As part of a DOE contract John Christy and I have, we are using satellite data to examine climate model behavior. One of the problems I’ve been interested in is the effect of El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) on our understanding of human-caused climate change. A variety of ENSO records show multi-decadal variations in this activity, and it has even showed up in multi-millennial runs of a GFDL climate model.
Since El Nino produces global average warmth, and La Nina produces global average coolness, I have been using our 1D forcing feedback model of ocean temperatures (published by Spencer & Braswell, 2014) to examine how the historical record of ENSO variations can be included, by using the CERES satellite-observed co-variations of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative flux with ENSO.
I’ve updated that model to match the 20 years of CERES data (March 2000-March 2020). I have also extended the ENSO record back to 1525 with the Braganza et al. (2009) multi-proxy ENSO reconstruction data. I intercalibrated it with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) data up though the present, and further extended into mid-2021 based upon the latest NOAA ENSO forecast. The Cheng et al. temperature data reconstruction for the 0-2000m layer is also used to calibrate the model adjustable coefficients.
I had been working on an extensive blog post with all of the details of how the model works and how ENSO is represented in it, which was far too detailed. So, I am instead going to just show you some results, after a brief model description.
1D Forcing-Feedback Model Description
The model assumes an initial state of energy equilibrium, and computes the temperature response to changes in radiative equilibrium of the global ocean-atmosphere system using the CMIP5 global radiative forcings (since 1765), along with our calculations of ENSO-related forcings. The model time step is 1 month.
The model has a mixed layer of adjustable depth (50 m gave optimum model behavior compared to observations), a second layer extending to 2,000m depth, and a third layer extending to the global-average ocean bottom depth of 3,688 m. Energy is transferred between ocean layers proportional to their difference in departures from equilibrium (zero temperature anomaly). The proportionality constant(s) have the same units as climate feedback parameters (W m-2 K-1), and are analogous to the heat transfer coefficient. A transfer coefficient of 0.2 W m-2 K-1 for the bottom layer produced 0.01 deg. C of net deep ocean warming (below 2000m) over the last several decades which Cheng et al. mentioned there is some limited evidence for.
The ENSO related forcings are both radiative (shortwave and longwave), as well as non-radiative (enhanced energy transferred from the mixed layer to deep ocean during La Nina, and the opposite during El Nino). These are discussed more in our 2014 paper. The appropriate coefficients are adjusted to get the best model match to CERES-observed behavior compared to the MEIv2 data (2000-2020), observed SST variations, and observed deep-ocean temperature variations. The full 500-year ENSO record is a combination of the Braganza et al. (2009) year data interpolated to monthly, the MEI-extended, MEI, and MEIv2 data, all intercalibrated. The Braganza ENSO record has a zero mean over its full period, 1525-1982.
Results
The following plot shows the 1D model-generated global average (60N-60S) mixed layer temperature variations after the model has been tuned to match the observed sea surface temperature temperature trend (1880-2020) and the 0-2000m deep-ocean temperature trend (Cheng et al., 2017 analysis data).
Note that the specified net radiative feedback parameter in the model corresponds to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.91 deg. C. If the model was forced to match the SST observations during 1979-2020, the ECS was 2.3 deg. C. Variations from these values also occurred if I used HadSST1 or HadSST4 data to optimize the model parameters.
The ECS result also heavily depends upon the accuracy of the 0-2000 meter ocean temperature measurements, shown next.
The 1D model was optimized to match the 0-2000m temperature trend only since 1995, but we see in Fig. 2 that the limited data available back to 1940 also shows a reasonably good match.
Finally, here’s what the full 500 year model results look like. Again, the CMIP5 forcings begin only in 1765 (I assume zero before that), while the combined ENSO dataset begins in 1525.
Discussion
The simple 1D model is meant to explain a variety of temperature-related observations with a physically-based model with only a small number of assumptions. All of those assumptions can be faulted in one way or another, of course.
But the monthly correlation of 0.93 between the model and observed SST variations, 1979-2020, is very good (0.94 for 1940-2020) for it being such a simple model. Again, our primary purpose was to examine how observed ENSO activity affects our interpretation of warming trends in terms of human causation.
For example, ENSO can then be turned off in the model to see how it affects our interpretation of (and causes of) temperature trends over various time periods. Or, one can examine the affect of assuming some level of non-equilibrium of the climate system at the model initialization time.
If nothing else, the results in Fig. 3 might give us some idea of the ENSO-related SST variations for 300-400 years before anthropogenic forcings became significant, and how those variations affected temperature trends on various time scales. For if those naturally-induced temperature trend variations existed before, then they still exist today.
Trend is up no matter how you slice it. Can’t go against the data.
It’s not really data. It’s mostly modeling. Using a few “other people’s models”. And making simple/starting point of model for effects of “ENSO-related forcings”.
The data is mostly satellite record and ARGO float data as foundation of models. {because it’s accurate data}.
And hasn’t got to point of predicting and no one can predict “ENSO-related forcings” and maybe once model “done” it maybe can predict
“ENSO-related forcings”??
Or I am not looking at data, I am looking at a possible useful model.
I wonder if changes in the sun or changes in space dust have anything to do with the tempature on earth.na could not passage be.
Apparently not much, the model is pretty darn good without that.
Can you run the model forward beyond 2020 using CMIP5 forcings plus an arbitrary ENSO forcing (e.g. ENSO forcing from 1920 onwards) ?
yes, I’ve done that.
Is it true that the sun in the last 2000 years is closer to the earth than ever? According to the computer program Stellarium, we have in this period been in the warmest period in a 40,000 year cycle
In a Computer program Stellarium you can go back and forth in time
– On 01.01.2019, the distance to the sun was 147,106 M km
– On 01.01.-13900 the distance to the sun was 150,811 M km
– On 01.01.-22000, the distance to the sun was 152.105 M km
(sundata from Norway, and remember they moved the calendar 10 days in 1700)
That makes a difference of 5 million kilometers, if I have understood this correctly. And how much change in temperature cold that be?
The sun now moves slowly but surely away from the earth, so little that it will hardly be felt for the next 2000 years.
We also know that the magnetic shield that protect us from the strong sun has weakened by ten percent in the last 150 years …
(Google translate…)
Is there any evidence that LWIR between 13 and 18 Microns can actually warm water? Are there any controlled experiments where an insulated container has had differing amounts of LWIR radiated upon the water it contains? I can see how surface evaporation can cause cooling, but I can’t see how a wavelength that doesn’t penetrate water and has very low energy to being with can warm the oceans.
I’m pretty sure that if you look at the cloud cover over the oceans, and match that chart to ocean temperatures, you will quickly discover what is causing the oceans to warm. Shortwave, very high energy blue light penetrates and warms the oceans. More visible light reaching the oceans, the warmer they will be.
Lastly, simply do the math. The energy to warm a gram of H2O is known. The energy in W/M^2 for LWIR between 13 and 18 Microns is known. The volume of the top 200 meters of the oceans is known.
A hurricane in the Gulf can lower the water temperature by 2 or more degrees. It would take years for LWIR to replace that much energy to the system. Visible light could do it much much faster.
There was some discussion of this on the previous thread.
The ocean is mostly warmed by sunlight, absorbed in the upper 90m or so. It then loses this heat to the atmosphere by conduction and evaporation or by ME radiation from the surface.
Since seawater is opaque to LWIR it is absorbed by the surface film and the heat transfers mostly to the atmosphere rather than increasing the temperature below the surface.
There is a possible mechanism by which increased downward LWIR can increase the temperature of the water in the first few metres.
LWIR creates a warm surface film which acts as a barrier slowing heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. The more LWIR, the more heat retained and the higher the ocean temperature.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351#:~
4) Simply calculate the W/M^2 of Visible light on the oceans and compare that energy to the W/M^2 of LWIR Peak 15. A single cloudy day removes the energy equivalent of months if not years of marginal CO2 LWIR back radiation.
5) Has anyone run lab experiments of LWIR on Water to prove this theory? Seems pretty simple to me. IR filters are available. Insulated containers are available. Variable lights are available. Simply have multiple containers of H2O, IR filtered light port, light of variable illumination. Black body of room temperature emits X W/M^2 of LWIR peak 15 is your control.
6) BTW, simply open your eyes. The oceans control the global temperatures. If you can’t explain the warming of the oceans, you can’t explain the climate. Simply go to NASA GIS and find isolated weather stations with long term records. Select them to control for the Urban heat island effect and water vapor, ie select isolated dessert locations. Use and NASA Giss v3, not the corrupted v4. What will you find? You will find 0.00 temperature increase with an increase of CO2 from about 280 ppm to 410 ppm. How is that possible if CO2 is the cause of warming? Tony Heller over at Real Climate Science is publishing about that today. The Teenage Super Sluths made videos about it last summer.
https://youtu.be/9gqpD5QZm60
https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o
4) The marginal effect of CO2 is about 10-30 W/m^2 for clear skies (depending primarily on humidity & temperature). Average sunlight absorbed is ~ 160 W/m^2. So a cloudy day is equivalent to a week or two of CO2 — not months or years as you imagined. http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/greenhouse-gas-and-KT-diagram.jpg
“but I cant see how a wavelength that doesnt penetrate water and has very low energy to being with can warm the oceans.”
Again, the phasing is critical. Sunlight provides the heat that warms the surface. IR provides a cooling mechanism. But limiting the cooling will result in the surface becoming warmer then it was.
Analogies abound. If a pond has 1000 L/m flowing in and 1000 L/m flowing out, the level will stay the same. If I restrict the outflow so that only 500 L/m can escape, the level will rise. Since the only change is restricting the output, it is reasonable and intuitive to ascribe the rising levels to the change in output, even though the input is actually where the water is coming from.
Nope, looking up from the surface. 410 ppm CO2 adds 8.16 W/m^2 on a clear day. Add clouds and it changes by 0.63.
Downward heat flux is 361 W/M^2 without any CO2, 367 W/M^2 with 410 PPM.
Visible radiation adds about 1,000/(8×2) x the amount of energy as CO2 back radiation. A single day of sunlight equals 64 days of CO2 back radiation at the surface. About 100 for the top of the atmosphere. That however is irrelevant for the most part. Visible radiation penetrates and warms the oceans. No one doubts that and it can be demonstrated in a lab very easily.
At the upper reaches of our atmosphere, the energy density of solar radiation is approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter). At the Earth’s surface, the energy density is reduced to approximately 1,000 W/m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at sea level on a clear day[1].
The key question is can the marginal CO2 back radiation due to changing CO2 from 270 preindustrial to 410 current can warm the oceans.
270 PPM = 368.322 W/M^2
410 PPM = 369.264 W/M^2
Difference = 0.94 W/M^2
Do we really think an additional 0.94 W/M^2 can honestly warm the oceans? Also, Mother Nature has natural safety valves.
“Do we really think an additional 0.94 W/M^2 can honestly warm the oceans?”
The First Law of Thermodynamics says YES. But slowly.
And if you add up the heat gained in top 2000 m of ocean:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Ocean_Heat_Content_%282012%29.png
which has a recent trend (slope) of 1.14e22 J/y , which gives 3.6e14 W, divide by area of ocean 4e14 m^2, gives 0.91 W/m^2.
Nate, 1st Law says nothing about temperature gain. Adding 50 degree water to 50 degree water does not result in an increase in temperature, although energy has been added. Adding more ice to ice does not result in an increase in temperature.
It gets even trickier with IR. An ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. You can radiate 300 W/m2 at something at room temperature, and the temperature will not increase. You can bring in more ice, and the temperature will not increase.
To get a temperature increase, just more energy will not do it. You need energy that can increase average molecular vibration frequencies. “CO2isLife” was talking about this when he mentioned the energy in the 13-18μ.
Clint is our very own physics denier. He denies many physics laws and principles, just he does here with 1LOT.
He can be safely ignored.
Nate, I didn’t “deny” 1st Law, I corrected your false interpretation of it.
“Nate, 1st Law says nothing about temperature gain.”
IN this application, it undeniably does.
Wrong Nate. You’re making the same mistake as is common in climate “science”. This is the mistake make by the idiot that claims Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K.
You’re still trying to make something hotter by adding more ice. You don’t understand 1st or 2nd Laws.
Energy does not “stack up” like you’re trying to do. To raise temperatures, you need higher frequency vibrations. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you can’t learn. You run from reality.
“To raise temperatures, you need higher frequency vibrations.”
Impossible to discuss with such an ignoramus/troll, who casually makes up his own fake physics, like this..
Here’s some more reality for you to reject/deny, Nate:
In water, thermal energy is determined by the vibrations/rotations of atoms and molecules. To raise the temperature requires higher frequencies. More of the same frequency, or lower frequency, won’t work. That’s why two ice cubes can’t make something hotter than just one ice cube.
And for reasons of symmetry, a 2nd ice cube in your whiskey makes no difference.
Evidence??? Of course not..ha ha ha.
ClintR,
I like the short and precise way, that you explain the requirement for the radiation energy to increase the average molecular vibration frequencies in matter to be able to increase the temperature.
This is fundamental to understand, that the atmospheric radiation is not capable to rise the surface temperature a single bit.
It seems not anyone here does understand that.
And as you correctly point out, one ice block does not make another one warmer.
Thanks for the thoughtful and correct explanations.
Yeah, another ice cube in your whiskey makes no difference whatsoever.
The first ice cube is too much already. But that’s a choice of taste!
But no ice cube in whiskey has the chance to increase the temperature nor does it radiate. What’s your point Svante?
I’m not sure that I’m buying that argument. Like all climate science, it starts out assuming GHGs are the cause, and then just starts to twist some explanation that would keep their funding going.
1) Oceans are extremely violent, and continually stirring the water. There theory seems to require a still water.
2) Oceans are above freezing, the atmosphere above the oceans are above freezing, the bulk of the IR being emitted is around 10 microns. LWIR peak 15 microns is consistent with a black body of -80 degrees C. Water has the highest specific heats of all common substances, and LWIR Peak 15 has very very little energy
The IR emissivity of pure water and seawater has been measured experimentally, it is close to 1. This means water emits IR energy, and if water emits IR energy, it must also absorb IR energy (Kirchoffs Law of Radiation and energy conservation). The fact that IR only operates at the skin surface is also true of evaporation.
Dr Spencer, I’m not sure that is correct for LWIR around 15 Microns.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/inchi?ID=C7732185&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0
Every warm body emits IR, but not as a black body. Water doesn’t transmit the entire LWIR spectrum.
Glass emits IR too, but not all wavelengths.
https://www.crystran.co.uk/userfiles/images/silica-glass-ir-transmission.jpg
CO2 your plot shows IR Transmittance for a THIN layer of water. The ocean is not that, and doesnt transmit any 15 micron IR. Its close to a black body, as are most solids/liquids, unless they are good reflectors like metals.
Nate Says: “Do we really think an additional 0.94 W/M^2 can honestly warm the oceans?”
The First Law of Thermodynamics says YES. But slowly.
I Say: That is where you are wrong. 100% wrong. People treat this like a closed controlled system, where only one variable is changed at a time, and they don’t impact the others.
To warm water takes a lot of time, a whole lot of time. CO2 and 15 Micron LWIR is like a drip of energy into the oceans. Visible radiation is like a massive fire hose. Eventually enough energy builds up in the oceans that it triggers the El Nino pressure valve to release. Huge amounts of energy are released into outer space, and the temperature of the oceans collapses. If people would think of the climate as a pressure cooker, they would understand why we will never have CAGW until the pressure valve breaks, which is never.
Go to a water park and you will see Giant Buckets being filled with water which eventually pass the tipping point and they pour all their water down on the kids below. That Bucket is the ocean, the energy is the water, and the tipping point is the El Nino.
Now think about that bucket being filled by a small garden hose. That is the contribution of CO2. It would take forever to reach the tippingpoint. Now think of a firehose being used to fill that bucket. That is visible light. All CO2 can do is slightly cause the timing point to be reached a bit sooner. It can not cause the water to fill above the tipping point. CO2 simply can’t cause the oceans to warm to a temperature that they wouldn’t normally reach with visible light. Any extra energy added by CO2 is easily removed by El Ninos. Simply calculate out the energy released by an El Nino, and then calculate out how long it would take CO2 to replace that energy.
That doesn’t make sense. This data shows the oceans warming for the last 100 years or so, but we have had many El Nino in that timeframe and yet the water temperatures continue to rise unabated.
Nate, “and doesnt transmit any 15 micron IR.”
That was my point.
BTW, thinking through this, there is no way the oceans are black bodies. Much of the energy absorbed by the oceans is converted to chemical energy through photosynthesis. It absorbs radiation and converts it in form. There is no way for that radiation to be re-emitted in the previous form. Also, if H2O doesn’t absorb an X-Ray, it can’t emit it later unless I assume it absorbed higher energy wavelengths and somehow split the energy. If water just lets a wavelength pass through it without being absorbed, it can’t re-emit that wavelength. Because 15 micron LWIR never reaches molecules below the surface, on the very top layer, a layer that can’t hold much heat or energy can emit 15 micron LWIR. Also as you change the temperature of water it takes on different forms, liquid, solid and gas. Phase changes absorb and emit energy, so once again, H2O won’t be a good black body.
Quantum wave
This part of the story of radiation was first explained by James Clerk Maxwell via wave theory but the predicted and actual intensity vs. frequency curves did not go together right. At higher frequencies classical physics predicted that more and more energy would be radiated from the body until the energy became infinite. This broke the first law of thermodynamics which is a fundamental part of all physics. This was called the ultraviolet catastrophe.
When it was realised that classical physics did not work for blackbody radiation, the German physicist Max Planck explained their relationship by saying that there are individual things (he did not try to guess what kind of things) that vibrate, each at its frequency. Each wave of each frequency has its special energy level. A single x-ray is very high photon energy and can go right through the human body.
A single wave or photon of infrared light is very low energy, cannot go through the human body, and can only warm it. Planck’s good thinking was to realize that to get a single wave at the x-ray frequency, it was necessary to have a big enough package of energy (or “quantum”) to make such a strong wave. So if a blackbody took in a single wave at the x-ray frequency, then it could give off an x-ray at some later time. But if the blackbody only took in infra-red light it would not matter how much of it was absorbed.
CO2 “People treat this like a closed controlled system, where only one variable is changed at a time, and they dont impact the others.”
Your original issue was not about feedbacks and responses of the whole Earth to this heating effect.
SO that is called ‘moving the goal posts.’, and is an entirely separate complex issue.
“To warm water takes a lot of time, a whole lot of time. CO2 and 15 Micron LWIR is like a drip of energy into the oceans”
Yes, but small changes over a long time add up. And as you can see with the calculation I showed you, the change, summed over time, agrees approximately with the accumulated extra heat in the ocean.
Feel free to rebut the calculation.
Does lumen cumulate?
The answer is it depends. If two light sources are not closely coherent with each other, a lumen is definitely cumulative. So if three 1000 lumen bulbs are scattered perfectly in the ceiling of a house, you can expect 3000-lumen brightness in your home. This is how big spaces such as open stadiums and gymnasiums get lit for maximum illumination especially at night.
If, however, two or more light sources are coherent to each other, the lumen will be non-cumulative. This is the sole reason why it is very out of the blue to see two illumination tools sitting too close together. It would be senseless to buy multiple high lumen products if keeping them close to each other is your plan. To maximize the brightness of your target space, strategically scatter your light tools along the ceiling or whatever spot you plan to put them into. To make all of these matters understandable, here are the basics for your reference.
“If, however, two or more light sources are coherent to each other, the lumen will be non-cumulative.”
Why?
Not making much sense here, CO2. Why do they point multiple spot-lights at stage performers?
So they will literally be more lit up, obviously.
In any case lumens striking the same spot most certainly do add.
Example, we can consider the right half of the sun and left half of the sun as two sources illuminating the Earth. Each source contributes 1/2 of the illumination.
During the onset of a solar eclipse one can clearly see and measure the reduced illumination when part of the sun’s disk is blocked.
http://www.mkrgeo-blog.com/light-level-measurements-during-total-solar-eclipse/
“BTW, thinking through this, there is no way the oceans are black bodies. Much of the energy ….”
This is a science-based discussion CO2.
But what you have there is just creative writing. You are in the wrong class.
Nate, are you claiming that H20 is a black body? Really?
1) Water is both refective and refractive
2) Water is transparent to some wavelengths
3) Water is opaque to only a few wavelengths
4) Water easily changes in form from solid, liquid and gas, try heating H20 to the temperature of the Sun, top of the atmosphere, and any temperatures associated with visible radiation
5) Water isn’t black
6) Water isn’t solid
Here, let me save you the effort of proving yourself wong…again. Funny how someone with no knowledge in this field knew you were wrong immediately. Maybe you should stop telling people they are wrong and try figuring out what you don’t understand.
Is pure water a black body or near black body?
A physics blackbody? – NO
A visually black object? – Sometimes
A perfect blackbody object absorbs all electromagnetic wavelengths and does not reflect any frequency. It can however emit light, so its not necessarily visually black.
Water, even at very large volumes, is transparent to some frequencies, and it reflects/diffracts many frequencies. This is true for all the states of water (ice, gas, etc). So not a blackbody.
Here is more:
Black Water:
Sometimes people are confused by the fact the water, in sufficient volume, does absorb all visible wavelengths. But, due to reflection, the circumstances under which water will appear black are rare.
Small amounts of liquid water will have no color, as its semi-transparent in the visible range, and is not thick enough to absorb the light.
Larger amounts of water will appear blue because its slowest to absorb blue, and the blue light will either pass through the water (if its back lit), or be reflected from the upper volume of the water near the surface (if its front lit).
Very large amounts of water will absorb all visible light, but will appear blue due to the reflection near the surface.
Water does emit electromagnetic radiation, but not in the visible range. So while its perceived color is blue, its color in any circumstance that does not directly reflect light towards you, is black. This can be demonstrated using polarized light.
You don’t listen, nor learn. You are getting the physics wrong.
I said “Its close to a black body, as are most solids/liquids, unless they are good reflectors like metals”
We have been talking about the thermally relevant IR wavelengths. Not x-rays, not visible.
For that range of wl, water is close to being a good black body.
I have an IR thermometer that operates in the standard thermal range of IR. YOU can buy a cheap one, and easily use it to measure the temperature of warm water at various temps. It works well compared to an ordinary thermometer. That is good evidence that water has an emissivity close to 1 in that range.
As Roy noted Kirchoffs law applies. Look it up.
The surface abs*or*ption layer is too thin argument is a red herring, because it ignores heat conduction.
MOST of the time the ocean surface is a NET emitter of IR.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-572063
Nate Says: “Yes someone making up their own fictional science did.
Do you have any expertise in this topic? In physics? Meteorology? Atmospheric science? It is evident that you do not. Are you aware that you have gaps in your knowledge?
Then its hard to understand why you have such confidence that many people who do have expertise and years of study”
CO2isLife Says: Nate, you are very presumptuous. You know nothing about me. If you think my challenges to this science is from a person not familiar with these topics, then so be it.
BTW, please fill in my gaps of knowledge. That is the whole purpose of discussing these topics. Tell me again how a reduced cloud cover can’t result in a warming ocean? Tell me again why no one bothered to consider that as the cause?
“BTW, please fill in my gaps of knowledge. That is the whole purpose of discussing these topics.”
I have tried for several days to point out the problems with your analysis, particularly of radiative heat transfer.
But you seem to be fixated. Rather than follow the facts and evidence to reach a conclusion, as science does, you have decided what the conclusion must be, and inventing scenario after scenario to achieve this outcome.
The reality is that the science behind the GHE is well established and central to meteorology.
Did a little more research into this claim. There is no way the ocean is a black body. A deep pool of still water in a laboratory may come close to a Black Body as you mentioned. The Oceans aren’t H20. They are H20, NaCl, CaCO3, Algae, and have a very irregular surface.
Anyway, the only energy we’re talking about here is the energy from CO2. That is specifically 15 micron LWIR. If you do a black body calculation, that is consistent with a temperature of -80 degree C. That is very very very low energy, and you aren’t going to warm 18 degree C water by adding energy consistent with -80 degree C. The water molecules already have more energy than that. They are already vibrating at a much higher energy.
BTW, all this can be tested. Simply take a light meter and point a 500-lumen flashlight at it. Then add a second 500-lumen flashlight at it. What does it read? Do 2 500-lumen flashlights = 1 1,000-lumen flashlight?
In other words, does adding more ice to a glass warm it up?
“That is specifically 15 micron LWIR. If you do a black body calculation, that is consistent with a temperature of -80 degree C. That is very very very low energy, and you arent going”
Not how T of BB radiation is calculated.
Please only use real physics from legit sources.
“Do 2 500-lumen flashlights = 1 1,000-lumen flashlight?”
If pointed at the same surface, Yes of course!
Just look at performer on stage lit by multiple spot lights. Or a football field.
Nate Says: Do 2 500-lumen flashlights = 1 1,000-lumen flashlight?
If pointed at the same surface, Yes of course!
Just look at performer on stage lit by multiple spot lights. Or a football field.
CO2isLife Says: I don’t think that is correct. There is a difference between lumens and lux. The further you get from the light source the lower the intensity of the light. The light is simply getting spread over a larger area, like spreading butter on bread. Pointing more lights at a single point makes the object brighter, but the object will never be brighter than the brightest light being shined on it. They aren’t addictive. I could have a thousand flashlights and they will never be as bright as the sun. I will always be able to look at the mass array of flashilights.
“Pointing more lights at a single point makes the object brighter”
Yes very good.
“but the object will never be brighter than the brightest light being shined on it. They aren’t addictive.’
Not making sense. How does this jive with what you just said above this?
You need to understand optics before making such claims.
They are additive, up to a very very high intensity limit. That limit is reached only when the entire space in view of the object is COVERED with flashlight filaments. Actually the whole theatre wall surface at the temperature of the filament of the flashlight ~ 3000 K.
With adding spotlights onto a stage performer, we are nowhere near that point, so the light is additive.
“I could have a thousand flashlights and they will never be as bright as the sun.”
You certainly could if the filaments were at 6000 K, the temperature of the sun, and the total filament area had the same angular size as the sun 0.5 degrees wrt the performer.
The sun shines with 1000 W/m2 on Earth surface.
That could quite easily be obtained with a few stage spotlights shining on the performer.
La Nina and El Nino together form a complete cycle. The stronger La Nina, the stronger the mixing of water in the equatorial Pacific. The stronger the subsurface wave in La Nina time is, the stronger El Nino is. La Nina is formed at the beginning of the solar cycle as solar activity increases, El Nino appears at the end of the solar cycle as solar activity decreases.
The trade winds, in piling up water in the Western Pacific, make a deep 450 feet (150 meter) warm layer in the west that pushes the thermocline down, while it rises in the east.
The shallow 90 feet (30 meter) eastern thermocline allows the winds to pull up water from below, water that is generally much richer in nutrients than the surface layer.
Looks nice..
Even has the mid 20th century plateau. Is that caused by the forcing having a plateau? Or ENSO?
A short examination of Figure 3 suggests that ENSO can briefly increase or decrease global temperatures by up to 0.2C.
This is comparable with the +/- 0.2C internal variation in the temperature record. It confirms that ENSO is a possible cause of this internal variation.
This is sufficient to possibly explain temporary changes in rate such as the late 1930’s peak, the post-war plateau or the
2000s Pause.
It cannot explain the long term trend, the 0.56C gain in forty years, shown in the UAH data.
I’ve been siting on the sidelines for years listening to both sides of this debate and believe Dr. Spencer is definitely an expert. I’m a degreed mechanical engineer (Registered PE in WI), recently retired. I’m by no means an expert in this field but it seems to me that there is a loss of perspective and practicality.
The graphs look far worse than I think the problem is. When you have a vertical axis expanded as these are, in my opinion you can read in more doom and gloom then their should be. We’re getting all caught up in our underwear about less than 2 deg.C measured a hundred years ago with questionable accuracy and are betting the planets future on that? Really?
My company recently purchased a $160k laser tracker for machinery measurements, that has accuracy of .03″ in 100′. Our customer pay us $20k-$25k to come to their plants to measure the alignment of their machinery. They love the precision and repeatability of the device. The problem is we could do the same thing with 40 year old surveying equipment and get the measurements they need. The reason being the equipment operates without issues if it’s within +/- 1/4″. But data looks great and the more zeros there are behind the decimal point the better it looks.
If you need a reality check watch George Carlin’s monolog on U-Tube Re climate change. Just saying.
Two worries.
1) We hadn’t seen rates of temperature change this fast at any time in the past. It is playing hob with the normal checks and balances in the climate system and the resulting instability is creating a lot of extreme weather.
2) We have built a global civilization optimised for 14C. We are now at 15C and rising. As an engineer you will be well aware of the problems which occur when you try to operate a machine outside its designed temperature limits.
I am very aware of design operating temperatures and also of the reality that machines often operate outside their design temperature band and not just by 2 deg.C. This is true of both the mining equipment my company works on and the race cars I work on as a hobby.
Temperature “excursions” are common. Normally the systems weather these excursions just fine.
Our planet has been around for millions of years and has changed tremendously, all by itself. But my gut feeling is that we are making much to do about nothing. Correlation is not causality.
“Correlation is not causality. ”
But that’s the way to bet.
If A correlates with B it will be because A causes B, B causes A or both are caused by C.
We are measuring increased global temperatures, decreased 13C/12C ratio, decreased oxygen.increased sea level, increasing ocean heat content, decreased Arctic ice cover, a cooling stratosphere, a rising tropopause, Winters warming faster than Summers and high latitudes warming faster than low latitudes.
if you do the physics, all of these are expected to correalate with increasing CO2 due to human activity. None of the natural alternatives are powerful enough to have much effect.
If you have a better alternative which explains all these observations, a Novel Prize awaits.
Sorry for the typo. I meant “Correlation is not Causation”.
John V.
The deception is worse than the tenth of a degree C. anomaly charts with a 1.0 to 1.5 vertical range that make slight temperature changes look huge..
Surface measurements were far from global before WWII. After WWII there was still too much wild guessing that does not become more accurate by calling it infilling. There are also hundreds of “revisions” every month. Only the UAH satellite data have any chance of being accurate enough for real science. And that starts in 1979. Everything before that is questionable temperature numbers.
More important: It’s good news that the climate has warmed slightly since the old days — people living from 1650 to 1750 thought it was too cold. Climate alarmists falsely claim the climate was “perfect” in 1750 and any change since then is an existential climate crisis … that can only be solved by powerful leftist governments, staffed by leftists. And they don’t want all that power for themselves, of course, they are trying to save the planet for our children.
John V., you are obviously a smart person and wouldn’t fall for that fairy tale … but half the planet seems to be convinced our wonderful climate is bad, and getting worse.
“people living from 1650 to 1750 thought it was too cold.”
If the 0.5 – 1 degree drop in temperature was large enough to cause N. Europe big problems, like famine, etc. then that pretty much nullifies the whole concept of small changes dont matter.
“Were getting all caught up in our underwear about less than 2 deg.C ”
Not to mention that N. Europe is not the WORLD.
RG, I’m not sure what you mean. A 1.0 – 1.5 change is very large even over thousand year timescales.
There was a JohnV on climateaudit around 2007/08 who was taking the good stations Anthony Watts’ people were rating around the US, creating a temperature record from those, and comparing that with the official US record. It was a great conversation that I lurked at.
We could plot your height from age 2 to age 60, but we won’t get much visual information if we make the y axis intervals in miles.
When constructing a graph, you generally arrange the axes to give you the maximum amount of visual information. Any graph will, as a result, be filled out, rather than left with lots of empty space.
But it’s not the look of the graphs that matters, it’s the information behind them, as you know.
Not me.
“Were getting all caught up in our underwear about less than 2 deg.C measured a hundred years ago with questionable accuracy and are betting the planets future on that? Really?”
JohnV, how do we know if 2 C is a lot for the globe or not? It shouldnt be based on just a feeling that its no big deal..
Past climate gives us clue.
The last ice age was only ~ 5C cooler than now, globally. Yet NYC was covered by a km thick ice sheet.
The Holocene Optimum 8000 y ago was warmer than year 1900 by 0.5-1.0 C.
Yet the Sahara was much greener, and the Amazon was much drier, not s rain forrest.
So it seems that regional climates can change drastically with modest changes in global temps.
I see the reason in the long-term changes in atmospheric circulation. During La Nina, for example, the global temperature tends to drop, but California is drought.
–JohnV, how do we know if 2 C is a lot for the globe or not? It shouldnt be based on just a feeling that its no big deal..
Past climate gives us clue.
The last ice age was only ~ 5C cooler than now, globally. Yet NYC was covered by a km thick ice sheet.–
hmm, I thought it cooler than about 5 C.
“Scientists have predicted that the global average temperature during the ice age was around 46 degrees Fahrenheit (7.8 degrees Celsius.)
However, the polar regions were far colder, around 25 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degree Celsius) colder than the global average.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/last-ice-age-global-temperature-scientist-predict/
15 – 7.8 is difference of 7.2 K
But global warming or cooling is mostly about polar amplification.
And regions around polar region would also be quite cold.
So Canada average temperature is about -3.5 C and during Little Ice Age was as cold as -5.5 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/canada
And being at least below -10 C yearly average during the entire glaciation period- would not be too surprising, though doesn’t seem Continent US would be as cold as Canada’s current average temperature even when there was 1 km of ice above NYC. But Europe instead of current average of about 9 C could be about same as Canada or about -10 C.
But France would probably as warm as Alaska is currently and have warmer summers then in Alaska {currently}. Or Alaska in summers has “heatwaves”, now and during glaciation, France could have hotter heatwaves, then. But -50 C winter days, in France, probably happens a fair amount. Though a general dryness might be larger problem and dryness itself gives wide swings in daily and yearly temperature.
Though it’s possible one could have some kind general weather pattern which tends to make it wetter, and France could have more moderate temperatures- but more snow than current Sweden {current average temp of 3.5 C- about same current Alaska}.
But Germany and Russia would be would resemble Antarctica and probably with even worse weather as anywhere on that cold continent- or just, run away from it, anytime near winter.
Hi Roy, seasons greetings.
I remembered you had commented that the CERES data were too uncertain to work with, specifically:
“….the global LW energy loss isn’t known to 10 W/m2 absolute accuracy from CERES measurements. The instrument isn’t good enough.”
Does this impact your model?
As CERES data features in our discussions from time to time, do you think the product has improved in accuracy?
Something to ponder.
Three oceans that cross the equator with limited connection in the northern hemisphere and some connection through the Southern Ocean circulation.
All have maximum surface temperature at the equator around 31C:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhAeQGp_7ns2Kulo9
In fact it is physically impossible on Earth for the open ocean surface to exceed 32C. Cloudburst begins at 26 degrees surface temperature to produce highly reflective cloud. Once the surface reaches 28.5C, the energy uptake is at its maximum then declines with increasing temperature above that as the shutters go up to effectively block sunlight from reaching the surface. It is observed as monsoon and cyclones in latitudes above 10 degrees.
The notion of some delicate energy balance through the ridiculous “Greenhouse Effect” is just silly. Sea ice forms at 271.3K. Tropical ocean temperature can never exceed 305K due to the basic physics of the atmosphere. It is no accident the average surface temperature is smack in the middle of the two extremes at 288K.
The rest is noise.
From this it follows that changes in global temperature plus / minus 1 K are not unusual.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/equatpac.REM.fc.gif
Your comment seemed scientifically interesting until you said “through the ridiculous ‘Greenhouse Effect'”
Oh well, too bad.
It is worth comparing La Nina from 2010 (beginning of the 24th solar cycle) and La Nina from 2020 (beginning of the 25th solar cycle). You can see that the trade winds are weaker now than they were in 2010. It could also mean that solar activity is weaker now than in 2010.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.201012.gif
https://i.ibb.co/bBpJdxf/number-of-days-with-a-ge.jpg
Sorry.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202012.gif
RickWell
“Tropical ocean temperature can never exceed 305K due to the basic physics of the atmosphere. ”
Unfortunately land temperatures are not so constrained. Populated areas are starting to exceed and sustain 35C wet bulb (308K) which is the physiological upper limit for a healthy person.
Climate change is killing people.
Land gains energy from oceans. Land has net loss of energy. Land would be much colder on average if it did not take up energy from the oceans.
The land masses are not warming up. The measurements are warming up through a well known process of data homogenisation.
“The land masses are not warming up.”
Uhhhh…in fact they are warming faster than the ocean, as they should. They have much lower heat capacity.
Land has roughly zero thermal capacity. What comes in one day is all gone by the start of the next day. The atmosphere above the land limits the temperature range of the land because it has some thermal inertia and the atmosphere gains energy from the oceans.
Follow the energy. The tropical oceans take the energy in and redistribute it. However the tropical ocean temperature is thermostatically controlled. Maximum energy input occurs at 28.5C. Heat uptake is increasing right up to 28.5C but as temperature increases beyond 28.5C the energy uptake begins to fall such that 32C in open ocean water is simple a physical impossibility courtesy of the buoyancy of moist air creating a level of free convection and subsequent cloudburst producing high altitude, dense and highly reflective cloud:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3vzCCr-yZNwAEVd
“Greenhouse Effect” is a fairy tale for people unable or unwilling to follow the energy. The myopic focus on CO2 might garner funding but it it is detail gone mad. It has diverted focus from the thermostatic control that the process of cloudburst imbues to Earth’s atmosphere.
Incompetents who focus on CO2 are blind to the incredibly powerful thermostatic control of the SST. Negative feedback so powerful that equatorial waters vary no more than a couple of degrees through the seasons and never exceed 32C across three, widely separate oceans that have vastly different energy balances.
Rick,
“Follow the energy. The tropical oceans take the energy in and redistribute it. However the tropical ocean temperature is thermostatically controlled.”
I see no need to ignore the rest of the Earth and Land masses.
The point is you have to follow the energy to the Top of the Atmosphere, where the Net gain from added GHG is happening. The ‘thermostat’ at TOA brings it back to Net 0 by warming the Earth below.
That warming is distributed around the world thru the General Circulation of atmosphere as well as ocean currents.
Still have to see what the final outcome will be of weakening magnetic fields.
If they should result in an increase in albedo even 1% all the warming will be gone.
Will they accomplish this through increased major geological activity, snow cover, sea ice expansion, change in major oceanic currents as a result only time will tell.
Major sustained volcanic activity is a game changer.
It would be interesting IMO to vary the ECS of the model ( according to Fig. 3 it’s 1.91 K/2*CO2) and detect the RMSE for the mixed layer simulation while changing the ECS value to find a best estimate and the 95% confidence level for it?
Yes, there are all kinds of sensitivity tests one can perform.
RickWill
It seems to me that you’ve posted that stuff a while ago, maybe at WUWT.
1. ” All have maximum surface temperature at the equator around 31C… ”
Like Entropic man, I ask you: why do you restrict your view on ocean temperatures? Are land temperatures irrelevant in your concept?
And, if you stay so good with the oceans: why do you keep looking at their surface?
Why don’t you look at the ocean heat contents?
2. ” The notion of some delicate energy balance through the ridiculous “Greenhouse Effect” is just silly. ”
Oh how interesting!
Suppose the mean global atmospheric temperature drops – due to a Milankovitch cycle or Yellowstone’s magma chamber exploding – such that all water vapor precipitates, leaving this poor little CO2 guy alone.
What then happens is that our planet moves into an ice ball, with an albedo of 0.3 by accident identical to the current one, and nearly all LW radiation emitted by Earth (the same quantity of energy as it obtains from Sun as SW radiation) reaching outer space directly, because N2, O2 and Ar don’t intercept IR.
What is then the average temperature? How do your lovely 32 C oceans look like?
J.-P. D.
Not only has the A68a iceberg not broken up, it is headed for South Georgia Island, where it can remain a permanent fixture for up to 10 years.
https://i.ibb.co/XsyB5fm/S-daily-extent-hires.png
Look for a sea surface temperature above 32 degrees C.
https://i.ibb.co/k4xSGdz/global-small-fc.gif
The -2 C temperature in the graphic is sea ice.
Above Aussie land ocean surface seems quite warm {I imagine due to the season}.
And apparently for similar reason it’s warm near middle east in northern hemisphere summer.
Lend is irrelevant from an energy balance stand point because the oceans maximum and minimum surface temperature are thermostatically controlled. The oceans give up energy to the land masses but it does not make them cooler because their energy balance will be whatever it needs to achieve the maximum SST below 32C.
Land masses are net absorbers of energy. That energy comes from the oceans via latent heat of evaporation from the ocean surface and the energy is released over land to form rain and snow.
Land plays no role in the ocean energy balance. The oceans dramatically slow heat loss when sea ice forms and dramatically reduce heat uptake when cloudburst kicks in above 26C. If there was no land, the SST would still be in the range 271.3K to 305K.
“Land masses are net absorbers of energy.”
https://i.ibb.co/Xtr0brD/gfs-T2m-asia-1.png
I have no idea what relevance the temperature plot has with regard to energy balance and the fact that land is a net absorber of energy.
The linked plot shows net energy across the globe:
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_NETFLUX_M
Note how the land masses are visible by the fact that they typically have less then zero net energy – Sahara desert very clearly near zero net energy. Greenland and Antarctica very high net energy loss.
The Pacific Ocean is the major energy collector for the globe. It is Earth’s big solar panel. Despite the Pacific having a large net radiative energy balance it never exceeds 32C because it is temperature controlled. Excess radiative energy is transferred to land via latent heat of evaporation and to the Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean via ocean currents
The area of Asia that I have shown is perhaps the largest land area on Earth. If the temperature reaches -44 C in mid-December, what will it be like in mid-January? This is very much related to the less water vapor in the atmosphere during the La Nina period.
Here you can clearly see that the oceans are the accumulators of the Earth.
Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2. The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis. This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/swar19_prd.gif
Radiation Budget Products
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html
People come here with such strange ideas.
“Land masses are net absorbers of energy. That energy comes from the oceans via latent heat of evaporation from the ocean surface and the energy is released over land to form rain and snow.”
Land plays no role in the ocean energy balance. The oceans dramatically slow heat loss when sea ice forms and dramatically reduce heat uptake when cloudburst kicks in above 26C. If there was no land, the SST would still be in the range 271.3K to 305K.”
Global warming models MUST consider the ocean and the land masses.
The fact that there is open ocean at the N POle and a Land MAss at the S Pole makes a huge difference to climate.
Where the land masses have been located has made a HUGE difference to past climate, to glaciation cycles, etc.
“Global warming models MUST consider the ocean and the land masses.”
I think you could just consider the ocean, though this blog post is comparing the ocean to global air surface temperature. And we haven’t measuring the ocean, long or well.
By land masses I assume one mostly talking about glacial land masses- which has been historically fundamental and how one measured global climate and it’s proxy as is global surface air temperature.
Or like modeling in general, it gives some clues and can used in comparative analysis.
“The fact that there is open ocean at the N POle and a Land MAss at the S Pole makes a huge difference to climate.”
Open ocean in N pole in winter is quite enormous. And having land mass at south pole, seems to strongly related to why we are in an Ice Age. And it seems it has large effect upon our ocean, and large effect perhaps, can be amplified or be diminished.
Or ocean can hold massive amount of heat and over time period of 100,000 years, that heat content changes- huge amount of energy added and huge amount energy is removed.
And people assumes that this has something to do with Milankovitch cycles. And I assume its effect of Milankovitch cycles upon the oceans. Though repeating myself, rather key part is related to how effects ocean circulation, and sort again repeating myself, I guess Antarctic with it’s sea ice could be part of it- how effect ocean circulation. But it seems in terms of within last million years, change is more related arctic polar region and North Atlantic ocean.
The thermostatic control is very powerful. Once ice forms, heat loss from ocean surface drops dramatically. The radiating power of sea ice is often 50% the radiating power of open water adjacent to it. So the ice is retaining considerable ocean heat.
The net energy uptake does not begin to reduce until the SST reaches 28.5K then there is a sharp decline in energy uptake:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3vzCCr-yZNwAEVd
A cyclone, which is the supercharged energy rejection process, can reject 80% of the ToA insolation and cool the surface under the tropical midday sun. Brightest spot on Earth on July 30th this year was in the middle of the Atlantic:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg20rmI6ZbdeTV0c9
Hurricane Isaiah reflecting an average of almost 350W/sq.m. Surface cooling 3 degrees C in its wake.
The only event that would change earth’s thermostat is to remove all water from the surface. It would need a massive asteroid hit to achieve that.
Orbital cycles do not alter energy input, it gets redistributed. Glaciation is a hemispherical phenomena. If fact glaciation indicates an excess of ocean energy transferred to land resulting in land ice accumulation. It has a positive feedback because the land ice is reflective so is slow to melt. Glaciation requires a tremendous rate of evaporation.
The thermostatic control has worked fine through billions of years and will continue to work for the next billion excepting a severe asteroid hit.
By the way, the global average water column ranges annually from around 17mm to 24mm. There is not a lot of water in the atmosphere but once it gets to 30mm above tropical and sub-tropical oceans it enables cloudburst and at 38mm it enables daily cloudburst that is observed as monsoon and can spin up cyclones at latitudes above 10 degrees..
” If fact glaciation indicates an excess of ocean energy transferred to land resulting in land ice accumulation.”
??
You have a lot of strange ideas..
Follow the energy – where did the water come from to forms the ice, which make glaciers?
Answer that and you begin to get a clue.
Evaporation is an energy intensive process. That energy is taken in by the ocean surface, absorbed as latent heat of vaporisation in the water to produce water vapour. The water vapour is transported by air currents over land where it release the energy to space resulting in precipitation in the form of snow. It accumulates during the winter period and hopefully melts during the summer period. If it does not all melt then it accumulates.
Just think about how much energy it takes to vaporise a tonne of water then elevate it maybe 3000m or more into the atmosphere and finally transport it to land where it gets deposited as it releases the energy it took to vaporise it.
“Just think about how much energy it takes to vaporise a tonne of water then elevate it maybe 3000m or more into the atmosphere and finally transport it to land where it gets deposited as it releases the energy it took to vaporise it.”
Yes the water cycle. And?
That is happening all the time, regardless of whether we are in a glacial period, with much more land ice, or an interglacial with much less land ice.
Should we worry about ice in the central Arctic?
https://i.ibb.co/qp74Hbz/r11-Central-Arctic-ts-4km.png
https://i.ibb.co/G0hrwj7/r07-Greenland-Sea-ts-4km.png
We probably should. If the high Arctic above 80N is ice covered, any heat coming in above the ice goes into ice melt and the temperature stays close to 0C.
Open water absorbs heat and increases both air and water temperature. This Summer about 1/4 of the area above 80N was open water and surfacetemperatures went several degrees above the long term average.
Go to the Moyhu temperature page here.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Scroll down to the graph of daily temperatures above 80N and note how far 2020 Summer temperatures (green) exceeded the long term average (blue).
Great “peace” on the solar disk! The forecast of a geomagnetic storm has not come true.
https://i.ibb.co/f8sjfs2/AR-CH-20201211-hres.png
https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/17/925/1999/angeo-17-925-1999.pdf
above article is geo magnetic effects and the climate
Magnetic field in the Arctic regions
The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php
This applies to the graphics in the article above.
And I think all this magnetic info we talk about does impact the climate.
https://www.iceagenow.info/magnetic_reversal_chart/
A drop of as little as 0.01 in Earth’s albedo would have a major warming influence on climate—roughly equal to the effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would cause Earth to retain an additional 3.4 watts of energy for every square meter of surface area.
The reverse is an increase in albedo of 0.01 would have a major cooling effect and swamp all global warming due to GHG’s .
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/albedo-and-climate
So I am thinking there is a solar/magnetic /albedo climate connection.
It must be remembered that the Earth’s magnetic field is a protection against cosmic radiation. So weakening, for example, in the geomagnetic field in the Arctic region causes an increase in high-energy radiation in that region.
If Earth was completely covered in ice, its albedo would be about 0.84, meaning it would reflect most (84 percent) of the sunlight that hit it. On the other hand, if Earth was covered by a dark green forest canopy, the albedo would be about 0.14 (most of the sunlight would get absorbed). Changes in ice cover, cloudiness, airborne pollution, or land cover (from forest to farmland, for instance) all have subtle effects on global albedo. Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.
So albedo can change
Salvatore
I apologize, but ice’s albedo is on average 0.3, and not 0.84.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg
What you mean imho is the albedo of fresh snow.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
I see the range of 30 to 40 with a mean of 35 which is higher then 30.
The 84 I think they meant but did not say it right was for a white snow cover earth not ice. An ice covered world would probably be 35, but one would have to assume much snow cover would be associated with an Ice covered world.
Do you see where I am coming from ?
I suspect the cycles have mostly to do with volcanic activity under the ocean. Look at geysers on land. The same thing is going on under the ocean at all the oceanic riffs on a much larger scale. They prolly synchronise at times. Mostly with shifts in the crust due to outside gravitational forces. ACo2 is background noise. A trace trace gas. Sorry skeptics. Ho Ho Ho.
The action of La Nina is already visible in the western equatorial Pacific. Heavy rainfall begins in eastern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/nmKZN8J/gfs-mslp-pcpn-swpac-1.png
https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Ice+albedo+effect#:~:text=The%20ice%20albedo%20effectis%20simply%20a%20name%20for,is%20an%20example%20of%20a%20positive%20climate%20feedback.
Good article on albedo and it is complicated, but could be changed in response to increases in ice cover, snow cover, volcanic activity etc.
Will it if weak enough solar/geo magnetic fields conspire to promote the above. Yes. The question is will they conspire to promote the above and if they do when?
So I am watching the geo/solar magnetic field.
Magnetic changes if they impact ALBEDO will render any increases in CO2/global warming as a non event. Will it happen?
So all the warming if real from CO2 could be wiped out in less then a decade if ALBEDO were to increase as a result of what I have been talking about.
No one knows but tis approach is not being studied or given serious consideration by most of the scientific community.
This is a hard theory/approach to accept I admit that.
Reflection is due to the surface property . For example snow is capable of reflecting only in visible spectrum, absorbing all the other radiation(so it appears white to our naked eye but it is nearly a black body).
On the other hand emission is due to surface temperature, the surface of any body can absorb radiation up to some limit so that it can raise its surface temperature to its maximum extent and after that it emits radiation..
Albedo is the percentage of solar energy striking a surface that is reflected away from the earth. Surface Reflectance is ratio of the amount light not absorbed by a surface to the amount of light striking the surface. Albedo is a measure of energy and Surface Reflectance is a property of a material.
Just trying to clarify the differences between emissions, reflectivity, albedo.
Input appreciated.
\
How does reflectance figure into al this if at all?
The Earth will now enter the dust tail of the asteroid Phaethon, which is heading towards the Sun. At the same time, the combined gravity of Jupiter and Saturn is working, which could draw more space dust into Earth’s orbit.
J.A. OKeefe first suggested (1980) that Earth might have a ring system of its own. An Earth ring could account for some climate events. OKeefe remarked that formation or thickening of a ring system in Earths equatorial plane could drive glaciation by deepening the chill of the winter hemisphere. (It is very well established that volcanic dust is an effective agent for the extinction of sunlight; this factor can be overwhelmingly apparent in eclipse observations.) OKeefe died in 2000 and the speculation was not pursued, but the idea of an Earth ring has a prima facie reasonableness that calls for its renewed consideration. The program of this note is to hypothesize that, as OKeefe proposed: (a) an Earth ring system exists; (b) it affects Earth’s weather and climate; (c) the tektite strewn fields comprise filaments of the ring fallen to Earth’s surface on various occasions of disturbance by comets or asteroids.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.P23B1635H/abstract
No rings have yet been observed in the inner solar system, but after all, rings in the inner solar system might simply tend to be fainter and more transient than those of the outer solar system: the inner solar system is more affected by the solar wind, and the Suns perturbing gravitational influence is greater.
ren…”J.A. OKeefe first suggested (1980) that Earth might have a ring system of its own”.
Some geologists believe the Moon originated in the Earth but they have omitted an explanation of how:
1)a mass the size of the Moon acquired the explosive power to break free of Earth’s gravity.
2)where the hole is located that once contained the Moon
3)how the Moon got into a spherical shape
4)how the Moon acquired linear momentum to go into orbit after being accelerated vertically. Satellites are put into orbit after a vertical liftoff but the trajectory of the rocket is calculated in great detail.
https://www.britannica.com/science/albedo
Much of the warming could be due to a decrease in ALBEDO rather then CO2.
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/snow/snow-albedo.html
My ALBEDO exercise for now . I hope we all learn something for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter#:~:text=A%20volcanic%20winter%20is%20a%20reduction%20in%20global,radiation%29%20after%20a%20large%2C%20particularly%20explosive%20volcanic%20eruption.
I am making this comment for humor — sad humor as it is. CBS News has a climate reporter who claims to have a computer simulation showing the earth will freeze if CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. I am not misquoting him.
“It’s true, carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, less than a tenth of a percent. But because of CO2’s powerful heat-trapping greenhouse properties, its presence makes a huge difference. Currently, CO2 levels keep Earth’s temperature at a comfortable average of nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit. As shown in the below animation, if CO2 abruptly dropped to zero, Earth’s average temperature would also drop far below freezing, eradicating most life as we know it.
To be clear, a drop in CO2 wouldn’t directly cause the whole drop in temperature. The biggest impact comes from the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which condenses out due to the fact that colder air holds less water vapor; this is what tanks the greenhouse effect in the simulation. Positive feedbacks like the growth of ice cover would further precipitate the temperature plunge. But it’s CO2 which drives all this change.”
I remember seeing that also, Tim S. I always smile when I see “heat-trapping”, but he took it to the next level with “powerful”!
“But because of CO2’s powerful heat-trapping greenhouse properties, its presence makes a huge difference.”
He believes CO2 “warms the planet” to 60 degrees F.
“Currently, CO2 levels keep Earth’s temperature at a comfortable average of nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit.”
What he fails to understand is that CO2 cools. Their own “model” indicates a cooling of about 25 degrees F.
It’s not controversial that there would be less atmospheric WV in a colder climate. Nor is that the only study that has looked at what happens without CO2 in the atmos.
We also conduct one experiment where we keep TSI at its present-day value but reduce atmospheric CO2 to 0.1% of its pre-industrial value (simulation no CO2).
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81095225.pdf
We used the GISS 4° × 5° ModelE to calculate changes in instantaneous LW TOA flux
(annual global averages) in experiments where
atmospheric constituents (including water vapor,
clouds, CO2, O3, N2O, CH4, CFCs, and aerosols)
were added to or subtracted from an equilibrium
atmosphere with a given global temperature structure, one constituent at a time for a 1-year period.
https://tinyurl.com/yxn4blm7
Eliminating the 50 W/m2 of tropical CO2 greenhouse effect would drop the tropical temperature by about 25 K, once amplified by water vapor feedback. When further amplified by ice-albedo feedback, this would certainly cause the Earth to fall into a snowball state.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf
Yep, you may find it funny, but if you cant critique the science then…so what?
This is well known, simulations published a few years ago.
Paleo record shows periods of ice ball Earth, and hothouse Earth.
I agree Tim. The AGW enthusiast really think they are correct and they can back it up some with data but as I have pointed out it could be something entirely unrelated to CO2 which has caused the temperature to increase of late.
ALBEDO for example. Even 1/2 of 1% change would do it.
Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere is 342 Watts per square metre and albedo is 102 W/m^2, reflecting 29.8%.
A decrease of 0.5% would increase the amount of energy entering the climate system by 340*0.005 = 1.7W/m^2.
What would this do to the temperature?
The best estimate is that increasing incoming energy by 3.7W/m^2 would warm the equilibrium temperature by 1C.
