Home/BlogCoolest tropics since June, 2012 at -0.12 deg. C.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2018 was +0.26 deg. C, down from the December, 2017 value of +0.41 deg. C:
Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
Note that La Nina cooling in the tropics has finally penetrated the troposphere, with a -0.12 deg. C departure from average. The last time the tropics were cooler than this was June, 2012 (-0.15 deg. C). Out of the 470 month satellite record, the 0.38 deg. C one-month drop in January tropical temperatures was tied for the 3rd largest, beaten only by October 1991 (0.51 deg. C drop) and August, 2014 (0.41 deg. C drop).
The last time the Southern Hemisphere was this cool (+0.06 deg. C) was July, 2015 (+0.04 deg. C).
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through January 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for January, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Looks like the El Nino warming is finally over and we are back to where we can start doing some comparisons.
The AMO influence in the NH is still obvious. Once we get to June and that influence is minimal we will have the opportunity to see how much the planet has warmed.
El Nino finished 20 months ago. Now you want to wait until the La Nina has taken full effect to do a comparison.
Des, it’s called “heat transfer”.
It takes time.
Be patient.
Des, while the El Nino is over the effects of the El Nino did not end. Even NOAA admitted it. I get a kick out of the denial from those who want to believe there is a problem. The La Nina itself is weak and we are just starting to feel it’s influence.
You can’t accept that maybe there’s something else going on. The La Nina already appears to be weakening and by the summer there’s a good chance we won’t be feeling any effect from it. That would make it a perfect time for a comparison.
“Even NOAA admitted it.”
Link please.
+ 1
Link please.
A bit of googling brings this from NOAA during the last el Nino:
El Nino-related impacts have been occurring around the globe for months already, and will continue for several months after the warmest temperatures occur in the tropical Pacific Ocean. For example, during the 1997-98 El Nino, the Nino3.4 Index peaked at 2.33C in November (using ERSSTv4 data, the official dataset for measuring El Nino), and the most substantial U.S. effects occurred through the early spring of 1998.
According to NOAA, the lag from ENSO events is several months. that accords with what I’ve read elsewhere.
So, I’d be keen to see that link to NOAA saying something different.
By summer we can check Salvatore’s prediction. UAH global temperature anomalies at or below the 30-year UAH baseline.
It won’t likely be there by summer, but there is likely to be sustained cooling into the next decade.
Care to make a slightly more solid prediction?
Here’s mine. Each ten year average will be warmer than the last, barring some cataclysmic cooling event like a superdooper volcanic eruption.
there is likely to be sustained cooling into the next decade.
If 2016 is the start date, I think it’s possible there could be a flat or negative trend for a decade or so, just as there was after the 1998 super el Nino.
But that would mainly be the result of picking the start year with a super el Nino.
If the next 10 years are colder than the last, then we may have something approaching an actual cooling trend. If the next 2 decades were consecutively cooler than the last, then I’d consider that a real challenge to the notion that increased CO2 warms the planet’s surface.
But I expect the opposite as long as CO2 keeps increasing in the atmos, and there is no cataclysmic superdooper volcanic eruption to cause cooling over many years.
barry, I make the prediction that even if the planet moves into a major cooling trend, you will claim it was caused by CO2.
In fact, you probably already have a stack of “papers” and links that you can run to if temperatures plunge.
(I just know pseudoscience too well.)
I can already tell you that that prediction isn’t going to work out if global temps go down for a few decades. I certainly wouldn’t be putting that on CO2, and there is no stack of papers lined up to make such an argument.
But never mind me, what is your prediction for global temps over the next 10 and the next 20 years?
So you would change your ideas only after a few decades of evidence that goes in the exact opposite direction of your theory? I interpret your statement to mean that CO2 will warm the planet in a chatastrophic way (that is, by more than 2-3 degrees C). Well, then you should not be surprised that people who do not have such a strong prior and who also think that temperature fluctuates up and down naturally will not be convinced of your theory before we don’t have many more decades of evidence for the chatastrophic warming szenario.
So you would change your ideas only after a few decades of evidence that goes in the exact opposite direction of your theory?
“MY” theory? How personal.
I would at least modify my views, if not change them.
I interpret your statement to mean that CO2 will warm the planet in a chatastrophic way
Can you explain how you arrived at this interpretation? I’m curious.
barry says:
“If the next 2 decades were consecutively cooler than the last, then Id consider that a real challenge to the notion that increased CO2 warms the planets surface.”
It doesn’t matter where the temperature is going, you need to know why. There are about 20 factors to consider, most of them are cyclic, but CO2 forcing builds up long term as long as we add it.
When the cyclic factors turn around CO2 comes back with a vengeance.
The CO2 forcing has been measured, the challenge would be if the measurements did not add up.
There is a very large bet on the table currently for your proposition for each decade. Might I suggest you take it up.
I can put up $1000 based on the stipulations above.
I’ve offered bets here many times. No takers.
Svante @ February 3, 2018 at 2:19 AM
“…but CO2 forcing builds up long term as long as we add it.”
Doesn’t.
Try the slugulator with 1000 Gt and a million years.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/slugulator/
Despite contradicting him five posts up, I’m willing to add to barry’s bet.
It would have to be managed by someone I trust though. Someone like … barry.
I think GHG emissions will decline, but there should be enough in the pipeline to make this a safe bet.
Emissions may decline, but accumulation will continue.
As soon as temperatures start to decline, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 will start to decline.
Des, You guys crack me up. There are only like 5 to 10 high resolution records of el nino in satellite data but you claim to have confidence that this is not still el nino? Statistically, this entire warm 2016 2017 phase could easily be one giant el nino respnse. It is a typically a couplet and now we are in the associated la nina phase. We are writing the book as we go and no where near knowing (statistically) what the variability is or how it interacts with PDO. What we do know is they come in a wide range of duration, amplitude, and frequency. I said and stick by this looks like a typical energy wavelet with a peak and post cursor. Like a ringing bell.
There are ENSO monitoring groups more qualified than anyone here that make these calls. I think the smart people here go with them rather than randoms on blogs with obvious agendas.
Can you think of a reason as to why skeptics want to believe the 2016 Nino lasted to the end of 2017? I think it’s pretty obvious – ABC.
Barry,
I do my own analysis (and have looked at this closely and statistically), and the point is the El Nino relationship between Oceanic and L trop temperature response are poorly understood. Do u have anything empitical to contribute? Or just a belief El Nino was not significant for lower trop temp in 2017?
Empirical
I can offer links to the monitoring groups, to NOAA saying global response lags ENSO by several months. Will that do? Or do I have to pretend I’m more qualified than the people who study this for a living?
Barry, I would appreciate the link to make your point that the sustained high temperatures in L Trop of 2017 were not El Nino related. I honestly do appreciate the humility but also point out “doing this for a living” is a potential bias bc if there is no catastrophic problem there are less resources (ie jobs and raises). I am convinced such bias almost certainly exists in some isolated cases (role of sun in climate models) based on empirical research. So I would encourage anyone with data processing training (be it a scientist or engineer) to do their own work and evaluate the data.
“doing this for a living” is a potential bias bc if there is no catastrophic problem there are less resources (ie jobs and raises).
This implies that it might be better to rely on people who do it for a hobby.
ENSO is not considered a climate forcing, so there’s no need to worry about exaggeration.
Link to NOAA saying that global effects lag ENSO by several months.
El Nino-related impacts have been occurring around the globe for months already, and will continue for several months after the warmest temperatures occur in the tropical Pacific Ocean. For example, during the 1997-98 El Nino, the Nino3.4 Index peaked at 2.33C in November (using ERSSTv4 data, the official dataset for measuring El Nino), and the most substantial U.S. effects occurred through the early spring of 1998.
https://tinyurl.com/yamwcwxb
I generally get my info from these sites:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
The most recent and more detailed NOAA forecast can be found here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
I also follow the MEI pages, but they don’t, as far as I am aware, offer a forecast.
So I would encourage anyone with data processing training (be it a scientist or engineer) to do their own work and evaluate the data.
Sounds like a good idea. It’s going to be difficult to separate the 2016 el Nino influences from other influences through 2017. Pattern-matching wouldn’t be enough without a physical basis.
If, as you said, lingering after-impacts of the 2016 el Nino were still playing out throughout 2017, what would be your prediction for global temps for the next neutral period? Do we return to the same temperature as the last ENSO-neutral period?
I think it’s an unfair question, as ENSO is not the only thing affecting short-term global temps. But if I have the correct impression – that you consider ENSO to be the primary influence, and all others (for interannual fluctuations) to be insignificant – then you may not consider the question unfair.
Barry,
“what would be your prediction for global temps for the next neutral period? Do we return to the same temperature as the last ENSO-neutral period?”
This is my point we have so few data available that it is difficult to make a good case with statistics. There are not enough el ninos in high confidence data to do good enough statistics to say this el nino is like that analogy. If we dont see a significant la nina with cooling for several months, then I would be surprised- most big ones have the la nina cooling. After that we return to neutral, I would imagine likely more global warming at a similar rate of about 0 .15C (plus or minus .1C) a decade. If the sun’s inactivity pulls down temperature now, it would surprise me. There seems to be about a 20 yr lag between solar activity and any climate proxy. So I would think it will be about 2025 to 2030 until the climate “lag” clears and any solar influence is felt- so next solar cycle minimum. So as an analogy Earth is in the early afternoon where diurnal radiation is decreasing, but temperature keeps going up as a lag. (Especially because the solar max from 1950 to 2005 was so strong and protracted). The frightening thing is short term solar cooling could mask the long term global warming. This is why cosmic rays and stronger sun scenarios should be included in low case climate models.
we have so few data available that it is difficult to make a good case with statistics.
I tend to agree. And yet you wrote this:
I said and stick by this looks like a typical energy wavelet with a peak and post cursor. Like a ringing bell.
What I originally queried was why you thought the le Nino effects of 2016 would persist all the way through 2017. I googled further and discovered that some monitors say that el Nino affects can last up to a year. The 2016 Nino finished in May/June of 2016 (ONI/MEI). This was followed by la Nina conditions, and by the ONI metric of NOAA, a full la Nina in the final months of 2016.
That suggests to me that 2016 el Nino efects, if they did persist through 2017, would have had a minimal to insignificant effect on 2017, and even more so for temps in late 2017.
There seems to be about a 20 yr lag between solar activity and any climate proxy.
Do you have a reference for this? And why would we want to consider proxies when we have temperature records for the global surface that are fairly good for the last 60-70 years?
Barry just getting back to this. There is a general trend of L. Trop temp lagging Nino 3.4 El Nino by about 6 months. So a 2016 El Nino in Pacific could easily persist until mid 2017 (duration of el nino plus lag) in L trop. 2016 2017 pacific was extreme we didnt get an equivalent L trop response. So my thought was rather than a distinct peak the energy was broader and the post cursor was still a response to the nino 3.4 peak. If this la nina persists then I think that is most likely explanation. We shall see. I owe u a paper. Prob is the solar climate lag is typically burried in method text so I have to read each paper to find it.
“El Nino finished 20 months ago.” Actually, El Nino conditions were still present last year. This El Nino episode certainly had some effect during the year, and it is totally dishonest for this not to be mentioned in the official reports.
The threshold for an El Nino is 0.500 on the MEI scale. In April/May it peaked at 1.455: esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
The raised Sea Surface Temperatures can also be clearly seen in the first half of the year – See page 3 here: cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf
Plus there are multi month lags that science doesnt understand (or at least I have not read about and I would love to get some citations here). The 1997 98 mega El Nino was about 4 months lagging behind the Nino 3.4 peak, whereas the 2010 el nino was nearly coeval with much less lag.
La Nina *conditions* were also present last year by some metrics. NOAA even recorded a full la Nina based on their metric, which is strictly temperature based.
A bump above threshhold for a month or two is not an ENSO event. MEI is based on 6 variables, two of which are temperatures-based.
“El Nino finished 20 months ago” could only be true if there were absolutely no El Nino, not even a bump.
Besides, it was three months – mid-March to mid-June – where the MEI was above 0.500: https://esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
The MEI values are not the same as ONI (NINO3.4 SSTs). If I remember correctly, 1.0 is Nino threshold for that MEI table, and -1.0 is the Nina threshold.
But it’s a while since I googled to find an unambiguous reference to how the values in that table relate to Nino/Nina, so I could be wrong. Do you have a clear reference?
MEI have an alternative table that ranks the index thus:
“1-21 denote strong to weak La Nina conditions…
48-68 denote weak to strong El Nino conditions…
If one uses the quintile definition for (moderate or stronger) ENSO events, MEI ranks from 1-14 would denote La Nina, while 55-68 would denote El Nino.”
‘Neutral conditions’, then, are denoted between 22-47
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/rank.html
Neutral conditions were in effect from 2016 Jun/Jul to 2017 Feb/Mar.
This was followed by Nino conditions Mar/Apr to May/Jun in 2017.
Neutral conditions followed, with weak la Nina conditions from Aug/Sep to Sep/Oct, neutral for Oct/Nov, and weak la Nina again for Nov/Dec.
Whether and how much effect these fluctuations had on global temps is another matter. I see no reason to think there is a strong link between short-term ‘events’, as opposed to long-lived ENSO conditions that reach the full-blown level after several months.
The CO2 lunacy has to end, there is empirical evidence that it doesn’t affect temperature greatly we just have to leave Earth to see it. Exhibit A is Venus which is a boiling inferno of over 900 degrees it’s atmosphere is significantly more dense than Earth’s and it’s atmosphere is 95% CO2. Exhibit B is Mars which is a frozen iceball, yet it’s atmospheric composition is also 95% CO2. The difference here folks is atmospheric pressure, Mars has very little atmosphere and Venus very dense. The two things that govern temperatures on Earth and anywhere else in the whole solar system are.
1. First and foremost the most important thing that regulates planetary temperatures is atmospheric pressure. This is why parts of Jupiter is hotter than the surface of the sun.
2. Solar Activity every planet is exposed to the same solar conditions
That’s pretty much it, atmospheric pressure puts a floor and a cap on just how high and how low temperatures can go. Unless the atmospheric pressure on Earth changes there will never be a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth physics won’t allow it. CO2 composition means absolutely dick just remember both Venus and Mars are mostly CO2.
Barry,
1. You requested a citation about the 20 yr lag… its a very fair challenge. I can only find this one that shows a 40 year lag to optimize correlation. Need to keep digging for specific paper that dealt with this, but a lag is common in literature:
“For the best correlation of two datasets, the chronology for the DAS record has been shifted older by 40 years and the one for the DA record younger by 47 years. Intensive solar activity (smaller Δ14C, larger ΔSN and ΔTSI) corresponds to a strong AM (smaller Δ18O).” DAS and DA shifted older means isotopes from monsoon lag solar proxy by ~40 years.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
2. The modern instruments do not get the dominant solar cycles of 80, 200, and 300 to 400 years. So they are not long enough. When I speak of solar cycles I refer to the solar min 1900 to 1950 then the prolonged max from 1950 to 2005. Not the high frequency 11yr or 22 yr. So when a person Salvatore, predicts climate response to solar cycles he is forgetting the lag. The oceans store heat as currents. It takes time for such a subtle forcing to occur.
Aaron,
Those aren’t lag times: those are temporal offsets chosen to deal with dating uncertainties, to match peaks and troughs. Which is why one data set is shifted back 40 years, and another forward by 47 years.
Nothing to do with lagged effects, and all to do with with offsetting chronologies on the assessment that they are wrong, to match the wiggles.
Thanks for the report, Roy.
From me too. Your work is much appreciated in europe
+1
+ 1
Thanks!
I do hope this record can continue when you retire, it is much too valuable to be abandoned.
Thanks for the prompt processing, Dr. Roy. Nothing special either way this month, I suspect. Still well above the average for the available timescale, but no sudden jumps.
How do you calculate +0,13C/decade? January 1979 was cold. Must be some kind of average at each end?
0.13C/dec is the linear (straight line) trend using least squares regression for the whole UAH series, not just January. Use the ‘Linest’ feature on Excel, for example, multiplied by 120 months (10 years) to get the per decade figure (=0.13).
TFN
standard least-squares linear trend calculation using all monthly anomalies from Jan. ’79 through Jan. 2018.
I believe it is the average over the full time series.
El Nino spikes and all. !
La Nina dips and all. !
La Nina does not cause dips.
Its it a recharge period.
Do try to learn
Skeptics believe that a la Nina will bring surface temps down. They’ve been waiting for a la Nina to bring back the ‘pause’ from 1998.
I wish skeptics would provide coherent answers to things.
Looks like the La Nina should bring down global temperature anomaly estimates for both surface and TLT over the next few months. The big questions are how much and for how long. If earth is continuing on a slowly rising temperature pattern as we have seen since 1980, then the La Nina should weaken going into the summer as have all of the La Ninas since 1980. However, if the overall global temperature is starting a downward pattern, then the La Nina may strengthen going into the summer as happened with most of the La Ninas during the cooling pattern from 1950 to 1975ish. I suspect the former rather than the latter, but the next 6 months should be telling.
ENSO events are independent of long-term change as far as we know. They do their quasi-periodic thing, like the seasons do their cycles.
barry…”ENSO events are independent of long-term change as far as we know. They do their quasi-periodic thing, like the seasons do their cycles”.
Tsonis has put out papers on that:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/full
They have a more general paper featuring all oscillations but I can’t find it at the moment.
Many people have put out papers on this. Some say that under warming El Ninos will be more prevalent, others say it will be La Ninas, yet others say no change. Basically, no one has any idea.
However, as ENSO events are about temperature GRADIENTS across the tropical Pacific and not absolute temperatures, the original poster was incorrect in his premise.
Yes, Gordon has made the mistake of selectivity. there are plenty of hypotheses on whether or not ENSO timing, amplitude and duration change with a changing global climate, but on this there is no consensus.
Doesn’t prevent people with agendas pretending that there is… by citing a particular paper or author.
One can easily speculate how this happens. A skeptic blog finds a paper that meshes with predilections, promotes it, and dumb-arses believe that this is the one true study.
What dumb-arses don’t do is review the literature on the topic for a decent overview, or look up a review paper that does that for them.
No, single-study syndrome (or selective studies syndrome) is a serious disease among the contrarians.
Doesn’t prevent people with agendas pretending that there is… by citing a particular paper or author.
the people with the agendas are the people who are massaging records and manipulating data. That would be the people who believe in this CAGW garbage. Money, Money, Money.
And your carefully referenced material for this claim is…
El Nio warming ended in late 2016. The lag between the ENSO index and global temperature is only 3-4 months. ENSO exerted an overall cooling effect last year and 2017 was still the third hottest year on record. The current solar cycle is also the weakest in more than a century. Greenhouse gases are the only possible culprit behind the warming trend.
“Greenhouse gases are the only possible culprit behind the warming trend.”
So, apparently you know all of the natural energy flows in and out of the tropospheric climate system are in balance to better than 1 part in 300, and that increasing CO2 is the only imbalance? I’m impressed!
Over the Arctic, the sea-ice cycle has been running well below the 2 sigma range for data during the satellite era.
https://imgur.com/aAm418U
Wouldn’t all that unusually open area of Arctic Ocean appear as a cooling in the MSU/AMSU satellite data, since sea-ice has a larger microwave emissivity than open water?
Dr. Spencer,
Natural energy flows in balance? I don’t think so. Based on measurements of ocean heat content, the earth was absorbing 0.58 watts per square meter more energy from the sun than radiating back out into space as of 2011. Solar cycle 24 is the weakest cycle in more than a century and yet the planet is gaining more energy than its radiating. ENSO and PDO can only redistribute heat within the oceans and between the atmosphere and thus cannot account for global oceanic heat accumulation. Carbon dioxide is the only possible explanation for planetary warming. Earth’s history unambiguously demonstrates that CO2 is the most important factor in long-term climate change. CO2’s warming effects are incontrovertible.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_ha06510a.pdf
“ENSO and PDO can only redistribute heat within the oceans and between the atmosphere and thus cannot account for global oceanic heat accumulation.”
Wrong. Anything that changes the vertical ocean circulation and cloud cover can change the energy balance. You are under the mistaken impression that the climate system is not capable of chaotic variations. Your statement is one of faith, not of science.
First of all, is there empirical evidence that changes in ocean circulation within recent decades are causing changes in global cloud cover? ENSO, PDO, and AMO, show no apparent long-term trend, but temperature and CO2 do. According to your hypothesis, is cloud cover increasing or decreasing? If a decrease in cloud cover were causing global warming, then we would expect warming to be more pronounced during the daytime and summer than at night and winter. Greenhouse warming predicts the opposite and that is just what we observe. Could changes in cloud cover account for the cooling of the stratosphere? CO2 does! Taking into account aerosol cooling and climate inertia, the observed warming is consistent with the radiative forcing from CO2. For your alternative hypothesis to viable, not only it must explain the anomalies that greenhouse warming supposedly doesn’t but it also must account for everything that greenhouse warming does explain.
SE,
You have a minor problem, I would think.
You cant actually define what the GHE is actually supposed to be doing without involving magic somewhere.
This explains why nobody has ever managed to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. You have be able to describe something which doesnt exist, first!
Speculation is not science. Foolish Warmist assertions are not science. Foolish Warmist computer game outputs are not science.
So sad too bad. Correlation and wishful thinking wont create a GHE. Nothing will
Cheers.
“Could changes in cloud cover account for the cooling of the stratosphere?”.
The stratosphere stopped cooling around 1995 and has maintained a relatively steady temperature since.
The theoretic tropical tropospheric ‘hot spot’, the signature of positive water vapour feedback, has not been detected:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/new-evidence-regarding-tropical-water-vapor-feedback-lindzens-iris-effect-and-the-missing-hotspot/
Indeed. It’s funny how the positive PDO phases lead to warming while the negative phases only lead to a ‘pause’. Something is upsetting the balance – I wonder what that might be?
Well said, Roy. We need to be aware too that past shrinkage in Arctic snow & ice may give a kind of ice-albedo drag to any downward trend from low solar activity until it expands again. My 85% prediction is for clear & unambiguous evidence of global cooling, associated with an emerging Grand or Maunder minimum in solar activity, to be recognised within the next 12 years maybe even within the next 5.
Re: “The theoretic tropical tropospheric hot spot, the signature of positive water vapour feedback, has not been detected”
First, the tropospheric hot spot is a sign of the lapse rate feedback, not the water vapor feedback. The lapse rate feedback is a negative feedback, not a positive one.
Second, there’s plenty of evidence of positive water vapor feedback, including in the troposphere. For example:
“Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming”
“An assessment of tropospheric water vapor feedback using radiative kernels”
“An analysis of tropospheric humidity trends from radiosondes”
“Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements”
Third, there’s plenty of evidence of the hot spot (i.e. greater upper tropospheric warming than near-surface warming in the tropics). For instance:
In satellite data:
#1 : “Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends”
#2 : “Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere”
#3 : “Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies”, table 4
#4 : “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”, figure 9B
In radiosonde (weather balloon) data:
#5 : “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends”, figures 2c and 4c
#6 : “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)”, figures 1 and 2
#7 : “New estimates of tropical mean temperature trend profiles from zonal mean historical radiosonde and pilot balloon wind shear observations”, figure 9
#8 : “Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations”, figure 3 and table 1
In re-analyses:
#9 : “Detection and analysis of an amplified warming of the Sahara Desert”, figure 7
#10 : “Westward shift of western North Pacific tropical cyclogenesis”, figure 4b
#11 : “Influence of tropical tropopause layer cooling on Atlantic hurricane activity”, figure 4
#12 : “Estimating low-frequency variability and trends in atmospheric temperature using ERA-Interim”, figure 23 and page 351
Re: “The stratosphere stopped cooling around 1995 and has maintained a relatively steady temperature since.”
You’re leaving pertinent information out.
Lower in the stratosphere, cooling is caused by both increased CO2 and ozone depletion. Ozone levels have partially recovered, in response to the Montreal Protocol. For instance:
“Antarctic ozone loss in 19792010: First sign of ozone recovery”
“Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol”
“Evidence for the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer”
“Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer”
This had led to slowing of lower stratospheric cooling.
However, increased CO2 is predicted to have more of a cooling effect the higher one goes in the stratosphere:
“A hiatus in the stratosphere?”
“Isolating the roles of different forcing agents in global stratospheric temperature changes using model integrations with incrementally added single forcings”
“Relative contribution of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances to temperature trends in the stratosphere: A chemistryclimate model study”
“The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model”, figure 4
“On the distribution of climate change resulting from an increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere”, pages 101 and 102
“Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity”
Consistent with this, cooling as continues higher in the stratosphere, contrary to what you claimed. For example:
“Climatology and interannual variability of dynamic variables in multiple reanalyses evaluated by the SPARC Reanalysis Intercomparison Project (S-RIP)”, figure 18
“Regional and seasonal stratospheric temperature trends in the last decade (20022014) from AMSU observations”
“A method for merging nadir-sounding climate records, with an application to the global-mean stratospheric temperature data sets from SSU and AMSU”
“Linear trends and closures of 10-yr observations of AIRS stratospheric channels”
“The stratospheric changes inferred from 10 years of AIRS and AMSU-A radiances”
“Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations”
“Troposphere-stratosphere temperature trends derived from satellite data compared with ensemble simulations from WACCM”
The stratosphere stopped cooling around 1995
The lower stratosphere has a very slight cooling from then, and the mid stratosphere has strong cooling since 1999.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/C13/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C13_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
I have to disagree. Since there was no Bjerknes feedback to push the El Nino warmed waters back into the Pacific Warm Pool, they simply drifted around releasing more energy for much of 2017. In addition, we did reach El Nino conditions for about 3.5 months. This was driven by more upwelling warm water. This is all pretty obvious by just looking at the Tropics.
The bottom line is the influence of the 2016 Super El Nino continued to be felt through 2017.
It does look like the Current La Nina conditions are starting to wane. Without another shot of upwelling cold water we could be back to neutral conditions by March. However, the effect on the satellite data should continue until mid year.
NOAA has a weak la Nina for the last 5 months of 2016.
How does that fit into the picture of sustained el Nino from 2016?
I feel like people have gone a bit nutty on ENSO events. They just move temperature around from ocean to atmosphere, causing fluctuations in the long-term record of surface temperatures. Global climate change is multidecadal phenomenon.
All thermal storage oscillators incorporate lag.
There was ENSO up-tick that just ended 4 months ago… so it looks to me that the next 4 months will continue to cool as La Nina has been taking over
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml.
Look at the 3.4 graph.
Likely, but by no means certain. It’s a weak, potentially short-lived la Nina, and weak ENSO events tend to have less clear impacts on global temps.
ENSO is not the only thing affecting global surface temp fluctuations, or we would expect to see a 1-1 correlation of surface temps (or satellite temps) with ENSO fluctuations. We tend to see that with strong ENSO events, but not so much with weak ones.
For those who didn’t follow the long winded discussion on Dr. Spencer’s last post, I’ve just posted the results of a third demonstration which shows that the repeated claims that the CO2/Greenhouse Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics are clearly wrong. Here’s a link to the latest “common sense” demonstration.
https://app.box.com/s/al1duvn2aq3blkyqecivh5y3yyvlno4i
I presume that Dr. Spencer, as a serious scientist, will agree that those claims were wildly incorrect.
If you have been a regular visitor here, you know that I have been fighting the same battle against the Sky Dragon Slayers for years. I think the most direct demonstration that the cold atmosphere can make a warm surface even warmer still is with a handheld IR thermometer, first pointed upward on a clear day, then pointed at an oblique angle. The oblique angle will give a warmer reading (the sensor inside the instrument has actually warmed), even though the instrument is pointed at a “cold” sky. The temperature of ANYTHING is related to the rate of energy gain AND the rate of energy loss. The greenhouse effect changes the rate of energy loss. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/
The shielded, tiny heat capacity of the micro bolometer is very cold in equilibrium with the sky vertically. And warmer than this very cold temperature in equilibrium with an optical depth closer to the surface. But both are colder than with the shield removed. Using a larger condenser to focus the downwelling doesn’t affect this situation as it would with sunlight.
The sensor is never heated above surface temperatures in two way equilibrium with a cold gas heated primarily by surface losses.
“The sensor is never heated above surface temperatures in two way equilibrium with a cold gas heated primarily by surface losses.”
Seriously? Don’t you see that the existing surface temperature is the result of all energy inputs and outputs, and that the surface has ALREADY been increased by the greenhouse effect, above what it would have been without the GHE?
The handheld IR thermometer simply allows one to see how the GHE (downwelling IR intensity) depends upon view angle. It PROVES that a warm surface can be made warmer still by exposing it to a cold scene…the key is that it is being exposed to a LESS cold scene than before, thus changing the energy budget in the direction of warming.
This is basic thermodynamics, and if it does not sink in then there is nothing else I can say to convince you.
“Seriously? Dont you see that the existing surface temperature is the result of all energy inputs and outputs, and that the surface has ALREADY been increased by the greenhouse effect, above what it would have been without the GHE?”
No I don’t Roy. The gradients in tropospheres are insensitive to opacity.
Project a potential temperature to the surface and then subtract the energy required to provide the surface specific humidity. There is no increase in surface energy where opacity is highest.
The atmosphere reduces the surface insolation to 50%. No amount of recirculating of this input can produce gain in an argument where the surface is heated by its own losses returned. Increasing greenhouse gases reduces this energy which is real and available for work and power.
Only that this greenhouse effect occurs only in the dense troposphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
Yes, it does ren. Direct heating drives the system out of the tropospheric reversible adiabatic/ isentropic profile.
Direct heating of a gas with very low emissivity results in high physical temperatures and high potential temperatures, 500K, 600K, 700K
In the low pressures of the upper atmosphere we see low mean free paths which allows molecules and atoms to stratify by velocity. Low energies are incapable of competing with gravity.
Lower in the atmosphere, normalisation provides a specific gradient that is insensitive to long wave opacity. Climatology maintains that opacity produces this gradient and drives convection.
Data says this gradient is driven by gravity.
You really don’t have a clue about science friend. You should learn a lot more any write a lot less.
Dr. Spencer,
I’m not sure if I am grasping the concept of a warmer surface being made warmer by something cooler. So, I thought of it this way. Let’s say if you have an enclosed room with an ambient temperature of 0 deg. C. And in this room you have a wooden table. If you heat up an object (metal pipe or whatever) to 100C and place it on the table, the pipe temperature will eventually lower to 0C in X amount of time. However, if you repeat the experiment with two objects, say the 100C metal pipe and place another pipe warmed up to 50C about a 1/2 foot away from the 100C pipe. Even though the 50C pipe is substantially cooler than the 100C pipe, the 50C pipe is still radiating heat to the 100C pipe. And that would cause the 100C pipe cool down to 0C at a slower rate. Instead of taking X amount of time to cool down, it would be X plus Y amount of time. Y being the result from the extra amount of heat introduced in the environment by the cooler object.
Or, is this something entirely different from what you are saying about the atmosphere. Sorry to say I am not quite at the Ph. D. level to understand what causes the heating and cooling of our atmosphere. To me, I think the power of the CO2 molecule has been grossly exaggerated.
rob…”Even though the 50C pipe is substantially cooler than the 100C pipe, the 50C pipe is still radiating heat to the 100C pipe”.
No it’s not. It is radiating electromagnetic energy and EM is not heat. In order for EM to be radiated by an electron in an atom the electron must give up heat as kinetic energy. The heat given up is not radiated.
There is a misconception with radiation that heat flows through the air as radiation. Heat cannot flow through air unless it is part of a convection process in which heat is transferred by moving air particles. Heat is a property of atoms in motion. No atoms, no heat.
The EM to which you refer from the 50C pipe will pass through a vacuum. Since a vacuum is defined as an absence of atoms (mass), and heat is a property of atoms, heat cannot pass through a vacuum.
Heat can be transferred via an APPARENT heat transfer from the 100C pipe to the 50C pipe. That means heat is reduced in the 100C pipe as it is converted to EM then converted back to heat in the 50C pipe. There is an apparent transfer of heat.
That process is not reversible due to constraints on the electrons in atoms/molecules that do the conversion. In order for EM to be absorbed by the electrons in an atom the EM must have a specific frequency and intensity. Such constraints make it impossible for the electrons in a body of hotter atoms to absorb the EM radiation from a cooler body.
geoff…”The atmosphere reduces the surface insolation to 50%. No amount of recirculating of this input can produce gain in an argument where the surface is heated by its own losses returned”.
Exactly, it’s called perpetual motion if it is the case. People should be able to see that intuitively. You cannot take solar energy, warm the surface, have the surface convert solar to IR to warm GHGs making up no more than 1% of the atmosphere, and expect them to back radiate energy to increase surface temperatures.
Geoff,
“In the low pressures of the upper atmosphere we see low mean free paths which allows molecules and atoms to stratify by velocity. Low energies are incapable of competing with gravity.
Lower in the atmosphere, normalisation provides a specific gradient that is insensitive to long wave opacity. Climatology maintains that opacity produces this gradient and drives convection.”
It seems to me you are going for maximum jargon with minimum communication.
If you want anyone to understand your points, you need to explain in terms that non-experts can understand.
roy…”Dont you see that the existing surface temperature is the result of all energy inputs and outputs, and that the surface has ALREADY been increased by the greenhouse effect, above what it would have been without the GHE?”
Roy, your data backs the opposite. Your UAH data back the 2nd law. The projected warming due to back-radiation is not there. Neither is the hot spot projected in the upper atmosphere.
Please don’t allow the alarmist propaganda featuring a generic energy to cloud your judgement. Energy is not energy as they would have you believe, there is a night and day difference between the electromagnetic energy of which you speak and the thermal energy that is the kinetic energy of atoms. They behave very differently and obey different rules.
The notion of electromagnetic energy as heat dates back to the 19th century where luminaries like Clausius, Boltzmann, and Planck thought heat flowed as ‘rays’ between objects. They can be forgiven since they had no idea that heat was transferred radiatively between bodies by electromagnetic energy, which is not thermal energy.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr revealed the actuality, that electrons in atoms act to emit and aborb EM. He laid out the rules of absorp-tion and emission by electrons but unfortunately, to this day, university professors seem oblivious to those rules and continue to regard heat as EM.
Heat is converted to EM in a hotter body and radiated as EM to a cooler body, where it is converted back to heat. That process is not reversible. The EM you are measuring with your IR meter is doing nothing to warm the surface as long as it comes from a cooler source.
You can measure all the atmospheric EM you like, it tells you nothing about heat transfer taking place. And, no, a fictitious, generic, net energy balance does not satisfy the 2nd law. Only heat transfers satisfy the 2nd law which makes it clear heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Roy…I know, I know, I’m banned. ☺
a cool object can make a hotter object hotter.
A thermal imaging camera ($200) sits at say 23C it is receiving radiation from its surroundings, the lens, objects the other side of the lens (assume these to be at 0K). It is loosing heat to the same objects. It has to be in thermal equilibrium and the camera has to know what that temperature is.
