Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2018 was +0.24 deg. C, up a little from the February value of +0.20 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, and so has the distinction between calendar months.
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 15 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.08 +2.15 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.22 +0.40
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.50 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.60 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.55 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47 +1.20 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.36 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.15 +0.03 +0.91 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.24 +0.39 +0.10 +0.06 -0.33 -0.33 +0.59
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through March 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for March, 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
The latest version of my demonstration of the Green Plate Effect is available. Here’s the link.
https://app.box.com/s/j6i1jb1huzeruljhigmkie6qdxy0quaz
No, the Greenhouse Effect does not violate the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Sorry Eric, but the green plate can NOT heat the blue plate. That would be a clear violation of 2LoT.
Here’s the correct solution:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
g*e*r*a*n: I had a look at https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
How does the blue plate radiate to the right 400 W/m^2 at 244K? You show a green arrow and a blue arrow each transferring 200 W/m^2 rightward from the green plate to the blue plate.
In order for the blue plate to achieve net transfer of 200 W/m^2 to the green plate, it would have to be at 290K. Then it would radiate 400 W/m^2 to the left as well as to the right, and the red arrow would need to be 600 W/m^2 for everything to add up. Then, the combination of the plates would radiate 200 W/m^2 to the right, 400 W/m^2 to the left, getting rid of the 600 W/m^2 that it receives via the red arrow.
If the green plate is removed, then the blue plate would get rid of the 600 W/m^2 that it receives equally in both directions, 300 W/m^2 in each direction, and be at a temperature of 270 K. So adding the green plate at 244 K causes the blue plate’s temperature to increase from 270K to 290K. (With the red arrow being 600 W/m^2.) There is no second law violation from 200 W/m^2 being radiated by the 244K green plate to the 290K blue plate because the net flow is 200 W/m^2 from the 290K blue plate to the 244K green plate, and net flow is what the second law is concerned with.
Donald, just be careful with the addition. (“-” leaves plate, “+” arrives plate)
Blue plate: 400 -200 +200 -200 -200 = 0
Green plate: -200 +200 +200 -200 = 0
Donald says: “If the green plate is removed, then the blue plate would get rid of the 600 W/m^2 that it receives equally in both directions, 300 W/m^2 in each direction, and be at a temperature of 270 K.
NO!
If the green plate is removed, the blue plate would be receiving 400, and emitting 200 both sides, at a temp of 244K.
With 400 W/m^2 (as opposed to my 600 W/m^2) red arrow and no green plate, the blue plate is indeed at 244K and radiating 200 W/m^2 equally to both sides.
With a 400 W/m^2 red arrow and a green plate added to the right of the blue plate, then:
Blue plate is at 262K, radiating 266 2/3 W/m^2 to each side.
Green plate is at 220K, radiating 133 1/3 W/m^2 to each side.
There is net flow of 133 1/3 W/m^2 from the 262K blue plate to the 220K green plate. 2nd Law is not violated because net flow is from warmer to cooler.
Donald, that is incorrect. There is NO mechanism whereby the green plate can raise the temperature of the blue plate. That is just one of the things that is confusing you, besides the arithmetic.
The energy flow is from blue to green. The green can NOT reverse the energy flow. Water does not naturally flow uphill.
Tsunami is the word of the day.
Water sure as hell can flow uphill.
When I step up to the scuttlebutt, and push the button, the water flows up into my mouth.
Bob, that’s funny.
Got any more jokes?
Donald L. Klipstein,
g*e*r*a*n is one of our resident trolls, you will not be able to reason with him.
Dr. Spencer gave up a long time ago.
The image that he is so proud of has been proved wrong in many ways.
It shows the same temperature in the sun as in the shade for a start.
And Shady emerges out of the shadows to misrepresent the facts and create falsehoods.
His pseudoscience is headed for the same fate as the Chinese space station.
Splash!
It’s fun to watch.
You also break the 2LOT between the plates, Sunny Boy.
More false accusations and mis-information, from shady svante.
You have heat flowing between plates of the same temperature, hilarious clown!
The blue plate radiates to the green plate. Effectively, to the green plate, the blue plate is a “heat source”.
But, I don’t expect you to understand, shady.
And you break Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation:
“For an arbitrary body emitting and a*b*s*o*r*b*i*n*g thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*v*i*t*y.”
Wrong again, shady. You’re still confused. Your belief system has you all tangled up, AGAIN.
The blue plate is a “heat source”, in relation to the green plate. So believing the green plate can heat the blue plate is akin to believing the Earth can warm the Sun. (That’s what clowns believe.)
My solution violates no laws of physics. The other solution does. Your choice, go with reality, or be a clown.
A heat source that is not hot, great idea.
Yes, 244 K is well below freezing, so it’s “not hot”.
(-29 C, -20 F)
See, you can learn.
You have invented a radiator that is no hotter than the room.
When will you start manufacturing an electrical version?
Sorry shady, but the blue/green plate nonsense is not my invention.
I just correct the pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“the blue/green plate nonsense is not my invention.”
I thought it was based on your original research, where on earth did you get the idea from?
barry got it from some pseudoscience site.
I can’t believe that, no sensible person agrees with those nonsense numbers of yours.
Sorry shady, but the nonsense is believing the green plate can heat the blue plate.
Of course, your pseudoscience thrives on nonsense.
Regarding the moon rotation, you said NASA and all university astronomy departments were wrong.
Are NASA and all university physics departments wrong about the green plate effect?
Well shady, you’re getting even shadier. Now, you’re trying to twist my words.
I guess you are now striving for “sleazy”?
g*e*r*a*n says:
“It’s called ‘institutionalized pseudoscience’.”
https://tinyurl.com/y9nhq5or
Are you now trying to cover your false accusation, sleazy?
Show me where I said “all university astronomy departments were wrong”.
It’s so easy to be sleazy, huh?
MikeR quoted: A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.
You responded: “there are many more references than the 29 you found on your quick trip to wiki. You can probably find that many just at NASA sites. Then, go to universities that have astronomy departments. It’s called ‘institutionalized pseudoscience’.”
So you say the opposite of NASA and “Universities that have astronomy departments”.
Who is right and who is wrong then?
S: Are NASA and all university physics departments wrong about the green plate effect?
J: Have NASA or any university physics departments taken any position about the green plate effect?
J: “Have NASA or any university physics departments taken any position about the green plate effect?”
Yes, they define a black body as something that absorbs all incoming EMR.
Oh God here we go…another one who cant debate honestly.
Do you know g*e*r*a*n offline?
Can you ask him to respond to my astronomy question four messages up please?
No, I dont know g*e*r*a*n offline. But Im sure he will reply to you if he feels like it.
OK, thank you.
Youre welcome.
sleazy asks: “Who is right and who is wrong then?”
I’m right and sleazy is wrong.
What’s new?
When I said “green arrow and a blue arrow each transferring 200 W/m^2 rightward from the green plate to the blue plate”, I mixed up the plate colors. The diagram shows a green arrow and a blue arrow each transferring 200 W/m^2 rightward from a 244K blue plate to a 244K green plate.
Donald says: “The diagram shows a green arrow and a blue arrow each transferring 200 W/m^2 rightward from a 244K blue plate to a 244K green plate.”
Yes, but you omitted the green arrow arriving the blue plate.
g*e*r*a*n: So now for mentioning all three arrows that you show between the blue and green plates:
You show a blue arrow and a green arrow each taking 200 W/m^2 rightward from the blue plate to the green plate, and a green arrow taking 200 W/m^2 leftward from the green plate to the blue plate. What’s the explanation for two arrows taking a total of 400 W/m^2 rightward from the blue plate (at 244K) to the green plate?
Donald, this has all been explained elsewhere. Where have you been?
The 200 W/m^2, emitted from the green plate to the left is reflected by the higher temperature blue plate. The net energy flow is 200 W/m^2, from blue to green.
“is reflected by the higher temperature blue plate.”
Lol! The numbnut needs to study his own diagram.
snake just can’t stay out of the dirt.
I guess that’s normal for kids.
You have “248 K” for both plates, perhaps you should change that by “a few tenths of a degree”.
People that understand radiative physics, and 2LoT, will understand.
(But, you can think of it that way, if it will help your understanding.)
And, it’s “244 K”, not “248 K”.
People that have stayed away from universities you mean?
Or were able to escape without being corrupted.
Ah yes, everyone is corrupt, that explains everything.
Not everyone is totally corrupt. Some are just “shady”.
OK, everything is explained by some fault of the person.
As you’re a part of here.
Donald
If the blue plate absorbed the 200 watts from the green, it would get warmer. G* thinks that would be against the law. To avoid jail time, the blue plate reflects the energy instead.
snake, even without an understanding of physics, you have stumbled into a valid interpretation.
That’s good.
G*, every sensible person understands that the plate in the shade will be cooler than the one exposed to the light. And sure enough, in Erics experiment, the plate in the shade, not getting hit directly, was cooler!
How do you explain that?
Nut, put the two plates together. The green plate is still “in the shade”, and its temperature is still 244 K.
How do you explain that?
g*
Come out from under your rock. You’ll find it’s much warmer in the sun.
Nate,
Maybe I misunderstand you, but a thermometer cools if it receives less energy.
Is this not known to climatological pseudoscience?
It is simple enough for a small child to understand.
What do plates of any colour have to do with the nonexistent, and presumably indescribable, testable GHE hypothesis? Do fanatics think that talking about miraculous plates will somehow magic a GHE into existence?
Have you considered the possibility that the GHE doesn’t actually exist? If it did, do you not think someone might be able to set it out in some clear and unambiguous scientific fashion?
Obviously, stupid and ignorant GHE supporters don’t believe the scientific method is useful – faith, consensus, and tub thumping have replaced rational enquiry!
Keep praying. Maybe God will hear you, and smite the unbelievers! Or maybe not.
Cheers.
“put the two plates together. The green plate is still in the shade, and its temperature is still 244 K. How do you explain that?”
Its called conduction, G*. Ever heard of it?
Try this experiment: Let one plate be your hand, and the other a frying pan on the burner on high. Put your hand 5″ above the pan. Now bring your hand into contact with the pan. Any difference?
Just not that complicated, nor surprising. And it agrees with experiment!
MF “What do plates of any colour have to do with the nonexistent, and presumably indescribable, testable GHE hypothesis?”
The plates have to do with demonstrating the existence of back radiation, and the abuse of 2LOT by your cult, G*, Postma, GR, etc.
You don’t want to discuss, then don’t participate.
The plates came out of the school of pseudoscience. The GHE believers thought they could trick everyone, but they got caught, AGAIN.
It’s fun to watch.
G*,
N: ” Let one plate be your hand, and the other a frying pan on the burner on high. Put your hand 5″ above the pan. Now bring your hand into contact with the pan. Any difference?”
I hope you knew not to try this experiment. You knew that putting your hand in contact with the hot plate will raise your skin’s temperature to the temperature of the pan (ouch), vs being cooler when separated from the pan.
How can you come to such a different conclusion about the plates in contact vs separated?
Nut, you don’t even understand the issue!
The issue, to use your silly analogy, would be to raise the temperature of the hot frying pan with your hand.
See if you can do that.
Thats hilarious
That is an issue, but not the only one, as you have consistently maintained that the plates should reach the same temperature in contact or not.
“would be to raise the temperature of the hot frying pan with your hand.”
Thats called a lid, in cooking lingo, and yes it works.
Nut is proved wrong. But instead of learning, he just takes off down another wrong road.
They all went to the same clown school.
It’s fun to watch.
Im proved wrong? How? You say plates come to same temp. I proved YOU wrong. And you are now dodging.
A reminder of what you belive, G*, “Nut, put the two plates together. The green plate is still in the shade, and its temperature is still 244 K.”
No longer wanna support your own BS?
Nut, the one that is dodging is you.
You proposed your silly experiment:
“Try this experiment: Let one plate be your hand, and the other a frying pan on the burner on high. Put your hand 5″ above the pan. Now bring your hand into contact with the pan.”
I explained that you did not understand the issue. I explained that the clowns, including you, believe that the green plate can somehow heat the blue plate. I explained that that would be equivalent to your hand heating the frying pan.
Instead of realizing how stupid you had been, you continued with more stupidity. You stated that you had somehow proved me wrong?
Trying to distract, you quoted me: “Nut, put the two plates together. The green plate is still in the shade, and its temperature is still 244 K.”
Then, proving how stupid you are, you asked: “No longer wanna support your own BS?”
Nut, the plates will both be at 244 K, together or slightly apart. Your false accusations just reveal how empty your argument is.
Now, either admit your hand/frying pan “experiment” was stupid, or there is no need for me to waste my time.
G* you made my case, thanks. The experiment was right on-target, and proves your statement:
“Nut, the plates will both be at 244 K, together or slightly apart.”
FALSE.
“Now, either admit your hand/frying pan experiment was stupid, or there is no need for me to waste my time.”
Are you really so dense?
The experiment was illustrating, for dummies, the well known fact that that objects in contact can come to the same hot temperature, but DO NOT come to the same temperature when apart.
Your hand, (green plate), and the pan, (blue plate), are gonna be the same temperature ‘together or slightly apart’?
You really think so? Maybe you do need to DO the experiment.
Did your parents ever tell you ‘dont hover over that hot pan?’, or only ‘dont TOUCH that hot pan’??
I won’t waste any more time with you, Nut.
Enjoy talking to yourself.
Your usual MO, G*. When cornered, proven wrong, embarrased, have no answers, crawl away.
Nut, I’m aware of your rampant imagination. The truth is here for all to see. You were warned. So, have fun making up things about me.
That’s all you’ve got.
It’s fun to watch.
Nate, for once I think you are wrong.
“Your usual MO, G*. When cornered, proven wrong, embarrassed, have no answers, crawl away.”
None of that has ever stopped g*e*r*a*n.
Here’s an enhanced experiment for him:
1) Put a thermometer one the hot stove and note it’s temperature.
2) Crawl up and lie over the stove and the thermometer for five minutes.
3) Compare temperatures and see whether the cold object could influence the warm object.
Yeah, you’re right Svante. But sometimes he gets fed up with me and goes off in a huff to find other victims.
Isn’t that cute?
Nut and shady play so well together.
Now, don’t forget to take your naps, kiddos.
Yes grandpa.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-296417
Halp-less returns to do a slap and run, most likely. He says:
“Big differences between the hot burner/hand scenario and the plates:
Neither plate is hot. Both are sub-zero at best.”
That matters how? Only in the absolute temperatures, not in their differences.
“The two plates are identical plates. Not a burner and a hand (two completely different things).”
Their differences matter how? Why? In fact skin emits and abso*rbs in the IR nearly as a black body (ever seen IR images of glowing people?). Skin conducts quite well enough for you to get 2nd and 3rd degree burns when in contact with a hot pan for more than a few seconds.
“There is convection operating in the burner/hand scenario, not with the plates.”
And that matters why? Convection means GREATER thermal link between objects not in contact. If anything, that would bring them CLOSER to the same temperature, than plates in vacuum.
Do you guys really believe that plates separated in vacuum will transfer heat between them AS WELL AS plates separated in air or plates in contact? If so, why thermos bottles use vacuum?
Poor Nut, digs himself an even deeper hole: “Do you guys really believe that plates separated in vacuum will transfer heat between them AS WELL AS plates separated in air or plates in contact? If so, why thermos bottles use vacuum?”
He’s forgotten that the problem involves black bodies. The green plate would have no difficulty absorbing the higher energy photons from the blue plate. The mirrored surfaces of thermos bottles are the OPPOSITE of black bodies!
Poor Nut. His flailing desperation is fun to watch.
Bate, its not that I have a problem with the green plate getting colder when you move it away. I mean, if the plates were real objects and not fantasy thought-experiment perfectly absorbing, perfectly emitting, perfectly conducting, infinitely large and infinitely thin (!) ridicu-objects.
No, the problem is the bit where the blue plate magically warms up. And thats the bit that you will all do your damndest to distract away from in your lengthy yawn-a-thons.
“The mirrored surfaces of thermos bottles are the OPPOSITE of black bodies!”
Dodge, distract, much? Mirror to reduce radiant transfer, vacuum (you ignored) to reduce convective transfer. Both useful.
Most people, including Halp, understand that vacuum REDUCES heat transfer, G*. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for you.
So, plates (one heated) separated will be closer in temp in air than in vacuum. As Eric’s experiment shows. But never equal!
So being in vacuum does not solve your problems.
Halp: ” its not that I have a problem with the green plate getting colder when you move it away.”
Good, but before you did have a problem
“The difference is that one group believes the plates will stay the same temperature if you then separate the plates in a vacuum”
As far as the BLUE plate being warmer with the GREEN plate present, or not. We all agree the GREEN plate is warmer than space @ 3K.
If your body replaced the BLUE plate, would you be colder standing next to the coldness of space or standing next to a much warmer GREEN plate?
For comparison though much less extreme, would you (eg your skin) be colder standing next to a 70F wall or a sub-zero wall of ice?
Bate, if you cant follow a simple discussion, why bother commenting?
I said:
its not that I have a problem with the green plate getting colder when you move it away. I mean, if the plates were real objects
If, IF, the plates were REAL OBJECTS.
You are such a wriggly, slippery little lying scumbag. Par for the course, here. Bless yer.
“All agree that when pressed together the plates will be the same temperature”
What???? Not me!
If one side of a plate is exposed to a heat source, and the other side is not, the “shady side” will HAVE to be cooler…..same general reasoning as when separated.
If both sides were the same temperature, no heat would flow between them (2LOT, anyone?)
We know the shady side would be radiating heat away, so how does it replace what is lost??
Argue it out with Bate or Svante if you have the patience. The general consensus on both sides of the debate is (and Ive been following the plates discussion for a long time): plates together, same temperature. Usually the argument is: the two plates simply become one plate when pushed together. I know…ridiculous. But thats what you will be up against. Have fun.
Like I said downthread, what happens in real life when the two plate’s are pressed together is completely different than the situation in Eli’s thought experiment.
In real life, the blue plate is always warmer than the green, together or separate.
Separated, the green plate “back radiates” to the blue. Pressed together, the green plate back – conducts” to the blue.
JH,
The 2 plates DO essentialy become 1 when put together but with twice the mass and internal energy of the blue plate alone
What happens when the plates are pushed together, according to most people who discuss the green plate effect (on either side of the debate) is that they both equilibrate to 244 K. Nice to see a different perspective, occasionally. Like I said, take it up with Bate or Svante, or Ball4 or any of the others. Im sure they will be along soon to put you right.
Halp,
Its an easy throw-away comment to say “If, IF, the plates were REAL OBJECTS.” they would behave totally differently then the idealized case.
Its another to say what property of REAL OBJECTS makes their behavior completely different, and how it does so.
I don’t think you are prepared to answer this question, Halp. Hence your comment is only an ill-informed belief.
Snape,
‘In real life, the blue plate is always warmer than the green, together or separate.’
Yes, but how much warmer can change dramatically.
Conductive heat transfer for conductive objects in contact can be much much higher than radiative or convective transfer between objects not in contact, as the touching the hot pan experiment illustrates.
Nate
“Yes, but how much warmer can change dramatically.”
Of course, but to say the two plates would arrive at the same temperature if pressed together is as silly as thinking they would be the same temperature when separated.
Bate, you are a completely and utterly dishonest human being. Why would I bother even trying to debate someone who I dont believe is honest!? Silly Bate. Just declare yourself the victor, and move along.
I forgot this area of comments. I was missing out!
Nut, snake and sleazy continue to display their ignorance of the relevant physics.
Without debunking all their hilarious comments, here’s the correct solution. (The incorrect solution violates 2 LoT.)
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Glad to help.
“you are a completely and utterly dishonest human being. Why would I bother even trying to debate someone who I dont believe is honest!?”
For pointing out the flaws in your logic, the lack of facts, or science content in your posts, I’m dishonest??
Wow Halp, thats harsh. I’m hurt.
But as usual, you give no supporting evidence.
G*,
Thanks for showing us your drawing of the situation for the 47th time.
I have a drawing I made of Bigfoot holding a baby unicorn. I’m sure it will be just as convincing as yours.
Personally, I am biased toward reality, empirical knowledge, experiments.
Show us some of that and maybe we’ll pay attention.
N: For pointing out the flaws in your logic, the lack of facts, or science content in your posts, Im dishonest??
J: Nope.
Bate: plates pressed together, same temperature, yes or no?
Thats in the thought experiment, not real life.
???
Its like pulling teeth.
Bate, when the plates from the thought experiment are pushed together, they come to the same temperature. Yes or no?
I agree with Snape, in the real world plates pressed together will come close to, but not exactly, the same temperature. Conductivity is not infinite.
In the real world and in the ideal black bodies in vacuum case, when plates are pulled apart, the green plate will cool, and the blue plate will warm. As found in Eric’s experiment.
In the thought experiment, if conductivity is supposed to be infinite, then the pressed together plates will come to same temperature.
Bate: I agree with Snape…
Snape: Of course, but to say the two plates would arrive at the same temperature if pressed together is as silly as thinking they would be the same temperature when separated.
Bate: In the thought experiment, if conductivity is supposed to be infinite, then the pressed together plates will come to same temperature.
J: You do NOT agree with Snape. And, as I noted earlier, you can NOT seemingly follow a simple discussion. But, at least you have finally committed to a position.
As I said before, it is generally agreed (apart from Snape, and if I remember correctly, Kristian also) that the plates when pressed together will be at the same temperature (244 K). When separated in vacuum, one group thinks the blue plate will remain the same temperature, and the other thinks it will raise in temperature (to 262 K if IRC). You, I presume, are in the latter group?
Halp,
“J: You do NOT agree with Snape.”
It is you who is not following the discussion carefully.
Snape: “what happens in real life when the two plates are pressed together is completely different than the situation in Elis thought experiment.”
He is not talking about the ideal case, clearly, and I agree with him in that case.
“one group thinks the blue plate will remain the same temperature, and the other thinks it will raise in temperature (to 262 K if IRC). You, I presume, are in the latter group?”
Indeed, and I don’t think indisputable facts such as this one is about opinion or belief at all, no more than 11 is greater than 5, is.
One group has solved the simple heat transfer problem with ordinary textbook physics. The answer agrees with experiments, common sense, experience, and well known technologies.
The other group has a belief that leads them to guess an answer that does not agree with ordinary physics, experiments, common sense, or common experience.
You are not in agreement with Snape, and Eric has not conducted the experiment we are talking about (pushing the plates together to start with, waiting for them to get to a certain temperature, then moving the plates apart and seeing if that alone causes a rise in temperature of the blue plate). In fact, PhilJ suggested Eric do just that, recently. A few threads below this one…
Halp,
H:”You do not agree with Snape”, “You are not in agreement with Snape”,
H: ” plates pressed together, same temperature, yes or no?
Thats in the thought experiment, not real life.”
N: Yes
Snape: “In REAL LIFE, the blue plate is always warmer than the green, together or separate.”
Let me explain this very carefully, because you can’t seem to “follow a simple discussion”
Snape is talking about the real world, whereas YOU asked me about the idealized case. When both SNAPE and I are talking about the REAL world, we agree. When he is talking about Oranges and I am talking about Apples, there is not way to judge agreement.
1. Unless he and I have stated positions on the same issue, it is not for YOU to decide what we agree on.
2. Who cares?
H: “No, the problem is the bit where the blue plate magically warms up.”
Eric’s experiment explicitly tested this. When the GREEN plate was placed behind the BLUE plate, the BLUE plate very clearly WARMED.
https://app.box.com/s/j6i1jb1huzeruljhigmkie6qdxy0quaz
Do you think experimental tests of your ideas are essential or not?
You and Snape are not in agreement (Snape has been banging on about back-conduction, he is so convinced the plates wont be the same temperature when pushed together!) and Eric has not yet tested for what we are discussing. You are good at spin, but not so great on the honesty stakes. Its OK though. I will let you have the final word, since this will never end otherwise. Off you go.
J, Nate
I apologize to both of you for not looking at this conversation until now.
“(Snape has been banging on about back-conduction, he is so convinced the plates wont be the same temperature when pushed together!)”
That’s true. It’s my understanding that in real life the sunny side of a plate would always be warmer than the shady side, even if only a little bit.
In Eli’s thought experiment, though, he PRETENDS both sides of each plate has the same temperature (in order to focus the calculations on back radiation), whereas in real life that wouldn’t be the case. In keeping with this imaginary premise, then, it makes sense that both sides would still be the same temperature when blue and green are pressed together. I couldn’t understand why anyone would think otherwise.
Halp,
Snape: ‘Apples don’t need to be peeled.’
N: ‘Oranges need to be peeled.’
“You and Snape are not in agreement”
Absolute proof that you fail at basic logic, Halp.
Why should anyone take your posts seriously?
S: In keeping with this imaginary premise, then, it makes sense that both sides would still be the same temperature when blue and green are pressed together. I couldnt understand why anyone would think otherwise
J: Im not aware that anyone does. So you agree then, that pressed together both plates come to 244 K (in the thought experiment)? In that case I take it back. We are all in agreement.
Yes, in Eli’s thought experiment it seems consistent for both plates to be the same temperature if pressed together. Not so in real life.
I remember arguing with several people who thought otherwise.
So now all we need is for someone to test what happens when those plates, at the same temperature, are separated. Will the blue plate warm? The tension is…well, Im sure someone somewhere cares.
‘So now all we need is for someone to test what happens when those plates, at the same temperature, are separated.’
As you (H) said all agree what will happen when they are together, they will be (close to) the same temperature.
The controversial part, where they are separated has been tested. They turn out to be not remotely the same temperature (68C and 108 C).
You will say, we need to see them together, first. Perhaps, but there will nothing new revealed. They’re temps have no choice but to converge. And we have already seen the single plate result, and its temp is lower.
*rolls eyes*
‘eye roll’ regarding which part? What do you think will happen if/when Eric’s plates are brought together?
Bate, do you *ever* stop!?
I even said you could have the last word. You did. Then Snape posted. So I responded to Snape. Then, you just *had* to respond. Even though you are just repeating yourself again and again.
*Thats* what Im rolling my eyes about.
Just
Stop
Responding
Halp,
You were happy to keep discussing so long as your points are made and not refuted. You spent a dozen posts discussing a non-issue about who agreed with who.
Now you are making it about who has the ‘last word’.
iF You have no good answers with regard to the real issue at hand, just say so.
He still cant leave it alone! You are hilarious.
Ha, as usual, Halp cares little for debate, makes it all about attacking the messenger,
Are you literally paid to have the last word, or something? Is that how it works? Because its nearrer the top of the comments, so you think more people might be reading? Im just trying to figure out what the hell possesses you to be so utterly, hilarious, relentless!
Halp,
You are an odd duck. You say ‘why should I debate with you yada yada yada’, then you proceed to spend a dozen posts ‘debating’ with me, demanding answers from me, for no other purpose than humiliation.
But when I ask you questions that get directly at the science issues, you will not debate, you dodge, deflect, distract, and finally depart.
No need for you to respond Halp. Yes I am paid by the Last Word Institute.
(Bate waits a day in order to slip another last word in, packing in as much trash talk as possible)
G, the ‘clear violation of 2LoT’ is 200 W/m^2 flowing from one surface at 244K to a second surface also at 244 K. Heat only flows when there is a temperature difference.
Tim,
How is it that heat can flow from a colder object to a hotter? Say from the atmosphere at 30C, to a sunwarmed surface of 40 C?
Isn’t the magic of CO2 supposed to force a hotter object to accept energy from a colder, and force the hotter to a higher temperature – an increase in temperature, due purely to the presence of CO2 between the heat source and the surface.
Or is there a special “climatological heat”?
Does the colder object get even colder as it transfers energy to the hotter? That sounds impossible, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some stupid and ignorant person can devise a thoughtless fantasy showing the opposite!
The world is supposed to be getting hotter due to this pseudoscientific nonsense.
What do you think makes thermometers indicate higher temperatures? CO2?
Good luck with that!
Cheers.
MF “Isnt the magic of CO2 supposed to force a hotter object to accept energy from a colder, and force the hotter to a higher temperature an increase in temperature, due purely to the presence of CO2 between the heat source and the surface.”
Where is space @ T= 3K in this description? Why leave out this essential ingredient in the GHE, except to obfuscate?
MF ‘I tried to make bread. I used everything in the recipe, except yeast, cuz I didnt have any. It failed. Bread is stupid!’
Nate,
Maybe if you could show me where the testable GHE hypothesis mentions [email protected]=3K?
Complete nonsense – there is no testable gHE hypothesis, is there?
Only a very stupid and ignorant person would claim that they know the contents of a non-exstent document!
What has bread to do with the non-existent GHE? In your irrelevant analogy, you appear to be blaming the bread for your lack of comprehension. You are probably equally likely to blame more rational and intelligent people for your lack of intelligence and knowledge.
Am I right, or am i right? Rhetorical question – the stupid and ignorant always try to blame others for their failings.
Cheers.
Mike,
Youve been shown the recipe for GHE many times, and don’t seem to retain it. not sure why you are proud of that.
You regularly leave out key ingredients to create strawmen with ice cubes or corpses (creepy fascination) or firemen wearing coats to stay cool. You are the strawman specialist.
Your strawmen missing key ingredients fail to produce a greenhouse effect, just as bread without yeast does not rise. Then you blame others for not explaining the recipe to you, which of course they have many times. You should have lost your job as a baker months ago. I think maybe you did-but you keep showing up anyway.