1.7W/m^2 would produce 1.7/3.7 = 0.46C warming.
To produce the observed warming of 1.2C entirely by albedo decrease would require a change of 1.2*3.7 = 4.44W/m^2.
That would be an albedo decrease of 4.44/1.7*0.5=1.3% of the total incoming radiation.
Now you can start to test your theory. If you are correct it predicts that albedo has dropped from 31.1% to 29.8% in 140 years, a decrease of 4.44W/M^2.
Since most of our data postdates 1979, you are looking for a decline of 0.09% per decade or 0.3W/m^2 per decade over 40 years.
Have fun checking the data.
It is impossible to check it.
Salvatore Del Prete
” I have pointed out it could be something entirely unrelated to CO2 which has caused the temperature to increase of late. ”
Possible but not probable. The weight of evidence is against you.
You’ve seen the lists of observations which are predicted by the CO2 based AGW hypothesis.
Scientists are not idiots, not are they part of a conspiracy. The evidence is real. The interpretation is another matter.
To produce a convincing alternative hypothesis you need to show that it explains the evidence better than AGW does. If you want to overturn the AGW paradigm you need to put something better in its place.
Einstein did not prove Newton wrong. He extended Newton’s theory of gravity by explained the already existing evidence in a better way. Do the same for AGW and a Nobel Prize awaits.
Only time will tell. AGW or any other theory will need time. It just so happens that many have latched on to the CO2 theory.
The evidence is real as far as why the temperatures are warming but the cause has still been yet to be determined.
More time will be needed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
This proves my point.
Those who are embracing AGW are jumping the gun. As I said more time will be needed.
YOU CAN’T DO THE EXPERIMENTS UNFORTUNATELY.
Salvatore Del Prete
Under your 3.16 post is a way of testing your theory against observation. It is my calculation of the albedo change needed to produce 140 years of observed warming and the changes you would expect to see in the data.
You can now compare your predicted albedo against the measured albedo data. I’m off to bed. I’ll be interested tomorrow to see what you found.
“An initial state of energy equilibrium.” A tempting but surely incorrect assumption. I can’t suggest anything better.
Can life develop in a state of energy equilibrium?
http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html
This has a calculator where you can change the value for average albedo or anything else to get a resultant temperature for the globe. It is really cool.
If you change the average ALBEDO from .31 to .32 average global temperature will change from 59f to 57 f
Entropic man you will like this I think. Have a good sleep.
The problem is what is the real actual ALBEDO today. Answer we do not know exactly what it is. I could 30.2 or 29.9 or 30.7 we don’t know
cor it
This calculator for changing parameters that effect the climate show how powerful ALBEDO changes are.
The slightest of change has a BIG impact on the global temperature.
Measurements by satellite and earhshine show quite a noisy signal for albedo. If there is a long term trend it is of gradually increasing albedo, ie cooling.
I’m afraid your hypothesis is falsified. Data and links to papers here.
https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect-basic.htm
Entropic that site is biased toward AGW.
That said the data you presented shows nothing . I have seen that data it is useless. Even if you look at the period 2000-2010 the temperatures since 1998 in those following 10 years were down.
If you are trying to say a 100 ppm increase in a trace gas is not only warming the climate but over coming ALBEDO effects I will have to conclude you do not know what you are talking about.
You were doing so well but this is sad and it really takes away from all your other good arguments.
You can’t be that detached but then again you in your mind are determined to conclude AGW is real and you will not be swayed from that opinion no matter what .
I have shown clearly that ALBEDO is the main driver of the climate . The only reason it is not showing up is because it has not changed much over the past several ears and add to that no one has any good data on it.
cor – years I have shown a 1% change in ALBEDO will bring down the global temperature by 2F.
Prove that wrong Entropic man. I will be waiting.
“Even if you look at the period 2000-2010 the temperatures since 1998 in those following 10 years were down.”
We’ve been over this before. A short term temperature trend calculated from 1998 will always underestimate the long term trend because it starts with the high point of the strong 1998 El Nino. The subsequent years were cooler because they lacked a strong El Nino, not because of a reversal of the long term warming trend.
“You were doing so well but this is sad and it really takes away from all your other good arguments.
You cant be that detached”
Like any good scientist I took your theory at face value and calculated what albedo change would be necessary to produce the observed warming.
I then compared that prediction of decreasing albedo with observation and found that the observed albedo was static or slowly increasing. Failure to match prediction against reality disproved the theory.
This is what scientists are trained to do, put aside their biases and analyse objectively. Your suggestion that that I allowed bias to influence my analysis is a major insult to any scientist.
E, if you want to practice science you must respect reality. You cannot deny reality, in favor of your beliefs.
Very shallow argument this time. You have not made the case not even close.
That data is highly not reliable. The other missing reliable data is total cloud coverage for the globe.
We have no conclusive data as to what ALBEDO is or is not doing that is the reality and the objective conclusion not the biased conclusion that ALBEDO increased and global temperatures did the same. That did NOT happen.
Hate to burst your bubble but I have. You can’t prove anything when it comes to what the current ALBEDO is, what trend has taken place and the climate response.
That is the objective bottom line. The article from junk science agrees with me.
Also if you look at the historical temperature data and contrast it with co2 the match is poor at best and temperature always leads co2.
You have a long way to go to prove AGW is real.
So I guess all the time periods in the past such as 1940-1975 when temperatures decreased while co2 increased mean the same as you said about albedo/temperature conclusions.
To short a time try.
entropic…”A short term temperature trend calculated from 1998 will always underestimate the long term trend because it starts with the high point of the strong 1998 El Nino”.
If you do enough calculus, you begin to understand that a tall, thin spike has the same area as a much shorter, fatter area. The 98 EN spike is tall and thin and it was followed by a wide, fat dip, with part of it below the baseline.
The IPCC claimed a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012, some 15 years. Look at the UAH graph and presume the average over those 15 years was 0.15C. Now look at the area between 1999 – 2001 below that average. It pretty well cancels out the 1998 EN warming area above 0.15C.
Now follow along the 0.15C line from 2001 – mid-2007. Those squiggles on the red curve pretty much cancel out as well. From mid-2007 – mid-2009 you have the extreme 2008 La Nina cooling, followed by the extreme 2010 EN warming. The area under the curve on the 0.15 anomaly more than cancels out the 2010 EN warming. That leaves a relatively flat area till 2015.
You alarmists are always on about cherry-picked ranges and I have just demonstrated there is no need to cherry pick anything. Fact is fact, the range from 1998 – 2015 was flat and that was 18 years.
No trend for 18 years.
ENTROPICMAN – a question if CO2 increases by 100ppm how much does the proportion of OLR returned to earth increase in response?
The calculator had it at .397 what is that value now?
Entropic man your still good at this make the best case.Just a discussion. We will learn..
Entropic man
The Skeptical Science article may be wrong. They do say there was a slight decrease in albedo from Ceres data.
From your LINK: “Over a five-year period, scientists found that albedo did increase slightly. Since 2003 the CERES satellite records shows a very slight reduction.”
But on the NASA link:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/5484/earths-albedo-in-decline
This one gives a value of what the slight reduction does:
” Over the 4-year span (2000 through 2004), the CERES instrument measured an albedo decrease of 0.0027, which equals 0.9 watt of energy per square meter retained in the Earth system.”
This amount of energy is greater than what has been actually measured from an increase of CO2.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/5484/earths-albedo-in-decline
Which gives a value of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade. The albedo effect was 0.9 W/m^2 in 4 years.
Salvatore if most correct. This effect has to be closely studied. The sensitivity of CO2 may be lower than prediction if current warming is a combination of effects.
Norman
Your link was written in 2005. This is the 2014 update.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
This is probably the key sentence.
“Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears. As noted in the anomaly plot below, global albedo rose and fell in different years, but did not necessarily head in either direction for long. “
Entropic man
Thank you for the updated data on Earth Albedo. From the graph it would indicate that albedo has been considered as a potential cause of warming and was eliminated because there is not long term trend to support the UAH long term trend.
Yes. It might have contributed to short term changes like the postwar and noughties pauses, but not the long term changes.
The atmospheric river reaches eastern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif
Salvatore, it’s a bit confusing that you can’t reply to the right message thread.
Which platform and browser are you using, perhaps there is a solution?
Thanks for trying, Svante,
I think in the spirit of Christmas we should all be nice to one another.
Does David Apell ever post anymore? I always was at odds with him. Hope is is alright.
He posted in this months update, under the name ‘David’.
thanks
Svante we are trying to solve the climate . How about you?
Just looking for new science, but the basics are solved:
https://tinyurl.com/y4z7sqkz
Yup, CO2 is keeping us cool. Without all that CO2, Earth would have an average temperature of 303K. That’s 15K hotter than it is.
303? Why not 313? 333? Cmon. When ur making em up, why not go bigger?
Sorry Nate, but that’s the calculated value. No more no less.
Nate
What ClintR pretends is absolute rubbish.
No atmospheric gas intercepting IR and reemitting only half of it up to space (and moreover, at a much lower temperature than the surface, thus with much less energy), can cool Earth.
That is the same level of pseudoknowledge as Moon not spinning about its axis, or Einstein being wrong, or GPS not needing to integrate relativity concepts, et etc etc.
One day, ClintR will come here around and tell us that we can’t be sure that Earth is not flat.
J.-P. D.
Svante Entropic man wanted me to come up with something for ALBEDO.
You should try the calculator I posted AT 7:38PM it is fabulous!
salvatore…your openin comment on this thread…”Trend is up no matter how you slice it. Can’t go against the data”.
If the data is retrieved directly from the NOAA satellites by UAH then I trust the data. If it is retrieved by NOAA personnel and passed on to UAH, I suspect it has been fudged.
Since NOAA created the format for the data collection on the sats they have all the info required to create an algorithm that could slide it up the temperature scale. They have done that with surface station data why would they not do it with sat data?
There is no explanation for why the 2016 El Nino warming has persisted for 4 years. The 1998 EN spike did not even last a year. What’s so different about the 2016 EN?
CO2 could not possibly cause warming to that degree and over such a narrow range. The only other explanation coming to mind is the alarmists working at NOAA. And let’s face it, they are alarmists who support the anthropogenic theory. When the IPCC declared the lack of a warming trend from 1998 – 2012, NOAA immediately went back and fudged the SST to show a warming trend. Their sole purpose has been to show a continuing warming trend and the last bastion against it was the UAH analysis.
GR said: There is no explanation for why the 2016 El Nino warming has persisted for 4 years. The 1998 EN spike did not even last a year. Whats so different about the 2016 EN?
– Increase in GHG forcing
– Decrease in aerosol forcing
– Decrease in albedo from low Arctic sea ice
– Persistent positive Earth Energy Imbalance
BTW…despite the La Nina NASA just reported the warmest November surface temperature in their record and said 2020 will now likely take the #1 position over 2016.
Gordon was wanting explanations, not beliefs. None of your beliefs are supported by reality.
bdg…”despite the La Nina NASA just reported the warmest November surface temperature in their record and said 2020 will now likely take the #1 position over 2016″.
NASA GISS reported 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level of about 35%. The only difference between that lie and the most recent lie is they have not included their confidence level.
What was the NOAA lie? The reported 2014 as the warmest year ever with a 48% confidence level. That means a NOAA lie is about 13% better than a GISS lie.
So including the uncertainty on temperature anomalies is lying?
bdgwx. what word would you prefer for “perverting reality”?
The back of my envelope tells me that after 11 months the average for 2020 is 1.03C.
The 2016 record was 1.01C.
A 2020 record is looking probable. For 2020 to come in below 2016 would require December 2020 to come in below 0.68C. There hasn’t been a month that cold since 2014.
“The reported 2014 as the warmest year ever with a 48% confidence level.”
For the umpteenth time, no. That figure is the probability, not the confidence level.
You got it wrong for NOAA. Their probability estimate for 2014 being the warmest year in their data set was 38%.
https://tinyurl.com/ybwqfrre
The next ranked warmest year was 2010, with the probability it was so being 23% for GISS, and 18% for NOAA.
Why the difference? Because their yearly values are slightly different, as is the difference between 1st, 2nd, 3rd ranked etc.
I would guess that they also use different methodologies to estimate the probability, but I only know about the NOAA methodology.
“Annual rankings of global temperature are an important component of climate monitoring. However, there is some degree of uncertainty for every yearly value in the global temperature time series, which leads to uncertainty in annual rankings as well. This study applies a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center’s global land-ocean surface temperature (NOAATMP) time series….”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013GL057999
By the way:
“Figure 2 shows the 95% confidence intervals associated with each annual ranking (using the independent assumption simulations). Not surprisingly, the range of rankings is larger during the earlier half of the record when the NOAATMP standard errors were larger.”
https://tinyurl.com/y9pobxg3
Liquid water IR spectrum first two graphs. Yours was for gas form.
The consensus contention is that initially CO2 increase warms the planet and then increased water vapor from the warmed water adds to the warming as a feedback.
The amount of WV increase as a result of temperature increase is readily calculated from the known vapor pressure vs temperature for water given that the percent increase in WV is about the same as the percent increase in vapor pressure.
Water vapor has been measured worldwide by satellite by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. They report the total precipitable water (TPW) anomalies at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202011.time_series.txt
(the last 6 digits are year and month of the available report)
Measured WV has increased faster than possible from warming. This demonstrates that the WV increase was not caused by the CO2 increase and that CO2 increase did not cause planet warming. CO2 does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate
https://tinyurl.com/yxehr2pj
in your plot the ratio of trends WV/(T-based-predicted WV)
is 0.435/0.299 = 1.45 when you use UAH TLT Temperature.
But the ratio of trends of tropospheric temperature TLT for the two different analyses of TLT RSS/UAH is 0.236/.143 = 1.65
Thus you will get a much higher trend in predicted WV using RSS TLT, than using UAH, and it may match or exceed the observed WV Trend.
Have you checked that?
Yes, and they are very close to a match. But, because measured WV has to be more, that demonstrates that temperature increase reported by RSS is faster than possible.
“Yes, and they are very close to a match. But, because measured WV has to be more, that demonstrates that temperature increase reported by RSS is faster than possible.”
Uhhhh. I thought the plot was supposed to be EVIDENCE that WV trend ‘has to be more’?
Now you are saying that is already a fact, and can be used to demonstrate something else?
Oh Dan Dan Dan…
Apparently you are unable to figure out why WV has to be increasing faster than possible as the result of temperature increase. Irrespective of the WV increase from temperature increase, humanity adds more.
“you are unable to figure out why WV has to be increasing faster than possible”
But your plot was literally presented as a test of that hypothesis!
“Measured WV has increased faster than possible from warming. This demonstrates that the WV increase was not caused by the CO2 increase”
Then when the plot FAILS to support the hypothesis with RSS data, you THEN ASSUME the hypothesis MUST BE TRUE, in order to reject the data!
Cmon Dan, that is just plain awful science.
Picking the steepest reported trend as the right trend is awful science. RSS v3.3 was following UAH. Apparently v3.3 did not support their agenda so they abandoned it. Adjusting data to support an agenda is not just awful science, it is science malpractice.
RSS is just weighted at a lower altitude, so it’s more like the surface record, isn’t it?
“Picking the steepest reported trend as the right trend is awful science”
Didn’t say pick. Said it cant be rejected that way, in normal science.
Nate, Svante
When I read Pangburn’s utter nonsense:
” Picking the steepest reported trend as the right trend is awful science. RSS v3.3 was following UAH. Apparently v3.3 did not support their agenda so they abandoned it. Adjusting data to support an agenda is not just awful science, it is science malpractice .”
I get a big, big laugh.
So so!
When RSS ‘abandons’ a revision, it is allegedly ‘science malpractice’.
Very, very interesting.
Namely because years before RSS detected a cooling bias in his evaluation of the microwave emission data, UAH did exactly the same, but with the opposite sign: they detected a WARMING bias, what led to UAH5.6 getting soon replaced my the much ‘cooler’ UAH6.0.
You will never hear people like Pangburn talking about UAH5.6!
Most people don’t know where it is located in the UAH data tree, and some even pretend it never existed… Memory can be very, very selective.
Luckily, I have it in my database , and do pretty good know where to find it.
The UAH5.6 trend probably would be today at about 0.18 C / decade, if the revision had not been shut down in July 2017.
But for Pangburn, that’s no problem: UAH5.6 was simply… wrong, and UAH6.0 is… simply good.
J.-P. D.
Is it really that simple Svante?
Probably not☺
I do think they’re all OK though.
Dr. Spencer is very fair and puts up with us including myself.
I can go over board at times.
This is UAH linear trends for 1998-2015 and 1999-2015.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/every/trend
What a difference a year makes!
To emphasise my point.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2016/every/trend
Three linear trend graphs.
The red line is 1998-2015. This graph shows a cooling trend, with an El Nino at the beginning.
The green line is 1999-2015. No ENSO events and an intermediate warming trend.
The blue line is 1999 to 2015. This graph shows the strongest warming trend, with an El Nino at the end.
This is how cherry-picking works. You choose start and end points which give the trend you want to believe.
1998-2015 makes good denialist propoganda. 1999-2016 makes good alarmist propoganda. 1999-2015 gives the best indication of the actual trend.
Correction.
“The blue line is 1999 to 2016. This graph shows the strongest warming trend, with an El Nino at the end.”
entropic…”This is how cherry-picking works. You choose start and end points which give the trend you want to believe”.
It was the Mother of All Alarmists, the IPCC, who declared 1998 – 2012 a warming hiatus. Till 2012, NOAA showed the same warming hiatus, then they went back and fudged the SST to create a warming during that period.
Are you claiming an alarmist organization cherry-picked that range to show a flat trend?
Tell me, what possible reason could NOAA, the Mother of All Fudgers, have for retroactively fudging the SST to erase the IPCC’s warming hiatus?
The graphs used UAH data.
I repeat…it was the IPCC who declared 1998 – 2012 a warming hiatus. Are you claiming the IPCC cherry picked that range?
‘Skeptics’ had been yakking so hard about temp trends from 1998, getting in the media with it and even taking it to congress, that the IPCC decided to look at the issue. It’s flatly false that the IPCC initiated this topic.
The IPCC also said that the period showed a slight trend of 0.05 C/decade, and that the trend was not statistically significant. IPCC also said that short-term trends are not indicative of underlying trends.
All of which you’ve managed to overlook for 7 years.
“Tell me, what possible reason could NOAA, the Mother of All Fudgers, have for retroactively fudging the SST to erase the IPCC’s warming hiatus?”
The NOAA trend for 1998 to 2012 as reported by the IPCC at the time was:
0.037 C/decade
Hiatus?
The adjustments to the NOAA record since have resulted in an increase of this trend for the same period to:
0.086 C/decade
All global climate data, including UAH, is updated and changed on a regular basis.
bdg…”So including the uncertainty on temperature anomalies is lying?”
Do I really have to explain the lies of NOAA and GISS to you? When you claim 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level under 50% you are saying you don’t know. So why say it? The standard confidence level in science is 90% and NOAA and GISS both know that. So why would they offer up 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level of 48% and 35% respectively?
Here, I have a good one for you. 2020 was the coolest year on record. My confidence level is 0.5%. You don’t have to dig for it as you did with the NOAA and GISS statements re 2014. It was hidden away while the media blasted out the headlines, ‘2014 hottest year ever!!!’.
Liars!!!
GR said: So why would they offer up 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level of 48% and 35% respectively?
It has to do with the way normal distributions work. I think Berkeley Earth has the best visualization of what is going on.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Probability_Distribution-768×433.png
Notice how the probability distributions overlap. Whenever you have only 2 distributions to consider (like 2016 and 2019) the confidence in your ordering of the values is > 50%. But when you have 3 or more (like 2005, 2010, and 2014) the confidence in your ordering can easily be < 50%.
GR said: Here, I have a good one for you. 2020 was the coolest year on record. My confidence level is 0.5%.
That is quite a claim. Can you post an image similar to the one from Berkeley Earth above showing the probability distributions for the 2 coolest years showing that their probability distributions perfectly overlap? Don’t worry…we can build the probability distributions for you if you can point us to the dataset you used to support your claim.
bdgwx, it appears you are now out of rehab and well on the road to recovery. You’re back trolling around believing you are correcting things. Great.
Now you can correct your nonsense back when you had your breakdown, one sentence at a time:
“So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2.”
Wrong bdgwx, that was your hallucination caused by substance abuse. I didn’t make it up. That is from your GHE nonsense. It’s the “steel greenhouse” model where back-radiation supposedly raises the surface temperature. It is based on the bogus equation, and is a good example of why the equation is wrong.
But, you’re stuck with it. You’ve chosen to believe in that nonsense, so you get to believe in all of it. For the sphere to be emitting 480 W/m^2, it must be at a temperature of 303K. But Earth is only at 288K. That obviously means radiative gases are cooling the planet by 15K below what it should be.
If you now understand how stupid your first sentence was, we can move on to your second sentence.
GR,
BTW…the value you are looking for is sometimes called the overlap coefficient. It is a bit tricky to compute, but there are formulas and example source code for doing so if you google for it. You can also use Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the value easily.
bdg…I was joking about the 0.5% confidence level. I was trying to demonstrate how absurd confidence level can become when not applied at the 90% level.
Why the heck would anyone declare a confidence level of 48% to support a statement that 2014 was the warmest year ever. 50% is a coin toss so you are claiming heads it is the warmest year, tails its not.
The only reason NOAA and GISS used such idiotic confidence levels is that they are both corrupt alarmists trying to push the anthropogenic agenda. The have both lied to make it appear warming due to anthropogenic sources is setting record temperature levels.
The values NOAA and GISS report are at the 95% confidence interval. The issue is that when you order a population by the measured quantity the confidence that the relative ordering is true is greatly reduced when the individual probability distributions significantly overlap. That’s just the way the math works. Omitting the uncertainty on individual years and confidence levels of the relative ordering of years would likely be considered unethical by some. But even if they didn’t openly report them we’d all compute them anyway. Your argument here is bizarre because it is insinuating that not disclosing these details is preferable to disclosing them which obviously makes no sense. And how you equate this to being idiotic and lying is even more bizarre.
To help you better understand what is going on consider this population of data ranked in descending order. The uncertainty on the values are reported as 2 sigma (95%).
A: 1.00 +/- 0.05
B: 0.98 +/- 0.04
C: 0.96 +/- 0.06
What is the probability that A is positioned correctly?
What is the probability that C has a higher value than A or B?
This is actually relatively easy to solve if you use the Monte Carlo method. Give it a shot.
GR,
Actually, saying Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, quoted a confidence level of 48% is giving him too much credit.
He actually stated that 2014 was the hottest year ever, and used his high level mathematical expertise to calculate a probability of 38%, not 48%!
In other words, nearly twice as likely to be the direct opposite of his hottest year ever pronouncement.
Standard alarmist practice. Say any stupid thing at all, believing that nobody will dare to question a self appointed expert!
A triumph of faith over fact.
And now there’s a 55% chance that 2020 will end up the warmest on record. Want to bet?
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/2020-likely-end-hottest-year-record-rcna199
Svante, there’s a 100% chance that the physics does not support AGW.
Svante,
On record? According to which record?
The Australian BOM are such AGW believers that they declared all temperature records prior to 1910 unreliable. As to hottest year, considering that it is impossible to accurately measure the Earths surface temperature, what are you saying is hotter?
You are as stupid as Gavin Schmidt, who quietly withdrew his belligerent offer to bet on the future, when I tried to get him to specify the parameters. Maybe you would like to bet that you can predict the future more accurately than I?
How stupid do you want to look?
GR, here is another example for you to work on.
A: 0.666 +/- 0.05
B: 0.663 +/- 0.05
C: 0.659 +/- 0.05
What is the probability that A is in position 1?
bdg…”GR, here is another example for you to work on”.
What are the chances that you cannot accept what I am saying and that you are intent on defending the chicanery of NOAA and GISS?
“The issue is that when you order a population by the measured quantity the confidence that the relative ordering is true is greatly reduced when the individual probability distributions significantly overlap”.
You can try that double-talk on someone who has not studied probability and statistics at a university level. When NOAA and GISS claim 2014 as the warmest year ever, and NOAA’s confidence level is 48% and the GISS CL is 38%, they are straight-out lying/cheating.
Both institutes have been lying/cheating all along. On one occasion, GISS, under James Hansen, tried to switch the hottest year in the US from 1934 to 1998. Fortunately, they were caught by Steve McIntyre at climateaudit dot com.
Why you alarmists continue to defend these blatant cheaters is the question. When I submitted a direct quote from NOAA that they had slashed their global reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500, I was challenged by several alarmists trying to explain the NOAA chicanery.
Why would a scientific institution discard 75% of its reporting station while replacing them with synthesized temperatures from a climate model. Since 1990, they have discarded 90% of their reporting stations. The answer is obvious. The warming they have predicted is not there and they have devised a method of manufacturing warming where none exists.
GR,
In regards to your claim that NASA is lying…would you mind showing me mathematically how they are lying? What is your answer to the question directly above?
bdgwx, in regards to your false accusations and misrepresentations…
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
Were you somehow “medicated” when you made that comment, or are you just that incompetent and irresponsible?
UAH data is my gold standard, and it shows the temperature trend is rising of late.
That is a fact the question is why.
CO2 could be one of the reasons but then again maybe not.
We have gone over possible alternatives the past few days.
I just wish the climate did not take so much time to unfold. It takes far to long for are short relative life to witness much.
I’m curious…what is it about UAH that makes it the gold standard for you?
I agree with your last point. It is frustrating to have to wait so long for things to play out.
salvatore…”That is a fact the question is why”.
That’s a good place to leave it for now. No one knows why the 2016 EN came along and why it has persisted for 4 years. CO2 cannot begin to explain such rapid warming as in 2016 therefore it has nothing to do with the current state of affairs.
Salvatore
Why is UAH your ‘gold standard’ ?
Let me try to answer for you in all humility.
The reason is simply that you are a fan of Earth cooling soon, and therefore tend to refute all temperature measurements differing from what you hope and expect.
But the reality is not so simple, Salvatore.
You first would need to accurately prove that UAH’s measurements in the lower troposphere are more accurate than those made by both RSS and NOAA STAR.
NOAA STAR’s measurements in the middle pert of the troposphere, for example, are incredibly similar to those performed by UAH in the lower troposphere – since 2015, at the time their revision 6.0 replaced 5.6.
But… neither you nor me are able to decide who is right.
J.-P. D.
UAH is showing a rising temperature trend so be it . I go with what ever it says I believe in the integrity of UAH.
Two reasons I think Dr. Spencer is neutral and I trust the concept of measuring temperatures using satellites. It seems like a very good way to do it.
No need to wait, there plenty of proxies that can tell you about the global warming that already happened.
svante…”No need to wait, there plenty of proxies that can tell you about the global warming that already happened”.
I am currently reading a recently published book on the Little Ice Age and it is based on proxies. The Viking community on Greenland was thriving between 1000AD and 1300AD then it suddenly disappeared, concurrent with the beginning of the Little Ice Age. The sudden cold played havoc with their crops and they resorted to fishing for survival.
If you are referring to ice core proxies, they also reveal the 400+ years of colder climate produced by the LIA on Greenland and elsewhere so any of your warming proxies indicated a recovery from the LIA.
There are dozens of proxy types to choose from, have your pick. You need global coverage if you want to know global temperature.
The LIA was certainly not good for the Greenland colony.
The Portuguese globalization effort was even worse:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200106103457.htm
Now the LIA and MWP are history, as we are breaking through the Holocene optimum.
https://tinyurl.com/y25t5le4
Svante, we know you believe in your cult.
Do you have ANY science to support AGW?
And I’m talking REAL science, not a sack of papers that mean nothing. If all you have are “papers”, then give us your very best one.
svante…”The LIA was certainly not good for the Greenland colony”.
According to this book, written by a prof in the department of history at Ohio State, the Spaniards trying to establish a colony in Florida circa 1520 AD reported extremely cold weather and snowstorms. Near the present location of Galveston, Texas, they reported similar conditions with mixed snow and sleet.
Natives North Americans, in the same era, as far south as Florida, were having difficulty with the cold temperatures with crop failures.
The books revealed an interesting explanation of the word climate. In those days, circa 1500 AD, climate was rated by latitude. They believed that all climate at all latitudes should be the same anywhere. They were puzzled by the climate in the Americas, especially in the southern parts near the Gulf, being far different than what they had expected.
According to the author, the Atlantic seaboard is affected by winds from the inner continent and the LIA affected those temperatures causing the seaboard to be much colder, even as far south as Florida.
Even today, we are affected by Arctic air in the winter. You can imagine the effect of that Arctic air if the LIA made the Arctic even colder.
Interesting Gordon, thanks for giving me the highlights.
But that is because you believe in it while others do not.
salvatore…”But that is because you believe in it while others do not”.
Svante specializes in being smarmy.
Robertson
And you are this blog’s greatest specialist in discrediting, denigrating, distorting all scientific results which do not match your arrogant, ignorant and unscientific narrative.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Im shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Heaping all your praise on Robertson! Dont you love me any more?
Im cut to the quick! A tiny tear is running down my cherubic cheek.
Oh well.
Gordon says I’m smarmy, I feel flattered.
Bindidon, thanks for your “arrogant, ignorant, and unscientific narrative”.
Maybe you could have sounded smarter if you’d used 7-8 different languages?
Belief. You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means the same for you and the scientists.
Ask the scientist to explain why global temperatures cooled from 1940-1975 while CO2 concentrations were on a rapid increase.
Why not then if now?
Aerosols increased substantially after WWII until about 1980. They have been relatively stable since.
b,
And? So aerosols dont prevent IR from radiating directly to space? As far as I know, aerosols absorb your beloved LWIR even better than the CO2 which you worship so assiduously!
Did water vapour increase or decrease? After all, its supposedly the most important greenhouse gas!
Or maybe you really have no clue, and just regurgitate whatever some other idiot said.
https://www.marketcalls.in/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Surface-Temperature.jpg
You haven’t commented on the graph so I shall. This is the pattern you would expect it the long term trend is due to increasing CO2, with other factors such as albedo and ENSO causing short term variations in temperature above or below the long term trend.
EM,
ENSO is just a word for a pattern of temperature changes. It is an observation, not a causation. It causes nothing.
Get some clue, at least!
“ENSO is just a word for a pattern of temperature changes. It causes nothing.”
Flynson has very strange logic indeed.
Weather events no longer cause things.
Hurricanes are just a word for a pattern of wind and rain, they don’t CAUSE destruction.
Snow accumulation can longer be blamed on snowstorms.
Sweat can no longer be blamed on high temperatures.
Nate,
Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really unable to comprehend simple English?
Why would weather events not cause *things*?
Why would hurricanes not cause destruction?
And so on.
I referred to the definition of ENSO. If you disagree, just say so, and provide your reasons.
Or just carry on avoiding reality. The choice is yours.
Nope, neither one.
El Ninos are ocean events that reduce the upwelling of deep cold ocean water, and thus raise the temperature of the Pacific tropical ocean.
This CAUSES the troposphere to warm and to transport that heat to different parts of the Globe. As a result, the average global surface and troposphere temperatures rises.
La Ninas are the opposite, and CAUSE the average Global surface and troposphere temperatures to drop.
These rises and falls are obvious in the UAH record.
If CO2 was the only cause you would expect a much smoother temperature curve.
If temperature was driving CO2 you would expect a much noisier CO2 curve.
EM,
You are a slow learner. Repeat after me – CO2 heats nothing. nor do ENSO, Nio, Nina, or any of their siblings. Correlation is not causation.
CO2 heats nothing. nor do ENSO, Nio, Nina, or any of their siblings.
That’s right, CO2 blocks cooling to space.
No silly snowflake Svante. CO2 emits to space just like any radiative gas.
Your cult has misinformed you again, and you swallowed it without question.
Half is sent back down.
Much better, silly Svante.
About half of the energy gets emitted to space, never to return. The other half is emitted back to the surface, but does not have enough energy to melt an ice cube.
“The other half is emitted back to the surface, but does not have enough energy to melt an ice cube.”
Clint seemingly has made progress. Now he admits that back radiation is a thing that could warm the surface.
If only he believed in 1LOT, he could make more progress.
Nate, if you can’t face reality, you’re an idiot.
If you can’t oomment without misrepresenting someone, you’re a troll.
Guess where that put you….
Yes, now he just needs to sum up his ice cube input and output to see whether it will melt or not.
Silly snowflake Svante, here’s your chance to prove you’re not just another idiot troll like Norman:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-573895
ClintR, when will you learn, ice cubes can not be 800,000K.
Silly snowflake Svante, you missed your chance to prove you’re not just another idiot troll like Norman.
New York it is white, as in Christmas.
This is the current distribution of ozone in the northern hemisphere’s stratosphere. The accumulated ozone sinks over the Bering Sea, making room for water vapor. That’s why the lows reach Alaska and push air from Canada to the southeast of the US.
https://i.ibb.co/cvnytFy/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
What does the current distribution of ozone tell us Ren? Thanks
For me the climate works on all different scales some short some long and sometimes at odds with one another.
SHORTEST TO LONGEST CLIMATE FACTORS
VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY/POLLUTION
ENSO
ATMOSPEHRIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS
SURFACE OCEANIC TEMPERATURES
SEA ICE
SNOW COVER
CLOUD COVER
CO2
WATER VAPOR
SOLAR ACTIVITY
GEO MAGNETIC ACTIVITY
OCEANIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
CONTINENTAL DRIFT/ MEAN LAND ELEVATION
OF COURSE THE RARE COSMIC EVENT WHICH COULD TURN THE CLIMATE UPSIDE DOWN.
Does any one agree or see this different ?
The geomagnetic field has a huge impact on ozone accumulation and atmospheric circulation in the fall-winter-spring period, especially in periods when the solar wind is weak, as it is today.
https://i.ibb.co/9pzrVJ4/Screenshot-1.png
SANTIAGO (Reuters) – More than 30,000 tremors have rocked Antarctica since the end of August, according to the University of Chile, a spike in seismic activity that has intrigued researchers who study the remote, snowbound continent.
Scientists with the universitys National Seismological Center said the small quakes – including one stronger shake of magnitude 6 – were detected in the Bransfield Strait, a 60-mile wide (96-km) ocean channel between the South Shetland Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula.
Several tectonic plates and microplates meet near the strait, leading to frequent rumbling, but the past three months have been unusual, according to the center.
Most of the seismicity is concentrated at the beginning of the sequence, mainly during the month of September, with more than a thousand earthquakes a day, the center said.
The shakes have become so frequent that the strait itself, once increasing in width at a rate of about 7 or 8 mm (0.30 inch) a year is now expanding 15 cm (6 inches) a year, the center said.
Its a 20-fold increase … which suggests that right this minute … the Shetland Islands are separating more quickly from the Antarctic peninsula, said Sergio Barrientos, the centers director.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-quake-antarctica/antarctica-rocked-by-30000-tremors-in-3-months-chilean-scientists-say-idUSKBN28Q2XO
The global sea surface temperature continues to decline.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
revisiting Swannies experiment in which he located a metal plate over a heated plate then claimed the unheated metal plate was radiating IR back to the heated plate and raising its temperature.
Quite by accident today (serendipity??) I was using a double boiler arrangement on the stove today. It is comprised of a lower pot in which water is boiled and an upper pot with holes in the base in which vegetables can be steamed. A lid goes on top of the upper pot to keep steam contained in the upper pot which has been boiled off water in the lower pot.
I usually get the lower pot boiling with the upper pot in place with no lid. When the water is boiling, I half fill the upper pot with frozen vegetables. When I added the frozen vegetables today, I noticed that the water stopped boiling almost immediately. According to Swannie, the water should have started boiling harder as the upper pot radiated heat back to the water.
Certainly, Norman has claimed ice will radiate to water and increase its temperature, so why did the water stop boiling with the frozen vegetables in the upper pot?
There is a partial explanation in that the upper pot cooled due to the added frozen veggies and via conduction, heat was transferred from the lower pot. Still, the base of the lower pot is touching an electric stove ring with water at 100C on the other side, and should not be cooled to the extent that the water stopped boiling.
A more plausible explanation is that the cooled upper pot reduced the steam temperature in the lower pot causing the pressure to decrease. That would have affected the boiling.
But hey, according to Swannie, Norman, et al, the frozen veggies should have radiated IR back to the boiling water, maintaining the boil.
Gordon Robertson
Is it possible for you to be as stupid as your post suggests? You are almost as stupid as ClintR (which is a very hard task to accomplish!).
Norman (me) has never stated that “Norman has claimed ice will radiate to water and increase its temperature”
I give complex explanations that you are too ignorant to understand and they you post how stupid you are when you repeat what you are not capable of understanding (just like the brain-dead ClintR).
Water radiates away more energy than it receives from ice!! Do you get that? Probably not, your reasoning ability is severely limited.
If you heat water with an external energy source, surrounding it with ice will cause it to reach a higher steady state temperature than if if was surrounded by colder dry ice. You can’t hope to understand or reason it out. But you will get it wrong, that is more than certain.
Norman, what Gordon is referring to is your confusion about ice confirmed by your unwillingness to face reality. You ran from the simple question about ice cubes. You run from reality. Want to run again?
An ice cube rests on a table very close, but not touching, a thermometer. The ice cube and everything in the room is at 32 F.
A second ice cube is placed on the other side of the thermometer, very close, but not touching.
Will the second ice cube raise the temperature indicated by the thermometer?
A) Yes
B) No
What is Norman’s answer?
N,
What do you mean by surrounding? If the dry ice (radiating 15 um wavelength) is touching the water, the water stops being liquid. If it isn’t touching, then its insulating capability will depend on its optical properties, like transparency, reflectivity, etc., WRT the wavelengths emitted by the water at a given temperature.
You may be aware that the Earth is surrounded by a medium with a nominal temperature of 4 K or so.
This is far colder than dry ice, so according to you, surrounding water on the surface should result in hotter temperatures!
You really dont understand basic physics, let alone the physics of radiation, do you?
Try being specific. For example, you might be silly enough to say you are trying to heat the water from above (like the Sun is supposed to heat the deep oceans)! Give it a try sometime – in reality, rather than the make-believe world of climate alarmists.
All your silliness always involves a heat source of unspecified location, unspecified intensity, and unspecified temperature! Get a grip – on reality, that is.
Mike Flynn
You are another stupid poster that is not able to understand anything people post. You repeat stupid things over and over and people respond sometimes. Usually to their immediate frustration. Once they realize how ignorant and unthinking you are they usually give up reasoning with you.
Norman, you can’t answer my simple question. You don’t understand science.
All you understand is trolling.
Norman,
Your mind has been taken over by your fantasy. I am not your imaginary adversary, Mike Flynn.
Or Santa Claus, for that matter.
However, I will point out to others that you refuse to specify what you are talking about, as usual. Of course, ice at any temperature higher than that of dry ice will be warmer. What is so novel about hot things being warmer than not-so-hot things?
It doesnt change the fact that you cannot use the radiated energy from even an infinite amount of ice to increase the temperature of the most miniscule amount of water.
Similarly, you cannot use the radiated energy from even an infinite amount of CO2 to raise the temperature of anything warmer – for example, if the CO2 is part of the atmosphere, then it cannot make the warmer surface even hotter.
Your pathetic attempts at amateur magical illusions only convince fellow alarmists, and the mentally challenged.
Hmm. I take a mercury thermometer and put in in a freezer until it indicates -20C.
I then put the thermometer with a bulb at -20C between two blocks of ice at 0C and watch it warm to 0C. How come ice can warm a thermometer?
entropic…”I then put the thermometer with a bulb at -20C between two blocks of ice at 0C and watch it warm to 0C. How come ice can warm a thermometer?”
Do you really think the ice at 0C will remain at 0C long enough for the thermometer to reach 0C? And, when have you ever encountered ice at 0C? Normally they come out of the freezer at -18C or so.
E, we know you can pervert reality. But, can you deal with the issue without such trickery?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-573895
Norman can’t.
Kick Gordon out of the kitchen, he doesn’t know the difference between a double boiler and a steamer.
I could tell you why the water in your steamer stopped boiling, but you wouldn’t understand anyway.
The polar vortex forecast in the lower stratosphere shows a clear track for Arctic air masses over Alaska to the interior of North America. You can see the polar vortex blockage over the Bering Sea, where ozone accumulates in the stratosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2020/12/23/0600Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-97.43,87.95,372
https://i.ibb.co/bKMq15G/gfs-t70-nh-f120.png
ozone accumulation warming the stratosphere where it is causing ridging correct ren?
This is the current distribution of ozone in the Northern Hemisphere
https://i.ibb.co/ZSyNfT5/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
and is forecast in five days.
https://i.ibb.co/GMq0t4K/gfs-toz-nh-f120.png
Salvatore,
the temperature of ozone only shows its radiation into space. More important are the waves produced by ozone clusters in the stratosphere. These waves descend into the lower atmosphere, blocking the polar vortex in these regions.
Molecular weight – O = 16
– O2 = 32
– N = 14
– N2 = 28
– O3 = 48
Ozone packets are heavier than the surrounding air and therefore sink lower. Ozone in the stratosphere does the opposite of water vapor in the troposphere.
Salvatore, the circulation in the troposphere is consistent with cirulation in the lower stratosphere. Look at the pressure distribution and the direction of the Canadian fronts.
https://i.ibb.co/SKjkKVv/Screenshot-1.png
A sharp jump in the SOI index over the past few days.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Good info Ren.
WUWT’s ElNinoMeter recently moved up, from its lowest value since at least one year (-1.0) to currently -0.75:
https://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
Strange. Because the guy in fact was designed as an antialarmist gadget.
*
And it fits perfectly to BoM’s forecast:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=NINO34
But even more interesting is that the Indian Oceanic Dipole did not even bypass its negative threshold:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=IOD
If in two weeks we see below the yellow bar moving from 50 to 60, then La Nina won’t survive for long:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
J.-P. D.
he goal was growth capitalist growth so that the future would be bigger, fatter, richer, more luxurious than the present. Which worked fine until you come up against the planets limits.
Stephen Baxter
entropic…”Which worked fine until you come up against the planets limits”.
Do you mean real limits or those imagined by myopic eco-weenies?
Europe would be trapped in the Russian frost in ten days.
Ren what is your fcst for NE U.S.A coast for few days before Christmas . Do you think trough set up far enough EAST to keep us out of the warm air or do you think trough will be to our WEST?
It will be a beautiful, white and frosty Christmas throughout the eastern US.
Lows from the Pacific will reach US northwest. There will be snowstorms in the mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/LZxm7jK/gfs-z100-nh-f168.png
The temperature drops in the Northeast of the US.
https://i.ibb.co/GJm8JNp/Screenshot-3.png
What do you show for the 23rd of Dec? That trough is going to be somewhere in the eastern half of the U.S. How far East is the question.
The valley seems to move to the furthest east on December 25th. It will probably form low on the east coast.
https://i.ibb.co/PFPYyR1/Screenshot-1.png
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2020/12/27/0600Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-107.43,41.15,712
Gordon has the yearly rankings thing completely wrong. Despite being corrected multiple times over several years.
The values he quotes are NOT the ‘confidence levels’.
In early 2014, NOAA and GISS issued a joint statement that 2014 was the warmest year. During the press briefing they showed a slide. This one.
https://tinyurl.com/ybwqfrre
48% is NOT the confidence level, or confidence interval.
It is the probability that 2014 is the warmest ranked year (for NOAA’s data set).
The second ranked year, 2010, had a probability of 18% of being the warmest year in the record.
You can read up on the methodology here, if you’re interested.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013GL057999
GISS gave 2014 a 38% probability of being the warmest year in their record, with 2010 having a 23% probability of being the warmest.
barry, NASA GISS indicated 38%, NOAA indicated 48%. Did that mean that NOAA needed more funding?
Funding is part of the agenda. You don’t see GOV agencies saying “We have too much money”. Science has become “$cience”.
And speaking of “agenda”, bdgwx stated “The values NOAA and GISS report are at the 95% confidence interval.”
Why aren’t you attacking bdgwx equally? Is it because you don’t attack your other cult members?
barry
” Despite being corrected multiple times over several years. ”
People like Robertson you may contradict and correct as long as you want. They silently ignore that, and endlessly repeat their boring, egocentric trash.
Robertson is the one here who discredits, denigrates, distorts the most – regardless what he talks about, be it climate, Einstein, viruses or even astronomy.
Luckily, only his few affiliated altar boys listen to his lies. All others only smile for him.
J.-P. D.
JD, is your comment an example of being a contrarian, or a troll?
Both?
Exactly.
There is a difference between NASA’s 95% CI of around +/- 0.05 for individual annual means and the probability that a particular year would truly land in a particular position in a given ranking.
NOAA and NASA report their values with a 95% CI envelope. It is because of this 95% CI envelope that we can only say with a given probability that the year with the highest annual mean would truly land in position #1. 2010 was close enough to other years that the probability ended up being < 50%. That's just the way the math works out.
I was hoping I could get GR to understand this difference by having him attempt to compute these probabilities himself.
I still think Berkeley Earth provides the best visualization of what is going on.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Probability_Distribution-768×433.png
Your link didn’t work for me, maybe this one does:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Probability_Distribution.png
Oh yeah. That’s better. Thanks.
Does that mean you are 95% confident that you both have no clue?
Berkeley Earths silly graph refers to a Global Mean Temperature Anomaly. Temperature of what? Not the land surface, not the sea surface. Maybe air temperature? Nope, certainly not over the 70% of the surface covered by oceans, and meaningless over land for a variety of reasons.
Berekely Earth is a non profit organisation, begging all and sundry for funds to keep its operators looking important. Their target audience is gullible donkeys like you – except wealthy ones, of course.
Im guessing you dont think Berkeley Earth is worthy of a donation. Not quite that gullible, or just mean?
It’s land and sea surface temperature combined.
“Berkeley Earths silly graph refers to a Global Mean Temperature Anomaly.”
Its pretty obvious to anybody with a bit of intelligence what this means.
Flynnson seems unable to comprehend it.
Well there we have it.
Stationary tropical depression over northern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif
Dr. Spencer, I think I have a lab experiment that can answer many of the questions that are discussed on your blog. The experiment would be to isolate the impact of LWIR on CO2. I think there is a lot of confusion about the conservation of energy, but this issue involves the conversion of energy from one form to another. EM radiation travels through outer space without ever losing any energy. Only when the EM radiation strikes a molecule is that energy converted to thermal energy. Shine visible light through a flask of CO2 and the light simply passes through the gas without causing any warming. If the molecule doesn’t absorb the photons, it doesn’t get converted to heat energy.
Because LWIR of 15 Microns is consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degree C, the experiment would be to:
1) Fill a flask with pure 100% CO2.
2) Place a 15 Micron LWIR Filter on the top of the flask
3) Use dry ice to get the CO2 below -80 degree C
4) Administer LWIR of 15 micron to the CO2
5) Make sure that the flask either transmits or reflects LWIR, and does not thermalize it
6) Record the temperature of the CO2
My bet is that the LWIR won’t increase the temperature of the CO2 above -80 degrees C. If it does, CO2 would be emitting radiation at a higher energy than it is absorbing. If that is the case, CO2 is better than cold fusion 🙂
OMG,
“Because LWIR of 15 Microns is consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degree C, the experiment would be to:”
Again, your equating a narrow band of wavelengths with a full BB spectrum @-80K makes NO SENSE.
“My bet is that the LWIR wont increase the temperature of the CO2 above -80 degrees C.”
You need to work with fluxes in W/m2, and undserstand that reducing outgoing flux, even in a wl band, matters. Because its all about net energy gain or loss and 1LOT.
Nate, you do understand the physics here right? This is a quantum physics issue. You understand that right?
You understand the meaning of this graphic, right?
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/595px-atmospheric_transmission.png
And this one?
https://climateilluminated.com/media/CO2/Slide5.JPG
Here is Spectralcalc’s Blackbody Calculator. Enter -80 Degree C and 15 Micron 13 min 18 max.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
The only, the one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through thermalizing 15 micron LWIR, that is the one and only defined mechanism. That is the Greenhouse Gas Effect in a nutshell. Do you know of any other mechanism?
If you can take 15 micron LWIR and warm something above -80 degree C, then you have found a perpetual energy system. You just found cold fusion. If 15 micron LWIR can warm something above -80 degrees C, you would simply take something of -80 Degrees C, use it to warm another material beyond -80 Degree C, and then use it to warm another material to a warmer temperature. See the problem? You are creating energy. A Blackbody of -80 degrees C can’t warm another material beyond – 80 Degrees C.
“A Blackbody of -80 degrees C can’t warm another material beyond – 80 Degrees C.”
You keep ignoring the sun! The COMBINATION of sunlight and radiation from a -80C blackbody will warm an object to a higher temperature than the COMBINATION of sunlight and radiation from a -270C blackbody.
This really is not that complicated.
A combination of -80C and sunlight will NOT raise the temperature of a 288 K surface more than sunlight alone.
BTW, why don’t we have Greenhouse Gas Effect Powered Cars?
CO2 exposed to LWIR back radiation warms and expands. It pushes the piston, PV/T, the gas cools, the cycle then compresses the CO2, the LWIR warms it, and the cycle starts all over again.
All you need is a Piston with an IR Transparent Compression Zone and an IR shielded expansion zone. This would be similar to a Sterling Engine.
Where is Elon Musk when we need him?
The GHE modulates heat loss, heat gain is from the Sun.
“the gas cools”
This stage in a heat engine requires an actual heat SINK. The cooling as the gas expands is not sufficient.
For an idealized Sterling engine like you imagine, you need two thermal reservoirs — lets say at 0C (273K) and -80 C (193 K). There are 4 stages.
“CO2 exposed to LWIR back radiation warms and expands”
Yep — those are the first two stages.
1) CO2 @ -80 would warm first to 0C due to IR radiation from the ice.
2) CO2 @ 0 C would expand and do work, kept in thermal contact with the 0 C ice .
“It pushes the piston, PV/T, the gas cools”
Not in a Sterling cycle. The gas is kept warm as it expands by maintaining thermal contact with the hot reservoir (the ice in this example).
3) the actual 3rd step is to take the expanded gas and cool it by putting it in contact with the cold reservoir (something @ -80 C).
“the cycle then compresses the CO2
4) Yes, by doing work on the gas while keeping it at -80 C.
The point is that you need a thermal connection an actual reservoir at -80 C and another thermal contact to an actual reservoir at 0 C (or whatever two temperatures you want to use).
“All you need is a Piston with an IR Transparent Compression Zone and an IR shielded expansion zone. ”
What you actually need during expansion is an IR window to the hot side and an IR reflector to the cold side.
Later, during compression, you need an IR window to the cold side and an IR reflector to the hot side.
If you can find an actual thermal reservoir that you can make contact with at -80C, then you can build your engine. Since these are basically impossible to find on earth, such an engine is basically impossible to build.
A combination of -80C and sunlight will NOT raise the temperature of a 288 K surface more than sunlight alone.
“Here is Spectralcalcs Blackbody Calculator. Enter -80 Degree C and 15 Micron 13 min 18 max.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
What am I supposed to see here?
Again, it takes a broad range of wl to have a BB spectrum, nit just around 15 microns.
You are confused.
Dr. Spencer you would likely have to use liquid Nitrogen, not Dry Ice. Dry Ice, solid CO2, would likely complicate the experiment.
Coincidence? CO2’s sublimation point is almost exactly -80 Degree C. CO2, after emitting its LWIR photon on 15 microns, stops vibrating and turns solid. When is absorbs the 15 micron LWIR Photon, the CO2 warms and turns to a gas. Very interesting, and shows how well engineered the systems are. Everything is in perfect balance.
Take a look at MODTRAN.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
CO2 remains at 410 PPM all the way up to 70 km. The atmospheric temperature reaches a low at 17 KM of 195 Degrees K. Just what is 195 Degrees K? You got it, the IR Signature of CO2. Imagine that. The lowest temperature the atmosphere reaches happens to be -80 Degrees C. Why? Because at 17 km, the only greenhouse gas present is CO2. CO2 puts a floor in the atmosphere, it doesn’t raise the ceiling. CO2 thermalizes the outgoing LWIR and that is why the temperature bottoms at -80 Degrees C.
Once again, everything is in perfect balance, as if someone designed it that way.
“The atmospheric temperature reaches a low at 17 KM of 195 Degrees K”
Only in the standard tropical atmosphere.
@Svante, under no location according to MODTRAN does the -80 Degree C barrier get broken. None. Do you have evidence that temperatures in the lower 70 KM fall below -80 Degree C?
No, but it is higher in many places.
@Svante: “No, but it is higher in many places.”
It is higher at the surface. Higher isn’t the issue. The point is CO2 puts a floor, not a ceiling. Adding additional energy can raise the temperature. This issue is thermalizing 15 micron LWIR puts in a floor.
“Once again, everything is in perfect balance, as if someone designed it that way.”
Yes someone making up their own fictional science did.
Do you have any expertise in this topic? In physics? Meteorology? Atmospheric science? It is evident that you do not. Are you aware that you have gaps in your knowledge?
Then its hard to understand why you have such confidence that many people who do have expertise and years of study of this topic, such as Roy Spencer, have it all wrong, and you, a non-expert have found the flaws.
Can you explain that?
Troll Nate can not offer any science. He can only attack.
As usual, we can interpret that to find the truth
‘Troll Clint can not offer any science. He can only attack.’
That actually works.
Wrong troll Nate. That’s another example of you MIS-interpresting my words.
That’s ClintR confirming Nate was correct.
Svante joins Nate in attempting to misrepresent me.
Sorry trolls, zero added to zero is still ZERO.
“4) Administer LWIR of 15 micron to the CO2”
The easy way to do this, of course, it is use warm CO2. You could surround your cold flask with CO2 held at, say 20C or 200 C. This CO2 would emit primarily at 15 um for the same reason the CO2 inside the flask abs.orbs at 15 um.
My bet is that the CO2 in the flask will come to exactly the same temperature as the surrounding CO2. That is required whenever two ‘systems’ are brought into thermal contact (exchanging thermal radiation).
It is the UNTENSITY of the radiation that matters, not the WAVEMENTGTH per se. Warm CO2 will emit a lot of 15 um radiation, while the cold CO2 only emits a little. The cold CO2 absorbs net energy and warms up.
(This experiment would be considerably more complicated than you seem to imagine, but assuming you could set it up, I could use the warm CO2’s 15 um radiation to warm up the cold CO2.)
“The easy way to do this, of course, it is use warm CO2. You could surround your cold flask with CO2 held at, say 20C or 200 C. This CO2 would emit primarily at 15 um for the same reason the CO2 inside the flask abs.orbs at 15 um.”
Tim, I don’t think that would work. The whole purpose is to isolate the impact of LWIR on CO2. If you warm the CO2 gas up to a certain temperature, the IR given off would be consistent with that temperature. That is the thermal IR being given off as the gas cools.
Venus’s atmosphere is Largely CO2 and this IR photo shows the many colors due to the various temperatures.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA00112
The key is to isolate the warming effect if LWIR of 15 Microns, not the addition of thermal energy.
Dry Ice sublimates at -78 Degree C, so that is step one of the experiment.
1) Does CO2 sublimate at a faster rate when exposed to 15 micron LWIR. My bet is that it does.
2) Once the dry ice has turned to gas in the insulated flask, its temperature should be just about -80 degree C.
3) Without adding any external thermal radiation (keep the CO2 contained in the insulated container) apply LWIR of 15 microns.
My bet is that the addition of 15 micron LWIR won’t warm the CO2 gas above -80 degree C.
Once again, we are focusing this experiment on the green house gas effect, not the thermal effect of a gas. Outiside 15 microns, CO2 is just like every other gas. In that case, it is the wavelength not the intensity of the light. If you shine an intense light on a gas that is transparent to that light, you will get no warming.