Each pixel of the sensor is in thermal equilibrium.
if you focus an object at -20C on the 23C pixel it will reach thermal equilibrium with the additional radiation from the object. If the adjacent pixel has an object at -15C focussed on it then it to will reach thermal equilibrium but in this case it will be warmer than the -20C pixel.
The temperature difference is measured by the camera and a temperature assigned to the relevant pixels. The cold bodies have changed the energy received by the hot body making them hotter than those exposed to the 0K ambient – i.e. the cold bodies have warmed the hot body
There are no cool rays that can be focussed on pixels.
If you do not accept that then how can you explain the operation of a thermal imaging camera?
ghalfrunt, if the device is at 23C, how can the lens be at 0K?
Somewhere in your confused example, you came up with “a cool object can make a hotter object hotter”?
Maybe your conclusion is linked to your confusion.
ghal…”It is loosing heat to the same objects”.
We have been through this before. Objects do not lose heat to other objects through radiation. Objects lose heat through radiation alone, they don’t require other objects to radiate. All that’s required is a temperature difference between the object and its surroundings.
If you had a situation where the temperature of a nearby object could cool the air around a hotter radiating object, so as to create a greater temperature differential between the radiating object and the surrounding air, that should influence the rate at which the object radiates. However, the influence of the external object is NEVER to warm the hotter body.
The governing equation is Stefan-Boltzmann:
P = enA(To^4 – T^4) where e = emissivity, n = Boltzmann constant, A = cross-sectional area of radiator, To = temperature of radiator, and T = temperature of surroundings.
P can be regarded as the loss of energy as heat in the radiator, although that heat loss takes place in the radiator and does not flow through space. There is no reference in that equation to an external object other than to its effect on the surrounding temperature, T.
I’m not clear about the situation in a vacuum where you have a radiator contained within a cylinder or sphere at a different temperature. If the sphere is of a higher T than To of the radiator, then the process is reversed and the radiator becomes an absorber. However, if T << To, I am wondering if cooler emissions from that body are sensed by the hotter radiator, influencing it to radiate as if to cooler surroundings.
At any rate, heat is never transferred from the cooler body to the warmer body. S-B tells us the heat transfer/loss is a one way affair.
g*r…”ghalfrunt, if the device is at 23C, how can the lens be at 0K?”
In astronomy, they do take steps to cool the detector well below the temperature of an emitting object. In this case, however, I doubt that the IR camera has any cooling supplied to cool the detector.
As I pointed out to Roy, hand held devices work on a basis of pre-calibration. They are calibrated using a reference voltage determined from actually measuring IR in laboratory conditions and finding out what kind of temperature-related voltage is produced by a sensor detecting a certain frequency of IR. Either that, or they create a table of expected temperature values corresponding to a detected frequency and place it in ROM as a lookup table.
Hand held devices measure frequency, not heating inside the device. They convert the frequency to a voltage then compare that voltage to a reference voltage that has been predetermined for the measured frequency versus temperature.
I have a handheld IR thermopmeter going down to -60 C this is the average temp of the CO2 on top of the atmosphere, which I read often at night here in Germany.
If you change the angle you get warmer readings say -40 0r -30C, IR from Water vapor, I think.
In a cloudy night, you get nearly the same reading as from the earth surface. Clouds act like a blackbody and radiate all their temp down over the full spectrum.
One misconception about physics law: It’s not something like a human law, which is made to be obeyed – but often in vain. It is something which has been observed very often – and is followed by the idea, that it will always happen.
But now the example:
One stove inside a room radiating 300C towards a wall with a temp of 15C, as it happens in my farm house. Outside minus 10C. Room temp 20C.
Just remove the wall. What will happen to the room temp? Does the cold wall warm the room or not? Or reduce cooling? You can see it both ways.
The universe has a background radiation of -(minus)270C, the earths surface about 15C. What will happen without atmosphere at night? You will freeze your arse off – guaranteed.
johannes…”One stove inside a room radiating 300C towards a wall with a temp of 15C, as it happens in my farm house. Outside minus 10C. Room temp 20C”.
Do you use insulation in your walls over there? Know what it’s for? It’s to reduce the rate of cooling due to conduction through the walls. Radiation will pass straight through the insulation and the walls. It has very little effect in warming the room.
Johannes, your room is heated by air in the room, receiving heat energy directly from the stove by conduction. The radiation won’t be effective any more than a few feet from the stove.
You are not warmed by any back-radiation from clouds at night since as you have noted the temperature of the background is very cold. Clouds will typically show temperatures near 0C if the surface temperature is higher.
2nd law of thermodynamics….heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.
When particles of water vapor form clouds, they give away kinetic energy to the atmosphere’s particles. This reduces the vertical gradient of the temperature in the atmosphere.
“When a substance changes phase, that is it goes from either a solid to a liquid or liquid to gas, the energy, it requires energy to do so. The potential energy stored in the interatomics forces between molecules needs to be overcome by the kinetic energy the motion of the particles before the substance can change phase.”
Correct me if I am wrong.
ren…”When particles of water vapor form clouds, they give away kinetic energy to the atmospheres particles. This reduces the vertical gradient of the temperature in the atmosphere”.
I am not arguing that the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law are absolutes. After all, it is the ‘Ideal’ Gas Law. I am using both to suggest that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is far too low to be a significant contributor to atmospheric heat.
I think the same is true for WV, which also decreases with altitude due to a gradual thinning of air. Over all, in the atmosphere, WV accounts for only about 0.3% of the atmosphere. Even where it rises to 3% in the Tropics, however, I don’t it’s overall contribution to atmospheric temperature is that significant.
Obviously, the vertical gradient must be affected by other processes like lapse rate but I maintain the major cause of a decrease in temperature with altitude is due to the decrease in pressure related to gravity.
There is a tendency to ignore the warming effect of N2/O2 and I think that’s a big mistake. AFAIC, they control atmospheric temperature.
Lapse rate is not going to change the concentration of O2 in the air at the top of Mt. Everest to 1/3 what it is at the surface. That has to be the effect of a reduction in gravity producing a reduction in overall pressure.
ren, your statement is absolutely correct. The lapse rate is modified from the adiabatic rate for a 99% diatomic gas to the observed rate by isothermal vertical steps through cloud layers. The thermal energy used to vaporise water at the surface reduces the surface temperature from the potential temperature of the atmospheric mean. This same latent heat energy is then needed to account for the tropopause height. No other factors are required. Thermal energy, gravitational potential energy and energy stored as latent heat in waters vapour phase given by specific humidity. This describes the lapse. Pressure is often used in place of geometric height as it incorporates gravity variance. Gph removes this problem by normalising to surface gravity.
“2nd law of thermodynamics.heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.”
You missed the most important word out ….. NET
Net heat. You know full well that you are wrong.
You know fll well that the 2 LoT is not violated and the scientists that follow the tradition of the scientists that gave you the 2nd LoT that you mis concieve (I believe wilfully … as in trolling)
are not incompetent at their profession.
It’s all a pathetic game to the usal suspects on here.
And science does not care that you hamd-wave bollocks.
Johannes says: “I have a handheld IR thermometer going down to -60 C this is the average temp of the CO2 on top of the atmosphere, which I read often at night here in Germany.”
You are mis-interpreting. You are measruing some sort of average temperature (average power really).
* In the “atmospheric window” the IR thermometer receives almost no radiation since it is “seeing” the -270 C of outer space.
* In the CO2 bands, the thermometer receives strong radiation since it “sees” the nearby warm CO2 @ 20 C.
Averaged over all wavelengths that your thermometer uses, the power is somewhere between the radiation you could get from a blackbody at local atmospheric temperatures and the radiation from a cold blackbody in outer space. This power is then translated to some temperature between that of hte atmosphere (~ 20C) and outer space (-270C). That is where the “-60 C” temperature comes from, not from the -60C CO2 high in the atmosphere.
“This power is then translated to some temperature between that of hte atmosphere (~ 20C)”
Tim, do you believe the average temperature of the atmosphere is 20C?
G*, you seem to be missing pretty much all of what I said. Nothing I said could in any logical way be interpreted to mean anything like “the average temperature of the atmosphere is 20C”.
If you point an IR thermometer upward some IR (eg near 15 um) comes from GHGs near the surface (eg around 20C). None of the 15 um IR comes from CO2 high in the atmosphere (eg around -60 C). As such, Johannes’ interpretation of the -60C reading being due to CO2 high in the atmosphere is mistaken.
Sorry Tim, but nothing you said makes any sense.
Have you ever pointed a handheld IR thermometer straight up, at a clear, night time sky?
Just now, I read -60.7F (-51.5C). (And the sky wasn’t even perfectly clear!)
Do you want to try again?
Wow g* you’re dumb. He explained it. You ignored it and went with your own wrong interpretation.
Nate, Tim stated the atmosphere was ~20C. Then, he tried to spin it that he was just referring to CO2 close to the surface. He went on trying to somehow attack the -60C reading.
I provided direct evidence that readings close to -60C were easily obtained.
And, in your perverted, corrupted head, it’s all my fault!
Hilarious.
I understood what he said, g. Then he further clarified, made it more clear.
Your choice was purposeful misinterpretation. So typical of you, and reason why rational discussion with you is so difficult.
And, in your perverted, corrupted head, it’s all my fault!
Hilarious.
G* You’ve even said to me that if I cant boil my science down to one sentence, you will not comprehend it.
This is a highly reproducible effect that is all you.
Nate imagines: “You’ve even said to me that if I cant boil my science down to one sentence, you will not comprehend it.”
Poor Nate has a fantastic imagination!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n says:
January 15, 2018 at 1:13 PM
Just state, in ONE clear sentence, what your problem with net is, so that I have a chance of understanding.
Roy…”The oblique angle will give a warmer reading (the sensor inside the instrument has actually warmed), even though the instrument is pointed at a cold sky”.
I have nothing to do with the Dragon Slayer but I am an expert in electronics. Your IR meter has not been warmed by radiation from a colder source, it is calibrated to read the frequency of IR and it can convert the frequency to whatever that colour temperature SHOULD be using a lookup table, or by comparing the voltage produces to a standard reference voltage. It is not reading temperature directly.
The reference voltage or lookup table is created by calibrating the meter to a known source. Handhelds do not measure temperature, they measure frequency and not across an entire IR band of frequencies.
Sophisticated IR meters used in astronomy do super-cool their receivers so radiation from cooler sources will warm the receiver. That’s not possible with handheld units so they use a different technique to measure frequency.
Roy…please… the 2nd law MUST apply to heat transfer. None of your thought experiments can bypass the 2nd law.
+1
“Handhelds do not measure temperature, they measure frequency “”
Actually, most of the basic IR thermometers you can buy off the shelf do measure temperature — in particular, the temperature of the sensing element. Typically that temperature is measured using some electric signal.
I agree that the calibration is then done with various known sources. For example, if a 20 C IR thermometer is pointed at a -60 C source, the sensing element would cool off to — perhaps to -5 C. The table then says “a -5C sensor equates to a -60 C source.”
The interesting discussion is how to describe what happens when you then point the thermometer at something a little warmer — say -30 C. The sensor will warm up — say to +5C. Many people would be happy to say that since the only change was switching from a -60C background to a -30 C, that the -30 C background is what caused the 10C warming. Others might insist on say that we are only dealing with a “reduced cooling”. In any case, the sensors DID warm and there is NO violation of the 2nd Law.
Tim believes: For example, if a 20 C IR thermometer is pointed at a -60 C source, the sensing element would cool off to — perhaps to -5 C. The table then says “a -5C sensor equates to a -60 C source.”
Tim, whoever told you such nonsense?
Google “how an IR thermometer works”. You might learn something.
Tim, the details depend on the complexity of the device. But, they all involve specialized design, materials, and a source of power. It is an engineered device to make up for the fact that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
Do you want to try again?
Wow, G* so many words. So little fact. Nothing that disproves Tim. More BS.
Nate, the first 3 sentences all contained “facts”.
Your head just can’t process facts.
It’s fun to watch.
G*, when a student has no idea on an essay question, they write a paragraph of BS. I have developed a good BS detector. It looks just like what you wrote–you are well practiced!
Your head just can’t process facts.
It’s fun to watch.
e. swanson…”For those who didnt follow the long winded discussion on Dr. Spencers last post, Ive just posted the results of a third demonstration which shows that the repeated claims that the CO2/Greenhouse Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics are clearly wrong…”
Your three experiments have shown nothing except that you lack the required controls to eliminate the effect of convection and heat dissipation.
If you are so confident in your conclusions why not submit a paper and see if you can get it accepted? If it is, you realize that you will have upset a century and a half of basic thermodynamic theory?
Of course, with climate alarmists in charge of a lot of the peer review, maybe your chances are good. Try the Journal of Climate, they are liable to accept it.
Gordon, I see that you continue to be blinded by your incorrect understanding of physics. Can’t you see that that last demo showed that convection had nothing to do with the effect of the cookie sheet on the heated plate below? Once the cookie sheet, which provided down welling IR, was replaced with the food wrap baffle, which, due to it’s high IR transmission and very low emissivity, produced no down welling IR, the result was that convection had essentially no impact, as in ZERO.
You have yet to provide any explanation for the results of the experiment. You may be a good engineer (which is debatable), but you aren’t a scientist. A good scientist must accept the experimental results, even when they contradict their long held acceptance of earlier theory. This is especially galling as the evidence of infrared radiant energy transfer is so very strong and has been for many decades.
e. swanson…”Gordon, I see that you continue to be blinded by your incorrect understanding of physics. Cant you see that that last demo showed that convection had nothing to do with the effect of the cookie sheet on the heated plate below?”
I get it, e. swanson is norman.
“You have yet to provide any explanation for the results of the experiment. You may be a good engineer (which is debatable), but you arent a scientist”.
Engineering is better known as applied science. Before you can apply the science you must learn the science. The difference between us and theoretical scientists is that we cannot afford to indulge in speculation. Things collapse and blow up when your speculation is wrong.
“Once the cookie sheet, which provided down dwelling IR, was replaced with the food wrap baffle, which, due to its high IR transmission and very low emissivity, produced no down welling IR, the result was that convection had essentially no impact, as in ZERO”.
You are misunderstanding your own experiment. The effect of convection is not on the cookie sheet it’s on the tin sheet on the electric stove. If the tin cannot dissipate heat via adequate convection, it heats up. You are confusing that heating as heating due to back-radiation from the cookie sheet.
You think that by wrapping the cookie sheet you are preventing convection from affecting the temperature of the cookie sheet. We don’t care about it’s temperature vis a vis convection, we care about allowing the tin sheet on the stove to get rid of its heat. If you prevent that by placing a cookie sheet over it, the convection it relied upon going straight up is blocked and heat accumulates in the air above the tin sheet and the cookie sheet.
Obviously you have not gotten rid of the convection problem under the cookie sheet. You have not specified how many cubic feet of air the fan can displace per minute. If you had a fan with enough power to adequately eliminate the convection problem it would likely blow the cookie sheet right off the tin cans you are using to support it.
GR, You are such a goof. You obviously didn’t even take the time to look at the photos in the write up nor did you read it. I didn’t “wrap the cookie sheet”, I made a wire frame of the same size and attached a single layer of food wrap to that.
The cookie sheet was added above the heated plate which was at steady temperature and after that time point, the temperature of the plate began to increase. Then, the fan was turned on and the plate temperature dropped as convection cooled both the plate and the cookie sheet. Once the plate temperature steadied, the cookie sheet was removed and the plate temperature dropped some more as a result.
Note the difference in temperature before the cookie sheet was removed and after. Then, the wire frame with the food wrap was placed over the plate with the fan still running. There was almost no change in the plate temperature. That observation tells me that there was plenty of convection from the fan and thus the fact that the plate was warmer with the cookie sheet than with the wire baffle implies that the down welling IR, (aka: back radiation) was the probable cause.
swannie, has the Nobel Prize Committee contacted you yet?
(Hilarious.)
Not yet, but any reward would be post humorous. I don’t think they reward demonstrations of obvious fact. For example, explain the physics of double pane Low-e glass.
Well, if they’re not knocking on your door to give you the Prize, you could start writing science-fiction. You’ve definitely got the knack.
It’d be a shame not to profit from all that talent.
Gordon, BTW, as you mention publication thru peer review, I’ve got 2 peer reviewed papers to my name and a couple of other bits as well. So, tell us, have YOU published thru peer review? If so, please do post a link, if you’ve got the nerve to identify yourself to the rabble…
e. swanson aka norman…”BTW, as you mention publication thru peer review, Ive got 2 peer reviewed papers to my name and a couple of other bits as well”.
Please post links to your papers. As g*r claimed, 2018 is turning out to be a hilarious year.
GR Old Man, you are seriously confused. Maybe you’re losing track of all the times you’ve cut and pasted the same disinformation claiming that the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd Law. A while back, you thought someone else had posted my demonstrations, now you have decided that I’m really Norman. Wrong again!!!
As for giving you links to my papers, I think perhaps you, as one of the prime trolls on this site, are the one who should provide an identity. Just give a link to one of your recent papers or post your e-mail address and I will send the links directly to you.
Hello E. Swanson.
Are you the same Eric Swanson from the RealClimate blog?:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/#comment-3999
Are you also the same scientist who wrote this cogent rebuttal of Spencer and Christy’s UAH analysis?:
“A comparative analysis of data derived from orbiting MSU/AMSU instruments”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1
If so, then congratulations on your solid work. It’s nice to see you, and so many other researchers, pointing out major discrepancies in the UAH analysis.
My personal favorite was when RSS’ Mears and Wentz caught Spencer and Christy falsely assuming that the lower troposphere cools when the Sun is shining on it at noon and warms at midnight. That conveniently allowed Spencer and Christy to unjustifiably lower the lower tropospheric warming trend in their UAH analysis. As Mears and Wentz noted:
“Clearly, the lower troposphere does not warm at night and cool in the middle of the day. We question why Christy and Spencer adopted an obviously wrong diurnal correction in the first place.”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/972.long
Yes, you found me. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to actually make use of Google, etc. to look at the Internet. My earlier paper is at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL017938/abstract
Thanks for the kind words…
The temperature jump in the stratosphere is preceded by a frost attack in North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.png
Index Nino 3.4 falls below -1 C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Baloney. Hogwash. If AGW WERE REAL, sea level would be responding in kind. Google Sea Level Battery NOAA for a chart that is representative of world sea level since 1850, the start of the industrial revolution. Show us the inflection point where AGW kicked in. Hint: there is none.
Perhaps the inflection point is before 1850?
Google Sea Level Battery NOAA for a chart that is representative of world sea level since 1850
Why on Earth is Battery a great proxy for the whole globe? Looks like pure assertion to me.
So I googled Battery anyway.
https://tinyurl.com/yawrkee2
The trend of 2.8 mm/yr for the whole period is similar to the current satellite trend.
But the point is meant to be that there is no inflection point. I see fluctuations over a long-term trend.
So how well does this match global?
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.png
Global sea level appears to have accelerated over the period. Dunno if such long-term acceleration is statistically significant, but the rate has slowed and sped up at different times during that period.
barry…”The trend of 2.8 mm/yr for the whole period is similar to the current satellite trend”.
Pray, tell me, how does a satellite measure sea levels to an accuracy of millimetres with tidal bulges and constantly changing sea levels due to extreme wave action?
They do it the same way NOAA does the rest of their fudging, using climate models to fill in, interpolate, and homogenize the data to what NOAA thinks the sea level should be. Better still, to reflect their arcane catastrophic global warming theories.
NOAA is not a scientific organization, they are a wing of the US Democratic Party and a member in good standing of the World Wildlife Fund. They represent eco-alarmists everywhere.
Bunch of nonsense. Sea level satellites have better resolution than satellites for temperature. We want a global average, not for some nanometric point in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. Like the satellite measurements, the more measurements taken, the lower the uncertainty for the global average.
That accuracy increases with multiple measurements is well proved mathematically. UAH global temp anomalies/uncertainty relies on such math, too.
So you could well apply your criticism to the satellite temperature data, which takes a few days tracking to capture a global measurement, with temperature fluctuating throughout for any given point, and different across the globe at any time. However, there is enough coverage to get a great many samples, reducing the uncertainty.
Then there is the processing that compilers do (including Roy Spencer) to account for problematic data (such as drifting satellites and data from different instruments stitched together), which is another story.
barry…”Bunch of nonsense. Sea level satellites have better resolution than satellites for temperature”.
You have not explained why. The oceans are an undulating mass of water that varies in altitude from a few inches to over a 100 feet. On top of that, they gradually change level with tidal bulges. Also, some parts of the ocean can be a foot higher than other parts for some unknown reason.
The effect of gravity on the water is bound to vary as well. They found when surveying in the Himalaya that the mass of the mountains was pulling their plumb bobs from the vertical. I wonder if they painstakingly take all that into account or whether they just estimate the level in a model.
You have a lot of faith in the telemetry you have not explained. The sat data used by UAH comes from emissions from oxygen molecules in the microwave range. They use several overlapping channels of receivers to measure across the range at which O2 varies it’s frequency with temperature.
I think the orbital variations are incidental and the main problem was solved circa 2005. Even with the problem the errors produced were within the stated error margins and only in the Tropics.
Why are you not criticizing thermometer readings where a high and low are averaged daily and the thermometers are located up to 1200 km apart? There are few covering 70% of the surface which is ocean. The problem becomes further exacerbated when NOAA slashes over 75% of the data it collects and synthesizes the lost data in a climate model.
With a high of 20C for the day, and a low of 10C, the average is 15C, an error of + or – 5C either way. Is that OK with you compared to the minor adjustments on sat data? When you add in the blatant fudging of NOAA and GISS, you have sci fi resulting in catastrophic warming fantasies.
Satellite sea level instruments measure sea level from the skin of the oceans. UAH brightness measurements are through a swathe of atmosphere kilometers deep. Each sensor for UAH temps has no better vertical resolution than that.
barry says:
February 2, 2018 at 7:02 PM
Satellite sea level instruments measure sea level…
And they change the data on a regular basis. As near as I can tell the tide gauge data is static.
As we’re talking about relative validity of satellites measuring sea level and tropospheric temperature, have you forgotten that UAH also periodically revise their data?
Thus, on the metric that you dismiss satellite measurements of sea level, you should also write off UAH, no?
barry says:
February 4, 2018 at 4:56 PM
As were talking about relative validity of satellites measuring sea level and tropospheric temperature, have you forgotten that UAH also periodically revise their data?
Thus, on the metric that you dismiss satellite measurements of sea level, you should also write off UAH, no?
Show me. Do you have a link to their old data sets?
Sure. Here’s a link to versions 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.
Handily, it’s labeled ‘old versions’.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/oldversions/
Here’s a link to the previous version: 5.6.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
And here’s a link to the current version: 6.0.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
UAH also do revisions between the versions that are not specifically enumerated, as exemplified in this link written by Roy Spencer:
NOTE: In June 2017 we added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/
This was done a couple of years after Roy started using version 6 in the blog posts.
At woodfortrees, the data for the previous version (5.6) can be plotted alongside the current version. Here’s how they look side by side for the whole period:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/trend
And here’s how they look for the period from 1998 – version 6 diverges markedly from the previous version from about 2000 onwards.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend
Couldn’t find links to the earlier versions. There have been about a dozen formal revisions, and various other adjustments in between each.
So now you’ve seen that UAH make adjustments and change the data periodically, do you write them off, too?
barry says:
February 5, 2018 at 6:29 AM
Sure. Heres a link to versions…
The only link that I could open was the Wood For Trees comparison otherwise I was prompted to visit the Ap Store to look for exactly what? Years ago I would download all the global temperature data and load it into Excel, but it became difficult because it was hard to find each month. GISS became the only one I could find without much difficulty.
Well anyway you made your point about UAH and I’ve known that they adjust data for some time. What I don’t know is if they follow a pattern like GISS and the satellite sea level data seems to do.
So you already knew UAH change their data.
Do you write them off like you do every other group that does this?
Is you criticism selective or consistent?
testing for bad URL…
frank…”Google Sea Level Battery NOAA…”
Don’t know if this is what you mean:
If so, points to be noted:
1)it is obviously model data, not real data. No one supplies a confidence level with real data, only with data that has been statistically derived.
2)the graph begins at the end of the Little Ice Age during which global temperatures were 1c to 2C below average. That means a lot of precipitation was tied up in glaciers, etc., hence the lowered sea levels.
3)the data comes from NOAA who are notorious data fudgers, not only of current data but of data they have changed and fudged retroactively. In other words, NOAA is a political animal, not a scientific organization.
4)they had no means of deriving global sea level data back then and they still don’t. Measuring global sea level in millimeters is a testament to human arrogance, not to objective science.
sorry about that, the URl is not getting past the WordPress stupidity they call censors.
https://tides.and.currents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
copy/paste URL then remove dots from tides.and.currents
I have no idea how WordPress has lasted this long.
No one supplies a confidence level with real data, only with data that has been statistically derived.
The confidence interval here refers to the linear trend. Confidence intervals are supplied as a matter of course for linear trends, whether the data is perfect from measurement or not.
Where do you get this baloney?
barry…”The confidence interval here refers to the linear trend. Confidence intervals are supplied as a matter of course for linear trends, whether the data is perfect from measurement or not.
Where do you get this baloney?”
********
I got it from an advanced course in probability and statistics while studying an engineering program at university. Where did you get yours, from a correspondence course, or are you self taught?
I did mention that a CL is used with statistical analysis as opposed to the error margins used in a real experiment. When you measure the length of something in a real experiment you don’t include a confidence level, you are confident that your measurement is accurate to within the error margin.
When you make a projection based on an unvalidated climate model you must use a confidence level because you cannot claim your projection to be absolutely true. You are hypothesizing. It is unethical, however, to use confidence levels as practiced by NOAA and GISS. They arbitrarily drop their CLs to move certain years into first place as the hottest year ever.
Why would anyone offer a confidence level of 48% that 2014 was the warmest year ever? Only one reason, they are alarmist cheaters.
Gordon needs to go out with a ruler and measure sea level himself, do some travelling, see the world.
He no longer trusts data collected by anyone but card-carrying republicans..or whatever the Canadian equivalent is.
Why would anyone offer a confidence level of 48% that 2014 was the warmest year ever?
The confidence level for the calculations was 95%. The probability that 2014 was the warmest was 48%.
48% was NOT the confidence interval!
2nd time you’ve got this wrong.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/full
nate…”He no longer trusts data ….”
I trust data if it’s acquired scientifically. I have decades of experience working with electronic equipment and I know the limitations. That’s why cars without drivers should be banned right now before many people get killed.
You see, people with no experience in electronics are easily fooled into thinking electronics and computers are foolproof. I know different and I know there is no instrumentation that can measure ocean levels to within a few millimetres.
Gordon, in my work i use a laser bouncing off a surface and can measure movements of that surface smaller than an atom. Yet the surface has roughness much larger than an atom. How is that possible?
barry…”The confidence level for the calculations was 95%. The probability that 2014 was the warmest was 48%.
48% was NOT the confidence interval!”
You have just proved to me you are a hacker in statistics.
What you have just claimed is that NOAA stated a 95% confidence level then claimed there is about a 50% chance they lied.
Now I understand why you take a number-crunched trend of 0.12C/decade and try to infer it as true warming over the UAH range.
John Christy of UAH, an expert on the matter, claimed true warming did not begin over the UAH range till the 1998 El Nino. That’s when the warming crossed the baseline for good.
You have used your convoluted reasoning in the past. When I pointed out the IPCC claim of 15 years from 1998 with no warming, you insinuated I was lying. When I produced a direct quote you came back with mumbo jumbo about temporary trends.
When I claimed NOAA had slashed over 75% of their surface station data, you claimed that to be a lie. When I produced a direct quote, more mumbo jumbo about how they had actually increased the number of stations. NOAA admitted freely they had slashed them, you claimed the opposite.
You are the kind of thick-headed, bs artists who gives Australians a bad name.
Gordon,
What you have just claimed is that NOAA stated a 95% confidence level then claimed there is about a 50% chance they lied.
I provided a link to the methods paper on how they work out the probabilities on the rankings at the end of my post.
Before you blather about lying, acquaint yourself with the method and admit that the confidence interval they used for calculating probabilities was 95%, not 48% as you erroneously said – for at least the second time.
You have used your convoluted reasoning in the past. When I pointed out the IPCC claim of 15 years from 1998 with no warming, you insinuated I was lying. When I produced a direct quote you came back with mumbo jumbo about temporary trends.
I provided the full quote from the IPCC, which included the statement that short-term trends are not generally reflective of long-term trends. You choose to believe – what? That I made that up?
You cherry-picked IPCC, I provided the full context. You’ve never dealt with that.
When I claimed NOAA had slashed over 75% of their surface station data, you claimed that to be a lie.
Because it is.
When I produced a direct quote, more mumbo jumbo about how they had actually increased the number of stations.
Again, that very link you supply also says they increased the number of stations.
NOAA admitted freely they had slashed them, you claimed the opposite.
Nothing in that link says NOAA ‘slashed’, cut, deleted, or deliberately removed station data. This is YOUR lie.
I also provided you multiple times with the methods paper that describes exactly what happened. I have reminded you of that many times.
YOU are blind to this. You have a very strong filter that doesn’t let you read what you don’t want to know.
THAT is why you refer to “mumbo jumbo.” You’ve never taken a clear look at the refutations of your misconceptions, just fired off posts without reading, understanding and thinking.
It is as clear as crystal that NOAA retrospectively added historical station data (mostly transcribed by hand) that was not part of their normal, automatic intake that was about 1500 stations at the time, and that when that project ended they still had about 1500 stations reporting monthly.
See the paragraph above this one? Did you notice how your eyes glazed and your brain fogged up, and how you FILTERED IT OUT of your consciousness.
You’ve seen this explanation a couple dozen times, and never, ever, ever, ever dealt with it, just wound back to repeating the lie.
You unsee what I’ve explained to you about this every time. You never deal with it. Never respond to it. That’s how I know you have a strong filter.
Take the filter off and then we can talk. And let’s have no mumbo jumbo.
The current range of Arctic air in the USA.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/738isw7g8485.png
Maybe man-made global warming is fake but we still have to protect the environment and decide the quality of life.
CAOYUFEI,
Your statement reminds me of the position of George Bush I stated 27 years ago: “If we are going to spend money on the global warming issue, let’s spend it where we know we will get other environmental benefits from the expenditure.”
A key problem is that action in the name of global warming has often had detrimental environmental effects. Examples include (1) the devastation of Amazon subtropical forests induced by ethanol mandates (which were passed in the name of global warming), (2) the death of millions of birds and bats by windmills, (3) the diversion of over $100 billion away from known environmental problems to the global warming millionaires, (4) destruction of Midwest farmland to be covered by solar panels, (5) gaming by Chinese factories which actually intentionally increased harmful emissions in order to get more Western funds to lower those emissions, (6) movement of energy-intensive industries from countries with strict environmental practices to countries where environmental protection is a low priority. And the list goes on.
+1
Carbon dioxide is not pollution.
*Man emitted* CO2 is a pollutant — an unwanted substance with deleterious effects.
And the Supreme Court ruled it a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
What does the Supreme Court know about physics?
King Canute Science
The supremes are not likely experts on many things they rule on, medical issues, technology etc. But they should be experts on law and what it covers.
If you’re as bright as a 2 W bulb, you might think CO2 is pollution.
Ouch, you really got me there-I think.
No, the SCOTUS did not rule it a pollutant. They ruled that the EPA had the power to declare it so under the law.
SCOTUS rules on matters of law, not on matters of science.
In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the Supreme Court held that manmade GHGs are “air pollutants” for regulatory purposes, under the Clean Air Act and its amendments, passed by Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
inquirer…” gaming by Chinese factories which actually intentionally increased harmful emissions in order to get more Western funds to lower those emissions”
Sounds like here in the province of British Columbia, Canada. An uber-right wing government imposed a carbon tax on us then handed the proceeds over to a private company with the idea that they’d reduce their emissions.
The female government official who implemented the plan had once been referred to as a West End Barbie Doll by a prominent socialist lawyer. Our current Canadian minister in charge of the environment has been labeled a ‘climate Barbie’ by a member of the media.
I have nothing in the least against female politicians but those two fit the monikers. Both are superficial believers in AGW.
The West End barbie doll was our finance minister and a dumb tradition we have is that the minister should wear a new pair of shoes while delivering the budget speech. WWBD bought a pair of GREEN, spiked, high heels that cost $600, all for a one-time use.
This, the woman who lectured us (more like a scolding) on our responsibility to the environment during the speech while wearing $600 high heels and handing the money she collected from a carbon tax over to a private company.
“Maybe man-made global warming is fake but we still have to protect the environment and decide the quality of life.”
Feed people first. There is no quality to life while starvation exists in the “environment” we humans inhabit.
You could exempt starving people, but it’s not optimal.
Why take a $10 loss in Miami for a $1 gain in Africa?
It’s optimal to split the $9 dollar saving.
It’s a very bad idea to conflating separate issues like this. Difficult problems are solved by dividing them until each part is easy.
Why would CO2 be the optimal solution to poverty?
svante…”Why would CO2 be the optimal solution to poverty?”
It’s not. The point Laura makes is that we are focused on pseudo-science at the expense of world poverty and hunger. The irony is in the way the UN, through the IPCC, is manufacturing climate propaganda as a guise to hide their real agenda, to transfer wealth from wealthy nations to poorer nations.
The UN has been a load of idiots since its inception. They’ve had well over half a century to solve world poverty and hunger and done absolutely nothing about it. They cater to yuppies dressed as hippies and eco-alarmists, like at the Rio Summit, while pretending to care about the poor and disenfranchised.
If you want to help the poor, help them, for cripes sakes. Stop hiding behind this charade of pseudo-science. Of course, you can’t help the poor in places like Africa and Iran till you ensure democracy in those countries. Sending money and food to those places right now will result in the aid being intercepted by corrupt governments.
If the UN was serious, it would set up forces to clean up the corruption. However, much of the UN voters are made up of these corrupt factions.
You have IPCC leaders like Pachauri, being charged with conflict of interest and sexual harassment. He resigned.
In Climategate, Phil Jones, of Had-crut was paraded in front of a 3-level board to investigate his involvement in the Climategate scandal. Two of the three stages were heard by people who had a conflict of interest in that they were involved directly in companies that benefited from the alarmist stance of Jones. Stage 1 was called off since the UK government faced an election.
Sheer corruption from top to bottom.
So the IPCC secret agenda is to help the poor, great.
svante…”So the IPCC secret agenda is to help the poor, great”.
I swore I said the UN had an agenda to help the poor. It’s an honourable commitment on paper but when you’ve had nearly 70 years to implement it and you have done nothing you are an idle swine.