Space @ 3K. Yes it surrounds the Earths atmosphere. Never heard of it? Without it the Earth will not cool after being heated by the sun, and the GHE of the atmosphere makes no sense.
So naturally you left it out. Your goal is clear, to confuse people with misinformation.
Sorry Tim, the blue plate emits regardless on any surroundings.
You need to learn about radiative physics.
So the Blue plate @ 244 K emits regards of its surroundings @ 244 K, but the green plate @ 244 K doesn’t emit to it’s surroundings at 244 K. Got it!
Hilariously Tim, you don’t “got it”.
Both plates are at 244 K, and emitting as such, as shown.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
That makes SO much more sense! The green plate at 244 K can absorb radiation from the blue plate @ 244 K, but the blue plate at 244 K can’t absorb radiation from the green plate @ 244 K.
You finally “got it”!
Really? Right now everything around you is radiating energy . dors it violate the 2nd law that you have not yet combusted?
The 2LoT only applies to systems in equilibrium. When Eric moved the green plate behind the the blue plate the system was not in equilibrium, and the 2LoT did not apply until the temperatures stabilized.
Sorry, Beij, but somebody told you wrong. 2LoT applies all the time, everywhere.
You just have to know how to apply it. There is never an instance of entropy being reduced, without outside interference.
Or, in more colorful terms, you can NOT bake a turkey with ice cubes.
E.
What does this have to do with the temperature report for March?
I am not really interested in backyard demonstrations. If you are trying to make some scientific statement, then publish a “real” experiment conforming to the scientific method in a reputable physics Journal.
In one of your comments in a previous post, you did not even understand the physics of a thermos bottle, so why should we give credence to your amateur “demonstration”?
SGW, I’m not one of the guys who have been hijacking the monthly threads with denialist propaganda for years. My results are “real”, even though you don’t like what I found. And, FYI, my demonstration wasn’t done in my backyard, that’s just where I set up for photos. I ran the setup inside my work area on the ground level of my house.
Do you have any “real” critique to offer of my admittedly simplistic experiment? So far, all you’ve done is post ad hominems.
Eric, you are the one hijacking this thread. It is about March UAH results. You do not see reality. As with your phony “experiment”, you only see things the way you want to see them.
It’s fun to watch.
Geronavich, Predictably, not criticism, just assertions about “seeing” reality your way and ad hominems.
???
And how is the weather in Saint Petersburg?
What do climate “scientists” like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones and E. Swanson all have in common? The GHE. There is no difference with your science, and the science of these climategate charlatans, and the IPCC. You are all in the same boat.
When you provide a proper scientific experiment, I’ll provide a critique.
SkGpWi, You left out Roy Spencer from your short list. Perhaps you are forgetting that the UAH satellite temperature data relies on the same theoretical and mathematical foundation as the GHE.
Now Eric, that’s a desperate stretch.
In fact, it’s such a stretch, it’s hilarious.
Ge*ra*no*vich, You obviously have no clue about the theoretical basis for Spencer and Christy’s “temperature” data sets.
Now Eric, there’s no need to make a bunch of erroneous statements, just because you don’t understand physics.
It just makes you look desperate.
E.S.
I applaud your efforts to test your hypothesis but i am unconvinced that your conclusion is correct.
Consider that even with your efforts to minimize air in the container, there is still bound to be some convectional heat loss, and its possible that raising the greeen plate affected that convectional cooling causing an increase in the blue plate temp.
I would suggest a further experiment ..
Begin with the green plate in full contact with the blue so that the majority of energy exchange is via conduction. Turn on your power source.
After a steady temp is reached, move the green plate slightly away from the blue so there is no longer conduction.
If your hypothesis is correct the green plate temp should fall and blue increase..
If the blue temp remains steady or falls , that would be evidence that a change in convective cooling is responsible for the temp results in the experiment you have posted here.
PhilJ…”I applaud your efforts to test your hypothesis but i am unconvinced that your conclusion is correct”.
It has been pointed out in detail to swannie that his issue is one of heat dissipation, not back-radiation.
We should be talking about the current topic, out of respect for Roy, who goes to a lot of trouble to post each month and keep us up to date on the world climate scene.
I’m willing to admit that the vacuum pressure I’ve so far achieved may not be low enough to suppress convection. I think I have a small leak thru the old A/C hose I have used. The situation is further complicated by the warming of the bell jar on the side facing the light, which would induce convection in the opposite direction of that which might result from the heating of the plate(s). I have tried using a high intensity LED light source, but it wasn’t strong enough to heat the Blue plate more than 16 C.
If I can achieve higher vacuum, I will do another run.
Looking at the previous results, it looks like the Blue plate temp increased with decreasing pressure. Makes sense, reducing thermal link to bell jar.
I think can safely extrapolate to zero pressure, conduction will be zero and Blue will reach a higher temp.
PhilJ “Begin with the green plate in full contact with the blue so that the majority of energy exchange is via conduction.”
This is essentially equivalent to a single BLUE plate, which he has already done. The temperature was lower in that case.
There’s not even a need to redo the phony “experiment”. Nut is already convinced how it will turn out. No amount of facts or logic will sway him from his false beliefs.
It’s fun to watch.
As opposed to G*, who has need for experiments. He just has to match the voices in his head.
“phony” why?
Arghh “No need for experiments”
I think I have a partial answer to your comment. I ran the demo again with a different procedure, starting by turning on the light before the vacuum. After 40 minutes, the Blue plate temperature had increased from the initial 17.7 C to 81.3 C. Then the vacuum pump was turned on and after another hour and 10 minutes, the Blue plate temperature had increased to 100.7 C. Next, the Green plate was lifted into position next to the Blue plate and after another hour and 15 minutes, the temperature of the Blue plate had increased further to 108.3 C. The pressure gage again indicated a low of 250 microns.
This run clearly demonstrated the effect of reducing the pressure on the heat flow, showing reduced convection. While there may still be some convection, I doubt it had much influence on the temperature increase as the result of lifting the Green plate into position. I am hoping that I may be able to further reduce the pressure in future runs.
Well, look who’s back to continue hijacking the blog with more “denialist propaganda”.
(Denying 2LoT and proper scientific procedures, of course.)
Hilarious.
ge*ra*no*vich, I agree with the 2nd Law of Thermo. I disagree with your (and GR’s, etc) misinterpretation thereof. If you demand a “real” scientific experiment, somebody needs to pay for it. For example, a similar experiment could easily be done in the ISS, since there’s no natural convection inside, thus there’s no need for a vacuum. I’d wouldn’t be surprised that something similar has already been done by NASA.
Eric, it can’t be done because it is impossible. Study the simple graphic, of the correct solution, carefully. There are NO violations of any laws of physics.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
The green plate can NOT heat the blue plate. That is a desire of people that want to “prove” the GHE. It’s pseudoscience.
G* seems overly comfortable saying things that just happened cannot happen.
He has different take on reality than most of us.
ge*ra*no*vich, You can ignore the evidence all you want, but that doesn’t change the scientific facts. Your replies are just like that of a fundi who thinks the Earth is less than 10k years old when confronted with mountains of factual data showing a much older Earth.
It’s easy to ignore nonsense.
ge*ra*no*vich, Your right, that graph is easy to ignore, since it’s wrong, as others have pointed out. With both plates at the same temperature, there can be no heat flow in either direction between the two.
Eric, you’re just repeating what you have seen others say. You don’t seem to even be trying to understand.
The blue plate is emitting 200 W/m2, from both sides. The green plate absorbs that 200, and then must emit 200. The “hotter” blue plate can not absorb from the “cooler” green plate. So the green plate can only emit 200 from one surface. To do that, it must have a temperature close to 244 K.
Don’t get fooled by the fact that the temperatures are nearly equal. That only happens here because it’s a “perfect” situation, with no losses. The heat transfer between the plates has NOTHING to so with the green plate temperature. The heat transfer is due to the 200 Watts/m^2 from blue to green.
G is also overly comfortable with compltely made up physics. He has given up on being taken seriously.
Nut, would I care if clowns take me seriously?
Think about it.
Oh sorry, you can’t think.
Never mind.
Great!
Fantastic!
Eric, Im guessing you did as PhilJ suggested here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-295616
didnt get the result you wanted, and are keeping it quiet. : – )
I didn’t attempt what PhilJ suggested, since there isn’t a simple way to modify my setup to achieve his proposed approach. I’ve been keeping quiet as I am still working to achieve a lower pressure level in order to further reduce convection. That said, I think the short posting in which I reported a different procedure already shows a significant reduction in convection within the bell jar, so I am expecting even more reduction at lower pressure. Also, my 2 attempts to use LED’s as light sources didn’t work out either, as the LED’s I tried didn’t heat the Blue plate very much.
I’ve not worked with a vacuum system before, so I’m still learning as I go. Still, recall that the previous 250 micron pressure represents only .25/760 = 0.00033 of standard SL atmospheric pressure.
PhilJ says: I would suggest a further experiment ..
Phil, your experimental result will be not much different than mine. Placing both plates in contact would be the same as making the Blue plate twice as thick. The surface area would be the same, except for the edges, and the mass would be twice that of a single plate. Thus, the time to reach equilibrium would be greater, but the temperature at that point would be about the same as that which I observed. When the two plates were separated, the result would be the same as in my demonstration after hoisting the Green plate to a position beside the Blue plate, except that the Green plate would then cool to equilibrium instead of warming to that point in my demo. What convection occurs would also be nearly identical, once equilibrium is achieved.
swannie…”No, the Greenhouse Effect does not violate the Second Law of thermodynamics”.
I wish you’d knock of this damned ignorance. This is a new blog posting about the March temperature anomalies and you post the first comment about a dumb thought experiment by Eli Rabbett, someone who is a physicist and does not have the guts to post under his real name.
You could at least comment on Roy’s article. He cuts us a lot of slack doing what we want when interest peters out on the article, no need to jump right in with your pseudo-scientific claims.
GR, Yeah, Roy tolerates lots of denialist trolls (you know who). Of course, if you had a serious critique, you might post it, but you haven’t anything, other than some old theoretical work for your appeals to authority. Did it ever occur to you that the Mechanical Engineering profession accepts “back radiation” as a fact of life? Why? Because it works and their jobs depend on that.
Swanson resorts to the despicable “Denialist” label. Very low class with all its Holocaust connotations.
And he complains about ad homs, and then uses the worst label??
AGW collaborators, apologists and sympathisers tend to do that.
Just change AGW to another 4 letters starting with N.
Eric, matter emits IR, based on its temperature. Most people agree. But, if you are trying to imply that ALL IR will ALWAYS be absorbed and WILL always raise temperatures, then very few engineers would agree with you.
I suggest Eric get together with Willis Eschenbach and refine his steel greenhouse. I am sure million degree temperatures are obtainable with the correct amount of steel shells.
Meanwhile, I am going to put multiple reflectors around my portable 1800 watt room heater. Target that sucker with enough backradiation and I’ll get that room real toasty.
SGW,
While you are at it, remember all you need to light your whole house is one candle and lots and lots of perfect mirrors.
Obviously, the reflection will be equally bright in each mirror, so 1000 mirrors will be the equivalent of 1000 candles, with far less running costs.
Radiation (or light) obeys the same physical laws, so the mirror induced light addition will work in exactly the same way as the back radiation addition so beloved of pseudo scientific climatologists.
A simple application of IR forcings and feedbacks, translated to the visible spectrum.
Easy peasy – all someone needs to do now is propose a testable GHE hypothesis. I’m sure my analogy could be twisted to fit, somehow.
Cheers.
Now thats a good analogy of the usefullness of back radiation..
Wish i had thought of it…
Im gonna steal it for use with other true belivers 😉
Thanks for the tip, Mike. The candle will be cheaper to operate.
E. S.
Gordon and g* are too thick, but maybe your effort is not wasted:
“The reason I am posting this is not to convince the rabid disbelievers, who are probably beyond hope. It is to reduce their influence on others.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
snake, that experiment does not prove “cold” can warm “hot”. It is very similar to your favorite “experiment”, having no knowledge of physics. It shows how putting on a coat warms your body. That is NOT “cold” warming “hot”, as a violation of 2LoT’.
An example of “cold” warming “hot” would be if you put a coat, at 0, on top of a coat, at 30, and the coat on top got warmer than 30.
G, “It shows how putting on a coat warms your body. That is NOT cold warming hot”
If thats how you understand the experiment, G*, great! Now apply it to GPE.
Well, I successfully botched that second paragraph.
I’ll try again.
An example of “cold” warming “hot” would be if you put a coat, at 30 C, on top of a coat, at 0C, and the coat on top got warmer than the 30 C.
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
********
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-experimental-demonstration-that-cool-objects-can-make-warm-objects-warmer-still/
The blue plate contributes energy to the green. The green plate contributes energy to the blue. The blue plate, being hotter, contributes more than it receives.
How much more? Well, however much more I s what Dr. Spencer describes as the “net transfer of energy”……. better known as heat.
In Swanson’s experiment, the green plate made the blue plate warmer by virtue of radiative exchange. Notice, though, there was never a “passage of heat” from a colder to warmer body, because the NET EXCHANGE was from blue to green.
No snake, the green plate can NOT warm the blue plate, especially if there is no “passage of heat” from green to blue!
Hilarious.
Young snake copies Jelly-the-clown. He tries to go in the wrong direction, and I show him why that is wrong. Then, he just takes out in another wrong direction. He has no interest in learning, only in trying to defend his pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
You are definitely NOT the sharpest tool in the shed.
snake, coming from an uneducated, immature, physics-illerate, as you, I take that as a compliment.
snape…”The reason I am posting this is not to convince the rabid disbelievers, who are probably beyond hope. It is to reduce their influence on others.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/”
**********
I had not seen this experiment by Roy but it’s obvious he has drawn the same incorrect conclusion as swannie. Roy’s experiment is about heat dissipation and has nothing to do with the 2nd law.
In Roy’s experiment, the 250 W lamp is heating the air around it to the tune of nearly 250 watts of electrical power. Most of the power in such a lamp is converted to heat (90% heat in incandescents) and that heat is conducted to the air where convection carries it away and spreads it to the room air.
The light coming from the lamp is measured in lumens and it generates roughly 20 lumens/watt of rated power. A 100 watt incandescent light radiates 1600 lumens of EM and a 250 W incandescent should be around 4000 lumens.
I don’t know what heating effect 4000 lumens would have on the plate but I seriously doubt it would raise the plate to a temperature in excess of 100C from 2 feet away.
If you touched the lamp with your fingers long enough it would give you a serious burn. If you move your hand to within an inch of the face, you can hardly feel the IR heating effect. IMHO the plate is heated by heated air convected to the plate.
With the ice uncovered, the ice is dragging down the air temperature over it hence the plate temperature. With that much ice, the cooling effect would be significant. The ice is absorbing heat from the air above it. When the ice is covered, the air temperature heated by the lamp increases and the heated plate gets warmer.
The plate is not warming because the cover over the ice is causing it to warm. The plate develops an equilibrium temperature based on the difference between it and the air around it. If you increase the temperature of the air around the plate, the plate will warm. Covering the ice does that.
The 2nd law still stands, you cannot transfer heat from a cooler region to a warmer region. No one would expect heat being transferred from the ice to warm the plate. In the same way, heat cannot be transferred from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler surface.
Gordon says, “I had not seen this experiment by Roy….”
From the comment thread:
[Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 29, 2016
yes, Gordon, thats what I said about the compressor side of the equipment.
And Im not the one who made the refrigeration analogywhich I think is a poor one.
And I cant believe that we are still discussing whether heat, of its own, being transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object is being violated. The NET heat flow is ALWAYS from warmer than colder. But if that heat flow is temporarily reduced by increasing the temperature of the cold object, and and the same time the hot side is continuously heated by some OTHER process, then the hot side CAN increase in temperature. Surely you must understand this by now?
Instead, you just keep repeating heat can NEVER, of its own, be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object. The Wikipedia entry for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which should be non-controversial, specifically states that the Clausius Statement applies to the NET of whatever flows are occurring in opposite directions.]
snape…”The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other”.
**********
Clausius said nothing about a net transfer of energy, he talked only about heat transfer and the fact heat could only be transferred one way under non-equilibrium conditions.
Heat cannot be transferred by radiation through empty space that has only air. Since heat is the kinetic energy of gas molecules in motion it cannot exist without atoms. It must first be converted to EM in order to be radiated, although it can be transferred via conduction to air molecules and transported through space by convection.
If you follow his explanation of a heat engine, complete with diagrams, it is easy to see why heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot. It’s about an irreversible process. The same irreversibility applies equally to heat transfer by radiation.
snape…revisited link to Roy’s experiment. Had not taken a careful note of temperatures and temperature change.
The change in temperature on the plate is only 1 to 3 F. Between 8:10 and 8:15 the temperature does not change at all.
Roy mentioned that just moving the ice cover caused the temperature to change and that is indicative to me of convective currents.
I don’t think there’s any way that radiation from that lamp can cause temperatures in the 255F range. If you held your hand an inch away from that light it would cause no discomfort to your hand but that kind of temperature from steam above boiling water wood. Especially steam from a 255F temperature range.
Since the lamp is located almost under the plate, I think rising, heated air from the lamp could raise the temperature to that level. Don’t know.
A good test might be to put a sheet of halite in front of the lamp. It’s a known conductor of IR. That might block the convection, however.
I guess I’ll get banned for this but it’s worth it for science. ☺
The 2nd Law Defense Team. ☺
-Channeled from Clausius.
snape…”And I cant believe that we are still discussing whether heat, of its own, being transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object is being violated. The NET heat flow is ALWAYS from warmer than colder. But if that heat flow is temporarily reduced by increasing the temperature of the cold object, and and the same time the hot side is continuously heated by some OTHER process, then the hot side CAN increase in temperature. Surely you must understand this by now?”
**********
Still don’t recall that experiment by Roy even though I seem to have commented on it. Maybe I ignored the experiment because I thought the premise was wrong. I recall him talking about the premise of an intermediate body but I was not aware of the experiment till yesterday.
Re the statement above, I don’t know if that comes from you or from Roy. Either way, it’s wrong….dead wrong. There is no such thing as NET heat flow. There is not even a NET EM flow. Bodies radiate isotropically and only a fraction of that radiation can be captured by a nearby body, unless of course it surrounds the radiating body like a cylinder or a sphere.
I have gone to great lengths to explain the action of the electrons that radiate and absorb EM. An electron cannot do both at the same time. If they are receiving radiation from a hotter body, they MUST jump to a higher energy level and remain there as long as the increase in temperature is valid.
There are instances where electrons jump back randomly but on average that is not significant.
The S-B equation shows that clearly. There are no provisions in S-B for a two way transfer of energy. If T = To, there is no net transfer. If T (the emitter) is greater than To (the absorber), heat is ALWAYS transferred T -> To. If To > T, heat is always transferred To -> T. There is never a two way heat transfer. It’s not possible.
There are no provisions in S-B for a NET transfer of either EM or heat and Clausius has cemented that with his words that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body.
Gordon
“Re the statement above, I dont know if that comes from you or from Roy. Either way, its wrong.dead wrong.”
It came from Dr. Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
“Did it ever occur to you that the Mechanical Engineering profession accepts back radiation as a fact of life?”
Do mechanical engineers use backradiation values (320 W/m2) to calculate roof heating loads for buildings? Huh? Why doesn’t that 320 W/m2 of backradiation bake my roof at night? Or warm my pool? Yet you guys say 1 W/m2 of backradiation is equivalent to 1 W/m2 of solar radiation. They are not equivalent, and the phony Kiehl/Trenberth energy balance diagram is a load of horse manure.
SkGoWi wrote,
Not in an environment where convection neat transfer dominates. Besides, I suspect your number is a global average, which doesn’t apply in the Winter season.
Eric, not only doesn’t the bogus GHE work in the winter, it doesn’t work in the summer either.
But, at least you got it half right.
SGW
Your roof absorbs energy via conduction and radiation (input). It sheds energy via conduction and radiation (output). If input equals output, temperature will be steady.
” Why doesnt that 320 W/m2 of backradiation bake my roof at night?”
Why do you think the difference between input and output at night would cause your roof to bake? More likely your roof would cool.
skeptic…”…and the phony Kiehl/Trenberth energy balance diagram is a load of horse manure”.
Well put!!!
swannie…”Not in an environment where convection neat transfer dominates”.
What is a convection net transfer (presuming neat means net)? If air is carried away as a parcel of gas molecules, where is the ‘net’?
snape…”Your roof absorbs energy via conduction and radiation (input). It sheds energy via conduction and radiation (output). If input equals output, temperature will be steady”.
*********
Why do you keep referring to a generic ‘energy’? Conduction is about heat transfer and radiation is about EM. Neither form of energy has anything in common.
If a roof absorbs heat via a transfer from atmospheric gases, it does so directly. Heat is conducted from atmospheric gases directly to the roof and those gases are 99% nitrogen and oxygen. If it absorbs heat from EM, it does so when the electrons in the atoms of the roof material convert the EM to heat. Unless that EM comes from a very hot emitter like the Sun it does nothing.
On the Canadian prairies, at -35C, they get beautiful, clear sunlit days. It’s so cold that ice crystals form in the air. Radiation from the Sun does not even begin to melt the snow or ice. It will make your experience outside more pleasant but it’s still damned cold.
That’s how you alarmists obfuscate what is going on in the atmosphere by lumping all heat transfer under a generic energy then claiming a net balance of energy.
There is no such thing!!!
During a transfer of heat via radiation no heat can be physically transferred. It reduces in the hotter body and increases in the cooler body due to a conversion of heat to EM then back again. While the EM energy is in transit there is no heat involved. Any transfer of heat physically is apparent and not actual.
Furthermore, at terrestrial temperatures, heat transfer via radiation is inefficient due to the inverse square law, whereby EM intensity drops off with the square of the distance. As Wood pointed out, IR from the surface would be ineffective more than a few feet above the surface. He was an expert on IR.
People who point an IR meter at anything have to realize the meter is not measuring heat directly. Hand held IR meters are not designed to detect heat, they detect EM frequencies in the IR region of the spectrum then use an algorithm to interpret the frequency based on a pre-calibrated relationship between that frequency and the temperature of a body that ‘should’ emit that temperature.
When physicist Craig Bohren pointed such a meter at clear sky, he got temperatures around -50C. When pointed at clouds, the temperature was about -3C. How would either be able to radiate enough IR to heat the surface?
I don’t know why anyone bothers talking about radiation, it’s a non-entity. Modelers have gotten away with it because the general public has no idea what they are inferring, and that includes politicians.
“Thats how you alarmists obfuscate what is going on in the atmosphere by lumping all heat transfer under a generic energy then claiming a net balance of energy.”
Sorry, Gordon. You will need to take your complaint to the alarmist/obfuscater who runs this blog. (Good luck with that)
snape…”Sorry, Gordon. You will need to take your complaint to the alarmist/obfuscater who runs this blog. (Good luck with that)”
Eeeeeewwwwww!! That’s grounds for dismissal, calling Roy an alarmist/obfuscator.
Even though Roy suggests he’s a luke-warmer at times, I regard him as a good, old skeptic.
I am in agreement with Roy for the most part and with my degree of skepticism that hardly makes him anywhere near being a luke-warmer.
But an alarmist???
Roy, Roy…snape called you an alarmist!!!
Gordon
That’s how you alarmists obfuscate what is going on in the atmosphere by lumping all heat transfer under a generic energy then claiming a net balance of energy.
You’re too thick to realize it, Gordon, but the above comment insults Dr. Spencer.
Then you fail to recognize sarcasm, as Roy is clearly neither alarmist nor obfuscater, even though he “lumps” conduction/LWIR/SWIR into one output or input, as is standard practice in climate science.
Honestly, your lack of comprehension boggles the mind. Next time: “WARNING, the following contains sarcasm, please do NOT take literally.”
Sorry, Gordon. You will need to take your complaint to the alarmist/obfuscater who runs this blog. (Good luck with that)
Oops, the first paragraph were your words, and should be in quotations.
Dang, another goof…….the last paragraph needed to be edited out. It’s past my bed time.
snape…[GR]”Thats how you alarmists obfuscate what is going on in the atmosphere by lumping all heat transfer under a generic energy then claiming a net balance of energy”.
[snape]Youre too thick to realize it, Gordon, but the above comment insults Dr. Spencer.
…………
There, I fixed it for you. My words were not a shot at Roy, but at alarmists. I have made it clear in the past that I regard Roy as a skeptic who tends to acknowledge CO2 in the atmosphere might cause warming even though how much is not clear.
I disagree with Roy and his usage of a generic energy which leads to the concept of a net balance of energy. I disagree with his reasoning that such a net balance satisfies the 2nd law. I have made that clear in the past.
My words are a shot at alarmists like you who introduce all forms of pseudo-science as the basis of your arguments. Roy’s POV seems to be that he does not know how much warming is caused by CO2, which is fine with me, but the rest of you talk about CO2 as if it’s warming effect has been proved and that it will be catastrophic.
Roy’s POV that the GHE is real and caused by GHGs causes no one harm. The harm will come from alarmists who try to control the warming through carbon taxes and a sharp increase in fuel costs. From what Roy has said he does not seem to be in favour of such measures.
Gordon says,
“My words are a shot at alarmists like you who introduce all forms of pseudo-science as the basis of your arguments.”
I’ve read a lot of Dr. Spencer’s previous posts. They are my favorite resource for learning about climate science. What you call pseudoscience is actually fully established physics/chemistry, etc., taught in University’s around the world, employed in industry, and completely in line with Roy’s POV.
Where he differs with a lot of his peers relates primarily to climate sensitivity to GHG’s, policy, politics…..that sort of stuff. Not with the underlying science.
Gordon Robertson
I am in doubt you ever studied any physics in a University. More likely you took some classes in electronics so you could find a living repairing electronic components.
This statement clearly shows you haven’t got the slightest clue of thermodynamics or energy.
Here YOU STATE: “Thats how you alarmists obfuscate what is going on in the atmosphere by lumping all heat transfer under a generic energy then claiming a net balance of energy.
There is no such thing!!!”
That is known as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and to date it has never been found in error. All energy is part of the same substance that goes by joules, the primary unit. Kinetic energy, radiant energy, chemical energy, electrical energy. All are part of the same thing (including matter itself). They can all be turned into the other forms by different process. Radiant energy can be turned into kinetic energy of molecules. Chemical energy can be turned into kinetic energy or radiant energy or both. It is all connected and THERE IS a balance of energy always. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form from one to another. All you show with your statements is that you don’t have even a little knowledge of the subject you pretend to be an expert in. You really need to get a good textbook on physics and read it and erase all the horrible physics you think is real. People like Claes Johnson (the Crackpot) and the most offensive Joe Postma have completely destroyed your logical rational scientific potential. There is no hope for you to ever understand it until you utterly purge your mind from their horrid physics and start fresh as if you know nothing and let real physics enlighten your mind. Right now you have a cobbled pile or random rocks held together by nothing tangible. NO logic, no reason. If you think about what you post you would see that it is not rational. Just made up.
Norm, you forgot to mention your resume, AGAIN.
You have no science background. Your chemistry degree is a BA. The institution that sold you your degree no longer sells that degree. You’ve never had a course in thermodynamics.
And, you work as a lab tech, washing beakers, about 2 hours a day.
Glad to help.
We don’t agree on much g*e*r*a*n, Norman might be the most brilliant layperson we have here.
Has any of our PhDs ever showed him wrong?
Sleazy, you are really getting desperate.
What’s next? Long rambling tirades like your “brilliant layperson”, yelping like a rabid chihuahua?
How many of your “holy” PhDs spoke out against that? How many jumped in to debunk some of the rampant pseudoscience here? There’s one that claims the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000 K.
Some of your “holy men” are really just clowns?
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n The DORK needs to respond to my posts again. Not sure why you feel compelled to regurgitate your horrible physics over and over. NO ONE is interested in your phony crap anymore g*e*r*a*n. Your physics is not real. You need professional help far beyond what I could hope to offer. You are severely delusional. It is not a funny thing or a game. You have no sanity. You make up stuff all the time. You think you are some type of brilliant genius and all the great scientific minds for centuries plus millions of experiments are all wrong. Your delusion is really deep and sad. I thought insulting you would help wake you up. You are gone, you need help with reality. I think you should seek help and quit posting for a period of time.
I can’t fix your broken mind. No here can.
Your make believe fantasy physics that you can’t support with valid science is won’t help you reach sanity. You might think you are in control but you really do not understand how far gone you are and how really bad your physics is.
g*e*r*a*n
I am wondering who you are trying to impress here with your make believe reality. Gordon Robertson makes up a lot of fantasy physics. Is it him you are trying to impress? What drives you to have to respond to posts that are not for you. I intentionally ignore responding to your posts. Your form of insanity does not permit logical or reasonable discussion to occur. I do read your insane unscientific posts occasionally but you rarely even add any science to your comments. Most are just derogatory insults of other posters.
Your physics is awful. People point out the logical flaws in your thoughts and you still can’t grasp that your are insane. Someone pointed out how ridiculous and flawed your reasoning was but you really had no intelligent comeback besides a childish insult. It was over the plate experiment. You think separating a non heated plate from a heated one will keep both at the same temperature. The poster suggested you hold you hand on a hot burner and see if it gets hotter than if a few feet above. You really were not able to get out of this conundrum you made for yourself so you just insulted them and hoped no one would see how scatter-brained you are.
