science and buy into this pseudo-science. They talk of the Big Bang as if it was real yet no one has explained, even using E = MC^2, how the current mass of the universe suddenly appeared out of nothing.

    They are right only in the sense that Einstein redefined time with a multiplier based on the ratio of the velocity of a mass with the speed of light. He had no right to do that without proof, and no proof has been found that time can dilate due to velocity, that masses can change length due to velocity, or that humans can live longer by traveling at higher velocities. It’s all juvenile fancy lacking the scientific method.

    Humans don’t age based on time, they age due to cell division…biological processes. Time has nothing to do with it, it just seems that way because we all tend to age over a period measured by a human invented clock measuring human invented time.

    The authors go on…”The satellite navigation system in your car, for example, is designed to account for the fact that time ticks at a different rate on the orbiting satellites than it does on the ground. Einsteins picture is radical: Space and time are not what they seem”.

    More nonsense. There is a time difference between the atomic clocks on GPS systems because the land station is on an entirely different time system than that of the satellite. The two time systems have to be synchronized using electronic pulses transmitted through space and that alone produces delays. Do they not have the basic sense to understand that an atomic clock traveling on a satellite cannot keep the same time as an atomic clock on a land station with some kind of synchronization?

    Theorists have presumed the delays are due to relative time dilation but they are full of pinto beans. It may be that the atomic clocks on the sats are affected by a lowered gravity but that has nothing to do with time. Even in an atomic clock, the second used is the same second DEFINED by the Earth’s rotation. If the vibrations in the atomic clock slow down due to altitude it simply means the clock goes out of sync with the DEFINED second based on the rotation of the Earth.

    An atomic clock is based on the very regular vibrations in atomic structure. The vibration is between the protons in the nucleii of cesium and its electrons. I am sure temperature and altitude can affect the degree of vibration and that’s what is being corrected, not some sci-fi notion like time dilation.

    You need to be very clear that clocks do not measure time, they generate time. Clocks are synchronized to the rotation of the planet and the time generated on their dials is a measure of that rotation. An atomic clock is not related to our definition of time based on Earth rotation, it is simply an atomic structure performing very regular harmonic motion.

    I think Einstein was suffering from some kind of dementia when he claimed clocks run at different speeds between the Equator and the North Pole, citing that as proof of time dilation. I don’t understand how he got away with making such a stupid observation and the scientist who invented the atomic clock, Louis Essen, agrees in part. He thought Einstein was making absurd statements based on pure theory. He went so far as to claim that relativity theory is not event a theory but a bunch of disjointed theories.

    Relativity theory may work mathematically but even Einstein admitted that Newtonian relativity theory can do the same thing. The only significant difference between the theories is the radical claims of time dilation and the change in length of masses. It’s claimed that Newtonian relativity theory won’t work at the atomic level, but has anyone tried? Once Einstein came out with this theory, based on a redefinition of time, all the groupies jumped at it and discarded Newtonian theory.

    Newtonian theory is based on actual observation whereas Einstein’s relativity theory is based partly on sci-fi.

    Even the relationship of e = mc^2 makes no sense. No one has ever seen energy converting to mass or vice-versa. Even eith an atomic bomb, the radioactive mass explodes and the damage is caused by light, heat and mechanical pressure. Mass is certainly converted to different forms of energy, but there is no proof that the original mass simply disappears into energy. Where do they think the radioactive dust comes from, it’s based on the remnants of the original mass.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      correction…”Mass is certainly converted to different forms of energy…”

      I meant to say that the disintegration of mass releases energy in different forms. In an atomic explosion, radioactive mass comprised of atomic nuceii of plutonium or whatever, and bonded by electrons, is torn apart, rendering energy. That’s a no-brainer. However, the neutrons, protons, and electrons comprising the mass do not disappear.

      They are obviously ejected and can form radioactive compuonds with whatever they encounter, but none of those particles are converted to pure energy. Even in the Sun, protons and electrons of hydrogen and helium survive and get ejected as whole particles into space as the solar wind.

      Maybe that’s what e = mc^2 means, that when a mass is torn apart, the energy binding it together is released. It should not mean the mass disappears into pure energy, or that pure energy can form a mass.

    • Entropic man says:

      Gordon Robertson

      “They talk of the Big Bang as if it was real yet no one has explained, even using E = MC^2, how the current mass of the universe suddenly appeared out of nothing. ”

      The total mass energy of the universe equals its total gravitational potential energy.