It so happens the IPCC is run by the UN and it’s quite obvious to many of us the IPCC has nothing to do with science, rather it is in place to further the misguided UN agenda.
“The amazing decline of global hunger, in one chart,”
Zack Beauchamp, VOX, Oct 13, 2014.
https://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6969953/malnutrition-undernutrition-getting-better
The famous ‘we must choose either/or’.
In my city, we spent $millions on a new off-shore sewage treatment facility and as consequence our river is clean and swimmable for the first time in decades.
Should we not have done this and instead spent the money on solving hunger in the world?
nate…”Should we not have done this and instead spent the money on solving hunger in the world?”
How about both? There is plenty of money to do both, the problem lies with dogmatic people who indicate an interest in helping but who lack the awareness to get past their dogma.
If we humans put aside our personal dogmas and focused on ending world hunger/poverty, and cleaning up the environment, we could do both quite easily.
I just fail to see how CO2 is a pollutant at this time that requires the drastic measures being paraded by climate alarmists. You cannot see CO2, what you see and breath is largely water vapour and other pollutants that colour the emissions.
If factories and automobiles were emitting pure CO2, you’d never see it.
You cannot see CO. It will asphyxiate you.
Yes. By removing all those horrible bird shredders. And stopping corn monoculture for bio fuel.
And by building reliable, clean power plants. And by stopping to export production to counties without environmental protection.
Greetings from Germany
One former Green, still green at heart
johannes…”And by building reliable, clean power plants. And by stopping to export production to counties without environmental protection”.
It’s called political correctness over here. Merkel excels at it.
There’s nothing wrong with being green at heart provided one’s mind is in touch with reality.
caoyfei…”Maybe man-made global warming is fake but we still have to protect the environment and decide the quality of life”.
So, do it without perverting science or using science as the vehicle.
Heres the problem. Most people look at the science as one sided and one sided only. Is there a side that is telling the truth? Of course. Is there one thats lying? Of course. We just dont know which one or do we? These questions dont require much thinking all we need to do is ask ourselves these things?
1. What is the scientific method?
2. Do we come out with the same end results everytime?
Now when it comes to the whole climate change sha bang there are a few people
1. You have the alarmists who blame co2 as the main driver of climate
2. You have skeptics who doubt climate change in general
3. You have people like me who step outside the box and look at it from one perspective and one perspective only:
If global warming was caused my us which is what some people are claiming then why are there other scientists or politicians saying coming out with a totally different outcome? When you have a theory and you have different people come with different conclusions then its not a theory. Co2 Does not cause climate change to the extent that everyone thinks it does yet you have these other people who hold a degree that are coming out with totally different conclusions. Which one of these conclusions are right if they are coming out with totally different outcomes. The answer: none of them. If you and other people are doing an experiment and someone comes out with a totally different out come then it is not settled science it is junk science as is with the man made global warming nonsense. People like me who think that the sun is the main driver or climate are coming out with the same conclusions: the sun drives climate just like it always has been doing for the past billions of years. So heres my question to everyone. If global warming was such settled science then why are there people coming out with totally different outcomes and why are the people coming out with those outcomes coming to the same general conclusion that greenhouse gases arent the main driver of climate change the sun is?
This is easy. Since there arent any studys that prove 0,04% of Co2 is warming the planet catastrophically, humans can not be the cause.
Sounds logical : – )
cc4r…” What is the scientific method? ”
If the climate alarmists use the scientific method, why does their authority, the IPCC, present all its findings as likelihoods? Not once has the IPCC declared humans are causing global warming they have only claimed it is likely.
Mind you, they have assigned an inordinately high confidence level to their opinions and no one can explain how they derived the scale. It was 90% in 2007. In 2013, they announced there had been no warming during the 15 years since 1998, calling it a warming hiatus.
After admitting the warming had essentially stopped, it might be logical to reassess their opinion, right? Wrong!! The IPCC increased the likelihood to 95%.
Mind you, their buddies at NOAA declared 2014 the warmest year ever based on a confidence level of 48%. Only NASA GISS bested them, using confidence levels in the 30 percentile range. The IPCC at least does not have the cheek to manipulate truth using such blatant chicanery.
After admitting the warming had essentially stopped, it might be logical to reassess their opinion, right? Wrong!! The IPCC increased the likelihood to 95%.
Exactly then why should we believe them. Why should we focus on carbon dioxide if there are two scientists coming with two totally different conclusions. Scientists who study solar cycles and how they affect the climate come with similar conclusions. That nature is the main driver of climate not man
–Exactly then why should we believe them.–
No one with any sense, has ever believed a bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies probably predate cavemen, and believing
them is not something anyone has done.
It seems the primary purpose of them is to shift blame.
What is the scientific method?
It is certainly NOT what alarmist’s that possess a degree in disciplines relevant to the Earth science’s are practicing as utilising.
For an easy to watch (and interesting) summation of what the scientific method is and what the scientific method is not, refer to Carl Sagan Cosmos Ep 3 The Backbone of Night 26 mins + and Ep 7 The Harmony of Worlds 20 mins +.
The alarmist’s are clearly Pythagorean’s. They are very dangerous to the scientific method in the Earth science’s.
GC…”For an easy to watch (and interesting) summation of what the scientific method is and what the scientific method is not, refer to Carl Sagan…”
I learned the scientific method in high school and I find that description has stood the test of time. Carl Sagan became an entertainer and veered way off the scientific method. I have heard him say several times, “WHEN the Big Bang occurred…”. No one knows if the BB occurred at all and it is very highly unlikely based on the scientific method.
He was also an instigator of the theory that the atmosphere of Venus was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. James Hansen learned that theory from him and later, as leader of NASA GISS, tried to get it into the minds of the public that the same catastrophe was imminent on Earth.
The theory has never been proved and fairly recent data sent back from a space probe to Venus suggests the surface is way to hot (~450C) to have come from greenhouse warming.
The scientific method as I learned it is:
1)State an objective.
2)State your method.
3)Describe your apparatus and equipment.
4)Make observations.
5)Form a conclusion.
Dead simple, yet a lot of modern science ignores it, including AGW. The original experiment of Tyndall in which he ascertained that certain gases absorbed IR was very sound and based on the method. Things have really gone downhill from then.
From what I have seen, another step has been added:
6)Consult with other and reach an agreement on what really happened. Discard initial observation if required.
or 7)Misinterpret established science to form pseudo-scientific conclusions, then discard the experimental evidence.
cc4r…”Exactly then why should we believe them. Why should we focus on carbon dioxide if there are two scientists coming with two totally different conclusions”.
We shouldn’t they are outright liars and fabricators of propaganda. However, the IPCC is run by politicians who find it expedient to introduce means of raising taxes and giving handouts to their buddies in the private sector. That’s what catastrophic global warming/climate change is about.
Here’s how the IPCC works. Governments appoint lead authors and the LA’s select reviewers. In the end the reviewers submit a main report and 50 lead authors write the Summary for Policymakers for their masters the politicians.
When the main report is submitted by 2500 reviewers, the Summary has already been issued, then the main report is amended to reflect the Summary. Those who wrote the main report can complain but most of the time the complaints fall on deaf ears.
Ergo, the politicians get what they asked for, a load of lies. The 2500 reviewers are only there to give appearances of impartiality.
On one review, Chapter 9 was comprised of lead authors and reviewers who knew each other and only cited the works of each other. In an investigation by a leading statistician, he called Chapter 9 ‘nepotic’.
IPCC = corruption.
Or as I like to call it idiots predicting climate change
I definitely agree that the scientific method has been corrupted in the Earth science’s with the sheer weight of the AGW movement driving it.
Yes, Carl Sagan was actually a ‘believer’ in AGW up to his death. However, I firmly believe had he had access to the data that has become available since his death, he would be skeptical, at the least.
The Cosmos episodes referred to above are historical accounts of the scientific method of Democritus, Empedocles etc (who relied foremost upon the objectivity of empirical observation to test hypothesis/theory) vs Pythagoras and Plato who foremost relied upon ‘pure reasoning’/ideas in the absence of objectivity of empirical observation i.e models, mathematics without physicality. The other episode being an account of Kepler’s rediscovering of the Ionian scientific method which bases foremost importance of empirical observation.
In my opinion, these historical accounts should be required study for all undergraduates entering disciplines in the Earth science’s for the scientific method has been so distorted in curriculum in the early 21st century that students are at a point where they don’t actually comprehend the difference between empirical observation and abstract ideas.
GC…”The other episode being an account of Keplers rediscovering of the Ionian scientific method which bases foremost importance of empirical observation”.
I agree. it is interesting stuff.
Kepler took the observations of astronomer Tycho Brahe and applied math to them. I did not Google that, I recall reading it decades ago. Apparently Kepler, who was his assistant, did not believe Brahe’s data at first.
I think students should be introduced to the scientific history that lead up to our current version. I’m sure many would be prompted to question current science based on the history.
I find it interesting how Newton took the work of Descartes in geometry and used it to calculate the area under curves, using ever decreasing rectangles, leading to the development of calculus. Apparently Newton first described the orbits of planets around the Sun and Kepler expanded on the idea coupled with the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe.
I was just reading an article on Boltzmann and how none of his works published in German have been freely available as English translations. So, how is it we have so-called experts on Boltzmann today, and his equation with Stefan, when no one really knows anything about him and how he derived his equations?
One current mathematician who does understand the history as related to Boltzmann/Planck et al is Claes Johnson, a brilliant mathematician our esteemed Norman considered a dolt and a fool. Johnson has merely taken the work of Planck in particular and converted it to Newtonian mechanics, so that quantum theory is not required.
Some dolt, some fool.
ClimateChange4Realz
“If global warming was such settled science then why are there people coming out with totally different outcomes and why are the people coming out with those outcomes coming to the same general conclusion that greenhouse gases arent the main driver of climate change the sun is?”
It is an interesting question, especially as the intensity of sunlight is decreasing while temperatures continue to rise, the opposite of what you would expect if changes in the Sun were the cause.
Perhaps there are other reasons?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
All thermal storage oscillators incorporate lag. Sorry to be repetitive.
GEOFF…”All thermal storage oscillators incorporate lag. Sorry to be repetitive”.
Interesting. I have wondered if the 98 El Nino pulse set off a slow oscillation of sorts from which the climate has yet to recovered. It has been compounded by pulses in 2010 and 2016.
It should resolve eventually but it is taking its time.
Aren’t most climatologists payed to provide information which potentially undermines their profession if totally unbiased?
Working for a university or a government research organisation your research is expected to reflect reality. That is, to be unbiased and repeatable by other workers. You get paid the same whatever the outcome.
If you work for a company they tend to want “deliverables” that support their message. Remember all those tobacco company scientists saying that fags were safe?
That’s strange, I understand that most research is funded and subject to biasing by that virtue.
Even scientists have to eat.
University and research councils pay the scientist to find whatever answer is out there.
When companies or lobby groups finance research there is always the suspicion that they pay the scientist to tell them what supports the corporate message.
entropic…”Even scientists have to eat”.
It’s not the eating that bothers me it’s the funding of their BMW’s and whatever other vices they may have. Has it escaped you that some of the top alarmist climate scientists are arrogant SOBs?
Em, do you believe institutionalized “science” is unbiased?
Reminder of what unbiased application of filter produces:
https://tinyurl.com/ybvsr6xg
Working for a university or a government research organisation your research is expected to reflect reality. That is, to be unbiased and repeatable by other workers. You get paid the same whatever the outcome.
Yes but my question is why are there other people who came with different conclusions and are questioning the theory that are also certified in the field like dr Roy Spencer?
Roy does not question the theory – only the magnitude of the effect.
As does Richard Lindzen.
There are no qualified scientists who dispute the theory (only unqualified crackpots and retired engineers – some of them post here)
Perhaps I didnt make my self clear enough. CATASTROPHIC AGW is what I meant. I meant that some scientist come up with conclusions that say that the affect it has on the earth is too small to be detectable so the idea that co2 is the tail that wags the dog doesnt work.
LOL this was a good one. +1
Yes but my question is why are there other people who came with different conclusions and are questioning the theory that are also certified in the field like dr Roy Spencer?
You get this in any branch of science that is settled or reasonably settled. There are people publishing papers saying that Einstein got it all wrong. Not many, and relativity theory is settled.
Because this issue has strong implications for society, particular re energy usage, a huge part of the economic fabric, these voices that usually dwell on the edges of science have been thrust into the limelight. Some are even paid to do so by private companies.
You can see lists of papers or publishers on skeptic websites that purport to be hundreds of rejections of AGW, or of the politically inspired acronym ‘CAGW’. But when you investigate them, most of the papers are not what they are purported to be.
The question is, why do so few qualified researchers disagree with the mainstream view?
Why though why are there people disagreeing with Einsteins work and why are there a few let alone any disagreeing with the global warming theory? Why?
How do you know Einsteins work is true then if people are disagreeing with it or arent coming to the same end result?
barry…”You can see lists of papers or publishers on skeptic websites that purport to be hundreds of rejections of AGW, or of the politically inspired acronym CAGW. But when you investigate them, most of the papers are not what they are purported to be”.
Have you heard of Climategate, where top-level IPCC contributors were caught red-handed trying to interfere with peer-review and revealing their methods for making the atmosphere appear to be warmer than it is?
In one comment, Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, head of Had-crut, threatened in conjunction with his CLA partner to make sure certain skeptical papers did not make it to the IPCC review.
In another comment, a trick of Michael Mann was revealed on how to hide declining temperatures. Phil Jones bragged about using it at Had-crut.
In another one, they applauded the death of John Daly, a skeptic.
In yet another, Phil Jones is seen encouraging his buddies to oppose an FOI request of Steve McIntyre to the UK government to get the Had-crut data for independent audit.
It has nothing to do with science being settled, the current climate scenario is about spreading propaganda, hiding facts from the public that contradict AGW, and stacking peer review processes with climate alarmists. Even the once prestigious National Academy of Science has been infiltrated by alarmists and taken over by them.
cc4r…”Working for a university or a government research organisation your research is expected to reflect reality”.
Better tell that to NOAA and NASA GISS. NOAA has been fudging the temperature record retroactively, then GISS takes the fudged data and fudges it more.
I fear NOAA is now intercepting the sat data, running it through an algorithm to show warming, then handing it over to UAH. Why not, it’s their satellite data?
For the same reason I don’t give much time to flat Earthers. Or to people who think the world was created 6000 years ago. Or intelligent designers. Or those researchers (who were paid for years) to call the harms of smoking tobacco into question. Or to those studies that de-linked HIV and AIDS.
100% unanimity is not a requirement for understanding something.
There are always outliers. The mistake is to give them the same weight as the views they are countering. Fishing for them exclusively is just a more extreme iteration of the problem.
“There are always outliers.”
Yes, like Alfred Wegener and Barry Marshall. There have been far too many such instances of the outliers being found correct in science to dismiss them in an unsettled field.
The Tobacco Institute saga only shows that scientists can be bought, doubly so when their personal inclinations parallel those of the agency employing them. The tobacco scientists didn’t get rich off their research. They just really wanted what they were researching to be true.
Yes, Bart. When the outliers become the mainstream, then that’s what we rely on. But what we’re talking about here is recognizing outliers from mainstream, rather than promoting them on some Copernicus argument.
I think what you are doing is trying to appropriate the prestige of well established theories, that have withstood decades if not centuries of concerted scrutiny, on behalf of a fledgling, half-baked hypothesis that hasn’t yet even been potty trained.
AGW theory is over a century old. It is probably the most scrutinized field in the last 30 years, and possibly ever.
The worldwide weight of opinion is what it is. You seem to want to write that off as ‘half-baked’. I see no reasonable reason to do so considering the tens of thousands of studies that support it over many decades. Whereas I do think it is unreasonable to propose it is ‘half-baked’ based on the much smaller sample of studies that do not support it.
barry says, February 1, 2018 at 10:28 PM:
This is pure bollocks, and I’m pretty sure you know it. The idea of “AGW” is still to this day based on nothing but speculation. There isn’t a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system suggesting that it’s real in any way. The postulated causal relationship +CO2 => +T has NEVER been even remotely verified as an actual physical connection in nature. And still it’s simply taken for granted to be true. Everyone THINKS it’s thoroughly established empirically, even when this is not the case AT ALL. It’s based solely on (severely limited) theoretical considerations …
Kristian,
Anyone saying ‘There isnt a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system suggesting that its real in any way.’
is just not living in the real world of facts, and is in deep deep denial.
Nate says, February 2, 2018 at 8:43 AM:
So name one. Exactly what observational evidence showing that “AGW” is real am I denying?
Kristian is exactly right. An hypothesis means nothing if it is not verified. It gains no legitimacy just from having been around a long time.
Kristian,
From the Feldman paper quoted by David, measurements show how forcing varies with CO2, even at seasonal scale.
https://media.springernature.com/m685/nature-assets/nature/journal/v519/n7543/images/nature14240-f4.jpg
That’s a measurement of an enhanced GHE. How does that not increase temperature?
There isnt a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system suggesting that its real in any way.
It doesn’t matter how many times this BS is replied to, it keeps coming back.
Kristian,
I just love the blanket statements from you guys.
Just Google ‘evidence for AGW’ yourself and show us how it is incorrect. There are obviously thousands of papers that provide evidence that must be considered as a whole.
Or just look at Hansen, Science, 1981, and how successful their model’s many specific projections were over the next 35 years. This is rather convincing.
Svante says, February 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM:
How come every single time I point out on this blog that there isn’t a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that the hypothetical causal relationship +CO2 => +T is one that’s in actual effective operation in nature, one sorry acolyte (normally it’s Appell) is sure to come along, as if at his or her master’s beck and call, dragging in the Feldman study from 2015 to once again throw it on the table as some kind of Divine Proof …!?
Which once more forces me to sit down and explain to him/her why exactly this isn’t even CLOSE to being the kind of evidence that he/she seems to THINK it is, and that he/she so desperately WISHES for it to be. Until next time. When the cycle repeats itself, all over again. It just goes round and round. Like a meme. Counterarguments do not sink in. They are completely and summarily ignored. Every single time. The propaganda machine works.
What is it about this study that has so enthralled the followers and true believers of the “AGW” religion? I can’t think of anything except the headlines it caused. From just the first two pages on Google Search: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface” (Berkeley Lab News Center), “Carbon dioxide’s contribution to greenhouse effect monitored in real time” (physicsworld.com), “New study directly measures greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface” (Carbon Brief), “First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect” (phys.org), “Researchers Observe CO2’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect” (sci-news.com), “Scientists confirm ‘greenhouse’ effect of human’s CO2” (Science News for Students), “Surprise! CO2 Directly Linked To Global Warming” (Forbes), “Greenhouse Effect Is Witnessed … and Getting Worse” (Live Science), “From Warming Estimates to Measurements – Scientists measure the heat trapped by atmospheric carbon dioxide for the first time” (Yale Climate Connections), “New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide” (Skeptical Science), “The Climate Post: First-Ever Direct Observation of Greenhouse Gas Increase” (Huffington Post), “Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air” (AP News), “Scientists have measured the impact of greenhouse gas on the Earth’s surface, and their findings are not good news” (Quartz Media).
Everyone’s scrambling to get on the bandwagon!
And Feldman himself, of course, did nothing to cool the choir down. When interviewed by the news center of his own employer, the Berkeley Lab (top headline above), he boldly proclaimed:
“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” (…) “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” (…)
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Plus, from the study’s own abstract:
“(…) we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.” [And:] “These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels (…) are affecting the surface energy balance.”
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
I hardly think that more than the tiniest fraction of the people waving this around as somehow “final proof” that “AGW” is real (!!) has ever even read past the headlines, much less the paper itself.
It’s such a bore!
Kristian, so many words, and didnt see any feldman rebuttal.
Kristian – you didnt give a scientific response to Feldman et al, just some meaningless hand waving.
Nate says, February 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM:
A rebuttal of what!? The Feldman study doesn’t provide the evidence we’re looking for. So why should I “rebut” it. Did you even read my previous comment?
barry says, February 2, 2018 at 8:44 PM:
It doesn’t matter how many times the nonsense “AGW is real” claim is replied to. It keeps coming back.
Rather than just dismissing all the time the ones pointing out the utter lack of observational evidence for it, PRESENT IT!
Nate says, February 2, 2018 at 10:41 PM:
I just love the blanket responses from you guys. Just search this and that, or just read the AR5, or just read about Hansen and his models. You’ll find the answer there …
No. That’s not what I’m asking for. I’m making a positive claim. All you have to do, then, is to present ONE single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that more CO2 in the atmosphere actually causes Earth’s T_s to rise, and my claim is falsified. Just ONE.
Why is it that this can never be accomplished!? Can’t you just do a google search yourself and pick the first entry and link it here for everyone to see? If it’s that straightforward. If there’s so much evidence around …
Look, you all need to wake up to the reality that the whole idea of “AGW”, or “the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect”, is nothing but a theoretically based conjecture.
The central claim being made is the following:
This is the basic premise lying at the heart of the entire “AGW” industry. The one thing that HAS TO be correct in order for all the other claims to even stand a chance of being taken seriously in a proper scientific context.
But has this basic premise ever, anywhere, by anyone, been verified empirically through consistent observations from the real Earth system?
Of course not! Not even remotely so!
It is still nothing but a loose conjecture …
And yet NO ONE seems to acknowledge even in the slightest howthis circumstance mightpose a problem. All you get if you bring it up are shrugs of indifference and/or tuts of disapproval. ‘Go away, we’re discussing real, importantissues here!’
The irony …
It is all rather fascinating. EVERYONE appears to take for granted, without a single critical thought in their mind, that this fully unsubstantiated assertion is in fact rather a long-established Truth. Warmers and lukewarmers alike. It’s like a complete blind spot to all of them. It simply isn’t seenas an issue at all. People’s eyes glaze over whenever someone tries to call their attention to it. They simply don’t understand what you’re getting at. In their world, if theoretically it should be like that, then it is like that. To them, the Truth of inescapable net CO2 warmingjust is, like solid bedrock (you can feel it under your feet and so you know it’s real),a piece of self-evident fact that no one apparently sees any point in even addressing, much less testing, like “Do we question gravity?”.
The difference is, gravity’s effect on its surroundings is an empirically established fact, confirmed every day through billions upon billions of casual observations. The claimed warming effect of atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth, on the other hand, has NOT been empirically verified. At all. Not even once.
A claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere will and does make the global surface of the Earth warmer on average comeswithout ONE SINGLE SHRED OF ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!*
* (It is an empirical fact that CO2 is a gas that absorbs (and emits) radiation at certain wavelengths within the EM spectrum. And no one claims otherwise. However, the notion that putting more of it into the atmosphere will thereby automatically (by physical necessity) induce a NET warming of the surface underneath, is NOT. And THAT is the claim. Which simply doesn’t follow straight from the original, empirically established fact. You cannot presuppose a direct connection here … You need to test it first! To try and verify it empirically. Out in the real world.)
And still people walk around treating it as gospel truth. In all sincerityequating its validity to gravity’s pull. Which, to be frank, should utterly boggle one’s mind …!
But most people naturally don’t know that the basic premise of the entire “AGW” proposition comes with exactly ZERO pieces of empirical evidence from the real Earth system. They simply assume that there are in fact tons of them out there. Because that’s what they’ve been told. By the people who should know this. The “experts”. And they’ve been told so for a long time, repeatedly, incessantly. Directly and indirectly. Never actually shown any such evidence, of course (it doesn’t exist, after all). And they don’t ask for it either … They’re only ever reassured – persistently and insistingly – that it does exist. Somewhere. And piles of it. Do not doubt it …
Kristian, show me the empirical evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.
Kristian,
Since all evidence presented to you thus far has been branded by you, the judge, as ‘not evidence’. Its not possible to know ahead of time what to go and find that will satisfy you. On the other hand, most climate scientists and physical scientists who’ve looked at the evidence, find it compelling.
There are many overlapping and self-consistent lines of evidence, like the evidence for evolution, or evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.
It is incumbent on YOU to tell us what kind of experiment or evidence would satisfy you.
Perhaps only a second Earth without added CO2 will do it. Thats not possible. But physics based simulations of the Earth, with and without extra CO2, is as close as we could do. That of course, has been done many times, and indeed shows more warming, and the spatial pattern of warming that is observed.
Kristian wrote:
How come every single time I point out on this blog that there isnt a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that the hypothetical causal relationship +CO2 => +T
The research shows that CO2 is increasing the amount of downward energy near the surface.
We know from previous physics that more energy increases the temperature of a gas.
What more do you want?
PS: Show me the experiment that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
profp…”As does Richard Lindzen”
I have already posted a paper (several times) by Lindzen on the GHE and he describes the theory as an over-simplified model. His version of the GHE is far different than the popular understanding.
barry…”AGW theory is over a century old. It is probably the most scrutinized field in the last 30 years, and possibly ever”.
To add to the words of Kristian…double bollocks!!
I was reading through a paper by Callendar which was posted by David Appell. It became clear after reading the paper that all of modern AGW theory was taken verbatim from Callendar. It is not based on Tyndall or Arrhenius but on Callendar.
No further scientific proof has been offered.
Problem is, he did not prove that CO2 has a warming effect in the atmosphere he only applied reasoning to it. In his paper, he went to so far as to compare warming since 1850 to the 1930s with an estimated increase in CO2 while remaining oblivious to the significance of 1850. It marked the end of the Little Ice Age.
Environments hopefully rewarm after an ice age, one would think. Why did Callendar not look for such an obviously, natural cause for the warming? Why was he focused on CO2? And half a century later, why was the IPCC focused on CO2, completely oblivious to the cooling of the Little Ice Age?
“No further scientific proof has been offered.”
The evidence is overwhelming.
What “proof” do you think is missing?
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have already posted a paper (several times) by Lindzen on the GHE and he describes the theory as an over-simplified model. His version of the GHE is far different than the popular understanding.”
How so?
PLease explain. And give some citations.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have already posted a paper (several times) by Lindzen on the GHE and he describes the theory as an over-simplified model.”
So what — Lindzen was wrong.
In 2017, 22 current and retired MIT professors wrote a open letter saying that
“As [Lindzen’s] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump
Kristian,
Rather than just dismissing all the time the ones pointing out the utter lack of observational evidence for it, PRESENT IT!
Again? Ok. But I can predict the goal post shift – you will stop talking about evidence and start talking about something else.
1) AGW predicts that global surface temperatures over the long term should rise. This is what we observe.
2) Darkening of the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time – observed.
3) Brightening of spectral bands associated with CO2 looking skyward – observed.
4) GH warming predicts (before observations were available) that the lower stratosphere should cool while the surface warms over the long term – observed.
5) Winters should warm faster than summers for each hemisphere – observed.
These are 5 results that match predictions for GH warming. 2-5 are predictions that are specifically for GH warming. There are more.
This is evidence.
Feel free to request studies corroborating the above.
Please don’t shift the goalposts.
David Appell says, February 3, 2018 at 2:03 PM:
Well, is the claim being made that a body that smokes will INEVITABLY (meaning, by physical/chemical necessity, always, no matter what else is going on) develop lung cancer? That 100% of smokers end up getting lung cancer?
Sorry, I can’t find the empirical evidence to back up such a claim. Because IT DOESN’T EXIST.
So Kristian agrees that the risk of global warming increases with more CO2.
That’s fair enough, we all have different risk assessments.
To barrys list:
6) Nights should warm more than days observed.
Nate says, February 3, 2018 at 3:11 PM:
Hahaha! This is the laziest possible response to a request for observational evidence. Unfortunately, it is also by far the most common response given by people like you, staunch supporters of the “AGW” dogma. All you ever provide is purported evidence, observations that you HOPE will somehow cover for your lack of ACTUAL evidence – “proxy observations.”
OF COURSE you know what I’m asking for. I am stating it in the clearest cut fashion possible. There is no way you could misunderstand it. If you know ANYTHING about 1) the scientific method, and 2) the “hypothesis” of “the anthropogenically enhanced GHE.”
# The claim is made that more CO2 in the atmosphere will (MUST!) – on balance – lead to an increase in surface temperature. There are no caveats here! If this DOESN’T happen in ALL cases, all things considered, no matter what, there is no claim. The causal link +CO2 => +T is taken as gospel truth. It just IS. Like solid bedrock under your feet.
# So my – extremely simple! – request is the following: SHOW that this causal link is a real and operative one out there in nature. SHOW, through consistent empirical observations, that more CO2 in the atmosphere DOES in fact CAUSE surface temps to rise.
Which is to say that the evidence you present will have to show THE CAUSAL LINK ITSELF. The “=>”. It’s not enough for it to show the claimed “cause” and the claimed “effect” separately: the “+CO2” and the “+T”. Which SHOULD be a no-brainer.
What we want to know is whether or not the claimed cause IS in fact what it’s claimed to be, that the claimed effect IS in fact an effect caused by the claimed cause.
And in order to find out, we need to know what to look for. We need to know through what PHYSICAL MECHANISM the claimed cause is supposed – according to the hyothesis – to cause the claimed effect. And we need to know how to spot that mechanism in operation. We need to define its “physical signature”.
Then we go out into the real world to look for specific observations that together might fit the bill for that pre-defined physical signature. If we do see the signature, and it can be followed through a consistent observable pattern over time, we can be pretty sure it’s bound to have some kind of effect, that it’s working more or less according to plan. And only THEN can we start quantifying its impact. We need to verify its operative existence first. And only THEN treat it as an established piece of physical reality. We can’t PONDER or MODEL our way to this point …
No, there aren’t, Nate. You WANT there to be. You BELIEVE there to be. But there aren’t. There are just claims upon claims upon preconceived assumptions. And models, of course. Their output based directly ON those assumptions.
Circular arguments, not “lines of evidence”.
No, evolution has actual empirical evidence to support it. The idea of “AGW” hasn’t.
You already know. You’re just evading, because you know in reality you’ve got nothing. But see above …
No, it’s not. Claiming that would be an outrageous admission of failure. No, we could indeed do much better than that. IF (!!) we actually had the required empirical/observational evidence available. Models just tell you what you already believe to be true. They’re YOUR models. Circular reasoning …
Svante says, February 4, 2018 at 4:51 AM:
Yes, you love to tease, don’t you.
DavidAppell says, February 3, 2018 at 4:14 PM:
No, what more CO2 in the atmosphere is SUPPOSED to do, according to theory, is reducing the amount of TOTAL energy (heat) ESCAPING the surface at any given surface temperature. Assuming constant heat INPUT from the Sun, this should lead to surface warming.
We don’t have the data to tell us much about the total heat loss of the surface of the Earth, i.e. Q_cond + Q_evap + Q_rad. What we DO have, however, is data to show us how the total all-sky RADIATIVE heat loss [Q_rad] of Earth’s global surface has evolved since 2000 (CERES EBAF Ed4 SFC). And the Q_rad is the only kind of heat loss that an increase in atmospheric CO2 could influence directly.
Here it is:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gl-sfc-net-lw.png
Earth’s global radiative heat loss has INCREASED (become more negative) since 2000. The radiative heat loss is mathematically defined like this: LW_down(all-sky) minus LW_up.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/lw_up-vs-lw_down.png
The LW_up term increased by MORE than the LW_down(all-sky) term between 2000 and 2017. Which means that the Earth’s global surface strengthened its ability to shed its heat via radiation over the period. Which tells us that it can NOT have been a REDUCTION in the radiative heat loss at any given surface temperature that made the surface warmer over the period. Because that wouldn’t have allowed the surface to shed its radiative heat MORE EFFECTIVELY as it grew warmer.
And from 2000 to 2017, the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by more than 10% (~38 ppm), almost equal to a third of the entire increase since the 19th century. And what did it do? NOTHING.
So, no, I’m afraid you’re wrong, David.
Kristian says,
“And what did it do? NOTHING.”
Really? Let’s compare. What do those charts look like with no additional CO2?
Kristian says:
“The LW_up term increased by MORE than the LW_down(all-sky) term between 2000 and 2017”
Looking at figure 2, it appears they increased in unison. That contradicts the first graph, which shows there was a significant net difference. What gives?
Svante,
Decrease in global diurnal range [6)] seems to be apparent for periods of 50 years or more, but, last I read, is not so apparent for the last 30-40 years years. Hence, I don’t include it in the list.
See:
Consistent with Easterling et al. (1997), minimum temperature increased at a faster rate than maximum temperature during the latter half of the 20th century, resulting in a significant decrease in the DTR for this period. In contrast, maximum and minimum temperature increases were roughly comparable during the satellite era, muting recent changes in the DTR. Maximum and minimum temperature increased in almost all parts of the globe during both periods, whereas a widespread decrease in the DTR was only evident from 1950-1980.
https://tinyurl.com/y8kbmduf
And for Europe (I realize it’s regional, but it fits with global):
It has been widely accepted that diurnal temperature range (DTR) decreased on a global scale during the second half of the twentieth century. Here we show however, that the long-term trend of annual DTR has reversed from a decrease to an increase during the 1970s in Western Europe and during the 1980s in Eastern Europe.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/6483/2008/acp-8-6483-2008.pdf
I’ve found nothing more recent on global diurnal temp range for the latter period, but there’s likely been discussion of it in the literature.
barry says, February 4, 2018 at 2:06 AM:
No, not “again”. You’ve never done it before. Just waved your arms and shouted ‘Hey, look over here!’ So how can it be “again”?
I can too. It’s your custom, after all. I (not you) am the one putting up the goal posts in the first place, and YOU (not me) are the one consistently trying to move them. That’s been the name of the game up until now, at least.
Let’s see, then. If you’ve found something of relevance since last time …
Moving the goal posts right away, I see. This is not what I’m asking for, barry: +CO2 => +T.
Moving the goal posts yet again. This still isn’t what I’m asking for: +CO2 => +T.
It is obvious that you lack any understanding, barry, of what the kind of evidence that you need to present in order to substantiate the claim +CO2 => +T actually needs to show and be about.
I can tell you: It’s not this.
*Sigh*
The goal posts are on their way out of the field by now …
*Facepalm*
It is evidence of SOMETHING. But it is NOT evidence of the central “AGW” claim, its basic premise: +CO2 => +T. I explain above (to Nate) what exactly it is that I’m asking for, and what you need to go look for: The observable “signature” of the hypothesized “physical mechanism” connecting “claimed cause” (+CO2) and “claimed effect” (+T).
Kristian,
As predicted, you have shifted the goalposts by trying to redefine evidence.
evidence
n.
“the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
Evidence in no way has to be conclusive to a proposition to be rightly called evidence.
Everything I listed is evidence for the warming effects of greenhouse gases.
What you are asking for is PROOF.
For you, the matching of the bullet to the gun, the gun being licensed to the shooter, probable cause in that the victim slept with the shooter’s husband, the overheard shouting matches on the infidelity and the threat to kill the victim, and the fact that the shooter was seen in the victim’s neighbourhood on the night of the killing – you think these things don’t constitute evidence.