Sorry, but please quit responding to my posts. You are a delusional nut-job and you have nothing of value to offer me. I have already rejected your make believe opinions. They are of no interest to me. If you would support your ideas or do some valid experiments I will listen to you. You will not do this so just pester someone else that thinks you know something (like Mike Flynn or Gordon Robertson, neither of these two understand any physics and neither is interested in learning). I am not impressed with your nonsense and find it annoying and time wasting to even read any of your posts.
N: You think separating a non heated plate from a heated one will keep both at the same temperature. The poster suggested you hold you hand on a hot burner and see if it gets hotter than if a few feet above. You really were not able to get out of this conundrum you made for yourself so you just insulted them and hoped no one would see how scatter-brained you are.
J: Not really the full story though, is it, Norman? All agree that when pressed together the plates will be the same temperature, 244 K. The difference is that one group believes the plates will stay the same temperature if you then separate the plates in a vacuum, and the other group believes the blue plate will magically get warmer at the expense of the green plate getting cooler, when separated in a vacuum. Of the two groups, the latter seem sillier to me.
Big differences between the hot burner/hand scenario and the plates:
Neither plate is hot. Both are sub-zero at best.
The two plates are identical plates. Not a burner and a hand (two completely different things).
There is convection operating in the burner/hand scenario, not with the plates.
That should be enough for any sane person to understand why the burner/hand analogy is a false one.
Norm, I can understand your frustration. With no background in science, you believed you could just con you way around various blogs, peddling pseudoscience. But, people very quickly caught on to how shallow you are. Your con game has failed, so you struggle along with your constant barrage of ineffective insults, and rambling whining.
Your confusion about physics is hilarious. But your endless pounding on the keyboard is the real indicator. More often than not, you even contradict yourself in the same comment!
It’s fun to watch.
More, please.
g*e*r*a*n
You remain insane and unreachable it seems. I wish rather than understanding my frustration you would do more to understand actual science and not your made up version.
I have a degree in Chemistry regardless of your delusions about it. Your made up version of reality does not really matter to me. Nor your false opinions.
I know much more science than you are able to grasp. I am wasting time posting to you. You are insane and delusional and will not reply in a rational manner. You are not able to do this.
You have not caught any false or misleading science from me. All my posts are based upon valid real science (the stuff you reject like the Moon’s rotation on its axis and colder objects can make powered objects warmer depending upon the colder object’s temperature).
No you are wrong and deluded. It is wasteful to attempt reason you a dork. You are not able to use logic and reason in any of your posts.
Most people who visit regularly know you are wrong and deluded. You post also as J Halp-less I see. You will convince only the people who are scientifically ignorant. Have fun.
Con-man claims: “I have a degree in Chemistry. ..”
Con-man, you always leave out the relevant facts. Your degree is a BA, and it is from an institution that no longer sells one. And, you’ve never had courses in heat transfer or thermodynamics, or quantum physics. IOW, you don’t know squat about how to deal with the plates, or Earth’s energy budget.
And, your head is so worm-infested, you can’t even recognize that the toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Now, more maniacal pounding on your keyboard, please.
It’s fun to watch.
N: Most people who visit regularly know you are wrong and deluded. You post also as J Halp-less I see.
J: Talk about wrong and deluded!
g*e*r*a*n
There is a large difference between us. First I do have a college degree.
I also can read and understand textbooks. This is a skill you don’t have. You have ADD and cannot read more than a few words at a time.
I totally am correct in my physics. You have done nothing in the least to demonstrate that you possess even a little understanding of any actual science.
I have linked you to valid physics many times. You are not able to understand the correct material.
My problem with you is not your total lack of any science knowledge and your desire to make up what you don’t know. It is that you have no rational or logical thought process. A lack of knowledge is not a problem. You can read textbooks and learn the Truth (hint Joseph Postma is a true Con-Man and has totally fooled you, maybe read an actual textbook on heat transfer instead of blindly believing Postma) but when you lack rational and logical thought process you are in a hopeless state. You can’t learn because you can’t process the information. Sorry I can’t help you with your issues.
J Halp-less
If you are not g*e*r*a*n posting under a different name, but like him (or her) you are not helping by enabling their deluded thought process. If you really did like g*e*r*a*n and were a friend you would better help them by not supporting their illogical and irrational made up physics.
You are also demonstrating illogical thoughts about the plates and it is really easy to think through.
If two plates, in a vacuum, are touching. Conduction is the primary heat transfer. When you move them away conduction is no longer taking place. Now only radiant energy is reaching the green plate. By moving the green plate and making space you have also doubled the radiating surface area. When in contact with the blue plate only one side of the green plate radiates energy away. When you move it away both faces are radiating equal amounts of energy away. You have doubled the surface area of the green plate radiating surface so it will drop in temperature until it reaches a new stable equilibrium with the amount of radiant energy it is receiving. That you do not understand this would indicate you should stop posting and read textbooks on heat transfer to understand it and then you can post valid useful information.
G*e*r*a*n and you do nothing to help resolve the issue of Climate Change or impact from it with your horrible made up physics. You just waste time. Learn real physics and your posts will have actual merit and meaning and you can contribute positively. Currently both of you are just wasting time and confusing the few ignorant posters who do not know better. Go and learn, it will help you and empower you. Like I told g*e*r*a*n. Don’t get your physics from Joseph Postma, he is a charlatan, a true Con-man that is deluding people like you that do not have any science background and are susceptible to made up physics if it is presented in an authoritive fashion as Postma posts (even though he is wrong and does not know what he is talking about).
Blah blah blah, Norman. You do go on. I have heard every argument about the plates under the sun, and still:
The difference is that one group believes the plates will stay the same temperature if you then separate the plates in a vacuum, and the other group believes the blue plate will magically get warmer at the expense of the green plate getting cooler, when separated in a vacuum. Of the two groups, the latter seem sillier to me.
That is still my opinion. And yes, it is *my* opinion. Im not g*e*r*a*n.
Con-man, more rambling nonsense, with nothing new. Your “trademark”!
If you ever get around to making a point, it’s either redundant, or inaccurate. For example, you keep claiming that I “make up” physics. Yet, you can’t give me one example of where I am wrong about the physics. Your claims are just your “worms” talking.
Hilarious.
Actually con-man, I am J, and J is me. Except on even days, then J is me, and I am J. Then, every other week, we reverse. Except on the second and fourth weeks of a month, then we reverse, except if there is a full Moon. And often, we reverse the system.
Hope that helps.
Relax g*e*r*a*n, nobody has claimed the “Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000 K.”
sleazy, do you ever get anything right?
g*e*r*a*n
I have actually given you more than one place where your physics is not only made up but clearly wrong. One is you think IR energy from a cold object will not be absorbed by a hot object. Total fantasy and goes against established physics. That is one. Another, your claim is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that increasing the temperature of cold surroundings will not increase the temperature of a hot powered item. False and delusional. Empirical evidence and all science claims you are wrong. You just make up this stuff. That is a couple of clear examples of your made up physics. You also don’t believe the Moon rotates on its axis (because you don’t have the slightest understanding of the term tidal locking). This is false and you have been shown your error with valid science several times. You reject empirical evidence and established science and make up your own deluded version of reality that only the ignorant will accept.
J Halp-less
YOU: “The difference is that one group believes the plates will stay the same temperature if you then separate the plates in a vacuum, and the other group believes the blue plate will magically get warmer at the expense of the green plate getting cooler, when separated in a vacuum. Of the two groups, the latter seem sillier to me.”
It is not a belief, it is empirical reality that you do not accept. Since you think real science is silly I guess you are in the same delusional boat as your friend g*e*r*a*n
I explained exactly why the green plate will cool when separated from the blue powered plate. The radiant surface area doubles. That you can’t logically understand this indicates the only help one can get for you is to have you read textbooks on heat transfer and correct your logical flaws. If not you can continue on a delusional dream reality hopelessly devoid of any sense of reality. You think reality is silly. Sad for you.
I am not sure how you can get so deluded. I can only think Joseph Postma has destroyed what possible thinking you have.
Do you also have ADD like g*e*r*a*n who can’t follow ideas if more than 10 words long? If so you will not be able to read textbooks to correct the huge flaws in you understanding of physics. No one can help you but yourself.
Norman, you are amusingly aggressive as always.
J Halp-less
I am sorry I amuse you. However you still have zero explanation of why you falsely believe an unheated green plate will not cool when you double its radiating surface. I can’t even come up with what type of logic you use to determine your view. Can you at least help with more than a one sentence response. Explain why you think increasing a radiating surface will not cause greater heat loss and cooling? How do you logically conclude that your view is the correct one and the one based on actual physics and logic is silly? I am hoping you may respond with some valid ideas and reasons. I doubt you will though but I am not beyond hoping for it.
Norman
I think you’re missing something here (don’t worry, I’m not siding with the nitwits): In real life, I believe the two plate’s, when pressed together, are exchanging energy via conduction. When separated they are obviously exchanging energy via radiation.
What is the effect on the temperature of each? That’s a brain teaser I can’t answer, i.e. …..what method would transfer heat at a faster rate, conduction or radiation? Gets weird because the radiation is back and forth between the two objects.
In other words:
A) with the two plates pressed together, one side of the green plate radiates towards “space”, the other side conducts energy back towards the blue.
B) with the two plates separated, one side of the green plate still radiates towards space, but the other side now radiates, rather than conducts, back to the blue.
Please don’t hesitate to correct me if you think I’m wrong!
Norman, all you are doing is repeating yourself. As I said, its not like I hadnt heard all this before anyway. My opinion is that the latter group is the silliest. You are part of that group. Your endless repetition does little to help…but by all means carry on if it makes you feel better.
J
I replied to you upthread where you were arguing with Nate, but I followed you down here.
First, are you talking about Eli’s imaginary thought experiment or Swanson’s real one? Makes a huge difference if discussing conduction.
“The difference is that one group believes the plates will stay the same temperature if you then separate the plates in a vacuum, and the other group believes the blue plate will magically get warmer at the expense of the green plate getting cooler, when separated in a vacuum.”
In real life if the two plate’s are pressed together, the “sunny side” will have to be warmer, same as if there was only one plate. Otherwise no heat flow from one side to the other, ……right?
In Eli’s thought experiment, the PREMISE was that both sides of the plate are the same temperature. This was to simplify calculations and not to be taken literally.
Anyway, who said the blue plate would get warmer if separated in Swanson’s real life experiment?
Okay con-man, let me see if I can “un-con” your con.
Con #1: “One is you think IR energy from a cold object will not be absorbed by a hot object. Total fantasy and goes against established physics.”
What you can’t understand is that a cold object can NOT “increase the temperature” of a hotter object. In radiative physics, this is all worked out by the photons. You’re still trying to bake a turkey with ice.
Con #2: “Another, your claim is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that increasing the temperature of cold surroundings will not increase the temperature of a hot powered item.”
What you can’t understand is that “increasing the temperature of the cold surroundings” is adding energy to the system. That is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”. You just don’t understand thermodynamics, or 2LoT.
Con #3: “You also dont believe the Moon rotates on its axis”
The Moon can NOT “rotate on its axis” precisely because of the tidal locking. It is NOT free to “rotate on its axis”. You just can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. And even if you did understand, you would never be able to stand against “institutionalized science”. In your false religion, that would be extreme heresy.
Sorry Snape, Im afraid you are just going to have to post in the correct sequence (not just wherever the hell you feel like) if you want to continue to debate.
But once you do finally start posting properly, rather than manipulating the discussion to your advantage through deliberate placement of your comments out of chronological order, first up:
S: Anyway, who said the blue plate would get warmer if separated in Swansons real life experiment?
If you now want to change the subject, well, the answer to your question would be PhilJ, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-295616
And Swanson did not disagree in his responses. However, in this thread we have been mostly discussing either Bates hand/burner analogy or the green plate effect. Feel free to keep on topic, or go and make your points on the thread linked to. I did notice the nitwit comment, so thanks for that.
J
I need to take a rain check regarding PhilJ’s comment. Seems nonsensical. Even in a perfect vacuum, I don’t think the blue plate would warm by separating it from the green.
I guess I’m confused about where to properly post my comments. Maybe you could help?
Am I allowed to change my mind?
Now I think the blue plate probably would get warmer when the two are separated. I should have taken a rain check and left it at that.
J Halp-less, “snake” is a 12-year-old. He has not learned how to place his comments. He just sees a “reply” button, and clicks on it. In addition, he has no knowledge of the relevant science. I seldom take much notice, unless he is really funny.
But upthread, he was asking the con-man about heat transfer. (Does it get any funnier? Asking the physics-illiterate about physics!)
snake: “A) with the two plates pressed together, one side of the green plate radiates towards space, the other side conducts energy back towards the blue.”
They are so obsessed with “cold” warming “hot”, they believe the colder plate can “back-conduct”!!
The clowns continue to entertain us.
Further up, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-296568
Snape spelled out his back-conduction hypothesis even more directly. I leave some comments to speak for themselves! Most stop short when it comes to that point (back-conduction) which is why it is generally agreed between both camps that the plates when pushed together equilibrate to 244 K. Its nice to see someone actually take the back-radiation idea fully to its logically absurd conclusion. Why not? If back-radiation can make the blue plate warmer when separated from the green, its at least consistent to say that back-conduction would keep the blue plate warmer than the green when plates are pressed together!
S; guess Im confused about where to properly post my comments. Maybe you could help?
J: Sure. You could post them in chronological order like everyone else. Look at the times your comments post. They are out of sequence.
J
The mobil device I use (IPhone) shows the date posted but not the time.
As for “back – conduction”, same logic applies WRT second law as back radiation. I don’t know what you think is absurd about it. More energy is always conducted from a warmer to cooler object than the other way around. Therefore “cold” can never warm “hot” all by itself:
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-experimental-demonstration-that-cool-objects-can-make-warm-objects-warmer-still/
Snape, Im glad you fully go for your back-conduction idea. Good for you.
J, g*,
When you put on a shirt, a bit of warm air gets trapped next to your skin (convection is reduced).
First question) What do you think is cooler, the trapped air or your skin?
Second question) If you think the trapped air is cooler, then how does the cooler air make a “warmer body warmer still”?
Perhaps this will help you:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-clothing-keep-you-warm
Perhaps you and g* could answer such simple questions in your own words, rather than outsourcing?
More likely unable/unwilling, for obvious reasons……..
Your questions are answered in the link. Was there anything else?
From your outsourcing: “This layer of air warms up, which slows the rate of heat transfer from your body.”
This is where things get interesting, don’t you think?
How does this layer of air slow the rate of heat transfer? Our skin is not equipped with a thermometer to measure the temperature of the surrounding air, so how does it know to adjust the rate of heat it emits?
I’m curious to hear your own explanation, J, in your own words. Not something you’ve found on a google search.
Ill just quote the whole thing, in full. Its not very long, or difficult to understand:
Normally, if the surrounding air is cooler than your body, heat will flow from your body to the air. Without clothing, you will lose heat faster, because new “cool” air can always move in contact with your skin. Clothing keeps you warm by trapping a layer of air between your skin and the fabric. This layer of air warms up, which slows the rate of heat transfer from your body. So when you take off your clothing, the chilling effect you feel is that layer of trapped air dissipating and your body reacting to the cooler air surrounding you.
J: There you go. Was there anything else?
J
That was already covered: “When you put on a shirt, a bit of warm air gets trapped next to your skin (convection is reduced).”
The money question is how does skin, or any surface for that matter, know what temperature the surrounding air is?
Similarly, there must be some sort of mechanism by which heat is transferred to 20 C air at one rate, and to 19 C air at a different rate, right?
What is that mechanism and how does the surface differentiate between the two temperatures?
Should be easy peasy for you or g* to explain…….lol
Snape, your questions indicate you are very confused about insulation. Ive tried to help. Given that, your condescending attitude comes across as inappropriate, and a little odd.
But…youre welcome, anyway.
Now, was there something on topic you wished to contribute, or are we sticking with your insulation diversion, for some reason? Are you going to make a point any time soon, or…?
This is exactly where I expected you to cut and run. You didn’t disappoint!
I’ll get back with my “contribution” in a few.
Cut and run? What on Earth are you talking about?
“Similarly, there must be some sort of mechanism by which heat is transferred to 20 C air at one rate, and to 19 C air at a different rate, right?
What is that mechanism and how does the surface differentiate between the two temperatures?”
Care to give it a shot, J, or is it time to cut and run?
I really dont know how to help further. Maybe try:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
Alternatively, if you have a point, make it.
I’m not asking for your help, J, I’m calling your bluff. Of course you know that, don’t you?
You’ve had to google search answers to these most basic questions…….. says it all.
Im just patiently waiting for you to make a point.
J
My questions have been rhetorical, intending to lead you to a logical conclusion. Why do you keep pretending otherwise…i.e. “does that help?” Very maddening! Oh well.
Imagine a plate 10″ thick. To the left of the plate it’s sunny and warm, to the right it’s very cold. Let’s say the warm side conducts energy to the right at a rate of 100 watts/m2. Let’s say the right side, being colder, conducts energy to the left at only 20 watts/m2.
That means the net transfer of energy, the HEAT FLOW, is 80 watts/m2 from warm to cool. Clausius is Happy.
Now pretend the atmosphere to the right of the plate warms up a little (like putting on a shirt), so that 40 watts/m2 is conducted to the left instead of 20. Net flow of energy is now only 60 watts/m2, meaning rate of heat transfer has been reduced. This means the warm side is cooling at a slower rate and therefore gets warmer.
Has “cold warmed hot”?
In a matter of speaking, yes. But Clausius is still happy because the flow of heat (net transfer of energy) is still from warm to cool.
S: Has cold warmed hot?
J: No. If the atmosphere to the right of the plate is warmer, that means energy has been added to the system.
Exactly! That’s a basic premise of the 2LOT. When the “system” only involves two bodies, one hotter than the other, the cooler will warm and the warmer will cool until an equalibrium is reached.
That’s not necessarily the case when an EXTERNAL HEAT SOURCE is adding energy to the system.
What IS always true, is that the passage of heat, as defined as the net transfer of energy, is always from hot to cold.
What happens in Eli’s green plate experiment, is the green plate initially gets 200 w/m2, but because it starts icy cold, radiates energy away at a much slower rate……meaning energy is being accumulated. 1/2 of the energy it accumulates gets returned to the blue, making the blue plate warmer (it had previously received zero from space). Both plates heat up intil energy leaving the two plate system equals energy arriving from the sun.
What makes sense to me, and from all I’ve read, is this same scenario applies to conduction.
The green plate cant warm the blue plate (or result in it being at a higher temperature, or any other way you would like to describe it). That would be a violation of 2LoT.
How is it violated? There is an external heat source into the two plate system, meaning the system is not adiabatic, and the passage of heat is always from warm to cold.
You can’t just invent your own idiot rule and call it the 2LOT. Well, actually you can and do….which is why “nitwit” comes to mind.
OK, think what you like.
Great experiment! Have you submitted for perusal at Climate Sophistry inc.?
It must be very freeing, G*, to be no longer beholden to experiments, data, reality? You can really let your nuttiest ideas flow.
You would know, Nut.
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 03 +0.24 +0.39 +0.10 +0.06 -0.33 -0.33 +0.59
https://i0.wp.com/pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/ma6fydupdh3j.png
More of the same.
I am watching overall sea surface temperatures which seem to be in a lower range of mostly +.13c to +.28c in contrast to +.25c to +.37c this summer.
Wait and see.
Salvatore
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
Notice the blue on top (colder surface water, equatorial pacific). It’s been that way for about 9 months, which has influenced global sea surface average towards cooling.
Eventually the orange/red will move to the surface and global sea surface average will start to rise again. This oscillation has nothing to do with sunspots.
If you only look at surface temperature, you miss the bigger picture.
Oops. You will need to click on:
Animations/ T – depth anomalies – equatorial Pacific
No I think the overall sea surface trend is going to continue to be down.
What you ‘think’ has little to do with what actually happens.
The extent of ice in the Arctic 01/04/2018.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/kh3nb7cr2rw3.png
It’s interesting that NH went up so much, while SH dropped. It will probably even out in April.
Also, just noticed the 3 new columns.
Nice!
g*r…”Its interesting that NH went up so much, while SH dropped. It will probably even out in April”.
It would interest me more to see what part NOAA is playing here. It’s their data from their satellites and I’m sure they get the data before it’s handed over to UAH.
I’d like to see Roy confirm the process to see if UAH collects the data right from the sats or whether NOAA gets it first.
In a recently posted article here it was revealed that NOAA has ignored the extreme cold of last winter in the NH, smoothing it out to make it appear like a pleasant spring day. Here on the west coast of Canada, where it is normally mild by now, it still feels like mid-winter while walking at night.
I hear you.. In manitoba we’ve been 10-15 C colder than norms for about 3 weeks now… Waking up to -25 C in April is nuts.. Coldest start to a spring here that i can remember…
Phil….”I hear you.. In manitoba weve been 10-15 C colder than norms for about 3 weeks now Waking up to -25 C in April is nuts.. Coldest start to a spring here that i can remember”
I think something is afoot. Through the entire month of March, ren was reporting on the inordinate cold throughout northern North America and northern Europe. Even regions that were normally warm were getting snow.
I seriously think NOAA is getting the data straight off the satellite and messing with it.
Yes I agree.
Its like the 60s and 70s were here in the PNW. Actually it seems colder than I remember for March/April. That must mean its warmer right?
This whole thing is getting ridiculous. Just cyclical weather patterns. Who cares if we have warmed a half a deg C over the last 35 years. My plants don’t notice the difference. If they don’t care why should I worry. I still grow the same things I did 40 years ago in my area, I still cant grow the same things I couldn’t grow back then. Massive nothing burger.
Thanks for the update.
A tiny request:
Would it be possible to get the 95% confidence intervals for the linear trend with each monthly update?
Mr Spencer doesn’t believe in confidence intervals.
des…”Mr Spencer doesnt believe in confidence intervals”.
Why would he need them, the data is real? Confidence levels are only required with statistical analysis where you really don’t know if your synthesized data is correct.
UAH supplies error margins, which is the protocol for real data. The sat data comes from microwave radiation from oxygen molecules, it is totally real. NOAA, on the other hand, have slashed over 75% of it’s real data and applied less than 25% to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized statistically to produce a bogus temperature series.
That requires a confidence level and wouldn’t you know that NOAA and GISS fudge the CLs as well. Between them they have offered CLs as low as 48% and 38%, something only a shyster would do, like a used car salesman. The car salesman is selling old cars, NOAA and GISS are selling political bs about catastrophic global warming.
Why would he need them, the data is real?
Any linear trend is an estimate. The trend is not determinate, whether the data is actual or synthetic. Including the uncertainty range is standard.
Thanks Barry.
Gordon: If you just have two data points separated by ten years you also have a trend, however it would say much at all.
The beauty with the UAH dataset is that is so long, spanning several decades with high temporal resolution. It is very interesting how certain we can be on the underlying trend in the data.
hugo…”The beauty with the UAH dataset is that is so long, spanning several decades with high temporal resolution. It is very interesting how certain we can be on the underlying trend in the data”.
As I have pointed out here many times, there’s a big difference between a number crunched trend and the actuality of the temperature series. The official trend for UAH over the range of its data series is around 0.12C/decade. However, half that trend is rewarming from cooling and most of the rest is flat.
I am sure UAH must comply with scientific protocol when stating a trend and they do. However, in the 33 year report they address the data series and what it means. They point out what I have just mentioned.
Current trend is 0.13C/decade.
The uncertainty range given in the v6 update paper was +/ 0.04 C/decade. But that was some time ago, and the uncertainty estimate will have narrowed since then.
All Hugo is asking for is the uncertainty range to 95% confidence limits.
I’m inclined to think this is a good idea, because it might make some ignoramuses start noticing how it’s applied, and maybe finally work out what it is. The benefits of understanding this function has numerous useful corollaries.
barry…”All Hugo is asking for is the uncertainty range to 95% confidence limits”.
Error margins are not given in confidence levels for real measurement. You are hopefully not guessing.
If I make a measurement with a ruler graded in millimetres I would give a standard error of +/- 0.02mm. I would not take 95% of a millimetre.
You are not guessing at the reading, something that would require a confidence level. You are stating the reading directly and including how much it might be out either way. Of course, you have to learn about parallax and how it affects readings.
Why would Hugo ask for a 95% confidence level on a trend that means nothing? It’s a result of number crunching and does not address the real situation, which is addressed better in the UAH 33 year report. As it stands, the 0.13C trend is a very rough estimate of what has really happened.
As I have tried to explain to you, the UAH record would require at least four trend lines to be accurate. One from 1979 – circa 1996, to show the recovery from volcanic aerosol induced cooling, one from 1997 – 2015, to show the flat trend during that period, a positive trend due to the early 2016 EN warming, then a negative trend to show cooling since.
I don’t think that there is any chance whatsoever of getting you to understand trend/t (+/- uncertainty).
barry…”Any linear trend is an estimate. The trend is not determinate, whether the data is actual or synthetic. Including the uncertainty range is standard”.
We are not talking about trends here, we’re talking about real data measurements from satellite telemetry through March. They don’t require a confidence level, just an error margin.
With regard to trends, are you trying to tell me it makes no difference if one trend comes from real, unadjusted data and the other comes from seriously fudged data?
Are you trying to say it’s OK in science to a lower a confidence level to make one year appear to be warmer than another?
A short note on statistical inference.
Uncertainty of some statistics (in this case the decadal trend) stems from at least two sources – observational error and incomplete sampling of the underlying distribution.
Of course bad data makes all the difference. It is often meaningless to do inference on bad data (which people tend to do much more than we would like to).
But even in the absense of observational error, it still makes sense to provide a confidence interval.
Convergence of the statistic is assured by the law of large number (originally proved by the Bernoulli), and as more data is added to UAH the more certain we can be on the underlying trend.
It would be nice to see how compatible (or incompatible) the inferred trend of UAH is compared to RSS..
The 95% CI for trend is {0.11368, 0.14254} C/decad.
We are not talking about trends here
Yes we are. Hugo’s request:
“Would it be possible to get the 95% confidence intervals for the linear trend with each monthly update?”
Linear trends are not determinate, they are probabilistic, and it is standard practice to include uncertainty estimates when discussing them formally.
Are you trying to say its OK in science to a lower a confidence level to make one year appear to be warmer than another?
The confidence levels were not lowered. You simply do not understand what the percentage figures refer to on the topic of 2014 being the (then) warmest year.
You’ve never understood it, which is why you moronically refer to the results as ‘confidence levels’. They are in fact probability estimates – based on a 95% confidence level.
The problem with confidence intervals is that they are based upon a model, and if the model is not applicable, then the confidence interval is just a pair of numbers.
Roy’s estimates are OLS trends. Requesting an uncertainty estimate is a reasonable request.
Unfortunately, Gordon doesn’t seem to understand what trends and uncertainty are. Perhaps you could help enlighten him on these basics before adding further complications (that might best be addressed to the gentleman providing the estimates – Dr Roy Spencer).
“Requesting an uncertainty estimate is a reasonable request.”
But, ultimately, a subjective measure, due to unknown autocorrelation. It could be relatively narrow, or significantly larger than the estimate itself. Nobody really knows.
barry…”The confidence levels [of NOAA] were not lowered”.
Please explain the 48% confidence level they used and why UAH had 2014 rated 4th, where it should be using a 90% confidence level.
There’s nothing worse than a self-proclaimed expert in statistics who lacks the basic understanding of what statistics is about.
A 48% confidence level means what it says, NOAA had only a 48% confidence that their proclamation of 2104 as the warmest year ever was correct.
You can plainly see on the UAH graph on this site that 2014 was not even close to being the warmest year ever. It was several tenths of a degree behind 1998 and 2010.
NOAA are a load of liars!!!
Hugo…”Uncertainty of some statistics (in this case the decadal trend) stems from at least two sources observational error and incomplete sampling of the underlying distribution”.
Will you get your head out of your calculator and try using the grey matter in there?
The trend offered by UAH is a number-crunched trend as required by scientific protocol. If you read the UAH 33 year report they explain what went on.
From 1979 – 1996 or so, there was a positive trend that represented rewarming from volcanic aerosols. Then suddenly, in early 1997, a major El Nino occurred that drove the global average into the positive anomaly range consistently for the first time over the range.
The EN dropped off rapidly and into the negative anomaly range, then a sudden jump, which I claim is unexplained, produced a consistent positive anomaly which remained flat on average for 15 years. That jump, to me, is related to the EN spike and has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming. It happened way too fast.
BTW…the same thing happened in 1977, when a 0.2C jump in the global average occurred. It was eventually tracked down to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Some scientists wanted to discard it as a mistake.
How can you draw a line through 18 years of a rewarming trend followed by 15 years of a flat trend, then complain about the accuracy of the number crunched trend line?
If you had a very uniform set of data that gradually increased over a range, you could draw a fairly accurate trend line, and using a technique like regression you could narrow down the error.
That’s not the case with the UAH data, there are several physical forces acting and in some cases without explanation. Furthermore, the data has switched from 18 years of data largely in the negative anomaly region to data in the positive region. NOAA explains such a condition as a switch from cooling to warming.
Your notion of observational errors comes from alarmist idiots who are trying to discredit the UAH data. All of the errors have been well documented and fall within the declared error margins.
Please explain the 48% confidence level they used
As stated – that is not a confidence level, it’s a probability estimate.
They arrived at 48% probability that 2014 was the then warmest year by a couple of methods, one of which was based on the standard 95% confidence level.
This is how you’d put it in a sentence.
“The probability that 2014 was the warmest year was 48%, based on the 95% confidence level.”