Anyway, the experiment I just detailed above could easily be done in my garage, and certainly in any University Lab.
You have apparently never tried to do experiments at these temperatures.
You are trying to isolate the impact of one SMALL effect: changing the intensity of one small band of weak IR radiation acting on one small sample of gas. You also have the mass of the container for the gas. And conduction and convection from the surroundings to/from the container. And all the OTHER wavelengths of thermal IR interacting with both the CO2 and the container.
This will NOT be a simple experiment!
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-causes-a-volcanic-winter.html
YES YES YES
Yes I am expecting some major volcanic activity sooner rather then later. Yes this is part of my global cooling position. Yes this can lead to other changers to enhance the cooling.
Yes the AGW crowd will say temporary at best and yes they will say not due to low geo magnetic/solar activity.
Yes they will be wrong as usual.
Yes they are so confident right now in their AGW theory because temperatures have been trending up but this has happened many times in the past with greater rates of temperature increases.
Yes the sea ice is a big factor but has to reach a level where it can exert a change. Yes major volcanic activity could be the catalyst for this to take place.
Salvatore
I very much hope that you have well considered the consequences of your wish.
Because if we soon experience what there was in 1257, then we will probably not have a summer for some longer time.
Btw, the page you posted a link to doesn’t even contain any information about that worldwide threatening event, which bypassed Tambora by a lot:
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/42/16742/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
The full article is here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.full
I’m for sure not a fan of any exceeding warming of our planet! But the two decades following a new Samalas-like eruption I wouldn’t appreciate that much.
J.-P. D.
Very interesting and that is type of thing is real not fantasy.
A MAJOR VOLCANIC ERUPTION – If location was correct ,height of explosion is high enough, ash composition thick enough, with heavy SO2 emissions would impact the climatic system in a quick severe way.
Of course a major volcanic eruption could have much less effects it all depends on the above.
Absolutely. Tambora released a mere 100 MtSO2 and caused a the year without a summer.
Hudson Bay is almost all under the ice.
https://i.ibb.co/hsvCyfp/masie-all-r10-4km.png
It is worth seeing the forecast of a polar vortex in the lower stratosphere on December 29. The polar vortex will be over Siberia and Scandinavia, where it will form its center.
https://i.ibb.co/g6HML8L/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
Ren
What do you assess as a result of that. For example, Scandinavia.
The Russian high will probably attack Europe. I predict a large negative temperature anomaly in Europe.
ren
Over the years, I learned a lot of how accurate your predictions are.
In Germany, I don’t see day temperatures going below 0 C until February.
I had a look at the GHCN daily data till Jan 2020 for Scandinavia, i.e. Norway (NO), Sweden (SW) and Finland (FI). Ignore Denmark, it’s much too warm there.
Here is the top20 of the ascending sort of daily TMIN reports for December days in Scandinavia:
FI000007501 62-82 1915 12 31 -30.65
NO000097250 63-82 1904 12 31 -29.88
SWE00140886 63-80 1985 12 31 -29.88
NO000097250 63-82 1915 12 31 -29.61
FIE00146067 62-83 1978 12 31 -29.55
FIE00146408 62-83 1978 12 31 -29.49
NO000097250 63-82 1955 12 31 -29.25
NO000097250 63-82 1985 12 31 -29.14
SWE00140824 62-79 1985 12 31 -29.01
FI000007501 62-82 1985 12 23 -28.95
SWE00140886 63-80 1967 12 31 -28.91
SWE00140906 63-79 1985 12 31 -28.88
NOE00111327 63-81 1986 12 31 -28.81
SWE00140906 63-79 1986 12 31 -28.63
SWE00140700 62-80 1978 12 31 -28.58
SWE00140742 62-79 1978 12 31 -28.51
SWE00140886 63-80 1978 12 31 -28.44
SWE00140620 62-78 1985 12 31 -28.39
NOE00109485 63-81 1985 12 31 -28.34
FIE00146543 63-82 1985 12 31 -28.30
As you can see, this top20 doesn’t contain any data since 2000; the first record came far below from 2010, Dec 31 in Sweden.
*
For Scandinavia, we currently expect a short drop between -17 C and -19 C (night temperatures) on Dec 27-29.
ren: please stop telling us about cooling in Europe.
It is behind us.
If you still are so fixated on posting cooling reports, then please tell us about the temperatures in Northern CONUS. It’s really cold there since years, due to the weakening of the polar vortex.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon in January 2021, the winter of the century will begin in Europe.
Bindidon, you still don’t understand that in winter the stratosphere is very close to the surface at high latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/r2TCF4j/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
ren
I repeat:
Over the years, I learned a lot of how {sarc} accurate {/sarc} your predictions are.
In Sodankylä, Lapland
https://tinyurl.com/y8p5mh56
you can expect -7 C (day) / -24 C (night) on 2021, January 28.
What is your prediction for e.g. Hamburg in Germany on the same day, ren?
– 20 C ?
Hmmmmh.
J.-P. D.
Therefore, the temperature drop in January 2021 will come as a shock to Europe.
La Nina is fully operational, as indicated by the subsurface temperature anomalies in the equatorial Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC002&year=2020&month=12
ren
What the heck are you telling us here?
If you want to look at a fully operational La Nina
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
then look at the 2010-2012 period in the chart.
J.-P. D.
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
SOI values for 19 Dec, 2020
Average SOI for last 30 days 13.03
Average SOI for last 90 days 9.54
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 30.57
Monthly average SOI values
Sep 9.93
Oct 4.37
Nov 9.24
ren
Look at the history of a data set before you claim anything about the current data:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml
Here the data for 2010/11, Jan to Dec:
-10.1 -14.5 -10.6 15.2 10.0 1.8 20.5 18.8 24.9 18.3 16.4 27.1
19.9 22.3 21.4 25.1 2.1 0.2 10.7 2.1 11.7 7.3 13.8 23.0
J.-P. D.
Ren is saying we have a nice La Nina , and it lopks like it may be around for a while.
Pacific Ocean 150m depth-averaged temperature analysis for December 2020
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC001&year=2020&month=12
Entropic Man tries to play the flim-flam game himself.
He says –
* December 18, 2020 at 5:10 PM
Hmm. I take a mercury thermometer and put in in a freezer until it indicates -20C.
I then put the thermometer with a bulb at -20C between two blocks of ice at 0C and watch it warm to 0C. How come ice can warm a thermometer? *
Hmmm. Because its hotter than the thermometer? Listen up. 273 K is hotter than 253 K. Boiling water at 373 K is hotter than both.
Now that the audience can see your attempts as misdirection have failed, you could try explaining to them why no amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of the smallest amount of water! Feel free to quote the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Swenson, you make a pretty good rebuttal. Let’s take things up a notch.
I have a small coffee pot that sits on a constant-power hotplate. Inside my house (20C), the coffee stays about 80 C. If I take the coffee pot outside on a cold winter night, I think we all agree the coffee in the pot will not stay as hot. Maybe it will be just 40C.
Now surround the coffee pot with ice @ 0C (or put it in a refrigerator set to 0C). The coffee will warm up a bit — say to 60C.
And viola! The radiation from the ice at 0C (in conjunction with the input from the hot plate) just raised the temperature of the water from 40C to 60C. The ice at 0C is radiating MORE than the initial -20C surrounding.
(In this case, there is also conduction at play. But It is easy to imagine doing a similar experiment in a vacuum chamber with no conduction.)
Tim Folkerts says:
“I think we all agree the coffee in the pot will not stay as hot.”
Our friends in the lunatic reference frame do not agree. They do not do experiments, only hand waving.
Tim,
I see you dont want to specify the temperature of your cold winter night. Just more illusory flimflam.
If it is 0 C, for example, the same temperature as your refrigerator or ice, why would your pot miraculously get 20C hotter?
Magic, perhaps?
Turn off your heat source, and your beverage will quickly achieve equilibrium with its surroundings.
As a side issue, to anyone silly enough to say the sun acts like your constant power hotplate, I will just point out that the hotplate is underneath your beverage for a reason. Try using it to heat your drink from above. Now you appreciate why the bottom of any deep body of water is colder than the rock surrounding it.
Or maybe you dont.
The winter night is -20 C Do you feel better now?
Hey ren, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that the Arctic ice grew by an average of 116,000 km^2 per day in the month of November 2020. This is the fastest average daily growth on record for the month of November.
I’m sure Bindidon will dismiss this statistic because the month of October had the 2nd lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record. He will point to October as strong evidence for human-caused global warming.
But what I contend, and I believe you and Salvatore argue as well, is that the earth warms and cools, warms and cools, and warms and cools over several decades of time. I think the global warming advocates have made the classic mistake of correlation is causation. They see the rising CO2 levels since the 1950s, and they attach that to the multi-decadal global warming trend since the 1980s. And then they extrapolate that into the future and warn us all that a climate catastrophe is in store for us. I think this is complete nonsense.
The melting Arctic ice was the front and center example by the global warming alarmists that the earth is warming, and humans are the cause of it. And that the sea ice is going to melt away, followed by Greenland ice, and the sea levels are going to rise at a rate beyond our capabilities to cope with it. But guess what? The melting Arctic ice is slowing down, and is now showing signs of bottoming out. The Greenland Surface Mass Balance is showing signs of recovering back to normal. And, if you look at the combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, the average global sea ice extent has gone from 23,000,000 km^2 in 1979 down to 22,000,000 km^2 today. I really don’t see anything alarming about that at all.
To me, the record Arctic ice growth in November only means that the earth is constantly in the process of equalizing its heat distribution. There was a deficiency of sea ice in October, so there was more water to freeze up in November. The earth does this on longer time scales as well. If there is an excess of sea ice, that is more ice to melt. And so it goes over decades of time. Excess ice melts away some, then a deficient ice cover freezes up in a seesaw manner. The alarmists only pay attention to one side of this natural climate variation, and declare it “human caused.”
Exactly Rob. They think they are correct but the reality is they probably are not and chances are pretty good global temperatures by the end of this decade will be lower then now.
How do you think that will be possible with the Earth Energy Imbalance at +0.8 W/m^2 and with the effective radiative forcing continuing to increase?
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
bdgwx, here you are making another mess. Your cult indoctrinated you with that bogus “+0.8 W/m^2 Energy Imbalance”. Earth has no such thing. All energy imbalances are handled as they occur. You have no understanding of Earth’s systems or the physics involved. You just make messes for others to clean up.
And speaking of cleaning up your messes, here’s another one you left:
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
Clean up you messes. Don’t be a child.
bdgwx they act as though CO2 is the ONLY item that matters in the vast climatic system of earth. Foolish and will be wrong in time.
Who is “they”?
Climate scientists definitely do NOT act as though CO2 is the ONLY item that matters. A read through the IPCC AR5 WGI report shows that ‘s just blatantly false.
Straw man alert.
The climate scientists measure and often monitor a wide variety of variables which affect weather and climate. All but one act in cycles, locally, over the wrong timescale, have too small an effect or are cooling. Put all but one together and their net effect is 0.005C cooling/decade.
The odd one out is increasing CO2. The 0.2C/decade long term increase in surface temperature matches the rate expected from theory with a lag of 25 years. Nothing else comes remotely close.
No-one claims that CO2 is the only variable which might affect climate. We do claim that it is the only variable significantly affecting the decadal trend at present.
Very good article I will give it that. I wish this could be a topic for discussion with Dr. Spencer giving his pros and cons about it.
It makes sense on the face of it but I just do not think the complex climatic system can be so easily reduced to such simplicity.
There are to many things /unknowns that could easily trip this up.
Time will tell.
Dr. Spencer largely agrees with it. He typically cites a value of +0.8 W/m^2 when discussing the EEI.
The climate system isn’t complex.
Compare Trenberth’s energy budget with its nine variables
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File%3AThe-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
with a metabolic pathways chart containing more than 10,000 chemicals Each formula is a chemical, each arrow is a protein which produces a chemical, there are at least two genes per protein and the whole lot interact inside cells.
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/biology/interactive-metabolic-pathways-map.html
“The climate system isn’t complex.
Compare Trenberth’s energy budget with its nine variables”
In science E, being wrong isn’t complex. Any idiot can be wrong.
Being right is when it gets hard.
Occam refuted by ClintR.
Silly snowflake Svante proves me right by getting it wrong.
Occam’s Razor is generally a good approach.
Trolling is generally a bad approach.
You get high refreeze rates like when the minimum is so low like it was. Even with those high refreeze rates Arctic sea ice extent is still below the 2-sigma climatological envelope. Expect this refreeze rate record to get repeatedly broken.
bdgwx makes another “mess”. He claims Arctic sea ice extent is below “2-sigma”. That would mean bdgwx has to know what Arctic sea ice extent is supposed to be.
But, of course, he doesn’t.
He’s messier than a toddler with diarrhea.
Found this gem in ClintR’s nappy, it stinks
“That would mean bdgwx has to know what Arctic sea ice extent is supposed to be.”
Where do you come up with this garbage?
The two sigma is based on what sea ice extent is, not what it’s supposed to be.
bobdroege,
And all this drivel about sea ice means . . . ?
Not a damn thing? Of no practical use to man nor beast?
I thought so.
“And all this drivel about sea ice means . . . ?”
If something has no meaning to you, then your comment upon it has no meaning to anyone. It is rather useless.
Swenson,
Whose drivel are you complaining about, my drivel or ClintR’s drivel.
I was just pointing out that ClintR is all off of his meds and making stuff up again. Doesn’t know what to do with data.
The loss of sea ice is a potential feedback adding to more warming from whatever warming caused the ice to start melting in the first place.
In arguments with me, you have already admitted that CO2 can warm the planets surface so off you go.
b,
A climatological envelope? You do realise that averages are derived from a series of numbers, and are the cause of nothing at all?
If you believe that you can predict the future by examining the averages of historical numbers, you should join the cult of climatology. Even most governments these days require financial prognosticators to warn their gullible clients that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Climatologists are different, of course.
Climate alarmists can predict any lunatic future they like, without fear of being held accountable! Authority without responsibility. Yeehaw!
Swenson says:
“If you believe that you can predict the future by examining the averages of historical numbers, …”.
Yeah, this could turn around next month:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Time_Series.png
S,
Could it? Why do you think so?
Rob Mitchell
” Im sure Bindidon will dismiss this statistic because the month of October had the 2nd lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record. He will point to October as strong evidence for human-caused global warming. ”
Bare nonsense, Mitchell, you intentionally misrepresent my meaning, AND you know that.
Because as opposed to you, I never cherry-pick single months to demonstrate anything, let alone any strong evidence for human-caused global warming.
Here is the daily stuff for daily NSID-C Arctic sea ice extent data, managed by colorado.edu:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
YOU, Mitchell, are the one who cherry-picks.
If I was a cherry-picker like you, I would of course intentionally hide data about the Antarctic, from the same source:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BCEkUrq8b2d_DwZZZRM43rQwMDrWnEdM/view
You are a poor guy, specialized in nothing else than useless polemic.
J.-P. D.
I just downloaded the SIDADS data for Arctic sea ice extent, and we can clearly observe that currently, the anomaly level has moved above that of 2019, below 1 Mkm2.
Good news!
I have always said that this loss of Arctic sea ice is NOT good for us here in Europe, because its consequence is a cooling of the Northern Atlantic (plus a decrease of salinity), what in turn results in an increase of atmospheric perturbations together with a lack of precipitations.
We have in Northwestern Germany no winters anymore since years, no snow here, and it is much too dry.
Here is the Europe forecast for January 2021:
https://tinyurl.com/ybn4pqt2
My reaction: please give us more sea ice in the Arctic!
J.-P. D.
Merry Christmas everybody!
Bindidon, you sure sure do get agitated over little-itty-bitty things, don’t you? All that I was doing is to show how the earth compensates for excesses and deficiencies over short periods of time, and this constant equalization process also occurs over longer time periods as well.
Bouncing off the point about albedo Salvador mentions a lot, this is yet another way the earth balances itself out. If the earth gets abnormally warm, this increases cloud cover and the albedo, then the earth cools some subsequently. If the earth becomes abnormally cool, the cloud cover and albedo decreases, allowing for the earth to warm again over various periods of time.
To make the point that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary factor involved with this multi-decadal warming period we are going through seems to throw out all of the other factors as negligible. I think it is just the opposite. Increasing CO2 is negligible in comparison to everything else. I know Dr. Lindzen has been making this point quite well over the decades. His climate science foes have all been reduced to personal insults by accusing him of taking fossil fuel money, because they can’t debate him on the science. I know Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy have endured the same.
Rob Mitchell says:
“To make the point that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary factor involved with this multi-decadal warming period we are going through seems to throw out all of the other factors as negligible.”
It’s been a logarithmic function CO2 for 250 years. Other factors are cyclic, random or temporary. Lindzen had a good theory but it didn’t work out that way.
https://tinyurl.com/wz6oelr
Another snowstorm will strike Pennsylvania and New York. During the previous one, 4 feet of snow fell in parts of southern New York.
https://i.ibb.co/YBV9sgR/Screenshot-1.png
La Nina brings rainfall in central Australia.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/au/sadadeen/3494863/weather-radar/3494863
Keep an eye on how the Arctic air will move over the US ahead of Christmas.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f096.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046
This has not been reconciled by AGW theory. Until it is ,the theory is opened to question.
There are details science still does not understand. We’ll never have perfect understanding of Earth’s climate. But…I’m curious…what big picture issue do feel has not be reconciled?
BTW…keep this in mind when trying to reconcile past climate. Like all main sequence stars the Sun brightens as it ages. You can estimate the luminosity change via simple Gough 1981 formula. It comes out to about 1% every 120 million years. So 600 million years ago the solar forcing was 12 W/m^2 less. All other things being equal it would take 10x the amount of CO2 to compensate for that. Of course all other things are never equal. You have to consider other GHGs, continental positioning, dust, volcanic activity, biological activity, albedo, other aerosol sources, etc.
bdgwx believes: “You can estimate the luminosity change via simple Gough 1981 formula.”
bdgwx, you can make up a formula based on your beliefs. But, that ain’t science.
You can make up a formula for the number of unicorns living inside the Moon!
That ain’t science!
Do you have any REAL SCIENCE to support AGW?
Linking to a large number of “papers” won’t do. If “papers” are all you’ve got, give us your very best one.
You have to consider other GHGs, continental positioning, dust, volcanic activity, biological activity, albedo, other aerosol sources,
bdgwx says.
That is exactly what I am saying which is why I find it hard to believe how positive they are that the climate will continue to warm as long as CO2 concentrations continue to increase. CO2 is not in a climate vacuum .
Your right about the sun brightening, but if you look at the chart one can see long periods of time when CO2, and temperatures parted.
One thought I have is major volcanic eruptions could put both SO2/CO2 into the atmosphere which could explain at times how co2 could increase while temperatures till went down.
I do think as of today (this includes myself) that none of us know why and how the climate changes. We have good thoughts but it has yet to be put together. To many factors and those in addition to being to many are unknown as to how, and to what degree they interact with the climatic system. Thresholds may be present, it is just so complicated.
A lot of people know and why the climate changes. The science is not perfect and it never will be, but that doesn’t preclude conclusions from being made with reasonable confidence.
bdgwx, you don’t understand what “science” is. You are confusing “science” with “beliefs”. Real “science” withstands the test of time — numerous experiments, observations, independent verifications, etc. Real science does NOT violate the laws of physics.
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy
“Troposphere
Known as the lower atmosphere almost all weather occurs in this region. The troposphere begins at the Earth’s surface and extends from 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km) high.
The height of the troposphere varies from the equator to the poles. At the equator it is around 11-12 miles (18-20 km) high, at 50N and 50S, 5 miles and at the poles just under four miles high.
As the density of the gases in this layer decrease with height, the air becomes thinner. Therefore, the temperature in the troposphere also decreases with height in response. As one climbs higher, the temperature drops from an average around 62F (17C) to -60F (-51C) at the tropopause.”
To make matters worse, the technology used in the reference periods, either 1961-1990 or 1971-2000, is far less accurate than the measurements made today. In fact, NOAA weights Argo float and drifting buoys, introduced in the early 2000s, by 6.8X, relative to the weight given to ship’s data (Huang, et al., 2017). The Hadley Centre says that Argo floats reduce their uncertainty by 30% (Kennedy, Rayner, Atkinson, & Killick, 2019). During the two reference periods almost all the data was from ships. This means that the greater inaccuracy of the measurements, relative to today, in the 30-year reference periods is significant. We might assume that the additional uncertainty is random, but that is unlikely to be the case.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/20/sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sst_1-day.png
Is not it better to use the actual data?
If CO2 is causing the warming and increasing globally, why are the mid- and low-latitude ocean temperatures decreasing and the polar regions warming?
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HadSST_ERSST.jpg?resize=720%2C519&ssl=1
Ren, great question. Matter of fact, if you identify weather stations using v3 of NASA’s data, before the “adjustments” you will see that almost every desert station removed from the urban heat island and water vapor show no warming going back to 1880. Why does CO2 not cause warming in those select stations, chosen to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature? Because CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
Here is an example:
https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
REN DOES THIS COME UP DAILY ? IF SO HOW DO YOU GET IT?. THANKS
Today’s Weather Maps
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2
thanks
THE GREAT CONJUNCTION OF JUPITER AND SATURN: Want to see something that astronomers have been waiting 800 years to witness? Just step outside at sunset and look southwest. Jupiter and Saturn are having their finest conjunction since the Middle Ages. At closest approach on Dec. 21st, Saturn will appear as close to Jupiter as some of Jupiter’s moons.
https://spaceweather.com
TIPS FOR VIEWING:
Look Southwest where the horizon is clear
Plan on peak viewing for up to one hour
It will look like one big star from the naked eye, but if you have a telescope you’ll be able to see the planets and some of the moons
https://abc11.com/the-great-conjunction-christmas-star-2020-december-21/8872787/
Abstract
One of the most famous climate oscillations has a period of about 60 years. Although this oscillation might emerge from internal variability, increasing evidence points toward a solar or astronomical origin, as also argued herein. We highlight that the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents prominent oscillations with a period of quasi 60 years due to its gravitational coupling with Saturn. This oscillation is found to be well correlated with quite a number of climatic records and also with a 60‐year oscillation present in long meteorite fall records relative to the periods 6191943 CE. Since meteorite falls are the most macroscopic aspect of incoming space dust and their motion is mostly regulated by Jupiter, we propose that the interplanetary dust influx also presents a 60‐year cycle and could be forcing the climate to oscillate in a similar manner by modulating the formation of the clouds and, therefore, the Earth’s albedo.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL089954
I suppose the cumulative gravity of Jupiter and Saturn will draw more cosmic dust into Earth’s orbit. Only a strong solar wind could interfere with this action.
What?
You believe astronomers can predict such things?
How can they do that when they cant even get the Moons orbital properties right??!
“Rotating about an axis” is NOT an “orbital property”, troll Nate. Two independent motions.
Why bring your nonsense here?
For the perpetually confused, properties like axial tilt, polar coordinates, rotational period, etc.
You reject these astronomical observations while accepting others. On what basis? Religious.
“Rotating about an axis” is NOT an “orbital property”, troll Nate. Two independent motions.
Why bring your nonsense here?
To show how biased and blinded climate science is, warming oceans is one of the best examples. Many many many things can cause the oceans to warm, yet everyone simply looks at CO2 and tries to justify their funding. People are even willing to overlook the problems with the quantum physics. Before I ever made the claim that a trace gas was causing all these problems, even knowing the geological record shows CO2 was as high as 7,000 ppm and life thrived, I’d want to rule out all the other for more likely causes. That is how real science works.
Observation: The oceans are warming
What warms the Oceans?: Largely visible radiation from the sun
What causes variations in the radiation reaching the oceans?: Clouds, celestial objects like passing through galaxy fingers and dust, eclipses, and natural variations in the sun (sun spots).
Has the cloud cover been decreasing over the oceans over the past few decades allowing more radiation to reach the oceans? Yes according to the data pvovided by WoodforTrees.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/
Did anyone bother to even look to see if a decreased cloud cover may be the cause of the warming? I doubt it.
I was wondering about clouds a few years back and found, for instance, that a sustained d*crease in cloud cover of only about 1.7% would result in a temperature increase of 0.5 K. The analysis is documented at https://tinyurl.com/yb889klb
REN I figured out the climate analyzer. thanks for that valuable Info!
CO2 is life spot on. With La Nina conditions clouds should increase? Agree?
Of course the mean cloud coverage is going to have the greatest impact on oceanic sea surface temperatures.
Nate wrote:
“The last ice age was only ~ 5C cooler than now, globally. Yet NYC was covered by a km thick ice sheet.
The Holocene Optimum 8000 y ago was warmer than year 1900 by 0.5-1.0 C.”
How can we accurately make such statements when we’re talking about thousands of years ago when there were no way to make accurate measurements, or there is no recorded data to base such a statement on?
Because of sciency stuff like this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
bdgwx, the more you reveal about your false beliefs, the funnier it gets.
The first sentence of the abstract was funny enough:
“An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available.”
Guesses, estimates, assumptions, and “associated uncertainties” are funny, but that ain’t science.
Where’s your REAL science to support AGW?
bdgwx I don’t believe that study. The Holocene Optimum was warmer then today.
It’s actually a collation of 582 studies. The companion publication that documents it more thoroughly is this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3
582 believers do not make a false belief legitimate.
582,000,000 believers do not make a false belief legitimate.
Believing otherwise ain’t science.
It is all agenda driven. False!
Has it ever crossed your mind that you might be agenda driven?
“Guesses, estimates, assumptions, and ‘associated uncertainties’ are funny, but that aint science.”
Sounds like CLint rejects all our understanding of past climates and eras.
Apparently Geology ain’t science.
We’ll add it to the growing list of science that Clint rejects.
Quoting me exactly is okay, Nate.
What makes you an idiot troll is when you try to misrepresent my words.
You are quite consistent in dismissing science of all kinds.
Here you do it again.
Wrong again, troll Nate.
I didn’t dismiss any REAL science. Real science is something that is demonstrable, repeatable, observable, and does NOT violate the laws of physics.
You don’t have any REAL science that adding more CO2 will raise Earth’s surface temperature. All you have are you cult beliefs.
Cult beliefs ain’t science.
Now troll some more. That’s all you can do.
Will UK children see snow on December 28, 2020?
https://i.ibb.co/TTjR656/hgt300.png
It is interesting to follow how the unusual weakening of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere above the North Pacific is progressing. It is unusual because the polar vortex should get stronger during this phase of winter.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-104.38,97.30,281
Roy says:
“If nothing else, the results in Fig. 3 might give us some idea of the ENSO-related SST variations for 300-400 years before anthropogenic forcings became significant, and how those variations affected temperature trends on various time scales. For if those naturally-induced temperature trend variations existed before, then they still exist today.”
Looking at fig.3, there are 10-20-30 year bands of variation of approx 0.8deg but when the data enters the 20th century (1900’s) these bands narrow and particularly the last 50 years of the chart has a very small band of variation. If the naturally induced variations still exist today then what makes the band narrow? Or is the historical interpreted / modelled info wrong?
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=cTdTtVJy&id=C4062FEF498FB7F79DF6A2098735082834301ADA&thid=OIP.cTdTtVJyNWgglydwY65-vgHaFU&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2ficeagenow.info%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2014%2f04%2fHarris-Mann_Historic_Temp_Chart.jpg&exph=575&expw=800&q=Ice+Age+Temperature+Chart&simid=607992177929881700&ck=AE5AC4766C060C8FCC7E67FC26D1096B&selectedIndex=0&FORM=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0
This is the correct temperature reconstruction not the garbage they have recently come up with to promote global warming.
Could you post a link to the publication where you found that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=higXpFF79Hw
This video says it all. I have so many studies that say the same and show the same thing.
That video uses Dr. Alley’s ice core data. It is a great source. Dr. Alley’s data ends in 1855. You have to add the last 165 years of warming in Greenland to this chart. The Arctic is warming at 2-3x the global rate. Once you do that you’ll see Greenland is warmer now than it has been at least since the Minoan Period and possibly even the Holocene Climate Optimum. And it is still NOT a global record. We are interested in the global mean temperature here; not the central Greenland temperature. Here is a link to Dr. Alley’s data. https://tinyurl.com/yym33x7y
It looks like the graphic you posted comes from Randy Mann and Cliff Harris. The claim the chart comes from the Weather Science Foundation. I cannot find any evidence that the WSF exists or ever existed. I cannot find any published works by either R Mann or C Harris or that either are experts in climate science or that they even have college degrees of any kind. I do see that they run a website, but that’s about it.
Thanks, let’s see what happens.
I cannot find any evidence that bdgwx exists or ever existed. I cannot find any published works by bdgwx or that bdgwx is an expert in climate science or that bdgwx even has a college degree of any kind. I do see that bdgwx likes to troll and runs from reality.
BTW…since Dr Alley is being acknowledged as an authority here I thought you might be interested in what he has to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dqAk70Ku3M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
BTW…since bdgwx believes he is an authority here, I thought you might be interested in his past he runs from:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-575007
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-575290
https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-have-been-falling-for-the-past-8000-years/
I don’t agree with AGW and we can show refute /support for it for ever.
Time will tell.
That graph you posted shows it being warmer in 2004 than at anytime during the Holocene.
Here is the updated version as of 2016 showing the gap widening.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Aug 19, 2018 The warmest conditions of the present cycle occurred between 10,000 and 6,000 B.P with temperatures about 1C above modern values. This warmer climate was mild, with light winds and lush forests. Last thought
This is the factual data the correct data.
If it is a factual then surely this time it would be easy find and post a link to the publication so that we can all review it.
No you look for it if interested.
It’s from New Zealand, where temperatures are moderated by the Pacific Ocean.
https://niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate
The quote is from the chapter about the Holocene.
The chapter about the “last 140 years” adds another 1.1 C upto 1990, so that beats the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Salvatore might able to tell us how much UAH has added since 1990.
Gotcha. I see that the source is for a single site only and yet still suggests that it is warmer today than most of the Holocene if not all of it.
So of the sources we’ve been able to track down I believe that is now 3 for 3 of them suggest it is warmer today than most (if not all) of the Holocene.
Marcott et al. said we were in the top Holocene quartile, but scientists are conservative and that was in 2013. Things are changing quickly.
The circulation of ozone in the stratosphere indicates an influx of arctic air in the east of the US at the time of Christmas.
https://i.ibb.co/hmWtVbK/gfs-toz-nh-f120.png
It is not only the lower stratosphere, but also the middle (10 hPa).
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-96.69,78.94,281
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml
Has it ever crossed your mind that you might be agenda driven?
NO.
A slight increase in the strength of the magnetic field of the solar wind. We are entering a very weak solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/wWBqnPB/onlinequery.gif
If CO2 is seriously bad for the climate, what problems do you see in fixing it?
S,
What are you dribbling about?
Climate is the average of weather. How does CO2 affect the weather?
Be specific, or expect an outburst of sniggering at your stupidity.
https://cryosphere.today/IMAGES/arctic.recent.png
Arctic ice coming back. I thought it was all suppose to be gone by now according to AGW.
Arctic sea ice comes back every year around this time as it refreezes. That’s pretty normal. What is not normal is that it is STILL below the climatological average interdecile range.
The consensus estimate for the first drop below 1 million km^2 of Arctic sea ice extent at the summer minimum is around mid century. If you thought it was supposed to be gone by now then you’re probably only looking at blogger sites still.
I did not think it would be gone, but some who support AGW did.
bdgwx, how many times has the Arctic Ocean been “ice free” in the last 5000 years?
Using a new observational approach to an old but most important question, CLINTEL President Guus Berkhout finds that about 62% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to natural sources, not human emissions. The study then looks at the implications for drastic CO2 reduction measures, finding that these measures will not stop the atmospheric increase. Actually, they will have very limited effect. Hence the title of the report is Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earths Atmosphere.
Could very well be the case.
Can you post a link to Berkhout’s publication documenting his new observational approach?
b,
You might have heard of a wondrous thing called the internet. Use it.
Of course, its not of much use for whining crybabies who demand to be spoon fed.
Or slimy trolls too lazy to think for themselves.
NO. If you want more info you do it.
Yes, scrutiny might be bad for your agenda.
Like the New Zealand paper you just quoted.
S,
Unlike bdgwx, you actually found the paper, using the Internet?
Amazing. Maybe you could explain why New Zealand paper is different from, say, a United Kingdom paper. Or a Chinese one, for that matter.
Denigration without explanation is just alarmist trolling of the slimy variety.
How are you going finding a consistent scientific definition of the greenhouse eff3ct? Not so well?
No surprises there,
“Of course, its not of much use for whining crybabies who demand to be spoon fed.
Or slimy trolls too lazy to think for themselves.”
Good to know.
Next time Swenson demands that we show him a testable model for GHE or similar, like he so often does, we’ll just remind him that he is being a SLIMY LAY TROLL.
slimy lazy troll, obviously.
N,
Dont be stupid. Testable model for GHE?
You obviously dont have a clue about the scientific method. do you?
You cant even describe the GHE in any way that would allow a testable hypothesis to be formulated! You live in a world of fantasy and delusion. I demand nothing. You idiots keep on about GHE theory, as though a GHE theory actually exists! It doesnt, of course.
About as stupid as the ex chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, claiming the science was settled. He couldnt even say what the science was! What a donkey! At least he managed to die before his sexual harassment trial.
Swenson,
So do we have to go through all this again, you have been shown the facts, yet you continue to banter like you are in the movie Groundhog Day and want to argue the same things that have been refuted a thousand times.
Salvatore Del Prete
It is the custom in scientific debate that it you refer to someone’s results, you provide a reference.
It would only have taken you a minute.
Or perhaps not. My internet search found neither “Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earths Atmosphere. ” nor a climate scientist named Berkhout.
The reference ploy is a ploy if you are interested that much find it yourself.
Salvatore, do you mean:
Augustinus Johannes “Guus” Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry, and as a professor.
Yeah, that’s the guy. Apparently he was not privy to the confidential documents from his employer acknowledging that fossil carbon is the main cause of atmospheric CO2 increase.
Yes, funny that the big oil companies agree that CO2 emissions cause global warming – saying the opposite would be crazy.
That doesn’t stop Salvatore and the DREM Team though.
Yes, funny that silly snowflake Svante does not understand big public corporations. He’s never been involved in the decision making to know how they have to play politics. Often they even donate to opposing parties.
That’s one of the reasons Svante is such a silly snowflake. He doesn’t get out much.
Yes, their own science says global warming is real.
Their PR department funds organizations with the opposite message.
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382
Simple Svante says: “…their own science says global warming is real.”
Okay then, it shouldn’t be hard to provide that “science”, huh?
Here: Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological Forecast C02 Greenhouse Effect
by H. Shaw and P. P. McCall
https://tinyurl.com/y73ybuzq
https://tinyurl.com/y89yan5w
Silly snowflake Svante, did you find another link you can’t understand?
That link basically makes two points: 1) Mankind is helping Nature maintain a healthy level of CO2 in the atmosphere. 2) Even if you accept the AGW nonsense, we won’t see any meaningful evidence until years in the future.
And there was NO science proving AGW.
I searched for it by name and title. I cannot find it in any journal. I can’t even find it on the CLINTEL website.
Salvatore
” Arctic ice coming back. ”
Sorry, this is wrong.
1. Here is a year-by-year comparison of monthly Arctic sea ice data since 2012, together with the usual mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j_-oXhfQcI_bx1ZsvBMsN_cOu-dOiYg4/view
You can clearly see that 2020 just passed over 2016, the year with the slowest, least sea ice reconstruction in the Arctic.
2. Here is a sort of the average Arctic sea ice monthly extents for January till November, since 2012 (December 2020 isn’t known yet):
2020: 10.03
2016: 10.04
2019: 10.05
2018: 10.21
2017: 10.27
2012: 10.28
2015: 10.46
2014: 10.67
2013: 10.80
mean of 1981-2010: 11.54
Source:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
The eternal problem with your guesses is that you restrict your view on tiny periods, moreover shown in very approximating graphs.
J.-P. D.
I meant over the last 3 months.
” I meant over the last 3 months. ”
Sei appena arrivato al cuore del tuo problema.
J.-P. D.
Oooooh!
A donkey that can bray in different languages!
Would that make him a smartass?
As long as I can avoid becoming a dumb ass like you, Swenson, I can say I feel happy.
Tim Folkerts wrote –
* It is the UNTENSITY of the radiation that matters, not the WAVEMENTGTH per se. Warm CO2 will emit a lot of 15 um radiation, while the cold CO2 only emits a little. The cold CO2 absorbs net energy and warms up. *
– which happens to be absolutely wrong.
As I recollect, a guy called Albert Einstein received a Nobel Prize for showing the fallacy of the Tim Folkerts train of thought, (shared by most physicists of Einsteins time).
Tim is a bit behind the times – 100 years or so. Cheer up, Tim. Your erroneous thinking is still shared by many who dont know any better.
Swenson,
We had been discussing 15 um photons, all of which individually have the same energy (the connection you were trying to make to Einstein). If you shine a lot of them on an object (for examples from a hot black body), the object receives a lot of energy. If you shine fewer of them (for example, from a cold black body), the object receives less energy.
The point I was making is that “15 um” does not define a temperature. It is a serious misunderstanding to work backwards from Wein’s law, as was being done. The most intense radiation from a blackbody at 193 K is 15 um, but 15 um photons are not “193 K”. A warmer black body will also emit 15 um photons, and actually emit MORE of them than the 193 K object. As an extreme example, CO2 lasers operate near 10 um, which would be “associated with” ~ 290 K using wiens law. But a CO2 laser can melt metal.
This idiot probably can’t explain why a CO2 laser is NOT representative of atmospheric CO2. He obviously does NOT understand physics. The “CO2 laser” ruse is just another attempt by the cult to distort reality.
They have NOTHING real, so they have to make things up.
As usual, Tim clearly states some physics facts, and Clint the dimwit-troll claims he’s gotten it all wrong.
Proof positive that Clint understands no physics WHATSOEVER.
Troll Nate, you’re always so impressed by this “Tim Folkerts” idiot. Why don’t you help him out?
Explain to us why a CO2 laser is NOT representative of atmospheric CO2.
Nate, It is always amusing to guess whether Clint will say “You need to learn some standard physics” or “Standard physics is wrong an you need to ignore what is in the textbooks.”
Troll Folkerts, where did I ever make either of those two statements?
It’s always amusing to watch you idiot trolls attempt to pervert reality.
Oh shut up. Everyone knows you make those statements constantly.
Tim,
Unfortunately, the CO2 laser has nothing to do with natural emissions from CO2.
You seem to have convinced yourself that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of a particular energy level, which is complete nonsense.
Just rapidly compress some CO2. Its temperature rises. You seem to be convinced that this compression has magically created photons of a particular wavelength. Now try compressing air.
Suddenly, the same amount of compression results in wavelengths absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, radon, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and all the rest! Do you really believe this to be true?
Time to learn some real physics, Tim.
“the CO2 laser has nothing to do with natural emissions from CO2.”
True, but it does not change the point that I was making C02islife that, in principle, light of a given wavelength can warm an object above the corresponding Wien’s Law temperature.
“You seem to have convinced yourself that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of a particular energy level, which is complete nonsense.”
Well, a whole series of particular energies, dictated by quantum mechanics applied to a CO2 molecule’s vibrations, rotations, etc. (With some broadening due to pressure, & the Doppler effect.) That is “real physics”. If you don’t like it, march down to your local university and demand they fix their curriculum.
“Just rapidly compress some CO2. Its temperature rises.”
Yeah. This is basic thermodynamics.
“You seem to be convinced that this compression has magically created photons of a particular wavelength.”
Ummm … no. That is not even close to what think. There is no magic involved.
The compression does work on the system, which adds energy. This extra energy gets distributed among the CO2’s kinetic energy, rotational energy, and vibrational energy — ie the gas gets hotter. The hotter gas generates more photons — again with specific energies dictated by the structure of the CO2 molecule. And again, exactly in line with the laws of physics.
“the same amount of compression results in wavelengths absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, radon, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and all the rest!”
Absorbed? In the previous paragraph you said “created”. Which is it?
But to address what I assume is your issue, these gases have different masses and different structures, which (as described above) results in their onw (different) sets of energies boing possible. When these gases warm up by compression, they will “create” photons with their own specific allowed energies.
This is all “standard” physics. Get a physics degree if you really want to know more.
“You seem to have convinced yourself that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of a particular energy level, which is complete nonsense.
Just rapidly compress some CO2. Its temperature rises. You seem to be convinced that this compression has magically created photons of a particular wavelength. Now try compressing air.”
Shining light vs compression???
He is simply working very hard to create meaningless strawmen.
Yep. So true.
Notice he said youve got it all wrong, but won’t EVER specify what, offers no links, and claims without evidence that you/we distort reality.
Clint : here are some absolutely TRUE things that Tim said.
Is this:
“’15 um’ does not define a temperature.”
True or False? Why?
“It is a serious misunderstanding to work backwards from Wein’s law”
True or False? Why?
“The most intense radiation from a blackbody at 193 K is 15 um, but 15 um photons are not ‘193 K’. ”
True or False? Why?
“A warmer black body will also emit 15 um photons, and actually emit MORE of them than the 193 K object.”
True or False? Why?
And? Crickets. No surprise there.
Polar vortex forecast in the central stratosphere for December 27, 2020.
https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR3U3E1jWrFrtTiGN_hTEFkBU87QMeOYoluI8wDZ4F7-heF5LVXF5SwDYj0#2020/12/27/0000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=9.81,89.18,373
Very strong waves occurred in the upper stratosphere at high latitudes.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2020.png
Does planetary wave appear in areas of ozone accumulation? Everything points to it.
https://i.ibb.co/WKNgGDq/gfs-z01-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/xmJKTcn/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
I believe that ozone accumulation in certain regions of the stratosphere causes planetary waves. In my opinion, this is a phenomenon that occurs in the stratosphere, not the troposphere. Only by breaking the polar vortex does it begin to unfold in the troposphere.
The current distribution of ozone in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/fSQW9J4/current.gif
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16006-1_2
Holocene temperatures warmer then today
You’ve found one! However, this is for the Baltic Sea region only. And note that the citations (like from Seppa) attribute the warmth of the Holocene Thermal Maximum to a regional affect. This publication does NOT suggest that the HTM was warmer than today on a global scale.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
Salvatore Del Prete
Yes, we know.
Under natural conditions changes like Milankovich cycles force changes in temperature, as happened 15,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period.
Rising temperatures cause carbon sinks like the ocean and permafrost to release CO2.
The extra CO2 acts as an amplifying feedback,raising 1.5C of orbital warming to 5C total.
At the end of an interglacial orbital forcing lowers the temperature and the CO2 is absorbed back into the carbon sinks.
Mostly CO2 follows temperature. Occasionally temperature follows CO2.
The prolonged eruptions which produce large igneous provinces generate enough CO2 to significantly raise temperatures.
We are artificially relaasing as much CO2 as a large igneous province volcano, with the same result.
CO2 is increasing by 20ppm/decade and temperature is following it up at 0.2C/decade.
Temperatures have been rising since the Little Ice Age ended. Long before the man made global warming scam came to be.
You are using the “belief” word again.
Your use of the term “global warming scam” is an indication of your belief that it is a conspiracy.
Believers in conspiracy theories are usually impervious to evidence.
E, if AGW is REAL, present the relevant physics.
Your “model” indicates Earth should be at 303K. But Earth’s average temp is 288 K. If you “believe” your “model”, then you must realize radiative gases are significantly cooling the planet.
303 K again pulled out of th vacuum? Evidence? No of course not.
E, you get all confused, the more you type.
Warm the oceans, they release more CO2. Cool the oceans, they take in more CO2.
That’s science.
Believing that CO2 can warm the oceans is a belief. “Beliefs” ain’t science.
Beliefs aint science. Heard this somewhere, starting to sound like whit noise.
What is you definition of science? And belief? Just so we’re clear.
Salvatore
You might want to read the New Scientist article more carefully. It supports my view, not yours.
Salvatore, tomorrow the jetstream will dive the Rocky Mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/Mhb4ZLL/20122206-jetstream-h24.gif
http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/namjetstream_model_fcst.html
What is interesting is during the Holocene Optimum CO2 concentrations were only 260ppm yet it was as warm if not warmer then today.
Also Mars has an atmosphere which is 94% CO2 yet why is the surface so cold? Where is the runaway Greenhouse on Mars?
Thanks Ren for the info.
Mars has about 160 kg/m^2 of GHGs in its atmosphere. This compares to Earth of about 100 kg/m^2. So in terms of the cross sectional area Mars has about 60% more IR trapping molecules than Earth. But Mars average temperature is 210K whereas Earth is 288K. This means Mars has about 105 W/m^2 compared to Earth which has 370 W/m^2 of radiation that can activate the GHGs or about 30% of that of Earth. Furthermore Mars’ atmospheric lapse rate is 2.5 C/km whereas on Earth it is 6.5 C/km. Other considerations are that Mars has a much lower pressure which reduces the pressure broadening effect and a much lower temperature which reduces the doppler broadening effect. Earth also has trace GHGs that are at least an order of magnitude more potent on a molecular basis which Mars does not have. What this all means is that Mars’ GHE is actually weaker relative to Earth despite its atmosphere containing a higher concentration of GHG molecules in general. Nevertheless, its weaker GHE is still able to increase the temperature by about 6C relative to an IR transparent atmosphere.
Regarding your point about CO2 during the Holocene Optimum…as we’ve been trying to explain there is more to the determination of global mean temperature than just CO2. Aerosols offset about 50% of the CO2 effect right now. Also keep in mind that it will take decades of warming to get the climate to equilibriate to the current concentration and that is assuming there is no further increase and only for the fast feedbacks. When you consider the slow feedbacks it will take an additional hundreds to even thousands of years for the climate to fully equilibriate.
Salvatore
I don’t know why bgdwx didn’t explicitly mention H2O aka water vapor.
THAT is namely the major difference!
J.-P. D.
Well…I did assume 10,000 ppm for it. That’s where the majority of my 100 kg/m^2 of GHGs comes from.
https://grandsolarminimum.com/2018/12/08/arctic-entered-new-ice-age-8000-years-ago/
https://grandsolarminimum.com/2018/12/08/arctic-entered-new-ice-age-8000-years-ago/
I wonder why the creator only added 0.75C after 1940 to the chart. The Arctic region is warming at 2-3x that of the global rate. When you add 1.5-2.0C to the 1940 value you get something closer to 3.1-3.6 or about on par with the Holocene Climate Optimum. And it is a rocket shot up with a +0.8 W/m^2 Earth Energy Imbalance all but guaranteeing that this will continue upward for decades to come. And I probably don’t need to point out that this STILL is not representative of what is happening on a global scale. The Earth has way more to offer than just Greenland. It even has a whole other hemisphere.
You do have this fixation with CO2 to the exclusion of everything else.
You forget that Earth was on the orbital forcing sweet spot. We slipped off it about 5000 years ago and cooled by 1C.
Mars’ atmosphere is 94% CO2. Average atmospheric pressure is also 1% of Earth’s, solar insolation is 50% of Earth’s and there’s negligible water vapour.
Entropic man
Re.: your WFT plot in a comment above, dated Dec 15:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2016/every/trend
Please let me add some details.
1. If you show only the trends, no one understands where they originated from. I thought it would be better to show the 12 month running means (WFT doesn’t support centred means).
2. in WFT and at Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer, ‘2016’ is the same as ‘2015.99’. If you want your chart on include 2016, the therefore have to select ‘2017’ as end date. The same holds for 2015 of course.
Thus:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2017/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/mean:12
and we compare ‘red plus blue’, ‘blue’ and ‘blue plus green’…
Of course I could have merged the two graphs, but.
J.-P. D.
Duh! Salad… should read
If you want a plot in your chart to include 2016, you therefore have to select 2017 as end date.
Thanks for the date setting tip.
I didn’t include more than the linear trends because my purpose was to show that short term trends are very sensitive to start and end dates.
Salvatore encountered the “no warming since 1998” meme somewhere and is still using it. He’s not going to change, but perhaps a lurker learned something.
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/08/19/this-just-in-co2-doesnt-drive-temperature/
Now is the time to prove AGW theory wrong once and for all.
To my fellow skeptics on this site we have to put our minds together and try to come up with some comprehensive arguments, and of course keep showing data that refutes this theory. What I am sending is some of that kind of data.
It is unfortunate we have the coincidence of rising temperatures with rising CO2 at this particular time. This could end at any time, through a natural event.
The problem is when a natural event occurs AGW enthusiast are going to claim temporary but it is NOT, it is part of a natural event impact upon the climate.
They will always come up with an excuse to further their theory, and this is going to continue even if temperatures stop rising or even fall much less if they keep rising.
So let’s hope this coincidental rise in temperatures/CO2 come to a halt, and the sooner the better.
Salvatore, a graph of 600 million years, are you serious?
The Sun was 6% weaker then. You need a model with continental drift for a start.
Silly snowflake Svante believes: “The Sun was 6% weaker then.”
The silly snowflakes can’t seperate science from beliefs. There is NO science to support Sun was weaker 600 million years ago.
Salvatore,
Svante is right. Gough 1981 provides a simple way of estimating solar luminosity evolution over time. Refer to page 28 for the formula. It comes out to about 1% every 100 million years or so.
https://tinyurl.com/yd4vydn3
Wrong again, bdgwx.
Since you are so infatuated with that “Gough 1981” formula, maybe you could provide the derivation?
But, you can’t! There is no derivation. The formula is a guess, based on beliefs.
Maybe you don’t know, but beliefs ain’t science.
(Do you ever get anything right?)
Backasswards. Science is not about belief, and stellar evolution is well tested science. Hint: there are billions of stars to learn from.
The formula is a guess, based on beliefs.
So says an idiot troll. Why should we care? No one does.
Nate acknowledges his disinterest in reality.
News flash: reality is not created by dimwit internet trolls, It is evaded.
I agree Nate.
And when you trolls are not evading reality, you’re trying to pervert it.
Where is your reality?
Show us a shred of evidence to back up your idiotic claims that the science being discussed here is just ‘a guess’.
If, as I can scientifically predict, you will not be able to back up your claims with evidence, then it will prove my point, that your so-called reality is only a reality in the mind of a dimwit troll, YOU.
I’m sure somebody asked already for the same info, but I’m too lazy to scan the thread.
I see John Christy’s and Roy Spencer’s model evaluation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/1525-2020-model-Tsfc-and-0-2000m.jpg
and… miss the LIA.
Are there no data representing it in some way in the model’s sources? Hard to imagine…
J.-P. D.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/24/ancient-temperatures/
Very compelling evidence against AGW.
I wanted to see how well the ice core records matched up with the temperature records. So I calculated three records from the Berkeley Earth land-only dataset. (I used the land-only dataset because Im comparing with a location on land. ”
This was when I stopped reading.
Let me explain.
To measure past temperatures in an ice core you measure the proportion of the heavier oxygen 18 isotope relative to the more oxygen 16 in the water molecules at a particular depth.
Water molecules with 18O are heavier and need more kinetic energy to evaporate than 16O water.
This means that at lower temperatures the evaporate contains less 180. As the temperature of the ocean surface from which The water evaporates increases, so does the proportion of 18O.
You can calibrate this in the laboratory and use it to deduce past ocean temperatures.
Note:- Ocean surface!
The Alpine core is not measuring the temperature in the Alps. It is measuring the temperature of the ocean surface from which The water in the core epaporated.
So why is Willie Eisenbach comparing an ice core with land temperatures instead of ocean temperatures?
If his understanding of ice core temperature measurement is so weak, how can the rest of his article be trusted?
Got you Entropic man . You don’t like the data because it is a threat to your AGW theory.
Enough with the insults.
I don’t disagree with Eisenbach’s conclusions because they are a threat to AGW theory. They aren’t.
I disagree with them because they are poor science.
He made elementary errors of knowledge about the use of ice cores, he distorted the Berkeley land data (which should have been ocean data) to fit his graph and then compared the ice core temperatures with his distorted graph.
You are correct that the sceptics don’t present a strong scientific case against AGW, mostly because they isn’t one.
I’ve been debating this for a long time now. I used to meet intelligent sceptics who pointed out legitimate concerns, but they have mostly faded from the debate as the data improved.
Now even long-term sceptics like Roger Pielke Jr, Judith Curry and Clive Best accept the science and the data. They differ from the consensus mostly in its interpretation, expecting less damage to society from future temperature rises.
E, before you start crying, you should pay attention to the constant insults Skeptics get.
Next you should understand that REAL science is not about “blah-blah”. Typically, you and your cult members can wear out a keyboard in a week. Endless comments, filled with nothing but opinions and insults ain’t science.
You have been asked to present REAL science proving AGW. You have avoiding doing so.
To my fellow skeptics the data Willis has presented is MOST compelling.
Will be following up on this.
Salvatore, the animation below shows how tropospheric circulation during winter is affected by the accumulation of ozone in the stratosphere above the Pacific Northwest.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/alaska/mimictpw_alaska_latest.gif
On December 28, the polar vortex will be so weakened that the circulation over Europe will completely change its direction to the north-east. I predict a harsh winter in the UK.
https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR3U3E1jWrFrtTiGN_hTEFkBU87QMeOYoluI8wDZ4F7-heF5LVXF5SwDYj0#2020/12/28/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=3.66,88.47,373
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/12/22/eastern-alps-may-have-been-ice-free-5000-years-ago/
Note this article confirms Holocene warmer then today.
It is funny how any science that does not agree with AGW is poor science.
I would say the opposite. The poor science is on the AGW side of things that either ignore or change data to make it fit their theory.
“analyse microscopic bits of organic material extracted from the ice cores and found that the glacier is 5200 to 6600 years old.”
No problem.
“tzi is thought to have lived between 5100 and 5300 years ago, and his body was found preserved in ice.”
Not quite . He was found when his possessions started melting out of the ice.
The glaciers age means it formed during a time called the mid-Holocene warm period, when Earths climate was warmer than it is now.
We know when the glacier formed. We do not know that it was warmer than now. That is the assumption you are trying to prove.
.
It is also dome-shaped, which Bohleber says is rare in the Alps and means that the ice has seen very little movement over time, meaning we can use it to study the climate when it formed.
The glacier doesnt flow. It builds up in Summer and melts again in Summer.
All your paper shows is that 5600 years ago it was cool enough for the glacier to grow and is now warm enough to for it to melt. You cant say from that whether it was warmer then, or is now
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/06/14/ask-otzi/
Another study along the lines of what I am exposing.
I suppose all of it is poor science.
Yes this is how you go about debunking AGW theory by looking into the past.
Another great Article which I will dig up later is the sea ice/Little Ice Age connection and how fast that could happen.
A violent attack of winter in the Midwest. Gusts of freezing wind up to 70 km/h.
https://i.ibb.co/648RzGV/Screenshot-3.png
“From another perspective, Alaska, -and Siberia-, are sites where well preserved mammal remains have, and still are, being found, that raise questions on how they perished. The Ice-age mammals of the Yukon show the wide variety of fauna and flora. They were preserved by a fast freeze at a time when the climate of the locality then appears to have been warmer than today, as evident by the flora and fauna that the melting ice is uncovering.”
Question to Challenge the Conventional Wisdom:
1) CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of 15 micron LWIR.
2) If thermalization isn’t its only mechanism, it should by definition cause warming, and offers no explanation for extended periods of cooling.
3) The CO2 molecule and the LWIR of 15 Microns has a photon of certain quantifiable energy.