No, YOU think that evidence could only possibly be a videotape clearly showing the shooter pulling the trigger and killing the victim.
There’s no smoking gun for connecting tobacco and disease. There is only a mountain of evidence that makes denial of it ridiculous. And the people who deny the connection of tobacco smoking and disease use strange redefinitions of what constitutes evidence just like you do.
And that’s why people brought it up. According to your strange redefinition of the term, there is zero evidence that smoking endangers your health.
Everything I listed is evidence. And you only asked for evidence in the real Earth system, which I provided. There is also the laboratory evidence – empirically tested. Atmospheric observations are also empirical. And some of the evidence I listed is specific to GH warming.
The BODY of evidence I presented is specific to GH warming. No other cause can account for all of it.
So next time don’t pretend you haven’t been presented with evidence – basing your dismissiveness on a BS redefinition of the term. Accept you have been presented with exhibits A through E (and there is more) and argue the evidence as it stands.
barry says:
February 4, 2018 at 2:06 AM
Kristian,
1) AGW predicts that global surface temperatures over the long term should rise. This is what we observe.
2) Darkening of the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time observed.
3) Brightening of spectral bands associated with CO2 looking skyward observed.
4) GH warming predicts (before observations were available) that the lower stratosphere should cool while the surface warms over the long term observed.
5) Winters should warm faster than summers for each hemisphere observed.
These are 5 results that match predictions for GH warming. 2-5 are predictions that are specifically for GH warming. There are more.
This is evidence.
Yes Barry and it’s about a degree over the last 168 years. And how much do the various CMIP5 models say the temperature should have gone up by now? I’m sure you’re familiar with Dr. Spencer’s graphs that compare observations with the CMIP5 models that show that reality has not kept up. I’m also sure you’re familiar with the concept that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic and that to get to the numbers you guys project requires positive feedbacks. So far it’s not happening like you guys say. When is the Global Warming going to pick up the pace? At what point on your trip from A to B do you decide you’re lost?
The polar bears aren’t dying off like we were told they would, the ice caps really aren’t melting, sea level rise is an obvious straight line, violent tornadoes and hurricanes aren’t increasing, and neither are droughts and floods. And we know that increasing CO2 is a significant factor in the increase in world-wide food production. In other words, the hysteria is unfounded.
“This is the laziest possible response to a request for observational evidence.”
“OF COURSE you know what Im asking for. I am stating it in the clearest cut fashion possible.”
No, we don’t know whats in your perverse thoughts. All we know is that you are being, as usual, an asshole.
You want people to got out and search for YOU the literature and find ‘evidence’ that you will then dismiss as not evidence, because as Barry says, you will move the goal posts. NO thanks!
“# The claim is made that more CO2 in the atmosphere will (MUST!) on balance lead to an increase in surface temperature. There are no caveats here! If this DOESNT happen in ALL cases, all things considered, no matter what, there is no claim”
This statement reveals what a moron you are.
No physical theory has those constraints on it during tests. There are no “if it doesnt happen in all cases” tests for relativity or quantum or whatever.
Obviously we cannot ignore other forcings on temperature when testing what effect CO2 has, idiot.
Now it is clear that what you are seeking is a test that no theory could pass.
barry says: “Decrease in global diurnal range […] is not so apparent for the last 30-40 years”.
Noted. That would agree with the paper that Snape found, SW feedbacks are kicking in and we are well into fig. 1D.
https://tinyurl.com/y8xfz32p
What’s your take on that? One study syndrome?
Svante,
From the study conclusions section:
However, the current global energy imbalance seems to be dominated by reduced OLR because of the substantial SW forcing associated with anthropogenic tropospheric aerosols, which have directly reduced ASR and indirectly reduced OLR by curtailing global warming.
The paper is in regard to the satellite period, and this result seems to suggest that there should be a negative diurnal trend in line with earlier predictions.
As for single-study syndrome, my next move would be to copy the title into google scholar and check the cite list. Here it is:
https://tinyurl.com/yda83o2r
24 cites from 2014 is a respectable but not convincing number – but the subject is highly specialised. But are the cites corroborating the central argument? That’s not certain from a causal scan of the list.
Good to see you here, Steve. How was the rest of the trip?
Attribution of climate change has a host of other evidentiary material.
As far as I’ve gathered, Dr Spencer has made choices in the model/obs comparison that exaggerate the discrepancy. I’d be interested to see how things stack up with the most recent observations. Roy hasn’t done that since the 2016 el Nino arrived.
Here’s another model/obs comparison that has:
https://tinyurl.com/yaddul5r
Web page:
https://tinyurl.com/ybqttdle
And another:
https://tinyurl.com/yagc67v5
barry says, February 4, 2018 at 8:04 AM:
No, I haven’t. You’re acting like I somehow don’t understand what I’m asking for, and that YOU somehow know better. So YOU shift the goal posts by not even addressing the specific claim that I’m asking for evidence of, and when I point this out to you, your only response is the above, that I’ve somehow shifted the goal posts. So now I have to accept that your purported “evidence” is correct, simply because YOU say so, and when I object and tell you it’s not even remotely close to what I’m asking for, then I’m all of a sudden the one moving the goal posts! I mean, how arrogant and conceited can a person get?
Stop nagging and start looking for some REAL evidence that ACTUALLY directly addresses the central “AGW” assumption!
And which one is that? +CO2 => +T.
Nope. Everything you listed are things people tend to INTERPRET as “evidence for the warming effects of greenhouse gases”. So you seriously think that if you see warming, for instance, then that is evidence for what CAUSED that warming!? No, warming is evidence of … warming. Not of its cause. Only if you come with the preconception that +CO2 MUST CAUSE +T, will you be naturally inclined to interpret observed warming as caused by a concurrent rise in atmospheric CO2. Even if you have absolutely NO evidence to support the preconception of yours that it must.
No, what I’m asking for is EVIDENCE. You have “circumstantial evidence” and you have “direct evidence”. I don’t need direct evidence, barry. Circumstantial will do. And I only need ONE piece of it.
But I need that one piece of evidence to be specifically for the claimed CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP, not for everything else that YOU might find interesting and/or relevant.
Wrong. This IS circumstantial evidence. And that’s what I’m asking for. What YOU present, however, are different pieces of evidence for OTHER things, OTHER questions.
You’re spending so much time and energy, now, NOT presenting some real evidence, rather trying to talk your way out of it, that I more and more come to suspect that you’re fully aware that any such real evidence doesn’t actually exist, only you cannot get yourself to admit it.
Yes. Of something ELSE than what I asked for, barry.
Yes, but the claim is not about what happens in a laboratory. It’s about what happens out there in our planet’s real climate system.
Yes, but you need to be specific about your atmospheric observations. You need to understand WHAT TO LOOK FOR. It’s not like any atmospheric observation provides evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes temps to rise, so all you need to do is pick one …
Yes, but NONE of them to the claimed causal link: +CO2 => +T.
Hahaha, laughable!
Let’s run them through in quick succession, then:
1) It’s become warmer. Evidence of … +T. A general observation that no other cause could account for!?
2) Less clear-sky OLR in the CO2-associated spectral bands. Evidence of … +CO2.
3) More clear-sky DWLWIR in the CO2-associated spectral bands. Evidence of … +CO2.
4) Stratospheric cooling. Evidence of … +CO2. (And of -O3.)
5) Winters warm faster than summers. Evidence of … +T (see 1)).
Yes, barry. CO2 has gone up (since 1958). And T_gl has gone up (since 1976). What none of your pieces of evidence address at all is the CLAIMED CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP linking these two observations.
Before you go out looking for the relevant kind of observational evidence from the real Earth system, you need to understand how the postulated “greenhouse warming MECHANISM” is supposed to work. Only THEN can you know what to look for. The specific signature (“fingerprint”) of that warming mechanism …
Do you follow? Two questions for you, then, barry:
1) How is the postulated “GH warming mechanism” supposed to work?
2) What would be the physical signature to look for if you wanted to verify the effective operation of this mechanism within the real Earth system?
If you know the answer to 1), the answer to 2) should really give itself …
I’m not pretending, barry. I haven’t been presented with evidence. Not with RELEVANT evidence. But now’s you chance!
Kristian, you clearly have a favorite data set, CERES. But there are many other data sets, such as OHC, showing an ongoing increase in energy imbalance of the Earth.
Issues I see:
The slope in CERES data vs year, has a rather large error bar. How does the measured slope (with error) compare to the predicted?
The CERES data must be measured over the entire Globe and averaged. The net LWR is tiny, and has large error. What is this error?
Your assumption is that SWR is constant, but it may not be, esp during large El Nino events.
Svante says, February 4, 2018 at 3:28 PM:
“That would agree with the paper that Snape found, SW feedbacks are kicking in and we are well into fig. 1D.”
It might well be that what we’ve seen over the last few years is the result of SW feedbacks to general warming “kicking in”:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/asr-vs-olr.png
However, SW (+ASR) is also seen to be the original CAUSE of the warming. Which appears to be the exact opposite situation of the one Donohoe et al. describe in their paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.full
So, according to mainstream “Climate Science”, what has caused today’s positive ToA imbalance of ~ +0.6 W/m^2 (generally understood as the driving force behind ‘global warming’)? Well, Donohoe et al. lay the reasoning out pretty neatly in the quote above:
ASR – OLR = net balance
-0.2 W/m^2 – (-0.8 W/m^2) = +0.6 W/m^2
Which is to say that ASR is assumed to have dropped by 0.2 W/m^2, which would give a slightly NEGATIVE contribution to the overall balance, while OLR is assumed to have dropped by 0.8 W/m^2, which would give a strongly POSITIVE contribution to the same. The conclusion thus becomes that a reduction in OLR (from an assumed “enhanced GHE”) has contributed 133% (!) to the positive imbalance, leading to energy accumulation within the Earth system, leading to global warming, while ASR at the same time contributed a negative (that is, a cooling) 33% to the same.
Which is reality turned EXACTLY on its head. In the real world, the situation is the complete opposite!
Truly a fascinating case of self-delusion …
Kristian
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/asr-vs-olr.png
TOA all-sky ASR vs. OLR? What??
Not much radiation is absorbed at the TOA!
Nate says, February 4, 2018 at 9:52 AM:
Right. So you can’t and you won’t produce even ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that “AGW” is in fact a real thing. Yet you continue to reserve the right to claim and assume its “reality” as an absolute Fact.
And I’m the one “not living in the real world of facts, and is in deep deep denial.”
LOL!
“Which is reality turned EXACTLY on its head. In the real world, the situation is the complete opposite!”
For which Kristian has cited no real world independent, relevant, meaningful evidence.
Kristian simply has an opinion.
Nate says, February 5, 2018 at 2:39 PM:
http://c3.thejournal.ie/media/2016/05/shutterstock_132176021-2-752×501.jpg
Ball4 says, February 5, 2018 at 3:39 PM:
No, it’s in the data. My “opinion” is based on the data. ERBS+CERES.
Kristian downloads raw EBAF data & calculates no confidence intervals: not meaningful
Kristian self cites: not independent
Kristian claims “I haven’t been presented with evidence. Not with RELEVANT evidence.”: it is Kristian’s own claims the data are not relevant.
Kristian is simply entitled to his own opinion.
barry @ February 4, 2018 at 2:06 AM
“1) AGW predicts that global surface temperatures over the long term should rise. This is what we observe.”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
“2) Darkening of the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time observed.
3) Brightening of spectral bands associated with CO2 looking skyward observed.”
Fallacy of many causes. These things occur generally with an increase in temperatures. We’re not arguing if temperatures have increased, but why.
“4) GH warming predicts (before observations were available) that the lower stratosphere should cool while the surface warms over the long term observed.
Fallacy of many causes.
“5) Winters should warm faster than summers for each hemisphere observed.”
Fallacy of many causes, and a cherry pick of specific years.
barry @ February 4, 2018 at 4:48 PM
“Attribution of climate change has a host of other evidentiary material.”
Cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.
“AGW predicts CO2 concentration will track anthropogenic emissions”
This is my own. It doesn’t in any meaningful way. Atmospheric concentration is a far, far, far better fit to integrated temperature anomaly. There is no doubt about it.
Ok, so errors on CERES measurement dont matter to you? Whether your favorite data is proving anything, within error, doesnt matter to you?
It matters to Trenberth and others who compare it to other measures of energy imbalance.
What they say is that net LWR is not very accurate. There are systematic errors.
But when these are taken into account, the results are consistent with 0.5 -1 W/m2 imbalance. With a wildly fluctuating monthly variation.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
What do you predict for its variation over the period 2000-2017, based on AGW?
“Atmospheric concentration is a far, far, far better fit to integrated temperature anomaly. There is no doubt about it.”
There is doubt about it. Fallacy of many causes, timing of events is not causality, and a cherry pick of specific years and constant of integration.
As Bart writes, cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.
AGW predicts CO2 concentration will track anthropogenic emissions
“This is my own. It doesnt in any meaningful way. Atmospheric concentration is a far, far, far better fit to integrated temperature anomaly. There is no doubt about it.”
Not this nonsense again? This has been debunked, ad nauseum. This is not helpful to your case.
“Ok, so errors on CERES measurement don’t matter to (Kristian)?”
Right Nate, Kristian has even read some of the CERES Team papers explaining these errors and their CIs which doesn’t ever matter to Kristian.
As Bart writes, cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.
“cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.’
Well put. Would add:
Data manipulation for consistency with a preferred narrative is also how you get confirmation bias.
Kristian,
‘You can’t produce one piece of evidence’
‘just look at Hansen, Science, 1981, and how successful their models many specific projections were over the next 35 years. This is rather convincing.’
I gave you this as a good example of a piece of evidence. But you rejected it . So now you expect me to go hunting for more that you will reject without explanation.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
Figure 1 shows modeled energy imbalance up to 2006. It can decrease at times, such as 2000-2006.
Kristian,
You’re in deep denial about what constitutes evidence. Empirical spectral measurements of CO2, and verified experiments showing increased CO2 in a volume of air cause warming in the lab are the principal evidence. Spectral darkening in the specific bands associated with CO2 looking down, and brightening of same looking skyward are strong evidence that what occurs in the lab is occurring in the atmosphere.
Most of the rest of the list of evidence is predictions specific to GHG warming – as opposed to solar. Eg, solar warming would also warm the lower stratosphere, the opposite of what is observed.
Here’s a challenge for you.
Describe exactly the kind of evidence that would meet your strange definition of evidence, that we could procure from the atmosphere, that links increased CO2 to warming.
I don’t think you can do it.
Ball4 @ February 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM
Nonsense. You don’t get this kind of agreement through happenstance.
https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o
Nate @ February 5, 2018 at 5:01 PM
“This has been debunked, ad nauseum.”
Nope.
“You don’t get this kind of agreement through happenstance.”
Right Bart, you get it through carefully choosing integration dates 1) start point, 2) end point and 3) the constant of integration. Three parameters.
I or anyone else would choose the parameters differently and show a very poor correlation, there is no fundamental conservation law, entropy law here. Temperature anomaly is not conserved. If you can tie this to energy conservation, then do so.
There is no constant of integration, as the plot shows the rate of change. There is only:
1) scale factor, chosen because it matches both the variability and the trend
2) offset, because temperature anomaly baseline is inherently arbitrary
There is really only one parameter to match, and it matches not just one, but two properties.
It’s a slam dunk. You will see when temperatures decline again. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 will continue tracking it.
Bart, arb manipulation (filter cutoff) of one data set. for no other reason than to achieve a desired result. A big no no in real papers that could get published. A good way to delude yourself.
Poor agreement in 1940-1970. The years when co2 rise took off.
Tossing out established counterfactual data, for no good reason other than to avoid embarrassing contradiction.
The list goes on.
A slam dunk for rejection by peer review.
You conflate 2 independent things. Genuine short term correlation with known mechanism, and long-term rising trends in two quantities. The later shows no true correlation after linear detrend.
Bart, as Nate points out you are a deluded victim of confirmation bias.
1) you simply chose a scale factor (aka constant of integration) to match what you wanted
2) ditto
When/if global troposphere near surface temperatures decline there will still be the fallacy of many causes and you will have to pick your 3 new arbitrary parameters of integration to fit that new data after inspection.
Still, you show an interesting correlation. But you need hard work to find a first principle theory explanation. Like Faraday playing with EM in the lab, then JC Maxwell coming along adding the theory. Like Planck et. al. in the lab discovering the curve and then explaining with the supporting theory.
“But you need hard work to find a first principle theory explanation.”
Not difficult. It’s a long term equilibration process. In the near term, such processes resemble pure integration.
This is as good as agreement gets with stochastic data, guys. The alternative explanation requires treating anthropogenic emissions differently than natural ones, and high pass filtering out – for no good reason – a trend that already matches the data.
Take your blinders off – you are grasping at straws to maintain a favored narrative. There’s no need for it. The data clearly show what is happening, without contorting yourself into pretzels to explain it away.
“Its…no need for it…to explain it away.”
Bart, what is “it” exactly?
“you are grasping at straws to maintain a favored narrative.”
Not sure I have one, would like to know what Bart writes is my particular favorite narrative.
“Take your blinders off you are grasping at straws to maintain a favored narrative. Theres no need for it. The data clearly show what is happening, without contorting yourself into pretzels to explain it away.”
Bart, the burden is on you, to use ethical scientific analysis, and to not contort or cherry pick the data in order to support your narrative, which is quite clearly what you are doing.
There is no need for it when there is another well established mechanism, that is simple, logical, consistent with many lines of evidence, and doesn’t give rise to the many inconsistencies with other results that your model does. Other results that must be, with difficult contortions, explained away.
We are simply doing ordinary peer review and finding glaring flaws. So sorry, you need to rethink it and fix the flaws, or give up on the idea altogether. We recommend the latter.
“…and to not contort or cherry pick the data in order to support your narrative, which is quite clearly what you are doing.”
Nonsense. It’s just a scale factor. You have to have a scale factor, or the units don’t line up.
“We are simply doing ordinary peer review and finding glaring flaws.”
There are no flaws. You’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and changing “nah, nah, nah.” It’s like arguing about the spin of the Moon with g*e*r*a*n.
Kristian:
The causal link: +CO2 => +T. is via DWLWIR.
+CO2 => +DWLWIR => +T.
The first part is measured, so you want proof of:
+IR => +T.
Physics has proof of that.
So your argument translates to the question of feed backs?
Bart,
We have been over this ad-nauseum. Not ‘just a scale factor’.
What you have is surface temperature and CO2 derivative data, which both have most of their variance, and correlation, on ENSO time scales, 1-3 years.
So what do you do? You apply a 2 year smoothing filter, removing much of that dominant variance, to only ONE of these sets of data. This makes no sense, other than to facilitate a better fit with your hypothesis, correlation between CO2 and surface T data (Had*crut) on both short and long timescales with one scale factor.
I know you understand the effects of filtering quite well, suggesting this is a straight-up cheat.
You spent dozens of previous posts, contorting yourself into a pretzel, in order to rationalize this data manipulation. But there is no justification.
To boot, you have a serious causality problem. You say T drives CO2. Yet CO2 derivative rises from 1950s to 1975, while temperature rises only AFTER 1975.
A reminder of what unbiased application of filter produces:
https://tinyurl.com/ybvsr6xg
No, Nate. You are treating the series on an uneven playing field, as is readily apparent by your differing resolutions. You are just making excuses to stick your head in the sand.
“readily apparent by your differing resolutions”
On series has more noise than the other-They have the same time-resolution, since they same filter applied to both. You should know better.
“You are just making excuses to stick your head in the sand.” Weird.
I have real problems with your methods, period.
https://tinyurl.com/ydxn6fhd
12 mo cutoff, looks worse
Bart has excellent correlation between temperature fluctuations and the CO2 derivate.
These fluctuations are natural and heavily influenced by the ENSO.
Derivative is rate of change.
Without the anthropogenic contribution the derivative would have been centered around zero, and below zero when temperatures were going down ca 1943-1973.
Barts diagram has a positive derivative all of the way. CO2 is running away all of the time. In fact the derivative is increasing, so CO2 is rising faster and faster. This is the anthropogenic contribution.
Nate, you’re flailing. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Svante –
“Without the anthropogenic contribution the derivative would have been centered around zero, and below zero when temperatures were going down ca 1943-1973.”
No, the rate of change of CO2 responds to temperature anomaly, not to the temperature rate of change.
Bart,
I did not say “temperature rate of change”, just temperature.
Here’s a good fit for the industrial era:
https://tinyurl.com/yat2omyv
The long term context:
https://tinyurl.com/y8go6p7y
‘You really have no idea what you are talking about.”
Impressive rebuttal, Bart. Not gonna cut it with peer reviewers.
Actually, I know quite well what I am talking about, my work makes use of signal processing methods.
Svante – That is a ridiculously bad fit – just a snatch of low frequency, low information, vaguely rising data placed on top of a wholly speculative exponential function.
The temperature relationship accounts for the trend in the rate of change of CO2, and the single scale factor that makes the high information variability fit also makes the trend fit. There is little room for additional forcing. Ergo, the sinks are voracious, and anthropogenic inputs have little impact. Only the overwhelmingly larger natural forcing has significant impact.
There is no doubt about it. Watch and see what happens as the “pause” continues, while anthropogenic inputs keep increasing.
Nate – you are twisting yourself into knots to deny what is right in front of your face. At a minimum, a knowledgeable person would know he has to match the resolution to compare apples with apples.
‘ At a minimum, a knowledgeable person would know he has to match the resolution to compare apples with apples.’
You seem to mistakenly believe resolution is determined by how noisy a signal is. Wrong.
“the single scale factor that makes the high information variability fit also makes the trend fit.”
Attempt to fit long time scale trends. Scale factor 0.11
https://tinyurl.com/ycsdzskx
Now use same scale factor for short time scale. Look good to you?
https://tinyurl.com/y7lbjfkq
Log time trend obviously shows causality problem.
Bart: 2 + 2 = 4
Nate: Not if you multiply it by 6!
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Bart, clearly you have no intelligent answers.
barry says, February 5, 2018 at 6:27 PM:
Am I really?
barry, YOU’RE in deep denial of what I’m asking about. You’re in denial of the fact that what I’m asking for is in fact what I’m asking for. It goes that deep.
barry, YOU don’t get to define the thing or things that I’M asking for evidence of. You’re giving me evidence of things that I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT!
I’m not “denying” it’s evidence. I’m telling you it’s not evidence of the particular thing that I AM ASKING ABOUT!
Of WHAT!? This isn’t evidence of +CO2 => +T out there in the open climate system of our planet. The only way you could ever get ANY warming in a volume of air by increasing its content of CO2 is by eliminating convection from the sample. Please read this study. It basically says it all:
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
No, it isn’t. It is only circumstantial evidence of what we all already knew. We already knew about the physical properties of CO2. It absorbs and emits IR within certain narrow bands of the full EM spectrum. No one questions this, barry.
However, what we want to know is whether this property leads to warming within the real Earth system or not. Spectral clear-sky measurements in the CO2-relevant bands only can’t give us the answer to this question. What we need is to find distinct physical traces of a CAUSAL LINK between +CO2 (claimed cause) and +T (claimed effect). In the real Earth system.
For that, we need to look elsewhere.
You don’t think I can do it. The funny thing is, barry, that I’ve had the evidence with me all along. While watching you flail. That’s why I know there’s not a single piece of evidence out there for you or anyone to show me that “AGW” is real. Because I’ve looked exactly where that signature of the “greenhouse warming mechanism” is supposed to show up. And it’s nowhere to be found. I have the evidence. The evidence telling us that “AGW” IS NOT HAPPENING! It’s the Sun!
But of course, as always with you devoted followers of dogma, you don’t even know your own dogma that well.
So I will have to educate you on it. And tell you where to go look for that evidence. The very evidence that I asked you to present, so as to build your case on more than mere conjecture. But you can’t. You’re utterly unable to. Because you don’t even know what to look for. Where to look. You don’t even understand what I’m asking for. What I’m talking about. You’re completely oblivious! And yet you’re sooo certain. So cocksure. It’s sad to behold …
So, what do you think it is …?
“Ive looked exactly where that signature of the greenhouse warming mechanism is supposed to show up. And its nowhere to be found. I have”
Your vaunted evidence has large error, which you choose to ignore. Do you understan the role of error in experiments?
Svante says, February 7, 2018 at 12:22 AM:
Well, that’s only half the answer. Again we’re back to the two-way confusion. You can’t treat the DWLWIR as if it were a separate thermodynamic entity creating warming (IOW, a transfer of heat). I thought we’d been through this in detail, Svante …!
The DWLWIR term is always intimately coupled with its counterpart, the UWLWIR term. They’re ONE. Mathematically, inside one and the same bracket. Physically, fully integrated as ONE radiative flux, the net (macroscopic) movement of radiative energy. TWO IN ONE, not TWO separate ONES.
So what an increase in atmospheric CO2 is really supposed to do is REDUCE the radiative flux. The NET LW. What’s more, we’re also supposed to assume that WHILE this happens, all OTHER heat losses – the NON-radiative ones – will remain totally unchanged; that they can and will only change as a RESPONSE to a radiative change.
This is what the idea of “AGW” requires.
So, do we actually observe all this happening in the real Earth system? And if so, where’s that observational evidence? Why is it being “hidden”?
No, it doesn’t. Physics says +Q_net => +T, not your ‘half-heat’ +IR => +T.
No.
ell, thats only half the answer. Again were back to the two-way confusion. You cant treat the DWLWIR as if it were a separate thermodynamic entity creating warming (IOW, a transfer of heat). I thought wed been through this in detail, Svante !
The DWLWIR term is always intimately coupled with its counterpart, the UWLWIR term. Theyre ONE. ”
Funny, how you and papers regularly plot them as separate entities. You regularly show that their variations are different. And then papers discuss net flux. Again no need to us the word net if all flux IS net.
“Ergo, the sinks are voracious, and anthropogenic inputs have little impact. Only the overwhelmingly larger natural forcing has significant impact.”
Yes, our general understanding of the carbon cycle is all wrong, says armchair carbon cycle expert, Bart.
Kristian says:
“Physics says +Q_net => +T, not your half-heat +IR”
Granted.
Q_net = Q_in – Q_out
+CO => +Q_in – measured.
+Q_in => +Q_net
In the long run, Q_net must be zero.
Only +T can change Q_out.
The only question is how much +T.
Nate @ February 8, 2018 at 5:49 PM
“Yes, our general understanding of the carbon cycle is all wrong…”
Correct. The fact of the matter is, there is no “general understanding”. Direct, comprehensive measurements are not possible, so what we have is mostly conjecture which has achieved the status of assumed knowledge based not on independent confirmation, but on longevity.
However, the inference from the affine relationship between temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change is clear: temperatures drive CO2, and not the reverse. Keep watching, and see what happens.
“the affine relationship between temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change is clear: temperatures drive CO2, and not the reverse”
Your statement illustrates, again, that you know some math (as do many people), but that is insufficient expertise to enable you to simply toss out well established facts in other fields, like chemistry, physics, Earth science, and the carbon cycle.
Also, CO2 history from ice core data shows that the warming from the last age produced a rise of ~ 10 ppm/degreeC in CO2 concentration.
It also shows that the cooling from MWP to LIA produced a decrease of only 7 ppm of CO2, again consistent with ~ 10 ppm/degree C.
Yet your model claims that in the last 100 years we have had 100 ppm CO2 rise driven only by a 1C rise in temperature. In radical disagreement with the ice core data, and carbon-cycle understanding.
Your ‘vast expertise’ in ice core analysis allows you to say definitively, that data is wrong and should be tossed out.
We have a well-understand source of CO2, human emissions, that historically have tracked the rise in atm concentration. Yet your model requires that this is simply a coincidence, and the emitted CO2 has all gone away somewhere, and been replaced by natural CO2. Reminds me of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’
All of these highly improbable things must be true, you say, based on your slam-dunk ‘affine’ relationship. But your evidence for this relationship is extremely flimsy, as discussed, and not rebutted.
Svante says, February 8, 2018 at 5:19 PM:
Huh?
Svante, Svante, Svante. Didn’t you even read my previous post!?
+CO2 doesn’t affect Q_in. It affects Q_out. It’s supposed to reduce Q_out. Q_in is from the Sun, Svante.
And now you’re dodging my question.
Do we have consistent observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that this is ACTUALLY happening, as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (and of WV) increases? Or don’t we?
Kristian,
“The LW_up term increased by MORE than the LW_down(all-sky) term between 2000 and 2017. Which means that the Earths global surface strengthened its ability to shed its heat via radiation over the period. ”
You are promoting this as confirmation of the null hypothesis for AGW. But I dont think it is.
First, we know there has been an ongoing increase in the ocean heat content. Thus, there is a net radiative imbalance.
Suppose CO2 were constant during that period. What would happen? The net TOA radiative imbalance would decrease toward 0, as temperatures rise.
We know that CO2 increased during the period. This would tend to increase the imbalance, but how much? Would it offset the natural decrease? Not necessarily. The radiative imbalance could be staying constant, increasing or decreasing.
If the CERES data shows a weak decreasing tendency (with huge error), that is not inconsistent with AGW.
Nate – The ice cores are bunk. They can’t be independently verified, and they’re not consistent with the data we have from modern direct measurements.
The relationship is solid. You don’t get this kind of agreement through happenstance. Watch and see what happens.
Emissions closely track concentration. You dont get this kind of agreement by happenstance.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm
Ice cores DO agree with modern measurements, though with worse time resolution. Sorry, have no reason to toss them.
Ludicrous. Concentration only vaguely tracks emissions in that they both are vaguely heading in the same direction, a 50/50 proposition. They don’t mesh at all in the fine detail, which can be seen in the rate of change domain.
Good point:
Concentration derivative only vaguely tracks temperature in that they both are vaguely heading in the same direction, a 50/50 proposition.
They match better for fine details, at high frequency, as they should- by known mechanism of warming tropical pacific ocean out gassing.
Your characterization of emission/concentration graph as only vaguely headed in the same direction is ludicrous and disingenuous.
Both are flat for centuries, then both have a simultaneous sharp rise in last 150 years. And no scaling factor needed between them. Just happenstance? Except the mechanism is both straightforward, and in agreement with chem and physics.
Kristian,
sorry I failed to follow your teachings, let me rephrase!
The Feldman measurement was at the surface:
1) Q_in = SW solar input.
2) Q_out = LW_out – LW_in – Convection etc.
3) Q_net = Q_in – Q_out
4) Feldman measured +CO2 => +LW_in:
5) +LW_in => -Q_out
6) -Q_out => +Q_net
7) In the long run, Q_net must be zero.
8) Whatever the mechanism, it has to come from +T
9) There is no effect at all if T is unchanged.
10) The sky is not helping since we have +LW_in
Yes, the TOA balance is paramount, but please correct my numbered steps first, as concisely as possible.
Nate – “Concentration derivative only vaguely tracks temperature in that they both are vaguely heading in the same direction, a 50/50 proposition.”
Nonsense. It fits every nook and cranny. The odds of happenstance are astronomically against.
I have not disputed that high freq are correlated. What I dispute is that low frequecies are correlated. As I showed the 60mo filtered data are only vaguely headed in the same direction. You called that correlation? I call that happenstance.
And the scale factors for low and high frequencies are not the same at all. Your claim they are the same is pure fantasy.
“Fits” every nook and cranny.
Maybe so but the odds of happenstance were astronomically against the earth not at the center of the universe by fitting the sunrise sunset data for eons. Until planetary retrograde data began to challenge the “fit”. A few heads were lost until enough funerals were held.
Kidding aside Bart, you do need a foundational theory backing your fit & better than “equilibration”.
We did not have observations of the “universe” for eons. I think what you meant to argue is that the observations indicated to many that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Well, it does, in an accelerated reference frame. The only thing that makes the distinction of the Earth revolving around the Sun a better description than the reverse is, as you note, that it provides a less complicated framework for the motion of other bodies in the solar system.
There are necessary and sufficient conditions in play here. It is necessary to relate the cause and effect to high fidelity. Human inputs do not fit to high fidelity. Temperatures do.
“… you do need a foundational theory backing your fit & better than equilibration.”
No, I really don’t, because I’m competing against an alternative that has no foundational theory beyond post hoc ergo propter hoc. The sort of behavior I have described is ubiquitous in general system responses. I have my own hypothesis for how it comes about, but a theory is not required at this stage to reject the other explanation.
“No, I really don’t”
Then you have no 1st principle foundation to explain the phenomena. Planck, Faraday could have stopped in the lab. It is fortunate Planck and JC Maxwell were more curious and achieved a deeper physical understanding.
Bart simply has an opinion to which you are entitled.
Ridiculous. Equilibrium processes are ubiquitous.
Kristian,
You dont think I can do it. The funny thing is, barry
The funny thing is that you didn’t respond to the challenge.
We know that what you’re going to come up with is not an answer to my challenge, but a regurgitation of your own theory.
So here’s the challenge again. Try not to self-reference. Regurgitating your own theory is not an answer.
Describe exactly the kind of evidence that would meet your strange definition of evidence, that we could procure from the atmosphere, that links increased CO2 to warming.
I don’t think you can do it.
Bart,
Lets see the evidence from authoritative source that:
‘The ice cores are bunk. They cant be independently verified, and theyre not consistent with the data we have from modern direct measurements.’
Lets see the evidence from authoritative source that:
‘Yes, our general understanding of the carbon cycle is all wrong
Correct.”
And no, some dude on a blog is not an authoritative source.
“Equilibrium processes are ubiquitous.”
Bart restates 1LOT. Use the 1LOT to find a fundamental reason Bart’s curve fitting works if Bart wants to advance beyond an interesting opinion.
Well, this has gone on far enough for now. You guys have your eyes clamped shut, and are casting for excuses to keep them that way. You are free to do so, I just cannot fathom why you want to so badly. But, it’s not worth any more of my time.
“gone on long enough” “I cannot fathom why” you don’t just accept my beliefs.
Its called evidence, Bart.
When asked to provide real evidence to support your assertions, you cannot.
When we raise legitimate issues, your rebuttals are weak, not believable, and full of other unsupported assertions.
“You guys have your eyes clamped shut”
Yes, we are literally blinded by science, to your dubious claims.
Svante says, February 10, 2018 at 9:24 AM:
Ok, let’s have a look.
Feldman in his study ignored most of the relevant variables that need to be quantified in order for anyone to draw ANY conclusions about what causes what and what is the effect of what in the Earth system. The only thing he did, basically, was looking at the CO2 band in clear-sky. You can’t tell ANYTHING about cause and effect from that alone …!
Did he measure/determine Q_in (solar/SW heat input)? No. Did he determine the LW_out(sfc) “hemiflux”? No. Did he determine the LW_in(sfc) “hemiflux”, that is, the TOTAL ALL-SKY “hemiflux”, not just the CO2-band, clear-sky one? No. And as a result, he couldn’t determine LW_net(sfc), Q_out(LW). And because of all of the above, he naturally also couldn’t determine Q_net.