2014 had the highest probability of being the then warmest year. The year with the next highest probability of being the warmest year was 2010, at 18%.
All you need to understand is that confidence level and probability estimate are 2 different things.
Sadly, this seems to be beyond you, despite having had it explained in the past, and despite having the methods paper linked for you that detailed the methods whereby these results were obtained.
But, ultimately, a subjective measure, due to unknown autocorrelation. It could be relatively narrow, or significantly larger than the estimate itself. Nobody really knows.
The problem with having no uncertainty estimate, or waving them off as utterly unreliable as you are, is that you have dumb-asses believing that the central estimate is the one-true trend. This appears to be Gordon’s belief.
If you leavened your over-complication with an explanation for Gordon’s sake that the central trend estimate is probabilistic rather than determinate, your contribution to this particular sub-thread would suddenly become useful.
As it is you’re only muddying the waters. Gordon can read your stuff and happily assume that the UAH *real* data requires no uncertainty estimate for the trend, because the central estimate is the really real trend.
Enabling more months of hogwash from him.
Help us out, skipper.
barry…”They arrived at 48% probability that 2014 was the then warmest year by a couple of methods, one of which was based on the standard 95% confidence level”.
I can see you have developed several face saving techniques to worm out from under proof that you are wrong. How can you state with a 95% confidence that something is true then apply a 48% probability that your 95% confidence is ‘likely’ true.
You should apply for a job at NOAA, they would likely snap you up as a public relations man.
barry…”Youve never understood it, which is why you moronically refer to the results as confidence levels. They are in fact probability estimates based on a 95% confidence level”.
And you have the nerve to call me a moron. A 95% CL is akin to claiming with such a high degree of confidence that something is essentially true. Why would you apply a probability to that value unless you were a complete moron?
It’s obvious what NOAA was up to. 2014 at a 90% CL using UAH data was in 4th place, several tenths of a degree C behind 1998 and 2010. They wanted to move it into first place, so they dropped the confidence level.
Nit-picking between a confidence level and a probability is ingenuous. They explained how the probability is derived (2nd link below) based on a scale of confidence levels. This is nothing more than NOAA/GISS obfuscation and you fell for it. A confidence level is a probability, the likelihood that something is true.
NOAA declared 2014 as the warmest year ever since the temperature record began. THAT IS AN UTTER LIE.
In the link below, they refer to 2014 as the warmest year on record, being 0.69C warmer than 20th century average. There is a table below in which they claim the probability is only 48% for NOAA and 38% for NASA GISS.
NOTE: remove the – between ncd and c in the url
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
Either way they are lying and/or obfuscating. That ‘warmest year on record’ bs hit all the major media outlets, lending to the bs that we are headed for catastrophic warming.
2014 was not even close to a record. It was several tenths of a degree behind 1998 and 2010 and within 0.01C of several other years.
In this paper from WUWT, the damning scientific misconduct of NOAA is revealed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/17/on-the-biases-caused-by-omissions-in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/
The probability is explained and it is not a probability, it’s a confidence level. The probabilities are rated as confidence levels.
Honestly Barry, Gordon tends to be rather prolix to no particular advantage – TLDR. I’ve kind of given up on him and the other G guy. It is futile.
“If you leavened your over-complication with an explanation for Gordons sake that the central trend estimate is probabilistic rather than determinate, your contribution to this particular sub-thread would suddenly become useful.”
Yes, the data are stochastic, and yes, if these data reflected a process with a linear progression and measurements corrupted by zero mean noise with known distribution and spectral density, then confidence intervals could be computed with would give the probability of the estimation error being within a particular bounded interval.
That’s as far as I’ll go. Anything beyond it requires assumptions that may or may not be justifiable. E.g., the distribution can be reasonably assumed Gaussian via the Central Limit Theorem. But, everything else is frankly speculative.
Gordon, here is an illustration of probability distributions.
https://tinyurl.com/ycwunbya
It’s Berkeley data so the ranking is different, but still.
Can you see the problem when different years overlap?
Which is the warmest here, 2005, 2010 or 2014?
Statistics can give you the probability for each one.
These are basically worthless, Svante. You see, the question is not “what is the temperature anomaly?” I mean, it is, but that is an ill-defined concept.
Anomaly with respect to what? They subtract out a nominal yearly component, but what we’re really interested in is the anomaly with respect to a world without rising CO2. And, we have no hard data that would allow us to compute that. For all we know, this is merely a centuries long natural cycle, and we would have to subtract that out, too, before we could begin to formulate an objective measure.
This is what I mean by “unknown autocorrelation”. We don’t know what the world should be doing, so we can’t compute statistics on what is truly anomalous.
In fact, the current trend started back in the 1800’s, well before the mushrooming of industrial CO2 emissions in the Post-WWII era. Subtract that out, and there is very little left but a roughly ~60 year cycle. Subtract that cycle out, and there is hardly anything left at all.
It’s madness. It’s getting spooked by monsters under the bed. The world is being run by scientifically illiterate children.
but what were really interested in is the anomaly with respect to a world without rising CO2.
The anomalies here are just the relative change year to year (or month to month) in global temperature from a common baseline.
What you’re talking about is attribution. Again, you’re over-complicating, while not responding to the points being made.
damning scientific misconduct of NOAA is revealed…
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
The PDF you’ve linked is the PowerPoint slideshow shown at the press conference including the probability estimates of the warmest years. The uncertainty estimates were also explained at the media presentation.
Why is it NASA/NOAA’s fault that the media did not include that detail?
Here – again – is the methods paper for figuring uncertainty.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057999
The confidence interval for annual anomalies is at the 95% level.
From this, the probability estimates are derived in one of the 2 methods used for determining uncertainty in rankings.
The confidence level refers to the statistical margin of error for anomalies – at the 95% CI for global temp anomalies. The probability estimate is the likelihood of an anomaly having a certain rank (ie, warmest) compared to other anomalies, factoring their margin of error – at the 95% CI.
The probability estimate is not the CI. For crying out loud. Stop moronically conflating the 2.
You have an explanation (again) and a paper to read (again). Either inform yourself or continue to dwell in ignorance. I’m done helping you on this.
To be clear, the paper I just linked above is how they get the 48% figure – the probability estimate for the annual temp rankings. It describes the methods. Read it. Learn something.
Thanks barry, the graph shows temp probabilities Bart, not the cause.
“What youre talking about is attribution.”
Attribution is the whole ball of wax. If it’s not attributable to humans, then it’s just an academic exercise.
“…the graph shows temp probabilities Bart, not the cause.”
Based upon a myriad of assumptions. It’s basically mathturbation.
If you have samples you can analyse it statistically, for example to calculate the probability that 2014 was the warmest year in the instrumental temperature record.
Yes you can make assumptions, and you can test those assumptions.
Bart “These are basically worthless” “but what were really interested in is the anomaly with respect to a world without rising CO2.”
He is saying what we really need is something unobtainable, so the measurements we are doing are therefore worthless??
Bart has a very negative attitude towards measurement, which I dont understand.
Everyone is stating how the anomaly is calculated. Its a measurement.
Statistics can be done, SHOULD be done, without knowing anything about the causes.
We’re in the midst of a La Nina an temperatures are still above 0.2. It’s warm that’s for sure.
Your word of the day is ‘Hysteresis’. Come back when you understand its importance.
It is a simple lag, NOT hysteresis. I’m guessing you believe ‘hysteresis’ means ‘time lag’.
More like “Hysteria” !!
The recovery from the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years, and people want to stop that NATURAL recovery.
Bizarre madness. !!
Sorry … when did the globe have its “coldest period in the last 10000 years”? And did it affect Sydney … because we are waiting for the month that will break our run of 75 consecutive above average months.
You’re part of generation Me aren’t you? Believe it or not, time existed before you were born. The period that Andy is referencing is the Little Ice age, probably the coldest period on Earth for at least the last 8,200 years.
Your ilk likes to magnify a short time period and lend credence to any short term trends. That’s why you should understand hysteresis which you clearly do not.
TROPIC – 0.06.
Sorry.
TROPIC : 0.06.
Yea it would be an inaccurate mistake to cite temperature during the LaNina as representing average temp. However, left media cite and political scientists like Mike M. cite temperature during much more pronounced El Nino warm phases all the time. Its a double edged sword. As long as u see it both ways I can agree the globe is most likely warmer than .24 in a neutral ENSO state.
Aaron…”Yea it would be an inaccurate mistake to cite temperature during the LaNina as representing average temp”.
I get your point but NOAA doesn’t. Either that or they are plain out lying. NOAA has ignored the extreme warming of the past winter in North America, which set records for cold. They have smoothed the cooling to show a regular business as usual winter.
I agree. They produced so many graphics during the 2016 El Nino and do not update. Its not fake news it is biased news.
Arctic @ -0.33? Am I reading that correctly?
Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2018.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
AO index falls.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
Yes … AND?
Looks a bit odd. Not sure I trust it.
But then again, it does not represent a surface temperature – so could be correct.
The Arctic was showing a cold anomaly in the DMI surface data for much of March. See for instance Nick Stokes active plot here:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/NCEP/Arctic/window.html
It should also be noted that this is using a somewhat different baseline period than UAH and the DMI link “ren” gave a few posts up.
I expect global temperatures to decline in addition to the overall sea surface temperatures.
Got to see how overall global cloud cover, snow cover and major volcanic activity unfold as we move forward.
On the flip side CO2 is not warming the globe.
Projection or prediction?
Just kidding.
We are just coming on a half century of measurements with +0.25 warming. I would prefer more but that’s that.
Huh – only +0.25 warming?
The trend is +0.13 deg per decade. That means +0.65 deg per half a century.
She thinks the UAH data starts at zero in 1979, instead of being zeroed at the 1981-2010 average. That’s the sort of lack of understanding we’re dealing with.
Or is it from an early peak to the latest troff?
She also believes 38.3 years is approximately 50.
Typo – 39.3
D,
Gavin Schmidt believes 38 is greater than 50. Probably claims to be a respected climate scientist as well.
Doesn’t understand probabilities. Good thing he doesn’t claim to be a mathematician!
What is your expert opinion of Gavin Schmidt?
Cheers.
G* believes 244 K is a higher temperature than
244 K
“The 200 W/m^2, emitted from the green plate to the left is reflected by the higher temperature blue plate. The net energy flow is 200 W/m^2, from blue to green.”
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
M – you are off topic again.
And no, I do not do requests.
[For the record, I am not the one taking the subject away from the topic. I am only responding to the incorrect rantings of those taking us off-topic.]
snake, you are confused that heat energy is moving between the plates, which are nearly at the same temperature. It is a “thought experiment”. Everything is “perfect”. There are NO losses. In reality, the green plate would never be able to exactly reach the blue plate temperature.
But, you are also confused by the fact that the plate temperatures are not causing the heat energy flow. The heat energy flow is causing the plate temperatures. Stop the “sun”, and the plate temperatures equalize, and there is NO net heat energy flow between them.
Physics–learn it, love it, live it.
For the record, I do NOT think the two plate’s are the same temperature. It would take an IDIOT to believe such nonsense…….lol!
(I’m worried the “all caps” thing is contagious)
g:
“It is a thought experiment.
You should try experimenting with a few thoughts now and then.
Better than being mindless.
drano, you would certainly know about “mindless”.
“drano, you would certainly know about mindless.”
Brilliant reply (not).
How is it every thread turns into an effing discussion about plates? The very first comment this month was about this, as though they have been stewing over it for weeks. How long has this nonsense been going on now?
profp…”Huh only +0.25 warming?
The trend is +0.13 deg per decade. That means +0.65 deg per half a century”.
It would be nice if you and Des made an effort to learn basic statistics and the pitfalls thereof. The first thing we learned in our advanced probability and statistics course was to be suspicious of averages.
Take your complaints to Roy Spencer. He is the one quoting the long-term average trend.
“The first thing we learned in our advanced probability and statistics course was to be suspicious”
That would partly explain your paranoia.
Would you link us to your professor’s lecture notes that say “be suspicious of averages”.
Regarding averages:
The following is from the late meteorologist Robin Stirling in his book ‘The Weather of Britain’, on p282 paragraph 2:
“January 1982’s mean was +2.3 Celsius over central England, which shows how statistics can hide information, as there were several nights in succession with night readings below -20 Celsius.”
dr no…”Take your complaints to Roy Spencer. He is the one quoting the long-term average trend”.
Roy is a scientist and constrained by certain protocol. When stating a required trend it must follow that protocol. I’d like to discuss it with him off the record, or with John Christy, who sees through the numbers to the reality.
des…”Would you link us to your professors lecture notes that say be suspicious of averages”.
Anyone who plugs numbers mindlessly into a calculator or algorithm, and proceeds blindly on that basis is an idiot.
I don’t think Roy is an idiot nor is John Christy of UAH. Neither has blindly regarded the announced trend as evidence of anthropogenic warming, although both have admitted there could be some related AGW warming.
You don’t need a quote from my prof, you need to use your head. You should know that certain averages give a fairly accurate representation of data and others give a completely misleading interpretation.
We were taught to be aware of the context from which the data was acquired and to study any derived averages on that basis. Did they make sense???
You need to find a statistical method that works with your data.
The 0.13C/decade trend number-crunched from data makes no sense if the interpretation is regarded as proof of anthropogenic warming. The contexts from which the data was acquired show proof of volcanic aerosols and ENSO activity being the over-riding drivers of the trend.
Even at that, the 18 year flat trend from 1998 – 2015 makes a lie of the overall 0.13C/decade trend. There was no such trend from 1998 – 2015, therefore the trend is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. It is a mathematical trend only garnered from a calculator.
Even at that, the 18 year flat trend from 1998 2015 makes a lie of the overall 0.13C/decade trend. There was no such trend from 1998 2015, therefore the trend is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. It is a mathematical trend only garnered from a calculator.
One day you tell us that the trend is number-crunching meaninglessness. The next day (even the same day) you confidently assert the reality of a trend from the same dataset.
There is only one constant here – the trend is fake when it tells you a story you don’t like, and real when it tells you a story you do like.
Decadal UAH averages:
1980s: -0.14
1990s: 0.00
2000s: +0.10
2010s: +0.23
After removing the random noise, that is a remarkably consistent rise. And the average for the last 5 years (Apr 13 – Mar 18) is +0.29.
Good. We need the warmth.
des…”After removing the random noise, that is a remarkably consistent rise. And the average for the last 5 years (Apr 13 Mar 18) is +0.29″.
Even if your trend is correct, are you implying it is proof of anthropogenic warming? If so, can you extract the warming signal due to CO2 and prove your claim?
Trenberth threw up his hands circa 2007 and claimed it is a travesty that the proof cannot be extracted. He blamed it on the allegation that the anthropogenic signal is lost in the warming due to the ENSO signal. Then he got desperate and claimed the lost heat is in the oceans.
I have already supplied proof of what it could be, re-warming from the Little Ice Age. However, I have just finished reading a book on the Shackleton expedition to Antarctica and the expedition had a geologist along who was an expert on glaciation. He claimed all glaciers have been receding for a long time due to all the Ice Ages.
Therefore glacial retreat is not a new phenomenon and not related only to the LIA. They certainly did expand markedly during the LIA but they have been retreating overall for eons.
That also implies the oceans have been rising steadily for eons.
Shackleton’s geologist no less.
Salvatore, if this happens it would likely start with a neutral ENSO phase (after La Nina ends in ocean and 6mo lag in U troposphere global temp exits the system) less than 0.2 to 0.3 deg C.
In other words I will accept cooling, if I see global temp under 0.2 C, 6 months after la Nina ends in pacific.
REGULARLY under 0.2
You can always get a one-off cold (or hot) month.
Very true. So should say at least a 5 month running average.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/01/uh-oh-analysis-of-ghcn-climate-stations-shows-there-is-no-statistically-significant-warming-or-cooling/
I agree.
I agree with the comments by Nick Stokes.
Watch this and tell me global warming is still going to kill us all. Feel free to leave a comment:
https://youtu.be/JZZPkRaRTFc
“Hidden underwater melt-off in the Antarctic is doubling every 20 years and could soon overtake Greenland to become the biggest source of sea-level rise, according to the first complete underwater map of the worlds largest body of ice.
Warming waters have caused the base of ice near the ocean floor around the south pole to shrink by 1,463 square kilometres an area the size of Greater London between 2010 and 2016, according to the new study published in Nature Geoscience.
The research by the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds suggests climate change is affecting the Antarctic more than previously believed and is likely to prompt global projections of sea-level rise to be revised upward.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/02/underwater-melting-of-antarctic-ice-far-greater-than-thought-study-finds
You’ll get way more respect if you link to the original study and make your argument from there instead of a rag like the Guardian.
Mike o…”Youll get way more respect if you link to the original study and make your argument from there instead of a rag like the Guardian”.
Oh, has the Guardian been upgraded to a rag?
D,
Would you accept this sort of speculation if it really mattered?
“Suggests”, “previously believed”, “likely to prompt”, “projections”?
Climatological claptrap. Expensive but completely worthless nonsense. No wonder funding is drying up.
Cheers.
M and M
Shooting the messenger aren’t we?
Facts can be annoying.
Re your video. I think you should have stayed in bed.
Me? Really? Wow. Very scientific response. Explains a lot for sure
cc4r…”Me? Really? Wow. Very scientific response. Explains a lot for sure”
You are indeed lucky that dr no was having such a good day and felt obligated to expound his vast wealth of knowledge and wit.
His meaning is often subtle, you’ll have to meditate on what he meant by staying in bed.
Totally love this graph!! Thanks so much for contributing interesting educational continuously!
I tried to email Dr.Spencer but it looks like the email at the bottom of the website [email protected] does not work. I received an Mail Delivery Failed msg after I sent it. Could you please kindly share the active email to me please ? I would really appreciate it !
Thank you,
Yu Shi
“Yu Shi”? Doesn’t that mean ‘bathroom’?
Dear all,
The UAH anomaly for January and February is +0.26 deg C and +0.20 deg C respectively.
The anomaly for the same months provided by Remote Sensing Systems are +0.5470 deg C and 0.4849 deg C.
The diference between the two data sets is significant. Is is because the reference from which the anomaly is calculated is different between UAH and RSS?
Thanks,
Joo
It is because, even though they are using the same data, there is not enough information to convert that data into actual temperatures or temperature changes. So there is too much freedom for any analyst to make their own choices when interpreting the data. Which is why the satellite record cannot be taken as an accurate reflection of global temperatures.
des…”It is because, even though they are using the same data, there is not enough information to convert that data into actual temperatures or temperature changes”.
As opposed to thermometers in cages above the surface 5′ or more and spread out 1200 miles or more apart. That’s for the land surface, much of which is not covered. The oceans, accounting for 70% of the surface are barely covered at all.
On top of that, NOAA discards 70% of the thermometer data and re-manufactures it synthetically in a climate model.
Get real!!!
Hilarious are the workings of the conspiracy theorist’s mind.
Keep it up.
I think calling it “workings” is giving him too much credit.
Pot, meet Kettle.
As long as you believe there is humour in that I suppose …
UAH uses 1981-2010 as baseline. RSS uses 1979-1998 I believe. Converting RSS to the same baseline as UAH gives 0.42 and 0.35 for those 2 months.
joo…”The diference between the two data sets is significant. Is is because the reference from which the anomaly is calculated is different between UAH and RSS?”
No…it’s because RSS are in bed with NOAA. They began life in an attempt to prove UAH wrong, and they failed. More recently they have been cozying up to NOAA and their temps have begun rising.
Proof please.
“Why can’t you see
What you’re doing to me
When you don’t believe a word I say?
We can’t go on together
With suspicious minds (suspicious minds)
And we can’t build our dreams
On suspicious minds”
Elvis Presley
Wrong again! Mark James gets the credit.
RSS uses climate models to make adjustments for diurnal drift. UAH uses empirical modeling based upon readings from instruments that are not experiencing major drift.
Details here.
So you learn your “science” from the non-scientists at WUWT.
Look at the author, dumbass.
Yes – says it all doesn’t it.
More than you know.
Des,
You failed to learn English comprehension from anywhere at all.
Maybe you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize for some branch of Science, or for anything at all.
Learn English. Learn physics. Or just continue being ignorant and stupid, if that suits you better.
Cheers.
MF: ‘I’m cranky and everyone is sooo stupid!’
Mike, we’re so ready for you to be done with your teens.
Mike, do you stomp your foot when you ‘submit comment’?
bart…”RSS uses climate models to make adjustments for diurnal drift”.
I have never trusted RSS. Their initial mandate was to disprove UAH and they could not. Now they are in bed with NOAA, the uber-fudgers of temperature data.
RSS has sold out.
I do not disagree.
You “do not disagree?” What weasel words. Why do you enable the likes of GR?
“Their initial mandate was to disprove UAH…”
1) Provide evidence of this.
2) What does ‘disprove’ even mean here? It’s just stupid rhetoric.
“…and they could not”
3) UAH corrected their methods in the mid-2000s based on the new work of RSS.
4) You post reams of BS.
No, sorry. RSS has made flaky “adjustments” that just happened to support their paymasters.
You mean NASA?
sleazy svante slinks in, next day, to slime.
(It’s fun to watch.)
Barry,
I was around when RSS got its start up. The words used by the Activists community was consistent with the words “Mandate to disprove UAH.” Articles and letters talked about how satellite measurements could not be in the hands of skeptics. I am not going to spend time dredging up those missives — sorry, my time is too valuable. So if you do not believe my memory, we will just let it pass.
Actually, UAH improved its modeling — and increased its estimate of warming — in the 1990s, before the influence of RSS.
There was a time when RSS and UAH seemed to have a collegial relationship. When RSS had a lower projection of warming, UAH helped it to understand why its projection should be higher. Yes, you read that right.
However, in the last several years, the relationship has deteriorated. And nothing has been helped by how the journals have treated the two. Something smells rotten when the latest RSS re-evaluation gets expressed endorsement by non-critical reviewers while UAH papers languished for lengthy periods for ill-defined reasons. By way, this paragraph was predicted before the fact; not just post-experience diagnosis.
Frost and snow in the north of the US.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/kbgmruw2g9eu.png
Sorry.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/x0lrud6l0lfw.png
What use do you believe these WEATHER reports provide to readers of this blog about CLIMATE?
Des, don’t be hard on the monkey. If he had a million years he may type something useful.
In response to ren’s comment “AO index falls”:
From 1950 to end Feb 2018:
Falls: 12561
Rises: 12306
No change: 28
So what point were you making?
D,
So why do you care? Are you really interested in the reasons for Ren’s comments, or just making puerile, stupid, and ignorant, attempts to be gratuitously offensive?
It seems fairly normal for foolish Warmists to attempt to censor anything they don’t like.
Are you a foolish Warmist, or just puerile, stupid, and ignorant?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
We are already in the solar minimum.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
Actual solar cycle minimum likely to be sometime between July 2018 and January 2020.
So ….. since you can’t go below zero sunspots, by your measure this minimum will not be lower than the last.
Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
So the sun got down just as low in past cycles, only later in the cycle. Did the world freeze back then?
D,
Learn to read. Look up the definition of minimum if you are confused about its meaning.
Also look up the meaning of solar minimum, and ask Ren whether he is using the same definition.
Firing off assertions as fact makes you stupid and ignorant, not to say arrogant.
Cheers.
D,
Did the world freeze before, or are you just posting a stupid, irrelevant and ignorant gotcha?
Cheers.
Des
What happens when very few models agree with the ensemble mean? Is that a problem discussed in statistics?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
For example, if 1/2 the projections tell you to veer left, the other half say veer right, but NONE tell you to keep moving straight…….which way should you go? Seems to me the ensemble mean, in such a situation, is worthless, (i.e. you should flip a coin and turn one way or the other).
Another example: 1/2 the models predict a hurricane will make landfall in north Florida. The other 1/2 predict landfall in south Florida.
The center of the cone is central Florida, but wouldn’t that be the least likely landfall, since none of the models predicted a landfall there?
S,
Not quite agreed – statistically, the answer would seem to be “Maybe, maybe not”.
Climatologically speaking, of course.
Cheers.
S,
Agreed.
Cheers.
S,
Agreed.
Cheers.
The biggest temperature anomalies during La Nina is in Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
The extent of ice in the Central Arctic is still growing.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00962/3a3jgvhhksag.png
In three days arctic air will attack the north-eastern US.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/cyy4s5czian4.png
https://www.iceagenow.info/noaa-manipulating-the-data-video/
NOAA is manipulating the data that is for sure that is why I completely ignore their data and will not even look at it.
THE ONLY RELIABLE HONEST SOURCES ARE DR. SPENCER’S DATA AND WEATHERBELL.
And yet … Weatherbell uses NOAA data. AND … last year you told Mr Spencer that his data was wrong.
I never said his data was wrong . I just questioned it.
Weatherbell uses the data but does not manipulate it.
You questioned it VERY strongly.
And Weatherbell most definitely manipulates it. We’ve been through this before – they use a combination of data and modelling. Please share the reference you are using to claim they do not manipulate it.
D,
So you agree he questioned it as he said. Twist away, laddie, twist away.
Learn how to comprehend English.
Cheers.
Des,
Learn to read. It might even be easier than erecting and demolishing strawmen.
Obviously, a stupid and ignorant person might prefer to practise leaping to conclusions.
How well do you think your attempts at gratuitous offense are going?
I suppose if you can’t find a testable GHE hypothesis, you might as well try to abuse anyone who points out this inconvenient fact!
I do not think you will make your fantasies real, but you never know, do you?
Keep it up. It’s good for a laugh, at least.
Cheers,
That video I just sent says it all and shows the fraud that is present. Then again they have a fraud of a theory so they might as well fraud the data.
NOAA /AGW THEORY is manipulative and false.
LOL
You’ve caught Gordon’s disease!
Sal,
That’s why they call it AGW.
“Anthropogenic Gullible Warmists”
Seriously … that is such a sad attempt. If you can’t come up with something clever, don’t even try.
Des,
Geez, Des, you are are obviously seriously stupid.
What do you intend to do if SGW doesn’t do as you say?
Will you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue? That might scare him – not!
If you are exceptionally important and powerful, you need to let people know. Otherwise, they might simply laugh at your silliness and impotence!
What do you think?
Cheers.
Sal,
are you still ok the NASA? That’s where the sea surface temps you look at comes from.
S,
If you are going to play the “gotcha” game, at least take a few lessons.
I can give you a few pointers, if you like.
Following your attempt to its logical conclusion will not lead to the conclusion you foolishly assume.
Are you trying to say that NASA data is accurate or not? See what I mean?
Probably not – stupid and ignorant people cannot see any further than the hands they wave so vigorously – if that far.
Keep trying.
Cheers.
Salvatore
Here is a different look at sub surface anomalies in the equatorial Pacific. The blue on top (cool ocean surface) is about to give way to warmer water.
When that happens, global SST average will start to move higher. Again, nothing to do with sunspots or AGW.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/assorted_plots/images/TAO_5Day_EQ_xz.gif
The “means” chart is not too helpful. The lower chart, “anomalies” is what I’m talking about.
S,
Do you base your predictions on casting runes or reading tea leaves?
Both are better than assuming trends will continue, otherwise we’d all be rich, eh?
Cheers.
I find it difficult to believe the anomaly for Australia for March. It rained most of the time across most of the country. The BOM chart shows temperatures below average. I suggest that Dr Spencer looks at the data again. The anomaly should be closed to that for the Southern Hemisphere. Maybe something is wrong with satellite microwave measurements when it rains. Do not forget that water in all its forms (gas, liquid and solid) absorbs radiation in the microwave range particularly water and ice as in microwave ovens. Clouds are made of liquid & solid water.
Summer clouds add heat to the atmosphere because they reflect more surface radiation.
Just checked March averages around Australia:
Sydney (Observatory Hill) was 1.8C above the 160 year average.
Brisbane (Archerfield) was 1C above the 80 year average.
Melbourne (Essendon) was 1.5C above the 80 year average.
Adelaide (Parafield) was 0.7C above the 60 year average.
Perth was 0.9C above the 75 year average.
Darwin was 0.5C above the 75 year average.
Alice Springs was 0.5C above the 75 year average.
Here are the rainfall deciles for March:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=decile&period=month&area=nat
So much for “rained most of the time across most of the country”.
And here are the mean temperature deciles:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meandecile&period=month&area=nat
Hardly any of the country was below average.
So … eff knows what you are talking about.
des…”Just checked March averages around Australia:”
Please tell me you have a source other than the fudgers at BOM and NOAA.
Perhaps you didn’t read the other guys comment carefully enough. He also claimed to have used BOM as his source. So at the very least I have proved that he is a LIAR.
Which is of course why you are happy to defend his claim – the more liars you have on side the merrier – ain’t that right Gordie.
The March anomaly for Australia was 1C above the 1961-1990 average for that month.
Yes, the same data set that cementafriend bases their comments on, and seems to be unable to check properly.
And yes, Gordon Robertson has no scruples in the climate debate whatsoever.
Des,
Maybe you overlooked the BOM declaring all official temps prior to 1910 unreliable.
Or is your 160 year average just a figment of your imagination?
Who cares anyway? Can you predict the future?
Cheers.
But of course … this claim comes from someone who also claims “the pyramids were not built with carved large blocks of limestone transported from a distant quarry … the blocks were actually poured on site into molds”.
Des,
I suppose the fact that Newton’s Laws of Motion, and Newton’s Law of Cooling, came from a man who was a practising alchemist, and believed in such things as phlogiston, means that they are invalid?
Are you truly as ignorant and stupid as you appear?