      They are of opposite sign and cancel out. Curiously the total energy of the universe is zero.

      Nobody knows how the Big Bang started since the equations which describe the universe run away to infinities at time =0. It could have popped into existance spontaneously at no energy cost.

      Check the Global Positioning System. It depends on very accurate atomic clocks. These run faster at higher altitudes and slower at higher velocities.

      To make it work the software has to apply a relativity correction to the time signal sent from the satellites. Their clocks drift faster than their internal variability and have to be reset at intervals from a master clock on the ground.

  95. Adelaida says:

    Gordon,

    The book is a delightful walk through physics that I think can answer many of your questions if you read it all and leave prejudice aside.

    “After Einstein expounded his general theory of Relativity in 1915, there was an eclipse in 1916, but World War I interfered; The next opportunity was in 1918, but the clouds thwarted that attempt.

    On May 29, 1919, a British astronomer named Arthur Stanley Eddington, who had traveled to Prince Island on the east coast of Africa with the aim of photographing starlight during an eclipse and seeing if Einstein’s theory was correct , Did it.

    The images Eddington captured for almost 7 minutes were analyzed by the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society. In November 1919 they announced that “there is no doubt that they confirm Einstein’s prediction.

    A very definitive result has been obtained that light is deflected according to Einstein’s law of gravitation.” That change in the path of starlight as it passed near the Sun derailed Newton’s theory.”

    https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/mundo/amp/noticias-40937681?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fmundo%2Fnoticias-40976527

    How nice bdgwx! I hope you like it !!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Adelaida…”The book is a delightful walk through physics that I think can answer many of your questions if you read it all and leave prejudice aside”.

      All the book did for me is confirm my understanding that Einsteinian relativity is nothing more than a thought experiment gone bad. The book is full of conjecture related to thought experiments. No concrete proof that can be corroborated in a laboratory.

      Not once in the book did they define time. They talk about clocks as if a clock is time but any clock, including an atomic clock, is a device with no relation to time. A mechanical clock is a rotating machine driven by springs and gears, a digital clock is an electronic oscillator stabilized by a crystal, and an atomic clock is the atomic structure of cesium, vibrating at a precise frequency.

      If you take the mechanical clock and arrange the gears so the dial turns once every half rotation of the Earth or a full rotation (24 hour clock) then the machine is synchronized to the rotation of the Earth. Divide a full rotation by 86,400 and you have a second, which is actually a measure of the distance the Earth rotates in that time.

      That same second that measures an angular distance in the Earth’s rotation is the basis of the second on the atomic clock or the digital clock. You must divide the frequency of the cesium atomic vibrations or the crystal vibrations down to get the second just mentioned.

      Einstein claimed in his paper on relativity that time is the hands of a clock. That has to stand as one of the most ingenuous statements ever made by a scientist. It’s plain silly. At no time did Einstein define time properly as a tool invented by humans to keep tract of change.

      The authors of your book are simply regurgitating that nonsense. They have created a fantasy universe by adding an illusory 4th dimension of time to the standard 3-D space used in physics, based on Cartesian coordinates and/or polar coordinates.

      I have heard one of the authors talk about science and I think he is a nut job. He has a degree in theoretical physics but he is a looney, something like Hawking raving about the Big Bang. Anyone who can talk about the entire universe appearing out of absolute nothing in an instant is a raving looney.

      It’s time we got back to real physics based on observation and proof and tell the thought-experimenters to take a hike.

      • Entropic man says:

        Compare the combined mass of four hydrogen atoms to the mass of one helium atom.

        4 hydrogen atoms = 6.692 x 10^-27kg

        1 Helium atom = 6.645 x 10^-27kg

        Mass lost = 0.048 x 10^-27 kg

        Where did it go?

        The proton proton reaction turns four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, two positions and four photons of gamma radiation.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#/media/File%3AFusionintheSun.svg

        The total energy of the positions and photons equals the mass energy lost by the atoms.

        • Entropic man says:

          I bet your pardon. Make that two positrons, two neutrinos and two gamma ray photons.

          Caffeine deficiency syndrome.

          • Eben says:

            How about you go playing your Einštain role playing games somewhere else and leave this place to climate

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”The total energy of the positions and photons equals the mass energy lost by the atoms”.

          That’s highly theoretical physics. How do they know, did they count the photons and measure the gamma radiation from 2 photons?