But there’s more. Did he measure/determine the NON-radiative heat losses from the surface? No. Did he measure and state the surface TEMPERATURE at each site, how it evolved? No. What about the air temperature at each site and how it evolved? No. Cloud cover? Winds? Nope.
What about coverage? Did he cover the globe? A continental region? A local region? No. Just two single measuring stations. Two instruments.
He’s essentially got nothing!
You write:
“2) Q_out = LW_out – LW_in – Convection etc.”
This is incorrect and misleading. If anything, you need to write it like this:
Q_out(total) = Q_rad[= LW_out – LW_in] + Q_evap + Q_cond
“4) Feldman measured +CO2 => +LW_in:
No. That’s exactly what he didn’t do. He measured +CO2 => +LW_in(CO2 band, clear-sky), which is NOT equal to +LW_in, which would be the TOTAL (full spectrum), ALL-SKY “hemiflux”.
“5) +LW_in => -Q_out”
No. We have absolutely NO way of knowing ANYTHING about Q_out and how it evolved over the study period just from the measurements made by Feldman et al. We don’t know LW_in, we don’t know LW_out, we don’t know Q_out(evap) or Q_out(cond).
“6) -Q_out => +Q_net”
No. In addition to the above, we don’t know Q_in …!
Kristian,
So you have no rebuttal to this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285783
Bart says:
Watch and see what happens as the “pause” continues.
Your plot shows what will happen:
1) When temperature goes up CO2 goes up.
2) When temperature is level CO2 goes up.
3) When temperature goes down CO2 goes up.
4) CO2 goes up at an increasing rate.
Svante @ February 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM
“4) CO2 goes up at an increasing rate.”
Mmm… not sure how you got there. If temperatures stay level, the rate stays constant. So, if the rate stays constant in the face of ever accelerating emissions, that’s a problem for the emissions-driven scenario.
In fact, this has already happened. During the “pause” in temperatures, the CO2 rate of change leveled off, yet emissions kept accelerating. Eventually, the disparity will get large enough that people will be forced to acknowledge it.
I said:
“4) CO2 goes up at an increasing rate.
Bart says:
“Mmm not sure how you got there. If temperatures stay level, the rate stays constant. So, if the rate stays constant in the face of ever accelerating emissions, thats a problem for the emissions-driven scenario.”
The rate has an upward trend, see:
https://tinyurl.com/ybgcbptf
A linear CO2 rise has a constant derivative.
An exponential rise has increasing derivative.
barry says, February 10, 2018 at 10:48 PM:
Haha! No, the funny thing is that, during this entire exchange, YOU still haven’t managed to respond to MY challenge, barry. You haven’t come up with a single piece of evidence for what I asked for, anything in support of the claim +CO2 => +T, yet you PRETEND you have, in attempting to justify somehow switching the burden of proof onto ME. And now I have to explain myself!
barry, you really should rather concentrate on finding out what that signature of “greenhouse warming” in the real Earth system might be. I know you can do it. And stop trying to shift the focus away from the original issue, which is YOU having to come up with just ONE single piece of observational evidence that shows the claim “more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warming in the Earth system” to be more than likely true.
You’re just like Nate. Your default method for dealing with an argument or a challenge that you know you cannot meet, is by playing the “dumb” card. You pretend not to understand what your opponent is saying or what he’s asking about, even when it’s all so painfully obvious from the start, and repeated again and again after that. But you lock yourself onto this particular straw, how it’s seemingly impossible to grasp what is being said or asked for, you go on and on and on about it, deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ and evading at every turn your opponent’s attempts at making it even plainer for you. Simply in order to avoid responding to his actual argument, his actual challenge. It’s a classic – and thus pretty transparent – debate technique.
So, what is this “own theory” of mine, barry? Can you enlighten me?
No, barry. You’re so certain there IS evidence that directly links increased CO2 to warming. So what is it? Where is it? What observational evidence from the real Earth system shows how increasing CO2 causes temps to rise? Where exactly do we SEE that link? You KNOW – at least you SHOULD know – that none of the “evidence” that you have presented here in any way demonstrates or substantiates that particular causal connection, that particular claim. In fact, it doesn’t even ADDRESS it!
So where is it? What is it?
If you seriously don’t know what I mean, if you don’t know what to look for, how can you be so certain it’s there? It appears you haven’t really thought this topic through at all, barry. Just taken some people’s word for it …
How is “greenhouse warming” supposed to work, barry? What is the specific postulated operating mechanism? And how are we supposed to see this particular mechanism in operation out there in the real climate system? What would be its physical signature?
I know, barry. Because I know the “hypothesis” of “the anthropogenically enhanced GHE”. What it says.
Do you?
And if you don’t, then why are you here trumpeting it as some kind of irrefutable, empirically established truth …!? Are you blinded by the authority of “experts”? By dogma? By ideology?
Svante @ February 13, 2018 at 12:10 AM
“The rate has an upward trend…”
It tracks the temperature anomaly. When the anomaly pauses, it pauses.
Bart says:
“It tracks the temperature anomaly. When the anomaly pauses, it pauses.”
Yes, but the derivative pauses at a positive value, so CO2 is always increasing. The rate has doubled, from 0.1 to 0.2 in your diagram.
You would still have your beautiful correlation without the anthropogenic contribution because it captures the short term natural variation, but the blue trend line would have been at zero. Instead it is a depiction of a runaway scenario.
Kristian,
In my post I show that your interpretation of the CERES data is incorrect.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285783
Since you have not answered, I assume you have no good argument to refute this.
Svante –
“Yes, but the derivative pauses at a positive value, so CO2 is always increasing. The rate has doubled, from 0.1 to 0.2 in your diagram.”
But, it is only increasing linearly in that case, while total emissions are increasing exponentially. Said another way, the rate is constant, but our yearly emissions are increasing.
They don’t mesh. Which indicates that the one is not driving the other.
“You would still have your beautiful correlation without the anthropogenic contribution because it captures the short term natural variation, but the blue trend line would have been at zero.”
The blue trend line matches the scaled temperature trend. Ergo, the temperature is driving the CO2. You don’t need anthropogenic contributions to explain the trend. It would have been essentially the same with or without them.
“ut, it is only increasing linearly in that case, while total emissions are increasing exponentially. Said another way, the rate is constant, but our yearly emissions are increasing.”
Emissions from EPA: 1960 -2500,
2010- 9000. Ratio 2010/1960: 3.6
Co2 derivative, linear fit, 1960: 0.06, 2010- 0.18. Ratio 2010/1960 : 3
Sig error on these ratios
Which part of “pause” did you not understand?
Bart says:
“But, it is only increasing linearly in that case, while total emissions are increasing exponentially.”
Correct. It’s just like the UAH temperature, you have these natural short term fluctuations that people get excited about. They obscure the emission effect for a while, but then that underlying weak force is relentlessly tilting the whole chart upward.
Davids Feldman reference showed that effect quite clearly, although Kristian had good questions about it.
What do you think the cause is for the increasing temperature?
“…you have these natural short term fluctuations that people get excited about.”
Not just the short term. The long term trend matches, as well. Human emissions are superfluous.
“What do you think the cause is for the increasing temperature?”
Alternating modes of energy storage and release, I expect. It isn’t the CO2, because that would represent a positive feedback loop that could not be stabilized – temperature goes up, increasing the CO2 rate, increasing the temperature, increasing the CO2 rate, and so on ad infinitum. If that were the case, we would have reached a saturation level eons ago.
Two things are very clear from the data:
1) Our activities do not contribute significantly to atmospheric CO2 concentration
2) aggregate sensitivity of temperatures to CO2 concentration is insignificant in the present climate state
“Two things are very clear from the data:”
Cmon Bart, this is complete misrepresentation of the situation.
These two things are only very clear if you if you manipulate the data in highly biased way, and if you ignore an awful lot of other good data that doesnt fit the narrative.
“Which part of pause did you not understand?”
Focusing on the short-term variablity is not the proper way to compare emissions to concentration. As you are well aware, the short term variability in sources and sinks is controlling that.
That is why I chose a 50 y span, and rate of increase for both emissions and concentration is similar.
Smoothing out the fine detail is exactly what you don’t want to do when hunting for a cause. The fine detail is the fingerprint. You shouldn’t smudge fingerprints.
The rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature. Denying it is just sticking your head in the sand. When the temperature rise slowed, the CO2 concentration rate slowed. What didn’t slow was human emissions, which kept roaring up ever faster.
Testing a hypothesis in an unbiased way against all data. If that’s sticking my head in the sand, then you dont understand the difference between empirical knowledge and belief.
Again, when asked for evidence that ice core data is invalid, you show none.
When asked for evidence that known carbon cycle is all wrong, you show none.
“Smoothing out the fine detail is exactly what you dont want to do when hunting for a cause. ”
Now you are pretending that high frequency variation and low frequency variation are not separable, and may behave differently. You know better.
The temperature anomaly and rate of change agree in both the low and high frequency regions. There is no need to kluge in some other cause.
God created man in his own image. There is no need to kluge in some other cause, like evolution..
God is not a cause.
Indeed. Bart, you are obviously knowledgeable, but when it comes to this subject you just seem completely dogmatic and unwilling to look at it with an unbiased, critical eye.
All counterfactual evidence is simply dismissed. It must be wrong, but no objective reasons why it is wrong seem to be needed.
This is not an approach that is particularly convincing to others. And it leads to pathological science.
I don’t know what to tell you, Nate. I am adamant that 2 + 2 = 4. If that makes me dogmatic, well, woof, woof!
Zeolots think their beliefs add up too, and also dont need a reason to dismiss all other data.
I have a very strong reason: Occam’s Razor. There is no need to make a heroic effort to kluge in some exotic explanation when you’ve already got a simple relationship that fits the data. The temperature data fit the rate of CO2 data. The emissions data don’t. It’s that simple. 2 + 2 = 4.
There is really no reason at all to believe that human emissions contribute significantly. It’s just what a lot of others have assumed. If you feel you must distrust the evidence of your own eyes and seek the safety of the herd, you will never rise very far.
” There is no need to make a heroic effort to kluge in some exotic explanation”
“Occams razor”
Right principle, but backasswards.
Carbon was stored in the ground over millions of years, is now released into the atmosphere over a 100 year period. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon rise at a rate and magnitude and isotopic ratio that matches the emissions.
50% is stored in natural carbon sinks like the ocean. The buildup of carbon in the ocean sink is detected.
Occams razor: the atmospheric carbon is from this source.
Though the ocean is a net carbon sink, Bart comes up with an exotic mechanism for it to be BOTH a net source and a net sink for carbon simultaneously. The opposite of Occams razor.
It’s a tiny proportion of total input. It is not possible to perturb a balanced system by a greater amount than your proportionate addition to the inputs which establish the balance.
The character and form of the CO2 time series does not match that of the emissions. They are both merely going in the same vague direction. But, the CO2 rate of change matches the temperature in every nook and cranny, as well as over the long term.
My mechanism is anything but exotic. It’s just straightforward, ordinary and commonplace system dynamics.
What would be exotic is accepting the high frequency action of temperature on CO2 while rejecting the low frequency, even though it matches very, very well, and kluging in a separate driver which does not obey equations of balance, but instead accumulates in a contrived ratio, which represents a disparate treatment of natural and anthropogenic inputs even though nature has no means of telling the species apart.
It’s a slam dunk, Nate. Watch and see what happens. 2 + 2 = 4.
“What would be exotic is accepting the high frequency action of temperature on CO2 while rejecting the low frequency”
a. Low frequencies show a poor match, other than vaguely going in the same direction.
b. Low frequencies violate causality, with CO2 derivative rise happening well BEFORE temperature rise.
c. High frequencies match because top 100 m ocean layer responds to T changes, with a short time constant.
d. Ordinary laws of solubility and chemical equiliuibrium preclude a 1 K (0.3%) temperature change from producing a 30% concentration change. Any other mechanism needs to be EXOTIC (ie made up).
e. A hypothesis that cannot explain away for valid reasons existing data which invalidates the hypothesis (ice core data, carbon cycle data) is a non-starter.
“The character and form of the CO2 time series does not match that of the emissions. They are both merely going in the same vague direction.”
You are being just plain dishonest in this description. Both series look like hockey sticks. The blades of the hockey sticks both point up, and both rise simultaneously. The size of concentration blade is ~ 1/2 size of emissions blade, which is logical.
Four distinctive features that are highly improbable by happenstance. Show the two graphs to your grandmother, ask her if she sees a match.
The fine, high frequency wiggles do not match. Not surprising given the separate, known mechanism of source/sink temperature response, which is much smaller.
This mechanism does not invalidate the other one. Both can be true.
‘ separate driver which does not obey equations of balance, but instead accumulates in a contrived ratio, which represents a disparate treatment of natural and anthropogenic inputs even though nature has no means of telling the species apart.”
We have been through this before. There is no need to invoke generic systems ‘equations of balance’, when we have available known laws from chemistry and physics that are specific to the Earth system.
In particular the laws of solubility and chemical equilibrium are observed in the ocean/atmosphere interaction. Available ocean data agree with these laws. You have not shown that these data or laws are compatible with with your generic ‘system’ models.
a. It’s a stellar match
b. These are stochastic data. You cannot claim this with any assurance.
c. Assertion without foundation.
d. Nonsense. The oceans store far more CO2 than the atmosphere, and the response is very long term.
e. The match of the rate of change and temperature is more fundamental. Ice core data cannot be independently verified, and carbon cycle data do not contradict the thesis.
—
“Both series look like hockey sticks.”
Low order polynomials can always be scaled to vaguely match. Information content is low. It’s not compelling.
“The size of concentration blade is ~ 1/2 size of emissions blade, which is logical.”
It’s arbitrary.
“The fine, high frequency wiggles do not match”
Yes, they do. The data are not perfect, but the match is striking, and about as good as you get with imperfect data.
—
“There is no need to invoke generic systems equations of balance, when we have available known laws from chemistry and physics that are specific to the Earth system.”
These “known laws” are always about balance.
“a. Its a stellar match”
Assertion, not reality. Show a graph with just low frequencies, all available years.
“b. These are stochastic data. You cannot claim this with any assurance.”
–Contradicts your assertion in a.
“c. Assertion without foundation.”
–As plausible as any of your assertions about mechanisms. More so, because agrees with known properties of CO2 in ocean water.
“d. Nonsense. The oceans store far more CO2 than the atmosphere, and the response is very long term.”
–Here you are showing your ignorance of how solubility works. The partial pressure above a liquid is independent of the volume of the liquid.
Top 50-100 m of ocean equilibrates with atmosphere in months. This mixed layer contains only as much carbon as the atmosphere. Rest of ocean not in contact with atmosphere for centuries.
Face it, Bart, you have little knowledge or interest in the actual physico-chemical processes involved.
“e. The match of the rate of change and temperature is more fundamental. Ice core data cannot be independently verified, and carbon cycle data do not contradict the thesis.”
–Value judgement of a partisan. Again ‘Ice core data, carbon cycle yada, yada’ is assertion without evidence. No evidence, no credence. No credence, your hypothesis disproved.
Both series look like hockey sticks.
“Low order polynomials can always be scaled to vaguely match. Information content is low. Its not compelling.”
–Straight up bullshit-you should know better. Calculate correlation coefficient. It is extremely high. Calculate correlation coefficient after removal of linear trends, it is extremely high.
The size of concentration blade is ~ 1/2 size of emissions blade, which is logical.
“Its arbitrary.”
–Value judgement of a partisan. Sorry it is a fact, not arbitrary at all. Agrees with carbon cycle.
The fine, high frequency wiggles do not match
“Yes, they do.”
–I am talking about emissions data and ppm data.
There is no need to invoke generic systems equations of balance, when we have available known laws from chemistry and physics that are specific to the Earth system.
“These known laws are always about balance.”
–We’ve been over this before, your balance equations do not agree with chemical balance equations. You balance fluxes, chemistry balances concentrations.
It’s reality. The match is very, very good. As good as it gets.
“The partial pressure above a liquid is independent of the volume of the liquid.”
It is not independent of temperature, and the ratio is not independent of temperature. As the volume of the oceans is extremely large, these changes have major long term impacts.
“Rest of ocean not in contact with atmosphere for centuries.”
Exactly. Which is why the response has such a long tail.
“Face it, Bart, you have little knowledge or interest in the actual physico-chemical processes involved.”
I have no interest in red herrings.
“No credence, your hypothesis disproved.”
Ice cores are not validated, and cannot be validated. I’m sorry but, before you can proclaim something as proven, you have to actually prove it.
“Calculate correlation coefficient after removal of linear trends, it is extremely high.”
Poor logic. Remove a quadratic – extremely low.
“Agrees with carbon cycle.”
Circulus in probando.
“You balance fluxes, chemistry balances concentrations.”
Incorrect. It is specifically the long term evolution toward balance of concentration that drives the fluxes.
‘Ice cores are not validated, and cannot be validated. Im sorry but, before you can proclaim something as proven, you have to actually prove it.”
I dont have to prove anything. IT is actual data, whereas you have a hypothesis. The extensive data falsifies your hypothesis. It is not even a close thing, a slam dunk. 10 ppm/deg C.
You don’t like the data, so sorry, but you need a valid science reason to reject it.
Otherwise you are doing religion, not science.
Calculate correlation coefficient after removal of linear trends, it is extremely high.
“Poor logic. Remove a quadratic extremely low.”
Ok, so you understand stats, but you ignore them when they produce inconvenient results.
What a professional!
Why should I remove a quadratic? Why would happenstance produce an identical hockey stick?
“The partial pressure above a liquid is independent of the volume of the liquid.
“It is not independent of temperature, and the ratio is not independent of temperature. As the volume of the oceans is extremely large, these changes have major long term impacts.”
Science requires math, but it is not sufficient. You also have to know the science, and should not ignore it.
Solubility of CO2 in seawater cannot produce 30% ppm rise with 0.3% temperature change. So sorry, it just can’t. So some exotic (ie BS) mechanism required.
“IT is actual data…”
No, IT isn’t. There is merely an assumed relationship between the data and the physical quantities of interest. That assumed relationship has not and cannot be validated.
“Why should I remove a quadratic?”
Because there is no compelling reason that it is not due to happenstance. Meanwhile, the temperature data match the quadratic, and you still have a high correlation coefficient when you remove it.
“Solubility of CO2 in seawater cannot produce 30% ppm rise with 0.3% temperature change.”
It can, because we see clearly that it does. Working out how it can is what science is all about.
‘No, IT isnt. There is merely an assumed relationship between the data and the physical quantities of interest. That assumed relationship has not and cannot be validated.’
That could describe almost any measurement.
What you call an ‘assumed relationship’ is a direct measurement of CO2 content, in trapped atmosphere.
Your continued assertion of problems with this data, with no evidence to show, is wishful thinking and nothing more. Repeatedly stating a belief does not make it more true.
AFIK, it has been validated by comparing to modern atmospheric measurement. Show us evidence of your claim that it is not validated, or shut up.
Bart, you are doing pathological science, where you see a hint of something, and from then on, all evidence to the contrary is rejected as invalid.
You are doing cold-fusion, N-rays, vaccines cause autism, etc..
“It can, because we see clearly that it does. Working out how it can is what science is all about.”
Are you the same person saying ‘Occams razor’ and ‘no exotic explantion needed’?
At this point on this issue, you cannot be distinguished from G*e*r*an on the moon not rotating.
Both of you have decided what you believe, and you’ve dug in your heels, and now no logic or piles of evidence to the contrary will sway you.
“What you call an assumed relationship is a direct measurement of CO2 content, in trapped atmosphere.”
Subject to high pressure and eons of time. Nobody knows what happens then. Nobody can know. Your continued assertion that all is well with them is nothing but a belief taken on faith.
“AFIK, it has been validated by comparing to modern atmospheric measurement.”
It’s been adjusted nominally to match over a short interval of time. This has no relevance to the question of how the gas distribution evolves over exceedingly long stretches of time.
You are talking voodoo. This is not science. It is faith.
“Are you the same person saying Occams razor and no exotic explantion needed?”
The explanation is not exotic, as I described above.
‘At this point on this issue, you cannot be distinguished from G*e*r*an on the moon not rotating.’
Well, if that is not the pot calling the tea service black, I don’t know what is.
“subject to high pressure and eons of time. Nobody knows what happens then. Nobody can know. Your continued assertion that all is well with them is nothing but a belief taken on faith.”
I know, science cannot figure out such things, it’s unknowable-says a dude on blog. What is that opinion worth?
So many missed opportunities to show evidence. Instead more blanket assertions.
There is a whole body of literature out there on ice core analysis and its validation.
Might be good for you to familiarize yourself with it, before deciding it is worthless. Just a thought.
“You are talking voodoo. This is not science. It is faith.”
An awful lot of expertise, effort, and commitment (months spent in Antarctica) has gone into producing and validating the ice core records. Many independent, competing groups have done this work over decades.
Reading their papers, it is abundantly obvious that these guys are using the scientific method.
Yet you can confidently assert that it is voodoo.
Absurd.
Bart,
“The character and form of the CO2 time series does not match that of the emissions. They are both merely going in the same vague direction.
I took the liberty of downloading cumulative emissions data, and CO2 concentration data from here
https://tinyurl.com/ya88bug4
Plot cum emissions vs CO2 one gets a beautiful straight line with minor wiggles, (1958-2014). The site has additional CO2 data from ice cores going back further. Again, (1900-2014), a beautiful line.
Plot of integrated temp (Had*crt4, with offset 0.3 to make it 0 around 1900) vs CO2 produces a crappy line to (1958-2014). Worse line to (1900-2014).
I calculated correlation coeff. For integrated temp vs co2, get 0.90 (1958-2014), 0.89 (1900-2014). Pretty good, but mostly reflective of both vaugely going up.
In contrast the corr coeff for cumulative emissions vs Co2 conc is a remarkable 0.999 (1958-2014) and 0.999 (1900-2014).
You can see this yourself here:
https://tinyurl.com/ya88bug4, choose ‘correlate with other time series’. Choose CO2 at top. Choose years, e.g. 1900-2014 or 1958-2014.
Summary
Years CO2 vs ? Corr coeff
1958-2014 integrated Temp 0.90
Cum. Emissions 0.999
1900-2014 Integrated Temp 0.89
Cum. Emissions 0.999
The temperature data is a better fit, when you do it right. I did that exercise long ago. I’m not going to redo it to satisfy your latest gambit because you can’t be satisfied. Just watch and see what happens.
Bart,
“The temperature data is a better fit, when you do it right. I did ..” “you cant be satisfied”
Again, you know, but cannot show, cuz that’s your MO.
Its actually not me doing the calculation, it is Climate Explorer engine. Takes 30 s to check. But you dont have time.
I get it. It’s depressing when data does not cooperate, and disproves a statement youve made dozens of times.
Better to not look at it.
That is very naive. University researchers get pay and prestige commensurate with the research dollars they bring in, and government guys get to enlarge their empires, and set themselves up for lucrative private positions when they leave.
James Hansen made millions in awards and honoraria, and millions worship him. There are plenty of rewards for pushing the party line, monetary and otherwise.
Thus, science doesn’t work?
Straw man.
I know, all those graduate students who went into science to get rich and be conformist and confirm the known facts to the 8th decimal point.
barry…”Thus, science doesnt work?”
You have an obtuse way of replying to charges of corruption against alarmist scientists. Why is it all the corruption is related to them? And why are you in such deep denial of the corruption?
bart…”James Hansen made millions in awards and honoraria…”
He can add to his CV that he got arrested with actress (??) Daryl Hannah for protesting the Keystone Pipeline. Imagine, the head of NASA GISS gets arrested for taking sides politically to the extent he has to be arrested.
The current head, Gavin Schmidt, rushed to the defense of his partner at realclimate, when Michael Mann was exposed in the Climategate emails as having committed scientific misconduct. Mann was also seen ranting about peer review and trying to interfere in the process to exclude skeptic’s papers. Subsequently, he has tried to smear female scientist Judith Curry using sexist allegations.
By association, the current head of GISS supports the suppression of publications from skeptics and condones outright cheating. Mann justified clipping offending proxy data from his MBB98 study, which showed declining temperatures, and replacing it with real data which showed increasing temps.
As you claim, Hansen was sponsored by Al Gore and funds flowed his way from Gore’s cronies in the Democratic Party.
As usual, Gordon does not understand Mann, or what hide the decline meant. Clue: it wasnt a decline in the Earths temperature, it was a failure of certain proxies to remain accurate.
Gordon has a big mouth that charges corruption every time he doesnt like the science. A big sore loser.
You have an obtuse way of replying to charges of corruption against alarmist scientists
Your problems with reading comprehension have become legendary.
Bart was making a comment about funded science in general.
University researchers get pay and prestige commensurate with the research dollars they bring in, and government guys get to enlarge their empires, and set themselves up for lucrative private positions when they leave.
He’s saying that financial and personal advantage are strong motivators in science generally: that research results are tailored to make bucks, win prestige and help “government guys” up the job ladder.
Hence my question: Science doesn’t work?
No doubt your view is that climate scientists are particularly avaricious, for which, as usual, you have no data. Because conspiracy theories don’t need data.
Bart wrote:
James Hansen made millions in awards and honoraria
He did?
Where is that evidence?
DA…”Clue: it wasnt a decline in the Earths temperature, it was a failure of certain proxies to remain accurate”.
It was an exposure of the fallibility of proxies as evidence. If Mann’s tree ring proxies were showing cooling when it was in fact warming, how suspect are Antarctic ice cores in revealing the concentration of CO2 in the pre-Industrial Era?
Besides, Mann is a geologist who is a wannabee climate scientist. His statistical analysis of the tree ring proxies was exposed as amateurish by real experts in that field like Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. That was confirmed by statistical expert Wegmann, called in by the US government to corroborate M&M.
Wegmann made a comment about Chapter 9 of an IPCC review which featured Mann’s cronies. He called them nepotic. They were only citing the papers written by each other. Any defense of Mann on MBB98 came from that peer group.
Bradley of MBB98 later tried to sue Wegmann for plagiarism. He could not refute his allegations of bad math, Bradley tried to get him on plagiarism.
Get this. Wegmann is investigating Mann and he quotes from material by Bradley. Since when is that plagiarism, especially when Wegmann had already cited him as the source? Once cited, does he have to qualify every comment from Bradley after that?
Gordon Robertson says:
“It was an exposure of the fallibility of proxies as evidence.”
Another lie.
You don’t understand and that’s why you are so dishonest.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Besides, Mann is a geologist who is a wannabee climate scientist.”
Wrong.
But what are you, Gordon? You solder wires. Very unimpressive. Maybe you are inhaling to many fumes?
By your own logic you don’t get an opinion in anything regarding science, because you’re just a technician.
Geoff…”Arent most climatologists payed to provide information which potentially undermines their profession if totally unbiased?”
The late climate modeler, Steven Schneider, admitted as much. He claimed scientists needed to convince the public using various techniques and wondered if lying was OK.
Gordon lies by omission, taking Schneiders quote out of context. Read the entire paragraph of what he said.
Here’s the full context of what Schneider said:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Quoted in Discover, pp. 4548, October 1989
I HOPE THAT MEANS BEING BOTH.
DA…”I HOPE THAT MEANS BEING BOTH”.
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”.
Yes, be an ethical scientist but able to lie because we are humans who think we know better than others what is best for us all. Able to lie to the poor schmucks in the public sector because we are too stupid to make up our own minds given the truth.
That’s the message of alarmists, lying is OK if it furthers our religious agenda to educate the hoi polloi.
That’s why I think you’re all pathetic. That’s why I am glad Obama is gone and Hillary Clinton is not president. I am so glad to be rid of the do-gooder, politically-correct crowd who have made it albeit incorrect to speak one’s mind or offend the status quo’s religious dogma as to what is right.
Schneider didn’t advocate lying.
You can’t admit it.
ROFLMAO. The direct quote made it sound worse than GR let on. Sounds like the guy was more of an activist that thought with his emotions more than his head.
Funny what people read. I read someone who is genuinely concerned about global warming and openly reflecting on the troubling nexus of communicating the science rigorously and encouraging action. Is it enough to be a robot, or are scientists allowed to fear for the future and express those fears?
His best hope was that advocacy and rigour could both be achieved.
‘Skeptics’ that reference this quote inevitably leave the last sentence off. It’s as predictable as the sun coming up.
DA…”Gordon lies by omission, taking Schneiders quote out of context. Read the entire paragraph of what he said”.
I have read the entire paragraph, it states exactly what I cited. Schneider ruminated as to whether scientists should lie or not. Why would such a notion cross the mind of any scientist with integrity?
Rumination is natural for any thinking person.
And Schneider’s conclusion: No.
That’s what you lied about. You’re worse than Trump, who is a pathological liar.
Nice try but that wasnt my question. My question was why is there are people coming out with different outcomes then others if global warming is a settled science? Not why or how they are wrong but why did they come up with this conclusion in the first place if global warming is such a settled science? That is my question
Every branch of science has outliers (eg, Realitivty Theory has publishing detractors). But not every branch of science has vested interests actively and continually promoting the outliers to the public. So we get a skewed view of what the weight of opinion is.
Go to a skpetic website and see a paper list of studies purportedly rejecting or downplaying AGW.
Now look for a list of papers on the same website that corroborate the mainstream view. You’ll never find that.
Balanced? Of course not. The agenda is to ‘disprove’, not to weigh the science on even terms. And if that’s the message you want to hear, then you’ll never go looking for the other list to compare.
And if that’s the message you want to hear, then that list you like is full of honest researchers, and any other list is full of groupthinkers or liars.
Behold, a narrative arises to quash any genuine curiosity or fair-mindedness.
Im not saying which researchers are liars and which ones arent Im asking why are there two researches coming out with two totally different conclusions? Why?
How I see it is that there are 10 researchers reaching a similar general conclusion, and 1 who disagrees completely.
If 10 doctors agree that a potentially cancerous lump should be removed ASAP, and 1 says it’s benign, what idiot would decide to do nothing?
Well why would 1 disagree? Why not all 10?
What if 7 say remove, and 3 say no? 6 and 4? Where do you draw the line?
We all know the 99.7% figure is bogus. How do you really know what the genuine weight of opinion is on this topic? Especially when there are such serious professional penalties for disagreement?
For me, I have read many papers of those promoting this fracas. They’re crap. So, if the majority of doctors came in looking like Patch Adams, and the others appeared rather more sober, I think I’d take the latter’s advice.
What if 7 say remove, and 3 say no? 6 and 4? Where do you draw the line?
I dont draw the line unless all of them come out with the same basic conclusion. In climate change for example we tend to focus too much on the greenhouse gas affect that is why alarmists and deniers come out with many contradictory results. When scientists study the cycles of the sun and the affect of these greenhouse gases on top of it they come out with the same basic conclusion which is that man doesnt drive the climate the sun does.
Well why would 1 disagree? Why not all 10?
I’m going with what I see to be as a reasonable representation of the actual weight of opinion on the general topic, not some invented one.
Bart, prudence would direct me to get the lump removed even if the majority was only slim. That would be a different reckoning on the general topic, but I see 9 in 10 climate researchers in agreement on this.
How do you really know what the genuine weight of opinion is on this topic?
I don’t know down to the nth decimal, but there are studies on it all lying around the 90% mark, as well as every major science academy in the world that gives an opinion agreeing with the view, as well as energy companies like Exxon, who have concurred. Major militaries are running contingency plans based on global warming. The weight of opinion is international, too, not limited to a country, handful of countries, a couple of science institutes or anything like that.
I would have to remove too much of my brain to buy a global conspiracy, or ‘groupthink’ on this scale. Prudence, not preference, wins.
“Bart, prudence would direct me to get the lump removed even if the majority was only slim.”
Not if that majority were a bunch of clowns, and the minority were professionals with a track record.
But, to make the analogy more apposite, you need something that has both a downside and an upside. Say, you are being told there is an experimental procedure to cure what ails you. It may work, it may not, but it will definitely leave you paralyzed on the right side. Now whose advice do you take?
“I would have to remove too much of my brain to buy a global conspiracy, or groupthink on this scale.”
Ah, for youthful innocence. You haven’t yet been exposed sufficiently to the ways of the world.
Not if that majority were a bunch of clowns, and the minority were professionals with a track record.
We were looking at examples that fit the point. We’re now moving into conspiracy theories and fantasy.
In the 1930’s, the most scientifically advanced nation in the world with a population of 87 million fell under the spell of the N@zis. Do you think that is the limiting case for massive, malignant groupthink? How about the Soviet Union in 1917 with about 185 million?
What evidence do you have that there is a size limit to the support of bad ideas? This is an argument from incredulity.
All Bart does, ALWAYS, is claim collusion. No evidence, just a claim. He does this because he cant disprove the science. Claiming its all a big conspiracy is an easy way out, and it cant be disproved, because if you disagree your part of the conspiracy. Its intellectual vomit.
As I said, this is not one or two countries but a worldwide understanding, and you are comparing (authoritarian) political ideology with consensus in science.
When alternative ideas to AGW explaining and projecting global climate change become mainstream, then people should rely on it. While they are outliers, Copernicus arguments have little resonance.
“They laughed at Copernicus, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown”
bart…”In the 1930s, the most scientifically advanced nation in the world with a population of 87 million fell under the spell of the N@zis. Do you think that is the limiting case for massive, malignant groupthink? How about the Soviet Union in 1917 with about 185 million?”
bart…the difference is the German people and the Russian people had no choice, it was go along or get shot or incarcerated.
The alarmist mob have choice plus plenty of information to counter their propaganda. Come to think of it, they don’t. They are programmed from an early age to submit to authority and to believe anything they hear in order to be part of the group.
barry…”How I see it is that there are 10 researchers reaching a similar general conclusion, and 1 who disagrees completely”.
Once more, science is not about agreement, about consensus. UAH has the data, the rest don’t. NOAA had to fudge their data retroactively to show a trend between 1998 and 2015. Both NOAA and NASA GISS have to fudge the confidence levels to rate recent years as the warmest. They dropped them to 48% and 30 something percent respectively for certain years.
The IPCC has 2500 reviewers write a report and at the same time 50 lead authors write a report called the Summary for Policymakers that is released to politicians. The Summary is released first, then the main report. Then the IPCC amends the main report to fit the Summary written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.
Pure corruption.
So, yes, it’s quite possible the majority are corrupt and/or uninformed. Climategate showed us that scientists at the top level of the IPCC are corrupt.
John Christy of UAH has been a lead author and a reviewer on IPCC reviews. He reports that many reviewers appear with preconceived notions of review outcomes and that many go along to get along.
The human brain is essentially corrupt, why does it surprise you that corruption is so widespread?
You might ask yourself, why I am I aiding and abetting the corruption?
barry…”When alternative ideas to AGW explaining and projecting global climate change become mainstream, then people should rely on it”.