Cheers.
mike…”I suppose the fact that Newtons Laws of Motion, and Newtons Law of Cooling, came from a man who was a practising alchemist, and believed in such things as phlogiston, means that they are invalid?”
Newton believed in God too, and wrote several volumes about the Bible. The alarmists are notoriously quiet with their religious ad homs about Newton.
What reason would we have for bringing up Newton in a discussion about climate. For what it’s worth … ignoring his science for a moment, at a personal level Newton comes across as an absolute dick.
des…” the blocks were actually poured on site into molds.”
not really, the pyramids were built by spacemen using anti-gravity levitation. No need to bring the blocks from a distanct quarry, the spacemen had a pyramid block making rig that spat them out and put them in place.
Did you not see the Life of Brian? He fell off a building and may have been killed except for a flying saucer that happened by and saved him.
cementafriend says:
April 3, 2018 at 5:38 AM
The BOM chart shows temperatures below average. I suggest that Dr Spencer looks at the data again.
*
It is interesting to note that somebody unable to even read a simple BOM chart nevertheless feels the need to teach a world-wide known satellite reading specialist.
Welcome to this site’s clowns!
Do you know, cementafriend, where UAH’s O2 microwave emission readings take place?
Why should the lower troposphere at an average altitude of 4-5 km behave the same as does the air 2 m above surface?
Any idea?
binny…”Why should the lower troposphere at an average altitude of 4-5 km behave the same as does the air 2 m above surface?”
Talk about clowns, you have been reading barry’s propaganda. The sat telemetry reads right to the surface and even into the surface based on overlapping weightings.
Furthermore, the sat telemetry read 95% of the planet as opposed to the seriously sparse coverage of thermometers.
Gordon Robertson says:
April 4, 2018 at 9:46 PM
As usual, the Robertson clown does not know anything of what he is talking about.
*
1. The sat telemetry DOES NOT read right to the surface and even into the surface.
The reasons why this is the case have been explained ad nauseam by Roy Spencer & alii.
*
2. The sat telemetry reads 95% of the planet as opposed to the seriously sparse coverage of thermometers.
If you had a bit of my friend Bindidon’s experience concerning UAH data processing, you would know that only 1000 evenly distributed grid cells among UAH’s grand total (over 9000) are sufficient to accurately replicate its Globe time series.
*
All you write, Robertson, is complete rubbish. An ignorant, incompetent boaster: that is what you are.
cement…”I find it difficult to believe the anomaly for Australia for March. It rained most of the time across most of the country”.
The BOM have taken a page from the book of NOAA (not to be confused with the Biblical NOAH) on how to fudge temperatures.
NOAA is in denial about the extreme cold in North America last winter, refusing to acknowledge it. They just tweaked a few temps to make it disappear. They also made the warming in the US during the 1930s disappear.
NOAA does it by discarding over 75% of its real surface data then applying less than 25% to a climate model where it is fudged (interpolated and homogenized) to recreate the discarded data. If they throw out all the colder data everything warms up.
There are clowns on this site who applaud such scientific misconduct.
You just keep telling yourself the earth is flat.
Attack of the arctic air over the Great Lakes.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/8a1sivfg3gng.png
Do the satellites measure radiation escaping from the earths surface? The cold areas on the February map seem to be persistent storm tracks with the exception of Canada and Europe which had cooled during this period. I wait to see what the March map looks like but I note that it was as cold in Siberia at the surface as it was in Canada during February but you would not think that by looking at the global map, and it is always like this.
Because of the huge amounts of snow, dangerous floods are now taking place in Russia.
donald p…”Do the satellites measure radiation escaping from the earths surface?”
Not enough radiation to bother about. Temperature is too low, it peters out in a few feet.
Of course, you can see it from a distance using a hand held IR meter because they measure frequency and not heat.
“because they measure frequency and not heat”
You mean … like the satellites that UAH uses for its temperature record?
This was not the last snowstorm in New York in April 2018.
“New York saw its highest snowfall in April since 2003 during a snowstorm earlier this week. Up to 6.5 inches of snow fell in the Bronx, up to 6.4 inches in Queens, and 5.5 inches in Central Park.”
I live in south eastern AUSTRALIA and can ashore you most of inland Australia has only had about 25% of its normal average rain for the last 4 months only 30mm last month (BENDIGO)
ONLY northern east Queensland has been a little wetter than normal during the last 6 weeks, inland QLD REMAINS VERY DRY.
I forecast only small rain events across inland regions this growing season April to September. DEEPENING drought is presently the trend, worst seasons for 200 years are forecast for the next few years. Cooler than average SST around most of Australia is the driver of this reducing cloud intensity, lower rainfall averages, and warmer summer temperatures.
RISING ANTARCTIC SEA ICE averages is also a driver of reducing rain fall across most of Australia, during the last 40 years.
we have seen decade rainfall averages reduce by 25% since the 1970’s moving from the wettest decade to the driest one 2000’s
A recent rapid rise in Antarctic sea ice indicates drier than average air now dominates that region once again.
kevin long…re Aussie droughts…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia
“Bureau of Meteorology records since the 1860s show that a severe drought has occurred in Australia, on average, once every 18 years”.
Twenty major droughts in the 19th century from 1803 – 1897.
Major droughts in 20th century but the focus is on the droughts in the 21st century because of…you guess it…climate change.
None of the rest going back to 1803 were caused by climate change just those in the 21st century.
It seems you you very selective in your choice of quotes from that article. The typical denier quote miner at work.
Sorry only 30mm for this year in Bendigo central Victoria,
and this EXTREMELY dry period effects most regions of the Murray darling basin (MDB)
Dry air can also mean low temperatures in southern Australia in the winter.
So not caused by an impending ice age then.
Newsflash!:
“New research sheds light on Neanderthals’ distinctive features”
Writing in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Stringer and colleagues report how they came to their conclusions after exploring the similarities and differences between skulls of different species of human, based on virtual reconstructions from CT scans.
These digital forms were based on 11 skulls from our own species, Homo sapiens, including one Ice Age specimen; three from Neanderthals; and one from a member of another soon-to-be-extinct species, Homo climate denialist.
p,
Maybe you can actually name someone who denies that the climate actually changes?
I thought not.
Just more mindlessness from a purveyor of psychobabble.
Learn physics – you might be more effective as a troll if you actually knew what you were talking about. At the moment, you just appear stupid, ignorant and vapid. Who believes the wild utterances of a stupid, ignorant and vapid person?
Another such, perhaps?
Cheers.
But dont you know… If we give up our resources to those who know better and lower our standard of living.. We can stop the climate from changing…
Rofl… Couldnt say that with a straight face…
Arctic air attack in central US.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/hbxanc2yavsz.png
Well ! Look who took the bait ! Our resident neanderthal himself.
Great catch profP.
Tropopause Height
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f00.png
drano,
Another practitioner of psychobabble, are you?
A grand example of the fish imagining it has hooked the fisherman! Psychotically delusional – about the same as Gavin Schmidt imagining himself a scientist, or Michael Mann imagining himself a Nobel Laureate!
You can’t even spell out the GHE which you claim to know about!
Delusion piled uponn fantasy. Oh well, you keep up the general amusement level. Nothing wrong with that!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: “You can’t even spell out the GHE which you claim to know about!”
That would be a good project for pp, drano, and des. “Spell out” the GHE. For example, in 200 words or less, with no links, or without violating any laws of physics, how can CO2 “heat the planet”?
C’mon gents, impress us. Prove you are not just biased trolls, trying to force your pseudoscience on others.
(All clowns are welcome to enter, also–Jelly appelly, the yelping chihuahua, shady, etc.)
Does it include lukewarmers?
BTW, who is lukewarmer, other than Roy Spencer, and myself.
Roughly, lukewarmer is someone who thinks CO2 could cause about 1 to 3 C of warming from doubling of Co2.
But that seems too easy, so I will define a lukewarmer as someone who limits to possibility to about .5 to 2 C from a doubling Co2 concentration.
So per this definition, who is a lukewarmer.
(A lukewarmer also thinks such warming is not a significant problem and there benefits from rising Co2 and warming Earth, but you do need to agree with this, just focus on whether Co2 could cause .5 to 2 C. )
gbaikie, it includes anyone that believes CO2 can “heat the planet”.
If you know how that can be done, don’t keep it a secret!
☺
Hmm, heat the planet. I think it might heat the surface air, by possibly increasing the average velocity of the surface atmospheric gas molecules.
This would be a low elevation effect – and it seems that it is not much. Or if using massive amount of SW IR, it could be measured, though in terms warming Earth, it is the longer wave IR light which would otherwise “bounce” thru atmosphere and exit Earth that would be warming the low elevation atmosphere.
gbaikie, at least it seems you are trying to figure it out. A lot of people just “joined the church” without any understanding of the actual science.
It’s fun to watch.
gbaikie…”But that seems too easy, so I will define a lukewarmer as someone who limits to possibility to about .5 to 2 C from a doubling Co2 concentration”.
I am walking into this one but how do you categorize someone who thinks CO2 MIGHT warm the planet about 0.05C based on a 1C rise?
Therefore I don’t disbelieve CO2 can contribute no warming, just not more than 0.05C per degree C.
That number was not pulled out of a hat, it is based on the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures. I am still awaiting a scientific rebuttal.
“Therefore I dont disbelieve CO2 can contribute no warming, just not more than 0.05C per degree C.”
So if 10 C, Co2 warms .5 C.
What if it is -10 C, does Co2 cool by -.5 C ?
Thank you Dr No.
Look at the response I triggered. Exactly the same as last time, and the time before, and the time before…
We like to call this a repeatable experiment.
You are so right. His response to me is exactly the same every time. Remarkable.
Is it because he always forgets – like a fish in a tank?
Or is it because he cannot think of anything original to say?
Don’t talk to him. Don’t even talk ABOUT him. Don’t feed the troll.
p,
You obviously share the same delusions as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Carry on. If you believe that you can influence anybody with real power or authority, keep demonstrating stupidity and ignorance.
Have you tried adding a dash of condescending arrogance as well? Maybe you could learn from Hillary Clinton? I believe she had a very successful election campaign.
Learn physics. Learn English comprehension.
Cheers.
profp…”Look at the response I triggered. Exactly the same as last time, and the time before, and the time before”
GIGO.
Why don’t you try writing something that is not scientific garbage and you may not get garbage back?
Yawn.
This year is a turn point in the climate.
No further global warming.
At least we may be getting a break in the La Nia. The 3.4 area is back above -0.5 for the first time in about 5 months.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Forgot the blog can’t handle the regular tilde.
“La Niña”
Is it worth mentioning that the ENSO threshold for the BoM (source of your graph) is -0.8 and 0.8, and not -0.5 and 0.5?
Yeah, I think there are about 5 different definitions of El Niño/La Niña. I prefer the +0.5/-0.5.
Mostly personal preference.
Because of that:
“The ENSO Outlook is currently INACTIVE”
According to BoM.
Different for NOAA. But you can’t trust them, eh?
Japanese Meteorological Institute is based on NINO3. They’ll probably call a full blown la Nina (a step up from “la Nina conditions are present”) in about 4 days
I fear you may be right.
Yeah, if NOAA are calling a la Nina it can’t possibly be one. So BoM are right and JMA are wrong.
Because of course you will deem that every year must be warmer than the last in order to have a warming trend.
Oh Salvatore, buddy, you just never learn, do you?
Oh David, buddy, you just keep on being stupid and ignorant, don’t you?
Cheers.
REN says Dry air can also mean low temperatures in southern Australia in the winter.
DRY AIR in the upper atmosphere makes more warm dry sunny days,true, but many more damaging spring frosts as we saw last spring, looks like another bad frost season is likely to develop, with increasing Antarctic sea ice again this autumn winter spring, with current tends well above last year, presently, and rapidly heading upwards, to soon be above average, most likely back to the record highs as during 2014/15.
For barry and Hugo
Bindidon and I we wrote about this several times.
Whenever you happen to need OLS trends with 2 sigma CI so please use Kevin Cowtan’s Trend Computer on the University of York’s web site:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
For UAH 6.0 TLT (1979-today):
Trend: 0.128 ± 0.059 °C/decade (2σ)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1522876298738.jpg
Rgds
R.J. K.
binny…
“Sucht man fr S einen bezeichnenden Namen, so knnte man, hnlich wie von der Grosse U gesagt ist, sie sei der Wrmennd Werkinhalt des Krpers, von der Grosse S sagen , sie sei der Verwandlungsinhalt des Krpers. Da ich es aber fr besser halte, die Namen derartiger fr die Wissenschaft wichtiger Grossen aus den alten Sprachen zu entnehmen, damit sie unverndert in allen neuen Sprachen angewandt werden knnen, so schlage ich vor, die Grosse S nach dem griechischen Worte η τροπή, die Verwandlung, die Entropie des Krpers zu nennen. Das Wort Entropie habe ich absichtlich dem Worte Energie mglichst hnlich gebildet, denn die beiden Grossen, welche durch diese Worte benannt werden sollen, sind ihren physikalischen Bedeutungen nach einander so nahe verwandt, dass eine gewisse Gleichartigkeit in der Benennung mir zweckmnssig zu sein scheint”.
name the author. Excuse the Wordpess mangling of words.
try again…add the little dot things over the a, o, and u.
“Sucht man fur S einen bezeichnenden Namen, so konnte man, ahnlich wie von der Grosse U gesagt ist, sie sei der Warmennd Werkinhalt des Korpers, von der Grosse S sagen , sie sei der Verwandlungsinhalt des Korpers. Da ich es aber fur besser halte, die Namen derartiger fur die Wissenschaft wichtiger Grossen aus den alten Sprachen zu entnehmen, damit sie unverandert in allen neuen Sprachen angewandt werden konnen, so schlage ich vor, die Grosse S nach dem griechischen Worte [Greek for entropy], die Verwandlung, die Entropie des Korpers zu nennen. Das Wort Entropie habe ich absichtlich dem Worte Energie moglichst ahnlich gebildet, denn die beiden Grossen, welche durch diese Worte benannt werden sollen, sind ihren physikalischen Bedeutungen nach einander so nahe verwandt, dass eine gewisse Gleichartigkeit in der Benennung mir zweckmnssig zu sein scheint”.
Is there really a German word called ‘damit’? How about damit all?
“verdammt noch mal”
des…”verdammt noch mal”
That’s a good one. Can I get you a Fosters lager?
Hardly anyone drinks Fosters any more in Australia. It’s heyday was in the 1980s. Me – I haven’t had a beer in the last decade. Bourbon and coke goes down much easier.
da-mit there-with
binny…”Bindidon and I we wrote about this several times”.
Why do you keep insisting binny is a separate person? You disappeared as binny and returned as La P yet you write like binny, argue like binny, insult like binny, and so on.
I understand if you posted first in the guise of a man then decided to change genders. However, if you left as binny and returned as his g/f, you should come across differently than binny.
What are the chances that someone gets po’d with the posters, leaves the site as announced, then his g/f takes over in his place and sounds exactly like him?
Gordon Robertson says:
April 4, 2018 at 9:20 PM
Why do you keep insisting binny is a separate person?
*
Here again you show what a a clown you are. Only clowns think that their subjective meaning can supersede objective reality.
*
And what now concerns ‘… insult like binny…’, let me recall that you yourself belong, together with the Flynn blogbot and the commenter ‘SkepticGoneWild’, to the most insultant persons here.
You call anybody disagreeing with you an ‘idiot’, and some people I remember you called ‘dumbass’ a while ago.
You three cowards should try to do that at WUWT or Climate Etc! And I wouldn’t wonder if even Jo Postma would get sad of your insults.
rjk
Best greetings from Bindidon (actually still on the Canary Islands).
binny…”And what now concerns insult like binny, let me recall that you yourself belong, together with the Flynn blogbot and the commenter SkepticGoneWild, to the most insultant persons here”.
That’s an honour to be associated with such distinguished peers. You left out g*r, however, and that may hurt his feelings.
You still have to clarify why you left as Bindidon then returned as La P, with exactly the same persona. Is it possible that two German people could talk the same, insult the same, reason the same, and find each other? And both be so sensitive to being called an idiot? I call myself an idiot all the time. Doesn’t bother whoever is in there listening.
The other day I called myself a wooly-headed idiot.
Yes, la P, I use that applet at the University of York website to get trend uncertainty. I believe Nick Stokes also provides an app to check with different autocorrelation type: AR1 v ARMA (1,1). The latter is Cowtan’s regression model on the Uni of York applet.
gbaikie says:
April 4, 2018 at 2:17 PM
Does it include lukewarmers?
BTW, who is lukewarmer, other than Roy Spencer, and myself.
*
For example, myself too :-))
… I will define a lukewarmer as someone who limits to possibility to about .5 to 2 C from a doubling Co2 concentration.
So per this definition, who is a lukewarmer.
Well, a lot of people!
For example, MIT’s ex-prof. Richard S. Lindzen, who wrote in 2007:
Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously, p. 3
It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming of about 1 degree Centigrade.
La P,
It is also “generally acknowledged” that a testable hypothesis is a basic requirement of the scientific method.
Neither Lindzen nor anyone else can lay any claim to “science” without following the scientific method.
It’s about as stupid as Trenberth deciding that the scientific concept of the null hypothesis was irrelevant to climatology.
Lukewarmism is akin to being “slightly pregnant” or “a little bit dead”.
A fact is a fact, or it isn’t. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer either makes the thermometer hotter or it doesn’t. It doesn’t. Pretending otherwise, hoping to sit on the fence, benefits no one. If this supposed effect cannot be verified by experiment, it remains an untested hypothesis, or mere speculation.
Appeals to authority are meaningless.
Cheers.
“Lukewarmism is akin to being slightly pregnant or a little bit dead.”
There is no theory of lukewarmer.
I am not aware of a theory that works.
But Greenhouse effect theory, is not that back radiation, warms the surface, rather it’s a belief of followers of the religion.
There is no doubt that greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science and it lacks an author.
A significant aspect of Earth climate, is we are currently in an ice box climate. And there no mention of this in greenhouse effect theory. The groupthink that arrived with idea that Earth would be 33 k cooler without greenhouse gases, were obviously uneducated on basic climate.
As I said a number times, Earth is about 5 C, as indicated by the model of an Ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
That a ideal thermal conductive blackbody is mentioned by the is about the only thing “right” about GHE, but the perversion that follows after that is wrong.
Also I said that the average temperature of earth’ surface air of about 15 C is a result of two heat gradients of the land and ocean surface and the atmosphere.
15 C is not average temperature of earth’s atmosphere, and/or ocean and/or land, but rather it’s warmest part of the air temperature at surfaces of ocean and land.
And this thin surface air doesn’t radiate or lose energy to space, nor does it resemble a blackbody surface in the vacuum of space. Or as said it’s a product and warmest of two heat gradients.
Also Earth is not about 15 C. The tropics is warm, about 26 C, and rest of world average is colder than 15 C.
Or if class average score is 15 C and 40% of class is 26 C what is 60% of rest of the class?.
100 in class totals 1500
40 times 26 is 1040
1500 – 1040 = 460
460 / 60 is about 7 C.
And ocean is about 17 C and average land is 10 C, and humans don’t live on the ocean.
To make simple or put it in sound bit:
The GHE pseudo science says atmosphere warms and warming of oceans follow.
I say the average volume of oceans warm and surface follows, the atmosphere follows the warming (or cooling) of ocean surface temperature.
Which provides a hypothesis:
Warmer average volume ocean has warmer ocean surface temperatures, and warmer ocean surface temperature increases average global temperature.
One instance of having cold oceans and warm average global temperatures, would falsify this hypothesis.
Currently we have a cold ocean, and it’s about 3.5 C.
The ocean surface average is 17 C. The land is about 10 C.
And “everyone” knows it will take a very long time to increase ocean temperature 3.5 by 1 C, and likewise it takes a long time to cool a ocean of 3.5 C by 1 C.
And long time is thousands of years.
For example earth’s ocean temperature of about 3.5 C has been around this temperature for thousands of years.
Or the Little Ice Age, though it had times of lowering of sea levels, it did not have much effect upon the Earth’s ocean average volume temperature.
Oh, we are in an ice box climate, we in an Ice Age.
We in cold condition. Though glacial periods are colder.
And in last million years, the entire ocean average temperature has been within the range of about 1 to 5 C.
And within glacial periods it goes to the coldest of about 1 C. And in the interglacial periods it gets to highest of about
5 C.
“What causes ice-ages?
Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles. This solar variable was neatly described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major components of the Earth’s orbit about the sun that contribute to changes in our climate.”
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
It is common to focus on warming effects of Mlankovitch cycles, it might better to view them in regards to their cooling effect rather than warming effect.
“It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming of about 1 degree Centigrade.”
Pang, is that your explanation for your belief that CO2 can “heat the planet”?
In pseudoscience, “beliefs” win out over science, every time.
La Pangolina says:
For example, MITs ex-prof. Richard S. Lindzen, who wrote in 2007:
It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming of about 1 degree Centigrade.
Plus feedbacks. Feedbacks exist. You can’t overlook them.
Jelly, how many of your fantasies actually exist? For example, does your job actually exist? How about your imaginary friend?
Fantasies are fun, huh?
DA…”Plus feedbacks. Feedbacks exist. You cant overlook them”.
Only negative feedbacks, no positive feedbacks based on gain that could lead to catastrophic warming or the fabled tipping point.
Feelings:
https://tinyurl.com/ycwpz4jl
Pseudoscience, mix-representations, and falsehoods, all courtesy of sleazy svante.
Hilarious.
svante…”Feelings:”
At one time I respected you for your middle of the road approach. However, you are now presenting an idiotic Englishman who goes by the name of Potholer and he is a journalist who does not know his butt from a hole in the ground about science.
Listen to his accent for one. Such an accent is cultured, meaning it is developed through working at it. It’s about image, it’s not the way English people talk normally. They have to work at it, or be trained to speak that way, or they need to copy people as children who learned to speak in such an affected manner. You’ll find it is associated with Englishmen who are legends in their own minds.
Some of these Englishmen, with their cultured accents, are among the most stupid people alive, and Potholer is one of them. He is commenting on science because it is lucrative and it gets him recognition. I have read his reasoning in-depth and he is just plain stupid about science.
If you look carefully at the video, he supplies not one instance of proof to uphold his argument. Rather, he flashes past each ‘inference’ hoping you won’t stop the video and research what he is saying. In essence, he is no better than those he is critiquing.
Gordon,
Potholer is great, despite:
1) Being English.
2) His accent.
Your argument that a trace amount of CO2 must have a small effect is so bad it’s not an argument at all. Potholer shows this very well.
Plenty of measurements have been referenced on this blog, for example by David Appell.
Potholer was a science journalist. He doesn’t make anything up, he reads the science and reports what it says.
Svante
Great video!! Should be required viewing for the millions of feelies out there.
binny…”It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming of about 1 degree Centigrade”.
Cherry pick. Please note that he said “It is generally acknowledged…”. He did not say he agreed to that.
Look further into the article where he reasons that a doubling of CO2 could not produce warming greater than 0.4C and claimed that as an absolute upper limit.
g*e*r*a*n says:
April 4, 2018 at 5:15 PM
It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming of about 1 degree Centigrade.
Pang, is that your explanation for your belief that CO2 can ‘heat the planet’?
*
No. These were Prof. Richard Lindzen’s own words.
Search for the paper…
Pang, maybe you missed Gordon’s comment, just above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-296069
He mentioned that you had been “cherry-picking” again.
Is a cherry-picked quote all you have to support your false belief?
No I didn’t miss it.
And what some call cherry picking and why they do I perfectly know about, thank you.
Move to the place where Lindzen refers to the .4 C, and read carefully.
Yes, it completely devastates your cherry-picked quote.
binny…”Move to the place where Lindzen refers to the .4 C, and read carefully”.
First, let’s look at your cherry picked quote:
“It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming of about 1 C. However, in current models, the natural greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act in such a manner as to greatly amplify this warming. This is referred to as positive feedback.
There is something very seriously wrong with this oversimplified picture. Namely, the surface of the earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation”.
bottom of page 3 at:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
mid=page on page 7:
“Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4 [degrees] over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate”.
I presume that is degrees C since he referred to degrees C immediately before the statement.
All in all, Lindzen refers to the GHE as a highly overly simplified description of atmospheric warming. I can buy that.
Some think doubling of Co2 will cause 5 or more C and trigger Earth to become like Venus.
A lukewarmer would assume that Earth is warming, Co2 levels are increasing, Co2 could be warming Earth, and in 100 years
Earth increase at most by few degrees (1 to 3 C).
Lukewarmer is generally say Co2 has some warming effect, and other gases might warming effects, and other human influences may be cause warming, but pretty far into the future (100 years) the most this would all result in, is 1 to 3 C.
That most people are essentially lukewarmer, can shown by opinion poll.
But question about people posting here.
gbaikie, the majority of “regular” commenters seem to be Warmists. At least that’s my unofficial opinion, which is worth what you paid for it.
☺
But what is interesting to me is the apparent inability of the Warmists to think for themselves. They all parrot the same nonsense. I haven’t seen one that is able to demonstrate a knowledge of physics, or even an ability to process simple logic. It was shocking how many would not admit that the simple toy train was NOT “rotating on its axis”. They ALL refused to see the truth. They would try any number of tricks, to avoid the truth.
It’s definitely a cult mentality that strives to avoid truth. And, fun to watch.
Fun to watch.
They are basically primitive humans and can tend to love primitive humans.
If dangerous is fun, they are fun.
Humans are very dangerous creatures, primitive humans, having access to nuclear weapons, are more scary than intelligent but simple primates.
gbaikie…”Humans are very dangerous creatures, primitive humans, having access to nuclear weapons, are more scary than intelligent but simple primates”.
The problem is we all have filters that don’t allow us to see ourselves or each other as we really are.
Right now, we have politicians from the West lining up to take shots at Putin. I have no idea what he’s like since all I have read of him is from a seriously biased Western media. Gorbachev, who seems to be admired by the Western media speaks highly of him.
The thing I do know about him is that he is in command of enough nuclear weapons and a delivery system that could annihilate the Western world. The goofballs running the Western world seem to have lost contact with the seriousness of that truth.
Even though Trump is lambasted daily by the Western media, he is the only one reaching out to Putin. What’s wrong with the rest?
“Right now, we have politicians from the West lining up to take shots at Putin. I have no idea what hes like since all I have read of him is from a seriously biased Western media. Gorbachev, who seems to be admired by the Western media speaks highly of him.”
Those who could say something other than opinions reading the state news (ie have insider information) tend to end up dead –
even if living outside Russia) This situation is related “those taking shots”.
Putin seems like a Russian conservative.
Conservatives are, of course, different depending on country, US conservative tend to be keen on US constitution and founding principles of US, whereas Putin would be the soviet union and Russian revolution, though he may also be fond of some the Russia tsars.
Anyhow, Russia for centuries have trying to get access to ports in southern waters. So, Syria, Iran, etc. And access meaning, basically, ownership (dependent allies being a step in that direction). Russia biggest threat has always been China. Or weak China is good news, also a weak Korea a good thing. Of course in terms of Europe, Russia has always been a problem/threat.
From conservative view, Soviets screwing with Africa, was a bit of a distraction.
binny…”For example, MITs ex-prof. Richard S. Lindzen, who wrote in 2007:”
It has occurred to me that English is not your first language and maybe our way of stating things leaves something to be desired. I can assure you, however, that Lindzen is not supporting the current model of the GHE based on radiation and GHEs acting as a blanket. In fact, he is ripping that theory apart, claiming it is oversimplified. He is proposing a far better explanation for the GHE based on convection.
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[68] “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point ‘nutty.’ He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.”
It was his iris effect that was supposed to provide a negative feedback, right?
Wiki:The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Richard Lindzen et al. in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere.
…
A later 2007 study conducted by Roy Spencer et al. using updated satellite data potentially supported the iris hypothesis.[5] In 2011, Lindzen published a rebuttal to the main criticisms.[6] In 2015 a paper was published which again suggested the possibility of an “Iris Effect”.[7] It also proposed what it called a “plausible physical mechanism for an iris effect.” In 2017 a paper was published which found that “that tropical anvil cirrus clouds exert a negative climate feedback in strong association with precipitation efficiency”[8]. If confirmed then that finding would be highly supportive of the existence of an “Iris Effect”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
I think it can be said, that the original GHE did emphasize convection as important element, and since that time we had a lot cargo cult worship.
One could say Lindzen is old school (if you understand that new school is not new, but rather continuum of a bunch drooling fools).
As said lukewarmer have been defined as doubling CO2 has upper limit of warming within century (and could require about it a century to double CO2 levels) of 1 to 3 C.
But seems to me that now, that many warmists/alarmists have lowered their expectations to fit within this 1 to 3 C range within century (or before 2100).
This also reflected in government policies of attempting to keep the rise of global temperatures less than 2 C rise since preindustrial time. Or if they instead said 3 or 4 C, many could view that as not requiring any government action.
I tend to think that if governments did nothing, temperature probably aren’t going rise 2 C from coldest period of Little Ice Age.
But when I say it warm less than 1 C, mean higher then recent temperature, or more specify not warm higher than 1 C as compared to the period of pause or from beginning of 21st century.
Richard S. Lindzen is well known lukewarmer.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tYkDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Richard+S.+Lindzen+lukewarmer&source=bl&ots=X8VKJOt7c3&sig=QTg1yGMuEszAygixqceLNEczB7U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDr4_ipafaAhUOWK0KHbxFCy0Q6AEwBnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Richard%20S.%20Lindzen%20lukewarmer&f=false
The null hypothesis can be tested in experimental sciences, like physics and chemistry. It cannot be tested in observational sciences, like geology and astronomy and climate science.