          My understanding is that hydrogen has one proton, 1 electron, and no neutrons while Helium has 2 protons, 2 electrons, and 2 neutrons. Hydrogen has a mass of 1.00784 amu while Helium has a mass of 4.002602 amu. Since hydrogen has 1 proton, it’s amu is based on that proton since the electron has negligible mass. Helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons so you add the mass of all 4 particles.

          Why would you want to compare 4 hydrogen atoms to one helium atom? It’s not as simple as adding another proton and two neutrons to the hydrogen nucleus. Besides, hydrogen normally exists as a diatomic molecule, H2.

          While many claims are made by theoretical physicists you must remember that theoretical physics is called that because they work largely with thought experiments. That’s because they could not possibly reproduce events like the Big Bang or fusion in the Sun.

    • Bindidon says:

      Adelaida

      Por favor, no te preocupes por las tonterías de Robertson. Es un jactancioso ignorante y contrario.

      J.-P. D.

  96. rah says:

    I live in Indiana near Anderson about 35 mi NNE of Indianapolis. Summer daytime highs are running about average if not a little below but nighttime temps have been running somewhat above average for several years now. Been years since we have had an actual 100 deg. F high though the heat index is generally up. This year we seem to be getting more than the usual number of days with air quality alerts.

    For the last couple years our spring rains have been down somewhat with fewer thunderstorms and far fewer severe thunderstorms but during the summer months we’re getting more rain than usual.

    As a trucker I get around all over the corn belt and the beans and corn look great. Looks like it will be another bumper crop year. Behind my house is a small hay field and they have already gotten their second cutting so it may be possible for them to get four cuttings this year which would be the first time I have seen that. Last year they got three.

    Between my acre and the hay field there are a couple acres of grass that belongs to my neighbor and he keeps it mowed like one would see in a park, For some reason the lightning bugs were down this year. Until this year my neighbor and I had been having trouble with moles for several years but this year neither of us have found evidence of any! Strange.

  97. Rah says:

    They’re working me half to death! 20 percent of the drivers in the fleet did not come back when called after layoffs for the Ronahysteria. But the paychecks are great. Made over $2,000 each week the last two weeks.
    On track to make $90,000 or more this year including bonuses and per diem.
    As for the moles, it was wet but we have had wetter winters and springs and they thrived.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      rah…”On track to make $90,000 or more this year including bonuses and per diem”.

      Good for you, mate, gotta sock it away when you get the chance. They should pay you more to cover for the wooses who caved into the hysteria.

      Hope you don’t encounter the rabble who call themselves protestors. You should get danger pay for that.

  98. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”Nobody knows how the Big Bang started since the equations which describe the universe run away to infinities at time =0. It could have popped into existance spontaneously at no energy cost”.

    The question for me is not how the Big Bang happened it is how physicists were so naive and stupid to accept the theory in the first place. These guys are quick to dismiss Creation theory but at least in CT, God took 7 days to create the universe. These nerds have created it in a fraction of a second with no causal effect, and they expect people to believe that crap.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      When I studied geology as part of my engineering courses in engineering, they at least tried to provide a causal effect. They claimed the universe today is still expanding but will eventually run out of steam, then it will begin contracting. The more it contracts, the more dense it will become till it reaches the stage of a black hole…and beyond…where it will disappear for an instant.

      Then it explodes again in another Big Bang. Yeah…right!!!

      Back then they also had another explanation for black hole formation before they started going completely looney with this spacetime nonsense. When a star exploded eventually, do to its gravitational force overcoming its fuel-based explosion pressure, it can go in one of three ways.

      One, it explodes into a supernova. Two, it continues to contract into a very dense neutron star. Three, it somehow becomes even more dense and forms a black hole. Primarily neutrons are left because all the fuel based on protons and electrons have been ejected, presumably as the solar wind. No one explained the transition from a highly dense neutron star into the nothingness of a black hole which has somehow an even higher density.

      There are neutron stars out there like RX J185635−3754.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        correction: “When I studied geology…”

        That should have been astrophysics. It was an elective I took in a moment of insanity, thinking it would be interesting. Took geology as well but it was mandatory in first year since they were trying to expose us to different forms of engineering.

    • Entropic man says:

      Creation?

      Something as complex as Nature

      Must have had a Creator.

      This argument’s odd.

      Who made the One God?

      Or created the Creator’s creator?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”Who made the One God?”