What global climate change? Where is it?
A perfectly natural explanation for the warming over the past century has been put forward. Syun Akasofu, an eminent scientist, has claimed re-warming from the Little Ice Age explains everything and the IPCC has erred by not allowing for that re-warming in it’s claimed anthropogenic warming.
It’s all there. Glaciers expanded enormously during the LIA and ocean levels must have dropped. Also, the colder oceans must have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere.
Bart,
“For me, I have read many papers of those promoting this fracas. Theyre crap. So, if the majority of doctors came in looking like Patch Adams, and the others appeared rather more sober, I think Id take the latters advice.”
I’d like to see you make the call that way on your child’s medical condition. We’ll ask your wife if she agrees.
I’d also like to see you take the table of contents of a major climate science journal, go down the list, telling us what is crap in each paper.
What hubris, and what rot!
Gordon –
“bartthe difference is the German people and the Russian people had no choice, it was go along or get shot or incarcerated.”
It’s the same way here. You go along, or your livelihood gets destroyed. Why Barry et al. either feign or genuinely believe this is not a problem, I have no idea.
bart…”Its the same way here. You go along, or your livelihood gets destroyed. Why Barry et al. either feign or genuinely believe this is not a problem, I have no idea”.
True. Point in case, Dr. Peter Duesberg, at one time recipient of the California Scientist of the Year Award and a globally renowned expert on retroviruses like HIV.
Circa 1983, as the Reagan administration was releasing the non-peer reviewed opinion of Robert Gallo, that a virus was causing AIDS, Duesberg stood up and said, ‘wait a minute’. He pointed out that no known virus could act like Gallo was claiming for HIV. BTW, Gallo had applied the same viral hypothesis to cancer and was proved wrong.
Duesberg listed a slew of evidence that HIV could not possibly act as described. He was vilified and ostracized to the point he lost his professorship and reduced to teaching lab classes. Meantime, the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, agreed, he claimed HIV could not act alone but required a co-factor.
Fast forward more than 30 years and Montagnier announces his co-factor. He claimed recently that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system, implying the co-factor to be lifestyle. Meantime, the rest of the idiots, akin to the claimed 97% in climate science, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
If HIV had been a seriously dangerous virus it would have spread like wildfire to the heterosexual community in North America. It did not, it has been contained to a fraction of 1%, all of whom have high risk lifestyles and/or require blood transfusions.
Montagnier is right, AIDS is a lifestyle issue and Duesberg pin-pointed that over 30 years ago. It cost him his career.
Why does Barry not get it? Obviously he’s one of the myopic, narrow-minded type who cannot or does not want to see beyond the end of his nose. He has proved that to me on three different occasions. I have presented information and he has outright denied the veracity of the information. When I provided him with a direct link to the information he returned with a red-herring argument, failing to acknowledge his error.
Alarmists are like religious zealots. They are focused on one belief and come hell or high water they are going to stick to that belief. It must give them some form of comfort.
Gordon is into HIV-AIDS denialism. Unsurprising. He shares Dusenberg’s belief that it is transmitted by taking illicit drugs and not sexually transmitted?
And because Dusenberg’s views made him a pariah, Gordon makes him a martyr of Galileo-like proportions.
Familiar patterns.
There are always a few scientists (a couple percent at most) who think they know better than everyone else. They are almost always wrong, and when it’s clear they’re wrong everyone avoids them. But that doesn’t mean all of them shut up about it.
Fred Singer is a great example. Art Robinson. Willie Soon. etc.
barry says:
Gordon is into HIV-AIDS denialism
Gordon also denies the Big Bang, black holes, evolution, and special relativity. These are the ones I know of.
So you see what kind of person we’re dealing with here….
barry…”I dont know down to the nth decimal, but there are studies on it all lying around the 90% mark”
I have noted you did not cite any such studies. The 97% figure came largely from the cartoonist John Cook at skepticalscience. That study was sent to the garbage bin in disgrace.
Don’t ask for a citation, it will prove embarrassing to you.
There are two others I can think of, one by Naomi Oreskes who laughingly tried to establish consensus as a valid form of science. Her study covered 1000 scientists, another covered 3000.
Oreskes wrote an alarmist book that lambasted 3 dead scientists.
Why are all the alarmist claims coming from buffoons with a history?
barry…”Gordon is into HIV-AIDS denialism”.
I quoted the scientist who discovered HIV. He claimed, very recently, that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The stats support him, 99%+ of North Americans don’t have AIDS and most have healthy immune systems, even though many have engaged in high risk sexual adventures.
In a page taken from climate science, many idiots are claiming that’s because bombarding the humans system with toxic and potentially lethal antivirals has brought HIV under control. I cannot even begin to comment on the stupidity of such a statement.
Montagnier, the scientist who discovered HIV, claims he did not isolate a virus, did not purify a virus, nor did he see a virus. He postulated a virus based on RNA strands taken from a person with AIDS. He BELIEVED one in 1000 cells in a fluid taken from a person with AIDS was HIV.
So here we have a load of sheer idiots bombarding the bodies of people who test HIV+ positive with potentially lethal antiVIRALS aimed at a virus no one has ever seen or even detected.
Get this. In a disclaimer placed on the information page for the antiviral drugs, the drug manufacturer claimed the drugs could not cure an HIV infection. Furthermore, they could kill you by damaging your liver or your blood.
Barry, you and David Appell are becoming more stupid every day. Why are you idiots not aware of this scientific misconduct?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. You are both climate alarmists.
John Cook’s work got him a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
Gordon Robertson says:
I quoted the scientist who discovered HIV. He claimed, very recently, that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The stats support him, 99%+ of North Americans dont have AIDS and most have healthy immune systems, even though many have engaged in high risk sexual adventures.
THAT’S YOUR PROOF — that “most” people who don’t have AIDS have healthy immune systems?
No data or evidence given. What a joke.
Every time you write something stupid, you manage to out do yourself and keep digging down.
DA…”Gordon also denies the Big Bang, black holes, evolution, and special relativity”.
Wrong. I have not denied special relativity, I have denied the claims of those who have misinterpreted it. Space-time theory is a misinterpretation of special relativity.
Why you or anyone else would fall for crank science related to black holes, the Big Bang and evolution is the question. Are you incapable of critical thinking?
I took a seminar once in which we were discussing truth and reality. In those days, I existed in a fantasy world like you and Barry. I regarded reality as an aerie-faerie dimension in which anything was possible.
The guy leading the seminar, in a fit of frustration, banged on a brick wall and asked me if it was real. I asked what he meant by real. You see, I was aware the wall was made up of atoms and at that level no one is sure what is real and what is not.
Finally, he asked, can you walk through this wall? I knew I could not but I hypothesized that maybe, in some way, I might be able to fit the atoms in my body through the atoms in the wall. That’s how messed up I was with scientific THEORY, I was not willing to admit that from a perspective of the human reality, we cannot walk through solid concrete walls. They are real to us, whether we like it or not.
That night on the way home it struck me that I had to get real. We can argue mathematically that alternate realities exist but we live in a reality that constrains us. Black holes and the Big Bang belong to a theoretical world and in our present physical world they are both nonsense till proved different.
The theory of evolution is even more absurd. It’s a figment of the human imagination till someone finds fossils of intermediate species as suggested by evolution. Genetics is a valid science, it can be proved, but only within one species. There is absolutely no proof that such a force as natural selection exists, certainly not one by which species can alter themselves to fit into an environment.
The death blow to evolution comes from it’s beginnings in the so-called primeval muds. It has been hypothesized that 5 basic elements came together to form amino acids that later developed into life. There is nothing….absolutely nothing…in the theory of chemical bonding that can account for that.
Chemical bonding theory can account for the formation of amino acids and their myriad of shapes. It can account for the way amino acids form proteins, but it cannot account for how those bodies receive the life force. It cannot account for human consciousness. Yet evolutionists preach this all comes from chance occurrences.
Prove it!!!
Fast forward to our physical world. You tell me, after examining the vast intelligence that runs the human body, particularly with regard to sight, and give me a reasonable explanation based on 5 elements getting together in primeval muds how that all happened.
A mathematical study was done and the conclusion was that the odds of 5 basic chemical coming together to produce life as we know it, is billions and billions to one against.
Remember, evolution is about chance occurences, natural selection is about blind chance.
You denied time dilation.
Gordon: Walls are real. Atoms are real. Chemical bonds are real.
I’m not interested in the rest of your junk except to say that it proves you are willfully blind, and that creates your ignorance.
“A mathematical study was done and the conclusion was that the odds of 5 basic chemical coming together to produce life as we know it, is billions and billions to one against.”
1. What study? Citation, please.
2. So what? The chemical creation of life only had to happen once.
I have noted you did not cite any such studies. The 97% figure came largely from the cartoonist John Cook at skepticalscience. That study was sent to the garbage bin in disgrace.
I’ve cited them before. But if I linked them here, would you read them?
Of course not. Neither will any contrarian.
So why bother?
Tell you what, if you promise you’ll read them, I’ll link them.
But that’s not going to happen, is it? No, you’ll write them off sight unseen.
Once more, science is not about agreement, about consensus.
It’s certainly not about promoting outlying views as *the truth*.
UAH has the data, the rest dont.
What does that even mean? RSS has the same data. Surface records also have data, and there are different methods, different data, and they are all pretty similar.
No, what you mean is the UAH have the best data. But you have no basis on which to assert this.
NOAA had to fudge their data retroactively to show a trend between 1998 and 2015.
NOAA had a positive trend before any revisions were made. At the time of the IPCC, only RSS had a flat/negative trend. Even UAH (version 5.6) had a positive trend.
Both NOAA and NASA GISS have to fudge the confidence levels to rate recent years as the warmest. They dropped them to 48% and 30 something percent respectively for certain years.
I’ve shown you the methods paper?Did you read it? The confidence level for the probability calculations was 95%. The actual probabilities arrived at using those confidence levels were 48% probability 2014 was warmest, and every other year having a lower probability.
Here’s a quote from the methods paper explaining how probabilities for rankings are calculated:
Using the independent approach, we calculate a 12% probability that 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record. The two-tailed 95% confidence interval suggests that 2012 is likely ranked anywhere between the second and fourteenth warmest years…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/full
See that? The probability for 2012 being the warmest year is 12%. The confidence interval for the probability calculation is 95%.
Read the frickin’ link.
barry…”But not every branch of science has vested interests actively and continually promoting the outliers to the public. So we get a skewed view of what the weight of opinion is”.
The outlier here is that a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming/climate change. No proof has been offered, just consensus.
You alarmists claim that is the science and that time-tested physics is the outlier. I’d say you have it backwards. It’s you alarmists who need to prove your theory.
The outlier here is that a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming/climate change
Straw man.
The mainstream view is that more CO2 in the atmos causes warming at the surface. The outlying view (promoted by some here) is that increased CO2 has no effect.
In short, the extreme outliers are those who deny the greenhouse effect, followed by those who are sure there will be no noticeable change (but do not deny the greenhouse effect), whose views are less extreme outliers.
“Catastrophic” comes into the mix in that the range of climate sensitivity includes a strong response to CO2.
Those who say that the upper range is by no means certain are not outliers at all, and those who say it could never happen are in a small minority.
barry…”The mainstream view is that more CO2 in the atmos causes warming at the surface. The outlying view (promoted by some here) is that increased CO2 has no effect”.
Mainstream views do not represent science. Science is based on data and the data shows the catastrophic outcomes projected by CO2 warming is not happening.
Define “catastrophic outcome.”
And tell us when the “catastrophic” results are predicted to occur. Do you think that this is supposed to have occurred by now? What’s the reference, please.
Let us not forget overall oceanic temperatures are also cooling now only +.200c above means.
Year 2018 will be the transitional year putting an end to global warming and AGW theory.
Yawn.
We bet a crate of good Franconian beer?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Year 2018 will be the transitional year putting an end to global warming and AGW theory.
“I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/2013
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047
Just for fun:
The 13-month string of values (Jan 2017 to Jan 2018) is best matched (i.e. has the highest correlation) by the string (Dec 1994 to Dec 1995).
The difference in the averages from these two periods is close to +0.3 deg.
The (recent) rate of increase is therefore about +0.25 deg per decade.
i.e. about twice the long-term linear rate.
Yawn
Maybe you should read your comics for a bit of fun.
profp…”The (recent) rate of increase is therefore about +0.25 deg per decade. i.e. about twice the long-term linear rate”.
Have you ever studied statistics or is this the result of a home correspondence course? Has no one taught you the dangers of averaging in statistics without providing a context?
The first sign that someone does not understand stats is the tendency of the perp to plug numbers blindly into a calculator or algorithm without understand the context from which the data was obtained.
Predictable response.
The measurements annoy you, so do the statstics.
I can’t help you I am afraid.
Might as well use a Ouija board…
Dec 1994 to Dec 1995 was too soon after Pinatubo- not a good choice.
lol?
What is also of note is the global oceanic temperatures are leading the global cooling not lagging it.
Global oceanic temperatures this summer were around +.35c above means in contrast to now at +.200c.
The key is low solar if it does equate to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo (if true, which I believe to be so ) will do in global warming.
What is of note is that today is cooler than yesterday. Yet I don’t predict an ice age.
The Earth is currently in what we call the Quaternary Ice Age, despite your false predictions of the present.
+.26 c is the right direction but we need more.
Do we “need more”? I mean, to what end?
Sure, global cooling will make the anti-human climate alarmists choose a different subject to pursue their criminal agenda, whether by reviving Ehrlich-like delusions or inventing new ones.
But for humanity, global cooling will be a disaster of unknown proportions. Millions of human beings still live in societies lacking the infrastructure to survive (real, not imagined) detrimental climate upsets, no matter how small. And by “survive” I mean preventing starvation.
This is not a joyous subject and proving the anti-human climate alarmists wrong should be the last of our concerns, if at all. They are murderous, yes, and malevolent, yes. But the stakes are much, much greater.
Laura, as an anti-human, criminal, malevolent murderer let me point out:
Coal is responsible for over 800,000 premature deaths per year globally and many millions more serious and minor illnesses.
The economic costs of the health impacts from coal combustion in Europe are valued at about US$70 billion per year, with 250,600 life years lost.
The burning of coal emits hazardous air pollutants that can spread for hundreds of kilometres. Pollutants include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, mercury and arsenic. Exposure to these pollutants can damage peoples cardiovascular, respiratory and nervous systems, increasing the risk of lung cancer, stroke, heart disease, chronic respiratory diseases and lethal respiratory infections. Children, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with already compromised health suffer most. In addition to pollution originating from power plants, the mining and transport of coal, as well as the disposal of coal ash waste, can have significant impacts on human health.
Feed people first.
Then rant about whatever you want.
laura…”Feed people first. Then rant about whatever you want”.
The climate alarm mob don’t care about people but the UN with their IPCC is even worse.
Dr. Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, has claimed the problem in Africa with AIDS is malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasites. We have known that for ages and no one has done anything about it.
Solution from the UN and WHO? Redefine AIDS to include ‘wasting syndrome’, a known product of, you know what, malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasites. It was called Slim’s Disease in Africa long before AIDS became known in the late 1970s.
The UN and the WHO are now treating starvation and poisoning from contaminated water and parasites as a sexually transmitted disease while shipping extremely toxic antivirals to Africans in lieu of food, clean water, and anti-parasitics.
I appreciate you trying, but the idiots running this world will never allow it to happen. The UN is run by a load of dreamers who talk a good show but lack the spine or sense to get anything done. Now their supporters, like the current climate alarmists, have joined them to further an environmental cause that has nothing to do with the environment, but the religion makes them feel warm and cozy.
The irony is that the alarmists posting here seem to regard themselves as humanists, even though John Christy of UAH has taught in Africa and seen first hand the tragedy of a lack of fossil fuels, and has warned about the results.
Below, you’ll see a smart-assed comment from Eli Rabbett, one of the uber-alarmists. He has a degree in physics but teaches chemistry for some reason. He has been spreading propaganda about anthropogenic warming while going after legitimate scientists like Roy, who graciously allow him to further his propaganda on this blog.
If the tables were reversed, like at realclimate or skepticalscience, and Eli was preaching skepticism, he’d have his ass booted off the blog. Alarmists have zero tolerance for anyone speaking in a contrary manner about their religion.
Laura,
If feeding the hungry in the world is our first priority, why do you own a car, a home, a lawn mower, a smart phone, a computer, when your need for these items is clearly lower in priority?
You’re really not doing yourself any good with such sensationalist rubbish.
Anyone who believes that is as sharp as a marble.
Also:
“European heatwave deaths could skyrocket: climate study. Deaths due to extreme weather in Europe could increase 50-fold to reach 152,000 a year by the end of the century. … Exposure means anything from disease, injury and death due to an extreme weather event, to losing a home or “post-event stress”, the authors said.”
etc etc.
Who is anti-human?
As I said, feed people first.
Then rant about whatever you want.
Huh? Burning coal feeds people?
You chew coal? Who knew.
“Burning coal feeds people?”
Is this a trick question? Do we not need energy to grow and process foodstuffs?
Again, the false dichotomy monsters appear.
It’s not false, it is a fact. So-called “renewables” are simply not sufficient, pathetically so, for running a modern industrial economy.
In the US, we feed cows and chickens first, then kill them or take their milk and eggs to feed people. Just like cows and chickens, people respond to feeding by producing more people. If today’s famine is due to some climate anomaly, the next time a climate anomaly appears, if there are more people, the starvation problem will be worse. If climate change makes those anomalies even worse, as time goes on, the starvation problems becomes even more dire.
Given that our agricultural system is based on fossil fuels, what’s going to be the result of the loss of those energy sources as they are depleted? What’s the sustainable population of the Earth, is it going to be at the projected 10+ Billion in 2050 or will it still be possible to keep today’s 7 Billion alive and healthy? I think that the Population Bomb is going to appear as a series of local explosions, such as the crisis in Syria, not a single global catastrophe.
“Given that our agricultural system is based on fossil fuels, whats going to be the result of the loss of those energy sources as they are depleted?”
That’s going to be a very long time from now. But, even if it weren’t, when push comes to shove, we would tap into nuclear power, the only energy source that actually has a prayer (and, then some) of replacing fossil fuels.
Nuclear fertilizer! Who knew
‘Its not false’ dichotomy
Ok, so reducing air pollution, and reducing hunger, are mutually exclusive?
How is that we have done both in the US since the Clean Air Act in 1970?
CO2 is not air pollution.
We were talking about coal, which produces pollution of various kinds.
We’re dealing with people that literally think living conditions around the world were better in 1850 than they are today. It’s a special type of stupid, better referred to as delusional.
More plus or more minus?
Sea surface temperature anomalies in the Gulf of Mexico show the range of the northern jet stream.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/b0rdw3k1h0yg.png
Salvatore
I’m having trouble reconciling your statements on ocean cooling with the data.
Go here and download the graph Annual Mean Temperature Change For Land and Ocean.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/#
The two blue graphs show the ocean surface temperatures.
There is also ocean heat content, showing an ongoing upward trend.
https://robertscribbler.com/2018/01/26/not-even-the-briefest-of-pauses-for-human-forced-global-warming-oceans-during-2017-were-the-hottest-on-record/ocean-heat-gain-cheng-and-zhu/
Perhaps you could explain how you infer a cooling trend from this data.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Here is the data . This data showed overall oceanic temp. around+.35c this summer.
Three months. What is the long term trend?
I have data from the site going back to June 2017
Is your expected solar cooling also short term?
No, the solar flux variable is a long term integral.
How long?
Change in OCEAN ONLY UAH anomaly in the 6 months leading up to the 3rd month of a significant La Nina (January being the 3rd month of the current La Nina):
1988/89 -0.07
1997/98 -0.14
2007/08 -0.23
2010/12 -0.13
So what have you observed that is any different to previous La Ninas?
OCEAN TID BITS – does not confirm
For each La Nina in the satellite period that has lasted longer than the bare minimum 5 months, here is the lowest monthly UAH anomaly reached. In brackets is the anomaly in the 3rd month of the event, with an asterisk meaning it was preceded by an El Nino no more than 3 months earlier, so was still showing residue heat from that event.
84-85 … -0.51 [-0.26]
88-89 … -0.40 [+0.16*]
95-96 … -0.18 [+0.09]
98-01 … -0.27 [+0.44*]
07-08 … -0.26 [+0.12]
10-11 … -0.18 [+0.35*]
11-12 … -0.22 [+0.17]
17-18 … ????? [+0.26]
So we should EXPECT to drop to around -0.2.
des…”des…”see that large erect phallus of cold water jutting out westward from central America? THAT is La Nina”.
You mean the one pointed right at you? Would that not be South America?”
I’m not seeing this data on the UAH graph. Did you get it from the NOAA fudged record, or worse still, from the BOM?
It is UAH data. Do you only ever look at pretty graphs? Try looking at the DATA at the top of this thread labelled “Lower Troposphere”. It will all check out … if you can actually be bothered checking.
Since you are claiming this data is fudged, I guess you are accusing Christy and Spencer of fudging their data.
Anomalies of the surface of the tropical eastern Atlantic look even more interesting.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/vdlf0l1rrojz.png
Since the magnetic activity of the Sun is currently very low, the jet stream will go far to the south.
NO … the entire jet stream does NOT move significantly. At any time, a PART might migrate south, while another part migrates north to compensate. One part of the globe becomes colder while another part becomes warmer. No net change (ignoring other effects such as La Nina).
I focused on the tropics.
Operational SST Anomaly Charts for 2018.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.2.1.2018.gif
Ye … see that large erect phallus of cold water jutting out westward from central America? THAT is La Nina.
des…”see that large erect phallus of cold water jutting out westward from central America? THAT is La Nina”.
You mean the one pointed right at you? Would that not be South America?
It can be a heavy snowstorm in the northeast of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/h2lpc23g8zo6.png
From Roy’s front page on this blog….”Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature”.
Roy…I think you and John have integrity and are above reproach, however, I think NOAA is meddling with the satellite data before handing it over to UAH.
There is no reason why global temps should be lingering this high following the 2016 El Nino. It has not happened during the past 39 years of UAH data sets and I have seen nothing to justify this sudden and abrupt warming.
There is no way CO2 in the atmosphere could bring this about. Either we are seeing an unusual set of circumstances between the surface and the atmosphere that has not been discovered or NOAA are cooking the books.
” I think NOAA is meddling with the satellite data before handing it over to UAH.
There is no reason why global temps should be lingering this high following the 2016 El Nino”
If the facts don’t fit the theory – the facts must be wrong!!
I never thought anybody would actually go down this path.
But, no, GR is happy to go there with the certainty of a 3yo.
Hilarious!!
There shouldn’t be any more discrepancies in the current temperature data sets. The statisticians and mechanical temperature measurements don’t seem to be in dispute anymore. Lots of people watching and measuring. The problem comes when we try and extrapolate the past temperature record using GCMs that still can’t adequately reverse-project an actual temperature record before 1950. Digging up proxy data from 70% of the planet (the oceans) that is miles deep with changing currents can’t be easy.
profp…”If the facts dont fit the theory the facts must be wrong!!”
NOAA is being investigated by a US senate committee for exactly what I claimed against them. Of course, in Australia you are so remote you can’t keep up with current affairs and you are brain-washed by the BOM.
“NOAA is being investigated by a US senate committee for exactly what I claimed against them.”
Please link to any such action after February 2017.
des…”Please link to any such action after February 2017″.
That’s only a year, they are likely still reviewing evidence. NOAA has refused to cooperate and turn over evidence. It will likely take a while to go through the courts.
You should be asking why NOAA is refusing to cooperate. It’s a government agency funded by the US government.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/u-s-congress-to-investigate-noaa-scandal-as-more-whistleblowers-come-forward/
I’ve done a bit of googling. It seems that the newspaper article about an ex NOAA employee which set off this “investigation” was immediately challenged by the employee himself. He stated that his complaint was not about data tampering. Rather it was an argument about the protocols of archiving processed data. I also visited the website for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology which was the committee supposedly investing this, did a search for NOAA, and found nothing pending other than the appointment of its head.
It seems the investigation quickly recognised the fake news and made the matter disappear quietly.
Yes, as Rick Blaine would say, “Gestapo spank…”
There is no gestapo for this with a Trump administration and his appointments for science. You love these conspiracy theories, Bart.
Upthread it was said that AGW is just speculation. This is exactly what your comment here is. There’s no data for it. That’s the beauty of conspiracy theories. We don’t have all the facts, man, BECAUSE there’s a conspiracy.
https://tinyurl.com/y8lszgry
The news article is from 2009. Was it meant to relate to what I said about the current administration and no gestapo spank?
Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
The article was paywalled for me. What relevance does it have to the current government and Trump’s science appointments?
Gordon Robertson
More unfounded declarative statements. You might be almost as unscientific as g*e*r*a*n. I was hoping this was not true about you.
YOUR CLAIM: “There is no way CO2 in the atmosphere could bring this about.” This is like antiscience. You make a declarative statement based on voodoo science and suggest because data does not match your made up physics reality (loosely based upon some physics ideas but mostly wrong information) the people producing the data have to be dishonest liars. Science takes you were the evidence goes. The first thought is not assume the data is dishonest. The more scientific mind would be to reevalutate your understanding of physics and think it is possible you got something wrong along the way.
Gordon Robertson
Your false understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be shown to be wrong with a very simple mental gymnastics.
You have an object in a very very well insulated chamber under vacuum conditions so radiation is the only means of moving energy. Insignificant energy can enter or leave the chamber.
The object has a total of 1 million joules of internal energy. It won’t matter its dimensions or mass at this time since it is just a comparing of two states.
You claim a cold object has no effect on a hot one, it can’t alter the hot one’s temperature at all. You claim that is what the 2nd Law States. I think it is easy to show that is very flawed thoughts. Made up.
In the chamber you put an object that is made of the same material and has the same mass (identical object). It has 500,000 joules of internal energy. View factor won’t matter since the test is not time dependent.
When the two objects reach equilibrium they will both have 750,000 joules of internal energy. The heat is the 250,000 joules that transferred from the hot object (which lost it) to the cold object.
Now you start again. The hot object has 1 million joules of internal energy. You put an that has nearly 0 joules (close to absolute zero). The two objects will reach equilibrium when each has 500,000 joules of internal energy. The hotter object is warmer when the colder object is warmer. No heat was transferred from the cold object to the hot object in either case. But you can see that if the cold object is colder than MORE heat will be transferred from the hot object to the cold one leaving it colder than if the cold object were warmer.
Now if you have a powered hot object you should be able to easily see that the hot object will be hotter if you have a warmer cold object than a case with a colder cold object. The amount of heat the hot object loses is directly dependent upon the amount heat it can transfer to the cold object. The colder the second object the more heat the hotter object can transfer to cold object.
norman…”You have an object in a very very well insulated chamber under vacuum conditions so radiation is the only means of moving energy. Insignificant energy can enter or leave the chamber”.
Give it up with the thought experiments, normie. I’m sticking with the tried and proved definition of the 2nd law given by Clausius:
No heat transfer cold to hot without compensation.
Gordon Robertson
It is unlikely you read the content of my post or took any effort to understand it. Your mind is very closed it seems.
Yes NO HEAT transfer from colt to hot. That is exactly what I show. But if you have a warmer cold object with the hot one, the hot one will end at a higher temperature. The cold object affects the equilibrium temperature of the hotter object. You have given up science to hold on to a ideology. From all angles you hold on to incorrect thought. I am not sure why you have this super passion to delude yourself.
Poor Norm. He demonstrates his confusion about 2LoT, AGAIN:
* “NO HEAT transfer from colt [sic] to hot.”
* “I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one. That is all.”
Heat can’t transfer from “colt” to hot, but heat can’t transfer from hot to cold, either!
Hilarious.
Must the presence of a cold object increase the temperature of a hotter one?
Not if the two objects are thermally isolated from their surroundings
Two metal blocks A and B sit separated inside a vacuum filled adiabatic enclosure.
Adiabatic enclosure consists of a perfect reflector face surrounded by a perfect insulator
Initially both at the same temperature. The zeroth law of thermodynamics applies.
Both emit and absorb equal amounts of radiation.
Neither one is said to heat the other.
Both objects remain at the same temperature
One block (A) has a power supply which is now switched on causing the temperature of the block to rise.
This in turn means that it will emit more radiation.
A will now heat B causing its temperature to rise.
B will in turn emit extra radiation but this back radiation is caused by A.
Now comes the clincher
If B were not there at all the temperature A would be even higher.
So B cannot be said in any meaning of the word as a cause of heating A
Perfect experiment. G* an his kindred cannot dispute it.
Why would anyone dispute real physics, Nate?
Bryan’s thought experiment is just more evidence against the incorrect solution to the blue/green plate problem.
One more “nail in the coffin”, as they say.
Read the last part wrong, ‘If B were not there at all the temperature A would be even higher.’
The setup has a problem, if perfectly insulated then temps never reach a steady state. Temps just keep rising..
Not so perfect experiment, my bad.
Better experiment. Walls not insulated, reach a steady temp and radiate/conduct heat away to outside.
In that case A WILL reach a higher temp with B present. Known as radiation shielding.
Nope, you had it right the first time.
Hilarious!
Perfectly insulated does reach a steady state?
Con-man, why are you commenting as “Pete”?
As usual, the only one you’re conning is yourself.
Not a con g*e*r*a*n
That was leftover from previous thread when I was showing how easy it would be for you to post as g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less. I am now using my own name. The demonstration is done. J Halp-less could be a different person than you. If so it just shows how excellent of a programmer Joseph Postma is to get two distinct individuals to both think made up physics, never do testing, rarely support any of the declarations, make fun of actual University physics educators, write very similar posts. I guess Postma finds gullible sheep and makes them think they are wolves. I hope you can see any educated scientist is laughing at your posts. They can see how deluded you are. It is funny when you think about it. You pretend you are this brilliant master of physics but you don’t know anything. You look up a couple of ideas on google and act like you understand them (once you pulled up eigenvectors on me even though you haven’t got the slightest understanding of what that term means, you just used it because you thought it made you look smart).
Keep the humor coming in 2018. I like the way you bluff. I already know you will never lay down your hand, you never have any real science, just a bluff and pretend. It is funny. Thanks for the laughs. (But not that funny really)
norman…”If so it just shows how excellent of a programmer Joseph Postma is…”
Is that the same Joe Postma who claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do?
pete..or is that norman???
“There is no way CO2 in the atmosphere could bring this about. This is like antiscience. You make a declarative statement based on voodoo science and suggest because data does not match your made up physics reality…”
If you call the 2nd law of thermodynamics voodoo science I see where you are coming from, like all the other alarmists.
If you think 0.04% of the atmosphere represented by CO2 can cause catastrophic warming, you don’t understand the Ideal Gas Equation, or Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
That’s the science I know, call it what you will. It’s based on the scientific methods whereas AGW is not.
Please explain how the ideal gas law forbids a change in temperatures.
des…”Please explain how the ideal gas law forbids a change in temperatures”.
Where did you get that from? I implied CO2 at 0.04% cannot significantly warm the atmosphere because it’s mass is far too small.
Here it is again:
PV = nRT or P = (nR/V)T, with n, V and R constant. Therefore T is directly proportional to P.
I know the atmospheric pressure is stratified due to gravity but so should T be stratified, and it is. I also know there is activity on top of the stratification, like lapse rate. However, the underlying pressure/temperature effect is constant whereas lapse rate varies. CO2 has not much to do with either.
Dalton – the total pressure of multiple gases is the sum of the partial pressure of each gas. Do I need to go on? N2 and O2 make up about 99% of the mass of the atmosphere and CO2 about 0.04%. That’s all CO2, most of which is natural.
Therefore the partial heat contributes by CO2 is proportional to its mass, making it’s contribution about 0.04C.
Thanks for illustrating your utter lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect. It is NOT about CO2 molecules transferring thermal energy to neighbouring air molecules through collisions.
des claims: “It is NOT about CO2 molecules transferring thermal energy to neighbouring air molecules through collisions.”
Yeah, the GHE is even funnier. It is based on the atmosphere “trapping heat”. Then that “trapped heat” focuses back to the surface, warming the planet.
Except, when the GHE hits the “tipping point”, it then makes for colder and snowier weather.
Consequently, the GHE is very hard to detect, as it looks just like “natural variation”.
g*e*r*a*n
You are again showing your natural confusion. Obviously you are confusing GHE with AGW. They are different you know (probably you don’t know).
The GHE is not linked to snowfall amounts. Some researchers are linking AGW to this.
GHE is the claim that GHG in the atmosphere will allow a surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than it would without such gases present.
AGW is the idea that mankind’s emission of CO2 will raise the temperature to even higher equilibrium temperatures than GHE has done (33 K by most calculations).
Con-man, you might want to familiarize yourself with the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense. You don’t understand science, maybe you could understand pseudoscience.
Des –
“Thanks for illustrating your utter lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect. It is NOT about CO2 molecules transferring thermal energy to neighbouring air molecules through collisions.”
It is intimately intertwined with that, because the mean time to emission is much longer than the mean time to collision.
Gordon –
The establishment of a lapse rate requires a heat sink in the upper atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson says:
Where did you get that from? I implied CO2 at 0.04% cannot significantly warm the atmosphere because its mass is far too small.
Wrong, because you leave out an entire subset of nature — electromagnetic energy.
If you ignore the parts of nature you don’t like, you can prove all kinds of nonsense. As you do regularly.
Can someone find a climastrology paper that even takes gravitational potential energy into account?
Take a look at the heat budget diagrams representing “estimates” of heat transfer in our atmosphere: sensible heat transfer ranges from 16-31 Wm-2, but the real answer is obviously higher since convective heat transfer dominates the temperature at the Earth’s surface.
They have the “greenhouse effect” labeled as a back radiation effect from certain gases, but ironically the real greenhouse effect is from what is so glaringly missing that it’s laughable – gravitational potential energy feedback from convective processes. The greenhouse gas hypothesis is laughable and leads to clearly erroneous climate models, yet people continue to cling to the idea.
RWturner says:
“The greenhouse gas hypothesis is laughable and leads to clearly erroneous climate models”
Here’s some climate models:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285081
“Can someone find a climastrology paper that even takes gravitational potential energy into account?”
Ask Gordon Robertson, I think he’s the expert on that.
Gordon Robertson says:
Thats the science I know, call it what you will
I’ll call it willfully blind. Also, ignorant.
Why do you do this to yourself?
“There is no reason why global temps should be lingering this high following the 2016 El Nino.”
Just because you can’t think of a reason doesn’t mean there is not one. The negative phase of the PDO which started after the 1998 El Nino and basically was the cause of the “pause” ended in 2014, and we are now in a neutral phase. THAT is the reason for the upswing in the last few years.
This is the test year solar/versus co2
I’m interested to see how your predictions go. I don’t think that if they come true that AGW is ‘disproved’, but I applaud you for committing to a prediction. I am interested to see how you respond should your prediction not work out.