DA,
I notice you are not challenging a single statement I made.
I appreciate your support.
On the other hand, your comment is simply nonsensical, irrelevant and pointless.
What is your definition of the null hypothesis concept in science, rather than pseudoscience?
Learn the scientific method. Learn to read English.
Cheers.
Obviously Jelly the clown does not even know what “null hypothesis” means!
Hilarious.
OMG, do you two trolls live on this site, just waiting for the chance to to insult anyone and everyone who comes along?
Yes Jelly, Skeptics and the pseudoscience trolls live here as one big dysfunctional family.
But, the Skeptics are happy.
DA,
Precious petal – do you think that choosing to take offense or insult is your decision or not?
Why don’t you abandon all the emotional blackmail appeals?
They don’t seem to be working, do they? You are choosing to take offense just as much as before.
Oh well, I expect that the scientific method will not suit you. It might expose you to some inconvenient facts which don’t accord with your pseudoscientific fantasies.
Cheers.
I think its very sad that you two spend your entire days here scanning and waiting for the chance to insult people again and again in the same stupid ways every time.
Jelly, no one needs to insult you. You insult yourself quite well.
It’s fun to watch.
DA,
You don’t think it’s very sad at all. You’re just lying for reasons unknown to any rational person.
If you think I give a tinker’s curse for your emotional state, you are wrong. Why should I?
If you choose to feel insulted, blaming me is not going to garner much emotional support, is it? Do you really think people will cry out as one “Oh poor, poor David – shower him with sympathy and hugs, the poor oppressed darling.”
Just man up. Provide a testable GHE hypothesis, and stop whining about me asking inconvenient questions. Does that seem fair?
Cheers.
DA…”I think its very sad that you two spend your entire days here scanning and waiting for the chance to insult people again and again in the same stupid ways every time”.
I have found with both Mike Flynn and g*r, that when proper science is presented they will engage. With you lot, great dollops of science-fiction are offered, what response would you like?
MF keeps asking for a testable GHE hypothesis. Where is it? When g*r claimed the Moon did not rotate on a local axis, he defended his position well.
David – they are the same person. Would you please not feed the troll by replying to “them”.
D,
Get a refund for your mind reading course. It didn’t work.
Learn physics – more satisfying than blaming others for your ignorance and stupidity. Or don’t you think so?
Cheers.
Now des, where did you ever get that idea? Did you just imagine it?
Like you imagined CO2 could heat the planet?
Des,
Perhaps they just work at the same office.
https://tinyurl.com/y75exscy
Joo Lopes PhD says:
April 2, 2018 at 4:43 PM
The UAH anomaly for January and February is +0.26 deg C and +0.20 deg C respectively.
The anomaly for the same months provided by Remote Sensing Systems are +0.5470 deg C and 0.4849 deg C.
Is is because the reference from which the anomaly is calculated is different between UAH and RSS?
*
As correctly mentioned by Krakatoa, it is indeed a baseline problem, but it only explains a part of the difference.
Even if you apply the necessary correction, you see that wrt 1981-2010, the anomalies for January till March are:
0.418
0.356
0.406
This is probably due to the fact that Remote Sensing Systems does not rely, for their new product RSS 4.0 TLT, on the same NOAA satellites as does UAH for their 6.0 release.
If you choose the older RSS 3.3 release instead, you see (baseline corrected) RSS anomalies even a bit lower than those of UAH 6.0:
0.255
0.169
0.225
From the point of view of Remote Sensing Systems, their 3.3 product shows a cooling bias, whereas UAH manifestly has a different meaning.
For clowns ‘specialised’ in paranoia and discrediting, this is of course due to the ugly NOAA.
I prefer to let the real specialists do their work.
binny…”Joo Lopes PhD says:
April 2, 2018 at 4:43 PM
The UAH anomaly for January and February is +0.26 deg C and +0.20 deg C respectively.
The anomaly for the same months provided by Remote Sensing Systems are +0.5470 deg C and 0.4849 deg C.
Is is because the reference from which the anomaly is calculated is different between UAH and RSS?”
*********
no…it’s because RSS has always been associated with NOAA and they have finally sold out.
UAH is the only remaining temperature data series provider with any integrity.
Use your head, did January and February in your part of the world seem warmer to you? Over here in North America, we set records for cold.
Phil J from Manitoba, Canada reports the temperatures there are unseasonally cold, remaining 10C to 15C below normal. It’s the same here on the west coast. We have had no spring weather as of yet and that is odd. It’s still very cold at night.
During this winter, even areas that don’t get snow received it. Australia was reporting cooler temperatures at times and it’s their summer. That’s despite attempts by the BOM to use the NOAA tactics of hiding the cold.
binny…”As correctly mentioned by Krakatoa, it is indeed a baseline problem, but it only explains a part of the difference”.
You are complaining of a baseline problem at UAH when the crooks at GHCN, NCD.C, NOAA, and NASA have slashed almost all the stations in the global pool since 1990 yet retain a baseline from an era when the full set of stations was in effect?
You should be suspecting RSS, not UAH. Till recently they were very close, now RSS is almost double. Something is indeed wrong and I would look for it in the politics of RSS.
the crooks at GHCN, NCD.C, NOAA, and NASA have slashed almost all the stations in the global pool since 1990
You are a filthy liar.
barry…”the crooks at GHCN, NCD.C, NOAA, and NASA have slashed almost all the stations in the global pool since 1990
You are a filthy liar”.
********
Barry…your emotional reaction tells the story. I have cut you to the quick with accurate information and you cannot deal with the truth of it, so you resort to heinous ad homs.
You have not supplied one iota of evidence to ‘prove’ I am lying, and you can’t. NOAA has admitted themselves to slashing stations. It is well documented that they have slashed 90% of their reporting stations since 1990. It’s all well documented on chiefio’s site and he even includes the software those organizations used to do their calculations.
In the youtube video of chiefio I have posted several times, he meticulously outlines what they have done.
NOAA is being investigate for their data fudging by a US senator and they have refused to cooperate with the investigation. They are deliberately withholding requested data.
NOAA is funded by the US government and the government has a right to the requested documents. Why do you suppose they won’t release them?
Stupidity I can tolerate. Pig-headedness, too, as I know what it feels like first hand.
But deliberate, willful ignorance and lying again and again is intolerable.
What is a good site to read up on the effects of volcanoes on world temperature or is it well understood to be negligible? Just a curiosity of mine as it appears volcanic activity the last 4 decades is more regularly substantial than previous 7.
Volcanoes only have an effect on world temperature when they are strong enough to send a significant amount of material into the stratosphere. That basically means VEI 5 or higher. They must also be reasonably close to the equator, otherwise the material blows closer to the pole due to the Coriolis effect as it tries to circle the globe. Those to qualify were:
Pinatubo in 1991
El Chichon in 1982
Agung in 1962
Santa Maria in 1902
Krakatoa in 1883
Cosiguina in 1835
Galunggung in 1822
Tambora in 1815
and a volcano of unknown origin in 1808-09.
Any material that doesn’t reach the stratosphere is rained out within a few weeks.
Well done, des.
I agree with the gist of your comment.
It’s a miracle!
☺
Thank you both.
“Volcanoes only have an effect on world temperature. .”
And, that effect is typically “cooling”, as the dust blown into the upper atmosphere tends to reduce sunlight.
Dust not so much – even the lightest particles only hand around for about a year. Droplets of sulphuric acid, formed when SO2 mixes with water vapour, can hang around for multiple years.
Certainly. I just wanted to get the “cooling” in there before some Warmist tried to claim volcanos would “heat the planet”.
You know there are some that believe everything “heats the planet”. Some even believe CO2 can do it!
I’m not kidding.
The end-Permian extinction was caused by a massive volcano in the Siberian traps that erupted for roughly half a million years (or thereabouts, depending on which version you read). The initial response was cooling, leading to an ice age. When the volcano stopped erupting, the masking aerosols quickly disappeared, and the CO2 which had built up from the volcano (which doesn’t disappear anywhere near as quickly as aerosols) caused massive warming of the planet. The vast majority of extinctions occurred during this hot phase. Before the ice age, the earth was ice-free, so differences in ice levels cannot be used to explain the huge before-after difference. Despite what deniers claim, on this occasion CO2 led temperature.
Now des, you’ve gone full-blown pseudoscience on me now.
But, you seem to understand that, somewhat, “depending on which version you read.”
“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. ..”
So you’ve chosen to revert to non-scientific arguments? What a shame – I thought there may have been some hope for you.
Wiki:
”
The extent of the Siberian Traps (Map in German)
The Siberian Traps (Russian: Сибирские траппы, Sibirskiye trappy) form a large region of volcanic rock, known as a large igneous province, in Siberia, Russia. The massive eruptive event which formed the traps, one of the largest known volcanic events of the last 500 million years of Earth’s geological history, continued for a million years and spanned the PermianTriassic boundary, about 251 to 250 million years ago.”
Continuing, from wiki:
The source of the Siberian Traps basalt has been attributed to a mantle plume, which reached the base of the Earth’s crust causing volcanic eruptions through the Siberian Craton. It has been suggested that, as the Earth’s lithospheric plates moved over the mantle plume (the Iceland plume), the plume produced the Siberian Traps in the Permian and Triassic periods, later going on to produce volcanic activity on the floor of the Arctic Ocean in the Jurassic and Cretaceous, and then generating volcanic activity in Iceland since the Late Cretaceous. Other plate tectonic causes have also been suggested.
Another possible cause may be the impact that formed the Wilkes Land crater in Antarctica, which may have been contemporaneous and would have been nearly antipodal to the Traps. As of 2004, this scientific debate was ongoing.”
Any material that doesnt reach the stratosphere is rained out within a few weeks.
With billions of tonnes of it raining out on the oceans.
And some people can worry about fertilizing the ocean
Cooling Earth by 1 C, could more reckless than some nation, nuking Russia.
It could kill more people, and start something which could get even more “out of control”.
If hundreds of years from now. Earth “somehow” warms to average temperature of 18 C (15 + 3), lowering the temperature by about 1 C, should a lot less dangerous, and may seem desirable.
Cooling earth is easy and cheap, though it could take a while to do. One could attempt to cooled quickly, but than it like trying to cool earth at present time by 1 C (possibly quite dangerous. And trying to cool earth now by say , .1 C would be hard to do, because we can’t predict what earth should/would be in 6 months in future (how do you know how well the cooling effort is working. And trying to cool by .1 could cost more than cooling by 1 C. Or try to cool by .1 C could result in a mistake, and result in 1 C decrease, or has no measurable effect (do try again, but this time do twice as much, just repeat the small steps.
In hundreds we probably get better at measuring Earth temperature, and could understand it better.
Your English ability seems to decline every month. Your first and last sentences make NO sense, and the rest is not much better. Would you care to submit an understandable version.
salvatore…”I agree”.
Re the WUWT article on GHCN et al fudging the data.
The GHCN fudging has been well categorized here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
“The GHCN input data to GIStemp has issues (they -NOAA/NCD.C- deleted 90% or so of the thermometers between about 1990 and 2009) with those deletions focused on cold places”.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
Here’s a two part youtube video with the man behind chiefio. For anyone serious about science this is a must watch. The vid should go automatically into part 2 but if it does not the link for part 2 should be to the right of the video screen, on the same page as the video.
Please…no ad homs about this guy being just a computer expert or into conspiracy theory. He comes across as an intelligent, thoughtful person who has done a lot of research on the subject. No innuendo, direct proof.
Watch the video for cripes sake, hopefully with an open mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX3NxkzUIE8
“The GHCN input data to GIStemp has issues (they -NOAA/NCD.C- deleted 90% or so of the thermometers between about 1990 and 2009″
You continue to peddle lies, Gordon Robertson.
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.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Chiefio’s early graph on station “dropout” comes from a paper that explains how data was added retrospectively.
The authors say: “The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCNs source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time.”
The 3 real-time sources provided the 1500 stations that updated monthly. The rest was retrospectively added during the 90s.
Chiefio declined to mention these details in the paper from which he pinched the station “dropout” graph.
Chiefio also claimed that because more cold weather stations dropped out of the series than warm, this would produce higher warming trends. This shows a remarkable ignorance of how the data is anomalised and trends calculated.
The trend would only increase if the stations that dropped out had cooler trends than global – absolute temperature difference between stations month to month or year to year makes no difference to this. Anomalizing removes the absolute temperature difference between stations and puts fluctuations on a common baseline.
Roy Spencer’s analysis:
“But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset at least not since 1986.”
Other analyses:
The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect
There is no significant difference between the temperature from discontinuous and continuous stations, suggesting that there was no purposeful or selective dropping of stations to bias the data. If anything, discontinuous stations have a slightly higher trend over the century than continuous stations. This result strongly suggests that the discontinuity in station data results from having inadequate resources to gather those records, rather than from some pernicious plot to exaggerate warming trends.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/
As far as I am aware, Chiefio has never done a full analysis n the station dropout issue to test his claim. That was left to others, who found his claim to be spurious.
Everything he ever wrote about this issue is spurious. And you peddle it. Liar.
barry, have you heard about all the data tampering that’s been done? It’s a big scandal.
You’ll likely hear about it some day, if you are able to pay attention.
Pffft, you draw from the same well of misinformation as Robertson.
Just wanted to ruffle your feathers a little. You seem so obsessed with this issue. Gordon is just pointing out his opinion of what happened. But, you can”t stand it. You can’t tolerate someone having a different opinion than you.
It’s fun to watch.
Gordon’s remarks are straight falsehoods. Nothing to do with opinion.
It is two people looking at the same facts and having different interpretations. You believe in the AGW nonsense, so you don’t see anything nefarious will all the tampering. Skeptics see that the end result of the tampering has been to cool the past, to make it appear as if the globe is getting hotter.
Can you at least admit that “they” have effectively “cooled the past”?
It is two people looking at the same facts and having different interpretations.
Gordon’s remarks on stations being deleted are pure fiction. It’s not a matter of interpretation or opinion.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either misinformed or mendacious.
There’s plenty of Gordon’s BS I ignore.
You curious to know why I object so much on this particular topic?
barry asks: “You curious to know why I object so much on this particular topic?”
I suspect your objection is related to your AGW beliefs, but what’s your side.
I’m also curious why you ignored my question: “Can you at least admit that ‘they’ have effectively ‘cooled the past’?”
g*e*r*a*n says:
April 6, 2018 at 6:12 AM
Im also curious why you ignored my question: “Can you at least admit that ‘they’ have effectively ‘cooled the past’?”
*
Could you show real, original data proving your claim?
With ‘real, original’ I mean of course something else than stuff hand-fabricated by e.g. Goddard out of data he never shows the exact origin of.
Heller has reported a number of times about the “adjustments” he has found in the data. He is very good at programming and retrieving the data. He has even written programs that you can download, to do your own retrievals.
I’m sure he would be happy to help you.
Just don’t tell him that he is incompetent when he says “CO2 produces warming”!
☺
barry…”Gordons remarks on stations being deleted are pure fiction. Its not a matter of interpretation or opinion.”
You have gone from obstinate to just plain stupid. I posted a link to NOAA in which they ADMITTED to having slashed over 75% of their global reporting station data. You did not even concede their admission you supplied some bs to obfuscate it.
Here it is again for you and binny:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Why are you in such denial? I don’t want to hear your obfuscated excuses, just admit that NOAA has slashed over 75% of their reporting stations globally.
On this site, it is claimed NOAA in conjunction with GHCN has slashed nearly 90% since 1990.
Are you guys all dense?
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
g*r…”It is two people looking at the same facts and having different interpretations”.
How do you interpret this admission by NOAA that they have slashed over 75% of their global reporting stations?
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
I am open to a reasonable scientific argument, not one of barry’s pure bs obfuscations. If you see a different interpretation I’ll listen to you.
ps. is arguing based on an obfuscation of this statement by NOAA from the link.
“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”.
This is the biggest lie of the lot. They have not increased the surface stations they have increased the data from their statistically-derived fudging.
It’s scientific misconduct to slash 75% of your real data then synthesize the missing data in a climate model. When they synthesize it they create more data points STATISTICALLY and call that an increase in the database.
And barry defends that bs.
Gordon asks: “How do you interpret this admission by NOAA that they have slashed over 75% of their global reporting stations?”
Gordon, either I didn’t make myself clear, or you mis-understood.
barry was very annoyed by your [correct] suspicions about data tampering. I was trying to cool him down by pointing out that your “opinion” could easily be justified.
I suspect your objection is related to your AGW beliefs, but whats your side.
I object because the truth is the exact opposite of what Gordon is saying, which makes his casual slander of researchers galling to me.
Data was not deleted. It was added retrospectively.
I object because so much of the debate is about smearing science. Not ‘climate’ science, or ‘AGW’ science, but smearing science.
And this is such a bald case of the lie being the opposite of the truth, and the lie being used to smear scientists.
The reason there is a sudden swell of station records from the 1970s to the 1990s that drops off suddenly is that thousands of station data were added retrospectively from old data logs – hand written stuff that had to be digitised by hand. These were never and are not part of the regularly updating data stream.
The truth is that a mammoth painstaking effort was made to acquire more data that was not part of the regularly monthly updates. That project ended in the mid 1990s, and that’s why the amount of weather station records declines precipitously after that period, reverting to the number of stations that provide updates to GHCN by the 8th of each month.
That’s what makes Gordon’s lie so reprehensible to me. Far from scurrilously deleting data, huge amounts were added in a one-time data dump. The researchers should be congratulated for acquiring the old handwritten stuff, many from defunct stations, and adding it to the data base. Instead Gordon impugns them for doing the opposite of what they actually did. Gordon’s lie is heinous.
Well, it’s heinous for anyone interested in facts and honesty. I realize that may not be everyone’s interest here. Often seems that way.
Im also curious why you ignored my question
Not just because you’re wrong (global sea surface adjustments warm the past more than global land surface adjustments cool the past), but also because I will not let Gordon off the hook for this filthy lie he keeps telling. This casual slander is the one thing he does, on this specific topic, that I will not be silent about. So I don’t let people shift the goalposts on this. Sorry. The rest of his BS doesn’t interest me much.
Gordon asks: “How do you interpret this admission by NOAA that they have slashed over 75% of their global reporting stations?”
Here is the link Gordon cites to claim that NOAA “admits” it “slashed” 75% of data.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
There is no mention of slashing or deleting data. Because it didn’t happen.
Gordon is a liar. Read the link and see if you can see where NOAA “admits” to slashing or omitting or cutting or deleting data.
It’s not there. He’s making it up. Because someone on a blog told him what to think.
barry, you can admit that the global land surface adjustments “cool the past”.
So can you then understand how a skeptic might be suspicious? “Cooling the past” would tend to make it appear the present is warmer. What if they had not been caught? Could they then claim there was absolute “proof” of warming?
And, all this after Climategate. (It is interesting that your side claims Climategate is a non-issue. CRU investigated CRU, and found nothing improper? That’s hilarious.
It’s not a good time for “institutionalized science”. Maybe that’s a good thing.
I think I’ve already provided this link, but just for added interest:
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/
g*r…”Gordon, either I didnt make myself clear, or you mis-understood”.
I was not taking a shot at you, or reacting with umbrage, I thought you might have a different take on it. Unlike what many seem to think here I am open to scientific input. I would have listened to your POV had it differed from mine.
Mike has disagreed with a couple of things I’ve said, or at least questioned it. I had no problem with that and we managed to reach a consensus.
barry…”There is no mention of slashing or deleting data. Because it didnt happen”.
Barry…I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid.
Here’s what NOAA said…”Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
There is no doubt they have slashed REAL data. They later claim that the data has increased and that’s because they are synthesizing data in a climate model based on interpolation of data from real station data up to 1200 miles away. They are also using data from years ago to fill in modern temperature series.
You are arguing that synthesized data, using statistical interpolation and homogenization is a valid way of doing science. I claim such a practice is scientific misconduct.
When they cut back on the data from real stations they favoured retaining stations reporting warmer temperatures over those showing cooler temperatures. In some cases, they had no stations left in vital cooler areas, so they used warmer stations and interpolated.
As chiefio has pointed out, when they are accosted on this chicanery, whoever is asked disavows themselves of the blame. No one knows why NOAA is doing this but someone must know.
g*r…”I think Ive already provided this link, but just for added interest:”
Someone at NOAA should be in jail for this kind of data tampering. They have retroactively erased the warming from the 1930s that exceeded any other warming in the US, including today’s warming.
This is no different than forgery, it should be regarded as a crime.
Gordon: “This is no different than forgery, it should be regarded as a crime.”
It is a crime, Gordon. It is illegal for GOV employees to knowingly falsify public records. The law was not properly administered under the last administration.
Things are different now. I follow the local NWS temps. Two/three years ago, I noticed massive tampering. The effort was to force temps higher. All of that stopped, about a year ago.
New sheriff in town. ..
barry…”There is no significant difference between the temperature from discontinuous and continuous stations, suggesting that there was no purposeful or selective dropping of stations to bias the data”.
On average, there is 1200 miles between reporting stations. You are telling me it is acceptable to cut 90% of your reporting stations since 1990 and still get close the correct trend?
NOAA are the liars, and you buy into their lies.
How about the claims of chiefio, that GHCN/NOAA has culled the stations to remove the colder ones? How about his explanation for Bolivia, where they have no stations. The country has high altitudes hence lower temps but NOAA extrapolated and homogenizes temperatures from stations around Bolivia to guestimate a temperature for Bolivia that is much lower than it should be.
How about the entire Canadian Arctic being covered by one station in Eureka, an area of the Arctic known as a milder area in the Arctic?
You fool.
The people I quoted – including Roy Spencer – crunched the numbers.
They tested Chiefio’s claim
And they found it was bogus.
Chiefio never crunched the numbers. He never tested his claim to see if the dropped stations made the record warmer. The people I quoted did – and it was tested in numerous ways. The methods are described in the links.
Do you think Roy Spencer is a liar??
Roy Spencer disputes Chiefio’s claim.
The country has high altitudes hence lower temps but NOAA extrapolated and homogenizes temperatures from stations around Bolivia to guestimate a temperature for Bolivia that is much lower than it should be.
You are a fucking idiot.
It wouldn’t matter if Bolivia had absolute temperatures that were 50C colder than the global average, or 1000C warmer than the global average.
The temps get anomalised.
That means that the average temperature for Bolivia for the global baseline period is set to zero.
All that gets used is the departure from that baseline. That’s what anomaly is.
And that is why Bolivia’s absolute temperature difference makes absolutely no difference to temperature trends.
The fact that you do not understand this after all this time demonstrates your profound ignorance on the topic in general.
If only you has enough wit to see how stupidly wrong you are about this. Chiefio is just as stupidly wrong about this (which many people pointed out nearly 10 years ago). It’s weapons grade stupidity.
Because he doesn’t understand why absolute temp differences do not matter to trends when temps are anomalised.
Fucking nuclear stupidity.
barry…”The people I quoted including Roy Spencer crunched the numbers”.
Where’s the link to Roy’s article? All I have is a cherry-picked statement which is likely taken totally out of context. I don’t recall Roy ever mentioning chiefio.
Your other link is related to Tamino, from a drj. I know of Tamino, he is an uber-alarmist like yourself and Eli Rabbett. I have no idea who this drj might be.
All in all, your rebuttal is weak and based more on desperation than fact. The truth is that NOAA has deliberately fudged the record and made exaggerated claims of record warming. They have deleted the US warming records of the 1930s and found a way to remove the warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012 claimed by the IPCC.
The truth is Barry. you have no coherent argument to counter what I have claimed about NOAA. They are not under investigation for nothing and they have reasons for refusing to cooperate with the an investigation by the government which funds them.
If you are too blind to see that, you have a nerve calling me a fool.
barry…”You continue to peddle lies, Gordon Robertson”.
I have supplied links to chiefio, a highly competent data processor who has carefully analyzed and posted this truth.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Now put up or shut up. This guy lists all the chicanery of GHCN, NOAA, NCD-C, and GISS. Read what he has to say and disprove it.
He comes across as an intelligent, measured researcher who has the background in computers to do such an analysis. He makes no uncorroborated claims.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Or don’t you have the guts to see your authority figures, NOAA et al, exposed?
I have put up countless times.
I provided you the original paper from which Chiefio steals the graph of station counts.
The paper that explains how data were added in a one-time dump from stations that have never and do not get regularly updated. How data was acquired from stations long defunct. That hadn’t operated for decades.
Here is the paper for the 25th time. The 25th time I have posted it specifically for you.
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf
The paper you have never read. This is the original fucking paper on station count. This is where Chiefio gets his graph.
And you’ve never read it.
I have ‘put up’ many, many times. but you disappear, never responding to the material, just resurfacing with the same old lie again and again.
Even in this thread I’ve supplied material, for example in this post.
In that post I quote NOAA on adding stations, not deleting them, from your favourite link no less. Did you even notice? That’s about the 10th time I’ve cited that for you.
In that post I link to various people – including Roy Spencer – who test Chiefio’s claim that dropped stations increases warming trend. All find that it doesn’t.
Did you read or even notice any of that?
I quote the authors of the paper I just linked for you again, who explain how they acquired the data. The authors of the paper that Chiefio stole the station count graph from without referencing it or noticing why the station count rises and falls.
I’ve ‘put up’ for you just now. For the 25th time in the history of you lying about this topic.
When the hell are you going to read the bloody stuff I ‘put up’ for you?
When are you going to respond to it?
It’s only been a year and a half of you ignoring all that.
So don’t tell me to ‘put up’. You’re many months in debt on that score.
From the original paper:
“Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them.”
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf
[Remove dash to open link]
barry…see below in new posts for a reply.
UAH Australian temp for March is 0.59C
BoM Australian temp for March is 0.97C
Is this a big discrepancy? No.
UAH baseline is 1981-2010.
BoM baseline is 1961-1990.
When we match the BoM baseline to UAH, the resulting BoM anomaly for March is:
0.66C
The difference is 7 hundredths of a degree. Well within the margin of error for each data set.
Could you link me to the BOM page for this data.
Go to their time series page for Australia.
That links to the national annual series. Above the chart title you can see ‘Download data’. Click on that to get the data.
A useful page. You can choose whatever parameters, and when the graph loads click on the data link to get the data for what you’re seeing.
So select March and mean temp for Australia, click data, and it will give you the latest March monthly anomaly and all preceeding.
Works, too, for rainfall and a bunch of other parameters, national, regional, state etc.
And lest the dopey contrarians chime in with ‘BoM sucks’, the impetus for the analysis was a contrarian relying on BoM data.
Thanks for that. I wish they had a smaller resolution than statewide, like NOAA with their 344 US climate divisions. It seems we need to do our own averaging of stations if we want data at those resolutions.
That, Des, is exactly what my partner J.-P. alias Bindidon does since longer time with heavier sized datasets like GHCN V3, USHCN, IGRA and RATPAC radosonde data, Colorado sea ice extent, etc.
You can’t simply download and enter them into Excel or a similar tool: they are up to 300 MB big. You have to process them (or subsets of them) using some appropriate software.
And all gets even worse with e.g. GHCN V4 daily: it is, with 29 GB unzipped, 100 times bigger.
Des, BoM also have data for each weather station. It’s a bit of a chore to obtain it. Dunno where to access a single repository for all of it, but some exploring of the BoM website might be helpful.
JoNova’s denizens are always complaining about BoM data – you could ask there. Assuming that they’ve actually fished it out and tested it comprehensively.
Yes, I’ve downloaded the data station by station (though haven’t updated it for a couple of years). I was hoping for a resolution somewhere between single station level and statewide level. NOAA has taken localised variation into account when constructing their climate divisions, and I don’t know enough about such variation to make more than an arbitrary grouping of the stations.
barry….”UAH Australian temp for March is 0.59C
BoM Australian temp for March is 0.97C
Is this a big discrepancy? No.”
********
Where did you learn to do math???
0.97 – 0.59 = 0.38C. That’s nearly half the warming claimed for a full century.
You cannot take an Australian average temperature stated as 0.97C and fudge it till it’s 0.66C. The baseline has no bearing on it, BOM is claiming an Aussie average of 0.97C based on their baseline, which takes in the colder temps from the 1960s and 70s.
BOM are cheater just like NOAA and GISS.
The baseline has no bearing on it
Weapons grade stupidity from you. Unbelievable.
After all this time you still don’t know what an anomaly and a baseline is. That’s shockingly, profoundly dumb.
This is 101 necessary stuff for participating on a blog largely based on anomalised data.
More experiments in pseudoscience.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/04/bill-nye-the-science-fraud-guy/
This is a very, very incomprehensible world for some people.
Even something as simple as the measurement given by Dr. Spencer (+0.24 warming for March, 2018) must be denied by the anti-human climate alarmist.
You walk outside and it is raining or it is sunny, its warm or cool… except, nope, according to the anti-human climate alarmists. There is a “model” somewhere that says otherwise.
It is no wonder than when faced with sobering tragedies, such as starvation, the anti-human climate alarmists respond with jokes about pirates and cat videos. These utterly vile monsters have no soul.
By the way, could someone remind me when the anti-human climate alarmists abandoned their “weather is not climate” hysterical chant and invented their “extreme weather” cult-like dogma?
Thanks.