        Why don’t you ask who made the Big Bang, or who put the codes in DNA so RNA could read them and make the required proteins? Yes, the same RNA that is found randomly laying around in a body with trillions of cells that have DNA and RNA, and some rocket scientists have claimed that presence of that RNA indicates a virus.

        I suppose you think there was a vast emptiness, when suddenly this huge bang occurred and the present universe emerged? Do you have any science whatsoever to explain that?

        How about time, can you explain time…what it is, how to prove it is there using the scientific method?

        • Entropic man says:

          Your Creator is a logical fallacy.

          If the universe cannot come into existance spontaneously it needs a creator. The same logic then applies to the Creator, who must in turn have been created. You end up with an infinite series of Creators and no beginning.

          The universe must have existed for an infinite time.

          Similarly if you ascribe the origin of the universe we know to some previous physics, logic requires an eternal bulk with no beginning.

          Take your pick.

          Either the universe appeared spontaneously or the larger bulk in which it sits has existed eternally with no beginning. Your choice.

          Actually there is an escape.

          If you regard time as a fourth coordinate rather than as a flow, you can envisage the whole universe as a single structure. Past, present and future form a deterministic whole and our apparent passage forward through time is an illusion of our limited perception.

          If the whole universe exists as a unit there is no need for an infinite past, a big bang or a Creator

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Nate…”Your Creator is a logical fallacy.

            If the universe cannot come into existance spontaneously it needs a creator. ”

            What’s wrong with simply stating, “I don’t know”?

            The Creator is not mine, I just read about it. Doesn’t mean I subscribe to the theory. I am simply saying that the Creator makes as much sense as the Big Bang or the theory of evolution.

            You claim the Creator is a logical fallacy but that applies to the BB and evolution as well. One is negated through logic and the other two are created through logic.

            Logic is not that impressive when things can neither be proved or disproved.

            I am convinced there is intelligence behind many aspects of the universe, including life. I won’t commit to the form of the intelligence but I would not be surprised if there is a Creator.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Sorry, the last post should have been directed to Entropic.

        • Entropic man says:

          “time how to prove it is there using the scientific method?”

          Entropy. 🙂

        • Entropic man says:

          Gordon

          I am uncertain which origin theory you prefer.

          Are you advocating Free Hoyle’s Steady State, with no beginning and no end?

          Or do you prefer the Creation, in which the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster brought it all into existance with a wave of His noodly appendage?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            entropic…”I am uncertain which origin theory you prefer”.

            Neither, I just don’t know. I am happy to live in the question.

  99. Gordon Robertson says:

    Looking at Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn all lined up in southern sky here in Vancouver, Canada area. The line looks remarkably straight from my vantage point. Of course, the line is not true length since Saturn and Jupiter are a long ways off but it gives an idea of the direction of the equatorial plane and how tilted we are here from where we thing ‘up’ is.

    Moon is about due south with Jupiter about 10 degrees east of south and Saturn maybe 15 east of south. About 10 PM Pacific time DST. The Moon’s orbital plane is tilted about 5 degrees to Earth’s solar orbit and Jupiter and Saturn are within a few degrees of that plane as well.

    Mind boggling trying to sort out solar orbital planes, lunar orbital planes, and the Equatorial plane. I’d take a picture but with my camera and expertise the Moon drowns everything else out.

  100. Peter Sinclair says:

    Dr Spencer,

    As you and others have regularly reported, climate models do not accurately simulate our climate. In particular, they show global temperature running much hotter than observations. In normal science, such models would fail to be validated and would not be regarded as being useful in any way.

    I therefore fail to understand why these models exist, why they are used as the basis for policy making, why their creators do not apologise and withdraw them and why they continue to have a dominant role in climate science. Is it still valid to call it science in these circumstances?

    As an “insider” I hope that you can explain to me why this paradox exists. Thank you in advance.

  101. Tom Tucker says:

    Dr Roy,
    The NOAA web site says that the average temperature for the earth has increased at a rate of 0.18c/decade since 1981. it further states that in 2019 Central North America was the only pocket of cooler than average land temperatures.
    Your graph for the US Mid West shows a rate of 0.08c/decade. Is Central No. America that much cooler than the rest of the world or is there something up with the NOAA data?
    Would it be possible for you to do a graph similar to the one in this article with NOAA overall observations for the average earth’s temperature compared to the CHIP model?
    Tom

Leave a Reply