Barry thanks.
Salvatore has made many predictions since 2009. All predicted cooling, and all were wrong.
One more prediction won’t change that — Salvatore is wrong because his science is wrong.
6 months after the La Nina ends.
Sal made this prediction 6 months ago.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
This is the test year solar/versus co2
No.
One year doesn’t prove anything. Especially a La Nina year.
Salvatore, you aren’t serious and border on silly.
Average satellite temp anomalies of the decades:
1980s: -0.14
1990s: 0.00
2000s: 0.11
2010s: 0.23 (average of 8 years of data)
Good luck to the skeptics hoping to see data that will change that trend by the end of this decade.
Todays temperatures
7:00 am 40 degree F
8:00 am 50 degree F
9:00 am 57 degree F
Good luck everyone tomorrow we will all be dead.
30 years is a very small timescale when it comes to climate
And there is no way to prove it never changed this fast in the past.
Voodoo science: sticking pins in time-series temperature charts to predict future trends.
duncan…”And there is no way to prove it never changed this fast in the past”.
Pleanty of proof, we called it the Little Ice Age, ending circa 1850. We have been recovering since.
Pleanty of proof, we called it the Little Ice Age, ending circa 1850. We have been recovering since.
Weird “recovery,” since temperatures are now higher than they were at the beginning of the LIA.
In Gordon’s world, he can drop a ball from eye level and it will bounce up and hit the ceiling.
Joel…”Good luck to the skeptics hoping to see data that will change that trend by the end of this decade”.
What trend, the one in your mind?
The IPCC claimed 15 years with no trend from 1998 – 2012. UAH increased it to 18 years.
The 2000s from 2000 – 2015 was a flat trend with most of your trend coming from a major EN in early 2016.
New data came in after the 5AR that showed there was no “pause.” That’s how science works.
Joel – that’s about as meaningless as saying the warmest 16 anomalies in the satellite data have occurred in the immediate past 17 years.
Do you not see that you do not present a trend that has any physical relationship to the empirically observed data itself?
Did they teach you (indoctrinate you) with this method at High School did they?
Look at the actual data. All the ‘average’ in the anomalies per decade in the final two decades are due to the step change post 97/98 El Nino (essentially zero warming outside of the El Nino peak) where the anomalies are of course ‘warmer’ than the previous two decades as they fluctuating around a higher baseline post the step change AND the most recent decade (8 years of data) also contains the anomalies post the step change fluctuating around a baseline of essentially zero warming in addition to the higher anomalies of the 16 El Nino.
So you propose el Nino caused long term temperatures to be higher.
Is this a predictive notion? Are you saying all el Ninos do this, and that the warming of the last century is due to successive Ninos?
For those skeptics claiming that a colder body can’t make a warmer body warmer. Where do you come up with this. I am a skeptic, but of course a colder body can make a warmer body warmer.
Here are some examples
microwave
Solar oven using mirrors
Magnify glass
obviously if EMR coming in is greater than EMR going out the planet is going to heat up.
And anything than prevent EMR from escaping will then cause the planet to warm up.
Just like a mirror, or magnify glass that focuses EMR, or a microwave that generates EMR. That EMR is turned into heat. a cold microwave will still heat my lunch, and the inside of the microwave can still be cold. I can burn ants with a magnify glass in the winter, and the glass is still cold.
Duncan, the statement [“cold” can NOT warm “hot”] is a very brief summary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2L0T). It is used often to try to bring some sanity to the Purveyors of Pseudoscience.
But, it is often ineffective, as many do not understand thermodynamics.
Your “example” of a microwave oven indicates you do not understand. It is NOT the oven, by itself, that warms a cup of water to boiling. It is the electrical energy, converted to microwaves, that then vibrate the water molecules.
As with your other “examples”, that is NOT an example of violating 2LoT.
An example of violating 2LoT would be attempting to bake a turkey using only ice cubes.
Learn some basic science, and you will be even a better skeptic.
do you know what EMR stands for?
Electra-Magnetic Radiation. I never said it violated the laws of thermodynamics. I said something “temperature wise” cold heating up something that is warmer that it. it happens.
All radiation from the sun is Electra-Magnetic Radiation just like the microwave. The microwave creates Electra-Magnetic Radiation
The magnify glass and mirrors focuses the Electra-Magnetic Radiation.
And the atmosphere absorbs or reflects Electra-Magnetic Radiation just like the mirrors reflecting And just like the food absorbs EMR in the microwave.
I did make one error above though I said”obviously if EMR coming in is greater than EMR going out the planet is going to heat up. ” That is not true. Not all energy turns into heat.
Duncan, first of all, it is “electro”, not “electra”. And it is typically one word, as “electromagnetic”.
I have to stop there for now. The rest was just too hilarious.
Sorry for the typo, the spell checker didn’t like electro-magnetic, but it was fine with Electra-magnetic. and it didn’t correct it to one word, so I too thought it was weird
Sorry I didn’t major in spelling. That is a little funny I must admit.
The rest isn’t hilarious, because it is true
The sun emits EMR and not heat.
IR = EMR not heat.
IR is light
light = EMR
Microwave oven uses 2.5GHZ light
IR is THZ light
it’s all light or EMR
I wonder why you ignored the magnify glass, and the solar oven
when you obviously don’t understand how a microwave works.
Here is how a microwave works http://www.explainthatstuff.com/microwaveovens.html
Funny they too mention the sun emits radiation like a microwave
By the way, even though I can’t spell “electromagnetic”, I am a Electrical Engineer, and have done some work in the RF spectrum. Sorry I usually just use “EMR” and I thought it was hyphened electro-magnetic. So you should think twice about arguing about this with me, except maybe the spelling aspect.
Duncan, a magnifying glass is NOT an indication that “cold” can warm “hot”. Your attempt to use the example is an indication you do not understand physics, especially radiative flux.
The Sun’s emitted flux reduces with distance, in accordance with the inverse-square law. So, a magnifying glass just allows the flux to be focused. For example, on a clear day, at solar peak, you may have as much as 800 W/m^2. But, a large magnifying glass can focus that 800 to easily over 40,000 W/m^2. That corresponds to about 640C (1200F). A large magnifying glass can melt metals.
It has NOTHING to do with “cold” warming “hot”.
g*, Duncanbelem:
Imagine a sci-fi novel where a giant magnifying glass comes to life and kills people by focusing light rays. After being caught, the evil lens Is taken to a courtroom. His idiot attorney, g*, addresses the judge:
“My client is innocent, your honor. He had NOTHING to do with it. It was the sun!”
Moral of the story:
The sun can make things hot. By focusing light, a magnifying glass can make hot things even hotter.
Thanks for verifying my point, snake.
(Is this going to be a great year in climate comedy, or what?)
Wow…just wow. Great “examples”. May I suggest if you really believe any of your drivel that you place a bowl of water in a microwave and run it until the water nears boiling — 100 C. Then quickly smash the microwave and grab the anode, but be careful not to freeze your skin…err the opposite of that, don’t melt your skin off with that 200 C anode.
I bet one could bake a turkey using only ice cubes, and the sun. Make a giant lens out of an ice cube and then focus it on the turkey. Done:)
Ice emits about 300 Watts per square meter. So, 10 square meter of ice would emit about 3000 Watts.
So, if you could focus all that infrared on a turkey, would it bake?
If course not, but straw man. Been through this at least 87 times, G*.
2lot has become a caricature with you guys.
Again, point your ir sensor at ice, get 32f. Point at clear sky, get -60F.
Clearly placing ice between sensor and sky produces a warmer sensor!
Ice caused sensor to warm, no if ands or buts. 2lot violation?
Hilarious!
Why do you always think its hilarious when you are proven wrong? Weird.
I’m not wrong, but you believe I am.
THAT is what’s hilarious.
So G*, if you put ice between your IR sensor and the sky it will not warm? Explain that.
G* cannot dispute that ice caused a warm sensor to get warmer.
When you point an IR sensor at the sky you are measuring the temperature of the sky. When you place a block of ice in front of the sensor, blocking the sky, you are measuring the temperature of the ice — the sky didn’t heat up because of the ice much like placing my hands in front of your eyes doesn’t actually make me disappear.
the.sensor, not the sky heated up. The ice placed in front, though colder, caused the sensor to warm. Yes or no? If no, why?
Okay so enough of this fallacy that placing an atmosphere, even one that is 100% CO2, between you and space will make you warmer. 1350 + Wm-2 is incident upon one side of the Earth and the 130 F heat record on the surface of Earth is sure a lot less than the typical 100 C day on the moon. Sophistic thought experiments and confusing blocked convection with back radiation is not convincing, in fact it only buffers the other side of the argument.
ok, you and slayers go on believin.
You cant run a heat engine from a cold source to a warmer source. Basic thermo.
Well said
Yeah, now CO2 operates like a heat pump…great year in climate comedy indeed.
Soon, the Arctic chill will reach the Gulf of Mexico.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/eulqqxfgqhsk.png
The packages of water vapor that are formed above the warm ocean are a source of heat in the atmosphere. First of all, they are lighter than the surrounding air, so they can rise to the higher layers of the atmosphere. Secondly, they emit latent heat at the level of clouds.
Thus, the presence of water vapor reduces the vertical temperature gradient and the escape of heat into space.
Frost will reach the Gulf of Mexico at night thanks to the high pressure and dry air.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/qtdbvdi4a7ij.png
A big drop in the speed of the solar wind.
http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/latest2day.imagemap?255,145
We are The Collective.
Our thoughts our one.
We despise independent thought.
Just making it clear – the person above is impersonating me.
Roy,
Can you ask for a trace on those messages?
The con-man is the only one that has been caught so far.
The really funny thing is, Im not sure which of Svantes two comments is the most sinister!
g*e*r*a*n
Again you are wrong. I did not impersonate another poster with my “Pete”. I do not use other poster’s online names and put my own thoughts into them. You are wrong 99% of the time it seems.
The con-man says he didn’t impersonate “Pete”, but earlier he admitted he impersonated “Pete”!
He’s not that good at being a con-man, but his efforts are hilarious.
There is no Pete to impersonate. Norman – quite openly – created another handle to prove a point. No one called Pete was posting here.
How hard is it to get simple facts right?
barry, are you an attorney?
You don’t have a clue about physics, but you love debate. You are fascinated with semantics, and you write well.
If you’re not an attorney, you should have been.
barry attacks: “Norman quite openly created another handle to prove a point. No one called Pete was posting here. How hard is it to get simple facts right?”
No barry, the con-man did NOT create another handle “quite openly”. He tried to fool people, and some did get fooled. The clue for me was his nearly, as usual, unintelligible writing. But, I played along so as to explain the Moon/axis issue once again.
When he tried to use his new name on this new post, I immediately identified him. That’s when he confessed. Only when he was caught, did he own up.
I took the extra time to explain this to you, because I didn’t want you to appear incompetent. Sometimes, it’s hard for you to get the simple facts right.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284231
I understood immediately it was Norman posting to make a point. It was obvious.
So who is the one pretending to be other people and NOT being open about it? Any ideas?
I guess “quite openly” means something different in Australia, huh?
(Hilarious.)
Wrigglers will be wrigglers! It was certainly jarring to see such a straightforward, honest comment coming from your handle. So dont worry barry, Im sure no-one thought it was really you.
I guess quite openly means something different in Australia, huh?
It was obvious in the first place. Norman readily confirmed what he’d done the moment you said something. That’s open in anyone’s book.
And he didn’t steal anyone’s moniker.
No thoughts on who it is that is not being open about stealing other people’s monikers? Any interest?
No, your faux outrage is quite one-sided. So much for being a straight shooter. Another reason why you’re the likeliest candidate.
barry spins: “It was obvious in the first place. Norman readily confirmed what hed done the moment you said something. Thats open in anyones book.”
Hilarious! barry believes because I caught Norm, he behaved “quite openly”!
I like lawyer jokes–barry has become one.
Not a con g*e*r*a*n
That was leftover from previous thread when I was showing how easy it would be for you to post as g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less. I am now using my own name. The demonstration is done. J Halp-less could be a different person than you. If so it just shows how excellent of a programmer Joseph Postma is to get two distinct individuals to both think made up physics, never do testing, rarely support any of the declarations, make fun of actual University physics educators, write very similar posts. I guess Postma finds gullible sheep and makes them think they are wolves. I hope you can see any educated scientist is laughing at your posts. They can see how deluded you are. It is funny when you think about it. You pretend you are this brilliant master of physics but you don’t know anything. You look up a couple of ideas on google and act like you understand them (once you pulled up eigenvectors on me even though you haven’t got the slightest understanding of what that term means, you just used it because you thought it made you look smart).
Keep the humor coming in 2018. I like the way you bluff. I already know you will never lay down your hand, you never have any real science, just a bluff and pretend. It is funny. Thanks for the laughs. (But not that funny really)
Norman made a conscious decision to demonstrate that it is possible for anyone on this blog to post as anyone else. He made it perfectly clear, to anyone reading, what could be done. Then, this happened. Now, some people are angry. But of course, they are NOT angry at Norman.
HILARIOUS
J Halp-less
So are you and g*e*r*a*n the same person behind the two identities? You seem to be the same in most aspects. You both have not studied any real physics and you both don’t want to learn the real material. Seems you have more fun making up stuff and being annoying.
Neither of you posts a lick of valid science but make up tons of it and you both think you are really intelligent. So far I have not seen one thing from either of you that suggests any logic or reasoning ability. You pat each other on the back. That is about all you seem able to do. Sad I think.
No, Norman. Im not g*e*r*a*n, Im you.
J Halp-less
That would suck!
I knew I would say that.
Resistance is futile
Oh no! PhilJ has been assimilated.
We despise humanity.
Our intent is to deceive
Our intent is to enslave
We will start by lying about the Greenhouse Effect
And end with the annihilation of mankind
Resistance is futile.
Almost as futile as these discussions.
But not quite.
January was the hottest month ever recorded in New Zealand, according to figures released on Friday.
Last January was the hottest month on record for most of the eastern seaboard of Australia.
g*e*r*a*n
Was that you with the string of common posters making absurd claims or J Halp-less.
My thought it is you since the are only a few word each and your brain can’t process a post more than 25 words and struggles it the post exceeds 10 words.
Did you have fun doing this? It won’t make you more scientific. You still will not validate your claims. You will still bluff and pretend you know physics.
Poor Norm. He needs so much help. Not only with understanding science, but also just to be able to communicate.
“My thought[,] it is you since the[y] are only a few word[s[ each and your brain can’t process a post more than 25 words and struggles it[if] the post exceeds 10 words.”
Keep pounding on that keyboard con-man, the only one you are fooling is YOU.
g*e*r*a*n
You amaze yourself. You can find a few typos and point them out. I guess you are good at something. I think maybe you should go to an English blog and correct grammar errors and spelling. You would be more useful on those blogs. Your science does not exist, you make up all kinds of false notions. You bluff and pretend you know things that you don’t. You will never support any of your declarations with valid established science. I have seen you post for years and I can’t recall even one time that you supported any of your many declarations. Mr. Pseudoscience himself goes by g*e*r*a*n. As it stands you are the biggest contribution of real pseudoscience on this blog. Some might try to reach your level, none have been able. Even J Halp-less put a science link in one of his posts.
When I need to understand pseudoscience I just have to read anyone of your many declarations. All of them are total pseudoscience. Amazing you can do it for years.
Con-man, what is amazing is your constant confusion.
Here, you claim you are “not the one confused”, as you totally botch 2LoT:
“I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one. That is all.”
And, your added touches “clearly states” and “That is all”, add enormously to the raucous hilarity.
2018 is shaping up to be the greatest year in climate comedy, evah!
But energy can change form from heat to EMR, to kinetic, to potential, to chemical… Energy isn’t always heat. But this is true energy input equals energy output. So if something is cold but has a lot of chemical energy that it can make something hotter. Another example is nuclear energy. Nuclear bomb isn’t very hot before it goes off. The sun is the source of most of our energy. So if there is anything that would make the world absorb more of that energy it could make the world warmer.
Again IR is not thermodynamics it is EMR
Duncan, obviously you’ve never studied thermodynamics.
duncan…”So if something is cold but has a lot of chemical energy that it can make something hotter”.
Do you mean an exothermic reaction or an endothermic reaction? Some absorb heat and others release it. I imagine if you keep your hydrochloric acid in a cool place and add it (remember always A to w…acid to water) to a substance that is warmer, you could claim the colder acid can heat a warmer substance.
But let’s not go there, shall we? Let’s practice good chemistry.
In Monty Python, an army colonel would step in here and say, “Right, stop this scene, it’s silly”.
Glad you agree that IR is EM and not heat. Eli Rabbett has been dropping by, maybe you could explain that to him.
duncan…”Energy isnt always heat”.
It’s surprising how many processes involve heat. Friction, chemical, electrical, nuclear (both heat and EM), gravitational…if it slams something onto the surface after accelerating it.
Energy isn’t always heat. In fact, it isn’t even MOSTLY heat.
Mass is energy (E=mc2). Gravitational waves. Neutrinos. Solar protons. Nuclear binding energy. Potential energy. Dark matter. Dark energy. Cosmic rays. Etc etc etc………..
Dear Dr. Spencer,
Re margin of error:
I have tried to find this value but to no avail. It could be that somehow I’m missing it.
Is it possible to include this value, the margin of error in some corner of the graph? I tend to conclude that the current anomaly of 0.26 C may fall within that value.
Margin of error for annual anomalies is +/- 0.1C.
Don’t know what the margin of error is for monthly anomalies.
Pete, I’ve asked your question here many times, but never get an answer.
Could you make a rough calculations extrapolating from the annual anomaly margin of error?
In amongst the self serving justification for whatever this CAGW science represents was the mention of integrity earlier. There are vested interests supposedly funding all these skeptics.
Perhaps the believers could name which sceptics are being funded and to what degree. Perhaps this could be compared to the funding provided to the believers. The latter runs into the billions, I believe, with trillions at stake as suggested in Davos.
Apropos is a story:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/jcu-bans-prof-peter-ridd-from-criticizing-scientific-institutions-defiant-he-refuses-fights-on/
Yep it talks of integrity but believers need pay attention to whose integrity is being questioned.
I was aware Prof Ridd was a dissenting voice at the time of alarming claims made about the Great Barrier Reef and the reprobate approach taken by JCU (James Cook U). Very, very naughty in not being collegiate enough; sing the same hymn or your daily bread is forsaken.
This is just one more illustration of what Lindzen says this field has evolved into a religion. Hence he just wants it defunded and start again doing good research. Many of us share his view.
Nestles is sending letters to university departments offering 35,000 grants for research into the health benefits of grape juice and cocoa in chocolate.
I wonder why.
What is your point?
Is Nestle a CAGW skeptic? If not what is the relevance of your comment.
Is grape juice in moderation not healthy? I take mine in the form of a good wine, I even make it. I am told it too is fine in moderation. I grow and eat grapes; fine with me.
Are you saying Cocoa is bad for you? Seems contrary to the benefits of flavonoids.
There are leaked emails showing that the Coca-Cola company paid $1.5 million to a lobby group called the Global Energy Balance Network. They promoted the minority view that exercise, not diet, was the key to weight loss.
Again what is your point?
Are either Coca Cola or the lobby group skeptics of CAGW. What does CAGW have to do with Coke or this lobby group. Yes Coke use CO2 in their drinks! So what?
You are one hell of a confused guy. CAGW skeptics are CAGW skeptics. What does that have to do with their views on a myriad of other subjects?
You seem to be a Lewandowsky pupil with an idee fixee on CAGW skeptics hiding behind every bush ready to confront you on any subject. Just a suggestion but such a proclivity is not good for your health, mental health.
My point is that most consensus climate scientists are financed by universities or research councils. Most sceptics are financed by commercial interests.
Universities and research councils expect results which reflect reality.
Commercial interests, whether selling chocolate, sugary drinks, fossil fuels or tobacco, are not putting money into research for the fun of it. They expect results which help them sell their goods. Whether those results reflect reality is questionable.
Em, your opinion appears to have a definite bias. Can you find it?
Thus far you have not named one CAGW skeptic in your comments but simply assert simpleton Lewandowsky ideas of what skeptics stand for. You indeed confirm this paranoia.
Your Nestle example, by your own judgement, contradicts your assertion that university Administrations have much of an expectation except for money which flows their way.
Do you realize that decisions on Govt grants in Australia will now have to take into account the benefit such research will have for the Australian people. This was announced virtually at the same time as when they chopped the Climate research areas including CSIRO with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from some here and abroad. More people now recognize the peer review process is not working.
Anyway try and stick to the subject I raised rather than conflate and obfuscate and believe the boogy man CAGW skeptic hides behind every bush and ready to “get you.” Such paranoia is bad for health, mental health. Lewandowsky can’t help you there!
Do you realize that decisions on Govt grants in Australia will now have to take into account the benefit such research will have for the Australian people. This was announced virtually at the same time as when they chopped the Climate research areas including CSIRO with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from some here and abroad. More people now recognize the peer review process is not working.
Spot the logical flow in this.
Can’t see it?
Then you have a rational brain.
Em, private corporations spending their own money is NOT the same as corrupt governments wasting Other People’s Money!
But, keep grasping at straws, your desperation is fun to watch.
tonym…”In amongst the self serving justification for whatever this CAGW science represents was the mention of integrity earlier. There are vested interests supposedly funding all these skeptics”.
Pat Michaels received funding from Western Fuels and some alarmists went ballistic. However, Hansen of GISS was receiving large amounts via Al Gore and friends in the US government and he was parading around spreading global warming propaganda.
Michaels explained, that at the time no one was opposing Hansen and Western Fuels offered to fund him so he could provide an alternative voice, so he accepted. I did not see Michaels spreading bs with the money. He was not promoting Western Fuels or even fossil fuels. He was simply countering the propaganda Hansen was spewing.
I don’t care if fossil fuel companies fund skeptical scientists as long as they don’t interfere with the scientist doing objective research. I know of no skeptical scientist who is working on behalf of fossil fuel companies and promoting them.
Why should a fossil fuel company not have an interest in funding scientists if the work done by the scientists benefits them? It does not mean there is collusion.
Roy writes a paper and Heartland publishes it. What the heck is wrong with that? Alarmists regard Heartland as some kind of subversives simply because they provide a place where skeptical scientists can be read.
The climate peer review process is rigged and alarmists now run it. Climategate revealed the extent to which the alarmists are willing to go in an attempt to block the publication of skeptic’s papers, and the alarmist faithful applaud the chicanery.
Roy writes a paper and Heartland publishes it. What the heck is wrong with that?
Because Heartland is PAID to deny climate change.
So their scientific standards are very low, and they do in fact publish a lot of nonsense. Expert peer review is badly needed, but their agenda takes precedent.
Scientists publish their research in the peer reviewed literature. That’s the standard. Every scientist is taught this and they all know it, including Roy. That’s why their version 6 was published in a real journal and not by the Heartland deniers.
And yet it warms.
That’s funny. Thanks.
Huge amounts of water will fall this year in South America.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer1×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Please explain how a 2 day weather chart gives ANY indication of what will happen over the course of the entire year.
des…”Please explain how a 2 day weather chart gives ANY indication of what will happen over the course of the entire year”.
Ren is busy doing meteorology, you may have to wait. While you’re waiting, why not become better informed in the field so you don’t have to ask such dumb questions?
Bolivia, Argentina and Paraguay under water. Floods have affected hundreds of thousands of people.
Meteorologists say that the cause of the flood in all these countries is the active cool atmospheric front that has moved in from the Gulf of Mexico.
Sure, and may I add, water will fall in particular in the south of South America.
As usual.
And I even dare to predict that huge amounts of sunlight will fall this year on South America.
And even on Europe.
Isn’t this amazing ?
We are living in a great time right now.
Look at this map in a few days. We’ll see what will change.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Ren
Did you forget about the groundhog?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/02/us/groundhog-day-2018-shadow-trnd/index.html
Groundhog saw polar vortex forecast?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f120.png
Apparently so!
BTW, I think you and the rodent would get along nicely: “Records dating to 1887 show Phil predicting more winter 102 times while forecasting an early spring just 18 times.”
How many times groundhog was right?
I don’t know.
We call the lefty’s pushing the climate change agenda snowflakes in the UK, the same fools who wanted us to be taken over by the EU. As the world gets cooler they will be in meltdown.
This is rather silly.
The hard left like Jeremy Corbyn have never been in favour of the EU
Dr. Spencer,
I find the portrayal “La Nina cooling in the tropics has finally penetrated the troposphere” a bit misleading from a mechanism standpoint; although, I am sure, not intentionally so. It’s not that the “cool went up”, rather the “warm went down”, back into the ocean, as is clearly visible in the SST and upper-ocean heat anomaly trends from December into January. The energy that gave us the sustained high TLT anomaly is still well ensconced in the climate and will be revisited upon us in due course.
This is a perpetual motion machine…
Not again!
G*e*r*a*n is already in violation of the 1st Law.
Bart does not understand physics, but that doesn’t stop him from claiming it’s wrong.
Or, rather, anything he doesn’t like is wrong. It’s the easy way out.
Keep on dreaming…
It is not so fast.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Among others, Peabody Energy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-policy-foundation-the-wealthy-backers-behind-the-climate-change-sceptics-a6767281.
PepsiCo,, Dupont, Google
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climate-donations/u-s-companies-tout-climate-policies-fund-climate-skeptics-idUSKCN11C0ED
Thanks for recognizing these entities that advocate for sanity.
That’s what the planet needs, more sanity. (And, some more CO2 would be nice also.)
entropic…”Among others, Peabody Energy…”
Your first link to a Guardian article is liberally dosed with the term ‘climate denier’. What exactly is a climate denier, do you know anyone who denies we have climates on the planet?
Among the climate deniers, they list Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, two scientists with the highest of integrity who have had the guts to stand up and be counted. Yet here you are, a guest on Roy’s blog, posting a link to two hysterical bitches who slam him as a climate denier.
That makes you, in the vernacular of back-stabbing, an ***hole.
In the article the hysterical bitches (aka climate Barbies) claim, “But its [Peabody’s] funding of climate denial groups was only exposed in disclosures after the coal titan was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in April, under competition from cheap natural gas”.
An outright lie. Coal companies have been forced to close, and thousands laid off, because ***holes like Obama and Hillary Clinton legislated them out of business. The aforementioned weasels railed against fossil fuels but somehow excluded natural gas as a fossil fuel.
An outright lie. Coal companies have been forced to close, and thousands laid off, because ***holes like Obama and Hillary Clinton legislated them out of business
Another shameless and idiotic lie.
Here’s the graph of US coal mining jobs since the mid-80s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=i55Y
LOOK AT IT.
There was a huge decline in the Reagan and Bush 1 years, due to better use of technology. That continued under Clinton, stabilized under Bush 2, then started to decline again AS FRACKING MADE NATURAL GAS CHEAPER TO USE.
The decrease under Obama pales in comparison to Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton.
You know Gordon knows he’s wrong when he doesn’t reply.
g*r just mentioned the 1st law, we have been neglecting it.
The first law of thermodynamics is NOT about the conservation of a generic energy, it is about the conservation of thermal energy.
Q = U + W
I have no idea how the 1st law was viewed as being about conservation of energy in general. It has nothing to do with the conservation of electrical energy, mechanical energy, or gravitational energy, to name a few.
If work is done on a body resulting in heating, then energy is conserved as mechanical work is converted to thermal energy. If heat is converted to electromagnetic energy then energy is conserved as thermal energy converts to EM.
That proves heat is not EM. The 1st law proves it. Thermal energy is a totally different energy than EM yet you can convert heat completely to EM with the total energy being conserved. However, the thermal energy is completely lost when it is converted to EM therefore there is no heat left to travel through space.
but the EMR can be converted back into heat.
duncan…”but the EMR can be converted back into heat”.
Yes…that’s the whole point. With radiation, heat does not leave the radiating body, it is converted to EM and the EM is radiated.
You’re a bit late to the party. Alarmists here have been claiming the 2nd law OF THERMODYNAMICS is satisfied with a mysterious balance of energies that involve EM radiation. I am trying to provide evidence that the 2nd law applies to heat transfer and has nothing to do with summing EM.
BTW…they are trying to claim heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperature by radiation. I am telling them that contradicts the 2nd law. They seem to have confused EM with heat.
Yesthats the whole point. With radiation, heat does not leave the radiating body, it is converted to EM and the EM is radiated.
It’s a distinction without a difference.
All you’re doing is labeling some energy as “heat,” and some other energy as “EM.”
But it’s all energy.
And energy is conserved. EM *is* how heat/energy travels from the sun to the Earth.
You’re lying about heat and EM because you are can’t disprove the role of IR (energy) in the Earth’s atmosphere. So you try to equate it to nothing. It’s a scoundrel’s trick that all knowledgeable people can see right through.
BTWthey are trying to claim heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperature by radiation. I am telling them that contradicts the 2nd law.
More idiocy.
OBVIOUSLY different bodies exchange energy/heat.
The Sun radiates towards the Earth, and the Earth radiates towards the Sun. That’s trivial.
You continually misunderstand the 2LOT, which does not rule out this scenario in any way. It’s a shame you’re not embarrassed about it. You should be.
DA…”OBVIOUSLY different bodies exchange energy/heat”.
Not just any energy, electromagnetic energy. That’s what we’re on about here, heat transfer by radiation. EM is not heat and it is not governed by the 2nd law. The 2nd law states a one-way transfer of heat.
Ever had a bad sunburn?
What caused your skin to start cooking?
UV rays — EM waves.
EM is just as much heat as any other form of heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
The first law of thermodynamics is NOT about the conservation of a generic energy, it is about the conservation of thermal energy.
Utterly, completely wrong.
It’s typical GR nonsense.
It’s TOTAL energy that is conserved, in whatever form it takes — particle motion, EM waves, solar neutrinos, coronal mass ejections, solar flares, protons, etc.
Energy conservation is about total energy. Even middle school students learn this.
DA…”The first law of thermodynamics is NOT about the conservation of a generic energy, it is about the conservation of thermal energy.
Utterly, completely wrong”.
You seem to excel at idiocy. It’s called the First Law of THERMODYNAMICS and it was written by Clausius about HEAT.
Thermodynamics is essentially the study of heat not generic energy.
In case it has escaped you, the Second Law of THERMODYNAMICS is about HEAT too. I spell it out for you and you still don’t get it.
First law in macro form: Q = U + W
ie. Heat = internal energy + work
Do you see anything in there about the conversion of electromagnetic energy to heat? Or vice versa? Or the summation of EM? That’s covered in statistical mechanics and there’s no second law there. Just an inferred 2nd law based on probability.
The 2nd Law is about heat.
EM radiation and heat are not the same thing (per Gordon Robertson).
Therefore, the 2nd Law is not about radiation.
It is false to say that EM radiation must flow from hot to cold.
Because that statement is about heat, not EM radiation.
Gordon?
Watch Gordon avoid this like the plague.
As far as I can see, GR would agree with all that; as from what he has said:
Heat flows both ways = cold can warm hot = GR disagrees
EM flows both ways, but heat cant = cold cant warm hot = GR agrees
I dont see the gotcha. Its just, once again, understanding the difference between energy and heat. Just with EM in place of the word energy (so its even clearer).
Even thogh gordon says heat and EM radiation are not the same, he applies the 2nd Law to EM radiation, saying that EM radiation from a hot object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object.
I’m curious to see how he responds. He correctly identifies the distinction between radiation and heat, but then conflates them by rule of the 2nd Law.
Well, obviously EM from a hot object being absorbed by, and raising the temperature of, a hotter object, would be heat flowing from cold to hot, which you already know he disagrees with. So no, I dont agree he applies the 2nd Law to EM radiation. I dont see any internal inconsistencies in Gordons arguments, which is the only reason I have interjected. It seems like you are keen to suggest there are, but Im not seeing them.
“‘First law in macro form: Q = U + W
ie. Heat = internal energy + work
Do you see anything in there about the conversion of electromagnetic energy to heat? Or vice versa? Or the summation of EM? ”
Lets be careful here.
Turn it around U = Q -W The first law contains ALL energy that could be raising the internal energy U.
Therefore it includes any EM energy transferred. There is no other place for EM energy to go in the first law, other than in Q.
Net EM energy transfer is inside of Q. If it is involved in transferring energy between objects at different temperatures, than it qualifies as heat.
Well, obviously EM from a hot object being absorbed by, and raising the temperature of, a hotter object, would be heat flowing from cold to hot, which you already know he disagrees with.
You’ve just conflated EM radiation with heat.
Heat, in the classic sense Gordon is using it, refers to the NET transfer of energy from one object to another. A flux of radiation from a cooler object to a hotter object is not the NET of transfers. It’s also not heat, as Gordon says.
If radiation from a cool object to a hot object raises its temperature, then the hotter object radiation increases towards the cooler object, and the NET exchange of energy is still from hot to cold.
No second Law violation, because the 2nd Law is about heat = NET transfer of energy.
No, I havent conflated EM with heat (or rather, Gordon hasnt).
B: If radiation from a cool object to a hot object raises its temperature, then the hotter object radiation increases towards the cooler object, and the NET exchange of energy is still from hot to cold.
J: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot. There is no conflation, heat is always energy, but energy isnt always heat (in other words, energy doesnt always act as heat). EM radiation would be acting as heat if it was raising the temperature of a body.
J: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot
And just to be extra clear, heat cannot flow from cold to hot…
EM from cold to hot has an effect, it reduces net EM lost by hot. Reduces heat lost.
It could, as a result of this, and another steady heat input, rise in temperature.
I dont see any internal inconsistencies in Gordons arguments, which is the only reason I have interjected.
J: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot
No, heat is defined in classic thermo as the NET exchange of energy from one object to another.
Radiation from one object to another is not the NET flow, because it ignores the radiation coming the other way.
So, a cooler object emits radiation that is absorbed by a warmer object, which immediately radiates more energy back to the cooler object.
Heat is the net transfer. The net transfer remains hot to cold.
I do not get why some people can’t understand that the classic definition of heat is the NET flow of energy, and not the discrete exchanges.
But that is precisely where the error lies – conflating radiation exchange for heat flow. This mistake comes from ignoring the radiation flows both ways, while heat only flows one way (or no-flow in equilibrium).
Wriggler: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot.
You were given four references to physics texts backing up this definition of heat.
I dont see any internal inconsistencies in Gordons arguments, which is the only reason I have interjected. I am not here to get into yet another interminable argument. Right whatever you want for your next response, I shant be reading it.
“You were given four references to physics texts backing up this definition of heat.”
This is funny Halp. Because you have ignored the official definition of heat, that you found, when it conflicted w your beliefs.
That defined heat as NET energy transferred between objects at different temps.
Sorry, that should have been write, not right.