This coming from someone who believes UAH has “half century of measurements”.
g*e*r*a*n says:
April 6, 2018 at 5:19 AM
More experiments in pseudoscience.
*
If there is on Earth a top specialist in pseudoscience then it is Goddard aka Heller.
g*e*r*a*n, you should read more appropriate documents, in which their authors criticize the so-called ‘greenhouse’ experiments with more emphasis on real science.
Your friend Heller has not a bit of an idea of what such people write.
*
1. Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics
Paul Wagoner, Chunhua Liu, R. G. Tobina (2010)
https://tinyurl.com/yctussv5
2. Climate change in a shoebox: a critical review
M Bertò, C Della Volpe and L M Gratton (2014)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/35/2/025016
Pang, you’re almost correct. Heller doesn’t understand the science. I’ve tried to help him, but he bans anyone that tries to teach him. He’s a talented programmer, with a sense of humor, but that’s it.
But since you are so knowledgeable about the relevant science, perhaps you could tell me how CO2 can heat the planet. No links, and preferably in less than 200 words.
Thanks.
g*e*r*a*n says:
April 6, 2018 at 5:13 PM
No links, and preferably in less than 200 words.
*
I’m afraid you did not read the second paper with all the necessary concentration.
What does remain when convection has been fully taken into account?
But even if you really would do the full read, you still will stay in front of the same problem.
Namely that you do not accept that H2O and CO2 prevent more and more IR emitted by Earth to reach outer space, and that the outer space emission level shifts more and more upwards.
We stay disagreeing here, I guess.
“Namely that you do not accept that H2O and CO2 prevent more and more IR emitted by Earth to reach outer space, and that the outer space emission level shifts more and more upwards.”
Exactly. Gases do NOT “trap heat”. They can NOT prevent IR from being emitted to space.
So yeah, “we stay disagreeing here”.
g*e*r*a*n says:
April 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM
Namely that you do not accept that H2O and CO2 prevent more and more IR emitted by Earth to reach outer space, and that the outer space emission level shifts more and more upwards.
Exactly. Gases do NOT trap heat. They can NOT prevrerent IR from being emitted to space.
So yeah, we stay disagreeing here.
Does the atmosphere prevent IR from being emitted in space.
Say brick is 20 C, and ground the brick is on is 20 C, and air around the brick is 20 C. And it is night time and say, the air will cool at 1 C per hour.
Does atmosphere prevent brick from radiating IR into space.
But brick on 20 C ground on the Moon, brick is 20 C, and it is lunar night time, will brick cool faster to 10 C as compared to that brick on Earth?
Bonus question: if brick 20 C, and put on Mars surface which 20 C, and Mars air is -40 C, and it is night. How fast does the 20 C brick, cool?
Strawman – no scientist claims that the atmosphere prevents the earth from radiating energy.
gbaikie asks: “Does atmosphere prevent brick from radiating IR into space.”
Answer: No. That’s one of the functions of the atmosphere, to radiate excess heat energy to space.
Your other questions, about rates of heat transfer, would involve so many assumptions as to lose meaning.
But, your curiosity reminded me of an experiment I did years ago. I had two black plastic lids. I put one in the freezer for about an hour. Then, I quickly put both lids in full sunlight. I recorded their temperatures every 15 seconds, with an IR thermometer.
Even though they started from different temperatures, they both reached their max temperature in the same time. I thought that was interesting. I got pulled off on something else, and never did any more tests to confirm. But, if you have an IR thermometer, it is an easy test to perform. Maybe you can verify my preliminary results.
“Thats one of the functions of the atmosphere, to radiate excess heat energy to space”
So you are claiming that a planet with the same size as earth, receiving the same amount of solar energy, and with the same albedo, but with no atmosphere, would be warmer than the earth because it can’t release excess heat?
— Des says:
April 6, 2018 at 10:38 PM
Strawman no scientist claims that the atmosphere prevents the earth from radiating energy.–
&
— g*e*r*a*n says:
April 6, 2018 at 10:53 PM
gbaikie asks: Does atmosphere prevent brick from radiating IR into space.
Answer: No. Thats one of the functions of the atmosphere, to radiate excess heat energy to space.–
Huh, so Des says earth’s atmosphere does not prevent energy from leaving Earth. And g* seem to say atmosphere increases amount radiated from brick.
Clouds are part of Earth’s atmosphere, I was thinking of it being a clear sky, but I didn’t stipulate it
Since answers were surprising, if a cloudy night, does that also not prevent IR from leaving, Des?
And g*, would clouds in atmoshere also increase amount radiated from the brick?
I would think an atmosphere of clouds and greenhouse gases would inhibit the brick from radiating as much as brick on the moon or Mars. And due to low density of -40 C mars air, there would less convectional heat loss (as compared Earth atmosphere at -40 C ).
With Moon, I would say the brick would cool more than 1 C per hour, and so would Mars.
A brick on earth would cool at rate similar to air temperature
Which I said cooled at 1 C per hour.
It would complicated to determine how much more Mars and the Moon brick would cool at.
Now, if earth air was -40 C rather than 20 C cooling at 1 C per hour, it seems the Earth brick would cool faster than compared the Moon and Mars, but it wouldn’t more energy into space as compare Mars and Moon brick, but since earth brick and air was 20 C the would have any convectional heat to air, though would have a lot if air was -40 C.
Oh also, I think an atmosphere lacking clouds and greenhouse gases, could also inhibit the brick from radiating energy.
So if such a atmosphere was 20 C, brick was 20 C and the air cooled at 1 C per hour, the brick would roughly cool at same rate, though the brick could cool a bit faster than the air.
Here after midnight, air is about 60 F, clear skies, feel a bit damp, air fairly still, but was quite windy during day.
I point Ir thermometer at things in yard (including brick) and they are about 60 F.
If on Mars, I would need a pressure suit. And I would probably be warmer. The at this time could be about -40 C, and yard could have stuff which was about -50 C (though depends on their thermal mass and how warm they were in the day. A steel 55 gallon drum, filled with liquid water in day, could still not be freezing ( +0 C).
The moon is different because of its long day. It could be still daylight and have fairly cold surface, due to the low angle of sun which last for more than 6 hours before falling below the horizon.
Des says:
April 6, 2018 at 10:38 PM
Strawman no scientist claims that the atmosphere prevents the earth from radiating energy.
*
What are you telling here?
Never heard of backradiation measured since years by appropriate devices, huh?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
Are you moving to the denialist crew, Des?
des tries to distort my words: “So you are claiming that a planet with the same size as earth, receiving the same amount of solar energy, and with the same albedo, but with no atmosphere, would be warmer than the earth because it cant release excess heat?”
I never claimed any such thing. Don’t attempt such trickery. People might think you are DES-perate.
gbaikie, your statement and question indicate your confusion about radiative physics.
“And g* seem to say atmosphere increases amount radiated from brick.”
“And g*, would clouds in atmoshere also increase amount radiated from the brick?”
gbaikie, the brick emits based on its temperature. it does NOT care about the atmosphere or clouds. The brick’s temperature is what affects its IR emission.
Pang demonstrates the typical confusion about “back-radiation”: “Never heard of back-radiation measured since years by appropriate devices, huh?”
Pang, the “back-radiation” from the atmosphere does NOT imply it is warming the surface. You need to remember that all matter emits “back-radiation”. Ice cubes emit “back-radiation”. Would you attempt to heat your apartment with ice cubes?
La Pangolina
The earth’s surface radiates energy regardless of what is happening in the atmosphere above. It is how much of that energy that escapes to space that matters, not how much the surface radiates. In fact, the surface radiates MORE as it heats up.
So Des and g* agree that surface radiates the same regardless of environment. So moon, mars, Venus, and earth surface, a brick radiate the same amount if at the same temperature.
And this applies to atmospheres or lack of atmospheres, can I assume it does not apply at a bottom of a swimming pool? Or no?
Or no.
Or no.
Good.
So. A brick at bottom of heated pool which 20 C, remains at the temperature of 20 C.
If pool has lights the lights shines thru the water, but long wave IR doesn’t. Though shortwave IR light does. SW IR is similar to red light which is absorbed by meters of water, and blue light tens of meters of water.
So lights in a pool could be incandescent 100 watt lightbulbs, which make light which is mostly in lower half SW visible might and in SW IR light (Not visible to the human eyes).
If 100 watt light is say middle depth of swimming pool, at night the one can easily see the light (one could read book by it, being outside pool. But the light could be going meters of water before getting to the book, and a red book, would appear darker and perhaps more purple (blue + red = purple). So a lot of the red and SW IR would be absorded by the pool water, if light passes across the pool at low angle to the book. Or if book put directly above light which about 1 meter under water, it would appear more red.
With air, the denser the air, the more a brick more remain the same temperature of the air. And sea level air fairly dense.
Mars air about 1/60th of Earth air (.02 vs 1.2 kg per cubic meter).
Brick in pool is radiating long wave IR, but it not going anywhere and not warming anything. And if brick was warmer than the water, its heat would be conducted and convected to water of the pool. Like peeing in the pool. And if colder, water warms brick.
If you cooled black plastic lid in freezer, put them outside in air of 20 C and at night, the air would warm the lid. Or ice cubes would melt.
If put cold black lid on string and had it above a 20 C surface of moon at night, the cold lid would cool further, same goes for mars.
Des says:
April 7, 2018 at 7:40 AM
… H2O and CO2 prevent more and more IR emitted by Earth to reach outer space…
*
That’s what I wrote. Not less, not more.
If there is no matter absorbing Earth’s IR radiation (and reemitting it in all directions), all of it will directly reach outer space.
g*e*r*a*n says:
April 7, 2018 at 5:12 AM
Pang demonstrates the typical confusion about ‘back-radiation’: “Never heard of back-radiation measured since years by appropriate devices, huh?”
Pang, the “back-radiation” from the atmosphere does NOT imply it is warming the surface.
*
I never pretended that.
I only mention that back-radiation shows that the atmosphere reemits in all directions what it had absorbed before.
You give the impression to ignore that devices measuring back-radiation work on a very fine line-by-line basis and hence are able to make a distinction between reemission by e.g. H2O and CO2.
Ice cubes and other bananas are of no interest here.
Pang, are you now denying that “back-radiation” can “heat the planet”?
— Thats what I wrote. Not less, not more.
If there is no matter absorbing Earths IR radiation (and reemitting it in all directions), all of it will directly reach outer space.—
I will add, the higher elevation, one increasely gets higher percentage of: all of it will directly reach outer space.”
And that water vapor is largely confined to lower elevation is another factor which makes it a more powerful effect compared to CO2.
barry says:
April 5, 2018 at 6:39 PM
You continue to peddle lies, Gordon Robertson.
*
Exactly barry.
My friend and partner Bindidon often enough published graphs showing the real difference between time series including the full GHCN set and
– (1) a subset involving all GHCN stations present in 2017:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/152305770846.jpg
– (2) a subset created when arbitrarily selecting only one GHCN station per 2.5 degree grid cell:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1523057776511.jpg
The most impressive corner showing station redundancy is CONUS, where you see that you obtain with 160 stations a time series quite similar to one obtained with all 1850.
1. barry says:
April 5, 2018 at 6:03 PM
UAH Australian temp for March is 0.59C
BoM Australian temp for March is 0.97C
Is this a big discrepancy? No.
UAH baseline is 1981-2010.
BoM baseline is 1961-1990.
When we match the BoM baseline to UAH, the resulting BoM anomaly for March is:
0.66C
*
2. Gordon Robertson says:
April 7, 2018 at 12:47 AM
Where did you learn to do math???
You cannot take an Australian average temperature stated as 0.97C and fudge it till its 0.66C. The baseline has no bearing on it, BOM is claiming an Aussie average of 0.97C based on their baseline, which takes in the colder temps from the 1960s and 70s.
BOM are cheater just like NOAA and GISS.
*
How dumb is one allowed to be in life?
Robertson, you have been told so many times during the last years about anomalies and their baselines, and that anomalies computed out of different baselines have to be shifted in order to be compared properly.
How is it possible that you still do not understand such a basic principle?
And you call other persons ‘idiot’ or even ‘dumbass’ ???
You are here the cheater, Robertson!
We have seen countless times that Gordon has no understanding of simple arithmetic.
Box of rocks is too kind.
I noticed that as of shortly after noon EDT April 7, the February global map was still turning up at
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
But the March global map was shown in a WUWT article published on April 4 immediately under a heading saying
“Notes on data released April 3, 2018:”, at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/04/global-temperature-report-march-2018/
Watts is a kind of climate Lucky Luke (the man who shoots faster than his shadow).
Pang, are you saying Anthony Watts is a “climate-clown”?
No.
I wrote: ‘Watts is a kind of climate Lucky Luke’.
Not more, not less.
Okay, a “cliimate cartoon character” is close enough to a “climate clown”.
I can accept that.
I think an atmosphere of just nitrogen causes planet to be warmer than planet without an atmosphere.
Let’s pick the planet Mercury. I like Mercury, but I don’t mention it much.
The problem with Mercury is its orbit is tilted as compared to Venus and Earth and wiki buries the lede:
“wiki buries the lede” ????
Your comments continue to be incomprehensible.
And due to your regular dropping of articles, the parts that are understandable have a “you Jane me Tarzan” feel.
I accidently posted mid posting.
Then wrote more, but it got more rambling than “usual” and plus I didn’t finish it.
I was planning to simply not post it, but since des need it,
I will post as is, then maybe finish it
Oops, I seem to have deleted it somehow.
Mercury is at 7 inclination, our moon at 5, but moon’s inclination it not problem in terms of getting to moon, whereas Mercury inclination does make harder to get to.
But also if mercury had atmosphere, even thin one like Mars, it would would help negate the 7 degree inclination obstacle.
So that finishes the mid sentence aspect, but not going to rewrite the rest of it
“not problem in terms of getting to moon”
HUH?? You weren’t talking about ‘getting to the moon’. You were talking about TEMPERATURE.
–Des says:
April 8, 2018 at 12:34 AM
not problem in terms of getting to moon
HUH?? You werent talking about getting to the moon. You were talking about TEMPERATURE.–
Mercury is the closest planet to Earth in terms of distance traveled by hohmann transfer, or by using hohmann planetary trajectories, which are meeting the target destination on the far side of sun.
Mostly because it is shorter distance it only takes about 3 1/2 months to get there. But if you want to go into orbit, the
Inclination of Mercury around the sun, makes it more difficult (requires a lot rocket fuel mass) to do.
And this is important factor regarding Mercury. So flybying Mercury is easy, and early spacecraft did this. But Mercury has only had one spacecraft (Messenger) that has entered Mercury orbit and Messenger changed it’s inclination by using
gravity assists. That required a lot time or it travelled a long distance, before it could enter orbit with a low cost in terms of rocket fuel mass needed.
Since on topic, I will explain how, one can get to Mars so as to enter Mars orbit and/or land on the Martian surface from Earth using a non hohmann trajectory.
Getting from Mercury distance or a Mercury flyby “position” is faster (shorter distance) to Mars, than compared to going from Earth to Mars.
You can start from Mercury, flyby earth, and get to Mars in about 6 months. So as you travel one travel near Earth in 3 months and from this point get to Mars in 3 months. And this would be a hohmann planetary transfer.
To get that same path starting from Earth orbit, requires a non hohmann planetary trajectory. And it’s sort of like changing inclination using rocket power (or it’s vector change, and hohmann is not a vector change).
So using non hohmann trajectory one can get to Mars in about 3 months, it would same orbit as the Mercury go Mars orbit (if you don’t enter Mars orbit or land on Mars, the orbit brings you back to Mercury distance (not earth distance where you started). Or any hohmann trajectory from earth, will bring you back to earth distance (unless it’s a hohmann solar escape trajectory (or you go to orbit of some planet or you do gravity assist from a gravity well).
“You were talking about TEMPERATURE”
Yeah, but it was a long explanation. And I will give another go, with lot emphasis on being brief.
So using ideal thermal conductive blackbody, calculate Mercury uniform temperature.
Wiki, sunlight, gives chart solar flux of mercury at nearest perihelion) and furthest distance from sun.
So the ideal, will give higher average temperature than Mercury average temperature.
And the ideal number, would similar to Mercury, with earth like atmosphere, surface air temperature.
Or ideal conductive thermally conductive blackbody with Earth distance is about 5 C and earth bit warmer due to having a ocean (Earth would colder without ocean).
And Mercury with atmosphere (but without ocean) will be cooler than ideal number indicates, but much warmer average temperature than the present airless Mercury.
Oh I guess a point, would be, if Mercury had an atmosphere (and lacking ocean and clouds and greenhouse gas) it would reflect more sunlight (have higher bond albedo) than Mercury which lacks any atmosphere.
Reflects more and has higher average temperature due to atmosphere.
barry…”Here is the paper for the 25th time. The 25th time I have posted it specifically for you.
[NOTE by GR…remove the hyphen in ncd-c in link below.]
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf
The paper you have never read. This is the original fucking paper on station count. This is where Chiefio gets his graph”.
*************
The fact that you’re using profanities means you are emotionally affected. I had not seen this article before and after reading the article it corroborates my notion that the current GHCN series is based on totally fudged calculations (statistically derived). In fact, it’s even worse than I thought.
FYI…chiefio retrieved the software used by GHCN and recreated the data using their own software. He talks about that in the youtube video link I posted. In doing so, and being a software expert, he found anomalies in their computations. He has not copied graphs from your linked paper because it does not contain such information.
The message from the article is that the surface temperature series prior to 1990 was in a chaotic and unreliable mess. To fix it, GHCN used statistical interpolation and homogenization to GUESS at what they think the series SHOULD have been.
They claim:
“Going back in time to 1900 (Fig. 3b) reveals good coverage in North America, Europe, and parts of Asia and Australia. For the rest of the world the pre-1900 era coverage is spotty”.
There is no reason to presume that improved significantly given the world endured two major wars in 1914 and 1939, followed by another significant war in Korea circa 1952. The Soviet Union was out of bounds as were several other parts of the planet. No one was allowed into the Himalaya around Mt. Everest till the 1950s.
On top of that, no one cared, no one visualized a global record. Therefore we should not be relying on the historical record to be accurate. That’s especially true for the statistically-corrected, fudged version.
Even today, GHCN admits it is difficult getting weather data from parts of Africa.
GHCN talks about thousands of duplicated records globally and how they have GUESSED at the interpretation of that data.
“GHCN [formed circa 1990] version 2 contains mean temperature data for a network of 7280 stations and maximumminimum temperature data for 4964 stations. All have at least 10 yr of data. The archive also contains homogeneity-adjusted data for a subset of this network (5206 mean temperature stations and 3647 maximum minimum temperature stations)”.
GHCN explanation of homgeneity:
“The first stage examines the quality and appropriateness of the source datasets. Thirty-one source datasets contributed temperature data to GHCN while several additional potential sources had to be rejected. The rejections were primarily caused by (a) homogeneity-adjusted data without access to original observations; (b) the monthly data were derived from synoptic reports, which are almost always incomplete, thereby causing unacceptable errors or biases; and (c) significant processing errors that indicated the source dataset was unreliable”.
In other words, the historical record is so unreliable it has to be amended retroactively using statistical guesstimates.
That is no excuse for NOAA going back and amending the warming hiatus between 1998 – 2012 admitted by the IPCC. It is not justification for erasing the 1930s record warming in the US. Nor is it justification for NOAA ignoring the record cold temperatures in North America last winter.
Neither does it change the fact that they have admitted to dropping station coverage from 6000 to less than 1500 globally. In fact, GHCN 2 admits to 7280 stations in 1992 so NOAA has dropped the coverage to 1500/7280 = 20%. Actually less than 20% since they admit to dropping the coverage BELOW 1500 stations.
All in all, Barry, I don’t think we can rely on the historical record considering the lengths GHCN has gone to in order to make it appear meaningful.
NOAA/GHCN is obviously a hotbed of climate alarmists considering the extremes to which they have gone to delete cooling and remove record warming from the 1930s.
ps. GHCN does not mention the oceans at all. The only coverage of the oceans for much of the 19th and 20th centuries was boat personnel dipping a bucket over the side, retrieving ocean water and dipping a thermometer in it.
Even today, with Argo buoys I don’t think they are reliable telemetry for air temperatures above the oceans. They spend much of their time immersed in the ocean at depth, rising occasionally to transmit a signal.
You know, there’s a real good chance this planet has not warmed at all when locales are considered. The overall record in New Zealand shows no warming. If you look at the UAH contour maps, they reveal that much of the planet has not warmed at all and that enough of it has cooled to offset any warming regions.
Maybe the global average warming is nothing more than a number.
to show the ridiculousness of Argo buoys, there are 4000 of them covering the oceans. The area of all oceans is 360,000,000 square kilometres.
That’s 360,000,000/4000 = 90,000 square kilometres per argo for coverage.
Great Britain and Ireland have an area of 315,093 km^2 and 90,000 goes into that 3.5 times. That’s like having 3 or 4 argo buoys covering the area of the UK with the Republic of Ireland.
For Binny, it’s the same for Germany at 357,376 km^2. Setup 4 thermometers around Germany and give me an accurate average temperature.
It would not do much good putting Argos in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans, since they’d disappear after being crushed or trapped under ice. Doing so, however, would bring down the global SST average, rather than relying on the fudged guestimates of NOAA.
It’s ridiculous to base an SST on such telemetry, especially when precision is expected. I have seen Argo Buoys rated to a +/- 0.002 accuracy, which is dumb considering they are immersed in and drenched with salt water much of the time.
We are far too naive and trusting with regard to science at times.
Gordon, please allow this correction:
“We are far too naive and trusting with regard to
sciencepseudoscience at times.”g*r…”Gordon, please allow this correction:
We are far too naive and trusting….
Duly noted…thanks. ☺
Gordon,
I’ve answered you below.
And yet 60 random stations will give you a good approximation of global warming.
https://tinyurl.com/y78vd3jz
I say 20 random stations is enough to show warming.
sleazy, did you know that in pseudoscience, you don’t need ANY stations?
That’s where you’re headed.
It’s fun to watch.
Good point g*e*r*a*n!
Please try out here how many stations you need to see where temperatures are heading.
Click ‘Averages/Stations’ to see individual or averaged trends.
Note that only stations that have values in your specified time period are shown.
???
Did you mean to provide a link?
g*e*r*a*n
I am bringing your awful physics down here. That “feely” video by Potholer completely matches your reality and your understanding of any science. You go by how you feel about it and not any type of reality or actual science.
FROM ABOVE:
Okay con-man, let me see if I can un-con your con.
Con #1: One is you think IR energy from a cold object will not be absorbed by a hot object. Total fantasy and goes against established physics.
What you cant understand is that a cold object can NOT increase the temperature of a hotter object. In radiative physics, this is all worked out by the photons. Youre still trying to bake a turkey with ice.
ME: No, that is just something you are making up. Nothing in real science supports your point. And adding it is worked out by photons does not help your illogical and uscientific point.
The temperature of cold surroundings directly control the temperature of powered objects. Your example of a turkey does not apply in any way and it is really as stupid diversion. A Turkey with a heating element put inside it will heat faster when surrounded by warmer water ice than if surrounded by much colder dry ice. You are not rational enough or smart enough to hope to understand why your points are absurd and made up. Keep up the “feelings’ It is all you offer. Declarations with zero proof. True pseudoscience but I am not even sure your posts are pseudoscience as they really don’t have any science at all. Just opinion.
Con #2: Another, your claim is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that increasing the temperature of cold surroundings will not increase the temperature of a hot powered item.
What you cant understand is that increasing the temperature of the cold surroundings is adding energy to the system. That is NOT an example of cold warming hot. You just dont understand thermodynamics, or 2LoT.
Yes warmer cold object do add energy to the system. That is the whole point. You can understand this but nothing else? But by adding energy to the system the powered hot object will reach a higher temperature. I think one big problem you have is total lack of what the term or meaning of “Powered” object has. Your posts indicate you do not understand this at all but you pretend your posts are valid and have some point.
Con #3: You also dont believe the Moon rotates on its axis
The Moon can NOT rotate on its axis precisely because of the tidal locking. It is NOT free to rotate on its axis. You just cant understand the difference between orbiting and rotating on its axis. And even if you did understand, you would never be able to stand against institutionalized science. In your false religion, that would be extreme heresy.
This last one is total stupidity. The Moon is completely free to rotate on its axis. You are totally clueless of what the term “Tidal Locking” means. NO false religion. Reality actually.
I certainly understand the difference between orbiting and rotate on axis. You are not able to even slightly understand logic and many people (including the skeptics) tried numerous times with numerous logical arguments but your illogical thought process is not able to process rational logic argument. All you know how to do is make up stuff, over and over.
Question for you to Answer to Yourself: FIND one of your posts where you have ever linked to a valid science site to support your false beliefs based upon your feelings? You may have but I certainly missed it. If you like science then why do you have such a hard time finding valid science (like textbooks) that support your made up nonsense (that actually go against valid science and empirical data).
Con-man, if you had a rational response, it is your job to present it clearly.
But, we know that won’t happen.
g*e*r*a*n
The response is quite clear and rational. You do not possess any skills in logic or rational thought to be able to process what I am saying. It is confusing to you because you do not accept valid science.
Your drunken delusional mental state does not equip you to read and figure out what you stated and how I responded to it. If you had even a little focus you could manage.
HERE IS ONE OF MY RESPONSES:
Yes warmer cold object does add energy to the system. That is the whole point. You can understand this but nothing else? But by adding energy to the system the powered hot object will reach a higher temperature. I think one big problem you have is total lack of what the term or meaning of Powered object has. Your posts indicate you do not understand this at all but you pretend your posts are valid and have some point.
Con-man, I think you are just rambling to be rambling. Your point appears to be that adding energy to a system will allow objects in the system to increase in temperature. That’s generally true. So, if that’s your point, you’re just being redundant. That is, rambling just to be rambling.
If anyone is interested, here is the comment the poor yelping chihuahua is attempting to respond to:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-296540
Snape
I saw these two posts above and thought I might try to address them.
YOU: “I think youre missing something here (dont worry, Im not siding with the nitwits): In real life, I believe the two plates, when pressed together, are exchanging energy via conduction. When separated they are obviously exchanging energy via radiation.
What is the effect on the temperature of each? Thats a brain teaser I cant answer, i.e. ..what method would transfer heat at a faster rate, conduction or radiation? Gets weird because the radiation is back and forth between the two objects.”
Then further elaboration:
YOU: “A) with the two plates pressed together, one side of the green plate radiates towards space, the other side conducts energy back towards the blue.
B) with the two plates separated, one side of the green plate still radiates towards space, but the other side now radiates, rather than conducts, back to the blue.
Please dont hesitate to correct me if you think Im wrong”
IN your case A) The conduction when the temperatures are the same is just a mutual energy exchange and no energy is lost or gained by either plate in this continuous energy exchange.
When you separate the green plate from the blue (which is the plate supplying energy to the green plate) it still receives the same 200 W/m^2 energy from the blue plate via radiation (previously the 200 W/m^2 had been supplied via conduction with contact with the blue plate) but now it has doubled its radiant surface area. It will radiate 200 W/m^2 from both sides now for a total of 400 W/m^2. It only can receive 200 W/m^2 from the blue plate so it will start to cool.
Now the blue plate will warm up. It was losing 200 W/m^2 via conduction with the Green plate (It receives 400 W/m^2 from the light energy source). Now with the green plate radiating energy back to the blue plate it will not lose 200 W/m^2 on the side facing the green plate. It will radiate 200 W/m^2 but the green plate will radiate energy back to the blue plate so it will lose less than 200 W/m^2 from the side facing the blue plate. It receives a total of 400 and cannot get rid of 400 so it rises in temperature. As the green plate cools it loses more energy on the side facing the green plate.
The energy is exchanged until a new balance is reached that was worked out correctly by Eli in his blog.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
The poor con-man continues to be sucked in by his false religion.
The green plate is NOT a heat source. It can NOT warm the blue plate. That would be a violation of 2LoT.
But, the cultists dont care about science.
It’s fun to watch.
Almost forgot, here is the correct solution:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Gordon Robertson
Would you please learn to read a post. It would help. You do this every time concerning heat and energy.
Did I say a cooler body transfers heat to a hotter object? NO I DID NOT. You writing it as if I did does not make it true. You do like to make things up don’t you.
It is about heat dissipation which is the amount of ENERGY EMITTED by a SURFACE MINUS the ENERGY ABSORBED by a SURFACE.
Please post a reference when I state that heat is transferred from a colder body to a warmer body? If you can’t do this would you be kind enough not to keep claiming this is my view? Could you at least try to do this.
Norm: “Please post a reference when I state that heat is transferred from a colder body to a warmer body?”
Norm: “The green plate will force the blue plate to a higher temperature”
norman…”It is about heat dissipation which is the amount of ENERGY EMITTED by a SURFACE MINUS the ENERGY ABSORBED by a SURFACE”.
Sorry…heat dissipation is only about energy leaving a body. There is no such thing as a two way transfer of thermal energy into and out of a body simultaneously.
There is no physical reason for such a two way transfer.
g*e*r*a*n
You put out an unfounded and unsupported declaration. The green plate is NOT warming the blue plate. The light source is always the source of the warming. The presence of the green plate will make the blue plate reach a higher temperature because the blue plate cannot get rid of as much HEAT from the side facing the green plate, as it could if the green plate where not there.
The green plate emits energy to the blue plate. The blue plate will absorb this energy based upon its ability to absorb IR. It is a % of the green plate’s energy. It is the same as the Blue plate’s emissivity in the IR band. If the Blue plate can emit 95% of the IR a blackbody at the same temperature would emit, it will also absorb 95% of the energy of the green plate that reaches it. If the plates are fairly close to each other the View Factor is nearly 1.