4) 15-micron LWIR is transparent to O2 and N2 which accounts for 99% of the atmosphere. CO2 represents 1 out of every 2,500 molecules.
Question:
1) Does it seem possible that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can significantly alter the thermal energy of the other 2,499?
2) According to Dr. Clapper, CO2 doesn’t absorb the LWIR and collide with another molecule, it absorbs the photon, and then re-emits the photon. Limiting the thermal contribution to vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules.
3) Water vapor also absorbs 15 micron LWIR and is measured in parts per 100. In other words, with or without CO2 LWIR IR of 15 micron will be absorbed by some molecule (Evidence is that you first start to see the CO2 signature only at elevated altitude where H2O has precipitated out of the atmosphere)
4) Once a CO2 molecule has absorbed a 15-micron LWIR Photon, it can not absorb another one until it releases the one it has already absorbed.
5) CO2 is effectively saturated by the time you get to 300 ppm. Emitting more LWIR won’t get absorbed because all the CO2 molecules are already likely activated.
6) In that case, wouldn’t adding more CO2 simply increase the altitude that CO2 gets saturated, and wouldn’t actually increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere? Once again, a CO2 molecule that is activated by LWIR of 15-microns has a limited and quantifiable amount of thermal energy. Increasing CO2 from 1 out of every 2,500 molecules to 1 out of every 2,499 molecules. At the start of the industrial age, CO2 was 1 out of every 3,700, now it is 1 out of ever 2,500, when CO2 was 7000 ppm, CO2 was 1 out of every 140 molecules, and life thrived and we had no catastrophic warming.
CO2isLife
Sorry, this is simply wrong.
CO2’s (very, very tiny) action begins where that of WV aka H2O stops due to WV’s precipitation: above the troposphere.
Try to translate this paper writen by two French climate specialists:
documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1
I lack the time to do.
In short: CO2’s main activity is, like does every other IR sensitive gas, to intercept IR at those frequencies it can absorb, and to reemit it – half up, half down.
That is the first, rather evident point. H2O does that much better due to is higher abundance (10:1) but at other, less relevant frequencies.
The somewhat less evident point is that the higher the altitude a molecule absorbs and reemits, the lower is its reemission energy, due to the lower reemission temperature.
CO2 is more or less uniformly present in altitude columns, up to 50 km. Here is the average temperature, depending on altitude:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
*
There is a much shorter paper publicly available, sort of resumee of Dufresne’s and Treiner’s paper:
https://www.centrale-energie.fr/spip/spip.php?article151
It has the advantage to keep outside of Adobe’s private PDF world.
When I have time to, I’ll translate it into English.
For the moment, I’m too busy with contradicting uneducated persons pretending that the Moon doesn’t spin around its own axis… OMG.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon Says: CO2isLife
Sorry, this is simply wrong.
For the moment, I’m too busy with contradicting uneducated persons pretending that the Moon doesn’t spin around its own axis… OMG.
CO2isLife: I’m confused, everything I posted is 100% consistent with what I wrote, and yes the Moon does spin around its axis. It does so in a manner that keeps one side always pointing towards the earth.
Don’t fall into the same trap as many do. Moon rotation is easily debunked. But, as with debunking AGW, individuals have to be able to think for themselves.
Yesterday I was wondering about the weak LIA presence in Roy Spencer’s model chart:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/1525-2020-model-Tsfc-and-0-2000m.jpg
but today I no longer do: I understand that to see it, you need the full encompassing context.
1. Here is for example the PAGES2K data with the inevitable hockey stick, object of harsh critique to say the least, but due in fact to the extreme compression of the last 170 years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view
Now we see the LIA; but it is evident that WUWTmaniacs for example would complain about the MWP keeping absent! Ooooh.
2. For those who don’t understand, here is the same yearly data from 1850 till 2019 (together with the global Had-CRUT4 data, and UAH6.0 LT):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view
The bloody hockey stick is merely an optical illusion, like the raising Moon.
3. Now we can compare PAGES2K starting with 1525, entailed by Had-CRUT4, with Mr Spencer’s graph (caution: all my graphs are based on departures wrt the mean of 1981-2010, his isn’t):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mkY0qiYcwWEeIrJiEgHQKd-_07_7DX2z/view
*
And here too: no hint on the LIA.
If we make abstraction of the departure differences due to a completely different reference model (equilibrium temperature vs. mean of 1981-2010, differeing by about 0.6 C), the global similarity between PAGES2K and Mr Spencer’s model output is amazing.
I would enjoy him providing us with the time series out of which his graph was generated.
I would then produce a graph with PAGE2K and Spencer plots, uniformly scaled on percentiles like e.g. here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
allowing for the best possible comparison.
*
Anyway, the usual Pseudoskeptics and Contrarians will have to either
– start pretending that Roy Spencer is an Alarmist
or
– stop claiming that the people who made PAGES2K were Alarmists.
Entweder oder, denn beides geht nun einmal nicht!
*
Source for PAGES2K: https://tinyurl.com/y9u9uy63
J.-P. D.
” Here is for example the PAGES2K data with the inevitable hockey stick, object of harsh critique to say the least, but due in fact to the extreme compression of the last 170 years”
People, start with the basics. Ask the obvious questions. The truth is staring you right in the face.
The Grapic shows a Dog Leg at 1985. There is no way that the gradual and immaterial increased in CO2 and its W/M^2 back radiation could ever cause a dog leg. Just think about it logically Y = mX+b. Why would m change in 1985? Did the physics of the CO2 molecule suddenly change? The dog leg is a dead give away that CO2 isn’t the cause of the warming. If I was presenting in a court of law, I would use every climate chart with a dog leg to make my case. The physics of the CO2 molecule are constant. They don’t cause dog legs. Watch the Magic Grits video on YouTube from My Cousin Vinny. Anyone that believes that CO2 is causing the warming and uses that chart as evidence simply doesn’t understand multi-variable modeling. Trust me, the slope attriputed to CO2 is a constant, it won’t cause a dog leg. The model is missing some other variable, ie Cloud Cover and radiation reaching the Oceans.
CO2isLife
” The Grap[h]ic shows a Dog Leg at 1985. ”
Please, guy. Keep us free of such stoopid nonsense you probably obtained on a scienceless blog like iceage.info, Gosselin’s TricksZone or similar. Some WUWTmaniacs love to make use of such nonsense as well.
This is so ridiculous… You Pseudoskeptics try all possible tricks to denigrate the work of others.
Make use of science!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, “This is so ridiculous… You Pseudoskeptics try all possible tricks to denigrate the work of others.”
That doesn’t explain how the physics behind the GHG and CO2 can cause a dog leg. Please explain, how can a relative constant cause a dog leg? Did the physics of the CO2 molecule suddenly change in 1985?
Insulting me doesn’t explain a question any serious scientist would want to be answered.
Please, explain how CO2 can cause a dog leg in 1985. What changed?
CO2isLife
I did by no means insult you. I just state things and name them.
One more time:
YOU are here the one who pretends
– that, in your fantasy, there is a so called ‘dog leg’ in the data in 1985, and
– that, again in your fantasy, it could be put in some alleged relation to the “physics of the CO2 molecule”.
And thus
YOU are the one who starts with explaining us where you see this ‘dog leg’ in the data, how it does look like, etc.
Oh Noes…
J.-P. D.
CO2isLife
And let me add this: what is horrifying with people like you is that you are so incredibly fixated on you bloody CO2 blah blah, that you can#t even stop explaining anything without referring to this poor little gas.
It’s so stupid.
What the heck does this 1985 corner have to do with CO2?
No one, YOU EXCEPTED, is here talking about CO2 in relation to the PAGES2K record.
What I’m interested in is the comparison between Roy Spencer’s and PAGES2K’s results.
Can you DEFINITELY get that into your head, CO2isLife?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, the whole blog post is about 1D Forcing Feedback. Just what do you think is causing the “forcing” in that model? I’m pretty sure that CO2 is a major forcing factor. Or an I wrong? If I’m right, then there is no way any model based upon CO2 can possibly explain a dog leg. None nada zip. If it can, I’m all ears.
Facts are, you have observations that show a dog leg. That rules out CO2 as the cause. Explain the dog leg and you explain global warming and climate change. What warms the oceans warms the atmosphere above it. The oceans hold 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere. The oceans are the hypothalamus of the earth. Explain the oceans and you explain the climate. Your chart proves CO2 isn’t the cause of the warming, or climate change. CO2 can’t cause dog legs.
Magic Grits:
https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8
CO2isLife
Could you now please DEFINITELY stop boring me with your pathological CO2 syndrome?
Sorry, I have now really enough of that.
Explain where you see your strange dog leg in the data in 1985, and that’s all.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
I agree with you.
Dimwits like Gavin Schmidt write stupid things like * Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature *.
Unfortunately, other alarmists share this same pathological CO2 fixation.
Ridiculous, isnt it?
“The Grapic shows a Dog Leg at 1985. ”
There was a decline in albedo from 1985 to 1998.
That would explain the dog leg.
https://skepticalscience.com//earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm
Arctic air continues its attack to the Southeast.
https://i.ibb.co/qxhZ2wz/Screenshot-2.png
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=judy%20curry%20with%20tucker%20carlson&docid=608032679447498734&mid=01E66FBE90C087FB7D8001E66FBE90C087FB7D80&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&fbclid=IwAR1MZx7cCkJVD8Y9gy0B-7QeiiXvfaeaTLHoV-66Zn78kT7wvhz33qDPK_I
Exactly correct Judy Currie.
Thanks Ren for your earlier post.
After that interview JC published a paper in which she raised her estimate of 2xCO2 sensitivity to 1.8C with the 95% CI at 1.2-3.1C.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/15/jcli-d-17-0667.1.xml
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/sea-ice-triggered-the-little-ice-age-finds-a-new-study/
I think if the atmospheric circulation changes enough and is sustained (example -AO state) that could cause sea ice to grow and drive and spread to lower latitudes.
Ren what to do you think?
Salvatore, Due to the breakdown of the polar vortex, the Arctic ice will not rise. However, a lot of snow will fall in Greenland.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2020.png
After heavy downpours in the Northeast US there will be a quick freeze.
A very strong wind will make people feel like they are at the North Pole.
Yes, sea ice export out the Fram strait is thought to alter the AMOC. In fact, Mann himself hypothesized that changes in the AMOC could be a significant factor in the LIA and MWP temperature oscillations.
As long there is a continued push to drive radiative forcing higher and sustain the persistently high Earth Energy Imbalance then sea ice will continue to decline. It will not grow and extend down the latitudes over any appreciably long period of time.
Salvatore, see on the radar where the jet stream is heading in the Atlantic. It is because of the strong weakening of the polar vortex.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/gl/national/weather-radar
Salvatore, See what happens to the jet stream in the Atlantic.
https://i.ibb.co/N2yb7Dh/jetstream-norhem-00.gif
Salvatore
This is nothing really new.
A much deeper, more interesting report was published in 2012:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
That should really interest you!
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Come off it!
Just more modelling, based on speculation.
Read the paper. Typical alarmist pap.
Obviously your preferred fare.
Yes it is interesting thanks Bindidon
Salvatore, ice in the Arctic is in a pretty good condition.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/smos/curent_SIT.png
Sure. As long as “good condition” now allows for sea ice extent being below the interdecile range of the climatological average.
Who is interested in PAGES2K info can read this:
A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
and who is interested in downloading the data generated out of all proxies may access this:
https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/15176039
Don’t care about pseudoskeptic boasters who discredit, denigrate and distort everything that doesn’t match their narrative.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon: Dont care about pseudoskeptic boasters who discredit, denigrate and distort everything that doesnt match their narrative.
Being a skeptic is the foundation of science. Asking questions is the foundation of science. Censoring, insulting and refusing to answer questions is the mark of a Pseudoscientist.
I ask again, how can CO2 cause a dog leg? That is a simple question. As Einstein said, it only takes one question to prove me wrong. Answer my question and prove me wrong. That is how real science
works.
The problem I see with climate science is that they don’t force themselves to undergo cross-examination. This “science” will never hold up in a court of law. Never.
Magic Grits:
https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8
I’m unfamiliar with the term “dog leg”. What “dog leg” are you talking about?
bdgwx
Will we ever get an answer? This CO2 fixation is a bit strange.
And above all:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view
Even before I ask what it might be, I ask:
Where is that dog leg in 1985?
J.-P. D.
A dog leg is a sharp bend in a linear chart. A rapid and sharp increase in slope. An L on its side is a perfect dog leg.
CO2 shows a log decay in W/M^2, so temperatures should have its slope flatten with higher CO2 not have their slope increase.
First…where exactly are you seeing a dog leg?
Second…maybe the issue is that your model is too simple because you only consider the direct radiative forcing of CO2. What happens when you consider feedbacks and other forcing agents. I recommend reading through the IPCC AR5 WGI Physical Science Basis Report for a brief introduction to the many variables that you should have already be considering.
This sounds a lot like Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, something he claims was his greatest mistake.
“Secondmaybe the issue is that your model is too simple because you only consider the direct radiative forcing of CO2. What happens when you consider feedbacks and other forcing agents.”
That just sounds of inspiration of someone trying to curvefit a model. If you play around with the code enough you can fit any line or curve you want, but that is called data mining, curve fitting, it isn’t called science. In real science you identify the most significant independent variables and the impact they should have on a dependent variable. Run the analysis, and if you have a valid model you get a high R-Squared. In real science you don’t keep adjusting the data and coefficients to make things work. That is pseaudoscience.
“Firstwhere exactly are you seeing a dog leg?”
Just look at the chart, it starts in 1985. Also, look at the Hockeystick in 1902 and 1980. It has 2 Hockeysticks. The problem is when you look at all these charts, they fail to line up the dog legs. If there was a sharp increase in teperatrues starting in 1902 as the Hockeystick claims, sea level would also show a Hockeystick, but it doesn’t. Ocean temperatures would show a Hockeystick, but they don’t. They problem with perpetrating a fraud is that everyone have to stick to the same story, but charts were published before the hoax was devised. That is the real problem of Climate Science. The previously published data destroys the hoax for anyone that digs deep enough. That is why skeptics have to be silenced.
CO2isLife
I speak about pseudoskeptic boasters. Try to read before you write.
I’m over 70, and my entire professional life was based on sound skepticism.
Don’t try to teach me about what that means.
Bindidon, based on your performance here, your “professional life” was one of licking boots and groveling for crumbs.
That’s why you’re here, like Norman, trying to pretend you have a life.
Bindidon why do you believe this agenda driven garbage. All the recent temperature reconstructions are wrong.
Are you saying the sources that you have directly or indirectly pointed us to (like from Alley, Kaufmann, Marcott, etc.) are wrong? That begs the question…why are you pointing us toward them? And do you have a reconstruction that has been vetted by experts that you do trust?
I just sent info. That is what I believe . The one that says liars. Look at that and you will know where I stand.
So you believe Alley, Kaufmann, and Marcott?
b,
Richard Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
You seem to disagree. Presumably, you still believe in phlogiston, the indivisible atom, and continents not moving.
As to your experts, if one of them was stupid enough to include * The global climate is warming, and the Greenland Ice Sheet is responding. . . *, in a paper, then you might need to choose your experts more carefully, if you think anyone should take notice of your appeals to authority.
https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/12/16/there-are-liars-damn-liars-and-the-united-nations/
Yes they are.
I’m sorry Bindidon, was there an answer as to how CO2 can cause a dog leg in your answer? I seem to have missed it. Here, I’ll ask it again. How does CO2 cause a dog leg in the chart?
CO2is life
I posted this above.The increase in CO2 drives the long term warming trend. Other effects cause short term variations in that trend. For example:-
Entropic man says:
December 23, 2020 at 5:40 PM
The Grapic shows a Dog Leg at 1985.
There was a decline in albedo from 1985 to 1998.Look at Fig. 2 here or at the original Palle 2004 paper.
That would explain the dog leg.Lower albedo, more surface illumination, more rapid temperature increase.
https://skepticalscience.com//earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm
BTW, I’m no rocket scientist, but all the trouble they go through to measure albedo seems for naught. It seems to be highly unreliable anyway, and suspect anyway.
Isn’t the only thing that really matters how much sunlight is reaching the oceans? You could cover most of North America and if you have clear sky over the oceans things will warm. The earth’s surface cools very very fast relative to the oceans. Green areas never hold much heat to begin with.
Why don’t they simply replace please luminocity meters on the buoys and ships through the oceans. Or use satellite photos of the brightness of the oceans or visibility of the oceans?
If you’ve ever seen the “old moon in the New Moon’s arms” you’ll know that the night side of the Moon is illuminated by reflected sunlight from the Earth.
This is directly proportional to the planetary albedo and gives a good measure thereof.
There are a number of satellites positioned to directly measure albedo, which is probably best done from space.
There are sunlight detectors at most good weather stations, but measuring cumulative energy input from illumination is more complex and less common.
While I think of it, climate change has had its day in court.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/san-francisco-court-room-climate-science-gets-its-day-docket
Judge Alsup later found for the science, but dismissed the case against the oil companies because it could not be proven that they were directly responsible for the global warming in California.
I’m not sure I would call it a victory for the science. If the science can prove CO2 is the cause, Big Oil would be sued out of existence. They haven’t been.
Q: Could heat from power plants add much to the planet overall?
A: No, its dwarfed by the energy trapped by greenhouse gases.
I doubt anyone doubts that, but it is meaningless. Everyone knows the atmosphere holds a lot of heat. Without largely water vapor and other GHGs the atmosphere would be cooler.
Q: Was the relationship between rising temperatures and rising greenhouse gases logarithmic or linear?
A: Logarithmic.
Lying by omission. This halftruth is twice the lie. Yes it is logarithmic, but is a decaying log function, ie, no dog legs like you see in the Hockeystick.
Q: How high would sea levels get if all the ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and other continents melted?
A: More than 60 meters.
That assumes that the water flows into the oceans, and that Greenland isn’t a giant bowl, which I believe it is. BTW, the Greenland ice sheet is melting from below? How does CO2 cause the volcano below the glacier to melt the ice? How does LWIR penetrate 1 mile of ice to melt the glacier from its underside?
Q: During the last ice age, could people have walked across land in what is now the Bering Strait?
A: Yes.
Yes, but more important is why did temperatures increase before CO2 to end the ice age, and why do ice ages start when CO2 is at a peak? There is no mechanism by which CO2 can explain the glacial cycles.
CO2 does not cause ice ages.
The current ice age began several million years ago when narrowing of the Bering Strait stopped water flowing across the Arctic Ocean.
Since then changes in the Earth’s orbit have produced a 100,000 year cycle with approximately 90,000 years of ice to New York and 10,000 years like the Holocene. Glacial periods and interglacials.
The cause is changes in the pattern of illumination in the Northern Hemisphere. Research Milankovich Cycles.
The role of CO2 is to amplify the temperature changes, not cause them.
CO2 and temperature are linked in a feedback relationship. Sometimes temperature leads and CO2 follows. Sometimes CO2 leads and temperature follows.
In interglacial temperature leads. In AGW CO2 leads.
CO2 does not lead because the temperatures started to rise long before AGW was even thought of.
Salvatore,
Probably true. Considering the LIA was likely heavily influenced by the AMOC, increased volcanic activity, and reduced solar activity it only makes sense that when those factors reversed then warming would ensue. The problem is that those factors cannot explain why the warming has continued and why it has accelerated. To better understand this we have to broaden our list of influencing factors.
And remember, CO2 both leads and lags depending how the initial temperature change was catalyzed. It lagged (sort of) during the Quaternary Period because there was no actor that caused large and sudden releases of it. The resulting behavior was feedback first and forcing second. But, it lead during the PETM and other ETMx events when large and sudden releases due to things like flood basalt events. The resulting behavior was forcing first and feedback second. We just happen to live in an era where there is an actor that is releasing CO2 in huge quantities independent of the temperature. The resulting behavior is forcing first with the feedback probably only just now starting.
And it should go without saying…CO2 isn’t the ONLY thing that modulates the climate. Any model of the climate should consider all forcing and feedback variables for it to be successful. In other words, don’t fixate on CO2.
Thanks Entropic Man, that makes my point. Your article pretty much proves the points I’ve been making. CO2 doesn’t impact albedo. Clouds to. More clouds, less radiation making it to the oceans, they cool. Fewer clouds, less albedo, more radiation making it to the oceans, the oceans warm. No CO2 needed.
My whole point that you just supported was that CO2 can’t cause a dogleg, and you just provided the evidence that would explain a dogleg. Once again, there is no need for CO2 in that model. Clouds and solar radiation explain the warming fully.
It’s a matter of scale. There are a number of forcings which potentially impact climate.
A partial list:-
Albedo, continental arrangement, orbital cycles, solar insolation, albedo, volcanoes, CO2, land use.
These forcing are monitored. Some, like albedo, can cause temporary changes in the rate of temperature change as you saw. CO2 is the only one with the correct intensity and timescale to explain the long term trend.
“CO2 is the only one with the correct intensity and timescale to explain the long term trend.”
E, you’re getting pretty good at making stuff up, and then fleeing the scene.
Sometime when you want to hang around, we’re still waiting for your “proof” that CO2 can raise the temperature of planet Earth.
EM,
Good grief. Several billion years of sunlight hasnt stopped the Earth from cooling.
If you heat a highly reflective metal sphere and a dull black metal sphere to say, 100 C, and put them in the Sun, they will both cool.
Albedo has no effect on the final result.
All this talk of forcings is just nonsensical. Try convincing anyone that you can quantify the effect of any of your silly forcings on weather.
Whats the relevance? Climate is just the average of weather, isnt it? Go on, what is the impact of CO2 on the weather?
Like any other alarmist clown, you havent the faintest clue. Just unbounded religious fervour!
Swensons strawmen ideas are getting more and more bizarre.
This one and the optics of compression have nuked the fridge.
CO2isLife said: Clouds and solar radiation explain the warming fully.
Can you post a link to a model that only considers clouds and solar radiation which plots the forcing and temperature on various different time scales including over the last 140 years, over the Holocene, over the Quaternary Period, and finally over the last 500 million years. Bonus points if this model can solve the faint young Sun paradox, PETM and other ETMx events, temperature observations immediately following contemporary volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, etc.
b,
Step out of the shade of a cloud into the sunshine. See? You get warmer. What dont you understand?
Alarmists have difficulty facing reality, it seems.
1) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and life thrived
2) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and coral reefs, sea life and mollusks thrived
3) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and we never experienced CAGW
4) CO2 has a log decay for W/M^2, and is approaching a horizontal asymptote
5) Ice Ages begin when CO2 is at a peak, and end when CO2 is at a minimum
6) H20, measured in parts per 100, absorbs the same 15 micron LWIR that CO2 does
7) The CO2 signature isn’t even visible until you are up 3 km or more
8) A black body of temperature -80 degrees C emits 15 micron LWIR
9) A single cloudy day can wipe out months if not years of the marginal energy contributed by the additional CO2 from Man
10) CO2 and LWIR or 15 micron can’t explain the warming oceans
11) The HockeyStick has a dog leg, CO2 can’t cause dog legs
12) CO2 can’t raise surface temperatures.
13) CO2 cannot raise the temperature of anything at all.
Just to be clear here…I’m asking you to present your model for review so that it can be scored objectively. If it does better than what we already have then great. If not then go back to the drawing board, make refinements, and resubmit for review. Let’s just start with 1880-2020. Post a csv file with three columns: year, temperature, and 95% CI. I’ll compute the deviation from observations and then compare it to CMIP5 and CMIP6.
b,
Ask away. Compute anything you like. While you are at it, produce your research which shows how and why CO2 affects weather, as climate is the average of weather.
Only joking, you dont have any. Nobody does.
You are delusional – a fanatical alarmist.
Ho Ho ho.
“Just to be clear here…I’m asking you to present your model for review so that it can be scored objectively…”
Easy.
T = .012(Y-1979), since evidence suggests slight natural warming will continue until it doesn’t.
T = Temperature anomaly (°C), Y = Year
Dimwit troll.
Yes Nate, bdgwx is a troll, but he doesn’t consider himself a “nitwit”.
He’s pretty impressed with his knowledge of nonsense.
I hate Gish Gallops.
If you want a sensible scientific debate stick to one topic at a time, rather than putting up a dozen dubious statements at once.
Let one stand for all.
2) is wrong. The last time CO2 concentration was 7000ppm was 700 million years ago, before corals evolved.
“…rather than putting up a dozen dubious statements at once.”
Yeah, so don’t pretend that you know anything about “700 million years ago”.
CO2, this is just a continuous game of whack a mole. Whacked enough for one week, and its Christmas…
Does that mean you will stop trolling for a few days?
Can I just take this oppurtunity to wish everybody a happy Christmas and a better new year.
Yes you can!
Same to you from the snow-free, not so Xmas-like Northern Germoney.
I hope you Brits won’t start suffering from this stoopid Brexit.
J.-P. D.
Over the Great Lakes the cold and dry air from Canada will mix with the warm and humid air from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/4WmMbCK/Screenshot-4.png
CO2isLife
Last trial. You wrote, as answer to the question ‘where exactly are you seeing a dog leg?’, the following statements:
” Just look at the chart, it starts in 1985.
Also, look at the Hockeystick in 1902 and 1980. It has 2 Hockeysticks.
The problem is when you look at all these charts, they fail to line up the dog legs.
If there was a sharp increase in teperatrues starting in 1902 as the Hockeystick claims, sea level would also show a Hockeystick, but it doesn’t. ”
1. Since when does a hockey stick have even two hockey sticks?
2. Which chart of those I posted you you mean?
(a) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view
(b) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view
(c) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mkY0qiYcwWEeIrJiEgHQKd-_07_7DX2z/view
If the chart has more than one plot, which color do you mean?
3. Why should SSTs, sea levels, sea ice etc etc show any hockey stick like does the global temperature?
4. Are you a German?
All you write here is very, very confused.
J.-P. D.
“1. Since when does a hockey stick have even two hockey sticks?”
Look closely, the slope changes in 1) 1902 when instrumental data is added and 2) 1980 when they drop the proxy data and there is only instrumental data. Funny how the slope changes each time the reconstruction changes. In my world that is called fraud.
Other things to consider:
1) There is no little ice age or medieval warming
2) The variability of the temperatures demonstrates heteroscedasticity, with variability reaching a min right before the dag leg
3) Nothing about CO2 changed in 1902 or 1980 to abruptly alter the slope, ie the magic grits problem
4) Instrumental data, by far the most accurate data, existed long before 1902, yet it was ignored. In my world that is pure fraud.
5) Simply go to NASA GISS, change the version to v3 and look up ever desert location you can find that existed prior to 1902. What you will find is that there are absolutely no dog legs in any temperature chart that is controlled for the urban heat island effect and water vapor.
I dream of the day someone uses the Hockeystick in a court of law.
Other things to ponder:
1) Al Gore’s CO2 Temp chart shows all major temperature peaks being above today’s temperature, yet at lower CO2
2) CO2 can’t explain the variability of the glacier cycle, where ice ages begin when CO2 is at a peak and end when CO2 is at a minimum. The exact opposite claimed should happen by the alarmists
3) What is causing all the variability if it isn’t CO2? What caused warming in the past is causing it today, and it ain’t CO2
Greenland Ice CO2:
1) Shows many period withing the Holocene of higher temperatures than today at lower CO2
2) The Holocene has had some extreme climate change not due to CO2
3) We are near the low of the Holocene for Temperature
4) Combine the NASA Satellite and NASA GISS/NOAA Data into one data string, and measure the mean and variance. Then compare that mean and variance to the entire Holocene and entire Vostok ice core record. You will discover that the variability of the industrial age is well within historical norms.
Try taking those arguments to court. Who do you think wins? The computer or the alarmist? The only way alarmists will ever win is with a biased and corrupt judge, ie that is why they choose San Francsico.
Co2isLife
Could you please deliver SHORT, CONCISE answers to questions?
I await answer for my question
2. Which chart of those I posted [do] you mean?
*
Especially your point (4) made me btw laugh quite a lot, because every Pseudoskeptic will tell you that instrumental data is not accurate at all.
And why do you please think that data before 1902 is ignored???
I know only one exception: BoM’s ACORN V2, starting with 1910. All others start either in 1880, or 1895 for CONUS, BEST starts even in 1750.
Don’t you see that for example, the Had-CRUT4 temperature series starts with 1850?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view
When I generate a temperature series out of GHCN daily
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
for Europe, it starts with… 1763. But that is from ONE station only, located in Italy! And that you name ‘accurate’? Oh Noes.
J.-P. D.
All your charts show dog legs. Did the physics of the CO2 molecule magically change around 1900?
Simply explain how CO2 can cause a rapid change in the slope? My original comments were about the Mann Hockeystick, but I see you have created your own Hockeystick charts. If you believe your charts, what happened in 1900 to alter the slope of the temperature graph. What dramatic change happened between 1900 and 1910 that altered the physics of the CO2 molecule?
“…the physics of the CO2 molecule…
The word “physics” to an Alarmist, is like a wooden stake to a vampire.
Alarmism is “no physics, none of the time”.
It has to be that way. If they knew physics, their nonsense would be over.
CO2islife
It seems impossible to communicate a very simple concept.
The gradual increase in temperature of 1.2C since 1880 is due to the gradual accumulation of CO2 released from fossil fuels.
Short term variations either side of that long term trend, such as pauses and doglegs, are due to other variables such as albedo.
The existance of the short term variations does not invalidate the long term trend, or prove that it is not due to CO2.
“The gradual increase in temperature of 1.2C since 1880 is due to the gradual accumulation of CO2 released from fossil fuels.”
Wrong E.
The gradual increase in temperature is due to the increasing number of pizza ovens.
Before WW2, there were hardly any pizza ovens, outside of Italy. Now there are pizza ovens ALL over the planet! There are even pizza ovens in Alaska!. No wonder the glaciers are melting.
Clint R
As a good Pastafarian I can assure you that climate change is not due to an excess of pizza ovens. It is due to a shortage of pirates.
If you plot temperature against the number of pirates, you see that the temperature increases because the number of pirates decreases.
We Pastafarians are trying to reverse global warming by dressing up as pirates. The plan is to fool the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster into believing that the number of pirates is increasing, so that he will then cool the climate.
Yeah, that’s what someone paid by the “big pizza” would say….
“The gradual increase in temperature of 1.2C since 1880 is due to the gradual accumulation of CO2 released from fossil fuels.”
Actually, it isn’t a simple concept.
1) CO2 has been increasing since the end of the Ice Age, start of the Holocene
2) CO2 increasing from 0 to 270 PPM added 29.3 W/M^2
3) CO2 increasing from 270 to 410 added 2.01 W/M^2
4) Adding 29.3 W/M^2 resulted in a gradual increase in temperatures yet an additional 2.01 W/M^2 causes a dog leg?
5) Temperatures are very variable, CO2 isn’t, how does a relatively constant CO2 cause both increases and decreases in temperature?
6) CO2 and W/M^2 is easily demonstrated to have a log decay, yet for some reason the impact of W/M^2 on temperatures is linear?
7) How does Climate Science convert a log decay into a linear function?
The fact that you think this is a simple problem, and can’t answer any of the above questions pretty much proves to me that you don’t understand the basics of this problem.
“2) CO2 increasing from 0 to 270 PPM added 29.3 W/M^2”
??? Oh CO2, your fact checkers need to be fired.
“5) Temperatures are very variable, CO2 isnt, how does a relatively constant CO2 cause both increases and decreases in temperature?”
Yeah, and its weird that we have a cold winter and hot summer without CO2 changing more than 1%!
Cmon CO2, end this reign of ignorance.
Go home and learn about Earth’s orbital cycles before posting more nonsense.
CO2isLife
” … but I see you have created your own Hockeystick charts. ”
Sorry, this is now a bit too much of your ignorant nonsense.
I never create ‘own’ charts. I generate them out of publicly available data. Those you permanently suspect to contain your nonsensical dog legs come from PAGES2K, the Hadley Centre or UAH.
Please stop right now, and manage to communicate with people ready to swallow your unscientific blah blah. I’m sad of it.
Bindidion: I never create own charts. I generate them out of publicly available data. Those you permanently suspect to contain your nonsensical dog legs come from PAGES2K, the Hadley Centre or UAH.
Then the data you use rules out CO2 as the cause, unless you can explain how a log decay results in a sharp upward increase in temperatures.
Bindidion: Please stop right now, and manage to communicate with people ready to swallow your unscientific blah blah. Im sad of it.
How real science works:
1) Observation: Climate changes over time
2) Hypothesis: Climate change in natural and not caused by man (Null)
3) Collect data for temperature change for the past 800,000 years and the Holocine
4) Analysis: What is the mean temperature for the pre-industrial Holocene and that is the mean temperature for the Industrial age
Does the Industrial Age Mean Temperature fall outside 2 standard deviations of the per-industrial Holocene?
Conclusion: The industrial mean does not fall outside the per-industrial mean by 2 standard deviations, so the Null is not rejected, climate change is of natural cause.
That is how a real science approaches a problem.
CO2 IS LIFE I agree still I want to see the temperature trend start to fall the sooner the better.
CO2islife
“explain how a log decay results in a sharp upward increase in temperatures. ”
Let’s put some numbers on that.
To determine the effect of a change in CO2 on energy input, the forcing equation is ∆F=5.35ln(final CO2/initial CO2)
To determine the temperature you include climate sensitivity (3) and the forcing constant (3.7 W/degree)
∆T=5.35ln(final CO2/initial CO2) climate sensitivity / forcing constant
The ln is natural logarithm, hence the logarithmic relationship between the change in concentration and the change in temperature.
Now to double the CO2 concentration and see what happens. Start with the 1880 280ppm and double to 560ppm, expected about 2050.
∆T = 5.35ln(560/280)3/3.7 = 3.01C
Double again to 1120ppm and the temperature increase becomes
∆T = 5.35ln(1120/280(3/3.7) = 6.01C
The second doubling createss lightly less than a second doubling of the temperature, but the difference is negligable.
Third doubling to 2240ppm
∆T = 5.35ln(2240/280)3/3.7 = 9.02C
Fourth doubling to 4480ppm.
∆T = 5.35ln(4480/280)3/3.7 = 12.02C
Fifth doubling to 8960ppm.
∆T = 5.35ln(8960/280)3/3.7 = 15.03C
If doubling CO2 increased temperature by the same amount each time, five doubling would produce 15.05C, a difference between linear and logarithmic growth of 0.02C.
I don’t think logarithmic decay is going to rescue you from climate change.
By the way, when CO2 was 7000ppm temperature was 14C warmer than the present.
The forcing equation projects
∆T = 5.35ln(7000/280)3/3.7 = 13.96C
Quite good agreement between theory and proxy.
If you take an incremental approach, the news looks better.
This time I’ll increase the CO2 from 280ppm to the present value, 410ppm and see what happens. Then I’ll increase CO2 in further steps of 120ppm and see what happens.
I’ll ignore the lag.
∆T = 5.35ln(410/280)3/3.7 = 1.65C
∆T = 5.35ln(530/280)3/3.7 = 2.76C
∆T = 5.35ln(650/280)3/3.7 = 3.65C
∆T = 5.35ln(770/280)3/3.7 = 4.38C
The first 120ppm produces a warming of 1.65C.
The next 120ppm produces 1.15C.
Subsequent increments produce 0.89C and 0.73C.
You can continue the calculation to find the asymtope, but I doubt it will come early enough to save us.
entropic man that is not going to happen.
… since we have the Paris Climate Agreement.
“Ill ignore the lag.”
There is no lag. The GHG effect is literally immediate and travels at the speed of light. We’re dealing with radiation, it literally travels at the speed of light.
There is no way your δT measurements are accurate. No way in Hades.
1) Ice Core Data shows an increase in temperature of around 1 degree C as CO2 increased from 180 to 280.
2) Simply look at the Central England Temperature Chart, there has been no warming since 1650.
3) There are plenty of stations on the NASA GISS website that when controlled for H2O and the Urban Heat Island effect show 0.00, no, nada, zip warming.
The problem your model has it that you are meaning temperature as a function of corrupt NASA data “adjustments”, the urban heat island effect and weather vapor.
No climate model is valid unless it has control to isolate the impact of one variable on another. That is the only way to build a valid multivariable model.
Key question that every judge will want to know. What data set did you use to represent the incoming radiation to the oceans? If the oceans are the key factor, you had better have a way to measure it, and explain what is causing it to warm, and why that warming is due to CO2.
Thinking through this, I have to make a few adjustments.
1) Assuming plants die at 180 ppm. I will assume that CO2 doesn’t start at 0.00 ppm, but bottoms around 180 at the bottom of an ice age. That I will assume is the theoretical minimum for CO2.
2) I will take the measurement from 180 to 270 for the Pre-Industrial and 270 to 410 for the industrial.
W/M^2 for the change between 180 and 270 is: 1.95 W/M^2, clearly showing that the vast majority of CO2’s contribution to the energy balance is natural.
W/M^2 for the change between 270 and 410 is: 2.01 W/M^2, nearly identical to the addition from 180 to 270.
Problem is, I don’t know when to start the analysis, but I do have a NOAA Chart showing CO2 at 280 in 1750, and 300 in 1900.
W/M^2 for the change between 280 and 300 is 0.31 W/M^2
Temperatures increased 1 degree from the bottom of the little ice age to the about 1880 when the NOAA Charts start. So an additional 0.31 W/M^2 produced 1 degree in warming if it was caused by CO2.
Between 1900 and today, the CO2 increased from 300 to 410, and the W/M^2 increased by 1.51 W/M^2.
According to NOAA, Temperatures were effectively flat between 1880 and 1980.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/1987_yearly_temperature_anomalies_from_1880_to_2019.jpeg
Temperatures appear to fall between 1880 and 1920.
Increase from 1920 to 1940.
Fall between 1940 and 1980
Increase sharply post 1980.
When temperatures do increase, they increase in a linear fashion.
There are 3 dog legs in the NOAA Chart, 1920, 1940, 1980
The physics on the CO2 must change dramatically because during some periods temperatures increase due to more CO2 and then they fall due to more CO2 and then they go back to increasing due to more CO2. Between 1880 and 1980, during the majority of the CO2 increase, temperatures are literally flat.
Anyway, that is a “reconstruction.” Simply identify temperature stations that aren’t impacted by H20 and the Urban heat island effect and you will see that there has been no warming since 1980. Simply look at the Central England Data Set. There has been no warming since 1650.
Why can’t skeptics be more self skeptical?
Really not that hard.
Before posting items, just apply a little skepticism. Are they factual or just made up? Logical or completely silly? Do I have some evidence to back this up? Or none at all?
This would avoid a lot of unnecessary gish gallops, and subsequent mole whacking.
Nate couldn’t refrain from trolling very long.
This is the problem climate “science” faces. Cross examination.
It is very easy to convince a Judge that Water Vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas, no expert witness would ever disagree with that statement. If an expert witness does disagree, I would simply pull out Modtran and show the Judge that the “Expert” is disagreeing with the industry standard climate modeling software. I would win that point.
It is very very easy to convince a Judge that the Urban Heat Island Effect is a major contributor to global warming and has nothing to do with CO2. If the opposing “expert” witness disagrees, I could show experimental evidence of a temperature stations on a hot asphalt roof vs one in a field. I would win that point.
Once I win those 2 points, I then go to the Industry Standard NASA GISS Website and identify desert locations that are unaffected by water vapor and the urban heat island effect. Basically dry and cold deserts. I would also use the “unadjusted” data.
Here is what you will find time and time again. There is 0.00 degree warming of locations that are unaffected by the urban heat island effect and water vapor. How can multiple locations show no warming over the past 140 years when CO2 increased from 280 to 410 ppm if CO2 is the major cause of warming?
Most importantly, how did I know where to look? That is how real science is done. Hypothesis: Warming isn’t due to CO2, but is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor. I didn’t reject that null, and you can test it yourself…if you dare.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=501943260000&dt=1&ds=5
CO2isLife, Sorry to be late to the party, but your denialist crap must be rebutted. For example, about 72% of the Earth is covered by oceans and there’s no heat island effect for the oceans. The data from UAH and RSS over the oceans indicates that the atmosphere over those areas is warming. This is especially so over the Arctic and there the warming trend is reported to be greatest in Winter. As for land measurements, these are area averaged and the fraction of the total land area covered by cities is quite small, thus the urban heat island effect has little impact.
As usual, your denialist rant about data ignores the fact that there are standards for siting the official stations and there must be corrections, such as accounting for station moves and changes in time of day of reading the low-high thermometers.
A proper judgement would throw out your claims, just like Trumpy’s claims that the election was stolen. You guys never learn, do you?
E Swanson, thanks for admitting the attempt to adjust the data. So often your side tries to deny it.
It’s just like your side refuses to explain how CO2 can warm the planet.
Are you sure Alice Springs is a good example? It is a small town in the middle of a hot desert. Small UHI effect, no water vapour and low latitude (low latitudes warm more slowly than high latitudes.)
You would expect a lower rate of warming than average. A cynic would wonder if you dug through the data until you found an example which supported your argument.
EM,
Ah. You have noticed that hot deserts lack the most important GHG – H20.
So the less GHG, the hotter it gets.
That is the reverse GHE, is it? No wonder you alarmists have difficulty actually describing the GHE. Cant be observed when its hot, cant be observed when its cold, cant be seen in urban areas, at night, in the shade, in the laboratory . . .
Are you sure it exists?
Careful Swenson, you are using logic and reason. Please, inject some emotion and insults. Talking in scientific terms will get you nowhere.
“Talking in scientific termsvwill get you nowhere”
Thats certainly been my experience with you two.
“Are you sure Alice Springs is a good example? It is a small town in the middle of a hot desert. Small UHI effect, no water vapour and low latitude (low latitudes warm more slowly than high latitudes.)”
Could you name a better one? I would say the South Pole would be a good one because it is very dry and has an IR spectrum close to what CO2 absorbs. Does Antarctica get much below -80 Degree C?
No warming in Antarctica either:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700896060008&dt=1&ds=5
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700890090008&dt=1&ds=5
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700895710008&dt=1&ds=5
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700896420008&dt=1&ds=5
Isn’t that amazing that me, an amateur, having never taken a Climate Science Class, can somehow figure out where you will find no warming? Am I a magician? Do I have special powers? Am I ET? Nope, I just know how to smell a fraud and identify the weak spots of an argument. Having an expensive background in the real sciences doesn’t hurt, but simple common sense pay the biggest dividends. Climate Science is simply blinded by group think and they overlook the obvious in favor of the implausible. That tends to happen when you are paid to argue for the implausable.
Antarctica is something of a special case. All of Antarctica, except the West Antarctic peninsula is isolated from the rest of the climate system by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Heat doesn’t transfer from lower latitudes as easily as in the Arctic. The South Pole is also 3000 metres above sea level. It is officially the slowest warming station on the planet. Curiously the second is Armagh Observatory near me in Northern Ireland.That’s probably due to a weakening Gulf Stream.
You are getting good at this. Nice to find an intelligent sceptic here. I’d given up hope.
You do need to read up a bit. You’ll find when you research them, that most of your 11 points were mistaken.
And it has a negative greenhouse effect:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
Oh sorry, your comment wasn’t on thread as I began to write the mine.
J.-P. D.
“CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. ”
“However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far.”
Nice try, but the first sentence pretty much proves how wrong the author is. BTW, why would CO2 be causing mountain glaciers to melt then? More CO2 would cause mountain glaciers to grow. Go tell Dr Lonnie Thompson to quit wasting all those tax payers dollars trying to prove just the opposite.
Anyway, some of those Antarctica stations are coastal, and are not elevated. Once again we find another magic grits problem.
CO2isLife says:
“the first sentence pretty much proves how wrong the author is.”
CH4 from rice fields was a prominent anthropogenic forcing in preindustrial times.
“why would CO2 be causing mountain glaciers to melt then? More CO2 would cause mountain glaciers to grow.”
Mountain Glaciers can not block incoming weather from surrounding areas.
“Anyway, some of those Antarctica stations are coastal, and are not elevated.”
Cold air sinks, flow down slopes, and is mixed by winds.
Svante Says:
CO2isLife says:
“the first sentence pretty much proves how wrong the author is.”
CH4 from rice fields was a prominent anthropogenic forcing in preindustrial times.
“why would CO2 be causing mountain glaciers to melt then? More CO2 would cause mountain glaciers to grow.”
Mountain Glaciers can not block incoming weather from surrounding areas.
“Anyway, some of those Antarctica stations are coastal, and are not elevated.”
Cold air sinks, flow down slopes, and is mixed by winds.
1) H20 is by far the most significant GHG, and since the industrial age the earth has become much much much greener, We have turned deserts into farmland, fields into forests and cornfields, and we now use steel instead of wood to build our ships. I’m pretty sure droughts have become far less frequent and shorter than they used to be.
2) Neither can Antartica, which is consistent for both locations but you attribute a different effect for the identical cause. Once again, another magical grits problem.
3) You don’t seem to grasp the concept here. There was no temperature change with an increase in CO2 from 270 to 410 ppm. Inverted GHG effect or not, the temperature didn’t change. The GHG effect still exists, and the measured effect of changing CO2 from 270 to 410 is 0.00 degrees. Sure cold air falls, but temperature also falls with altitude because it thins. Either way, there is no trend in temperatures.
Svante, you do realize that an inverted GHG effect works against disappearing mountain glaciers right? With an inverted GHG effect, mountain glaciers should be growing with more CO2, not shrinking.
Anyway, we all know that the most famous mountain glacier, Mt. Kilimanjaro’s glacier, the one Al Gore used to generate alarmism, isn’t disappearing due to warming, it is disappearing due to sublimation.
https://youtu.be/iKxiTV3EOSo
I have nothing to do
– with CO2 discussions in general, because most people – me included of course – really know very very about how it really works,
and even less
– with this strange discussion about it suddenly running here, full of dog leg and sudden slope nonsense.
*
But I recall that Antarctica is a special corner not only because temperature, snow fall, ice sheet and sea ice keep so constant there.
It is also because due to extremely low temperatures in Central Antarctica, it seems that the CO2 effect gets inverted there:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
… Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space.
As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long‐wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission.
However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far.
We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long‐wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth‐atmosphere system.
These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.
No idea whether or not this is of interest…
J.-P. D.
Ooops typo, should read
” … really know very very few about how it really works … “
“with this strange discussion about it suddenly running here, full of dog leg and sudden slope nonsense.”
I feel like I’m in some alternate universe. What real science doesn’t use regression analysis on a time series of data?
Is this entire field of Climate Science not based upon Temperature = Function of CO2? Y=mX+b where Y = Dependent Variable = Temperature and X = Independent Variable CO2.
m = the sensitivity of temperature to a change in CO2?
Unless you live in LaLa Land, m, the slope, is the most important issue of this discussion. I’ve proven that when the correct locations are chosen the m = 0.
m BTW is dependent upon the physics of the CO2 and should be constant in a valid model.
The dogleg makes a constant variable. The slope is different depending on the time period used. The problem with that is that m isn’t a variable, m is a constant, the physics of a CO2 molecule are constant.
I get the feeling you’ve never taken basic science, hypothesis testing, scientific method and statistics.
Once again if you want the scientific truth don’t create a computer model, simply test and see if the mean temperature of the industrial age is different from the mean temperature of the pre-industiral Holocene. That is the first test any real scientist would run. That is why you haven’t run that obvious way to reject the AGW hypothesis.
Entropic man you are not objective that is your problem . You have decided 100% that AGW is real and correct.
Why are you the ONLY one that is correct? Why?
“Antarctica is something of a special case. All of Antarctica, except the West Antarctic peninsula is isolated from the rest of the climate system by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Heat doesn’t transfer from lower latitudes as easily as in the Arctic.”
I’m pretty sure that the physics of the CO2 molecule are the same in Antarctica and Alice Springs, and the results are the same.
Once again, control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O and you get no warming. I can show you many many many examples of that fact and I’m using NASA’s own data.
Once again, the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by thermalizing 15 micron LWIR, and when CO2 increased from 270 to 410, it resulted in an immeasurable increase in temperatures. Once again, that is proven by the NASA temperatures stations.
You forgot DWLR.
The jetstream with heavy rainfall visible over Canada will reach central Greenland where a lot of snow will fall.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/montreal/h3a/weather-radar/56186
More from an amateur Climatologist.
1) From what I’ve learned about Climate “Science” they seem to live in a bubble and instead of debating the issues they tend to want to censor and exclude differing voices. By using that approach they remove themselves from the necessary rigor of real scientific exploration and discovery.
2) Because they only listen to themselves, they make beginner’s mistakes that would easily be discovered during cross-examination in a court of law.
Examples:
1) Dogs that don’t bark. I’ve seen many graphs showing dog legs in temperature, yet they don’t appear in other derivative charts. For instance if the rate of change in temperatures sharply increased in 1902, so should have the rate of change in sea level. Sea levels don’t show a corresponding dog leg, even though sea level is a function of atmospheric temperatures.
2) The oceans dominate the climate system, yet there is no way to measure if there is more radiation reaching the oceans. Climate science has reached conclusions without haveing the most necessary data set.
3) If climate science really wanted to reach valid conclusions they would have photometers all over the oceans recording the radiation reaching the oceans. Without data measuring the additional energy being added to the oceans, no valid conclusion will ever be reached.
4) Atmospheric temperatures are a derivative of ocean temperatures. Recording atmospheric temperatures without explaining why the oceans are warming is simply blind speculation.
5) As I’ve said a million times, CO2 puts a floor in temperatures, it does not warm the atmosphere. That is what the physics of the CO2 molecule dictate. 15 Microns is consistent with 15-micron LWIR. That is apparent because the upper atmosphere never gets materially below that temperature. Not only does the upper atmosphere never fall below that level, guess what the coldest temperature on the surface is? You got it -80 degree C. Imgine that, just like magic. Everything seems to align with this magical -80 degree C.
6) Other dogs that don’t bark. Plenty if not all of the temperature stations controlled for water vapor and the urban heat island effect show no dog legs starting in 1902 or consistently at any other time for that matter.
Climate science needs to start inviting skeptics to cross-examine their conclusions because that will ultimately happen in a court or law.
Increased ozone accumulation over eastern Siberia (polar vortex blockade). Ozone flows to North America.
https://i.ibb.co/PQtNg9k/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/yR4c57B/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
CO2 IS LIFE RIGHT ON.
In addition oceanic temperatures are up a mere.2c from the 1971-2000 averages.
“, the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by thermalizing 15 micron LWIR,
You forgot DWLR and the raised tropopause.
“DWLR and the raised tropopause”
What is DWLR? What evidence do you have that CO2 raised the tropopause? By what mechanism? Also, how would raising the Tropopause cause the surface temperature to increase?
When a GHG in the atmosphere radiates it does so in all directions. On average half eventually escapes to space. This is upwelling longwave radiation. The other half radiates downwards and is eventually absorbed by the surface.This is downwelling longwave radiation, DWLR.
This is the DWLR spectrum.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
Note the big peak at 15 micrometres, reflecting the effect of CO2. The rest is mostly emission by water vapour.
If you look at the outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, the observed spectrum neatly matches what you get when you subtract the DWLR from the expected black body radiation.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
In the troposphere a longwave photon is almost certain to hit a CO2 or water molecule and be reradiated.
Above the tropopause the air is thin enough that a longwave photon heading upwards is more likely to escape to space.
The tropopause is effectively the radiating height of the planet, sending energy to space by a combination of GHG radiation and thermal radiation/black body radiation.
Increase GHGs and the atmosphere becomes transparent to longwave radiation at a lower pressure, a higher altitude. This is the new altitude of the tropopause.
Because the higher tropopause is colder, it radiates less black body radiation. The result is a reduction in the total outward radiation.
Entropic man says:
“The tropopause is effectively the radiating height of the planet”
Approximately true only in the CO2 bands.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/
Svante: And it has a negative greenhouse effect:
The entire atmosphere has a negative GHG effect. The spacing between molecules increases with altitude. That means it is far easier for LWIR to leave the atmosphere than to make it back to the surface. Remember after all the whole purpose of the GHG effect is to facilitate the transfer of energy out of the atmosphere.
Ways to remove energy from the atmosphere:
1) Conduction
2) Convection
3) Radiation
Radiation is by far the fastest way to remove energy from the system.
Rain forest stay warm at night, deserts don’t. Why? Because CO2 doesn’t do much to maintain heat in the atmosphere. H2O does.
Svante: And it has a negative greenhouse effect:
The entire atmosphere has a negative GHG effect. The spacing between molecules increases with altitude. That means it is far easier for LWIR to leave the atmosphere than to make it back to the surface. Remember after all the whole purpose of the GHG effect is to facilitate the transfer of energy out of the atmosphere.
Ways to remove energy from the atmosphere:
1) Conduction
2) Convection
3) Radiation
Radiation is by far the fastest way to remove energy from the system.
Rain forest stay warm at night, deserts don’t. Why? Because CO2 doesn’t do much to maintain heat in the atmosphere. H2O does.
Simply understand this graphic: Won’t post but it is the IR spectrum absorbed by GHGs
There is an atmospheric window where most of the relevant IR, consistent with room temperature simply radiates straight to outer space. The GreenHouse Gases define the tails. CO2 places a floor in the temperatures to the right, H2O provides a baseline warmth for the atmospheric window area, and really kicks in for the tropical areas represented by the left side of the atmospheric window. CO2 is basically irrelevant. H20 is what regulates the atmospheric temperature. Simply understand the meaning of that chart. It tells you everything you need to know.
Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest greenhouse gas, and the concentration of this gas is largely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere. As air becomes warmer, it can hold more moisture or water vapor.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also an important greenhouse gas. It has a long lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide strongly absorbs energy with a wavelength of 15 μm (micrometers).
Simply look up what wavelengths are associated with what blackbody temperatures.
15 microns = -80 degree C
10 Micron = room temperature or 18 degree C
9.5 Micron = Tropical 30 degree C
CO2 only impacts the cold areas like Antarctica which reaches a low temperature of, you guessed it, -80 Degree C.
Co2…”Rain forest stay warm at night, deserts dont. Why? Because CO2 doesnt do much to maintain heat in the atmosphere. H2O does”.
We live in a rain forest climate in the Vancouver, Canada area, and we hold the dubious honour for having most deaths from exposure in the world in forests near a major city. If you tried to spend a night in our rain forest at this time of year, and you had inadequate clothing, or wet clothing, you’d have a good chance of dying overnight.
***
“There is an atmospheric window where most of the relevant IR, consistent with room temperature simply radiates straight to outer space”.
That’s a theory based on climate model based greenhouse theory. Models are programmed with equations that rely on radiation while ignoring, for the most part, heat transfer by direct conduction to all air molecules at the surface. The truth is that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a poor means of heat dissipation.
CO2isLife
You may want to reconsider your point on GHG and its effects.
Actual measured values clearly demonstrate the effect of GHG on outgoing energy and the peaks are not in the “window areas”
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Physical-chemistry-of-climate-metrics.-Ravishankara-Rudich/d5b46c7f6b02b858ca3bef854928ca8a66347a77/figure/5
This one shows some of the contribution of CO2 to the Downwelling IR
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/node3.htm
This paper does discuss the overlap between water vapor and carbon dioxide.
https://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
Norman found 3 more links he can’t understand. That’s his purpose in life. State his opinions, then use links he can’t understand as support. If someone takes the time to explain why his links are wrong, or don’t support his beliefs, he starts the personal attacks.
He loves his cult, but hates reality. He can’t learn, and he can’t change.
ClintR
Is there any real valid reason you post on this blog. I addressed an intelligent skeptic who goes by CO2isLife. Your childish posts that make false claims and show how stupid you are are not necessary. I understand your purpose here is to provoke people to get responses. It is not such a useful goal. I can’t change who or what you are but do you always have to post? Can you take a break and let an adult reply?