And of course I am considering the radiation coming the other way. Add it in as necessary, e.g:
if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature (given the radiation coming the other way) then that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot (which is physically impossible).
Wriggler, YOU can fill in these sorts of gaps. YOU can TRY to understand.
Now, as I said, have your last word, I wont be reading it.
You’re still conflating a one-way flux of radiation with a NET transfer of heat.
You’re still ignoring the radiation going the other way.
Why this blind spot on NET flow and discrete energy exchanges?
Why do you not understand that heat is entirely about NET flow?
Do you not understand what NET meas?
I’ve been speaking in the context of the set-up we last argued about – the GPE. But let’s back up and see what we agree on.
1) An object will absorb radiation from an object/environment that is warmer, cooler or the same temperature as the absorbing object.
Agree?
Watch Gordon avoid this like the plague.
So he did.
Gordon, work, need not be only pressure volume work ( -PdV) but includes mechanical work (Fdx) work done by electrical and magnetic fields, etc.
http://people.virginia.edu/~cas8m/classes/phys8310/2013/magnetism_wasserman.pdf
Stop trying to define your way out of the blind alley you are wandering down
En:
Gordon has given you a good detailed response
For you to quote the Guardian as if is is the bastion of truth in climate and no doubt its super warriors, Nutticeli and Redfearn, as slayers of evil doer skeptics has me in fits while I spill my coffee. Now that I know what you read it is no longer a mystery from where your daft ideas emerge.
So you have found some donations being made to skeptics. Is your arithmetic skill so poor that you can’t distinguish between the pocket change skeptics have received in comparison to the $ billions given to CAGW peddlers. That is what I claimed originally.
Your second link fails but am confidant that it is of no loss for me.
Your third link shows how out of touch you are with the running of major companies and politics. Do you believe that major companies support a one policy political party or give a damn about some irrelevant issue which ranks low in the priorities of most people? Oh I forgot you rely on the Guardian as your beacon of truth and reality.
tony…just putting things together…Tony and Australia. Did you ever comment on Jennifer Marohasey’s site? Seem to recall the name Tony from years ago.
I recall some good exchanges between skeptics and alarmists.
TonyM, Gordon Robertson
I find that rudeness is a usual characteristic of climate deniers. You refuse to admit the existence of AGW but cannot falsify it.All you can do is make rude remarks about me and one of my sources. You object to me calling you deniers but are quite happy to call me an alarmist. Hypocrites!
I note that you do not criticise the Independant or Reuters links, so their reports of companies and lobbyists paying scientists to write misleading papers must be correct.
Em, the AGW nonsense was falsified from Day 1! Like many fads, it caught on, became a source of funding, and turned into a record-setting hoax.
It’s fun to watch the movement now starting to implode. You’re just now finding out that you’ve been duped, and you’re mad at the messengers.
All very predictable.
EM: +1
entropic…”All you can do is make rude remarks about me and one of my sources”.
You still don’t get it. You post on Roy’s site and post a link to damned lies about him by a couple of climate Barbies.
If you had any sense of right and wrong you’d call yourself an ***hole.
Entropic Man:
Reversing the onus of proof is the typical cop out of many warmistae including yourself. Go read up on the scientific method. Can you prove you are not a witch if I say you are other than gender and even that has its moments nowadays. Prove to me there are no red swans if I claim there are. Religion rarely has dissenters; they don’t last long!
If you feel you have been harshly done by ask yourself how you tackled the issues I raised. I certainly won’t apologize if you have ignored questions I have asked that are pertinent or your continual irrelevant conflation or statements I have made that falsify CAGW or references I have given which also falsify CAGW.
Yet you keep going around in circles instead of addressing directly those issues.
Appell is a clot. He has even given you a tick. He gave you one before on some calculation of yours which was out by a factor of 300 from memory. He too functions in a different reality when confronted by certain facts. He fosters junk science and junk scientists. Even when one rubs his nose in stinking crap he never acknowledges his mistakes.
So go read my comments to you in the last month and tell me I am wrong in what I have said as I get a bit sick and tired of having my time wasted in the need to repeat ad nauseam. Appell is one such cluck. You are headed in the same direction. I don’t mind if you ask a genuine questions I will try and answer as best I can.
I doubt even if I had openly challenged some issues with skeptics whether a) you would believe it and b) whether it might shine some light on your idee fixe,
But in case you are curious I have had a tiff with both Jo Nova and Monkton on what was misrepresentation of T. Of course Monkton immediately labelled me as a warmist. Seems I can’t win with labels; I’m both a denier and a warmist.
You will also find on JONOVA’s site my support for BOM along the lines that it would be following world best practice even if it may be wrong. I no longer can support it given their ongoing changes with T measurements to within one second and at times limiting the T min.
I have both helped and argued with Postma. Helped him when he first came out with his work as he had reversed the lapse rate and came to absurd conclusions. I did it through JoNova’s site as I had no other way of contacting him. He then corrected it but had to turn it into a paper that could not roast a turkey by heating on one side or whatever rather than his original conclusions.
I have to agree with Norman in that Postma is the most foul mouthed person I have come across, not with me but in general. I had only visited his site once before the green plates in the sky, had my argument with the self congratulatory cabal there and left. In fairness, Postma was not involved in any personal abuse with me.
It is not hard for you to find any of these exchanges; you may find the world has far more variation than you will allow.
TonyM
Perhaps we should find another site. I have been trying to make my case by putting up OLR spectrum, ocean heat content and other date and the site has refused to accept them.
Entropic man, use tinyurl.com.
Get a new link if it fails once, it means you got a bad char sequence.
entropic…”I have been trying to make my case by putting up OLR spectrum, ocean heat content and other date and the site has refused to accept them”.
Nothing to do with site. It’s WordPress. You have not learned how to deal with the posting issues. Don’t blame Roy for issues he cannot control.
Dont blame Roy for issues he cannot control.
You are an endless repository of fiction. EM didn’t blame Roy.
Gordon Robertson
I don’t know what the problem is. Dr Spencer allows free debate, so it is probably not censorship. That leaves a problem with WordPress or a problem at my end.
Does WordPress adjust automatically to the preferences of its site owner, as Google does? I can discuss radiation physics at RobertSribbler, which also uses WordPress, but not here.
I think you are blocked several hours if you have too many failures. I posted the a rejected message the next day and it worked.
overall sea surface temp now +.17c down is the trend.
South America is attacked by two cool fronts – one from the north, the other from the south.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/4c88dp4w8xwq.png
ren…”South America is attacked by two cool fronts one from the north, the other from the south”.
Ah!! The classic pincer attack.
In the lst 15 years Phil has been right on Groundhog Day five times and wrong ten times.
That is better success rate than Salvatore has achieved.
+1
So, Phil is mostly right and people are getting the wrong message.
Perhaps if winter bad, he got to get food before he starves waiting for better weather.
Or whatever you imagine he saying, just invert message, that makes Phil doing much better than weather guys.
Roy Spencer, if you find out who impersonated me and other regulars upthread, please ban them.
I know one of the impersonators.
But, he’s much too funny to ban. ..
Is that impersonator or impersonated?
There is only one way you would know who the impersonator and that you think he is funny in a hilarious way. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to work that out.
I can feel another 8 month ( or more for a second offence) ban coming on and a subsequent reapperance as g?e?r?a?n.
Thanks for confessing, miker. I suspected you, but based on your past wiliness, did not expect you to own up.
G* is still here. After his admission I wonder for how much longer?
miker, I remain extremely flattered by your obsession with me. I believe you are nearly as fanatical as the con-man.
I hope all this fame and fandom doesn’t go to my head. ..
Fellow rotators
davie
Skeptic Gone Wild
Norman
Ball4
barry
Binindon
Brad
snape
Kristian
Nate
Svante
gammacrux
I think we may finally have got to the root of g*e*r*a*n’s lunacy. Normally I would be astounded by the following statement but we know what this genius is capable of.
“The forces acting on the Moon keep it going in the same direction along the orbital path. It is just the same as if it were moving in a straight line. ”
from
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comments
We all know that g * has his own unique interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics but now he has decided to give Newton’s laws a shake up.
miker, here’s the correct link:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284767
(I don’t get to choose my fanatical followers.)
Thanks g*,
You are proud of that effort? Wow.
You must be an engineer as this reminds me of the joke –
http://sethf.com/freespeech/memoirs/humor/guillotine.php
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “miker, I remain extremely flattered by your obsession with me. I believe you are nearly as fanatical as the con-man.”
It would not be flattery. He may be just as amazed as I am that someone as stupid and illogical as you are but yet proud to be stupid. Most people, who are ignorant of facts and reason, usually are not that proud and flaunt it for all to see.
Weird Al has a song that reflects your personality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ
con-man, if you’re not yelping like a rabid chihuahua, you’re linking to juvenile junk.
If you like to impersonate others so much, why don’t you try impersonating someone with above average intelligence?
g*e*r*a*n
Again showing how stupid you are. This seems a very easy task for you. Yup. You think I like to impersonate people so much? Weird thought process there. I just chose a name at random “Pete” to show how you could post as J Halp-less and g*e*r*a*n. It is not even impersonation at that point. It is not a used moniker. Pete Ross may be but just “Pete” who else is using that that I am impersonating? You are clearly stupid and lack even basic thought process. You think using another name is impersonating someone. So you seem to know grammar and spelling well but you don’t have the ability to understand words.
I know you are stupid, that is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read your posts. The amazing thing is that you seem proud of how stupid you are and want the rest of the world to see all the stupid glory you can muster. Very strange, not normal.
con-man, you oscillate between linking to juvenile junk and yelping like a rabid chihuahua.
It’s fun to watch.
miker congratulates his idol: “You are proud of that effort?”
Thanks miker, but I try to remain humble in spite of all the adoration from fans.
(Did you send payment for your T-shirt yet?)
g*e*r*a*n
I guess that puts me one up on you. You never change, you are just a stupid unthinking troll.
Nothing you say is supported. You make up most what you post. And you like to criticize others?
Norm, you need to get away from impersonating a con-man. Try impersonating someone with above average knowledge of physics, written communication skills, and personal integrity.
g*e*r*a*n
So states the poster who has no valid knowledge of physics (just make up stuff never with a lick of support from established science and devoid of any experiments)l. So says he one who has zero personal integrity, the one who intentionally twists other poster’s words and then makes fun of his own created illusions. That is complete lack of any integrity. So says the one with no communication skills. Writing is not the only point of communication. It is an attempt to understand what someone else is attempting to say. Typos and keyboard errors are not signs of poor communication skills. Having no ability to understand or attempt to understand another person is poor communication skills. You seem to be describing the very person you are.
I think you want to be much more like me. Someone who very much understands physics. Someone who tries to understand what others are posting. Someone who is honest and will link to his declarations with supported science. A person who is free of pseudoscience and made up science. Yes g*e*r*a*n I think that is why you like me. You hate what you are, a stupid troll, and would like to be intelligent and able to read actual physics. I would like to help you out. The world does not need another stupid troll.
I already understand this post is far to long for you to read and the word choice is beyond your reading level. That is another thing why you wish so much to be just like me. I can read and process longer posts and am not confused by one that is more than 10 words long.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285074
I do a pretty good job with my Norman character, if I do say so myself. He really makes The Team look bad through association with him.
Which regular did they impersonate?
I’ll let you figure it out.
So much for being a straight shooter.
No need to feel left out, barry. Order some T-shirts now, and it’s like I’m right there with you.
(Special deal for Warmists–get two for the price of three!)
I think you are a prime suspect.
sorry barry, I’m a straight-shooter. I don’t use subterfuge, obfuscation, denial, and tricks. You must be thinking of some Purveyor of Pseudoscience.
Weren’t you banned, and then reappeared under a different moniker?
Yup, the consequences of being a straight-shooter.
Thanks for remembering, and being a loyal fan.
(Have you placed your order for T-shirts yet?)
barry…”Roy Spencer, if you find out who impersonated me and other regulars upthread, please ban them”.
I mentioned in previous comments that John Cook from skepticalscience had impersonated physicist Lubos Motl. Did not seem to bother you then.
And Lubos Motl was kicked out of Harvard, and physics, for being an assh0le.
So what?
I think I get your point, David…since all the people impersonated (with the exception of Dr Roy) were assh0les…so what?
At least, I assume thats what you are saying,
J Halp-less
Where you the one who did the impersonations?
OK I will admit it: Ive been impersonating people for years. I post as both Norman, and Pete (occasionally). Plus J Halp-less, and g*e*r*a*n of course. Plus David Appell. Naturally, my true identity is…Anthony Watts.
jhap…”OK I will admit it: Ive been impersonating people for years”.
You need to escalate. Over at skepticalscience they don’t mess around when it comes to impersonators. They did it to physicist Lubos Motl.
They like to impersonate Nazi officers too, dont they?
They did it to physicist Lubos Motl.
They publicly posted as Lub Motl? That’s identity theft.
Could you supply the links exactly to where they did that on the SkS blog? I would like to see evidence that they fooled the public in such an awful way.
Did we ever learn what that experiment was about, where they were inventing skeptic comments and writing some under Motls name?
You can google the answer. They were stress-testing argumentation in a private forum, and took on characters (skeptics) as they debated points. It was never public (until someone hacked the forum).
I was aware it was never public, but honestly have never known what the experiment was. Thanks for the answer, but not sure I understand what stress-testing argumentation means.
DA…”And Lubos Motl was kicked out of Harvard, and physics, for being an assh0le. So what?”
So what? He’s far more intelligent than you or your fellow alarmists will ever be.
Can’t find any reference to him being kicked out of Harvard. Another David Appell lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl
https://motls.blogspot.ca/
He’s no smarter than lots of physicists. Unfortunately Motl’s emotional quotient is close to zero. He can’t play well with others.
Lubos story is well known, if you have been paying attention in the right places all these years. He was forced out for being a jerk.
davie, on the “jerk scale”, what is your rating?
DA…”Lubos story is well known, if you have been paying attention in the right places all these years”.
You mean among the dickhead where you hang out at realclimate and skepticalscience?
Some of your crowd got caught in the Climategate emails applauding the death of skeptic John Daly.
A real classy lot. One of your heroes, Michael Mann could not understand Dr. Judith Curry becoming a skeptic, so he made vulgar sexists comments about her.
One thing that stands out about alarmist scientists, they tend to be creeps.
“One thing that stands out about alarmist scientists, they tend to be creeps.”
I know, they’re Nazis. I heard they eat the children of skeptics. In fact Democrats do that as well, after luring them to Pizza joints…
Standard propaganda tool: demonize your enemies. Good job Gordon!
Good job Nate, this needs public attention.
Glad to see global temperatures drop a bit last month. Hopefully, this trend continues.
One month is not a trend.
da…”One month is not a trend”.
It is over 30 days.
Quite a downward trend since February 2016.
Not close to statistically significant.
Starting at Feb 2016 is desperate cherry picking.
A great big thank you to Dr. Spencer for hosting these threads. I come here for the entertainment value. I am always rewarded as my education continues.
Me too. I read the comments here regularly without any comment. I have officially added “meeting Dr. Roy Spencer” on my bucket list. He is a modern day hero for me. Keep it up Dr. Spencer! I’d love to meet you some day!
Update on Prof Ridd and legal fight with JCU.
I posted a reference to JoNova’s site earlier. WUWT has a similar story:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/james-cook-university-censures-a-climate-skeptic-help-him-fight-back/
Prof Ridd went for crowd funding to support his case in the Oz Federal Court vs JCU. Crowd funding exceeded the $95 target amount in under 49 hours and is now shut. It is quite inspirational to see this: the minnow takes on the giant in the quest for scientific integrity and fixing the broken peer review system.
In his own words the latest attack on him was subsequent to an interview on Sky News:
“The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies – a lot of this is stuff is coming out, the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more.”
“I think that most of the scientists who are pushing out this stuff they genuinely believe that there are problems with the reef, I just don’t think they’re very objective about the science they do, I think they’re emotionally attached to their subject and you know you can’t blame them, the reef is a beautiful thing.”
On the basis of these comments I was accused of not acting in a ‘collegial’ manner.
“My statements on Sky News were based on my specific area of expertise, my findings, and wider concerns, held by many in the academic community, about quality assuranceprocessesin science. I recently outlined my concerns about quality control in environmental policy science in a peer reviewed journal article.”
“At no point in my Sky News interview did I name the university where I work or any of mycolleagues. Nor did I make any statements which I believe to be untrue.”
https://www.gofundme.com/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund
funding error; no pro bono here and should read:
Crowd funding exceeded the Au$95 K target amount in under 49 hours and is now shut.
The temperature in Quebec, Canada dropped to -42 C.
http://www.tinypic.pl/to5d5mfw81cq
Sorry.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/to5d5mfw81cq.png
ren…”The temperature in Quebec, Canada dropped to -42 C”
Most of the Canadian provinces go really far north. The area marked at your link is above the bottom end of Hudson Bay. Look up Churchill, Manitoba, that is a typical temperature at certain times of the winter.
Churchill is still quite a bit south. Watson Lake in the Yukon Territories is -40C but the North Pole is only -26C.
As of Saturday night after midnight it is a balmy -33C in Churchill. Here in Vancouver, around midnight, it’s +8C. Who said the oceans don’t heat the atmosphere?
Mind you, Hudson Bay is like an ocean but it lacks the warming currents from across the Pacific.
Gordon Robertson look at the forecast of the polar vortex. Do you know what the thickness of ice in Hudson Bay is?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/p5rcpb5g7s1g.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/0g7ozsd1rb6f.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/udspooiccr1c.png
It seems quite serious.
ren…”It seems quite serious”.
How high is 100 hPa?
Found it, 37,518 feet (11,435 meters).
Pretty cold up there, what’s the significance?
The stratospheric polar vortex limits the range of the arctic air.
Look at about 5 kilometers.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-85.30,75.93,393
Gordon Robertson, the state of the polar vortex has a direct effect on the temperature and pressure over the polar circle.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/q9510t0cej10.gif
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/mkct9sb204pq.gif
ren…”The stratospheric polar vortex limits the range of the arctic air. Look at about 5 kilometers”.
That’s pretty neat, what makes it turn like that? I knew about the transpolar drift in the water and the Beaufort gyre, did not realize the atmosphere was so hairy.
Must be the CO2, eh? ☺ ☺ ☺
ren…”Gordon Robertson, the state of the polar vortex has a direct effect on the temperature and pressure over the polar circle”.
I heard that during the winter when there is no solar input, or very little, that colder air from higher altitudes descends on the Arctic. Is that right?
The stratosphere in winter descends very low above the polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2017.png
GR, the altitude for 100 Pa depends on latitude and season. Your high precision number is worthless as a general value.
ren, your last graph is for the Sough Pole, i.e., the Antarctic. The very cold temps (shown as white) are for June, July and August, as in, the middle of SH winter…
E. Swanson, I wanted to show it better, here you have NH.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2018.png
Temperature around Hudson Bay.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/13k1anqr1tlk.png
overall sea surface temperatures now lee then +.150c deviation
overall sea surface temperatures are the name of the game
No, ocean heat content is the whole game. Its where over 90% of the trapped heat goes, and its been increasing for decades. Another record high in 2017.
This is a good point David. If entire heat content of ocean has been steadily increasing or accelerating proportionate to increases in atmospheric co2, this is would be telling. Methinks, though, that judgment about the ocean heat content as a whole would be tenuous at best.
Have you looked at the data?
Have you looked for a job?
Walmart is paying $11/hr, starting!
(You can thank Trump.)
We have little ocean heat content data you idiot.
We have tons of sea level data to corroborate it.
DA…”Its where over 90% of the trapped heat goes”
Maybe one day you’ll understand what heat is and that it can’t be trapped as radiation.
Your theory was an attempt to get egg off his face when Trenberth was caught admitting in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and that no one knew why.
When confronted with that here’s his top ten replies:
1)Russia has been fiddling with the climate.
2)climate deniers caused it
3)it really is warming, we just can’t detect it.
4)ENSO is hiding it
5)it’s the PDO
6)it’s Michael Mann’s fault
7)it’s those darned guys at UAH
8)the Climategate emails are not peer reviewed
9)me and NOAA will see to it the heat reappears
10)it’s in the oceans.
The esteemed Professor Karoly added a dimension to the hiatus described in IPPC report.
‘No no the warming has not stopped. If it was not for CO2 the T would have dropped. ‘
This fella is a professor, supposedly an expert (on what). If the natural variation has caused T to decrease why is it not natural variation which causes an increase? In fact why not all of the increase, hiatus or decrease?
Such questions are not allowed to be asked.
If the natural variation has caused T to decrease why is it not natural variation which causes an increase?
Because physics.
Because the current natural factors imply a slow cooling — solar intensity, Milankovitch factors (very slight), not warming.
davie, since you want to discuss physics, explain to us how the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K.
And your, as usual, heat content math doesn’t work. You need to show how about 960 W/m^2 can ever heat anything beyond the S/B temperature (360K).
You can’t.
Hilarious.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Your theory was an attempt to get egg off his face when Trenberth was caught admitting in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and that no one knew why.”
Another blatant and stupid lie.
Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t…. It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth#Short_term_climate_variability
DA…”The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant.”
No amount of back-peddling will ever undo what he said. It’s quite clear what he said, the warming has stopped. The longer version makes no difference.
No amount of cherry-picking and sticking you head in the sand will convince a rational person.
barry states: “No amount of cherry-picking and sticking you head in the sand will convince a rational person.”
That’s true, barry. But, as you know, the Perpetrators of Pseudoscience are not rational people.
Appell the troll jumps in leading with his now severely deformed chin trying to hide behind physics he does not understand.
If it is physics, and you have claimed amongst your many claims that this field is applied physics, then why is it that you or this field cannot falsify the Gerlich et al physics paper which says basically that CO2/GHG cannot cause the effects claimed. You have been asked this before but as usual in troll fashion duck and weave giving a glib, scatter brain answer.
Their paper was published over nine years ago. Some have tried to falsify it including Halpern (Eli Wabbett of green plates in the sky fame)et al only to be castrated. At that level only you are already on par with Wabbett except he has far more intelligence than you.
“Coolest tropics since June, 2012”
Times are tough for climate denialists when even your cherry picking still shows warming.
wild…”Times are tough for climate denialists when even your cherry picking still shows warming”.
Are you calling the negative trend since early 2016 cherry-picking?
As the oceanic surface temperatures cool so will the the temperatures for the entire globe.
The down trend is in place.
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
You have to love when AGW proponents call the skeptics flat-earthers. They do realize that at one time in history the flat-earth theory was the accepted view of the world, right? That 97% of the “scientists” agreed the world was indeed flat. Good thing there were skeptics back then…
False. Pythagoras and the Greeks know the Earth was spherical.
Yes, they were the skeptics of their time. Thanks for the compliment.
Bo
Being sceptical of something doesn’t necessarily make you smart. It might just mean you’re an idiot:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/ywnnaj/people-from-around-the-globe-met-for-the-first-flat-earth-conference
Being wrong about something may actually make you an idiot. Sceptical not so much, just means you need more proof…especially when discussing nonlinear systems.
snape…”Being sceptical of something doesnt necessarily make you smart. It might just mean youre an idiot:”
Flat-earthers are ignorant, not skeptics. You have to be intelligent to sense something is wrong with a hypothesis.
Come to think of it, alarmists don’t sense anything wrong with AGW, even though it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, the Ideal Gas Equation, Dalton’s Law, the notion of perpetual motion, and just plain common sense.
GR, NO the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesn’t violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as I’ve demonstrated. Your unwillingness to accept factual data borders on a fundi’s faith in Bronze Age myths…
ES believes: “the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesnt violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”
The infamous GHE violates BOTH 1LoT and 2LoT.
1LoT, because energy can NOT be created from nothing. And 2LoT, because the colder atmosphere can NOT warm the warmer surface.
Gordon Robertson says:
Come to think of it, alarmists dont sense anything wrong with AGW, even though it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, the Ideal Gas Equation, Daltons Law, the notion of perpetual motion, and just plain common sense.
Let’s see…. Who’s more likely to be wrong — every scientist in the world and all the national academies of the world, or….
…Gordon.
g*e*r*a*n_a_moe, That old propagandist mantra “A Lie repeated often enough becomes the truth” may work in the political arena, but in the world of science, experimental evidence is the source of truth. I presented experimental results showing that a warmed body can exhibit an increase in temperature due to the addition of a colder body to the system, evidence which you apparently can’t understand or choose to ignore. Which is it?
e. swanson…”GR, NO the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesnt violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as Ive demonstrated”.
Whatever you say, norman.
Quick experiment for you. Turn on your stove again and wait till it reaches maximum heat. Hold your hand 6″ above the ring and feel the heat. Now raise it to 12″. Note the rapid drop off due to the inverse square law. You can barely feel the heat at 12″.
You’re trying to tell me your cookie sheet at 6″, which has a fraction of the heat of the stove ring, can back-radiate energy to raise the temperature of the 1500 watt stove ring?
With that cookie sheet balanced on the tin cans, you could likely touch it and not burn yourself. Try that with the tin sheet on the stove ring.
You don’t understand heat, what it is, and how it is transferred. Most of the heat you are feeling at 6″ with your hand is heated air rising, not radiation.
DA…”Lets see. Whos more likely to be wrong every scientist in the world and all the national academies of the world, or.
Gordon.”
The old appeal to authority, one thing all you alarmists have in common.
ES states: “but in the world of science, experimental evidence is the source of truth.”
Sorry ES, pompous rhetoric is NOT science.
Your bogus “experiment” only indicates you haven’t a clue what you’re doing. In an actual science experiment, it is important to start with a statement of what the experiment will attempt to show.
What is your statement, “This experiment will show that cold warms hot”?
Hilarious.
GR, yes, I understand that convection was a source of energy for the heating of the cookie sheet during the first demo. As you should have noticed before you posted nonsense, the cookie sheet temperature showed 172 C during the first demo without a fan and dropped to 133 C with the fan running in the second demo. The can is about 4 inches above the plate. No, I wouldn’t want to touch the cookie sheet, indeed, I used welding gloves to remove it.
In the third demo, the plate temperature dropped from about 603 C to 588 C, not a big change. Of course, there’s quite a bit of energy carried away from both by the air flowing from the fan and the cookie sheet represents a much larger radiating area than the plate. It’s not a situation of IR energy transfers from each with equal areas and muted convection.
I’m still waiting for you to post your e-mail (or whatever), so I can send you the links to my papers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285085
bo…”They do realize that at one time in history the flat-earth theory was the accepted view of the world, right? That 97% of the scientists agreed the world was indeed flat”.
They had to. Otherwise they’d be tortured till they repented and burned at the stake after repenting. A lot like alarmists would like to have it today.
They do realize that at one time in history the flat-earth theory was the accepted view of the world, right? That 97% of the “scientists” agreed the world was indeed flat.
There was no scientific method or scientists when everyone thought the world was flat (which is why you put “scientists” in quotes).
The birthplace of science might be the ancient Greeks, who demonstrated that the world was round.
Climate clowns should study the “flat earth” cult.
It is huge, and seemingly growing. The youtube videos are very professionally done. It would be interesting to find out who is paying for all the pseudoscience.
It’s a great parallel to the AGW nonsense. It fools many.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKc6X8TXNE
Funny, these guys look like so-called climate skeptics to me.
Yup, it fools many.
“with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
It’s not very hard to realize, and the Greeks made a very good measurement.
This year will be the turn point.
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015, and 2017 will not be as warm as 2016 etc”
– Salvatore del Prete, 12/3/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203097
Dr. Spencer
Why am I unable to put in links to the NOAA website?
Welcome to WordPress censorship, with Roy doesn’t care to fix.
Try using period’s in that agency’s acronym.
You must also fool with “ab.sorb.ed”
absorbed
davie gets his facts confused, AGAIN!
Entropic man
Try a smiley face between the d and c.
https://www.ncd😊c.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datasets/sea-surface-temperatures-sst-and-winds
Or use tinyurl.com
entropic…”Why am I unable to put in links to the NOAA website?”
Even WordPress has shunned them.
LOL
: -)
Overall SEA surface temperatures now less then +.13c above norms in contrast to +.35 c above norms during the summer.
Salvatore
Air temperature is definitely a reaction to SST’s, but If you only look at Tropical Tidbits, you will be very short-sighted. Yes, the trend over the last few months is down (and will be reflected in the TLT anomaly) but look at the long term trend:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/long_term_sst_global/global_rngmn_e.png
I don’t believe it, a claimed global sea-surface temperature dated back to 1888, let alone HADSST to 1850, to fractions of a degree C is ridiculous.
BEST since 1850 with 95% confidence interval:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Annual_time_series_ocean1.png
svante…”BEST since 1850 with 95% confidence interval:”
Is that after the fudging or before? Dr. Judith Curry was a co-author and she distanced herself from BEST after the prinicpal author, Mueller, began fudging it.
Her name is on the methods paper:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
My incredulity is based on both false precision and the “global” claim:
http://www.transpacificproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Steamship-and-Telegraph-Routes-1888.jpg
(Steamship and telegraph routes 1888).
Also as Prof Humlum notes its the tropical oceans 10N to 10S that are most significant for the global surface air temperature trends.
Google Law of Large numbers, and remember that each anomaly has a margin of error.
The law of large numbers, as I understand it, applies to when one is taking multiple measurements over time of the same thing — say the sea-surface temperature within one 100km grid.
Each thermometer provides 30 (or 60 – max/min) measurements a month, 365 (or 730) measurements a year, and there are thousands of these daily measurements all around the globe.
A 30-year trend for a single location benefits from the information contained in 10950 measurements, and the global trend has three orders of magnitude more information.
These still come with a margin of error.
barry, are you referring to the Argo float system?
Land surface temps.
barry…”Each thermometer provides 30 (or 60 max/min) measurements a month, 365 (or 730) measurements a year, and there are thousands of these daily measurements all around the globe”.
Typical statistical bs. It’s not the number of thermometers since there is scant coverage globally. Taking temps every 1200 kms is not good coverage.
The problem is the discrepancy between an averaged hi-lo. If the high is +30C and the low is +10C, the average is +20C. What does that tell you when it comes to an average over 24 hours. Nothing.
When you average it over a month and a year, the error could be major. That’s especially true when NOAA slashes stations showing cooling and including only those showing warming.
The yahoos at NOAA think they can serve the public better by discarding real temperatures and using what they think temperatures SHOULD be.
Cheaters!!
Thats especially true when NOAA slashes stations showing cooling and including only those showing warming.
Liar.
Let’s quote verbatim your favourite link on which you base this lie.
Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships – 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all – to determine the global temperature record.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Can you see anywhere in that quote that NOAA deliberately deleted (“slashed”) weather station data? Please quote the relevant sentence.
Can you see anywhere in that statement that NOAA added historical data?
Yep.
Here’s your reference. Quoted in full. Link supplied.
You can’t quote the source to verify that weather station data was “slashed.” Because it wasn’t.
But you will continue to repeat the lie.
Why?
A little more detail.
A single mercury thermometer reading is accurate to the nearest 1C.
The average of ten readings is accurate to the nearest 0.1C
The average of one hundred readings is accurate to the nearest 0.01C.
This is why the averages of multiple readings are preferred.
Hi Entropic man,
if you were serious when you wrote the above then I suggest you to read about the difference between accuracy, precision and resolution.
Here is an good example:
https://www.tutelman.com/golf/measure/precision.php
I know that some climatologists believe to increase the 1C resolution of their measurements just averaging and confusing the accuracy with the resolution as you wrote, but that doesn’t mean they are right just because they are climatologists.
BTW some climatologist believe also that 2D spatial homogenization is useful to fill unknown temperature of land squares with significant values interpolating the few real measurements they did along their pertinent area.
That’s an another measuring sillines, because it is exactly the same as consider a full 10 megapixels camera photo having the same resolution of a 2.5 megapixels one using a neighboring points interpolation.
If you want to see the difference just download from the Internet a 10 megapixels photo and resize it with a photo editor such as Photoshop. First resize the image by reducing it by 2, then resize it magnifying it again by 2 (Photoshop allow you the choice of the algorithm to apply for compute the interpolated pixels, but resizing by a factor of only 2 doesn’t change a thing because there is only one interpolated pixel between two known pixels and it stands in the middle). At this point reload the original photo and comparing the two images you can see the difference zooming to appreciate the single pixels one by one.
Of course, those climatologists who support homogenization could argue that the temperatures of the interpolated squares are correlated to the neighboring measured squares while the pixels of the photo aren’t. But arguing that, they contradict the prescription of placing the thermometers just few hundreds meters from any obstacle to avoid their influence in the measurements because those squares are 5 by 5 km sized.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo
Accuracy is a calibration issue and not relevant here.
Resolution is the precision of a single reading. For a mercury thermometer that is 1C.
The precision of a sample mean improves with sample size (n) according to the formula
Precision = resolution * 1/✓sample size
I notice I missed a step before, so
For n = 10 precision is 1*1/✓10 = 0.32C
For n = 100 precision is 1*1/✓100 = 0.1C
For n = 1000 precision is 1*1/✓1000 = 0.01C
NASA and NOAA calculate averages based on 8000 measurements per day.
For a monthly global average precision is 1*1/✓245000 = 0.002C
For an annual global average precision is 1*1/✓2,920,000 = 0.0006C
Hi Entropic man,
I repeat myself, read that link about accuracy, precision and resolution.
You need at least a resolution of one tenth of degree to argue about tenths of degree; you need at least a resolution of a cent of degree to argue about cents of degree and so on, not accuracy or precision.
Accuracy or precision without resolution are useless except for playing statistical probabilistic games.
If a thermometer has the resolution of 1C you can have a precision of better than 1C if and only if you already know that the reference measured temperature (for which you are computing the averaged measurement) is stable at a fixed precise value, so that the averaging filters away the measurement random noise.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Salvatore
Where are you getting the data for recent sea surface temperatures?
ocean tid bits site
And where do they get their data?
NOAA
Here is some info about CDAS (used in Tropical Tidbits ocean charts):
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMIN13D..07M
Whoops. That didn’t work. Maybe this will:
https://esgf.llnl.gov/media/2016-F2F/7-12-2016/compute_and_analytics/F2F-2016-CDAS.pdf
This is from the failed link (above). Sort of interesting:
“Faced with unprecedented growth in the Big Data domain of climate science, NASA has developed the Climate Data Analytic Services (CDAS) framework. This framework enables scientists to execute trusted and tested analysis operations in a high performance environment close to the massive data stores at NASA.”
My mistake, thanks Snape.
A strong drop in the velocity of the polar vortex in the upper stratosphere with very low solar wind activity.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2018.png
Snowstorm in the east of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/hxx55hy7bbir.png
Another wave of arctic air attacks in the north-central US states.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
A large area of high pressure will soon cause a significant drop in temperature throughout Europe.
SST Anomaly Time Series.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
What temperature will it be today in Minneapolis?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/r8ewrggyiek0.png