Your words describe you completely. In your blindness you fail to see you describe yourself “He loves his cult, but hates reality. He cant learn, and he cant change.” That is you!
As I indicated, when Norman’s nonsense is shot down, he resorts to insults.
CO2isLife wrote:
Conduction and convection do not remove energy from the atmosphere, that is to say, move energy out of the Earth’s atmosphere above TOA to deep space. Only radiation can accomplish that.
Then too, your rant ignores the effects of CO2 above the troposphere, where there’s little water vapor to absorb/emit IR radiation. FYI, The temperature above the tropopause in the tropics can be around your -80C point.
“Remember after all the whole purpose of the GHG effect is to facilitate the transfer of energy out of the atmosphere.”
First, nature doesn’t have ‘purposes’ — it has causes and effects.
Second, the effect of GHGs is to *inhibit* the transfer of energy away from the earth. Yes, a GHG like CO2 does allow the transfer of 15 um radiation from the top of the atmosphere. But it simultaneously *blocks* more intense 15 um radiation from the warmer surface. The NET effect is to REDUCE the 15 um radiation escaping to space, thereby INCREASING the radiation at other wavelengths to compensate and result in the same total energy out.
“Simply look up what wavelengths are associated with what blackbody temperatures.”
There is no single, sharply defined wavelength associated with each temperature. Each temperature has a broad curve that peaks at the wavelength you quote.
So if you “look up” the wavelengths associated with -80C (193K), you would find that
~ 25% of the intensity is from 6-15 um
~ 25% of the intensity is from 15-21 um
~ 25% of the intensity is from 21-32 um
~ 25% of the intensity is from 32-200 um
IE the energy is spread out over a WIDE RANGE of wavelengths.
And if you looked up the wavelengths associated with 0 C (273K), you would find that there is actually MORE energy in the 14-16 um band than there is from radiation from a -80 C object.
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also an important greenhouse gas.”
Yes. Less important overall than H20, but still important. And since it can absorb at least some energy from areas at -80 C or 0 C or 50 C, it can help warm the earth as it does so.
Folkerts, a combination of -80C and sunlight will NOT raise the temperature of a 288 K surface more than sunlight alone.
ClintR
Your declarative statement is totally without merit and experimental evidence proves the ignorance. You can declare things but that will never make them true.
Evidence proves you are wrong. Unfortunately you do not accept evidence as declarations are easy to proclaim. Wrong as they most certainly are.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
You don’t understand physics and you are not able to process this experiment and what it implies. I guess you will keep declaring false points. It is what you do.
Wrong Norman. That’s not even close to the topic.
What is being discussed is the fact that fluxes don’t simply add. Like the two ice cubes example that you refuse to answer. You won’t answer because reality conflicts with your belief system.
You’re an idiot.
Heat loss depends on (T^4) temperature difference.
Which gives the biggest diff, -80 C or -273 C?
“What is being discussed is the fact that fluxes dont simply add.”
Of course fluxes do add. As clearly explained here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-576277
Rebuttal?? No of course not, insert childish insult here.
ClintR
It is not necessary that you add lying to your list of incompetence (like no knowledge of real physics, no logical thought process, not very smart, not able to read and process language, short attention span).
I answered you ice example maybe your reading skills are too poor to understand it.
Fluxes do add. You are just wrong with this incorrect claim. You seem stuck that is is true, not sure why you think it or where you obtained this knowledge. Even simple tests can prove it wrong like turning on more lights, you get more flux through the pupil of your eye and more energy reaches your light sensing cells. That is why I think you lack rational thought. You are not able to understand the most basic and simple of ideas that even a young child would grasp.
ClintR
You are also wrong, Roy Spencer experiment is exactly what the topic is about. The colder ice sends less IR to the heated plate than the warmer cover so the heated plate cools in respect to the warmer cover. The energy of the cover, colder than the heated plate, warms the heated plate more than the the colder ice (which contributes less IR to the heated plate).
Learn some real physics you complete moron! You call me an idiot but you can’t even think in rational or logical fashion. About as dumb as they get.
Svante and Nate join up to try to pervert the issue, since Norman got caught.
The issue is illustrated by a simple experiment, which all the trolls refuse to answer:
An ice cube rests on a table very close to, but not touching, a thermometer. The ice cube and everything in the room is at 32 F.
A second ice cube is placed on the other side of the thermometer, very close, but not touching.
Will the second ice cube raise the temperature indicated by the thermometer?
A) Yes
B) No
Nope. No answer for your vague idiotic strawman, while you consistently evade answering our specific questions.
Troll Nate believes my simple question is a “vague idiotic strawman”, while he believes he and Svante are asking “specific questions”.
Nate’s “specific, non-vague question”: Response?
Svante’s “specific, non-vague question”: Which gives the biggest diff, -80 C or -273 C?
That’s why they’re trolls.
You cant advance to calculus and physics while denying addition, of fluxes. Building ice strawmen is pointless if you are stuck in this rut.
Nate, an ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. If you believe fluxes add, then what is the total flux is a second ice cube is added?
“Nate, an ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. If you believe fluxes add, then what is the total flux is a second ice cube is added?”
Norman already gave you a problem that specified the geometry and temperatures where flux addition becomes relevant.
But you ignored it, and keep returning to your favorite pointless strawman.
Lets make it as simple as possible.
1. Two incomes coming into one bank account ADD. But your income and my income DO NOT ADD. They are not going into the same account.
2. If you change jobs, your income from the old job and your income from the new job DON’T ADD.
These are the basic principles at work here.
ClintR asks:
The answer would be “B”. You are ignoring the fact that the thermometer is receiving IR radiation from the walls of the room at 32F in the first case. Placing the second solid ice cube next to the thermometer will block that IR radiation while emitting IR radiation at the same rate (assuming both have the same emissivity), thus the thermometer would experience no change in it’s IR radiant energy environment and therefore no change in the measured temperature.
Thank you E Swanson, for attempting some science.
Norman and Nate were terrified to attempt an answer. All they could do was evade.
Yes, “B” is the correct answer. Adding the same flux to the thermometer does not raise it’s temperature.
But, you made a slight mistake in mentioning the walls. The walls are also at 32F, so any flux from walls would be less than the ice flux, due to the inverse-square Law.
Fluxes don’t simply add.
The hidden wall has the same view angle due to greater area.
What you see is what you get Snowflake.
We already know you can’t understand physics, silly.
All you have to do is remember 4 simple words: “Fluxes don’t simply add”.
That depends on whether they land on the same area.
” due to the inverse-square Law.”
False. As Svante notes.
“Placing the second solid ice cube next to the thermometer will block that IR radiation while emitting IR radiation at the same rate”
Exactly.
“2. If you change jobs, your income from the old job and your income from the new job DON’T ADD.”
Given an appropriate geometry, ie the two fluxes are hitting the same spot then Fluxes do indeed add.
But If a flux is simply replacing an equal flux from the background, then nothing is gained.
Downwelling IR from the atmosphere DOES ADD to solar flux striking the Earth.
The ‘background’ being replaced by the atmosphere is space @ 3 K, so it is producing negligible flux.
Nate and Svante are in a tizzy-fit, since they have to face some reality.
A second ice cube will not raise the temperature over the first ice cube. 300 W/m^2 “added” to 300 W/m^2 will be 300 W/m^2. It’s analogous to adding 40 degree water to 40 degree water. You get 40 degree water.
Once again, the idiots see their beloved cult beliefs go down the toilet bowl.
What else is new Sunshine?
“second ice cube will not raise the temperature over the first ice cube. 300 W/m^2 added to 300 W/m^2 will be 300 W/m^2”
So we agree that your ice cube experiment has no point whatsoever, since it has no general applicability to any other geometry and temperatures.
It simply demonstrates that fluxes both add and subtract. In this special case that produces net 0.
Silly snowflake Svante babbles incoherently.
Troll Nate attempts to pervert reality, but ends up babbling incoherently also.
So says our resident fizuks genius who cant understand BASIC radiation theory, with his ‘inverse square law’ flub.
Troll Nate continues his futile effort to pervert reality.
Yawn….
So you still think that the inverse square law applies, or did you realize your blunder?
Inverse-Square Law applies, troll Nate.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
My only blunder is in choosing to reply to idiot trolls.
As expected.
So you think the wall of a room is a point source?
I gave troll Nate a simple discussion of the Inverse-Square Law. But, instead of trying to learn, he tries to distort reality.
He refuses to learn and rejects reality. That’s why he’s an idiot.
Dunning Kruger poster child. Please give to help this poor confused child who still thinks he understands physics.
So you think the wall of a room is a point source? That was a clue as to what you were missing.
Even your source shows a point source.
A wall aint a point source. Thinking it behave like one, that aint science.
The radiation from a wall will barely decrease with distance AT ALL until the distance is comparable to the height of the wall.
“Other dogs that dont bark. Plenty if not all of the temperature stations controlled for water vapor and the urban heat island effect show no dog legs starting in 1902 or consistently at any other time for that matter. ”
Numbers please. How about a table showing the warming trend at several stations, some urban and humid, some rural and dry.
Using rural desert stations to control for UHI and water vapour is a good idea, but so far all you’ve given us is a graph of Alice Springs, but no trend data for comparison.
Entropic man
I have all the GHCN V3 data on disk, and will manage to do the job (one TMIN vs. TMAX series with deserts + Antarctica, one with all available stations, one restricted on 20N-20S).
On verra! Frenchies would say.
It’s imho not really too late to write
Merry Xmas!
J.-P. D.
Be sure to use the “unadjusted” data. NASA “adjusts” the data to create warming where it doesn’t exist.
CO2isLife
You don’t know what you are telling about.
1. GHCN (V1 – V4, daily) is a NOAA product, and has nothing to do with NASA. NASA is, like others (CRUTEM in GB, JMA in Japan till 2000, etc) a USER of GHCN.
2. As opposed to you, I downloaded GHCN V3 already years ago, implemented, verified and validated software to process it, and was then wondering about strange claims made by Goddard aka Heller, concerning trends of V3 adjusted station data allegedly being always higher than the unadjusted source.
This was wrong: of the 7,280 V3 stations, about 4,000 indeed have shown a higher trend when adjusted, that’s OK, but the rest was either unchanged, was within +- 0.1 C difference, or was even lower than the unadjusted variant. But Goddard never mentioned the latter 3,000 ones.
Hear you see it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OxZ9ith9rvAWvU-mvZAWaKigJREJRBKE/view
*
A typical example: Prague, Czechia (Europe)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdeNtl2SEhzFoEZ7oXlLeLgDXJ2bGy6G/view
A measurement error was detected and communicated by the Czechs, what led the adjusted NOAA data look as if it had been artificially augmented.
I know: you Pseudoskeptics always believe those who tell you what you want to hear. But that’s a point I don’t care much about.
J.-P. D.
“This was wrong: of the 7,280 V3 stations, about 4,000 indeed have shown a higher trend when adjusted,”
Funny, over 50% showed an increase in temperature adjustment. Did you bother to test to see how many had a decrease in temperature? Funny how a “random” data set has all the “adjustments” fall to one side. It sounds like the people counting votes in Georga must work for NASA.
My bet is that the upward “adjustment” will dwarf any downward adjustments. Just a hunch that I’d bet my life saving on.
Oh well oh well!
A Trumpista & conspirationist… great.
One more of those strange people who didn’t understand why Trump didn’t vote by mail this year, for the very first time since quite long a time. Hmmmmh.
*
What now concerns your blah blah about GHCN V3: I read such stuff since years.
Instead of blah blah, I prefer data (which some ignorant always denigrates as ‘faked graph out of fudged data, maybe you are a bit less ignorant):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YPpBGeP8K5YzwIt3oFcIU16XqLKoxI04/view
Trends in C / decade for 1880-2018:
u: 0.06 +- 0.002
a: 0.09 +- 0.002
and for 1979-2018:
u: 0.20 +- 0.01
a: 0.21 +- 0.01
*
The point which matters here is rather: why had NOAA’s land-only data made out of the adjusted V3 data a harsh trend of 0.29 instead of 0.21, while GISS land-only had quite acceptable 0.23?
If you need something to complain about GHCN data, then you’d better manage to have a closer look at GHCN V4. That stuff has a really, really impressive adjustment corner… I didn’t even process it until now for exactly that reason.
J.-P. D.
You are literally making statements up to keep your gish gallop going. I run the GISTEMP code every day. I get the exact same result NASA does. No part of their code creates warming where it doesn’t exist.
Just look at any chart. The “adjusted” and “Homogenized” data almost always shows warming vs the raw data. Just look at Death Valley.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1
CO2isLife,
You can run the GISTEMP code with the GHCN qcu file instead of the qcf file. Take a guess as to what happens when you do that.
I’ve noticed the idiots are using this term “Gish Gallop” a lot. It’s a signal that they have no way of refuting someone’s facts and logic. So they hide behind a meaningless term.
bdgwx is really good at hiding.
bdgwx, prove me wrong. Parse out only the high temperatures for the day. Don’t use NASA’s “adjusted” data, and chart a composite of the daily high temperatures. Compare the chart of daily high temperatures, daily low temperatures, and then plot NASA’s “adjusted” data chart. The fraud becomes obvious, so obvious a judge with an arts degree could understand it.
CO2isLife,
Yes. We know that the time-of-day, station move, etc. adjustments result in a higher warming trend relative to the unadjusted data for some time series. But that step cannot be skipped. Adjusting data does not mean that fraud has occurred. In fact, most people consider it unethical to not correct for known errors/biases in the time series. We want GHCN to adjust the data to make it more accurate. That is a good thing. And remember…there’s more than just the handful of cherry-picked time series that the bloggers only report on. I recommend you do the comparison you explained with all 27,000 time series and not just the ones Heller tells you about.
So what happened when you ran the GISTEMP code with the QCU files?
Enrtopic Man, here is the data:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/
Simply go and identify remote locations with a BI of less than 10. Download the data. Create a composite and you will see, there is no uptrend and there is wide dispersions between when warming does occur per location.
https://youtu.be/ZNShlh8OHcs
https://youtu.be/FBoAdu8GtR0
https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o
Thank you, my computer skills are too obsolete for this sort of data analysis.
It’s not full data, but I note that earlier this year Death Valley recorded 54.3C, the highest station reading ever recorded anywhere.
Death Valley is one of your control group of low UHI, low water vapour deserts which are not supposed to be warming. Where did the record come from?
WUWT did a whole series on Death Valley, the weather station is corrupted an located near the parking lot. My bet is that if you go and find similar sites near the park on it won’t show the same trends.
BTW, there is no trend in Death Valley over the past 110 years. Death Valley is another great example of no water vapor and urban heat island.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1
EM,
Antarctica. * Nearly 100 locations reached surface temperatures of -98 degrees Celsius. * in 2018.
Coldest temperatures ever recorded. Low water vapour, low UHI, desert.
I will see your hot record, and raise you a few colder ones. Where did these records come from? Like Death Valley, basic physics, laddie. Physical laws apply equally everywhere.
Away with ye, laddie. Take a rest, have a good lie down, and accept reality.
This are Winter temperatures.
Remember the sequence of events by which GHGs warm the surface.
1) Sunlight warms surface.
2) Surface radiates longwave radiation.
3) GHGs absorb longwave radiation and reradiate it in all directions.
4) Some of that longwave radiation is absorbed by surface.
In midwinter in Antarctica there is no sunlight. GHGs slow the cooling, but don’t stop it reaching very low temperatures.
Antarctica. * Nearly 100 locations reached surface temperatures of -98 degrees Celsius. * in 2018.
That pretty much shatters the myth of global warming, doesn’t it?
Coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth in Antarctica: -94.7C (-135.8F)
The reading won’t be featured in the Guinness Book of World Records because it was satellite measured
Newly analysed Nasa satellite data from east Antarctica shows Earth has set a new record for coldest temperature ever recorded: -94.7C (-135.8F).
It happened in August 2010 when it hit -94.7C (-135.8F). Then on 31 July of this year, it came close again: -92.9C (-135.3F).
The old record had been -89.2C (-128.6F).
BTW, -94.7 C falls within the band of 15 microns absorbed by CO2.
EM,
A point. About 40% of sunlight never reaches the ground, due to the presence of the atmosphere. Surface temperatures never exceed 90 C or so.
The Moon, with no atmosphere, has surface temperatures in excess of 127 C. More energy reaches the surface, you see. After the same exposure time, too. No climatological temperature accumulation.
As to your silliness about GHGs reducing the rate of cooling, you must share the pseudoscientific redefinition of slow cooling really means warming.
Try it. Put your hot beverage in one of finest cooling slowing devices known to man – a vacuum flask. Now delude yourself into thinking that the temperature of your beverage is rising!
You should demand a refund from your alma mater, if that is where you supposedly learnt physics.
CO2 can not cause a “spike” in temperatures, it can only cause a long-term trend. CO2 can’t cause a record 1 day, and then go back to normal the next day. A real science would understand that CO2 evenly blankets the globe, so they wouldn’t look for a single record here or there, they would look for a universal increase in temperatures and many records being set. You don’t find that. In fact, the mistake NASA does with their “adjustments” is they only adjust the average temperature upwards. If you look to see if there is a trend in high temperatures you will see that record high temperatures are actually FALLING.
How can you have global warming if the record high temperatures aren’t increasing? That is clear evidence of fraud, and rating the average without raising the max and min on which those averages are based is clear fraud. The fraudsters are simply lazy, just like the vote counters in Georgia. They were so confident in their fraud that they didn’t even bother to turn off the CCTV camera.
“A real science would understand that CO2 evenly blankets the globe, so they wouldnt look for a single record here or there, they would look for a universal increase in temperatures and many records being set. ”
1. Many warm records ARE being set around the Globe, but not uniformly.
2. The globe has complex weather patterns that are affected differently by the warming.
3. Arctic amplification was predicted 40 years ago, and since observed. W Antarctica was predicted to warm faster 40 y ago, and it is. The Southern Hemisphere was predicted to warm more slowly than the N. Hemisphere, 40 y ago, and it is.
4. Your naive intuitions are not real science.
Heres a good example where self-skepticism would have avoided posting a lot of embarrassing gibberish CO2.
Yes troll Nate, we are in a warming trend.
If you didn’t have a penchant for trolling, you could have avoided posting a lot of embarrassing gibberish.
As expected insult absent rebuttal. Pointless trolling.
Yes troll Nate, I prefer to keep my comments insult-free. I concentrate on reality. People that believe they can avoid reality are idiots.
“Entropic man you are not objective that is your problem . You have decided 100% that AGW is real”
I find it amusing that you do not believe in AGW and neither do I.
You do and I don’t.
CO2 is LIFE, IS MAKING GREAT ARGUMENTS!
Thanks Salvatore. I love your posts as well.
CO2…”Climate science needs to start inviting skeptics to cross-examine their conclusions because that will ultimately happen in a court or law”.
I am thinking of writing to my local and federal governments asking them to bring in scientists from other disciplines to monitor the current paradigm related to covid. The current theory is seriously out of whack with reality.
When we hear the word virus, I imagine that many of us picture a tiny sphere with spikes on it that can attach to a cell with the spikes and transfer the virus genetic material to the cell. No one has ever seen that happen and according to microbiologist, Stefan Lanka, no one has seen an actual virus on an electron microscope. The Net abounds with such photos but Lanka has pointed out with each photo of a known virus that the photos are of dead cells.
The current theory on HIV and covid is likely hideously wrong. If we don’t bring in independent scientific auditors to ask important questions, we could be dealing with this covid nonsense 50 years a from now as we are with HIV.
Robertson the cheating SOB
” The current theory on HIV and covid is likely hideously wrong. ”
Hideous? that, cheating Robertson SOB, is exactly what YOU are!
Here in Germany, in France, in Italy, we see more and more doctors in intensive care units reporting that most intubated people are currently not surviving. They say it’s worse then in April.
*
You are an absolutely disgusting creature.
How is it possible that bullshit writers like you are allowed to write their trash on a science blog?
It’s a shame no one can force you to work in a hospital without a mask during the next 6 weeks!
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Just a couple of points for consideration.
Everybody thought peptic ulcers were caused by all sorts of things – but not bacteria. Wrong.
There are lots of other examples. Maybe GR is right, maybe not. Time will tell.
As to most incubated people not surviving, this has always been the case. However, doctors just refuse to believe their treatment is not working, and it is the fault of the patients that they are dying!
Once again, time will tell.
It is a shame that alarmists want to inflict pain and misery on anyone who disagrees with them. That is the way of the blowhard and the thug.
Swenson / Flynn
You are exactly the same kind of arrogant and ignorant dumb ass as Robertson, the only little difference being that you probably won’t be brazen enough to name the translator of Newton’s work a cheating SOB.
Your reply to my comment, as all others anyway, is the perfect explanation for the word ‘redundance’.
J.-P. D.
Gordon Robertson
Stefan Lanka is not a good source for proof of anything. His is quite a phony and makes money feeding the Contrarian Conspiracy belief system. He rejects conventional wisdom and science in favor of the thought process where you can make up anything and it is real.
He feeds the contrarians their rotten food and collects money for it.
https://animal.mx/2020/05/virus-no-existe-noticia-falsa-stefan-lanka-medicina-germanica/
Maybe read through this. It has a slight chance of deprogramming your Contrarian mental state and allowing you the freedom to think critically.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/06/24/75-reasons-why-vaccines-are-needed-and-deniers-are-dangerous/
Gordon: ‘According to Stefan Lanka’ – that says it all!
I spent many years working in medical laboratory science and technology.The knowledge of how viruses infect their hosts has been painstakingly accumulated over the years by many scientists. It’s a complex field, but certain basic principles are well established. To give you an idea of what is known, have a look at this link to the Journal of Cell Biology:
https://rupress.org/jcb/article/195/7/1071/54877/The-cell-biology-of-receptor-mediated-virus
It’s a detailed resume, but you should be able to get the general idea.
You’ll find that Lanka’s eccentric views tell you very little about the real world of molecular biology. It really is time for you to question his views, and to do that you need to read around the subject.
Gordon: you don’t need to see a virus under a microscope to detect its presence, despite Lanka’s claims.
Here’s a link to the use of monoclonal antibodies in HIV detection:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zs6q2p3/revision/9
This type of antibody has been in use for many years for many types of animal and plant viruses. Have a look on the internet.
After heavy rainfall on the snowy ground, there will now be frost in the Northeast. This is how a glacier is formed.
https://i.ibb.co/zJ7ZLGY/Screenshot-1.png
This is how the stratosphere interferes with the troposphere in winter.
https://i.ibb.co/MPX3Tb9/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f036.png
Someone who ignores the effects of solar activity on circulation in winter does not understand the dynamics of the atmosphere.
The current magnetic activity of sunspots is very weak.
https://i.ibb.co/mFFfGQ8/rozbyski-soneczne.jpg
What is important isn’t how hot or cool the sun is, it is how much warming radiation reaches the oceans. A hot sun can disrupt the cosmic rays reaching the earth, making fewer clouds, and resulting in warming. A “lazy” sun allows more cosmic rays to enter out atmosphere creating more clouds, resulting in cooling.
In its 10 years of operation, CLOUD has made several important discoveries on the vapours that form aerosol particles in the atmosphere and can seed clouds. Although most aerosol particle formation requires sulphuric acid, CLOUD has shown that aerosols can form purely from biogenic vapours emitted by trees, and that their formation rate is enhanced by cosmic rays by up to a factor 100…We won’t know until we try, but by the end of the CLOUD experiment, we want to be able to answer definitively whether cosmic rays affect clouds and the climate, and not leave any stone unturned.”
The idea is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth’s atmosphere that draw in other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapour can condense to form cloud droplets. The low-lying clouds that result then have the effect of cooling the Earth by reflecting incoming sunshine back out to space. Since the Sun’s magnetic field tends to deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, the planet will be warmer when solar activity is high and, conversely, cooler when it is low.
When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.
When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.
Wooooaah!
Incredible but true: tiny SNOW FLAKES FALLING!
During… 10 minutes, for the first time since a couple of years, I think the last time we saw a little bit of snow was in January 2018.
Salvatore, I tell you: the GREAT COOLING now soon cometh.
J.-P. D.
The low from the North will cause snowdrifts in Berlin.
https://i.ibb.co/zVbQ0Tm/hgt300.png
Na sowatt aba ooch!
I understand you have doubts?
https://en.sat24.com/en/eu/km
ren
Yes I do, because no snow is expected here these days.
J.-P. D.
LOL No sign of any cooling yet.
Salvatore
Sure!
I was just joking a bit.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
The point which matters here is rather: why had NOAA’s land-only data made out of the adjusted V3 data a harsh trend of 0.29 instead of 0.21, while GISS land-only had quite acceptable 0.23?
If you need something to complain about GHCN data, then you’d better manage to have a closer look at GHCN V4. That stuff has a really, really impressive adjustment corner… I didn’t even process it until now for exactly that reason.
The points that matter are:
1) CO2 is 410 PPM over land and sea. How can CO2, a constant over both locations, cause a differential in temperatures over the oceans that is different than over land?
How much have temperature increased over land? How much have temperatures increased over sea? Adjust them for the same latitude and longitude.The difference between the land and sea temperatures is the portion of warming due to the Urban Heat Island and Water Vapor effect. Has anyone even bother considered that issue? Nope.
2) Simply chart out the high temperatures instead of the adjusted data. You will see that there is no upward trend in the high temperatures for the stations. How can that be if CO2 does in fact trap heat and causes global warming. High Temperatures have to have an uptrend.
3) Simply look at Alice Springs or Death Valley. There is no uptrend in those locations even though CO2 has increased from 280 to 410. How is that possible if CO2 is the cause of the warming? Do you people even think to challenge your conclusions?
“Do you people even think to challenge your conclusions? ”
I just did. See my 11.15AM post.
Death Valley warmed by 0.73C. Perhaps you should measure before making rash statements about “no uptrend.
Entropic Man:
Death Valley warmed by 0.73C. Perhaps you should measure before making rash statements about “no uptrend.
CO2 in 1910 295
1910 Temp Death Valley 24 Degree C
1915 Temp Death Valley 27.5 Degree C
1935 Temp Death Valley 26.75 Degree C
1945 Temp Death Valley 26.00 Degree C
1960 Temp Death Valley 26.00 Degree C
1980 Temp Death Valley 26.25 Degree C
2000 Temp Death Valley 24.00
2010 Temp Death Valley 24.5
Current Temp Death Valley 25.75
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1
And that is using the “adjusted” data. If that is an uptrend, you don’t understand the concept of an uptrend. Anyway, this is a “science.” The R-Squared of CO2 vs the Death Valley is most likely just about 0.00. I didn’t bother to run the regression, but I’m pretty sure there is no relationship between CO2 and temperatures using that data, “adjusted” or not. A 2-year-old with legally blind vision could see there is no real relationship.
“1) CO2 is 410 PPM over land and sea. How can CO2, a constant over both locations, cause a differential in temperatures over the oceans that is different than over land? ”
It’s a matter of heat capacity. The amount of sunlight and DWLR per square metre can be the same over land and sea, but the ocean is a much bigger heat sink than the land.
As a result the ocean changes temperature more slowly than the land.
Think of two identical saucepans put on identical hobs at the same time. The pan half full of water boils before the full pan.
Similarly land heats up faster than ocean.
EM,
At 10 km deep in the ocean, temperature will be around 4 C.
At 10 km deep in the lithosphere the temperature will be around 250 C.
Are you really claiming these temperatures relate to sunlight, DWLR, or anything remotely connected to climatologically pseudoscience?
How about the ocean being colder than the hot rock basins which contain it, due to physical laws which are reasonably well understood?
I am happy to explain it to you, if you find it too difficult.
Swenson, great point:
How about the ocean being colder than the hot rock basins which contain it, due to physical laws which are reasonably well understood?
A similar observation is that the Greenland Glaciers are melting from beneath the glacier. How does CO2 and LWIR or DWLR cause the Volcanic activity below the Glacier?
CO2isLife,
Alarmists invariably invent some nonsensical pseudo-physics to support their beliefs. Hidden heat from the Sun lurking in ocean depths. Warm, less dense water, which sinks, rather than floating. Floating ice from glacial flow pushing back, and preventing land based ice from flowing!
They still cannot actually define their GHE, and they admit that their miraculous GHGs seem to have different effects in different places at different times.
I enjoy your comments. Keep it up.
Entropic Man:
1) CO2 is 410 PPM over land and sea. How can CO2, a constant over both locations, cause a differential in temperatures over the oceans that is different than over land?
Its a matter of heat capacity. The amount of sunlight and DWLR per square metre can be the same over land and sea, but the ocean is a much bigger heat sink than the land.
As a result the ocean changes temperature more slowly than the land.
CO2isLife:
1) Define DWLR, I believe it is downwelling longwave radiation but I want to make sure.
2) Entropic man, I’m beginning to get the feeling that you won’t understand how to run a controlled experiment or even the basic concepts. The whole purpose is to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature. If we build cities and roads and that causing warming, so what. If we plant forests and they produce H20 and they cause warming, so what.
You claim CO2 is causing the warming. CO2 is 410 ppm over land and sea. You claim CO2 can warm the oceans. CO2 will cause a parallel shift in temperatures over land and sea. I’m assuming that H20 is relatively constant over the oceans, as is CO2. I’m also assuming there is no Urban Heat Island Effect over the oceans.
That being said, cold and dry deserts and the oceans become a control for the Urban Heat Island Effect, as well as H20 (but to a lesser extent). Over the oceans H2O is assumed constant, whereas in the deserts it is assumed to be absent all together.
If my statements are true, than the difference between land and sea temperatures for the same latitude and longitude should represent the contribution of the Urban Heat Island and H20. The residual is the contribution that can at least partially be explained by CO2.
Another way to isolate the CO2 impact would be to simply compare the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly H2O. I’m 100% certain if you look at those 2 data sets that you will find once again, a temperature differential. Remember, CO2 is 410 ppm over both the N and S Hemi.
Please explain how CO2 can cause that temperature differential?
You might want to scroll back a bit. I’ve already answered some of your questions, but you seem to have missed them.
You need to control for a lot more than UHI and water vapour. A quick contemplation suggests that you need to control for latitude, altitude, aspect, distance East or West from a coasline, influence of ocean currents, rain shadows, monsoons, mistals and the Foehn effect.I’m pretty sure that I’ve missed more than I’ve included.
I began as a biologist. I know about controlled experiments and know how hard it is to control for a number of variables at once. It is easy to investigate the behaviour of GHGs in the lab; all you need is a gas tube, a tunable IR emitter and an IR spectrometer. In the field it’s a nightmare because you can’t separate one variable from the mix. One of a climate scientist’s dearest wishes is for Slartibarfast to supply duplicate planets to try different emission scenarios on.
EM,
It is indeed easy to investigate GHGs in in the lab.
The more GHGs in the path of the IR, the less IR reaches a thermometer at the far end, resulting in a lower temperature.
Anybody who thinks climatological physics results in a higher temperature is in denial of reality – like you, apparently.
Maybe you should provide something which actually supports your beliefs.
CO2islife
I looked at your Death Valley graph.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1
By inspection it is hard to pull a trend out of the short term variability and I don’t have the software for a linear regression. I calculated the average for the first ten years and the last ten years.
The early 20th century decadal average was 25.04C and the 21st century average was 25.77C. That’s an increase of 0.73C.
Entropic Man: I don’t have the software for a linear regression.
It is easily done in Excel.
=RSQ
=Slope
Or
Use the Data Analysis Module “regression” to create ANOVA Tables
Thank you. Try it yourself for the Death Valley annual averages. Bet you sixpence you find a trend.
Entropic Man, you really don’t understand statistics well do you?
Any child could have looked at that chart and known there was no trend. Here are the actual numbers from the regression.
Slope: -0.308369011
R-Squared: 0.002264416
I had to make a minor adjustment for some missing values, but other than that, those numbers are good.
The Trend is for FALLING temperatures, but in reality, the 0.002 R-Squared basically means there is no real significance to that slight downtrend.
Id I ran the regression of Temp=f(CO2) the R-Squared would likely to be even less, and the slope would be even more (-).
Sorry, the computer doesn’t lie.
Will the global sea surface temperature anomalies fall below 0.1 degrees C from the 1981-2010 average?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Why do the HadSST Sea-Surface Temperatures Trend Down?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/26/why-do-the-hadsst-sea-surface-temperatures-trend-down/
Ren you are correct.
Yes they are trending down of late especially the sea surface temperatures. Ocean tid bits +.109c deviation down from over +.40c deviation a year or so ago. ocean tid bits base 1981-2010.
With that said oceanic sea surface temperatures are only .2c above the 1971-2000 mean. A small further dip will bring us back to no change since the period 1971-2000.
GISS are still rising. Go here and choose
“Annual Mean Temperature Change over Land and over Ocean”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Harry’s problem has always been lack of coverage at high Northern latitudes which have been working fastest. It usually underreads relative to other datasets.
EM,
And you truly believe these brightly coloured graphics reflect reality?
Within you strong the belief is – as Yoda might say.
I suppose you might even think Gavin Schmidt (director of GISS) is a scientist of some sort!
You have satellite temperature data right from this site which is the best ,most accurate non biased data one could get.
How do you know it is the most accurate non biased data one could get?
bdgwx, are you out trolling again?
Making messes?
How about cleaning up messes you’ve made?
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
Clean up your past messes.
GISS -surface temperatures are not accurate. End of story.
How do you know that it is not accurate?
How do we know you’re not just another incompetent dishonest troll making messes all over the blog?
entropic…”When a GHG in the atmosphere radiates it does so in all directions”
What do you mean by a GHG? Are you referring to one molecule of CO2 or WV or to a large mass of such a gas?
In their article in which they disprove the greenhouse theory, Gerlich and Tshceuschner, both experts in thermodynamics, claimed that the paths of radiation from atmospheric molecules like CO2 is unknown. They claimed it would require Feynman diagrams to explain the path of radiation from an individual molecule because its very complex.
Adding to the complexity is this. If GHG molecules radiate energy in packets, called quanta, or photons, that infers a straight-line emission path, not an isotropic wave as you suggest. Those photons from individual electrons in the molecules would have to add somehow to produce emissions of a particular IR frequency.
None of it makes sense, yet climate alarmists throw the nonsense around as if it is fact.
Climate modelers/alarmists have done science a huge disfavour by simplifying the alleged behavior of GHGs to a stupid level. Trenberth and Kiehle added to the stupidity by alleging that back-radiation from GHGs could transfer as much heat to the surface as what is radiated away via IR emissions.
As G&T pointed out, from a perspective of thermodynamics, a transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have heard many arguments justifying this contradiction but they all come down to a mysterious net balance of energy which no one has explained adequately.
It’s all very cute to claim that if a net balance of energy is positive, then the 2nd law is not contradicted. What net balance of energy? Clausius stated the 2nd law clearly: Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. No mention of a net energy balance as an exception.
CO2islife.
You asked how to measure the altitude of the tropopause. It’s more of a band than an exact level, but the easiest way is carry a thermometer up through it on an aircraft or a radiosonde.
The tropopause is the altitude at which the temperature reaches its minimum and starts rising again.
The tropopause varies from about 9km in the tropics to 12km at high latitudes. Since people started measuring it a century of so ago, the average altitude has risen by about 60 metres, it is 0.5C cooler and it’s black body contribution to the outgoing longwave radiation has decreased by about 1%.
Dammit. Make that ” 9km at high latitudes and 12km in the tropics”
E, since you’re tossing out estimates, assumptions, and guesses, the surface area of the tropopause has increased by about 10%, in that time frame.
That means the energy radiated to space has increased by about 10%.
That means you’ve got GHE goo all over your face, again.
Oh, goody! A chance for a back of the envelope calculation.
Assume the the initial radius of the troposphere was 6010km and it has increased by 0.06km.
The initial area was 4π6010*6010 = 453,898,563 sq km.
Current area is 4π6010.06*6010.06 =453,907,626 sq km.
That is an increase of 9063 sq km of 0.002%.
Raising the troposphere by 60 metres cools it by 0.5C. The SB equation tells you that this decreases its BB radiation output by 1%.
The reduction in outward longwave radiation due to the lower temperature is much greater than the increase in radiation due to increased area.
Of course you meant “tropopause”, not “troposphere”.
And since the tropopause is not a sphere, the surface area would be greatly increased, compared to a sphere.
The point being that warming the atmosphere increases radiation to space. Any estimates, assumptions, and guesses that try to pervert that reality FAIL.
co2…from your BBC article:
“HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. This infection is transmitted by body fluids, often during unprotected sex, but also through cuts and injecting drugs using shared needles. Immediately after infection, people often suffer mild flu-like symptoms. These pass, and for a period of time infected people might not know they are infected”.
This definition, ages old and never proved, gives you an indication of the veracity of the rest of the article. Even at that, none of what they claim has ever been proved. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method for DNA amplification searched for a paper for 10 years that demonstrated how HIV caused AIDSand found none. He even went to Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, and asked for such a paper. Montagnier could not help him and suggested he check simian (ape) studies, before excusing himself and rushing off.
Dr. Luc Montagnier who won a Nobel for discovering HIV now claims that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. Furthermore, he claims AIDS is not caused by HIV but is due to oxidative stress caused by lifestyle. He claims that once lifestyle compromises your immune system, then HIV can infect it.
You have to look at the data since 1983 when HIV was BELIEVED to be the virus causing AIDS. Only a tiny fraction of the populations in Europe or North America have died of AIDS and of those deaths, over 90% have involved people in high risk groups, mainly men who are homosexuals and/or intravenous drug users.
When that became apparent in North America, the World Health Organization changed its focus to Africa. AIDS is an umbrella term for a set of opportunistic infections that can infect a body with a depleted immune system. In North America, the major opportunistic infections are a cancerous type of pneumonia and Kaposi’s sarcoma, both of which are now related to the lifestyles of certain homosexual males.
In Africa, the opportunistic infection deemed now to be AIDS by the WHO is wasting syndrome, or slim disease. Before the AIDS scare in the early 1980s, the cause of wasting syndrome had already been defined. It was malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria. Such is the lifestyle of certain poor Africans.
If you want to stand around and belief the bs that wasting syndrome is caused by HIV transmission then you are yet another student who has learned through an appeal to authority. Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, does not think so. He does not advocate poisoning poor Africans with toxic antivirals, he wants to see Africans fed properly, receive clean drinking water, and to see the cause of parasitic infections reduced. He is advocating for anyone with AIDS, or exposed to the conditions that cause AIDS, to stop what they are doing and take antioxidants.
CO2…With regard to the antibodies claimed as identifiers of covid or HIV, no antibody comes with a label identifying a virus as having produced it. This is yet more pseudo-science from idiots who can’t do proper science. They cannot link an antibody or RNA to a virus if they don’t have the virus.
Montagnier admitted he has never seen HIV on an electron microscope. Think about what you are saying. If the virus can’t be seen on an electron microscope, where is it? Has it developed a cloaking device like a Romulan ship? Is it like HIV was claimed to be, a virus that can remain hidden in a human for 15 years then suddenly appear out of thin air like the entire universe is claimed to have appeared during the ridiculous Big Bang?
Come on, man, if you cannot see a virus on an electron microscope it’s not freakin there. Montagnier had to go and invent a theory to explain HIV, he admitted that. He based his theory on retroviral theory because that is his field. In the 1970s, he specialized in cancer research trying to explain the cause of cancer as a virus.
Retroviral theory began in the early 1970s. When Montagnier’s counterpart in North America, Robert Gallo, submitted a paper in the 1970s on retroviruses to a journal his paper was rejected. The journal editor claimed there is no such thing. To this date, no one has successfully proved there is such a virus. The science is based on consensus that the enzyme, reverse transcriptase, is proof of viral
activity.
BTW, Gallo was convicted of stealing the HIV virus from Montagnier. That’s the kind of people we are dealing with, people so sick with ambition they are willing to steal. People so desperate to be right they will ruin the careers of anyone who disagrees with them.
That’s what Montagnier based his inference on, reverse transcriptase. However, he had to prove that any alleged infectious material could kill uninfected cells in a test tube. He got a sample from a person with AIDS and injected it into uninfected cells and the cells died. Voila! He screamed, we have a virus.
Fast forward to 2015 or there abouts. Stefan Lanka is fighting a case in the German courts and some idiot, who hated Lanka, is try to prove the measles virus has been identified. The lower court, as lower courts often do, bungled the case and awarded the decision in favour of the plaintiff.
Off to the German High Court. Lanka convinced them that no proof exists to prove there is a measles virus. He does not claim there is no virus he claims no virus has been proved to exist for measles. Neither does he claim that measles does not exist.
The basis of his proof was a study he had done by an independent lab. He had commissioned them with the job of testing the uninfected kind of cells used by the likes of Montagnier. He knew they would die on their own without having an infectious material introduced due to the way they are prepared. The cells are removed from their natural environment, pre-starved to make them more conducive to an infectious agent, and treated with antibiotics to stop a bacterial infection.
The lab submitted a report to the High Court claiming that the cells died of the treatment in the lab without an infectious agent being injected. In other words, Montagnier et al did not run a control study to see if the cells allegedly killed by the infectious agent from the person with AIDS would have died on their own.
Lanka, who has a penchant for history, went back into all studies done that claim to have discovered a virus and found not one had run a control study. Furthermore, when he studied the photos alleging to be a virus, as an expert, he could explain each photos content as being nothing more than debris from dead cells.
When the first paper on SARS was submitted, complete with electron microscope micrographs, it was rejected. The journal claimed the micrographs were inconclusive.
No kidding!! When you prepare a sample for an EM you have to treat it with chemicals to help prevent damage from the bombardment of electrons in the EM. Then the sample has to be sliced to a thickness of about 90 billionths of a metre so the electrons can penetrate it. During the bombardment, much of the sample is destroyed by the electrons.
I have my own theory on the corona claimed to surround the SARS viruses, based on my experience with electrons and electron beams, since that is in the field of my own expertise. An electron is a charged particle that creates a magnetic field when it moves. I think the corona effect COULD be a result of the electric charges and magnetic field interacting with the sample material’s atomic structure and disloging pieces that appear as a corona.
If particles in the sample become charged, they will repel each other. If a person touches a charged body, the static charges cause the hair on that person’s head and limbs to stand on end.
When you look at alleged samples of the corona virus, you are looking at a very thin slice of material and the alleged spikes sticking out from the sample are seldom in place, They are often at awkward angles and even disconnected.
Those spikes are supposed to be employed by the virus to connect it to a cell but no one has ever seen that happen. It’s all theory with no hard scientific proof.
I think Lanka is right. He is credited with discovering the first virus in the ocean but he has since rescinded that claim. He now thinks that no proof exists for any virus. If they are there, as claimed, why can no one find HIV or covid on an electron microscope? Why do they need to use RNA alleged to be from a virus?
Furthermore, he claims there is no such thing as an infectious virus, that we have virus-on-the-brain. Much of viral research was done in the dark via inference. No one could see what was going on till the electron microscope was introduced. However, the big change came with the human genome study in the early 1950s.
From that point onward, scientists began trying to explain viruses based on the genetic material BELIEVED to make up a virus. Again, it was mainly by inference and scientists argued for 50 years about the genetic material of the measles virus.
Coming back to my point, if you cannot see a virus on an electron microscope, it’s not there. All the inference in the world cannot change that simple fact yet here were are stuck with lockdowns over an alleged virus that has never been seen. The tests don’t even test for a virus, they test for RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus.
How do they know the RNA is from a virus when they cannot find the virus itself?
Gordon: I’ve posted what follows earlier on this thread. Lest you haven’t read it, here it is again.
‘According to Stefan Lanka’ – that says it all!
I spent many years working in medical laboratory science and technology.
The knowledge of how viruses infect their hosts has been painstakingly accumulated over the years by many scientists. It’s a complex field, but certain basic principles are well established. To give you an idea of what is known, have a look at this link to the Journal of Cell Biology:
https://rupress.org/jcb/article/195/7/1071/54877/The-cell-biology-of-receptor-mediated-virus
It’s a detailed resume, but you should be able to get the general idea.
You’ll find that Lanka’s eccentric views tell you very little about the real world of molecular biology. It really is time for you to question his views, and to do that you need to read around the subject.
You don’t need to see a virus under a microscope to detect its presence, despite Lanka’s claims.
Here’s a link to the use of monoclonal antibodies in for example HIV detection:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zs6q2p3/revision/9
This type of antibody has been in use for many years for many types of animal and plant viruses. Monoclonal antibodies have revolutionised the field of molecular biology. Have a look on the internet.
Regarding your theory on the corona virus spike proteins, be assured that they do exist, and have been extensively investigated and described using sophisticated biochemical methods refined over many years. They are certainly not an artefact of electron microscopy.
You really need to read up on the science for yourself. I can’t spend hours educating you.
“What do you mean by a GHG? Are you referring to one molecule of CO2 or WV or to a large mass of such a gas? ”
A greenhouse gas is a molecule which absorbs infrared photons and reradiates them. In the atmosphere the main natural GHGs are water, CO2 and methane plus a few artificial ones like CFCs and SF6.
One molecule will absorb a photon of the correct energy, retain that energy for a short time and then emit it again as a photon of similar energy. The emitted photon keeps going in a straight line until it reaches space or hits something.
A mass of gas will contain billions of molecules emitting in random directions. The net effect is, as you say, that the gas radiates evenly in all directions.
You can demonstrate this in the lab. Your basic apparatus is a spherical tank of CO2, either transparent to IR or with IR transparent windows.
Rig a 15 micrometre IR source to shine a beam through the tank and a movable IR spectrometer to detect outgoing 15 micrometres IR.R
Start with no CO2. The beam enters one side of the tank and leaves through the other at the same intensity.
Increase the amount of CO2 in steps. Gradually the strength of the outgoing beam decreases as the gas absorbs some of the photons and radiates them randomly. Given enough CO2 every photon hits a CO2 molecule and is reradiated. The outward beam disappears because all the photons are leaving the tank in random directions.
Try your local university Physics Department. They should have the equipment and the students love to show off their toys to anyone interested.
NDIR sensors exploit the GHE by using the cuvette and IR beam technique as well. They are so ubiquitous that you can buy them on Amazon. A lot of people unwittingly rely upon CO2’s GHE to keep them safe from hypercapnia.
entropic…”You really need to read up on the science for yourself. I cant spend hours educating you”.
I was not asking for your help I was pointing out the stupidity in your reply that half the energy in GHG molecules go up the way and half goes down. I was trying to educate you as to why your reply was so stupid.
I even provided a reference to experts on the subject.
E, a molecule absorbing and emitting IR is NOT the definition of the GHE.
You really need to read up on the science for yourself. I can’t spend hours educating you.
You don’t need a lab, Spectralcalc has a gas cell simulator:
https://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php
What do we find?
1) At 400 ppm, or 0.0004 concentration, 0.7 LWIR of 15 microns/668 Wave Number is transmitted from a 10 cm gas cell.
2) At 400 ppm, 100% is absorbed by 100 cm.
3) On a humid day, 4 pph, H20 will absorb all the 15 microns/668 Wave Number by 600 cm, but absorbs much much much more of the IR spectrum outside 15 microns.
Basically, if H2O is present, CO2 is 100% irrelevant.
“Basically, if H2O is present, CO2 is 100% irrelevant. ”
Not irrelevant, just smaller.
H2O content depends on temperature.
A 1C rise in air temperature from some other cause raises absolute humidity by 7%.
You might remember the concept of climate sensitivity. The increase in forcing is amplified by feedbacks.
If global average temperature is increased by 1C due to CO2, cosmic rays or leprechauns, you can expect another 2C due to the extra water vapour.
I was playing with the forcing equation.
If you increase CO3 concentration by 8% it forces a direct warming of 0.33C.
That increases water vapour by 2.3%, but of a much larger concentration. That increases the water vapour warming by 0.66C, giving a total increase of 1C.
CO2 is the direct cause of the temperature change, but water vapour is doing the heavy lifting.
This would be the same whether the cause of the warming is CO2, albedo, cosmic rays, or something else. The water vapour feedback will amplify the change threefold.
I’m glad to see you are enjoying playing with your bogus equation. It makes a good “toy”. It has no validity in REAL science.
CO2 doesn’t add any energy to the system, and water vapor doesn’t “amplify” any non-existent energy.
I’m glad to see that you haven’t succumbed to the fallacy that GHGs violate the 1st law
NOTHING violates 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It’s just that some idiots believe they can pervert reality.
Entropoic Man: Basically, if H2O is present, CO2 is 100% irrelevant.
Not irrelevant, just smaller.
CO2isLife: Wrong, there is a finite number of photons, one can only be absorbed at any given time. If there are enough H20 molecules to absorb 100% of the photons, additional CO2 can’t absorb more than 100%.
If you use MODTRAN, you will see that the first sign on a 15 micron atmospheric dip occurs up at about 3 km. That is where H20 precipitates out leaving CO2 to do all the work. More CO2 might make the blip appear at a slightly lower altitude, but that certainly won’t warm the surface, which is what this is all about.
CO1iaLife
It would not be the amount of IR the GHG are absorbing that would warm the surface. It is the amount that is returning that causes a warmer surface with the same amount of solar input.
The CO2 emits based upon its temperature that is sustained by the non GHG (nitrogen and oxygen).
If you add more CO2 you will increase the number of emitters. Empirical evidence has already proven that CO2 increase does increase the amount of IR reaching the surface. A long and careful study. You can challenge the study but if the study is valid then increase of CO2 is responsible for some of the observed warming.
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Norman has tried this trick before. More IR from the sky does NOT mean higher surface temperatures. He’s still trying to boil water with ice cubes, believing all you have to do is add more ice.
He will never learn physics. He exhausted all his learning ability learning to use a keyboard. It was all downhill after that.
ClintR
Your absurd comments reflect your ignorance. You are not smart enough to know what a person actually says so you come up with your own incorrect interpretation and present it.
You will never find a post from me claiming adding ice will boil water, but if you add more ice (at same temperature) there WILL be more energy emitted.
You cannot understand the concept of view factors and it would be impossible to explain it to a simple mind like you.
You don’t have sufficient intellect to debate any issue. You throw out some stupid ideas, everyone explains in detail what is wrong with it, even leading you to actual evidence, you can’t read more than 10 word posts so you only get a fraction of what they say and you consistently do not understand anything. You are just a dumb person wasting everyone’s time. We would rather discuss ideas with thinking intelligent people. Not contrarians who just make up nonsense!
Norman,
Will the second ice cube raise the temperature indicated by the thermometer?
A) Yes
B) No
Answer the simple question with one of the simple answers, or take off on another of your endless troll typing exercises, filled with insults and misrepresentations.
Your choice.
ClintR
I have already answered that question for you. Your question is too simplistic in its current form to create a yes or no answer. It is conditional. The extra ice cube could increase the thermometer temperature, it could leave it the same or it could lower the temperature. All these possibilities exist depending upon the situation in which the ice is added.
I have already gone through this discussion. You do not understand my points at all yet you persist with the same question already answered.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566154
Again you are not intelligent or logical enough to have valuable discussion with.
No Norman, you didn’t answer. You evaded the question. So I had to “tighten the screws” so you couldn’t evade so easily. But you then refused to answer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-568843
Norman, in that same scenario (everything in the room is at 32F), can the second ice cube ever raise the temperature above 32F?
a) Yes
b) No
(Thanks for providing such a clear example of your inability to face reality.)
Clint R: Hes still trying to boil water with ice cubes, believing all you have to do is add more ice.
CO2isLife: Genius, pure genius. Every Ice Cube of -80 Degree C emits 15 micron LWIR. Adding more of them won’t raise the temperature. Pure Genius the way you put it.
Norman Says: If you add more CO2 you will increase the number of emitters. Empirical evidence has already proven that CO2 increase does increase the amount of IR reaching the surface.
CO2isLife says: Norman, you do understand that that IR is only 15 micron LWIR, it is coherent light of all the same wavelength and a black body temp of -80 Degree C. You ain’t gonna warm anything by adding that low energy to anything. Like Clint said, adding more ice cubes won’t warm a drink.
What you seem to be implying is that the energy is additive, it isn’t. The only way it would be additive is if adding more and more shortened the wavelength of the photons, and that doesn’t happen.
If I put an ice cube in an insulated container and measure the temperature, I will get a certain temperature. If I add more ice I will get the same temperature. If I use an IR meter I will get one spectrum and if I add more ice I will get the same spectrum. The one and only way to make things hotter is if you somehow shorten the emitted wavelength by adding more ice, and that doesn’t happen.
CO2isLife
Tim Folkerts (somewhere above) explained the energy distribution. The peak energy of a blackbody does not TRANSLATE at all to the amount of energy that CO2 can emit! Hot CO2 will emit much more total energy than a cold blackbody would. Since CO2 only emits at a few wavelengths (because of molecular vibrational states) you do not compare how much energy it emits to a blackbody that would emit at a peak wavelength. Even though each photon of 15 microns is less energy than a visible photon, if you have several times more of them emitted than a body will receive much more energy from the lower energy individual photons. I would caution you on praising ClintR. His point is really illogical. He does not understand radiant heat transfer at all. Adding ice around a heated object can cause its temperature to increase if the temperature of the ice is higher than the surroundings. If the surroundings are quite cold than each ice cube will add more energy to the water than the surroundings. The more ice you add around the heated water, the warmer it will get. It is easy physics to grasp. Roy Spencer agrees with this as well as Anthony Watts and the entire world of physics. It is an experimentally proven fact by Roy Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Ice will never warm non-heated water. The Earth’s surface is a heated object, it receives solar energy continuously on some part of it. The reason ice cannot warm non heated water is because water radiates away more energy than it receives from the ice. With non-heated water ice will slow the rate of heat loss compared to a colder surrounding.
Norman, your nonsense about CO2 and a black body was another adventure into nonsense-land.
And if you’re such an expert on ice, maybe you can answer the simple question:
In that same scenario (everything in the room is at 32F), can the second ice cube ever raise the temperature above 32F?
a) Yes
b) No
(Thanks for providing such a clear example of your inability to face reality.)
ClintR
No I did not evade any of your questions. You are too damn stupid to actually understand what I responded to you. No you never did a “gotcha”. You are not smart enough for that. I answered rationally and correctly. You are not smart enough to understand what I posted and it is pointless to engage you in this topic. When a person is as stupid as you are it is a wasted effort to reason with them. You don’t have the mental power to understand what is being said and in your limited thinking ability, you think you have come up with some brilliant point. It is not at all intelligent. We just have to accept you are a stupid person that believes themselves to be brilliant. No amount of reason works with you. I am hoping CO2isLife is an intelligent skeptic and will understand logic and rational thought.
Just to be fair Norman, here’s another chance to prove you’re not an evading idiot troll:
In that same scenario (everything in the room is at 32F), can the second ice cube ever raise the temperature above 32F?
a) Yes
b) No
Clint has tried this trick before — a red herring that merely distracts from the issue at hand. No one is trying to boil water with ice cubes, believing all you have to do is add more ice. Clint keeps moving the goalposts in the midle of the discussion.
Here is where Clint wants to start — and end! — the discussion.
“Norman, in that same scenario (everything in the room is at 32F), can the second ice cube ever raise the temperature above 32F?
a) Yes
b) No”
Of course, in this scenario, Clint is absolutely right. If everything is already radiating at 32F and you add something else radiating at 32F, and object in the room will remain at 32F.
This is not at all analogous to the climate system with multiple sources of radiation at multiple temperatures, but the various contrarians tend to refuse to discuss anything further. The interesting scenarios are more like …
1) You have the surroundings at 0F and an object at 0F. You introduce some ice at 32F toward one side of the object. The object will:
a) stay at 0F
b) warm to some temperature between 0F and 32F
c) warm to 32 F
2) You have the surroundings at 0F and some ice at 32F toward one side of the object. You lower the temperature of the surroundings (say to -40F) while keeping the size and temperature of the ice constant @ 32F. The object in the room will:
a) stay at the same temperature as in (1)
b) cool off below the temperature in (1)
3) And just for completeness, the surroundings are raised back to 0F (like in part 1) again keeping the ice constant. The object in the room will:
a) stay at the same cooler temperature as in (2)
b) warm up to the temperature in (1)
Let’s see if Clint will do like he demands for others and answer a few simple questions.
There were no tricks or red herrings, Tim. If you really believe there were, then you’re ignorant.
The issue was about “fluxes don’t simply add”. Adding more ice does not increase the temperature. E. Swanson was able to answer correctly. Norman, Nate, and Svante, and the others were not.
You got it correct: “Of course, in this scenario, Clint is absolutely right.”
Fluxes do not simply add, as you indicate in your 3 scenarios.
If you have responsible questions, I’ll be glad to answer. Questions are usually indicated by question marks.
Here Clint. A few simple, highly relevant questions.
1) You have the surroundings at 0F and an object at 0F. You introduce some ice at 32F toward one side of the object.
The object will:What will happen to the temperature of the object?a) stay at 0F
b) warm to some temperature between 0F and 32F
c) warm to 32 F
2) You have the surroundings at 0F and some ice at 32F toward one side of the object. You lower the temperature of the surroundings (say to -40F) while keeping the size and temperature of the ice constant @ 32F.
The object will:What will happen to the temperature of the object?a) stay at the same temperature as in (1)
b) cool off below the temperature in (1)
3) And just for completeness, the surroundings are raised back to 0F (like in part 1) again keeping the ice constant.
The object will:What will happen to the temperature of the object?a) stay at the same cooler temperature as in (2)
b) warm up to the temperature in (1)
The surroundings, whether 0F or -40F, will NOT increase the temperature above 32F, because fluxes don’t simply add.
So given no further information, the best answers would all be “b”.
“So given no further information, the best answers would all be “b”.”
Perfect! I agree 100%. No further information about the scenarios are needed.
With ANY small “hot radiator” @ T(h) and ANY “cooler surroundings” @ T(c), the temperature of an “object” receiving radiation from both will be somewhere between the two temperatures.
T(c) < T(o) < T(h)
If the temperature of the "cooler surroundings" increases, the temperature of the "object" also increases. T(o) is a function of T(c). Exactly like you said.
But the small hot radiator doesn't have to be a piece of ice @ T(h) = 32F. It could be anything. Like a chunk of ice at just 30F. Or water @ 40 F. Or a hotplate @ 200F. Or tungsten @ 3,000F. Or a star @ 10,000F. And the surroundings don't have to rise from -40F to 0F. They could rise just from from -30F to -20F. Or they could rise from -450F to 32F.
ALL of these scenarios cause the object to warm up. That is all anyone is claiming.
So for example, -80C surroundings and and a small hot sun will would cause the a planet to be warmer than -270C surroundings and and an identical small hot sun. Just like you agreed to here.
Folkerts, I’m glad you agree, because you would be an idiot not to. The surroundings, whether 0F or -40F, will NOT increase the temperature above the 32F ice, because fluxes don’t simply add.
So I hope you’ve now backed away from your claim that two ice cubes can make something warmer than one ice cube. Many of the idiots believe that. They have been claiming fluxes add. Since an ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2, they believe adding another ice cube, will add to 600 W/m^2! They believe, incorrectly, that fluxes add.
No matter how much ice is added, the flux will never exceed 300 W/m^2, because fluxes don’t simply add.
And this applies to CO2 also. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not raise temperatures any more than before the doubling. Or to put it in terms of photons, doubling the amount of 15μ photons will not raise temperatures more than before the doubling.
Did I mention that fluxes don’t simply add?
Clint R busted again.
Lying ain’t much of a legacy, snowflake Svante.
“”So I hope youve now backed away from your claim that two ice cubes can make something warmer than one ice cube.”
Nope, he still doesnt get it. Went over his head.
Tim, give him a 2 ice cube example.
EM,
A couple of points.
All molecules absorb infrared photons and reradiate some or all of that energy, at energy levels no higher than that of the photons absorbed. There are no special exemptions for GHGs.
As you point out, enough gas (or any matter, for that matter), will totally absorb radiation of any frequency. The only totally transparent medium is one containing no matter at all, a vacuum. Do you not understand that totally blocking radiation reaching a thermometer results in a lowering of temperature? Even partial blocking, from clouds, shade cloth, and so on doesnt make the surface hotter by increasing the radiation from the Sun!
You are wrong claiming that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of certain energy levels. This is just climatological pseudoscience! Try and explain how CO2 can be heated from say 20C to 100C by friction, compression, bubbling through boiling water, or mixing with hotter Argon. If CO2 emitted all the photons it absorbed, its temperature would never change, would it?
Just silly. Learn the physics of reality. Understand what you are observing, and what it means.
Swenson, you are 100% correct. The CO2 molecule has many different oribtals of differing energy levels. The GHG effect only impacts 1, the 15 LWIR Photon orbital. There are plenty of other orbitals that are unrelated to the GHG Effect. Climate Scientists don’t seem to grasp that concept.
Friction and adding thermal Energy:
Energy Quantization
When the energy of an atom is increased (for example, when a substance is heated), the energy of the electrons inside the atom is also increasedthat is to say, the electrons get excited. For the excited electron to go back to its original energy, or ground state, it needs to release energy. One way an electron can release energy is by emitting light. Each element emits light at a specific frequency (or color) upon heating that corresponds to the energy of the electronic excitation.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/general-rules-for-assigning-electrons-to-atomic-orbitals/
Google:
Atomic Energy Levels
In this video, David explains how an atom can absorb and emit photons with particular values of energy and how to determine the allowed values.
Kahn Academy
It won’t let me post a link.
Norman Says: The CO2 emits based upon its temperature that is sustained by the non GHG (nitrogen and oxygen).
See my following posts. Climate “scientists” seem to conflate the electron excitement from LWIR of 15 microns and the electron excitement from adding thermal or other energy. The 15 micron LWIR excitation is the only one relevant to the GHG effect. If you heat air to 20 degrees, it doesn’t matter if you have CO2 in it or not, it is still 20 degree C.
Thermal heat, transferred through kinetic energy of one molecule hitting another is wildly different from thermalizing LWIR of 15 microns. Colliding atoms is wildly different than absorbing a photon. Only the absorbing of a photon is relevant to the GHG effect.
Just about everything here is wrong!
“If you heat air to 20 degrees, it doesnt matter if you have CO2 in it or not, it is still 20 degree C.”
Yes, it matters a great deal! IF there are no GHG, then there will be no emitted or absorbed IR (or very very very tiny amounts that can be ignored for practical purposes). The gas can only cool or warm by conduction, not by radiation. As you add GHGs, the gas can emit IR and now has an alternate way to warm or cool.
Also, however a CO2 molecule gets excited — whether by collisions with other atoms or by absorbing a 15 um photon — the result is EXACTLY the same. The molecule has no way to ‘remember’ how the energy was added. The molecule can emit a 15 um photon, or it can collide with another molecule and transfer that energy.
For the simplest case, where the gas and the surroundings are the same temperature, everything is balanced. Some atoms are gaining vibrational energy via collisions, and an equal number of atoms are losing vibrational energy via collisions. Some atoms are gaining vibrational energy via 15 um photons, and an equal number of atoms are losing vibrational energy via 15 um photons. Ie it is all at thermal equilibrium.
One thing I find odd about Climate “Science” is that the “experts” always point to research done by other climate scientists who use models. That is like Goldman Sach arguing with Merril Lynch whose stock market model is better. The only difference is that Merril Lynch and GS will use different variables in their models. Climate scientists all start with CO2 and try to curve fit it to the data by altering the coefficients (they call this data mining exercise “feedback”). If the real world that is called fraud.
What the non-Climate Scientists focus on are the scientific principles and laws. Is the conclusion consistent with the physics of the CO2 molecule, does it violate conservation of energy, etc etc. Text books seem to support the skeptics, models seem to support the climate “scientists.” A model that isn’t based upon sound scientific principles isn’t worth diddly.
“What the non-Climate Scientists focus on are the scientific principles and laws.”
Good.
“Is the conclusion consistent with the physics of the CO2 molecule, does it violate conservation of energy, etc etc.”
Good idea. But you need to first understand these topics.
“Text books seem to support the skeptics”
Nope. Like to see an example of that.
“models seem to support the climate ‘scientists.’ A model that isnt based upon sound scientific principles isnt worth diddly.”
The models use are based on physics. In fact they are a lot like weather models which are well proven to work.
So this assumption is False. Do some homework on how the models are designed before posting such rubbish.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Don’t look very warm to me.
You can see the second wave of La Nina.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The forecast indicates that the ozone blockage in circulation in the lower stratosphere will not only persist, but will extend partially over northern Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/fNgqMjX/gfs-t100-nh-f240.png
https://i.ibb.co/g4DWTCH/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
https://i.ibb.co/SvQY1bw/gfs-t100-nh-f384.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f384.png
This circulation in the stratosphere will move to a level of 500 hPa in the troposphere.
ren…”The forecast indicates that the ozone blockage in circulation in the lower stratosphere will not only persist, but will extend partially over northern Canada”.
We were warned by The Weather Network to expect a cold winter here on the West Coast of Canada. They claimed it would begin to get cold in mid-December and that January and February would be colder than normal.
So far, December has been fairly mild, as of the 27th, and that is expected to continue into January 2021.
What’s going on?
Global warming.
You must be prepared for the stratospheric intrusion. Circulation of ozone shows how air flows. You can see that now all the way from the Beufort Sea.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_NA_f024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
This is the predicted distribution of arctic air masses on 01/01/2020.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/01/01/0000Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-68.20,90.95,340
Sorry.
01/01/2021.
Take a look at the animation. The circulation over Europe reverses completely, from west to north-east.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/europe/mimictpw_europe_latest.gif
“There are plenty of other orbitals that are unrelated to the GHG Effect. Climate Scientists dont seem to grasp that concept.”
CO2 lines outside the black body outward longwave radiation range are not of interest to climate scientists because they have no effect on climate.
For example the 10 micrometres line is the wavelength emitted by CO2 lasers.
It is also strongly emitted by jet aircraft efflux, which is why heat seeking missiles like the Sidewinder home on 10 micrometre emissions. There was also a project to track Russian ballistic missiles from orbit by the 10 micrometres radiation from the exhaust of their kerosene burning rockets.
Useful for us. The Hitrans spectra database was originally research done for the development of heat seeking missiles and top secret.
Now it is the basis of the ubiquitous Modtrans software.
Entropic Man Says: CO2 lines outside the black body outward longwave radiation range are not of interest to climate scientists because they have no effect on climate.
Uhhh, isn’t what what we’ve been saying all along and why we try to isolate the effect of 15 LWIR on the oceans and atmosphere?
Here, I’ll repeat the question that started it all. How does LWIR of 15 microns warm the deep oceans when it doesn’t penetrate the oceans? How does LWIR of 15 microns melt the Greenland glacier from its base? How does 15 micron LWIR penetrate 1 mile of ice?
“and why we try to isolate the effect of 15 LWIR”
People don’t try to ISOLATE the effect. They try to INCORPORATE the effect in conjunction with all the other effects (like sunlight and all the other wavelengths of LWIR from other sources). Only by understanding the combined effects can the overall situation be assessed.
(Does Greenland melt “from the base’? It was my understanding it melts from the top, like any ice would do. I know some of the warm meltwater can tunnel into the ice and cause further melting within the ice sheet, but that is a different process.)
Ice accumulates inland, flows outward and melts at the fringe.
Generally speaking.
“Here, I’ll repeat the question that started it all. How does LWIR of 15 microns warm the deep oceans when it doesn’t penetrate the oceans?”
The deep ocean has not been warmed much at all. The near surface hundreds of meters, quite a bit.
You are looping.
Your question has been thoroughly addressed. Where were you? Go back and respond to the previous answers.
If you have no rebuttal then its time to stop.
Somewhere upthread I see:
A. ” It is very very easy to convince a Judge that the Urban Heat Island Effect is a major contributor to global warming and has nothing to do with CO2. ”
A1. Years ago, using GHCN V3, I showed how wrong this idea is; the last update was end 2018.
The method was to separate, in the V3 data set, all stations specified as ‘rural’ and with least nightlight from the rest, and to generate two temperature series out of the two subsets:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ztwxF-P9LJeF0iPY8ZSReQfyQN8KkmB/view
It is evident that, if UHI was such a terrible factor, we would see on the graph above much more difference between the two plots.
I am not interested in discussing CO2 here.
*
A2. Last year, I discovered that NOAA had – fair enough – published the list of 71 USHCN stations acknowledged as ‘good, UHI arm’ stations by Watts’ team at surfacestations.org, compared with the rest being in their mind absolutely unacceptable.
I compared, using GHCN daily (NOAA’s rawest data) these 71 ‘UHI arm’ stations with the ‘unacceptable’ rest (over 8000 stations in the US):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbQCHFwTTy1HIns9pDNj6mDQ85Vau7NC/view
As you can see, the 8000 bad stations (containing of course all bad USHCN ones, about 1150) competed very good with the rest, by showing even a lower trend than the 71 ‘good’ USHCN stations.
***
B. ” If the opposing ‘expert’ witness disagrees, I could show experimental evidence of a temperature stations on a hot asphalt roof vs one in a field. I would win that point.
*
Aha.
Two years ago, Anthony Watts raged about an incredible station in Anchorage, AK (at INTL AP) which was showing horrible 2 (TWO!) degrees more than another one in the near.
The station was suspected to be one of the worst UHI examples: asphalt in the near, big jets spewing arond, oh oh oh.
Indeed. He was right, but when you show a comparison of Anchorage INTL AP with a pristine USCRN station (KENAI) located sone 50 km ago in the middle of nowhere, you obtain this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhCuDiAFUT80Ws4S8XopciaWQTp4rorn/view
As you can see, even if the two degree difference very well exists in the absolute data, there is no visible difference in the trends between the two stations, and even their respective anomalies wrt the common period (2011-2018) don’t differ by much.
J.-P. D.
binny…”I showed how wrong this idea is; the last update was end 2018″.
Some German humour. Your work is an amateur production of Excel calculations based on fudged data from NOAA/GISS.
Robertson the cheating SOB
You are the most ignorant, the dumbest person on this blog, something like an antiengineer.
All you are able to do is to insult people like Andrew Motte, whose wonderful translation of Newton’s work work you couldn’t manage even to do 0.1 % of.
P..s off, Robertson.
His graphs are of such poor quality I don’t even look at them anymore.
This didn’t post earlier.
The graph shows observed outward longwave radiation in black and the expected black body radiation. The difference is due to GHGs.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Most the uptake below wavenumber 600 and above 1400 is due to water vapour.
H2O and CO2 overlap in a band from 600-750.
Saturated GHGs block 50% of outward radiation, so you can see that around 15 micrometres half, 28W/m^2, is emitted to space and 28W/m^2 is blocked.
Of that blocked 28W/m^2 , 18W/m^2 is due to CO2 and 10W/m^2 due to H2O.
Entropic Man, that chart is a chart from 70 km looking down. Glaciers aren’t up 70 km. Yes, at 70 km, where the air is thin and void of H20, the only real greenhouse gas up there is CO2, and what you are seeing is the signature of 15 micron LWIR being thermalized. The same pattern would exist if CO2 was 100 ppm.
What is more important isn’t looking down, but looking up from the surface. What impact does CO2 have to the layer of atmosphere that holds the glaciers.
Looking up from the surface, with CO2 changing from 180 to 410, it adds 1.57 W/M^2 of backradiation.
CO2 changing from 270 to 410 added 0.94 W/M^2.
To put this number in perspective. If I add some Cumulous Clouds, you add 78.19 W/M^2. In other words, a single cloudy day is the equivalent of over 80 days of CO2 back radiation.
In other words, if you can’t model clouds you can’t model the climate, and if you don’t have data for clouds going back in history, you will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, create a valid model. Never. That is like doing a study on weight loss and not having data for excercize and caloric intake. You are simply missing data for the most significant variable.
Once again, I would love to try this “science” in a court of law.
entropic…”The graph shows observed outward longwave radiation in black and the expected black body radiation. The difference is due to GHGs”.
It indicates the IR frequency at the source and is not measuring heat at its location. Talking about blackbody radiation at terrestrial temperature is somewhat insane.
entropic…”The graph shows observed outward longwave radiation in black and the expected black body radiation. The difference is due to GHGs”.
It is not observed, the graph is faked. The CO2 spectrum is overlain by the wv spectrum. there is no way to see CO2 radiation directly. This graph is based on an estimation by alarmists.
“Since El Nino produces global average warmth, and La Nina produces global average coolness,”
CO2 adds W/M^2. A Watt is a flow metric. 1 Joule/sec is a Watt.
The Oceans will change X Degrees between and El Nino and La Nina.
The oceans have a certain volume. Water has a specific heat capacity of 4182 J/kgC
It is very very very easy to calculate out how long it would take the additional 0.94 W/M^2 of CO2 LWIR 15 microns to warm the oceans.
That is if 15 microns actually will warm water. If LWIR of 15 microns can’t warm the oceans, then CO2 can’t be causing climate change, then man can’t be to blame.
Anyway, if you understand the physics, all CO2 could do is shorten the time between El Ninos, it would never be able to cause warming. Why? Because once the oceans get a certain temperature, it triggers an El Nino. El Ninos are like pressure values for the climate system. They prevent run away warming.
“CO2 adds W/M^2.”
Be careful with terminology like that. Warmists will use it to go crazier than they already are!
CO2 can not “add” energy. It can absorb and re-emit, but it contributes nothing in terms of extra energy.
Clint R: CO2 can not add energy. It can absorb and re-emit, but it contributes nothing in terms of extra energy.
Sorry, you are right. The outgoing energy is reduced by W/M^2.
CO2 doesn’t add any energy, it simply converts an outgoing photon of 15 microns to thermal energy of -80 degree C, or simply re-emits the photon slowing its progress to outer space.
You are confusing energy and heat. CO2 can add energy but not heat (net energy).
No silly snowflake Svante. CO2 can’t add either energy or heat.
In your dreams Sunshine.
No silly, it’s not “dreams”, it’s “Thermodynamics”.
co2…”CO2 adds W/M^2. A Watt is a flow metric. 1 Joule/sec is a Watt”.
A watt has nothing to do with flow metrics, it measures work.
A watt is a measure of mechanical power derived from the horsepower. 1HP = 746 watts = 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute. There is a heat equivalent of work wherein 1 calorie = 4.18 joules, discovered by the scientist Joule circa 1840.
Using the watt to measure electromagnetic energy is just plain stupid. EM can do no work nor can it heat anything. It can cause heat when it is absorbed by electrons in an atom, ***IF*** it can cause the electron to jump to a higher orbital energy level. Such a rise in orbital energy level is equivalent to a rise in kinetic energy and heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
EM/IR from cooler bodies lacks the frequency and energy to cause an electron to rise, hence the 2nd law.
“A watt has nothing to do with flow metrics, it measures work.”
Anything divided by a second is a flow metric, that is why you divide by a second. It is a rate or flow.
Gordon Says: It can cause heat when it is absorbed by electrons in an atom, ***IF*** it can cause the electron to jump to a higher orbital energy level. Such a rise in orbital energy level is equivalent to a rise in kinetic energy and heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
CO2isLife Asks: Gordon, why do you use “IF?” What else would the 15 micron photon do to the CO2 molecule other than knock it into a higher orbital?
co2…”CO2isLife Asks: Gordon, why do you use IF? What else would the 15 micron photon do to the CO2 molecule other than knock it into a higher orbital?”
The relationship between the orbital level and the energy emitted or absorbed is E = hf. When an electron drops from level 2 to level 1 (arbitrary levels) the emitted quanta is:
E2 – E1 = hf
where f is the frequency of the electron, presumably at the level 2. The frequency of the electron is determined by its orbital period, which changes from level to level.
In order for EM to be absorbed, it must have at least the frequency of the electron at its current level and E must be high enough to force the electron to the next level. That is not possible if the EM energy came from a cooler body.
The excitation you mentioned is the energy level above ground state. The hotter a mass, the higher the electrons in its atoms sit above ground state. So, the electrons in a cooler body are sitting at a lower energy level than those in a hotter body.
It’s simply not possible for EM emitted at a lower relative excitation level to be absorbed by electrons at a higher excitation level.
This is true for energy everywhere. energy cannot be transferred from a state of lower energy to a state of higher energy. Hotter bodies have a higher energy state than bodies that are cooler.
When you’re talking “electrons”, “energy levels”, and “orbitals”, that’s mainly visible light. But the same principles apply to infrared, which is absorbed by molecules. The same quantum relations hold, only in terms of physical movements such as vibration and rotation. Just as a certain atom only absorbs certain wavelengths, a certain molecule only absorbs certain wavelengths.
Thanks Gordon, I was assuming the electron was in its ground state, and not already excited. Thanks for the explanation. In that case, all the 15 micron photon can do is knock the electron into its proper orbit.
Kahn Academy has a great video on this but I can’t post the link.
Google:
Kahn Academy
Atomic Energy Levels
In this video, David explains how an atom can absorb and emit photons with particular values of energy and how to determine the allowed values.
“When an electron drops from level 2 to level 1 (arbitrary levels) the emitted quanta is:
E2 E1 = hf”
Yes!
“where f is the frequency of the electron, presumably at the level 2.”
No! this is the frequency of the emitted or absorbed photon.
“In order for EM to be absorbed, it must have at least the frequency of the electron at its current level “
No, only the DIFFERENCE in energy matters: E2 – E1. If these levels are close together, then a low energy photon will suffice (no matter how high E1 & E2 are above the ground state.)
ClintR started pointing you in the right direction. You have a LONG way to go!
CO2 says: “In that case, all the 15 micron photon can do is knock the electron into its proper orbit.”
No. the 15 um photon knocks the MOLECULE into a higher vibrating state. If the molecule was not vibrating, then it starts to vibrate when it absorbs a 15 um photon. If the atom is already vibrating, then it vibrates at a larger quantized amplitude (but the same frequency).
Good contribution from Clint R, I’ll be darned.
CO2isLife says:
“Kahn Academy has a great video on this but I cant post the link.”
https://tinyurl.com/yckslam7
Nowt to do with orbitals. 15 micrometres photons excite a vibration mode.
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation#:~:
We’ve been trying to tell Gordon that for years, it doesn’t stick.
“EM can do no work nor can it heat anything.”
Damn, I was thinking of installing solar panels. Oh well.
You guys are like the Laurel and Hardy of Climate Denial. Feeding off each other’s confusions.
“It is very very very easy to calculate out how long it would take the additional 0.94 W/M^2 of CO2 LWIR 15 microns to warm the oceans.”
YEs, as I showed you above, it is consistent with the observed warming.
“That is if 15 microns actually will warm water. If LWIR of 15 microns cant warm the oceans, then CO2 cant be causing climate change, then man cant be to blame.”
It can, as discussed over and over. Next issue?
“Anyway, if you understand the physics”
Yes focus on that before making conclusions, CO2.
carbon500…”The knowledge of how viruses infect their hosts has been painstakingly accumulated over the years by many scientists”.
I’d like to see your proof for this statement.
Lanka is a microbiologist who is credited with finding the first virus in the ocean. From that alone I would say he has in-depth experience identifying viruses and with molecular biology.
Your presumption that the knowledge of how a virus infects a host is well established does not coincide with what Lanka has produced from reading the history of virology. He can describe at an in-depth level how viral theory began and he has followed it all the way to the present day research.
And you still have not answered the question as to why no one has been able to isolate HIV by seeing it on an electron microscope. Same with covid. If either virus could be seen, steps could be taken to retrieve its genetic material directly and tests for HIV and covid could be based on that genetic material.
As it stands, the tests for both are based on RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus. Why don’t they have the actual genetic material from either virus? According to Lanka, the genomes claimed for HIV and covid have been synthesized on a computer model, with missing links in the genome inserted ad hoc.
Lanka has gone to major researchers and asked that question. None of them have replied to him. It’s not as if it was me or you writing to them, Lanka is a major player in the field having isolated the first virus in the ocean and having his work accepted by his peers.
BTW…Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV, was on French TV recently. He expressed his opinion that the covid genome is mad-made. He claims there are sequences in it from HIV.
That corroborates, in part, what Lanka is claiming. Mind you, the HIV genome is man-made as well since Montagnier has admitted he has never seen HIV. When he references the HIV genome he is talking about genetic sequences he INFERRED to be from HIV. He did not isolate the virus using an electron microscope and he freely admits he has changed the definition of isolation.
Montagnier’s real proof for HIV is that infected cells he removed from the lymph nodes of a person with AIDS killed uninfected cells in a test tube. Lanka has thrown a damper on that claim by proving the uninfected cells would have died on their own due to their treatment in a lab to prepare them.
No one bothered to check that before Lanka pointed it out, making me wonder at the level of competence in modern research.
Gordon: I said in my earlier post that the knowledge of how viruses infect their hosts has been painstakingly accumulated over the years by many scientists.
You reply that you’d like to see proof for this statement.
I suggest that you type ‘The cell biology of receptor-mediated virus entry’ into your search engine.
As regards viral RNA detection, specificity and function and how to obtain and analyse it, there’s plenty out there on the internet.
Why not make the effort to read and understand it?
Since you’re still obsessed with seeing HIV and other viruses, it’s clear that you haven’t read the links I posted properly or made any attempt to understand information regarding viral detection in the laboratory.
Regarding your comment that according to Lanka, the genomes claimed for HIV and COVID have been synthesised on a computer model, with missing links in the genome inserted ad hoc: this is an absolutely ludicrous statement. Anyone working with viral RNA and carrying out sequencing will very quickly get real data from the part of the molecule itself which is of interest. I’ve carried out viral sequencing myself, and faked data would be apparent once work had begun.
Finally, you comment that you wonder at the level of competence in modern research.
Study bacteriology, virology and molecular biology, get a degree in the subject, and then have a go at postgraduate research. Then you’ll be in a position to comment. Your remark is an insult to countless laboratory professionals around the world.
I think its safe to say that Gordon will not be getting the Covid vaccine, since it cannot possibly work.
He will just have to depend on almost everyone else in his country getting it.
binny…”Here in Germany, in France, in Italy, we see more and more doctors in intensive care units reporting that most intubated people are currently not surviving. They say its worse then in April”.
There are 83 million people in Germany and 30,000 are claimed to have died, even though there is no proof that any of those people died because they were infected. There is no proof that their bodies were not already compromised severely.
30,000 is 30,000/83,000,000 = 0.036%. That is 36/100ths of 1%.
Those numbers don’t even qualify as a pandemic. The pandemic is in the hysteria of idiots who are blindly following medical idiots who don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground.
Till March of 2020, all attempts to find a vaccine for SARS over 20 years failed utterly. Suddenly, since March 2020 we have found not just one vaccine but many more. The testing period for such a vaccine should be 5 years but this one is being rushed out in a few months.
I suppose you will be one of the idiots lined up to get your shot.
Tell me something, why have the other 99.64% of Germans not been seriously affected by the current contagion? Do you really think this stupidity about social distancing and wearing masks has protected them? There are countries who have not instituted such measures and their infection rate is the same as those countries who have.
Robertson the cheating SOB
” … 30,000 are claimed to have died, even though there is no proof that any of those people died because they were infected. ”
You are really the most disgusting person on this blog.
I begin to sincerely hope that you will be infected by SARS-COVID-2 one day, will have to be transferred to an ICU, will get intubated during weeks, and will leave the hospital like did so many COVID patients – ‘recovered’, yes, but… with 20 % of what you were before.
Sie sind ein richtig gemeines Schwein, Robertson!
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Do you really think wishing sickness and torture on people will make people believe you?
People like you are generally categorised as psychopaths. Do you think giving people who disagree with you electric shocks might be enough, if they dont contract a debilitating disease? Or a prefrontal lobotomy?
Im glad you are powerless to implement your fantasies.
Phew!
I’m glad you said something Swenson. I usually ignore Bindidon, so I missed that comment. He has lost it. That’s the final state for incompetent trolls — “pure hatred”.
Others like Norman and Nate have something to look forward to, I guess….
“Tell me something, why have the other 99.64% of Germans not been seriously affected by the current contagion?”
There are lots of serious effects besides death!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
Scare tactics.
There is no credible proof this is worse than an average seasonal flu. The tests give way too many false positives. If you test positive, but have no symptoms, they claim you are “asymptomatic”! They have an answer for everything.
We’ve all heard the stories of people that died from a car accident, heart attack, or even gunshots, being classified as a “covid death”. C-D-C now groups all pneumonia, influenza, and covid together to get the numbers up.
I’ve now known 7 people that have tested positive. Five said it was no worse than a mild cold. One had to spent two nights in a hospital because he let it develop into pneumonia. He has since fully recovered. One was an 86 year-old man that had a collapsed lung from a previous illness. They put him in the hospital because he had a fever. His fever broke after one night and he went home. His wife, 84 years-old, never even got it.
Look at who benefits from the panic. Connect the dots….
“There is no credible proof this ..”
“That aint science”
“Just a guess”
How to make science facts magically disappear with this one simple trick!
In the US Covid Deaths are 330,000 in less than 1 year. A typical Flu year kills 30,000.
330,000 >> 30,000.
Show us your evidence that 330,000 is wrong, or shut the hell up!
Does that “330,000” include car accidents, heart attacks, suicides?
Or medical “errors”?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html
Wheres your evidence? This aint it.
Where’s the evidence that you ever accept evidence?
You pervert, distort, and deny reality.
Where’s the evidence? This still aint it.
You post BS, you can’t back it up with anything. Standard Clint.
Still Nate produces no evidence. He just trolls. There is NO evidence he has ever accepted reality.
Lame.
Gordon: why is someone who wishes to be vaccinated against COVID-19 an idiot?
Have you bothered doing any research into the mechanism of RNA vaccines, for example?
Here’s a link to an explanation of how they work:
https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines
Note that the methodology was suggested around 1990, but the technology has been developed and explored since. Now we are fortunate enough to receive the benefit of years of patient work by laboratory scientists.
You say that the pandemic is ‘the hysteria of idiots who are blindly following medical idiots who don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground’.
Perhaps a chat with an intensive care unit doctor or nurse (idiots all of course in your estimation) might enlighten you as to the life-threatening effects of COVID-19 infections in those unfortunate enough to have become seriously ill, or maybe a patient who survived? I somehow doubt you’d listen.
I read somewhere upthread, written by CO2isLife:
” Matter of fact, if you identify weather stations using v3 of NASA’s data, before the ‘adjustments’ you will see that almost every desert station removed from the urban heat island and water vapor show no warming going back to 1880. ”
I don’t recall the exact place, but I think to have read in addition that the most warming should be expected in those places where H2O’s density in the troposphere is maxima.
In the data for the lower troposphere, this is anyway not the case: UAH LT land-only trends for the Tropics have always been lower than those for all Globe grid cells.
*
I don’t want to discuss CO2’s effects – first of all, because I’m not an expert in this complex context.
But also because it makes few sense for me to discuss this topic with people who think they can establish links between temperatures in small areas (or even single locations) and CO2’s activity, which imho can only be explained globally.
*
Here are some temperature series generated out of GHCN V3 data (unadjusted of course) for the following station subsets:
– the V3 stations specified with the keyword ‘DESERT’ but also as ‘RURAL’ (141); in addition, the Antarctic stations (34) were included in a second plot – they are, after all, located in a desertic country as well;
– the V3 stations available worldwide;
– the V3 stations located in the Tropics (i.e., like in UAH, 20N-20S).
Due to the very small size of the ‘DESERT’ subset, it is important to remove those showing spurious trends (33), thus 108 remained. For the same reason, the common comparison period starts with 1890.
*
All trends below are in C / decade, all sigmas within +- 0.02
1. Stations in desertic areas, with/without the Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Maa7AKnB7RblEG7-qQU-v4mq_FAHNgyj/view
1890-2019: 0.09
1979-2019: 0.29, with Antarctic: 0.26
2. All stations
https://tinyurl.com/ycg9poek
1890-2019: 0.07
1979-2019: 0.20
3. Stations in the Tropics within 20N-20S
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K3encST31zNMlmigyEfz0Hw7hfw-kei4/view
1890-2019: 0.06
1979-2019: 0.16
*
As opposed to CO2isLife’s claim, the stations in deserts show here (comparatively) higher trends, and conversely, those in the Tropics show lower ones.
The effect of H2O and CO2 is by far too complex to be reduced to simple explanations like the amount of this or that gas around all the stations.
J.-P. D.
Great work Bindidion. What did we learn from your graphic?
1) There is terrible heteroskedascity
2) Temperatures are the same in 1908 and 1998
3) There is no dog-leg in 1902
4) Temperatures fell between 1930 and 1980
5) There is no trend, temperatures are basically flat between 1880 and 1990
6) Almost 100% of the temperatures gains came post 1980
7) Current temperatures are well within range defined between 1880 and 1920
8) Current temperatures are well within 2 standard deviations of the mean
9) You chose the warmest period to calculate the mean, and you still didn’t get an uptrend
10) The earth has a 12-month cycle, yet you chose 60 months, why the long-term smoothing when a year is 12 months?
11) You are using “adjusted” data
Going on to “All Stations”
1) You show no warming between 1900 and 1998
2) There is no dog-leg in 1902
3) All warming occurs post-2000
4) The standard deviation appears much tighter than the other one
Tropic Stations:
1) Show no warming between 1900 and 1980
2) Shows no Dog-Leg in 1902
3) All warming occurs post 1990
I’m sorry, are you trying to make my point with your charts? Your charts debunk the Hockeystick, demonstrate that CO2 had no impact on temperatures for almost 100 years as CO2 went from 280 to 380.
What is the point you are trying to make with your charts? That I am right and you are wrong?
If that is the case, I agree with your conclusion.
Bindidion, I’d love you to try to prove me wrong again. Do the same study, only use the high temperatures from the stations, not the average. What you will see is that the high temperatures have not been trending higher which is required if CO2 is truly adding energy to the system.
The other study to do is to take the raw data and subtract the “adjusted” data value. What you should see is that the older “adjustments” lower the temperatures, and the more recent adjustments increase the temperatures. The graphic should show the older adjustments being much larger and negative relative to the Raw, and as you get closer to today, the “adjustments” will become much smaller. Either way, the net result is to create an exaggerated uptrend.
Bindidion, the adjustment chart should look something like this:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/USHCNAdjustmentFinalMinusRaw3_shadow.jpg
BTW, this chart pretty much proves the data is being adjusted to make the temperature more linear to line up with CO2. The physics don’t support that relationship. That is why I’m confident the adjustments are fraudulent.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USHCN-Average-Temperature-Adjustments-Final-Minus-Raw-vs.-Atmospheric-CO2-1.png
Yeah, it’s pretty well known that observers in the US were asked to take their readings between 5-7p prior to 1950. But afterwards they began slowly shifting to 7am to reduce evaporation from their rain gauges to get a more accurate rainfall estimate. The unintended consequence is that this also created a rather extreme climatic cooling bias in regards to the temperature portion of the reading. There are other factors in play like the transition to MMTS instruments. These adjustments are not made to create warming, but to correct for known biases that would affect the long term accuracy of climatic trends. This is all well documented and uncontroversial.
“Yeah, its pretty well known that observers in the US were asked to take their readings between 5-7p prior to 1950. But afterwards they began slowly shifting to 7am to reduce evaporation from their rain gauges to get a more accurate rainfall estimate. The unintended consequence is that this also created a rather extreme climatic cooling bias in regards to the temperature portion of the reading.”
That is fascinating. We have an apples and oranges data set. For the global temperature values did they make similar changes globally? Of course not. Is there evidence that the “adjustment” accurately adjust the temperature to know temperature mearments? Of course not. The fact that the adjustments align temperatures with CO2 prove its a fraud. CO2 and Temperatrues aren’t linearly related, it is a log relationship. The charts aren’t consistent with the physics.
CO2isLife said: For the global temperature values did they make similar changes globally?
Mostly no. The reason is because the TOB bias is a mostly US issue.
CO2isLife said: Is there evidence that the “adjustment” accurately adjust the temperature to know temperature mearments?
Yes. That’s why these adjustments are applied. They are overwhelmingly uncontroversial even to most ardent skeptics.
CO2isLife said: The charts aren’t consistent with the physics.
Actually they are. Now they might not be consistent with strawman models that bloggers develop, but they are consistent with climate models developed by scientists.
BTW…the net affect of all adjustments on a global scale actually reduces the warming trend relative to the unadjusted data. That is worth repeating adjustments do more to REDUCE the overall warming trend than they do to increase it. But that’s okay. We scientists don’t want datasets that show higher warming rates at the expense of being incorrect. They want datasets that are more correct regardless of the effect their adjustments cause.
Let me present this anecdote to you. You have two car dealers A and B. Both are trying to sell the same make and model with the same number of miles displayed on the odometer. Both are aware that this particular make and model has a known bias that causes the odometer to report only 1 mile for every 2 miles driver. Dealer A “adjusts” the raw reading by a factor of 2 and advertises the car with the “adjusted” odometer reading. Dealer B advertises the car with the unadjusted reading. Which dealer is committing fraud here?
“Dealer A “adjusts” the raw reading by a factor of 2 and advertises the car with the “adjusted” odometer reading. Dealer B advertises the car with the unadjusted reading. Which dealer is committing fraud here?”
That isn’t what is happening. What you forget to mention is that you have thousands of cars with inaccurate data, and you apply a one size fits all “fix” to a certain group for them, and allow the inaccurate measurements to continue elsewhere. You then combine all the corrputed, “adjusted” and accurate measurements into one data set and consider that a good enough for government work product.
That is a joke, especially considering you don’t have the actual impact of the evaporating rain guages. You had to just wing the “adjustment” and just by coincidence it give the exact outcome you were hoping for.
This is very very simple to address, and you don’t need to “adjust” anything. Simply find desert locations that wouldn’t have been impacted by the evaporating rain, and what do they tell you? You got it, there is no warming.
BTW, why are you adjusting desert locations where there is no rain? See the problem?
That is what is happening. Bloggers have been informed of the biased readings and are still advertising those biased readings without informing their audience of the inaccuracy. So I ask…who is committing the fraud here?
It doesn’t matter why the time-of-observation changed. It could have changed for legit reason or because someone one day decided that they just wanted to be different for no reason at all. When you move the time of observation from the PM to the AM you create an extreme cooling bias regardless. This must be addressed. And besides the desert southwest would be a prime location to begin the transition to AM observations specifically because evaporation can be so problematic. Little rain plus high evaporation would bias rain reports more as compared to other regions of the US.
And remember…on a global scale the net effect of all adjustments actually reduces the overall warming trend. It would be unethical at best and fraudulent at worst if scientists didn’t make necessary adjustments to fix the global warm bias.
I forgot to address your concern regarding…“apply a one size fits all fix to a certain group for them, and allow the inaccurate measurements to continue elsewhere.”
I just explained that the time-of-observation bias adjustment is applied only to stations and time periods where this is a problem. It is not applied universally. It is the same with adjustments concerning the transition to MMTS, station moves, etc. Each adjustment is targeted to the specific problem being addressed. They are not applied universally. Perhaps you are confusing this with the automated quality control routines used in datasets like GHCN that are applied universally. Anyway, all of this is well documented and almost entirely devoid of controversy. Skipping any of these steps would result in a less accurate dataset. And not informing your audience, like what is typical with bloggers, would be unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.
bdgwx, you have spent a lot of time here trying to pervert both science and reality.
“So I ask…who is committing the fraud here?”
CO2isLife
” Your charts debunk the Hockeystick ”
No they of course don’t. Not at all. At best would they debunk what YOU GUESS it to be.
Here is the hockey stick, and nowhere else; it’s the only one everybody talks about, due to McKittrick’s lack of understanding about century long time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view
The rest is your invention, like your ‘dog legs’.
*
Sorry, you are again losing your time here with your strange pseudoarguments, e.g.: no ‘dog legs’ you were unable to explain let alone to show, etc etc etc.
” Temperatures are the same in 1908 and 1998 ”
AND?
I on the other side did very well demonstrated that your claims
– no warming in deserts
– more warming where H2O is abundant
– temperature increase due to UHI
were clearly incorrect.
Stay tuned!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says: ” Your charts debunk the Hockeystick ”
No they of course don’t. Not at all. At best would they debunk what YOU GUESS it to be.
Here is the hockey stick, and nowhere else; it’s the only one everybody talks about, due to McKittrick’s lack of understanding about century long time series:
CO2isLife Says: Yes, your charts do debunk the Hockeystick. Unless you are as blind as a newborn cavefish, your chart show a strong dog-leg just about 1902 that are not reflected in the other charts that you created. Having a “science” where you can pick and choose the graphs to make your point isn’t a science at all. You have multiple contradictory temperature charts. That isn’t science, that is a game show where you get to pick the prize behind boor #1, 2 or 3.
Bindidon, don’t you know how to read a chart?
What caused the temperatures to fall prior to 1850? CO2 wasn’t decreasing. What was the cause of the little ice age? It can’t be CO2.
What caused the rapid and sharp (dog-leg) increase in temperatures about 1900?
Did the physics of the CO2 molecule suddenly change? Nope.
Are you using instrumental data prior to 1900? The Central England Chart looks nothing like the chart you created.
Your’s and AL Gore’s charts are the greatest charts to debunk AGW. They prove just the opposite of the case you are making.
Bindidon,
1) you show continual cooling between 900 and 1850. Was CO2 falling during that period? If not, what caused the cooling? Did CO2 stop trapping heat?
2) You use a mixture of proxy and instrumental data. When did you introduce instrumental data? My bet, just about the time of the dog-leg.
3) Why does your chart contradict the Central England Data set?
4) What caused the dog-leg in the chart?
5) Why hasn’t CO2 caused such sharp temperature increased in the past? CO2 used to be 7,000 ppm. We fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm.
Exactly CO2 is life. They are in denial. Soon I feel the recent rise will be ending. I think volcanic activity may start this ball rolling.
I expect a pick up die to weak magnetic fields. Part of my theory on the climate and why/how it changes.
due cor
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“I think volcanic activity may start this ball rolling.”
And when the volcanic cooling is over the CO2 is stronger than before.
1) No. CO2 did not stop trapping heat. But since it was relatively stable its radiative force was rather low. Other factors like solar output, aerosol loading, changes in ocean currents, snow/ice coverage, and yes even human induced land use changes are believed to explain the bulk of the LIA which BTW was magnified around the periphery of the North Atlantic.
2) 1850
3) His chart is the global temperature. It is not a chart of the Central England temperature. This chart is not inconsistent with temperatures in England or other regions.
4) As already explained to you…there was a large increase in aerosol loading during and after WWII that stabilized around 1980. Also, solar output began waning around 1960.
5) CO2 has caused sharp temperature increases in the past. The ETMx events and the PETM are prime examples. Also, remember that solar output increases about 1% every 100 million years. 600 MYA the solar forcing was -14 W/m^2. All other things being equal (they weren’t) CO2 would have had to be 6,000 ppm just to offset that forcing. There are, of course, many other factors in play such as ocean currents, continental positioning, snow/ice coverage, biological activity, orbital factors, dust, aerosols, other GHGs (like CH4), and many other things that must be considered. You seem to be fixated on only CO2 for some reason. I have no idea why since scientists are very open about all of these other factors.
bdgwx says: 1) No. CO2 did not stop trapping heat. But since it was relatively stable its radiative force was rather low. Other factors like solar output, aerosol loading, changes in ocean currents, snow/ice coverage, and yes even human induced land use changes are believed to explain the bulk of the LIA which BTW was magnified around the periphery of the North Atlantic.
I haven’t seen any charts showing CO2 falling between the period of 900 and 1850, but we do know that we are cooling from the Roman Warming Period. What caused the cooling? Certainly not CO2. CO2 would likely have been near a high back then due to the warmer oceans outgassing more CO2. Anyway, all you offer is pure speculation and have no data to back up any of those claims. What were the ocean currents in 900 ad? What were the aerosols? Solar radiation reaching the surface? You simply don’t know.
I already presented the leading hypothesis put forth by scientists. Ya know…your solar and cloud only claim is a hypothesis as well. The only difference is that your hypothesis is even more speculation than the consensus since it is not as well supported by the abundance of evidence. In fact, it has been falsified because it has been shown that other factors definitely play a role. Just remember…scientists advocate for the theory that it is the net effect of ALL factors that matter. Bloggers are the ones that love the single factor theories because they are easy to tear down. We can both find common ground in tearing them together. I’ll even help your cause. We can tear down the “it is CO2 and only CO2 forever and for always” theories that bloggers like to talk about it together. Just understand that we’ll be tearing down a theory that no one takes seriously.
bdgwx says: 2) 1850
How convenient, just when the warning starts. Any reason you didn’t include the instrumental date before then? Plenty of data sets existed. Phil JOnes did a paper on them and none that I say showed any warming. Funny how they got ignored.
3) His chart is the global temperature. It is not a chart of the Central England temperature. This chart is not inconsistent with temperatures in England or other regions.
You don’t seem to be grasping the concept here. Central England is a constant and consistent data source using the most accurate measurement available at the time. CO2 increased the same in Central England as everywhere else. Did the physics of the CO2 molecule stop working in Central England? How can you explain the world warming, but none of the existing instrumental data sets show any warming? Making “adjustments” isn’t real warming.
4) As already explained to youthere was a large increase in aerosol loading during and after WWII that stabilized around 1980. Also, solar output began waning around 1960.
What evidence do you have of this? Temperatures peaked in 1940 and fell until 1980. Are you claiming that WWII cooled the earth for 40 years? Seriously? Have you ever seen the CO2 produced by some of these million acre forest fires? A single volcano? What data set do you have showing the aerosol concentration during WWII. Note, there is no similar cooling associated with WWI, or now as China pollutes like mad. Also, WWII was largely centered in Europe. Are you telling me the S Hemi cooled as well? Did the oceans cool during that period?
5) CO2 has caused sharp temperature increases in the past. The ETMx events and the PETM are prime examples. Also, remember that solar output increases about 1% every 100 million years. 600 MYA the solar forcing was -14 W/m^2. All other things being equal (they werent) CO2 would have had to be 6,000 ppm just to offset that forcing. There are, of course, many other factors in play such as ocean currents, continental positioning, snow/ice coverage, biological activity, orbital factors, dust, aerosols, other GHGs (like CH4), and many other things that must be considered. You seem to be fixated on only CO2 for some reason. I have no idea why since scientists are very open about all of these other factors.
You don’t have data to support most of those claims. Anyway, here are the facts.
1) Al Gore’s Chart shows most major peaks in temperature being above today’s temperatures and at lower CO2
2) Ice ages start when CO2 is at a low, and start when CO2 is at a peak
3) Instrumental data, the most accurate data available, shows no warming since their start in 1650
4) Desert stations, both hot and cold, show no warming since 1880
5) CO2 can’t cause a dog-leg for gradual increases
6) CO2 used to be 7,000 and we never experience CAGW
7) There are temperature differentials between land and sea, N and S Hemisphere that can’t be explained by CO2
8) CO2 has a log decay in W/M^2, which rules out a linear relationship with temperatures
9) Data for the most significant variables don’t exit
10) CO2 vs Temperature has an R-Squared of about 0.00
11) The mean of the industrial age temperature isn’t 2 standard deviations outside the per-industrial age holocene (using Greenland Ice Core Data)
12) Existing climate models don’t accurately reflect reality. If something is understood, it can be modeled, and climate “scientists” can model global temperarures.
and I could go on and on and one.
BTW…I don’t want you to hear what scientists aren’t saying. They aren’t saying that we have 100% perfect understanding of the climate. They don’t and they never will. But they can draw conclusions and eliminate certain possibilities with confidence. And with each passing decade their knowledge and understanding increases narrowing the envelope of possibilities. It is this process that revealed over 100 hundred years ago that it can’t possibly be just the Sun and clouds that matters. There are so many other factors that ebb and flow in magnitude that have to be considered. We just happen to be living in an era where aerosols and GHGs are a significant contributing factor to the net radiative force being put on the planet.
I didn’t create the chart. I’m just telling you that instrumental data appears to start around 1850 in that specific chart. We can certainly explorer other data, but a global mean temperature prior to 1850 using instrumental data is going to be hard to come by.
And I do grasp what is going on. It is quite obvious that only Central England is about as far from being global as you can get. There is an entire hemisphere to be considered. There’s even an entire other hemisphere on the opposite side of the planet. I also grasp the fact that there are many factors that can affect not only the global scale climate but regional scale climates as well like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation which is the leading hypothesis for why the MWP and LIA was more magnified in the periphery of the North Atlantic. Your fixation with CO2 and only CO2 and isolated regions on the planet is bizarre in the context of discussions regarding the mean temperature on a global scale which is modulated by far more factors than just CO2 alone.
It appears bdgwx is retreating from his zealous support of the GHE.
There seem to be a few misconceptions about photons, electrons, energy levels etc.
Electrons can (but may not) interact with photons of any energy level. As an example, as CO2 cools to 1 K from 2 K, it will emit photons of progressively lower intensity, not restricted to photons of specific wavelengths. Conversely, CO2 (or anything else) can be warmed from 1K to 2K by absorbing photons of any higher energy level at all.
Electrons do not have to emit photons of the same energy that they absorbed. The momentum from the photon may be exhibited as an increase in the velocity of the atom which binds the electron. Hence, increased average velocity when a gas is heated. And vice versa.
Many, if not most, physics textbooks are misleading. But who cares, anyway? Easier to talk about atoms bumping into each other, electrons orbiting a nucleus, and all the other lies you tell children.
Standard climatological physics. All pseudoscience, unfortunately.
“Many, if not most, physics textbooks are misleading. But who cares, anyway? Easier to talk about atoms bumping into each other, electrons orbiting a nucleus, and all the other lies you tell children.”
Does this surprise you? Does this surprise anyone? Of COURSE introductory textbooks present simplified models and explanations. These are not “lies”. They are a first step.
It also does not surprise me that Swenson’s explanation itself is misleading. For example:
“The momentum from the photon may be exhibited as an increase in the velocity of the atom which binds the electron. Hence, increased average velocity when a gas is heated. And vice versa.”
Lets consider CO2 like Swenson does. (I think I have all the following right. And I know from experience that the basic conclusion is right.) The momentum of a 15 um photon is
p = h/lambda = 6.626e-34/1.5e-5 = 4.4e-29 kg*m/s
Since the mass of CO2 is 44u*1.67e-27kg/u= 7.3e-26 kg, this results in a speed change of
v = p/m = 0.0006 m/s
or a KE change of 1.3e-32 J.
But absorbing the photon itself results in an energy gain of
E = hf = hc/lanbda = 1.33e-20
That is, more than 10^10 more energy than due to the recoil due to momentum. The photon makes the molecule vibrate, and when the energized molecule hits other molecules, the energy gets thermalized. THAT is how photons warm a gas, not by transfering momentum.
The point is that this is TOUGH stuff. You can take entire courses on such things at a graduate level. Anyone want to understand and/or explain this at an an advanced level better be ready to understand something like this:
https://cefrc.princeton.edu/sites/cefrc/files/2018_hanson_plecture2.pdf
Pretending that a freshman level text is a complete, accurate description is silly.
Pretending that a Swenson’s post is a complete, accurate description is silly.
Tim,
You are confused. Your calculations are irrelevant, and linking to brightly coloured graphics about spectroscopy is pointless.
As I said, references to molecules hitting other molecules, resulting in thermalisation is just gobbledygook, demonstrating that the writer is either ignorant, or assumes his audience is.
Anybody who thinks that my comment purported to be a complete, accurate description of anything, is as deluded or stupid as yourself.
I note you have not factually contradicted anything I said. Others will no doubt draw their own conclusions.
tim…”The momentum of a 15 um photon is…”
Still curious as to how a photon can have momentum when it has no mass. Every textbook I have read claims that p = mv. If m = 0, then p = 0.
Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, has pointed out that momentum is a phenomenon which does not have to obey our human observation of p = mv. Be that as it may, Craig did not point to an example where a photon can have momentum but no mass.
ps. this idea, that EM has mass seems to have been another one of Einstein’s comedy routines. According to E, as the Earth absorbs EM from the Sun it should weigh more. Of course, it’s also said to rid itself of EM by radiation so there’s no way to verify that.
Einstein lived in a wonderful world of thought-experiments where time and dimension changed with velocity.
No, Einstein lived in a world where experiments confirmed his ideas to incredibly high levels of accuracy.
* Starlight bends around the sun
* Clocks in orbit run at different speeds that clocks on earth.
* Fast moving subatomic particles have extended half-lives.
* The decay products from fission are measurably lighter than the starting materials.
The list of experimental confirmation is extensive. You can read more here or google it yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
When you ignore experiments, *you* are the one living in your own fantasy world!
Tim
Thank you for your last post.
Having taught in secondary education I find it amazing how many people don’t understand that what is taught is just appropriate models for the level that students are at, and that before you move to the next level you need the stepping stone of this level.
This is why I find the whole CO2 AGW concept as standing on poor foundations.
The people who are model the atmosphere and make these links are using secondary education models that we know now are useful to teach but not advanced enough to describe what actualy happens.
Try this textbook.
http://www.clim***ate.be/text***book/ind***ex.html
You’ll have to remove a few *** to make the link work.
Entropic man
I first thought : What was the problem with this link?
But indeed, the blog’s scanner discovered some stuff in it to dislike.
What about using tinyURL?
https://tinyurl.com/ycfskmpu
J.-P. D.
Thank you I’ve been going here for years, but this site does have odd taste.
You’re welcome.
A propos odd taste: such ‘un’features disturb me far less than to see an ignorant boaster naming Andrew Motte, the English translator of Newton’s Principia, ‘a cheating SOB’.
J.-P. D.
Mark…”Having taught in secondary education I find it amazing how many people dont understand that what is taught is just appropriate models for the level that students are at”
Just what I have been trying to explain to certain posters here who liberally quote from introductory textbooks to make a point.
ren
Just a hint:
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/berlin
No snow since days, apart from half a cup of snow flakes.
Ten years ago, we had about 20 cm of it on Xmas / New Year.
I often tried to explain that there can be a great difference between the information you see and the forecasts you try to interpret out of it.
Miłego dnia!
J.-P. D.
Regardless of the increase of water vapor from nature, human activity has added more.
I read upthread, again written by the new CO2 hyperspecialist on this blog:
” How can you have global warming if the record high temperatures aren’t increasing?
That is clear evidence of fraud, and rating the average without raising the max and min on which those averages are based is clear fraud.
The fraudsters are simply lazy, just like the vote counters in Georgia. ”
My first remark is that a person adding the two last sentences can’t have very much science in mind: the goal will rather be to come out with political polemic. Not so very helpful in the discussion.
Fraudsters… Oh Noes.
*
Now back to the bold sentence.
My experience is that most people telling about a lack of increase of record highs in station data either mean the US or even live there, because CONUS is THE reference for a country showing no increase of record highs.
This was demonstrated two years ago by John Christy, who presented on this blog a chart (based on NOAA’s allegedly fudged USHCN data), showing the yearly amount of daily station maxima above two tresholds (100F – 105F), from 1895 to present:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017-550×413.jpg
Yeah. 100 % correct!
As a commenter asked for a corresponding figure for the world, I thought: why not to do the job based on NOAA’s allegedly fudged GHCN daily data? (USHCN of course isn’t useful for the job).
A CONUS chart (with Celsius tresholds, 35 / 40 C) gave a very similar result, despite the completely different station amount:
(1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
Extending the chart up to all GHCN daily stations worldwide gave this:
(2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GMuNs9ptRzDd7KxFQbKv0o5ySR5VNc9b/view
Oooops!? This did not agree at all with my previous experience with CONUS / Globe comparisons; therefore, a chart was made out of all stations excepted those in CONUS:
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UcLK3usYjICeHeAsAb5ivcusW0Y0EdNe/view
Aha. Now I understood that if one generates a chart based on all stations, the data of 50 % (nearly 20,000 stations) is from the US, and the other 50 % are the rest of the Globe.
The same chart, now with gridding over a 2.5 degree grid:
(4) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
Here, we see no longer about 20,000 non-US stations competing with about 20,000 US stations, giving the impression that the Globe is CONUS’ backyard!
Instead, we have now about 2,200 non-US grid cells competing with about 200 US cells: that definitely fits better to the US/Globe land surface ratio.
*
So, the record high temperatures aren’t increasing? Sorry, I have some little doubt.
To anyone who thinks or pretends that this is all faked or incorrect or so, I reply: DO IT YOURSELF!
*
But… this is only part 1 of what should be shown. Because Prof. Christy had restricted his job to a chart showing record highs.
What we need is the complementary view: that given by a chart showing how record lows per station par year do behave, for CONUS and for the Globe.
J.-P. D.
Oh my my my, Bindidon, are you trying to prove me right again? Remember, I don’t have a Ph.D is Climate Science, I have a doctorate in another largely unrelated field, but heavy in math, statistics and real science. My real forte is a nose for sniffing out fraud, so let’s see how I did.
1) This Chart clearly shows record highs not increasing. Thanks for making my point Bindidon.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017-550×413.jpg
2) The chart that you made seems to even make my point better. Once again Bindidon, thanks for proving me right and you wrong.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
3) Not sure what you are trying to show here, but over time, as you know, stations grew from largely the US, to the US and Europe, and then to US, Europe, Asia and S Hemisphere. Not sure you can gather much from this chart. If you add tropical stations to the population, you will get warming temperatures. Did you think of that? Nope, didn’t think so. Nice try.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UcLK3usYjICeHeAsAb5ivcusW0Y0EdNe/view
4) Bindidon, I’m not sure grasp the concepts here. You need to group the stations based upon Lattitude. Adding tropical stations over time will give you the chart you just produced, but it has nothing to do with CO2, just a complete ignorance of the data that you are dealing with and the question that is being asked and how to properly answer it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
Bindidion, be thankful I’m exposing your flaws on a blog and not during a cross examination. I’m sure the lawyers that hired you would be suing you for falsely claiming to be an expert.
co2….”Not sure what you are trying to show here…”
Neither is anyone else, from any of Binny’s posts.
Binny,
Even better would be experiments showing that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer, results in the thermometer getting hotter!
Which of course is ridiculous.
Stick to your graphs. Keep believing that CO2 has magical properties.
Thermometers respond to heat. CO2 provides no heat. Burning stuff like coal, oil, gas does. Generating electricity using hydro, wind, solar or nuclear fission does. Work itself produces heat.
Face reality. Or believe in magic. The choice is yours.
Here’s an experiment for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXDzyZd2Ils
S,
Maybe you should learn to comprehend written English.
Maybe you are unaware that CO2 can be heated? You do know the physical properties of CO2 have been documented?
Instead of posting links to irrelevant random YouTube videos, you could always learn some physics.
I doubt you have the ability, but you never know. Good luck.
The thermometer got hotter though.
A hit, a palpable hit!
S,
Yes, thermometers do get hotter when exposed to higher temperatures, given a sufficient quantity of radiation. I am surprised you think that CO2 is necessary for this phenomenon to occur.
Dimwitted delusional alarmists cannot even duplicate properly designed and implemented experiments done by Professor John Tyndall over 150 years ago.
In the meantime, maybe you could explain what happens to the 40% or so of radiation from the Sun which is absorbed by the atmosphere, and doesnt reach the surface? Does the atmosphere get hotter, or not? Why, or why not?
Easy peasy for a clever lad like you. Off you go, then.
Ouch. Swensons favorite talking point destroyed!
Nate,
I presume you said ouch! when put your foot in your mouth, and then shots yourself in the foot!
Engage your brain before hammering your keyboard.
Even Tim Folkerts agrees with me, and that is unusual in the extreme.
Nope!
You are proven wrong again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-580765
Silly snowflake Svante tries one of Norman’s tricks. Svante links to something he doesn’t understand, believing it “proves” his cult beliefs.
And just as with Norman, it blows up in Svante’s face.
If only silly Svante understood science, he could have read the instructive comments to the video.
If only….
Fix that and try it yourself.
I can’t “fix” that you don’t understand science, silly.
Here’s an experiment for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXDzyZd2Ils
This is not an experiment it is a joke:
1) No one said you can’t warm up CO2, especially 100% CO2.
2) Real Science would control as many variables as possible and isolate the impact of 15 micron LWIR on CO2
3) The decomposition of H2CO3 => H20 + CO2 may be exothermic, which would have heated the CO2
4) We don’t know how warm the water bath is that he runs the tube through
5) Glass absorbs IR radiation, so the light is warming the glass, which in turns warms the CO2, it has nothing to do with 15 micron LWIR
6) LWIR of 15 micron is absorbed by the glass, it takes special glass to run this kind of experiment, glass that is transparent to IR
It is truly shocking to see what people consider good science and sound experimentation. If that is all you have to prove the GHG Effect, then this field of Climate Science is a complete joke. That experiment would never hold up under cross examination.
CO2…”1) No one said you cant warm up CO2, especially 100% CO2.”
By the same token, unlike the implications in the anthropogenic theory, no one says you cannot warm up nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere. The anthropogenic theorists have radiation on the brain.
N2/O2 are happily warmed by a furnace and keep us toasty in our homes. I have a nice oil-filled electric radiator near me that keeps me warm even on the coldest winter days. The heat being produced is 99% from N2/O2.
The good thing about N2/O2 is that it cannot radiate heat away easily. Therefore it absorbs heat from the surface and retains it, according to R.W. Wood, who proved that a real greenhouse is not heated by trapped IR but due to a lack of convective cooling.
All gases are poor conductors of heat due to the spacing between molecules/atoms. Therefore, our atmosphere should serve as a good insulator between the solar-heated surface and the coldness of space.
It’s known in homes that heat loss via radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a minor player. Homes are insulated against heat lost via conduction, although some of the newer ones are including reflectors to minimize radiation loss.
If atmospheric gases have been heated by the surface, and rise, it is claimed by anthropogenic theorists that GHGs warmed directly by radiation can warm the surrounding N2/O2. As altitude increases, radiation intensity drops via the inverse square law. According to R.W. Wood, the intensity of surface radiation drops of to the point of ineffectiveness within a few feet.
In that case, just how warm does CO2 get as altitude increases? Is it any warmer than the N2/O2? If not, the 2nd law says it cannot transfer heat to the N2/O2.
Svante,
That experiment is NOT a good example of the greenhouse effect, for a variety of reasons. And all of other “tabletop” experiments I looked at on Youtube have similar sorts of fatal errors. Some of the key problems are:
1) CO2 is denser than air. Many of the experiments have open tops. For such cases, the higher density of CO2 will suppress convection within the containers, leading to higher temperatures independent of IR properties of the gases.
2) The containers are often glass, which would block any of the IR effects of the gases inside. (Most plastics would be much better, but could still causes some problems.)
3) Generally poor controls. (Such as … are the light sources to heat the containers identical? is H20 vapor in the containers different? are the pressures in the two containers the same? Is oncoming gas warm or cool?)
No, a more detailed experiment would be needed. The “high school” level science experiments pretty much all have fatal flaws.
Yes, but surely the three amigos will be able to fix those flaws and prove their point.
“Thermometers respond to heat. CO2 provides no heat. Burning stuff like coal, oil, gas does. Generating electricity using hydro, wind, solar or nuclear fission does. Work itself produces heat.”
Which is why putting a lid on a pot can’t make it hotter. No heat created by the lid! /sarc.
Tim,
How silly do you want to look?
Heat your pot from the top (like the sun heats the Earth). Put a lid on the pot. Now, less radiation reaches the water.
Hmmmm. No need for misguided sarcasm.
Just physics at work. Do you really believe that you can heat an ocean from the the top? Doesnt work all that well even with a pot – thats why you heat a pot of water from below. Not too hard to work out.
“Heat your pot from the top (like the sun heats the Earth). Put a lid on the pot. Now, less radiation reaches the water.”
Works very well, just like this solar pool cover.
https://www.swimuniversity.com/solar-pool-covers/
“Heat your pot from the top (like the sun heats the Earth). Put a lid on the pot. Now, less radiation reaches the water.”
Do you mean like this solar oven? Where the glass in front causes less solar radiation to reach the food inside the over, and yet the glass still makes the interior warmer by restricting the escape of thermal energy? You could remove the glass and let in more sunlight … and the food would cool.
Similarly, GHGs in the atmosphere both blocks some incoming solar radiation (a cooling effect) and blocks some outgoing radiation (a warming effect). Anyone who only looks at one aspect is missing some key physics. In this case, the warming effect is greater than the cooling effect.
Nate,
Now put a large pot lid or similar as Tim suggests – to prevent the energy from reaching the water. You just cant help trying to avoid staying relevant, can you?
Typical alarmist fear of reality.
Tim,
Solar cookers now! Try pot lids, overcoats, blankets – anything to avoid the fact that the surface loses the heat of the day during the night.
Loses all the heat of the summer, during winter. And so it goes.
But now, you have apparently had a taste of reality, I think. As you agree, the atmosphere reduces the amount of radiation reaching the surface, meaning it is cooler than it would otherwise be. Night and winter (not to mention solar eclipses) show that the atmosphere does not impede the flow of radiation from the surface for any meaningful length of time. No heating, just a reduction in the rate of cooling.
No trapping. No accumulation.
Yep Swenson’s favorite talking point destroyed.
Put something between the sun and a thermometer and the thermometer got hotter!
What to do?
Simply lie about it. Continue to deny reality.
Nate,
Have you stopped taking your medication?
Your delusional thought processes are out of control.
carbon500…”Have you bothered doing any research into the mechanism of RNA vaccines, for example?”
***
Yes, I have. For one, the RNA is synthesized based on a theory that has yet to be proved. Once again, I ask the question, why do they need RNA, synthesized or otherwise, if they have the genome of the actual virus? From that they could get the vaccine they need. However, they don’t have it and the theory that certain RNA found in the body is from a virus is sheer pseudo-science.
****
“Perhaps a chat with an intensive care unit doctor or nurse (idiots all of course in your estimation) might enlighten you as to the life-threatening effects of COVID-19 infections in those unfortunate enough to have become seriously ill, or maybe a patient who survived? I somehow doubt youd listen”.
****
Those are not the people I am calling idiots. There are obviously a tiny fraction of 1% of populations who are suffering badly from something. The doctors and nurses are doing what they can to help them.
The people I am calling idiots are those who cannot find a virus with an electron microscope and who create one through inference. Then they use misguided inference to create tests which are totally misleading and vaccines that cannot possibly help.
Once again, when the researchers in Wuhan, China initially claimed to have isolated covid and found its genome, they did not follow proper protocol which requires isolating the virus so it can be viewed on an electron microscope. Instead, What they called isolation was identifying certain genetic and protein components BELIEVED to be from a virus. To do that, they used the RNA-PCR method which is at the top of the list regarding pseudo-science.
PCR is a method developed by Karry Mullis to amplify strands of DNA. In a interview, he was adamant that PCR could not be used to amplify a virus that could not be viewed in the unamplified state. No one is amplifying a virus using the RNA-PCR method, they are converting RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus, converting it to DNA, and amplifying the DNA.
During PCR amplification, each amplification stage is called a cycle. The DNA is infused with a material that causes it to fluoresce and when it does, the test is stopped. The cycles are counted and if they exceed a certain number of cycles, the test person is deemed positive.
What does that nonsense have to do with finding a virus or its genetic material? Nothing whatsoever!!! It’s nonsense dreamed up by the likes of Anthony Fauci who was too stupid to understand what Mullis tried to tell him. He told Mullis he was wrong about PCR, the scientist who won a Nobel for discovering the method, for which Mullis referred to Fauci as an ass****.
Why should anyone think they have a virus when they cannot isolate it so it can be seen on an electron microscope? It’s far more likely that the inference theory is wrong and the RNA being purported to come from a virus is a naturally occurring free RNA produced by the body due to factors like the common flu, stress, and a run down condition.
In that case, if you inject a synthesized form of the RNA into cells, the immune system will learn to identify part of itself as a foreign invader.
Can you spell autoimmune disease?
Gordon: I’m going to describe the concepts behind the RNA vaccine from the ground up, and I hope it will help to clarify a few things.
Viruses contain either DNA or RNA. RNA (ribonucleic acid) is composed of four units or bases. These are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil (AGC and U respectively). These four units occur in various combinations of three bases or triplets. Each triplet is specific for a particular amino acid. These acids are the units which form proteins.
COVID-19 is a + sense strand virus, which means that this strand is used directly for protein synthesis. It functions as messenger RNA (mRNA). During protein synthesis, a host cellular component called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and translates each triplet into its corresponding amino acid, forming a chain which is subsequently folded in various ways to form a three dimensional protein. Everything I’ve described is a basic distillation of a highly complex process.
A protein coat typically surrounds viral nucleic acid, but may be more complex. Corona virus particles have four main structural proteins. These are the spike, membrane, envelope, and nucleocapsid proteins, all of which are encoded within the viral RNA. Viruses multiply by hijacking the synthetic mechanisms of the host cell, and by making structures of their own which enable transfer to other cells.
Corona viruses have been known for years. Note that the RNA sequence coding specifically for the corona virus spike protein began to be investigated in 1985.
These viruses are 80-160nm in diameter, and are associated with upper respiratory tract infections. They have in fact been examined by electron microscopy – here’s the reference:
Supramolecular architecture of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus revealed by electron cryomicroscopy.
Neuman BW, Adair BD, Yoshioka C, Quispe JD, Orca G, Kuhn P, Milligan RA, Yeager M, Buchmeier MJ
J Virol. 2006 Aug; 80(16):7918-28.
The COVID RNA vaccine works by introducing mRNA coding for the spike protein into human cells, which then produce it. This protein is then recognised by the immune system, preparing it to fight the real virus. Note that this mRNA is not incorporated into the cell nucleus, so there is no risk of genetic modification of cells.
Laboratory synthesised RNA means that no live virus is used in the manufacture of the vaccine. That’s a major risk eliminated, so an RNA vaccine is safer for the patient. The manufacturing process can be standardised and scaled, allowing quick responses to large outbreaks and epidemics. Mass production is cheaper and more straightforward than with other vaccine types.
You quite rightly mention the risk of autoimmunity. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has been shown to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 infection in participants without prior infection. As I’ve outlined, the vaccine induces spike protein production in the recipient’s body.
Severe or fatal cases of COVID-19 infection have been shown to be associated with immune hyperactivation and multiorgan failure. A broad range of mechanisms appear to be involved. It has been suggested that molecular mimicry may contribute to this problem, with antibodies to the spike protein cross-reacting with structurally similar host proteins sequences and causing an acute autoimmune response against them. There may be a genetic aspect to this. The vaccine will of course be stringently monitored as time goes by. The immune system will not ordinarily identify part of itself as a foreign invader. The ability to distinguish self from non-self is a key part of the immeune system – and how it works is complex.
carbon500…I don’t disagree in principle with your descriptions, except for the paper you reference. If they have seen the covid virus then they can isolate it and read its genome directly. Why then, are the tests not based on that genetic material but in an inferred genome of RNA whose source is unknown?
Your description is focused on RNA, whereas the basic operation of a cell is from the nucleus out. The cell is a spherical unit with an outer membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out. It also has a nucleus with a membrane in which the DNA is found. DNA has the same 4 bases as RNA, in fact, DNA has a double spiral shape whereas RNA has only a single strand.
I have seen different explanations for the same process which makes me wonder how well it is understood. It is know that DNA contains codes, made up of the same molecular base pairs to which you refer, but in different orders to form different codes. The codes serve as blueprints for amino acids which are then made into proteins.
Why this process begins is not at all clear to me and why a certain code is read is not clear either. However, somehow, a certain coded section of DNA is read and operated on by the enzyme RNA polymerase to produce a single-stranded equivalent of messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA leaves the nucleus and becomes the blueprint for amino acids, the precursors of proteins.
The miraculous part to me is that about 3 cms of DNA are tightly wound on a bobbin in the nucleus which is about 1 micron in diameter. To read the code in a certain portion of the DNA, it has to be unwound so a single strand can be read.
If you can accept this, and you still believe in evolution, then you are some kind of diehard. Where did the codes come from and where did the process initiate to unwind a small portion of 3 cms of tightly wound DNA in a nucleus of 1 um and know which code to read. There is no way that was put together by chance through natural selection.
Anyway, that process is called transcription. In the early 1970s, another processes was theorized called reverse-transcription, which became the basis for retroviral theory. Some scientists have never accepted the theory and there is little in the way of proof to back it. In that process, RNA is converted back to DNA, which means a single strand of genetic material must be converted to a double strand of DNA.
The retroviral theory gets its support from viruses ALLEGED to infect a cell with RNA which is converted to DNA outside the nucleus. The theory requires the DNA, called complementary DNA, in order that the virus have a mechanism for reproduction.
According to Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean, this is all bs. He claims no retrovirus has ever been successfully isolated and retroviral theory is nonsense.
Look at the evidence. Retroviral theory was developed in the early 1970s, based on scant evidence, in conjunction with an effort to find a viral cause for cancer. To this date, no such virus has been found. HIV theory was developed to explain AIDS. The scientist who is credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, freely admits he has never seen HIV. Furthermore, 30 years after the fact, he now admits HIV does not cause AIDS and that it is harmless to a healthy immune system.
Montangnier was raised with retroviral theory and prior to his AIDS research he worked solely in cancer research. So, he brought his knowledge of retroviral theory, albeit incorrect according to Lanka, and applied it to AIDS research. When he could not find HIV using the standard protocol for identifying a virus, meaning it had to be seen with an electron microscope, he resorted to pure theory. Why did he waste his time? Why did he not look in another direction, which he did eventually, finding that AIDS is oxidative stress caused by lifestyle. He should have been awarded a Nobel for that discovery and not for a virus no one can find.
His US counterpart, Robert Gallo, was convicted of stealing the virus from Montagnier. As punishment, he was forced to share his proceeds from two patents he had on HIV tests. Even though Montagnier has forsaken the notion that HIV causes AIDS, the descendants of Gallo, the thief, are running the show. They are also running the covid show.
No, I don’t think anyone has isolated covid and seen it on an electron microscope. I think they are wishful thinkers who have selected an image that has nothing to do with a virus. Again, if they had the virus, they could do all sorts of wonderful things like creating a real test for a virus and developing a proper vaccine.
As it stands, we have charlatans telling lies and running to the bank to deposit their fat paychecks. Anyone who speaks out against them has his/her career ruined and our stupid politicians don’t know anything about the chicanery and they don’t want to know.
Forgot to mention that RNA outside the cell is extremely fragile. It has to be kept at sub-zero temperatures or it dies quickly. Why it doesn’t die when introduced to bodily warmth is the question.
In a vaccine, the synthesized RNA, also referred to as modified RNA, which I have seen written as mRNA, must get inside the cell’s outer membrane but it does not go into the nucleus. It is supposed to mimic real mRNA and code for proteins that the immune system is supposed to recognize and eliminate.
Retroviral theory claims that RNA from a virus can be injected into a cell and through reverse transcription form complementary DNA in the outer portion of the cell. Sorry, but I find that theory to be sci-fi in nature. I don’t see what good DNA does outside the nucleus. They are presuming it can function as it does in the nucleus but evidence is extremely scant.
Furthermore, the modded RNA cannot simply enter the cell since the membrane will reject it. So they have to fool the cell into accepting it by coating it with a material that is allowed. That can create serious problems apparently by creating irregular entry points in the cell membrane and that can lead to serious problems for the cells.
I think they are playing with fire and using us as the Guinea pigs. They have no obligation to be safe since all governments have given them immunity from prosecution.
I cannot believe that we humans are that stupid and desperate.
Gordon: thank you for your comments. DNA and RNA have three bases in common (Adenine, Cytosine, and Guanine). The fourth base is Thymine in DNA,and Uracil in RNA.
Regrading reverse transcriptase, here’s an excellent summary of the experimental work leading to its use in molecular biology laboratories around the world:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-biotechnology-revolution-pcr-and-the-use-553/
mRNA means messenger RNA, not modified RNA.
It wouldn’t hurt to get a hold of a biology textbook and then a biochemistry textbook, it might help explain the basics you get so horribly wrong.
bobd…”mRNA means messenger RNA, not modified RNA”.
You’re late to the party, Bob. I had already used mRNA in its proper context, I simply added that mRNA is now being used by some to mean modified RNA.
It’s really the same thing since it’s proposed action in the cell as a vaccine tries to replicate the action of mRNA from the nucleus, where it carries out coded information from DNA for making amino acids.
c500…thanks for link on reverse transcriptase. I am not denying the existence of the enzyme but a pioneer of reverse transcription in the early 70s cautioned that scientists should not leap to conclusion regarding a link between reverse transcriptase and a retrovirus since RT is also involved in other processes in the body.
I would like to see other scientists weigh in on the matter. Lanka had a debate with Peter Duesberg on HIV and my gut feeling was that Lanka came out on top. At the time I was not that aware of Lanka.
Here’s a 1995 article by Lanka which is critical of HIV. It was published before Montagnier changed his mind about HIV and AIDS. To be fair, Montagnier never did claim that HIV alone could cause AIDS, he claimed that a cofactor was required. He has since identified the cofactor as lifestyle. In other words, people who have healthy immune systems and do not practice high risk behavior have nothing to fear from HIV. The data backs him.
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/slartefact.htm
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data2/slvirusphotos.htm
An interview with Montagnier on the purification of HIV:
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dtinterviewlm.htm
reply to interview by Eleni Papadopulos.
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/epreplyintervlm.htm
series of links involving Lanka and his replies to Duesberg:
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/slanka.htm
Gordon,
I may be late to the party, but I would like some of what you are smoking.
“The cell is a spherical unit with an outer membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out.”
Just like almost everything you post, utter hogwash.
Gordon: thanks for the links to Montagnier and Lanka’s comments; I’ll read them in detail later – they look interesting.
In the meantime, suffice it to say that the genome of the virus responsible for HIV has been extensively studied over the years. Below is a link to a review from four years ago – technical specialist content, but you’ll get the drift if you scan through it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924471/#:~:text=The%20HIV%20genome%20consists%20of,core%20of%20the%20virus%20particle.
I hope the link works!
tim…”There are lots of serious effects besides death!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351”
Where do they get all this information when they can’t find the virus to check its effects directly? It’s totally obvious the symptoms listed are standard symptoms for any illness/disease.
Here’s how some researchers at Mayo Clinic operate.
A while back, Linus Pauling and cancer surgeon Ewen Cameron did a study with terminal cancer patients at the Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland. Cameron actually started on his own not having met Pauling. However, he called Pauling for advice on C and Pauling joined in. They gave patients 10 grams of vitamin C, some intravenously, and observed the results. They were encouraging but not Earth shattering.
The positives:
-it was noted that the C extended the life expectancy dramatically, at least 2 to 3 times.
-it was noted that people receiving the C did not experience the pain expected by terminal cancer patients who did not take the C.
-several patients went into remission and one was of particular interest. He was released and a bit later re-admitted. He confessed that he’d felt so good he stopped taking the C. Pauling and Cameron were in an ethical quandary, whether to resume the C or do conventional chemotherapy. They opted to try the C again for a bit and it worked. The patient was released and years later he was still alive.
Enter Dr. Moertell of the Mayo Clinic. He claimed to have tried to duplicate the experiment and failed. Pauling called him to see why. Moertell admitted he had not used the 10 grams of vitamin C but 250 milligrams, a dosage 40 times lower.
When pressed, he also admitted that he’d kept terminal cancer patients on chemotherapy whereas the chemo had been stopped in Scotland. An aghast Pauling asked why and Moertell claimed it gave the appearance they were doing something for the patient.
Yeah, like killing them faster.
This is what you are dealing with today with medical idiots.
An interesting study. But on the flip side…
“Unfortunately, as experimental clinical protocols go, this study was a complete mess. Linus Pauling was not a clinician and had no experience in clinical trial design, and it really showed. Even as a restrospective analysis, the paper was a total embarrassment. There was no standardization, no good matching of controls by age, stage of cancer, or performance status; given the terrible design, there was clearly serious selection bias going on at a minimum. The studys flaws, which were too numerous to mention, rendered its results essentially meaningless. If you want a quote from his original paper that shows this better than anything, here it is: “We believe that the ascorbate-treated patients represent a random selection of all the terminal patients in the hospital, even though no formal randomization process was used.” Suffice it to say that, in a clinical trial, it is not sufficient to believe that your groups were properly randomized and matched. You have to show it.”
tim…”Unfortunately, as experimental clinical protocols go, this study was a complete mess. Linus Pauling was not a clinician and had no experience in clinical trial design, and it really showed”.
Complete and utter bs. Pauling spent 10 years of his life doing medical research for the US government and he discovered the cause of sickle cell anemia. Anyone who claims Pauling lacks experience as a researcher (what is a clinician) is an arrogant ass****.
Many people in the medical community hated Pauling because they regarded him as an intruder in the medical field. That is not only unprofessional, it is sour grapes. It’s like claiming Feynman was an intruder in rocket science because he found the cause of the Challenger disaster.
Who better to do medical research than one of the top experts in molecular science ever. Pauling’s interest in vitamin C stemmed from studies done by others that he analyzed and found to have compelling evidence with regard to the benefits of megadoses of C in the body.
Pauling was a brilliant scientist who gained the reputation of seldom being wrong.
I am certainly not an expert in cancer, not in the particular studies cone here. I do know that studies need to be replicated. And medical studies need to be randomized. If the effects of Vitimin C are so clear, it should be easy to do follow-up studies and show this dramatic result.
(I also know that pharmaceutical companies make a LOT of money from expensive cancer treatments. They would not be happy with an over-the-counter treatment that costs less than $1 per day. Maybe *that* is where we need to look, not doctors themelves.)
Pharmaceutical companies do make a fair amount of money, but they invest a lot. It takes a lot time to recoup the investment necessary to provide the equipment to manufacture the equipment and drugs needed to diagnose and treat cancer.
“They would not be happy with an over-the-counter treatment that costs less than $1 per day.”
Yeah, we would.
We would still make money on the diagnosis and determination of the most effective treatment.
In fact that is what makes the main drug I have made thousands of batches of, Fluorodeoxyglucose F-18, so valuable, as it can help determine what the best treatment is surgery, chemo, or radiation or a combination.
For Gordon, this is what the Mayo clinic actually says about vitamin C and cancer.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/expert-answers/alternative-cancer-treatment/faq-20057968
tim…”where f is the frequency of the electron, presumably at the level 2.
No! this is the frequency of the emitted or absorbed photon”
Tim…where do think the emitted EM got its frequency? The emitted quantum is electro + magnet radiation. Electro refers to an electric field and magnetic refers to a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field.
What has an electric and magnetic field that could produce this? Why, the electron of course. It has an electric charge therefore it carries an electric field. When it moves, as in orbit, it generates a magnetic field at right angles to its electric field.
Coincidence? Hardy think so. An electron, moving at blinding speed suddenly drops to a lower energy level. It has to dump excess energy and emits it as a quantum of EM. That quantum is created from the changing energy levels and is emitted by an electron with frequency, f.
The frequency of the EM is definitely related to the frequency of the electron and the orbital energy level change.
Furthermore, the frequency of the emitted EM is proportional to the temperature of the emitting body. It so happens that electrons in hotter bodies have higher frequencies and greater intensities. What else would explain the EM from hotter bodies having a higher frequency? Doesn’t just happen by accident.
Gordon, I know this all seems logical to you. But it has serious flaws that should be obvious once you think about it.
Consider a simple starting point — the Bohr Model. An electron with n=4 (3rd excited state) can produce 3 different photons:
* 1875 nm; 1.6e14 Hz; 1.1e-19 J; (IR)
* 486 nm; 6.2e14 Hz; 4.1e-19 J (blue)
* 97 nm; 3.1e15 Hz; 2.1e-18 J (UV)
That one level produces three different frequencies. Clearly it is not the “frequency of the n=4 energy level” that determines the frequency of the photon.
Similarly, it is not the frequency of the lower level, since multiple frequencies can be produced when the electron falls to the n=4 level.
Tim,
All matter can be raised to any notional temperature.
Photons have an infinite range of energy levels.
An electron can emit a photon of any energy level.
This is not a full and complete explanation of quantum physics, but it hopefully shows that you are being misleading. Levels are irrelevant.
Maybe you could calculate the energies of photons emitted by hydrogen as it cools from 12 K to 4 k.
Will the resultant temperature curve show discrete steps due to limited levels being available or not? Please provide a full and complete explanation, as I am sure there are gaps in my knowledge.
Thanks.
“All matter can be raised to any notional temperature.
Photons have an infinite range of energy levels.”
Yes.
“An electron can emit a photon of any energy level.”
Well, if a free electron has enough energy and interacts with some other object, then yes, it can emit a photon of pretty much any energy.
“This is not a full and complete explanation of quantum physics”
Other than dealing with “photons”, this is not quantum physics at all!
“Maybe you could calculate the energies of photons emitted by hydrogen as it cools from 12 K to 4 k.”
Well, hydrogen atoms can emit the photons predicted by the Bohr model. But these are WAY to high of energy to be emitted by H at these temperature. H also has its famous “21 cm radiation” = 1.42 GHz = 9.4e-25 J. This microwave radiation could be emitted. And the collection of atoms in the gas could lose energy in these steps.
That’s a start. For a “full and complete explanation”, you should think about getting an advanced degree in physics. You are not going to gain such knowledge in a discussion of 1D SST variation!
Tim,
More diversion. You just dont accept reality. You say that hydrogen cannot possibly emit photons commensurate with its temperature, because some model which you obviously misunderstand, says so!
Your * start * is completely wrong, and your attempt at weaselling out of answering does you no credit.
* Well, if a free electron has enough energy and interacts with some other object, then yes, it can emit a photon of pretty much any energy. *
Free electron interacting with something unspecified – pretty much . . . ? Really? Do you realise what you are saying? Stop pretending you understand these sorts of things. You are just humiliating yourself.
Gordon,
This
“An electron, moving at blinding speed suddenly drops to a lower energy level.”
is bullshit!
So is this
“The frequency of the EM is definitely related to the frequency of the electron and the orbital energy level change.”
So is this
“Furthermore, the frequency of the emitted EM is proportional to the temperature of the emitting body.”
this as well
“It so happens that electrons in hotter bodies have higher frequencies and greater intensities.”
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Gordon.
The reason hotter bodies emit energy at higher frequencies is that they have absorbed a quanta of energy which has promoted the electrons to a higher energy level. When they drop back they emit a specific quanta of energy.
Hotter objects have a distribution of electrons in the higher orbitals. However at some point enough energy can be added that the electron leaves the orbitals leaving an ion.
But this is due to the orbitals that are occupied nothing to do with the frquency of an electron.
Speak of the Devil. Just published today.
Greenland Fall Temperatures Unchanged. Proxy Data Show No Warming At 8 Of 9 Antarctic Peninsula Sites Since 1830!
https://notrickszone.com/2020/12/29/greenland-fall-temperatures-unchanged-proxy-data-show-no-warming-at-8-of-9-antarctic-peninsula-sites-since-1830/
Here’s the original paper.
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/16/2459/2020/cp-16-2459-2020.html
You might want to read it before jumping to the same conclusions as NoTricksZone.
Entropic Man, how do you interpret this?
but general trends are hard to distinguish. In contrast, SOTOH displays a decreasing temperature trend at all core sites with a narrow range of −2.56 to −1.0 ∘C reversed by a rapid warming since the 1990s (Fig. 3). As some temperatures lie below the freezing point of seawater we assume that neither SOTTEX nor SOTOH may reflect exact temperatures but temperature trends at each core site.
CO2 didn’t “rapidly” increase post-1990, which ironically, corresponds with the “Pause” in Satelite Temperatures. Temperatures in 2018 were below the level of 1990.
This is the hypothesis that they set out to test.
“We propose that the sea ice biomarkers IPSO25 and PIPSO25 are not linearly related to sea ice cover, and additionally each code site reflects specific local environmental conditions.”
And that’s what they found.
“We conclude that the different timing of the units mirrors the decadal change in dominating water masses at each core site.”
The problem with biomarkers is that they respond to more than the one variable you are trying to use them as a proxy for.
In this case they are responding to local conditions on a decadal scale, which is obscuring the longer term warming signal
You are still too fixated on the idea that increasing CO2 is the only variable affecting local and global temperatures. That is a denialist straw man that you need to go beyond.
Reality is much more complex than that.
Entropic Man, if Climate Science is truly a real science, there is only one Hypothesis that matters.
Null Hypothesis: Natural Forces Cause Climate Change
For Man, and not natural forces, to be the cause of climate change, you have to reject that Null Hypothesis.
The only way I know how to test that hypothesis would be to calculate the mean and variability of temperatures for the industrial age and compare it to the mean and variability of the pre-industrial age Holocene.
Guess what you find if you use the Greenland Ice-core data and combine it with the NOAA/NASA “adjusted” data?
You find that:
1) Current temperatures are near the low of the Holocene
2) Current temperatures are below the mean for the Holocene
3) The Industrial Mean is not outside 2 Standard Deviations from the Mean of the Per-Industrial Holocene
Forget all these nonsensical computer models. Simply apply the Scientific method to the existing data like every other real science would do.
What will you find? You don’t reject the Null. The Tyranny of the Status Quo wins out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you don’t have that. Computer models aren’t extraordinary evidence, they aren’t evidenced at all.
Show me any valid experiment that shows that the mean and variability of the industrial age abnormal when compared to Al Gore’s Chart or the Greenland Ice Core Data.
BTW, Climate Science is always trying to “prove” CO2 is the cause. No real science proves anything, they reject hypotheses, they don’t prove them. Einstein once said, no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong. They don’t seem to teach that basic scientific principle in Climate “science.”
Entropic Man, if Climate Science is truly a real science, there is only one Hypothesis that matters.
Null Hypothesis: Natural Forces Cause Climate Change
For Man, and not natural forces, to be the cause of climate change, you have to reject that Null Hypothesis.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
None of the main natural forcing are warming the planet.
Stage 2 Statistics.I’ll keep it simple for the lurkers.
You are familiar with the effect of sample size on the precision of a mean.
Precision= Measurement accuracy * 1-(1/√n)
The measurement accuracy of a mercury thermometer is +/-1C
If you calculate the precision of the mean for for annual global average temperature using different sized samples from global temperature records you find that precision increases with sample size until you reach minimum 95% confidence limits of +/-01C.
Beyond that sample size extra samples do not improve confidence limits because you have reached the internal variability limit.
There are more sophisticated ways of calculating, but a useful rule of thumb is that if the 95% confidence limits of two means do not overlap, then there is a significant difference between them.For most temperature data that is a gap between means exceeding 0.2C
Let’s take an example using UAH data. The linear trend for V.6 is +0.14C/decade. Over 40 years that is a gain of 0.56C. That is well over the 0.2C threshold, so we can be confident that UAH temperatures have warned since 1979.How about shorter periods? If the trend was smooth you would expect to pass the 0.2C threshold after 0.2/0.14 decades. That is 14 years. With noisy data it could be more, so it would be unreasonable to expect to see significant change in less than 14 years. The consensus look for at least 30 years of data for long term trends to give a conservative margin.
Are we warmer than the Holocene Optimum? The consensus estimate for the Holocene Optimum is anomaly 0.4C+/-0.2C using the GISS baseline. The decadal average for 2010-2019 was O.81C +/- 0.1C. The significance threshold is 0.3C in this case, so anything over 0.7C is significantly warmer than the Holocene Optimum.
Are we warmer than the pre-industrial period? The decade 1870-1880 averaged anomaly -0.2C on the GISS baseline. The last decade averaged 0.8C. That is a difference of 1.0C, again well above the significance threshold.
If you disagree, please show your numbers.
I will make a bold prediction and say global surface temperatures have topped out and from here it will be a decline.
It has to be that way IF you don’t believe in AGW.
The best climate model, based on the best temperature data, calls for a December Global anomaly of +0.49C. We’ll see how close that is, in a few days.
But you have to distinguish between AGW due to CO2, and AGW due to pizza ovens. There is NO REAL SCIENCE to support CO2 warming, but the evidence is rock solid about pizza ovens. A typical pizza oven maintains temperatures close to 1000F! Multiply that by all the pizza ovens added in the last 70 years, and voila — glaciers melting and forest fires!
https://www.iceagenow.info/study-suggests-great-earthquakes-as-cause-of-arctic-warming/
Possible. There is some evidence.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/12/29/ten-climate-predictions-for-2020-that-went-horribly-wrong/#more-51299
That is what the models give you wrong climate conclusions. They are full of it. They can’t account for items not put in to them which is happening on a wide scale by the biased scientist that promote them.
I stopped reading at the first one when they said Hansen predicted 2020 to be 3C warmer. Here is what Hansen actually said.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
Note that his scenario B, which he felt was the more likely of the 3 , shows about 1.1C of warming from 1960 to 2020. 2020 will end at 1.02C for an error of only 0.08C. And most of that error is due to Hansen’s poor guess at human behavior (he did not factor in the Montreal Protocol). Per Hausfather 2019 when you use inputs that better match human behavior the output from Hansen’s 1988 model is indistinguishable from observations. And that is using a model that is considered primitive by today’s standards.
bdgwx, I stopped reading when you first mentioned “Hansen”. I automatically knew it would be anti-science from there on, and I’ve already heard all his jokes.
But speaking of such nonsense, have you sobered up enough to clean up one of your messes:
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
The SB equation is good 19th century science, so I’m not surprised that you accept it.
If you remove the effect of the greenhouse gases you don’t believe in the Earth’s surface would receive and emit 340W/sq m.
Calculate back from the SB equation and you get an emission temperature of 233K.
Please explain why you accept the SB equation but not it’s results.
If you want to understand Earth without an atmosphere, look at Moon. Temperatures there vary between about 90K and 400K. Moon receives the same average solar, but with minimum atmosphere, temperature range is extreme. (400K is hot enough to cook steak.) Earth’s atmosphere serves to moderate and control temperatures.
I’m not sure where you got the “233K” figure. The BB calculation is 255K.
I accept the S/B Law, but some people don’t know how to do the calculations.
My mistake. 255K it is.I think my failing memory translated a 33C temperature difference into 233K
Without GHGs you might get the same temperature variations on Earth as on the Moon,moderated somewhat by the shorter diurnal cycle. In longwave wavelengths a GHG free atmosphere is little different from no atmosphere at all.
The actual surface average temperature is 288K.
I explain the 33C difference by invoking the greenhouse effect. How do you explain it to yourself?
EM,
33 C difference between theoretical and actual (not that I believe anybody can actually measure the average temperature of the * surface *)?
Easy peasy. The Earth is a ball of molten stuff. The solid crust is to the molten interior roughly as the skin is to an apple.
Grab some actual measurements of heat flow from the interior, through the crust, to space. Not very much, and calculates to an sunless 35 K or so. Now add the Sun. Yes, it takes less energy to achieve a given temperature if the body is already partway there.
I get around 290 K.
Close enough for Government work?
Swenson’s method is one way to do it. Here’s another:
The 33K is the difference between 288K and 255K. 288K is the actual average surface temperature, and the 255K is the calculated temperature of a black body emitting 240 W/m^2.
So the first problem is in comparing actual to an imaginary object.
Let’s use the GHE nonsense in its entirety. The “steel greenhouse” calculation gives the GHE results — shell at 255K, emitting 240 W/m^2. But, the sphere is emitting 480 W/m^2. So to emit 480 W/m^2, it must have a temperature of 303K.
Now, comparing actual surface (288k) to GHE sphere (303K), we find Earth’s surface is cooled 15K by radiative gases.
Radiative gases are not warming the planet by 33K, they are cooling planet by 15K.
There are many different ways to bust nonsense.
Swenson says: “Close enough for Government work?”
Not close enough for government work! I think you forgot about the T^4 part of the equation. The hotter the earth already is, the less it warms from a given input.
The geothermal heat flux is estimated to be about 0.087 W/m^2. This would be enough (assuming a blackbody radiator) to warm the earth from:
3 K –˃ 35 K
35 K –˃ 42 K
100 K –˃ 100.4 K
255 K –˃ 255.02 K
255.02 K and 290 K are NOT “close enough for government work”!
“There are many different ways to bust nonsense.”
Unfortunately, you did not find one.
“Now, comparing actual surface (288k) to GHE sphere (303K), we find Earths surface is cooled 15K by radiative gases.”
That “GHE sphere” is a simplification to show how the calculations work; a first step in understanding; a first-order approximation. In particular, it assumes that ALL wavelengths are blocked and re-emitted by the shell. The real earth has a significant “atmospheric window” that you seem to have forgotten about. If that second-order effect is included, the calculations would be lower for the inner surface (anywhere between 255K and 303 K, depending on how transparent the shell is to IR). 288K is actually a quite good estimate based on the actual atmospheric window. What you really showed is that radiative gasses do not block 100% of
So the actual conclusion is “Now, comparing actual surface (288k) to GHE sphere with an atmospheric window (also around 288K), we find Earths surface right about what we would predict based on radiative gases.”
Folkerts, it’s not my job to try to figure out what your problem is.
If you can’t communicate coherently, see if you can find a literate person to help you.
And Folkerts, I see you also messed up your comment to Swenson. I’ll let him set you straight, but until then, here’s a hint: “nats”
“Folkerts, its not my job to try to figure out what your problem is.”
And it is not my job to explain physics that is clearly above you understanding. Not my job to explain basic terms like “atmospheric window” and “first order approximation”.
You did at least get the correct answer for the simplified case of a blackbody shell around a planet (303 K). Now figure out what happens when the shell stops, say, 60% of the radiation from the surface, but lets the remaining 40% pass through.
PS, I was trying to type arrows to Swenson, but WordPress couldn’t handel the special characters.
warm from 3 K to 35 K
warm from 35 K to 42 K
warm from 100 K to 100.4 K
warm from 255 K to 255.02 K
The same amount of extra heat (0.087 W/m^2) leads to different amount of warming, depending on the initial temperature.
I understood the terms, Folkerts. I was referring to your effort to distract and distort. The “steel greenhouse” is a bogus concept, just as the GHE which it attempts to “prove”. But one thing that nobody noticed was the surface temperature is above Earth’s actual! So now you have to discredit the “model” that has been happily accepted by Warmists for years.
And since Swenson has not reappeared (I wanted to give him first shot at you), I will add to the hint, “nats”.
“n” is for “now”.
“a” is for “add”.
See if you can figure it out with the additional help.
Tim,
Maybe you should learn about energy.
You are talking nonsense again. From the USGS –
* Precisely, water has to absorb 4,184 Joules of heat (1 calorie) for the temperature of one kilogram of water to increase 1°C. * Hmmmm. No mention of needing different amounts for different temperatures. As usual, you are confused. The fourth power law is about radiation by a body. Bad luck for you!
You get around 32 K increase fro measured radiation intensity. My 5 second assessment gave me around 35 K. All based on sparse data, so good enough for Government work, I figure.
Anyway Tim, would you mind getting the physics right before you start banging away a5 your keyboard. I dont mind continually correcting you, though.
Swenson, you are SO far behind here!
We are discussing blackbody radiation, Stefan-Bolzmann Law, and equilibrium surface temperature. The heat capacity will affect HOW LONG it takes to get to that equilibrium temperature, but not the actual temperature. The heat capacity of water is immaterial here.
But please enlighten us as the to “easy peasy” physics that allowed you to calculate “35 K” based on “4,184 Joules/kg” and “The solid crust is to the molten interior roughly as the skin is to an apple” and “0.08 W/m^2”.
You claimed you already did it, so it should only take you a moment.
Tim,
Less than a minute, actually. As you said, I provided the figure. Maybe you think I just plucked it out o book of magical spells?
You said you thought I had forgotten about the fourth power law relating to absolute temperature. You often seem to suffer from delusional thinking. Oh well.
As I said, easy peasy. I think you believe that it takes more energy to raise a given mass by the same number of degrees K, if the starting temperature is higher. I pointed out that this appears to be Tim Folkerts Magical Physics, not mainstream.
Now you can attempt to bring in all your silly analogies, if you wish.
OMG,
Leave it to dimwit/troll Clint to pretend that the Steel Shell illustration is meant to be the actual model of the Earth’s atmosphere!
So dishonest.
And no one else but Mike Flynn is as obsessed with geothermal heat, and only Mike Flynn repeatedly makes the same bone-headed temperature calculation from it.
SWENSON: “I think you believe that it takes more energy to raise a given mass by the same number of degrees K, if the starting temperature is higher. “
No. I believe it takes more POWER to raise the surface of a radiating object by the same number of kelvins, if the starting temperature is higher. That is what we are discussing. Your topic is interesting too, but it is not what is on the table here.
For a blackbody object in deep space …
To hold the object @ 100K requires 5.67 W/m^2
To hold the object @ 101K requires 5.90 W/m^2
To raise the temp by 1K requires an additional 0.23 W/m^2
To hold the object @ 200K requires 90.7 W/m^2
To hold the object @ 201K requires 92.5 W/m^2
To raise the temp by 1K requires an additional 1.8 W/m^2
To hold the object @ 300K requires 459 W/m^2
To hold the object @ 301K requires 464 W/m^2
To raise the temp by 1K requires an additional 5 W/m^2
Do you get it now? It becomes successively more difficult to warm up an object as it gets hotter. Not because the heat capacity changes, but because it radiates SO MUCH MORE POWER at high temperatures.
Entropic Man Says: None of the main natural forcing are warming the planet.
How do you know? Do you have data for the geothermal heat at the bottom of the oceans? Under the Greenland Glacier? Cloud cover over the oceans? Nope. You don’t even have the basic data sets to make such a statement.
What we do know is the data that is provided by the “experts.”
So I repeat, simply take the Greenland Glacier data for the Holocene. Use that data to determine a mean and standard deviation for the Pre-Industrial Holocene temperature mean and variation. Use the NASA hodge-podge data set of US, then US and Europe, then US Europe and Asia, then N and S Hemi, and then throw in the “adjustments” for the Industrial age. Make needed adjustments to merge the 2 data sets, and then test the Hypothesis.
What you will find is that the variation of temperatures, even using the obscenely “adjusted” NASA data won’t fall 2 standard deviations outside the norm for the Holocene.
Here is a chart of the data that I am referring to.
https://image.myanimelist.net/ui/OK6W_koKDTOqqqLDbIoPAuW-jd8zDa4bvGxED_TnYKA
I downloaded Dr. Alley’s data and did just what you asked. The mean rate of change is -0.0018C/decade with a SD of 0.08. The Arctic region is warming at 0.25C/decade per UAH or about 0.4C/decade according to everyone else. So the current warming is at least a 3 sigma and probably closer to a 5 sigma event.
You are, of course, encouraged to check my work. https://tinyurl.com/yym33x7y
Sounds good. Please explain how to convert the ice temperature from a particular depth in GISP2 into a global average temperature.
While you are at it, please prove that there is a close correlation between the two, an assumption for which you have not yet presented any evidence.
Finally, how should I allow for Arctic amplification, the tendency for the Arctic to change temperature more than lower latitudes?
Entropic Man Says: Sounds good. Please explain how to convert the ice temperature from a particular depth in GISP2 into a global average temperature.
Al Gore made his entire career making a claim that Ice Core data is an accurate measure for temperature. Michael Mann uses Ice Core data in his infamous fraud of a Hockeystick.
If you are saying that Ice Core Data isn’t a valid Proxy for Temperatures then I accept that but you just invalidated just about every long-term temperature reconstruction ever produced by Climate Scientists. I guess that also goes for atmospheric CO2 measurements as well. Basically what you are saying is the two foundational data sets are fraudulent, and the entire field of climate “science” is based upon a myth.
Anyway, I understand why you don’t want to do the experiment I detailed. You know the answer you will get. You just decide it is better to live in denial. It is easier that way. I get it. Truth hurts and you have a very low snowflake level pain threshold. I’m sure you can find a safe space to protect you from those micro-aggression-wielding facts.
CO2islife
You do know that there are two different temperature measurements made using ice cores?
The first is the technique Alley used. You lower an electronic temperature sensor down the hole from which you took the ice core and measure the temperature of the surrounding ice. Ice is a good insulator and tends to remain close to the temperature of the surface when the ice formed.
Taking a temperature profile down the hole gives you a temperature record for the surface of the ice sheet.It tells you the temperature sequence for that location, but nowhere else.
This is why your graph shows that the Little Ice Age had a temperature of -32C.
The second technique measures the ratio of two oxygen isotopes O16 and O18. Water containing O16 evaporates more easily than water containing O18, so you can use the ratio of the two isotopes in an ice core to deduce the temperature of the water surface it evaporated from. The higher the temperature, the higher the proportion of O18.
Note that this does not measure the temperature of the ice sheet in Greenland, but the temperature of the ocean the water originally came from.
Entropic Man quit running from the issue. Find any darn data set you want that reconstructs the temperature for the Holocene. Divide it between the Industrial age and pre-industrial age Holocene. Once you do that simply test the Hypothesis I outlined. You aren’t fooling anyone by delaying the inevitable. Face the truth, do the experiment and post your results.
The problem you will face is that the early Holocene Maximum, Minoan, Roman, Medieval Warming and all pull the mean above where it is today. Pre-Industrial Era events like the Little-Ice Age and Younger Dryas all greatly increase the standard deviation. The problem you have to face is that climate changes, climate changes a lot, and the Industrial Age has had a remarkably stable climate.
Why bother?
You’ve posed a “Have you stopped beating your wife” question rigged to give the answer you want.
But let’s try it. The industrial Era average according to Giss global temperature record was 14.4C.
Your glacier data shows that the minoan Warm Period was -29.5C.
The Industrial Era is therefore 14.4-(-29.5C)=33.9C warmer than the Minoan Warm Period.
Abstract
[1] Climate changes are driven largely by variations in the distribution of solar insolation associated with changes in the Earths orbital parameters. Here we define the rate of solar insolation change (RSIC) as a parameter to evaluate and quantify solar heating changes through time. We propose that RSIC may control the timing of transitions between warm and cold periods through its control on the rate of climate changes. Specifically, the glacial/interglacial transitions took place when the 65N July insolation experienced the most rapid changes; interglacials start with a maximum positive RSIC and end with a maximum negative RISC. The RSIC curve thus provides a new astronomically tuned method for dating interglacials. The 65N July RISC curves average a 4.7 ky lead compared to ice sheet changes as indicated by Bassinot et al. [1994] for the last 0.9 Ma, possibly implying a more rapid response of monsoonal climate to the insolation heating.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025401
Do high solar cycles delay cooling in the Northern Hemisphere?
https://i.ibb.co/xYsJMdt/international-sunspot-nu-2.png
The tilt angle of the Earth’s axis of rotation to the plane of its orbit as it moves around the Sun changes from 22.1 to 24.5 and back in a 41,000-year cycle. The effect of these changes has a huge impact on the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.
When in winter the Earth is closer to the Sun, with a small tilt of the axis of rotation to the plane of the ecliptic, the planet experiences an ice age (warm winter favors precipitation at the poles, and relatively cool summers are unable to melt all the snow). Conversely, when the Earth is close to the Sun in summer and the angle of its axis to the ecliptic is large, favorable conditions prevail for ice melting and the regression of the ice sheet. Historically, ice ages lasted about 100,000 years with warmer interglacial periods lasting about 10,000 years. The Earth is currently experiencing one of its interglacial periods.
The inclination of the equatorial plane to the ecliptic plane
varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees with a period of 41,000 years.
Currently, the value is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.
It will reach its lowest value in about 8,000 years.
The decreasing tilt of the Earth’s axis in relation to the ecliptic plane, the shorter distance of the northern hemisphere from the Sun in winter and the decreasing solar activity will create conditions for an increase in the ice cover on the continents of the northern hemisphere.
These plots present time series (updated daily) of the current amount of water stored by the seasonal snowpack (cubic km) over Northern Hemisphere land areas (excluding Greenland).
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
tim…sorry, lost my place at the thread were were on.
tim…”I also know that pharmaceutical companies make a LOT of money from expensive cancer treatments. They would not be happy with an over-the-counter treatment that costs less than $1 per day. Maybe *that* is where we need to look, not doctors themelves”.
Agreed. The pharmaceutical companies spent a lot of money, in North America and Europe, lobbying to have vitamins ban.ned.
part 2…would not post. Sorry about all the dot separators, could not track down the word blocking the psot.
Unfortunately, many d.o.c.t.o.r.s are on the p.a.y.r.o.l.l. The US C-D-C is not e.x.e.m.p.t. When f.u.n.d.s were e.a.r.m.a.r.k.e.d at the C-D-C to test the p.o.s.s.i.b.i.l.i.ty that v.a.c.c.i.n.e.s caused a.u.t.i.s.m, the r.e.s.e.a.r.c.h.e.r in c.h.a.r.g.e d.i.s.a.p.p.e.a.r.e.d with the m.o.n.e.y to a c.o.u.n.t.r.y where he could not be e.x.t.r.a.d.it.ed. A t.o.p r.a.n.k.i.n.g f.e.m.a.l.e f.i.g.u.r.e at C-D-C was f.o.r.c.e.d to r.e.s.i.g.n and she was h.i.r.e.d by a p.h.a.r.m.a.c.e.u.t.i.c.a.l c.o.m.p.a.n.y within days.
There are d.o.c.t.o.r.s here in Vancouver, Canada who are f.u.n.d..e.d by p.h.a.r.m.a.c.e.u.t.i.c.a.l c.o.m.p.a.n.i.e.s to s.p.e.a.k on their b.e.h.a.l.f.
Mark Wapples…”he reason hotter bodies emit energy at higher frequencies is that they have absorbed a quanta of energy which has promoted the electrons to a higher energy level”.
Not necessarily. The Sun does not radiate broad spectrum radiation to uv and beyond because it absorbs EM. It produces the heat internally and the electrons in hydrogen get so excited they leave the hydrogen atom as a proton. Such free electrons and protons produce the solar wind.
Same with any objects heated by a flame. They produce visible light because the electrons have already been raised to a higher energy level and are cycling rapidly in their orbits.
****
But this is due to the orbitals that are occupied nothing to do with the frquency of an electron.
Reply”
The frequency of emitted EM is due to the motion of the electron. As a charged particle, it carries an electric field and that produces a magnetic field. Voila! Electromagnetic energy. This is the electromagnetic energy the electron emits when it drops to a lower energy level.
How else do you think the EM is created? An motion of the electron in orbit is considered harmonic motion. It is calculated based on the wave equation, which measures harmonic motion. Where else would the EM get a frequency?
If it was simply a matter of the electron changing energy levels in a static manner, the EM would be a single pulse with no frequency, like a voltage spike produced when a steel rod is plunged into an inductor core.
The EM field produced by a communications antennae is produced by electrons changing directions at high frequency in the antenna. A microwave magnetron, which emits EM in the microwave range, is produced by electrons oscillating at high frequency in the magnetron cavities.
It’s not as if EM is exciting electrons, those little blighters produce all visible EM in the universe.
tim…”That one level produces three different frequencies”.
Normally, the spectral frequencies emitted are dependent on the source orbitals. If electrons drop from the next level, two levels down, or 3 or more levels down, the target level can be claimed to emit 3 or more frequencies, the frequency being dependent on the frequency in the source orbital.
It’s all pretty hairy theory but Bohr put it together to explain different spectral regions in the hydrogen spectrum. His theory proved to explain the regions and their frequency/wavelengths.
“Normally, the spectral frequencies emitted are dependent on the source orbitals. ”
No. They are always dependent on the DIFFERENCE in energies of TWO levels.
tim…”Normally, the spectral frequencies emitted are dependent on the source orbitals.
No. They are always dependent on the DIFFERENCE in energies of TWO levels”.
Tim…this is not something that can be discussed due to its vagueness. When Bohr specified the two energy levels the only way he could get them to work is if the transfer of the electron from energy level 2 to energy level 1 was instantaneous with no time factor. The electron is at E2 at one instant and at E1 in the same instant.
Bohr based that on Planck’s work, hence the h in E = hf. To get around an electron losing energy and crashing into the nucleus, he hypothesized that electrons could only exist in quantum energy states, or orbitals.
The problem with Planck’s relationship of E = hf is that he based it purely on electromagnetic energy without considering the source, the electron, which had just been discovered. His source was a theorized oscillator at each frequency generating each EM frequency. In fact, E = hf does not work since it implies that as frequency increases to infinity so does the energy. So, Planck modified the relationship greatly between each EM frequency in a spectrum, including an exponential that would diminish energy as frequency increased.
It does work if a single electron is considered within Bohr’s stipulation that electrons can only exist at quantized level with no continuum between energy levels.
If you have an electron orbiting at level E2, it’s frequency is defined based on the number of revs/second. So, for E2, E2 = hf2, according to Planck. In order to get to E1, the electron has to give up E2 – E1 energy. Therefore the emitted quantum of energy is E2 – E1. But that equals hf, not h(f2 – f1). The emitted quantum’s frequency has to be the upper energy level’s frequency because E2 – E1 is its intensity.
When the electron loses that energy, it settles in at E1 with a lower kinetic energy. Since KE = 1/2mv^2, it also means the electron is moving slower hence has a lower frequency. But…the energy quanta is already gone, so its frequency has to be that of the upper energy level.
Gordon,
You should check out what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says about knowing the position and speed of an electron in an orbital around a nucleus, and whether it is correct or not to say an electron is orbiting the nucleus of an atom.
bob,
And if he doesnt? What then?
bobd..”You should check out what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says about knowing the position and speed of an electron in an orbital around a nucleus, and whether it is correct or not to say an electron is orbiting the nucleus of an atom”.
Having spent a career in the electrical/electronics field I seriously doubt that the orbital model is correct. As Feynman said about quantum theory, it works, but no one knows why. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone can specify the exact position of an electron at any time.
The solution to electron orbital math involves unfriendly differential equations with various solutions. Orbitals are more about math than physical reality. I would dearly love to see how the little blighters work.
Gordon,
“I don’t think anyone can specify the exact position of an electron at any time.”
That’s what I was alluding to when I mentioned the uncertainty principle, you can’t know the speed and position of an electron well enough to say that it is orbiting the nucleus.
Yeah, the math get a little tricky and it takes more than differential equation to understand the models.
But then your whole idea that the temperature of a gas determines the energy levels of the molecules involved is all wrong.
Most molecules in the atmosphere have orbitals in the ground state, so there are always open levels for CO2 to absorby the microwave photons from CO2.
Swengalli,
“bob,
And if he doesnt? What then?”
Some want to learn, some don’t.
You can go back to doing what you were doing before you lost your mind.
“When the electron loses that energy, it settles in at E1 with a lower kinetic energy. Since KE = 1/2mv^2, it also means the electron is moving slower hence has a lower frequency. “
No. Orbiting particles move FASTER as they get closer and they have HIGHER frequencies and HIGHER KE! Mercury orbits the sun at a higher speed than Pluto and with a shorter period. Kepler figured this out 400 years ago for planets.
For the Bohr model, the answers for the electron orbiting the proton work out to:
n=1: f(1) = 6.55e15 Hz
n=2: f(2) = 0.82e15 Hz = f(1) / 8
n=3: f(3) = 0.24e15 Hz = f(1) / 27
The frequency DECREASES proportional to n^3 as the electron moves AWAY.
Once again, your intuition fails you. Every physics major learns this.
Its like Hydra.
“Cut off one head, and two more shall take its place!”
Tim,
You are right. As quickly as I demonstrate one of your comments is completely wrong, you fly off int some ridiculous diversion. Pot lids, overcoats, blankets, the Tim Folkerts School of Magical Physics – your Hydra has an unending supply of heads spewing nonsense.
Get rid of your Hydra – you bought a defective model. Dont be so cheap next time!
In the southern hemisphere almost to the end of December he acted winter stratospheric polar vortex. Can be seen a negative temperature anomaly in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_SH_2020.png
Climate Science Challenges for 2021:
1) The Climate is infinitely more complex than the Stock or Bond Market. If we can accurately predict the Climate 100 years in the future, we should easily be able to use these Climate Models to predict the stock and bond market.
Question #1: What will the Dow close at next Dec 31
Question #2 What will the 10 Year Treasury Yield be on next Dec 31
Get withing 1 Standard Deviation and you are doing a great job, but this should be easy for people that can predict the climate 100 Years in the future.
If you aren’t up for that, simply do this experiment already outlined above. So far, Entropic Man hasn’t proven up to the challenge, so I want to see if others can prove me wrong.
Entropic Man, if Climate Science is truly a real science, there is only one Hypothesis that matters.
Null Hypothesis: Natural Forces Cause Climate Change
For Man, and not natural forces, to be the cause of climate change, you have to reject that Null Hypothesis.
The only way I know how to test that hypothesis would be to calculate the mean and variability of temperatures for the industrial age and compare it to the mean and variability of the pre-industrial age Holocene.
Guess what you find if you use the Greenland Ice-core data and combine it with the NOAA/NASA “adjusted” data?
You find that:
1) Current temperatures are near the low of the Holocene
2) Current temperatures are below the mean for the Holocene
3) The Industrial Mean is not outside 2 Standard Deviations from the Mean of the Per-Industrial Holocene
Forget all these nonsensical computer models. Simply apply the Scientific method to the existing data like every other real science would do.
What will you find? You don’t reject the Null. The Tyranny of the Status Quo wins out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you don’t have that. Computer models aren’t extraordinary evidence, they aren’t evidenced at all.
Show me any valid experiment that shows that the mean and variability of the industrial age abnormal when compared to Al Gore’s Chart or the Greenland Ice Core Data.
BTW, Climate Science is always trying to “prove” CO2 is the cause. No real science proves anything, they reject hypotheses, they don’t prove them. Einstein once said, no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong. They don’t seem to teach that basic scientific principle in Climate “science.”
Many of us have asked for the REAL science supporting CO2 AGW. All I’ve ever seen is nonsense like the “steel greenhouse”, or “paper” after “paper” with each starting with the belief that CO2 provides a “forcing”. If you research where the CO2 “forcing” comes from, guess what? It comes from a bogus equation that has no derivation in physics. The bogus equation is someone’s “pipe dream”.
As you’ve pointed out numerous times, a CO2 15μ photon only has the “forcing” of about -80C/-112F. Two such photons only have the “forcing” of -80C/-112F. A zillion, bazillion such photons only have the “forcing” of -80C/-112F.
No matter how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it can NOT raise surface temperatures. It can only increase the energy transfer to space, i.e., provide cooling.
The Warmists should have gone after pizza ovens, not CO2. At least a pizza oven provides some REAL warming.
I posted this earlier. Reposted in case you missed it.
“Why bother?
Youve posed a Have you stopped beating your wife question rigged to give the answer you want.
But lets try it. The industrial Era average according to Giss global temperature record was 14.4C.
Your glacier data shows that the minoan Warm Period was -29.5C.
The Industrial Era is therefore 14.4-(-29.5C)=33.9C warmer than the Minoan Warm Period.”
Entropic Man, did you actually post this?
But lets try it. The industrial Era average according to Giss global temperature record was 14.4C.
Your glacier data shows that the minoan Warm Period was -29.5C.
Are you kidding me? You wouldn’t know how to merge the two data sets? Really? Every temperature chart you will see is a deviation from a mean. It isn’t an absolute temperature. Were you born yesterday? Do you honestly think that Global GISS is giving you the temperature of the N. Pole, Equator and S. Pole simultaneously? Really? The key is, CO2 was the same everywhere, so the deviation around the mean is that matters, and you can use merge both data sets by using the variation around the mean.
Greenland is a good source because it is largely shielded from the Urban Heat Island and effect of Water Vapor, but you can use Antarctica data as well.
Lastly, Michael Mann used the technique I am referencing to create his Foundational Climate Change Hockeystick. Are you claiming that the entire foundation of Climate Science is based upon a fraudulently constructed temperature reconstruction? If that is the case, we agree.
CO2,
Your graph shows temperature peaking at the Holocene Maximum several thousand years ago.
This is well understood. It comes from the orbital variation that gives summer sunlight (insolation) variations at far northern latitudes, ie where Greenland is.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caroline_Clason/publication/308416665/figure/fig1/AS:409103802355712@1474549355008/Calculated-variations-in-insolation-from-the-sun-based-on-the-Milankowitch-theory-It.png
This effect is concentrated in the Arctic, and of course has a much smaller effect on the Global temperature.
Stop worrying, everything you said is bullshit. Our civilization has done much better when times were warmer than now like the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods (in order of decreasing temps). The ‘unprecented warming’ is a red herring since we don’t have precise daily measurements of the past, and the alarmists ignore the stable years between the 1998 and 2016 El Nino when temperatures didn’t increase at all in spite of China, India, etc., burning every piece of coal they could find. Stop worrying and enjoy the warmth while it lasts… Remember the warming periods have been progressively getting cooler…
Personally I like the historical farming and weather records that come from letters or archaeology. Like the fact that the Vikings could grow barley in Iceland or the Ming era Chinese were able to farm far more northward than they can today in spite of modern technology. Grapes were grown at higher altitudes in Germany than can be done today. The earth has been warmer in various times in the past and history remembers them as good times. Any colder periods are remembered as times of collapse, darkness, plague, and political strife (Bronze Age Collapse, Dark Ages, Black Death, the wars of ‘Reformation’ and the so-called Enlightenment period during the Little Age).
PCman999
I admire your optimism.
Neither the human species or human civilization has experienced a planet with a global temperature exceeding 15C.
Be interesting to see what happens.
Entropic Man Says: Neither the human species or human civilization has experienced a planet with a global temperature exceeding 15C.
CO2 used to be 7,000 ppm and life thrived. CO2 was 4,000 ppm and we fell into an ice age. Coral, Nautauli and other shellfish evolved during periods of much higher CO2.
Making the claim that civilization can’t survive in a climate exceeding 15C pretty much proves Entropic Man has never visited Florida, Mexico, or SubSaharran Africa where Man came from.
Entropic Man, do you even think before you post, or do you honestly believe the nonsense that you write?
Perhaps you have evidence that we can survive in a climate our civilization has never encountered before?
Oh yes. What is the standard deviation of your GISP2 data?
I’m also interested to know how you can generalise from one Greenland ice core to global conditions?
EM,
Answers –
What a stupid question!
Who cares?
Easily. Alarmists do it all the time, whenever it suits them. They generally prefer pointless averages and stupid questions, though.
Entropic Man Says: I’m also interested to know how you can generalise from one Greenland ice core to global conditions?
Because CO2 evenly blankets the globe. The impact of CO2 is the same at the N Pole, Equator and S Pole. The Physics of the CO2 molecule don’t vari by location, latitude, longitude, altitude, they are constant.
Greenland is also ideal because it isn’t impacted by water vapor, so you get a good feel for the variability of a climate without Water Vapor and totally dependent upon CO2 as the stabalizer.
Don’t use Greenland, create your own composite from historical proxies to build a Holocene Reconstruction, or use any of the existing one. Every reconstruction of the Holocene I’ve seen shows Old Kingdom, New Kingdom/Minoan, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Midevil warming all being above the temperatures of today. Archeological evidence proves the same. Simply read about the battle of Thermopyle. The 300 Spartans were shielded by the mountain on one side, and the ocean on the other side, with 20 meters separating the two. Just look where one time coastal Troy is today, or coastal Miletos, or the harbor at Carthage.
There is no way we are warmer today then back then, unless you can explain why the sea level has dropped so much.
CO2isLife: Every reconstruction of the Holocene Ive seen shows Old Kingdom, New Kingdom/Minoan, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Midevil warming all being above the temperatures of today.
You posted a link to Dr. Alley’s ice core data above. Did you not look at it? https://tinyurl.com/yzzatz4
Have you not seen the tree ring reconstructions from JBB98, MBH99, BOS01, ECS02, RMO05, MSH05, HCA06, DWJ08, etc? https://i.imgur.com/YdV3dE1.png
Have you not seen the non tree ring reconstruction like from the comprehensive study from Kaufmann 2020 collating the results of 582 other studies? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
CO2isLife: Because CO2 evenly blankets the globe.
I’m having a hard time following you. First you said it was only the Sun and clouds that affects the climate. Now you’re arguing that it is only CO2. I think you’re having a hard time understanding the climate because you’re models are far too simple or too limiting. Why not branch out and explore models that consider ALL climate forcing agents?
bdgwx,
1) Go ahead and use that data, any data for a valid reconstruction of the Holocene
2) For any settled science there must be 1 and only one model that produces identical results. If you claim that gravity accelerates things at 9.8m/sec^2, then you have a settled science, and no experiment ever differs from that model. You posted a graphic of multiple charts claiming to measure the identical thing, temperature for the past 1200 years, not the Holocene, 1,200 years. Anyway, what kind of science claims to be “settled” and then produces hundreds of completely different charts to define the identical metric? Either way, looking at those jokes, current temperatures won’t be outside 2 standard deviations, and your charts don’t cover the periods of warming during the Holocene.
3) I’ve never claimed that only the sun and clouds impact the climate, I’ve only made comments that CO2 can’t be the cause, and the relationship between CO2 and temperatures won’t be linear, as the models suggest. My comments are always about isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures, and that is why I like Greenland. Plenty of things other than CO2 can impact the climate, too many for be to even begin to name. Real science is about isolating the impact of 1 independent variable on 1 dependent variable.
1. How about we do the skeptical thing and consider ALL data?
2. We have multiple reconstructions of temperature because there are multiple techniques employed using different subsets of available data. Each technique has its strengths and weakness. And each has uncertainty that must be considered. This is a ubiquitous theme across all isoclines of science. BTW…I did what you asked above. Maybe you missed my post. According to Dr. Alley’s data the mean rate of change over the Holocene is -0.0018C/decade with a SD of 0.08. The Arctic region is warming at 0.25C/decade per UAH or about 0.4C/decade according to everyone else. So the current warming is at least a 3 sigma event and more likely closer to a 5 sigma event.
3. If you think the temperature should follow temperature linearly then you are using a different model than the rest of us. No reputable scientist or scientific institution employs a model that only considers CO2 and assumes that the temperature will always follow CO2 linearly. If you want to isolate CO2’s affect then you must control for all of the other factors that can also affect the temperature. It should also be plainly obvious that if you want to determine the cause of the global mean temperature changes then you must actually measure the global mean temperature. Greenland != Globe.
“If you claim that gravity accelerates things at 9.8m/sec^2, then you have a settled science, and no experiment ever differs from that model.”
The acceleration due to gravity is not constant across the globe.
There are experiments using the difference at different points on the globe for various reasons.
b,
Alleys data is rubbish. Just like Michael Manns treemometers. Get a grip.
Collating 582 studies does not magically produce facts.
Alarmists like Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen claim that CO2 is the knob that controls global temperatures. Dont you even know what your dear leaders are saying?
Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less. What predictable effect does CO2 well mixed in the atmosphere have, on weather? None that you can state?
Gee, why doesnt that surprise me?
Bobdroege Says: “If you claim that gravity accelerates things at 9.8m/sec^2, then you have a settled science, and no experiment ever differs from that model.”
The acceleration due to gravity is not constant across the globe.
There are experiments using the difference at different points on the globe for various reasons.
CO2isLife Says: Sorry, 9.8m/sec^2 at sea level in a vacuum. CO2 has the same physics everywhere, and except for the minor difference between the density of CO2 and the air, it is pretty much a constant. Taking a sea-level measurement of temperature anywhere in the world will have the same 15-micron LWIR back-radiation. Unless you can explain why the back radiation of CO2 is different in San Diego than Hilton Head, the impact of CO2 on temperatures will be the same. That is the point.
CO2isLife says:
“Sorry, 9.8m/sec^2 at sea level in a vacuum.”
It’s about 9.780 m/s^2 at the Equator and 9.832 m/s2 at the poles. Just like the global temperature history, precision improved with time.
“Taking a sea-level measurement of temperature anywhere in the world will have the same 15-micron LWIR back-radiation.”
No, the greenhouse effect depends on the lapse rate, which can be negative even. It also depends on temperature and humidity etc.
CO2isLife
YOU: “Taking a sea-level measurement of temperature anywhere in the world will have the same 15-micron LWIR back-radiation. Unless you can explain why the back radiation of CO2 is different in San Diego than Hilton Head, the impact of CO2 on temperatures will be the same. That is the point.”
The temperature of the air determines (to some extent) the amount of IR CO2 will emit. Hotter air emits more IR.
Same location Summer/Winter IR levels. I look for clear conditions since clouds have huge impact on DWIR.
Summer:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5fefaa050909e.png
Winter:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5fefaa4191712.png
Much less DWIR from all sources (both water vapor and CO2) in colder air conditions.
Norman, you found another link you don’t understand.
Gases emit line spectra. At night, atmospheric CO2 is only emitting a 15μ photon. The flux indicated by your graphs is TOTAL photons from all radiative gases. CO2 is contributing NOTHING to surface temperatures.
So, as usual, your comment only indicates your confusion.
ClintR
You are free to believe anything you want. I really don’t care what you want to believe. I was interested in trying to educate you with actual and real physics but you have zero interest.
Are you smart enough to figure out what the graphs show? An CO2 emits in a narrow band. Not just 15 microns. Some of the energy in the graph is from CO2 and the hotter CO2 is the more energy it emits.
Sorry this energy will be absorbed by the Earth surface. It means the Earth surface will become warmer with a similar solar input.
Your physics is bad, your posts are stupid. Your ignorance is large.
Wrong Norman. A colder atmosphere can not warm a hotter surface.
So, as usual, your comment only indicates your confusion.
This is a New Year. Why not make a resolution to NOT falsely accuse people? Why not make a resolution to NOT say things that aren’t true?
Do you only want to be a troll?
ClintR
Yes a colder atmosphere CAN increase the temperature of a HEATWD SURFACE. Empirical evidence proves your position wrong as does all science.
I have linked you to evidence many times. Your contrarian brain is unwilling to consider the possibility that you are wrong.
Wrong Norman. You have only provided links to things you don’t understand, like your link trying to prove gravity could provide a torque to an orbiting object. The object in your example was attached to a pivot! You don’t understand the simple difference between mass and weight. And you certainly don’t understand photons and fluxes.
You don’t understand these latest links. You believe they “prove” the sky is heating a warmer surface. You can’t explain how the links “prove” that. You just “believe”, as you did with the “gravitational torque” link. You believe, if you type out a long comment filled with insults and false accusations, that you can change reality.
You have no clue, and you can’t learn.
Clint what is the point of your butting in post, other than to troll and insult?
You don’t provide evidence to back up your claims, again.
You say Norman ‘doesnt understand’.
What does he not understand? You never explain. Hence your post has zero information content.
You never explain because when you do, you get caught saying erroneous things, like ‘inverse square law’ for radiation from a wall.
Listen to mothers who told us ‘if you don’t have anything useful to say, don’t speak’.
And don’t post.
Troll Nate, I can understand your frustration, especially when your “hero” doesn’t even want to have anything to do with you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-580435
My post was about you, Clint. An ignorant troll butting in again with pointless insults.
A frigid air mass in Mongolia may have just crushed a world record for surface air pressure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/12/29/mongolia-air-pressure-record/
Entropic Man mentioned measuring historical temperatures by means of thermometers lowered into boreholes. This is delusional fantasy.
Likewise, characterisin g ice as a good insulator, besides being irrelevant, is misleading. Ice can be up to 5 times better than brick as an insulator. Or 25 times worse than fibreglass insulation.
Voodoo science. On par with Michael Mann – divining temperatures from pieces of dead tree.
Richard Alley? Enough said. Floating ice does not raise sea levels when it melts. It does not push back against flowing glaciers.
Just more alarmist gullibility.
Swenson
“Entropic Man mentioned measuring historical temperatures by means of thermometers lowered into boreholes. This is delusional fantasy. ”
You might care to discuss that with CO2islife. He is the one trying to use temperatures from one borehole to deduce global temperature changes.
EM,
Why should I discuss the borehole fantasy with anyone? How much will you pay me?
Oh, I see.
You just want me to waste my time, dancing to your discordant tune?
Ho ho ho! Try again, buddy!
Definitely a waste of your, and btw our, time, Swenson. Its clear you have nothing constructive/useful to add.
So you can go away now.
Nate,
You and who else? A pack of other delusional alarmists?
If I dont go away now (declining to comply with your instruction), what then?
Will you make the usual alarmist empty threats? Ho ho ho! Try again, buddy!
You are not only powerless, you are pointless as well.
Didnt your mother teach you, if you have nothing useful to post, and you post anyway, then you are just trolling? She says stop now.
Entropic Man Says: You might care to discuss that with CO2islife. He is the one trying to use temperatures from one borehole to deduce global temperature changes.
How exactly does this work? YOu take one bore hole, CO2 is X PPM, and is shows temperatures going higher, then you take another bore hole, CO2 is X ppm, and it shows that temperatures are going lower. How do you decide which one is accurate, and how do you tease out the influence of CO2? Is a reconstruction simply a group of accurate and inaccurate estimates, and by putting them all together you hope to get an accurate measure? That is pure garbage. CO2 impacts every ice core identically. If it doesn’t, how is that possible? If CO2 is the cause of all climate changes, how can any change be attributed to anything but CO2, and in that cause, Greenland should work just fine.
1. CO2 is not the cause of all climate change. There are other factors that must be considered as well.
2. Temperature proxies are not modulated by CO2 alone. There are other factors that must be considered as well.
3. Greenland isn’t the same as the Globe.
b,
As climate is the average of weather, what factors can you nominate that have a predictable effect on weather?
Temperature proxies supposedly reflect temperature. Not CO2, not modulation, not . . .
Gee, so Greenland isnt the Globe! And Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist! Tell me something I dont know.
The oldest arrows and artifacts date from around 4100 BCE, the youngest from approximately 1300 CE, at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. That the artifacts come from several different periods separated by hundreds or thousands of years implies that the ice and snow in the region must have expanded and receded several times over the past 6,000 years.
During the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred from approximately 10,000 to 6,000 years ago and preceded the period of the stunning Norwegian discoveries, global temperatures were higher yet. In upper latitudes, where the most reliable proxies are found, it was an estimated 2-3 degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than at present. The warmth contributed to the rise of agricultural societies around the globe and the development of human civilization.
Paradoxically though, the Greenland ice sheet the present melting of which has sparked heated debate is thought to have been even larger at the peak of the Holocene Thermal Maximum than it is today, when Greenland temperatures are lower. This can be seen in the following figure, showing that the ice sheet extent is currently about the same as it was about 7,500 years (7.5 ka) ago, although it retracted to a minimum in the intervening period, but was greater before that.
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2020/12/28/new-evidence-that-the-ancient-climate-was-warmer-than-todays-68
Entropic Man Says: Neither the human species or human civilization has experienced a planet with a global temperature exceeding 15C.
CO2isLife: The above research places the Holocene Maximum just about 15C or even higher. Africa, where humans evolved, is much higher than 15C, more like 22C or even higher.
CO2isLife,
Alarmist love averages. Talking about global temperature, presumably an average of some sort, is just pointless.
Likewise, human species and human civilisation in this context.
Primitive individuals can live in areas with maxima over 45 C, minima less than -45 C, and sustained elevations up to around 6500 m.
Given a bit of civilised support, individuals survive in airless space, at depths of 10000 m, surface temperatures above 50 C, and below -60 C.
Entropic Man demands certainty about events which have never occurred. Like most alarmists, he believes he knows the past, the present, and the future. With confidence.
Thats because he is both delusional and gullible.
It could be worse – he could be in a position of power. Oh wait, some of his ilk are!
CO2isLife, On a different topic about science, what do you think of this commentary from the your skeptical writer who presented the graph to which you linked?
Visible ozone blockage in the stratosphere above East Siberia.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/01/01/0600Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-331.40,88.48,296
https://i.ibb.co/wR9RGWc/gfs-t10-nh-f00.png
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will soon split into two parts, consistent with the distribution of the geomagnetic field in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/Bg5RtL4/gfs-z100-nh-f48.png
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_z.jpg
“How exactly does this work? YOu take one bore hole, CO2 is X PPM, and is shows temperatures going higher, then you take another bore hole, CO2 is X ppm, and it shows that temperatures are going lower. How do you decide which one is accurate?”
From an experienced statistics user, I hope that was a rhetorical question.
You increase sample size. Instead of one borehole you take ten. You add proxy temperature data from sediments, bogs, corals, tree trunks and others, spread around the world.
When you have 70+ you can use the ensemble to put a continental or global temperature anomaly profile together, complete with confidence limits.
As PAGES2k and Marcott have done.
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/latest/10529-the-third-phase-of-the-pages-2k-network
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Entropic Man: Here is the problem all these client models have. They are like doing an experiment on weight loss and not including caloric intake and exercise. There are so many unknown unknowns.
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/slide12.jpg?w=1110
USGS Gets Politics Out of Climate Forecasts
My agency makes a significant advance in the government’s approach to science.
By Jim Reilly
Dec. 21, 2020
The world’s climate is changing, as it always has. The challenge is to understand how and why, which is why the U.S. Geological Survey has adopted the most comprehensive climate analysis requirements ever implemented by the federal government.
Forecasting future responses and impacts for a system as complex as the Earth is difficult and uncertain.
Can we stay on topic. Last time I looked it was the reliability of paleotemperature data.
What improvements would you suggest?
Entropic Man Says:
Can we stay on topic. Last time I looked it was the reliability of paleotemperature data.
What improvements would you suggest?
CO2isLife Says: Transparent, Open-Source and open for Public Peer Review and Cross-Examination. That would go a long way to resolving this issue. Right now you have a bunch of financially and professionally vested individuals creating temperature reconstruction. If CO2 isn’t the cause, they lose all funding and promotions. That isn’t science, that is a fraud. We need and SEC type organization to oversee Federally Funded Research. Corruption isn’t limited to Wall Street, it is human nature and highly concentrated in the field of Climate Science.
That being said, just choose any temperature reconstruction you want, test the hypothesis, and post your conclusions here on this bold so we can all Peer Review your work. Have at it.
An Easy and Common Sense Way to Make Climate Science Credible in 2021:
Simply make the “science” transparent. Make the Models Open-Source and open for public review and cross-examination/Peer Review. “Adjustments” to the data must pass public inspection, and the models must be open for public review and cross-examination/PUBLIC Peer-Review.
Climate Science, The FBI, CIA, and Congressional Intel Committee have all proven the catastrophic danger of allowing a group of unelected activists control such concentrated and consequential power.
People should be asking if this “science” is used to direct public policy, shouldn’t it be transparent and open for debate? Right now we have activists masquerading as “scientists” and they have completely corrupted the entire process and system.
CO2isLife, So, which data set is correct (that is, most accurately represents recent climate change):
A. The UAH LT with a trend of 0.14k/decade, or
B. The RSS LT with a trend of 0.216k/decade?
Note that humanity isn’t living in the same world as that during the Holocene Optimum Period. For example, there’s evidence that the Sahara wasn’t a desert back then as the ice sheets melted and the sea-level continued to rise some 125 meters after LGM.
E. Swanson, that is my point:
A. The UAH LT with a trend of 0.14k/decade, or
B. The RSS LT with a trend of 0.216k/decade?
There is a 34% difference between those numbers, the consequence of enormous over a geological time scale.
Those two methods are supposedly the most accurate measurements that we have, and you get wildly different estimates.
How can anyone use these kinds of numbers to base public policy upon?
Either way, my bet is that those numbers fall within 2 standard deviations of any data set anyway, so it is hard to even claim those numbers are meaningful. If I’m not mistaken, those numbers start in 1979, which is hardly a meaningful time frame for such data.
CO2isLife, Surely you understand that your proxy data is less accurate than the satellite data, which represents nearly global coverage. Of course, when asked, you refuse to tell which you think is the best and why you feel that way, even as you noted the large difference. BTW, both products are derived from the same satellite data, using different calculations, which would seem to make a logical choice relatively easy, if one had taken the time to study these approaches.
E. Swanson, the difference between A and B is mainly the altitude weighting, isn’t it? Then area masking? What else?
Svante wrote:
UAH combines data from three channels, whereas RSS uses only one, similar to the earlier UAH v5, AIUI, perhaps that’s what you mean by “altitude weighting”. RSS excludes data from poleward of 70S and from areas of high mountains while UAH covers latitude from 82.5N to 82.5S in their LT product. Both must combine the data from some 13 satellites, each of which has different orbital histories, such as Local Equator Crossing Time (LECT) and satellite orbital decay. Each process the data from the MSU and AMSU instruments differently, the higher resolution AMSU having about 4 times the scan “footprints” of the MSU. The calibration of the “warm target” is different as well, including some adjustment is made for the effect of the change in body temperature around the orbits.
There’s probably more involved that I can’t remember.
Thanks!
CO2isLife said: Either way, my bet is that those numbers fall within 2 standard deviations of any data set anyway
I used the Alley ice core dataset you linked to above. The warming rate UAH shows is outside the 2 sigma envelope from the Holocene.
“Transparent, Open-Source and open for Public Peer Review and Cross-Examination. ”
It is. You can download all of it. Nowadays everything published has Supplementary material including the code.
Public debate is usually unproductive. We put forward data and you put forward this:-
” Right now you have a bunch of financially and professionally vested individuals creating temperature reconstruction. If CO2 isnt the cause, they lose all funding and promotions. That isnt science, that is a fraud. “
Get Michael Mann to publish the Hockeystick data and processes, the “Nature Trick” and way to “Hide the Decline.”
Steve McIntyre totally disagrees with your claim that everything is open to the public. Where is Lonnie Thompson’s work? I’ve seen countless charts all different representing the same time period of temperatures. Where is the methodology for the NASA data adjustments that all favor warming? Where is all this data? Why isn’t there one widely accepted Temperature Reconstruction? WHy is NASA allowed to hire an activist, and grant him the power to make all the decisions?
See what I mean. No point wasting further effort debating science with a conspiracy theorist.
Entropic Man, I knew you would run from the transparency argument. The last thing I would want is someone looking at my work if I was a Climate Scientist. Honest people always argue for more tranparency.
EM,
Debating science? Generally, anything which has * science * in its name, is not science.
You know, like political science, social science, climate science . . .
I guess that having failed in your attempt to convert another to your religious views, you declare him to be not worthy of your efforts.
Im still waiting for a scientific description of the GHE – you know, the one that underlies your religion. Dont like me referring to your passion as a religion? Never ending prophecies of doom, threats of horrible diseases, imprisonment or even death, for heretics who dare to challenge the holy word.
You probably call the average of weather science.
I dont. Maybe I am a conspiracy of one, do you think?
MBH98 data, methods, and source code are available here.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/MANNETAL98/mbh98.html
NASA’s data, methods, and source code are available here.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
“Why isnt there one widely accepted Temperature Reconstruction?”
Multiple groups with different methods working on it. Good science in action.
More problematic, why there isnt one widely accepted Lower Troposphere Temperature record of the last 40 y?
CO2isLife
You wrote a strange reply to my comment dated December 28, 2020 at 5:42 PM. Today, I have some idle time for a reaction.
It seems you are excellent in permanently transforming arguments of others into a ‘Thanks for making my point’.
***
A. 1) This Chart clearly shows record highs not increasing. Thanks for making my point Bindidon.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017-550413.jpg
2) The chart that you made seems to even make my point better. Once again Bindidon, thanks for proving me right and you wrong.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view ”
*
Sorry: you were wrong here: simply because you pretended in the comment dated December 26, 2020 at 8:42 AM, that one I replied to:
” If you look to see if there is a trend in high temperatures you will see that record high temperatures are actually FALLING.
How can you have global warming if the record high temperatures arent increasing? ”
While it is absolutely clear that with this sentence, you meant the Globe as a whole, charts (1) and (2) of my comment were restricted to the US:
– Chart (1) was made by J. Christy on the base of the USHCN data set, thus restricted to US stations;
– Chart (2) was mine, based of the worldwide GHCN daily data set, BUT restricted to US stations as well, as it was thought as a proof that my starting point was sufficiently similar to Mr Christy’s chart.
The US represent about 6 % of the Globe’s land surface; thus, charts (1) and (2) are not at all representative.
You therefore either did not understand that point, or intentionally kept it silent.
***
B. 3) Not sure what you are trying to show here, but over time, as you know, stations grew from largely the US, to the US and Europe, and then to US, Europe, Asia and S Hemisphere. Not sure you can gather much from this chart. If you add tropical stations to the population, you will get warming temperatures. Did you think of that? Nope, didnt think so. Nice try.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UcLK3usYjICeHeAsAb5ivcusW0Y0EdNe/view
*
What you write here hardly could be more evident to persons who, unlike you, process since years worldwide data sets dealing with temperature, sea ice, snow cover, sea levels etc.
If you had real experience
– you would have realized long ago that a latitudinal distribution of such data gives, when looking at the Tropics vs. the Globe, similar ratios for the number of measurements and the number of latitude bands,
and hence
– you would have spared yourself appearing as unnecessary condescending.
Sorry: here too, you are wrong. The only thing what chart (3) tells us is that it is bare nonsense to construct a chart originating from a mix of
– 20,000 stations located within 6 % of the Globe’s land surface
with
– 20,000 stations located within 94 % of the Globe’s land surface.
***
C. ” 4) Bindidon, Im not sure grasp the concepts here. You need to group the stations based upon Lattitude. Adding tropical stations over time will give you the chart you just produced, but it has nothing to do with CO2, just a complete ignorance of the data that you are dealing with and the question that is being asked and how to properly answer it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
*
Amazing!
Firstly, see (B) again concerning the Tropics.
Secondly, your lack of experience is definitely visible when you write “Im not sure [to] grasp the concepts here”.
When I happen not to grasp a concept, I usually avoid commenting like you did.
At WUWT, the concept of ‘gridding’ aka ‘area weighting’ which was denigrated all the time as fraudulent ‘data wrangling’, is now understood; read there the recent guest posts by Andy May, and try to understand why he now is convinced of the concept’s usefulness.
I repeat my explanation: adding a few stations in the Tropics area (total: 3,826, compared with 19,322 in the US!) can BY NO MEANS be the reason for chart (4) looking so very different from chart (3).
I)t is due the the simple fact that the gridding lets us move
– from a nonsensical comparison of about 20,000 US stations with about 20,000 non-US stations
– to a meaningful comparison of about 200 2.5 degree grid cells in the US with about 2,000 grid cells in the non-US areas.
***
D. D. I finish this boring, but imho necessary discussion about gridding – solely due to your self overestimation and lack of experience – with a little hint:
(5) https://tinyurl.com/y4yq8ysl — (wow! Again this ‘d c’ syndrome…)
As you can see: comparing graph (5) with graph (1) shows that when gridding the Globe gives to cells with few stations the same power as to those with many ones, the same of course applies to the inside of the US.
This is the reason why while the number of 35 C plus maxima per year per station keeps constant in chart (1), it now decreases in chart (5).
No wonder: when averaging stations directly, US grid cells with over 200 stations no only distort the global average, but also that of the US themselves.
***
E. For persons generating anomalies as departures from the mean of reference periods, it is evident that Mr Christy’s approach using absolute maxima is not the really correct approach, even if it would be extended by minima considerations.
That should in fact be replaced by a stat based on when stations have maximal / minimal departures from their mean wrt a common reference period.
Simply because if you have a station with anomalies moving from -20 C up to 10 C or conversely from 35 C to 5 C, this won’t be made visible by an evaluation a la Christy.
==> What about YOU doing that job, hmmmh???
***
F. ” My real forte is a nose for sniffing out fraud, so lets see how I did.
Aha. So, you have a PhD? Hmmmh. I’m terribly impressed.
But I’m pretty sure that you soon will find some new pseudoarguments proving that ‘I made your point’.
No problem for me…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you spend a whole lot of time and effort making my point. You keep pointing out that this data set says this and that data set says that. All are wildly different, yet all were exposed to identical CO2 back radiation. How can a constant cause a differential? That is the concept you seem to fail to grasp? CO2 isn’t different for any of the charts you produce, yet they are all wildly different. CO2 can’t cause the wild differences between each chart that you post because CO2 is identical. That is the point. You wildly different charts are an experiment to identify climate change that is real, but can’t be due to CO2. Don’t you understand the meaning of different charts and constant CO2?
CO2isLife
” Bindidon, you spend a whole lot of time and effort making my point. ”
*
Wrong! You made ZERO DOT ZERO point here, and you perfectly know that.
The truth namely is that I successfully contradicted your ridiculous claim:
” If you look to see if there is a trend in high temperatures you will see that record high temperatures are actually FALLING.
How can you have global warming if the record high temperatures aren’t increasing? ”
*
I clearly see that when keeping on the temperatures, you fail in scientifically AND technically contradicting what I wrote in my last two comments.
*
Stop trying to escape out of your own failure with your pseudoknowledge concerning CO2 effects (all your comments in this thread prove us that you know exactly as much about CO2 as I do, namely NOTHING).
I have already told you that I am by no means interested in discussing this CO2 point with people like you, trying to push up as big specialists.
*
My reaction to your endless, prepubescent-looking trials to keep the winner everywhere is very simple: I’ll stop replying to your comments, especially to your replies to my comments.
Feel free to play your egocentric ‘You made my point’ game with other people.
J.-P. D.
Dr. Spencer has a simple Climate Model:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Simple-climate-model-v1.0-50yrs.xls
Reviewing it, there is only 1 factor being considered, that being CO2. The functions include natural log, random variable and sin. Personally, I doubt a natural process would follow that kind of a model. The natural phenomenon usually has a logical connection to the underlying physics.
Under an Open Source Climate Model, people would publish their models and welcome constructive feedback.
Regarding Dr. SPencers I would say:
1) It is way too dependent upon CO2.
2) Mathematics may fit the curve, but do they pass the stink test?
3) What is needed is a δTemperature = δW/M^2, which would be standardized, and not tied to CO2, a W/M^2 translates into a certain change in temperature. That way, you can back out the contribution of CO2 because we know the W/M^2 of CO2. The residual becomes the Natural Cause, which will dwarf the CO2 impact. How do I know? Simply look at a desert. There has been no change in 140 years in some Deserts, and CO2 has increased from 270 to 410. Deserts prove that δTemperature = δW/M^2 is very very very small.
Those should read ΔTemperature = ΔW/M^2, not δTemperature = δW/M^2
Problems with the simple climate model:
1) Climate is multivariable, most single variable
2) Look at the temperature chart, it is highly variable, CO2 isn’t. You can’t model a variable with a relative constant. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
3) CO2 1980 = 338
CO2 1990 = 353 Δ15PPM Δ0.22W/M^2 -0.02C&Degree;
CO2 2000 = 368 Δ15PPM Δ0.19W/M^2 -0.17C&Degree;
CO2 2010 = 388 Δ20PPM Δ0.25W/M^2 0.77C&Degree;
CO2 2020 = 413 Δ25PPM Δ0.31W/M^2 0.06C&Degree;
There is no way CO2 can cause those temperature changes. W/M^2 increases in each period in a near linear manner, whereas temperature increases and decreases in a near-random manner.
To improve this model, one should first walk before they run. Identify the contribution of CO2 on temperature by defining the ΔW/M^2 and ΔC&Degree;. That way you can identify the contribution for CO2 to the ΔW/M^2 and ΔC&Degree;
That is then your 1 variable parameters. Then start adding in other variable to explain the “error” or “residual” of the model. You can use SAS or the Regression Function in the Data/Data Analysis Tab of Excel.
Multi-Variable Linear Regression was developed for the Social Sciences, and the people in the Econometrics Department would surely love to work with you on this project. Take them data sets of variable that you believe would impact temperature and ask them to run a process called “Step-Wise.” They will be able to curve-fit you what best model given the variable that you provide. I would use that as a starting point. I assure you, if you give this data to a computer, it will throw out CO2 as a significant variable every time. CO2 simply isn’t a significant contributor to warming. Desert locations prove that.
CO2 1980 = 338
CO2 1990 = 353 Δ15PPM Δ0.22W/M^2 -0.02C&Deg;
CO2 2000 = 368 Δ15PPM Δ0.19W/M^2 -0.17C&Deg;
CO2 2010 = 388 Δ20PPM Δ0.25W/M^2 0.77C&Deg;
CO2 2020 = 413 Δ25PPM Δ0.31W/M^2 0.06C&Deg;
CO2 1980 = 338
CO2 1990 = 353 Δ15PPM Δ0.22W/M^2 -0.02C°
CO2 2000 = 368 Δ15PPM Δ0.19W/M^2 -0.17C°
CO2 2010 = 388 Δ20PPM Δ0.25W/M^2 0.77C°
CO2 2020 = 413 Δ25PPM Δ0.31W/M^2 0.06C°
Building the needed data sets for a Robust Climate Model:
1) Use the Desert Locations to define the ΔCO2 PPM ΔW/M^2 ΔC
2) Because CO2 back radiation is constant for a given day, the difference between The Low Temp and the High Temp of the Day is warming due to factors other than CO2 (Warming represents heat added to the system, not slowed from escaping)
3) Total warming for a day would represent the contribution of incoming solar radiation and convection from another area. Cold Fronts would result in cooling, even if you have a sunny day.
4) Water vapor would also play a factor in the temperature, but wouldn’t likely result in increasing the high temperature of the day, so may actually be irrelevant like CO2.
That is how I would build the model. The ΔT from high to low would represent the solar radiation and convection contribution, and then the ΔCO2 PPM ΔW/M^2 ΔC determined from the deserts would be a second variable.
That way your model would be ΔT = f Δ(Solar, Convection, and CO2)
Regarding #2…the temperature and thus description using “warming” or “cooling” are in reference to the mean whether it is daily, monthly, yearly, etc. For example, if the high dropped by 1C while the low increased by 2C then the change in the mean temperature is dT = (dH + dL) / 2 = 0.5C. Here the mean temperature increased thus we say “warming” has occurred. Also, take another look at the first law of thermodynamics. It says dU = Q – W or written in another form dE = Ein – Eout. In other words energy accumulates in a system where Ein remains constant but Eout decreases. How much the system warms in response to the dE is determined by how the system stores the energy and its specific heat capacity. And like all thermal barriers they work not be increasing the Ein, but by restricting the Eout.
Regarding #3…don’t forget about OLR, adiabatic processes, diabatic processes, etc.
Regarding #4…it seems as though you may be severely underestimating how important water vapor is in modulating daily high and low temperatures.
bdgwx says: seems as though you may be severely underestimating how important water vapor is in modulating daily high and low temperatures.
CO2isLife Says: Multicollinearity, the impact of H2O is already baked into the temperature variation. Because H2O is a variable, its effect is already reflected in the daily temperature. CO2, being more of a constant, would cause a near parallel shift in temperatures. That is the problem I see with all these climate models. Temperature is highly variable, CO2 isn’t. CO2 will cause a parallel shift or slight marginally decreasing slope, but it won’t cause variability.
CO2’s impact on temperatures should look like this.
https://i0.wp.com/theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/CO2-Forcing1.png
Once you get beyond 300ppm, the impact of CO2 on temperatures rapidly decreases.
BTW, one obvious flaw in the model is that it uses a linear increase in W/M^2 for an increase in CO2, the physics don’t support that. The impact of CO2 shows a log decay that has to be reflected in the model if it is going to be accurate.
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/logarithmic-co2-140-to-1120-x.png
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Temperature-dependence.png
b,
You are just being ridiculous, with your energy in = energy out!
Consider a stone on the ground. If energy in equaled energy out, the temperature of the stone would not change. But it does – either warming or cooling at all times, except for maximum and minimum inflection points.
In fact, the Earths surface is no longer above 1000 C, and liquid and frozen water can be found on the surface. Obviously, energy out exceeded energy in, otherwise the Earth would still be a glowing ball.
But its even worse than you thought! Besides external energy from the Sun, the Earth generated vast amounts of radiogenic heat during the last four and a half billion years! Still generating a fair bit, even after the majority of radioactive isotopes have all but vanished.
Go on, tell me you really meant to say something else. Thats the usual tactic of climate cult members, isnt it?
bdgwx says: “It says dU = Q W or written in another form dE = Ein Eout. I”
Swenson replies: “You are just being ridiculous, with your energy in = energy out!
Am I missing something here, Swenson??? bdgwx said “dE = Ein Eout”, or equivalently, energy in = energy out + dE.
Your whole ‘being ridiculous’ rant seems to be showing that you didn’t read what he wrote. His “dE” is exactly, explicitly the concept you are imagining he did not include. He exactly, explicitly did NOT say “energy in = energy out”.
CO2IL says: CO2 simply isn’t a significant contributor to warming.
Of course not, or we wouldn’t be here, so simple.
Stephen Paul Anderson says:
CO2IL says: CO2 simply isn’t a significant contributor to warming.
Of course not, or we wouldn’t be here, so simple.
CO2isLife Says: Stephen, not sure of the meaning of your comment. My comment was directed at the current level of CO2 and the marginal impact of W/M^2 with an increase. No one denies that CO2 has an impact, especially at its lower concentrations. Using MODTRAN it is easy to show that CO2 increasing from 0.00 PPM to 270 PPM (Pre-Industrial) adds 29.3 W/M^2 of back radiation. Changing it from 270 PPM to 410 PPM adds only 2.01 W/M^2. The other problem is that is you add water vapor and clouds the W/M^2 changes by 28.67. Clearly if you don’t have accurate data for Water Vapor, your model will never ever ever be accurate. It is simply the dominant factor by far. That being said, I did a little research. To make my point about the relative contributions and using the Deserts as a control, if you set the Water Vapor to 0.00 for a desert, and then add water vapor, it adds 46.79 W/M^2 dwarfing anything CO2 adds.
” using the Deserts as a control”
Very bad control, since deserts are not isolated from the rest of the world. In particular the air in many deserts came from the tropics, via the Earths General Circulation.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/atmospheric-circulation.jpg
I meant if CO2 were a significant contributor to warming, it would be positive feedback, and the planet would have warmed to the point there would have been no life, and this would have happened a long time ago.
“the planet would have warmed to the point there would have been no life”
Interesting completely made up theory, Stephen.
Nate, logic is a concept with which you struggle.
nate…”“the planet would have warmed to the point there would have been no life”
Interesting completely made up theory, Stephen.”
That’s exactly what real positive feedback would have done. Fortunately, there is no such thing as positive feedback in the atmosphere for the simple reason there is not amplifier to sustain it.
Failed logic. Positive Feedback, yes, but you are ignoring negative feedback, such the SB equation, which means the GHE warming will not drive Earth to uninhabitable temperatures.
Hence a made-up theory that no one subscribes to.
For those interested in sea ice daily info, here are some charts showing the end of 2020:
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BCEkUrq8b2d_DwZZZRM43rQwMDrWnEdM/view
J.-P. D.
In terms of annual mean 2020 ended at 10.160e6 which breaks the previous record low from 2016.
bdgwx, how many times has the Arctic been “ice free” in the last 5000 years?
A simple question to all persons reading the comments written on this blog.
Are there, in the year 2021, still persons pretending that
– ‘warming’ can only be due to an increase of solar irradiance, itself resulting in an increase of temperature maxima,
and that therefore
– increasing temperature minima (either absolute or wrt the mean of a reference period calculated with annual cycle removal) can only mean ‘less cooling’, but not ‘warming’ ?
That would imho have to be located quite in the near of Flatearthism… Oh Noes.
J.-P. D.
JD, what you’re faced with is that your “humble” opinion doesn’t matter because you have chosen to pervert reality.
binny…”Are there, in the year 2021, still persons pretending that
warming can only be due to an increase of solar irradiance, itself resulting in an increase of temperature maxima,…
Do you have any scientific evidence that what you state is not the case? The is no scientific evidence to prove that GHGs have anything to do with warming.
The Earth’s climate is dynamic and heat can be stored and transferred in oscillations to vary the average temperature. As Tsonis pointed out, when the oscillations are in phase, the planet’s average temperature rises and when they are not aligned, the average temperature drops.
The current highs in the average follow a major El Nino in 2016. Why it remains high is unknown although I suspect NOAA has something to do with it. I think they have found a way to fudge the satellite temperatures.
Are Britain, France and Spain ready for a circulation from the Northeast? A lot of additional energy will be needed for heating.
We need more solar energy as the interglacial period is coming to an end.
https://i.ibb.co/gPJvqwk/onlinequery.gif
Fiction
How to read a chart and apply it to modeling:
Take a look at this chart. It highlights the problems that all the climate models face.
Link wont post
Challenges if modeling the climate using this kind of data:
1) Ocean and Land Temperatrues are highly correlated until 1975
2) Ocean and Land Temperatrues suddenly diverge sharply post 1975, CO2 can’t cause that divergence.
3) The ΔT for Sea between 1905 and 1940 is 0.5C&Deg; ΔCO2 is 20 PPM ΔW/M^2 = 1.16, the ΔT for Sea between 1975 and 2015 is 0.52C&Deg; ΔCO2 is 75 PPM ΔW/M^2 = 1.00
4) Atmospheric temperatures have an increasing slope, yet the W/M^2 aren’t increasing at an increasing rate, even though the CO2 is using a log scale for the right Y Axis.
5) CO2 should not be the Left Y-Axis, W/M^2 should be. CO2 doesn’t cause warming, the thermalization of LWIR of 15 microns does.
6) CO2 increased dramatically between 1930 and 1970, yet temperatures remained flat
7) Why did the Land and Sea values suddenly diverge in 1975? Did the molecular physics change? Or was the data “adjusted?” What explains the difference?
co2…”It highlights the problems that all the climate models face”.
Two other problems. Models use a positive feedback which does not exist. Without it they essentially have no significant warming. Two. Models have created a warming effect for CO2 which they pulled out of a hat.
Look at Figure 7
https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
One More Note. Go to Modtran and enter 270 PPM for CO2, and change the water vapor to 0.00. Make this a desert location. Save that run to the background. Then run it for 410 PPM. What do you get? The contribution of CO2 to the W/M^2 back-radiation. What is it? 2.83 W/M^2. Add back in the H20 (use 1.0) and you get 93.48. The variability caused by H2O makes CO2’s contribution totally irrelevant, H2O is 33x more potent. CO2 could double or triple and wouldn’t even start to put a dent in the contribution of H2O.
That is the problem Climate Science faces if it doesn’t accurately account for water vapor. The models will never ever ever be even close to being accurate. NOt accounting for H2O is like doing a weight-loss study without measuring exercise and caloric intake.
Why do you keep posting nonsense?
The desert does not have 0 water vapor. Non deserts do not have water vapor of 1.
Deserts are not isolated from the rest of the world.
Non desert locations have more latent heat content (think New Orleans), that more than compensates for lower sensible heat (temperature).
Nate Says: The desert does not have 0 water vapor. Non deserts do not have water vapor of 1.
Nate, do you not understand differential equations and modeling? OK, sure there isn’t 0.00, but there is a huge difference between a desert and a rain forest. That difference is what you need to tease of the impact of δT=f&delts;CO2. BTW, you do understand that when real scientists are saying Δ that Delta means change. Do you think they are speaking with Deltas by accident? Or what meaning to you think Delta has?
Guess what, we may have the answer to the above question. The atmosphere itself isolates the GHGs through condensation and other mechanisms. By the time you get to 25km the only GHGs that exist in the atmosphere are O3 and CO2. Unfortunatly they make up a very small % and we can’t create a 50/50 mixture. The Ozone layer has 10 ppm O3 and 400 ppm of CO2. Therefore we don’t expect the temperature of the Ozone Layer to be higher than -30°.
Guess what? Atmospheric temperatures stop at -60C°, close to the -80C° at the bottom of the Ozone Layer. Temperatures then start to increase at the bottom of the ozone layer and start warming towards the -30C° expected max. Temperatures reach -30C° right about the Peak O3 of 25km.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/sAyon.png
Ozone increases from 15km to 25km, and then drops from there.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall16/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/ozoneinatmos.png
Temperatures continue to warm beyond 25km even though O3 falls, so clearly something else is causing that warming in that layer.
Bottom line, using the known blackbody temperatures of 9.5 and 15µ LWIR and the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere, the temperature profile of the atmosphere seem consistent with the experiment detailed above.
Everyone, please pass on the above-detailed experiment/question to your Physics/Chemistry and/or Engeneering. If in fact a 50/50 mix of CO2 and O3 only warms when only 9.5 and 15µ LWIR are applied. If that gas mixture will only warm to -30C° the AGW Theory is toast.
As the country reopens for business enjoy a limited time offer. Receive a $500 sign-on bonus with Harbortouch’s FREE POS system.
Click http://www.500signon.com for more info.
To unsubscribe from future marketing messages reply STOP and include your web address to [email protected]
I wonder if changes in the sun or changes in space dust have anything to do with the tempature on earth.na could not passage be.
Nuestro sistema inmunitario emplea el tiempo de sueo para regenerarse, lo que le permite luchar con eficacia contra contra las toxinas y los gmenes que de forma continua nos amenazan. Con un sistema inmunitario dbil tenemos muchas menos posibilidades de superar con xito las infecciones.
pg slot pg wallet ทรูมันนี่ วอลเล็ทเป็นแอปพลิเคชัน ที่ให้บริการที่หลากหลาย ครอบคลุมทุกการใช้แรงงาน สล็อต สามารถใช้จ่ายแทนเงินสดได้ตามร้านค้าชั้นแนวหน้าทั่วๆไป และสนุกสนานกับเกมสล็อตออนไลน์
Casinos that can make money continuously and also have games to choose from บาคาร่าทดลอง All bets can be played in one place. Don’t waste time migrating in making money online
Top online games that can make a lot of money for players that are in demand by players pgslot It is the development of online games to make money online that is becoming very popular
this blog; this webpage พนันออนไลน์ carries awesome and actually fine stuff in favor of readers.
สำหรับผู้เล่นที่ต้องการเล่นเกมได้เงินทุกวันต้องเป็นผู้เล่นที่มีประสบการณ์และมีความชำนาญกับเกมสล็อตเป็ออนไลน์อย่างดีพูดง่ายๆก็คือเป็นเกมที่ผู้เล่นถนัดมากที่สุด spinix สล็อต ที่รู้จักรูปแบบของเกมเป็นอย่างดี และทุกสัญลักษณ์ที่ให้ผลตอบแทนไม่เท่ากันส่วนใหญ่ในตัวเกมจะมีรูปสัญลักษณ์
Χρειάζεστε μια ελληνική μετάφραση του αγγλικού κειμένου;