The incoming energy is what heats both plates. The green plate will force the blue plate to a higher temperature necessary to reach equilibrium with the incoming energy. Because the blue plate cannot get rid of 200 W/m^2 with the green plate on the opposite side of the light source, it will heat up until it is getting rid of 400 watts/m^2 total heat. That happens exactly as Eli Rabbet calculates for an idealized situation (perfect conduction, blackbody objects). In the real world with real materials the calculation is more daunting but the effect will still be the same.
Learn physics, learn the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You have a made up version, it is not what the actual law says. I have linked you more than once to what the actual science says. You like to ignore this reality.
Your “correct solution” is horrible made up physics and you should be totally embarrassed to claim it. You show the all posters on this blog that you know zero heat transfer physics and are a real phony. You call me Con-man often, you are the biggest con-artist of them all.
Norm is trying to con everyone, AGAIN!
He always tries to claim he understands the science, but what he fails to mention is he has no meaningful background in physics. His degree is a BA, and it is from an institution that no longer sells one. And, he’s never had courses in heat transfer or thermodynamics or quantum physics. IOW, he doesnt know squat about how to deal with the plates, or Earths energy budget.
Consequently, his long rambling comments are always hilarious, Typically, he will contradict himself in the same comment. Above is another perfect example.
First Norm says: “The green plate is NOT warming the blue plate.”
Later, he says: “The green plate will force the blue plate to a higher temperature”
So, he’s tangled up in his pseudoscience, AGAIN! But, it gets funnier. The mechanism he describes as to how the green plate is warming the blue plate is exactly what is happening in REVERSE. The blue plate warms the green plate, not the other way around.
Norm tricks himself by claiming that “The incoming energy is what heats both plates”. But, that is not correct. Look at the graphic. The incoming energy heats only the blue plate. Then, the energy from the blue plate heats the green plate.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Norm won’t admit it, but he believes that ALL infrared is ALWAYS absorbed. That allows him to claim the blue plate “must” absorb all the energy back from the green plate. Of course, that is not correct, and violates 2LoT. If ALL infrared were ALWAYS absorbed, the planet would have burned up a long time ago.
Norm’s tangled rambles are both science, and logic, impaired.
But, it’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You are making me vomit with your intentional misleading distrotion of the things I write.
YOU MAKE BOLD and false claims and enjoy your lies.
YOU: “Norm wont admit it, but he believes that ALL infrared is ALWAYS absorbed. That allows him to claim the blue plate must absorb all the energy back from the green plate. Of course, that is not correct, and violates 2LoT. If ALL infrared were ALWAYS absorbed, the planet would have burned up a long time ago.”
You dork, I stated very clearly that the amount of IR absorbed by an object depends on its ability to absorb IR. You just lie with that false and made up declarations not remotely based upon anything I said. Quit lying.
g*e*r*a*n
Roy Spencer was correct about you. A person has to state things in absolute terms for you. You can’t logically infer anything and lack ability to reason through a statement and come to a logical conclusion.
HERE you state I am wrong: “Norm tricks himself by claiming that The incoming energy is what heats both plates. But, that is not correct. Look at the graphic. The incoming energy heats only the blue plate. Then, the energy from the blue plate heats the green plate.”
Dork, if you had logical thought you would understand real basic logic. The incoming energy heats the blue plate, this energy is what warms the green plate. No incoming energy blue plate stays cold as does green plate. Technically the blue plate is what it heating the green plate but the incoming energy is the only thing heating both. I am astounded at your incredible lack of logical thought process or ability to infer anything at all. This is not a poor reflection on me, it is a real problem with you. No logical thought process.
See con-man, I knew you would not admit it.
It reminds me of a bank-robber getting caught red-handed. Then, he claims he wasn’t “really” robbing the bank. The teller just gave him the money. It was the teller’s fault!
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
These two statements are compatible. Since you can’t think logically they seem exactly the same to you. That is your flaw not mine.
HERE: “First Norm says: The green plate is NOT warming the blue plate.
Later, he says: The green plate will force the blue plate to a higher temperature
The green plate is not adding heat to the blue plate (it adds energy but not heat).
Some IR from the green plate is absorbed by the blue plate. The blue plate cannot get rid of as much HEAT on the side facing the green plate as it could without the green plate there. With the same amount of input energy the blue plate will increase in temperature until it radiates away heat at the same rate it receives it. It is logical and sound. You need to work on YOUR logic then you might have hope of understanding what is being written.
Your version is fantasy and totally made up. It goes AGAINST established physics, has no mechanism to explain it. Just complete make believe. Pseudoscience. Over and over with you. You make up this phony false science ideas and posters spend hundreds of posts pointing out your many flaws and errors. None can teach you real valid physics. NO ONE CAN.
The hilarious con-man digs his hole even deeper:
“The blue plate cannot get rid of as much HEAT on the side facing the green plate as it could without the green plate there.”
The blue plate is radiating to the green plate, which is a black body at a lower temperature, i.e., a “perfect absorber”. But, in the con-man’s twisted logic, it acts as an “insulator”!
He’a sooooo desperate.
g*e*r*a*n
Not desperate at all. I do remember why you are so incredibly unpleasant to discuss anything with. You are just not logical enough to understand anything, your analogies are horrid to read and really do not relate to anything going on.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253654188_Calculation_of_Reduction_Radiation_Heat_Transfer_using_Hemisphere_Shields_with_Temperature-dependent_Emissivity
If you read this article you will come to understand the situation in real scientific terms. The green plate acts like a heat shield reducing the amount of heat that can leave the blue plate. If less heat leaves but the same amount enters, the temperature goes up. Really simple basic logic. Roy Spencer has told you this already on other posts. You just don’t want to listen. You are two far gone in your delusional world and the pain of seeing that your POV is completely wrong would devastate you. So you cling to your made up physics to protect your world view. It would crush you to know you were wrong all this time. Sorry but you are. Read some physics I provide. You will be stunned to learn you really don’t have a clue about science, physics and your logic is really poor.
I doubt anyone wants to wake up and find what they thought was real and true was a delusion. Sleep well and post your dreams, the real world is too tough for you to handle.
norman…”If you read this article you will come to understand the situation in real scientific terms.”
This article has two fatal flaws:
1)it’s based on a model
2)they are applying two way radiative transfer based on mutual emission and that applies only at thermal equilibrium.
Con-man, how deep a hole are you going to dig?
Above, you stated: “The green plate acts like a heat shield reducing the amount of heat that can leave the blue plate.”
Norm, a black body does NOT act like a “heat shield”!
You’re as deluded as Jelly-the-clown. I don’t even have to return any of your insults, you insult yourself.
It’s fun to watch.
Also con-man, I noticed your recent effort to cling to Dr Roy’s shoelaces.
“Roy Spencer has told you this already on other posts.”
“Roy Spencer was correct about you.”
You probable don’t realize how pathetically desperate that makes you look.
More, please.
Gordon Robertson
Your science comes from blogs and is not valid. You make up stuff like g*e*r*a*n does. You are wrong in your understanding of heat transfer because you got it from bad sources and not valid established science (which is based upon actual experiment and empirical data collection).
YOU: “2)they are applying two way radiative transfer based on mutual emission and that applies only at thermal equilibrium.”
No Gordon. You are wrong here but will not accept it. There is always a two way radiative transfer as any object with temperature will emit.
You still do not understand the established equation for radiative heat transfer.
The two temperatures are to find the heat transfer from one surface.
The first temperature is the emission based upon the objects temperature. The Second temperature is the energy this same surface will absorb from the surroundings. It is the amount of energy the surrounding send to the hot object you are calculating from. I sent g*e*r*a*n a link on radiant heat transfer in slides. You should view it and cleanse the false blog physics from you mind and start learning the actual material that is available.
con-man, you keep claiming that I use “made up” physics, yet you can’t provide even one example.
But, you are the one claiming that a black body is a “heat shield”!
What a great year in climate-comedy.
g*e*r*a*n
I have given you several examples of your made up physics. It does not change your made up physics. You still keep making it up. You are no help at all. Science is already difficult for most (you seem to have an extreme problem with it, I think it is the lack of your ability to think logically) and your made up physics (that is wrong) only tends to confuse people that are already struggling. Learn the real and true physics and be a useful skeptic, not an phony that is only intentionally and willfully being a CON-MAN that you accuse me of being. I state actual physics and give actual links to my claims based upon real science. You offer nothing but your invalid opinions and made up science. It is funny that in reality you are the con-man, the sleaze, the drano. All the names you offer to other posters are descriptions of yourself.
So explain in actual science terms why a blackbody could not act a as radiant shield. There are materials that come very close to acting like blackbodies. So what is your basis? Will you make up some more of your deluded physics to lead the unwary astray?
More hilarious pseudoscience from the con-man.
He’s the one that always claims someone else is making up physics!
Hey Norm, do you have any black bodies that are also “heat sources”. How about a “perfect absorber/emitter that can also wash dishes?
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
At least I have figured out what you did for a living. You picked up garbage for a living because that is all you offer here. Pure trash. No valid reasoning, logic or even making useful or instructive posts. Just the same old lame trash you throw out daily. You need another hobby. You just make a dork of yourself on this blog.
Man you really really do not know any physics and you are completely devoid of any type of rational thinking abiltiy.
You are the Dancing Dork. You don’t know anything so you dance about like a drunken fool splattering blithering drool and pretending it has value. So far you have not shown even an inkling of understanding or reading any real physics. Just make it up, and dance around and you can impress Gordon Robertson. No one else takes you serious and thinks you are a stupid troll.
Dancing dork is probably more fitting. Dance away from answering any points addressed to you. Dance away from proving anything you claim.
Norm, you got caught trying to corrupt and distort science, AGAIN.
You’re trying to make the green plate into something it is not. All in an effort to promote your pseudoscience.
You’ve failed. And now, in your frustration, you yelp like a whiny chihuahua. You want so much to lash out at me, but you’re like an ineffective eunuch, trying to hit me with your virtual purse.
It’s fun to watch.
norman…I cannot for the life of me see why you get so hung up on basic issues.
If you heat an object from within, it will lose heat to it’s surrounding via direct conduction and/or radiation. With conduction, the rate of heat loss is dependent mainly on the temperature difference. Same with radiation.
It’s about T – To. When the difference is small the heat dissipation rate is low. When the difference increases, the dissipation rate increases.
Has nothing to do with the cooler exterior transferring heat to the warmer body. I explained this to you and swannie before, it’s about the rate of heat dissipation not heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer body.
“With conduction, the rate of heat loss is dependent mainly on the temperature difference. Same with radiation.”
No – radiative loss is dependent on the temperature of the object ONLY, NOT the temperature difference from the surroundings.
Des
Gordon Robertson is correct with his statement. Radiative HEAT loss is dependent upon the temperature difference.
The amount of energy an object emits is what depends only on the object’s temperature. The HEAT loss is the amount of energy the object emits minus the energy it absorbs from the surroundings. As the temperature of the surroundings go up the object will absorb more energy from the surroundings and will lose less HEAT. It will emit based only on its temperature but it will be absorbing more energy so it will lose less heat.
Not correct. If you really want to account for the minuscule amount of radiation coming in from the “surroundings”, it is much more complicated than that. Emitted radiation is NOT linear with temperature, so it can’t be a simple difference.
Des, it’s:
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac
4 should be ^4.
The con-man and sleazy are confused by that equation, AGAIN.
The emission from an object is dependent on its temperature, not the temperature of something else. The amount of “heat transfer” is determined by both the temperatures of emitter and absorber.
Even is the emitted energy is NEVER absorbed, the emitter still loses energy, and consequently drops in temperature.
I probably should add to my reference to that equation.
That equation, in the hands of the unlearned, is like a loaded pistol in the hands of a 5-year-old. The result will likely not be good.
The equation really has little value in the real world. It is derived under ideal conditions, that NEVER occur in reality. For the equation to be valid, ALL of the energy emitted by one object, must be absorbed by the other. That NEVER happens. “View factors” don’t help because they require empirical data, to be accurate. After all the data collection, you wouldn’t need the equation!
The equation is similar to the imaginary “black body”. Both are basically only conceptual, and often used as teaching aids, but should not be used in real world situations.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“For the equation to be valid, ALL of the energy emitted by one object, must be absorbed by the other”.
No, because it has ε:
“A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity ε < 1:
Nice try sleazy, but the emissivity just affects the amount emitted. ALL of that must be absorbed, for the equation to be valid. That does not happen in the real world.
Now try some more sleaze.
It’s fun to watch.
Svante
It is not just a matter of ε.
That equation assumes that ALL radiation emitted by the surroundings is directed back at the object in question.
For example, only one two-billionth of the energy released by the sun heads in the direction of the earth, because the earth occupies only one two-billionth of the sky as seen from the sun. This needs to be factored in.
(“Coincidentally”, the sun emits about 2 billion times as much energy as the earth”.)
My quote had both ‘absorb’ and ’emit’ in it.
That’s because Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation says they are the same:
“For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the ab-sor-ptivity.”
Des says:
“That equation assumes that ALL radiation emitted by the surroundings is directed back at the object in question.”
Not really, it is between a surface and its surroundings.
If the surroundings is not homogenous it gets more complicated.
And, your point is?
The point is that heat loss depends on temperature difference.
Emitted energy depends on the temperature of the object.
Whether or not the surroundings are homogeneous, only a small fraction of energy emitted by the surroundings will make it back to the object.
If the object in question is a sphere, even in the best case scenario where the “surroundings” consist of only a thin layer of material, 50% of the energy emitted by the layer will head away from the sphere.
“The point is that heat loss depends on temperature difference.”
Needs a lot of clarification.
“Emitted energy depends on the temperature of the object.”
Generally true.
g*e*r*a*n says: “Needs a lot of clarification”.
You are right g*e*r*a*n, but:
1) There is no heat transfer if temperatures are the same.
2) If temperatures diverge from this point, heat transfer will increase.
This is true for conduction, convection and radiation.
Des says:
“If the object in question is a sphere, even in the best case scenario where the ‘surroundings’ consist of only a thin layer of material, 50% of the energy emitted by the layer will head away from the sphere.”
The formula applies at the surface of the object in question, thus the factor Ac.
svante claims: “There is no heat transfer if temperatures are the same.”
sleazy, I suspect you are just trying to sneak in some more sleaze. But, in case you’re sincerely trying to understand, here’s some more help.
The heat transfer is not caused by the plate temperatures. The heat transfer is causing the plate temperatures. You don’t understand the relevant physics.
See if you can understand, with a simple water analogy.
There are two barrels filled with water, to the exact level. The one on the right has a hole at the top of the water level, that lets excess water out. The barrels are connected with a pipe.
Now, pour water into the left barrel. The water levels in the two barrels remain the same, but water is now flowing from the hole in the right barrel.
The barrels are not causing the outflow. It is the incoming water that causes the outflow.
Des
Svante is correct in his understanding of the equation. The full equation also includes the View Factor. With a sphere inside a hollow sphere the view factor is 1, the inner sphere will absorb all the available energy from the outer sphere that is being radiated toward it and that depends upon the temperature of the outer sphere. The reason they only need to use emissivity for the outer sphere is because the radiant energy it does not absorb from the inner sphere is then reflected back to the inner sphere and the heat loss only depends upon the emissivity of the inner sphere. With the atmosphere you can not use this most simple equation because energy goes through the atmosphere. You would have to get the IR returning to the Earth from the atmosphere which has been done many times and scientists have a good certainty of the average value of this energy (they give it a 340 W/m^2 average value, much higher at the Equator and much lower at the poles).
Yeah sleazy, if you ever find a perfect sphere,suspended inside a perfect hollow sphere, in a vacuum, you can use that otherwise useless equation.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Are you proud to be scientifically illiterate? Are you unable to read any scientific material?
Your point is really poor and it again demonstrates clearly that no only have you never studied any thermodynamics, you also refuse to update your knowledge by reading some now. Why is that?
HERE YOU SHOW HOW ILLITERATE YOU ARE ABOUT SCIENCE: “Yeah sleazy, if you ever find a perfect sphere,suspended inside a perfect hollow sphere, in a vacuum, you can use that otherwise useless equation.”
The equation is used all the time in real world radiant heat transfer applications.
Go through this slide series. It will help you understand the physics and help you not make you look ignorant when you post your made up ideas or make ludicrous claims about established physics.
https://www.slideshare.net/NeerajJain22/radiation-heat-transfer-54018986
svante…”Des, its:
q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac
Svante…there are no provisions for a mutual emission/absorp-tion in that formula.
If you regard q as heat dissipation, then Th = Tc means the heat dissipation is 0. If Th > Tc, heat is dissipated from Th only. As you have written it, it makes no sense to have Tc > Th.
In a real world situation, Th was a power transistor needed to disipate heat, and Th = Tc, the transistor would heat up. If you did not supply adequate heat dissipation it would eventually burn up.
The equation you have presented always satisfies the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson says:
The one-way emission is in there, it’s Stefan-Boltzman’s, just re-arrange:
Ph = ε σ Th^4 Ah
Pc = ε σ Tc^4 Ac
To see how two objects interact you also need to consider view angles as described elsewhere by Norman.
Tc > Th means negative heat, roles reversed, no problem.
Con-man, you’re hilarious. You don’t realize it was your mis-application of that equation that made you look like a idiot, AGAIN. You tried to use it with the plates, and you got caught, and now, in your worm-infested head, it’s my fault!
This is going to be a great year in climate-comedy.
More, please.
sleazy and the con-man continue to promote that nearly-useless equation. They do so because they believe it supports their false solution to the plates. And, they NEED that false solution to support their other false belief, the GHE.
Their false religion is built on one false belief after another. It’s a stack of cards. It’s shaking already, as they try to hold it together.
But, there’s an earthquake coming. ..
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry again. Your lack of understanding of a fundamental radiative heat transfer equation makes only you look like the idiot that you are. A phony pretender who makes up physics and acts like he knows what he is talking about. You can’t even understand what the equation is stating and yet you think it is useless. Sad state for you. You fool yourself and a couple people who read these blogs that have little scientific understanding or knowledge.
YOUR statement: “Their false religion is built on one false belief after another. Its a stack of cards. Its shaking already, as they try to hold it together.”
The accurate version is a refection only of your own inadequate knowledge of physics of heat transfer. I do not share in your ignorance.
The Correct version of your statement should be. “MY false religion is built on one false belief after another. Its a stack of cards. Its shaking already, as I try to hold it together.”
That is the correct way to make the statement. You don’t have any real knowledge of physics. You make up stuff all the time based solely upon your own beliefs of how you think things work. I have linked you to valid science often. Your ADD does not allow you to focus, read or learn the material so you will perpetually be stuck in a deluded world of your own opinions that you assert with phony authority and that are not based upon anything at all. Just your belief. Made up and phony.
g*e*r*a*n Maybe you should apply Biblical standards to your deluded and false physics. “Seek the Truth and the Truth will set you free”
Read the links I sent you and then get back to me and tell me again why you think I am wrong. Do so only after you have read and understood the material presented to you.
Con-man, I removed all of your pseudoscience, false accusations, and rambling nonsense. Here’s what was left:
“”
Just keep explaining your magic black body that is also a “heat shield”.
That’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
It seems as if you have a new way to avoid reality that you know nothing.
Basically you avoid science like a horrible illness. So with your current stupid line of input I appeal again to you never post to comments I make that are not directly to you.
You are not even able to debate or think. You just come up with stupid posts that have zero meaning. I think in your stupid mind you believe they are clever or something. You are a dork.
This is how dorky you are becoming.
“Con-man, I removed all of your pseudoscience, false accusations, and rambling nonsense. Heres what was left:
That is supposed to be funny I guess. It is all you can do though since you are scientifically illiterate and you have zero ability to think or respond with logic or reason.
What a complete dork you are.
con-man, I have to hand it to you. I thought you had run out of comedy routines. But your latest idea of the “multi-functional black body” is ingenious. Talk about “making up” science!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
And you still have not even attempted to answer the question of why you think, if a blackbody actually existed, it would not act as a radiant shield based upon what a radiant shield is. Avoiding this is not making you seem intelligent. I makes you look like you do not have a clue. Explain or shut-up, it is that easy. Quit being the dork of the blog and contribute with some actual valuable material. Your current posting is of zero or negative value. Making up your own physics is negative value.
Here is an actual material that is close to blackbody. It has a listed emissivity of 1.00 so it is very close.
Paint: 3M, black velvet coating 9560 series optical black
From this link.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table
So you could paint both plates with this and have a very close approximation to an actual blackbody emission.
con-man, now you’re trying to dodge the issue, making it look like I can’t answer your “red-herring” questions.
Hilarious.
You’re the one that can’t answer why you are “making up” false physics. A black body is NOT a heat shield. You’re trying to make up physics to support your pseudoscience. While you constantly accuse others of doing what you do.
What a clown! Jelly is going to be jealous.
“Jealous Jelly”!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
End the farce. Tell me what you think a radiative heat shield is? I don’t think you know what one is so you dance around the issue pretending you know what you are talking about. I do notice you will not state what one is and I gave you a paint that mimics a blackbody.
So tell me what you think a radiative heat shield is and how exactly does it function? Don’t dance around with your phony intellect, just explain. If you can’t do that then you need to find a new hobby where phony physics and make believe science are welcome. They are not valuable here at all.
Con-man, your attempt to spin your way out of your tangled web is hilarious. You “made up” your pseudo-physics of a black body that is also a “heat shield”. You did this to try to support the incorrect plate solution where the green plate caused the blue plate to rise to a higher temperature. All of your other efforts were shown invalid. Now, your last ditch effort is to “make up” a new kind of black body to fit your hilarious pseudoscience.
But, you’ve got another problem.
If the green plate is a “heat shield”, then so is the blue plate!
Keep spinning. It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
It would still seem you are dancing around. You don’t have any real answers. I knew you wouldn’t because you don’t have the slightest clue about any science.
What do you think a blackbody is anyway. The only reason it is hypothetical because nothing known absorbs all radiant energy directed toward it nor emits all possible radiant energy. It is not a magic thing you make it out to be. Like some type of ghost physics. The paint I linked you to is very close to a blackbody and again what do you think a radiant shield is. Please quit dancing around and answer! You endless avoidance of answering anything gets old.
There is no “spinning” the actual reality is you are a dork that has no knowledge of any physics. You pretend you are gifted with knowledge but all you give to this blog is some opinions and false declarations. Nothing of value. You are the only one spinning around in endless circles, repeating stupidity endlessly without every supporting even one of your ridiculous make believe notions.
Quit dancing and quit making up physics. Everything you say about others is only true about yourself. You are a complete con-man pretending to know physics when you know you have never studied even simple physics. You dance around all issues and avoid answering anything so that makes you a spin doctor.
All your comments are by definition pseudoscience. You make up all you opinions. NOT one is supported by any valid science. And you also are unable to process ideas logically or infer meaning from words. You waste lots of time with your dancing. My post won’t change you. You will still avoid all physics, you will never support any of your opinions. You will maintain you know science when you don’t. All a complete fraud, a true phony.
con=man, I edited out all the personal insults, false accusations, and distorted physics. What was left is in quotation marks:
“”
It appears you have run out of ways to spin yourself out of your own web of deceit. Hopefully you will come up with something new.
It’s always fun to watch.
I see the Dancing Dork posted some pointless comment with zero content. Normal for the Dancing Dork. Seems all he can do here. Not an intelligent person and totally lacks any knowledge of science. Relies totally on his own made up version and is happy to peddle it to other dorks who are too lazy to crack open textbooks and learn.
g*e*r*a*n
The dancing dork with nothing to say.
What else is new. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the dancing dork to make a valid science contribution.
Hey Dork have you looked at the thermodynamic slide series I linked to you. I didn’t think so. You are too busy being a dork and dancing around questions that you are not able to answer.
Poor Norm. The worms have so infested his head he can’t see any reality. He keeps hurling his juvenile insults at me, not realizing that they have no effect. He makes false accusations, not realizing the truth is here for all to see. He can’t see that he is busted. He got caught, AGAIN.
I should feel sorry for him, but it’s too much fun watching his downfall.
The Dancing Dork can’t help but respond with his normal pointless comments that have no value. Go dance some more dork. Avoid science, avoid answering anything of substance. It is what you do. It is all you seem able to do.
The dancing dork that is the only one promoting intentional falsehoods with the purpose to deceive the unsuspecting.
I notice, dancing dork, you have not answered anything yet.
You do not explain what you think a blackbody is. You can’t explain why a blackbody is forbidden from being a radiant shield. You have danced away from answering what you believe a radiant shield to be.
Dance dork, you have some value in your dancing moves. Avoid answering things some more. Dance around until you drop from exhaustion.
Norm’s downfall is nearly over. We’re just waiting for the “splat”, which will come as I give him the last word.
(Hilarious.)
“No radiative loss is dependent on the temperature of the object ONLY, NOT the temperature difference from the surroundings.”
It appears both des and G* agree.
Radiative loss depends on surface temperature, surface of concern can be microns thick. Or say with metals the surface has to do with the transparency of metals, which is pretty thin.
So temperature of object can be different than temperature of
a surface of object.
Air can also be interacting with a surface.
The radiative energy is based blackbody surface in a vacuum, and is the most energy which can radiated at a temperature of the surface into the 3 K universe.
There are only things which sort of acts like a blackbody surface, there a lot things which are not like a blackbody surface. The universe is mostly gas, gas is not vaguely like a blackbody surface.
norman…”Now the blue plate will warm up”.
Why are you belaboring the point about this Rabbett thought-experiment. He was proved wrong by two experts in thermodynamics.
In a rebuttal to G&T, Rabbett et al had confused EM with heat. Since G&T claimed heat can only be transferred one way, Rabbett’s team (Halpern et al) had claimed G&T were suggesting one body was not radiating.
G&T had to point out the obvious, that the 2nd law is about heat and that you cannot satisfy a heat transfer by summing electromagnetic energy. You must sum quantities of heat.
If you examine a heat transfer via radiation, you can measure the heat increase via temperature in the cooler body and the reduction of heat in the warmer body, provided it is not heated at the same time. That way you could theoretically sum the heat quantities and determine how much was transferred.
Not really. In a real two-body system, heat in the hotter body is dissipated by radiation in all directions and you can only sum heat loss and gain between bodies based on the small fraction of radiated EM that reaches the colder body from the warmer body.
The only way you could conduct such an experiment would be to have a smaller radiating body in a sphere under vacuum.
The S-B equation is misleading. It allows the EM radiation to be measured in W/m^2 but that’s really a measure of the heat dissipated, not the EM flux. In the days of Stefan and Boltzmann it was believed that heat flowed through the atmosphere as heat rays.
I doubt if they realized that electrons in atoms were converting heat to EM, In fact, I know they had no knowledge of that since electron theory was not developed by Thompson till well after S-B released the equation.
There is nothing there to measure with EM, all you can measure is the heating effect it can have on a mass if it is absorbed. EM flowing through space cannot be measured in W/m^2 because that represents a potential heating effect, not a property of the EM.
That’s where Rabbett’s thought experiment falls apart. He has presumed EM is heat and that any EM can be absorbed by any body.
It’s not true. Take visible light, for example. We see colour only because an object absorbs certain wavelengths of EM and reject the rest. The rejected wavelengths reaching our eyes are converted to colour in our retinas.
If all objects absorbed all visible light, everything would appear black.
Gordon Robertson
You have posted lots of made up physics that really has not value on trying to determine the effects of increasing Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. If you could learn real physics and get away from your made up ideas it would help.
EMR does have energy. Many experiments have proven it and it has been measured. I can’t even fathom how bad your science is. There is no way to get you back to reality. You need to quit reading blog science and get back to reading textbooks. And quit assuming scientists don’t know what they are talking about. What you read in textbooks has been found through logical, rational thought process and experimental evidence.
I don’t think I can much respond to your horrid physics. It is that bad and it has negative value to me. Bad science is far worse than no science. The thing that hurts is you think your horrible made up version of science is good or valid. It is like watching a horror movie, a monster. You have taken good science and created it into some horrible monster. Please stop and read.
norman…”EMR does have energy…”
I have never claimed EMR is not energy, I have called it that…electromagnetic energy. As a form of energy it can be converted by electrons in atoms to heat and the electrons can convert heat to EM.
It’s all energy but with different forms and properties.
My point has always been that EM is not heat. They are both forms of energy and one can be converted to the other. The same is true for heat and work, which is mechanical energy.
I did not claim that EM by itself in space is not energy, I suggested it is not correct to give it the values of W/m^2, unless you mean that as it’s potential to create heat energy.
When you have a halogen work lamp rated at 300 watts, the 300 W is a reference to electrical power, 90% of which is converted to heat. Only 10% is converted to EM and that is measured as lumens, where the lumen is almost equivalent to the EM given off by a small candle burning in a room. One candle-power = 12.57 lumens.
I am suggesting there is confusion when EM is rated in W/m^2 because that value is actually a reference to the heat dissipated when the EM is emitted.
Why is EM rated in lumens for its light intensity?
ps. a good portion of my career in electronics and electrical work has been based on EM and the magnetic fields produced by current moving through a conductor.
As energy, EM is generally rated in eV (electron volts) since 1 eV is the energy of an electron’s charge moving through an electrical field of 1 volt. However, it’s a matter of what comes first, the chicken or the egg.
How does one measure EM? A metallic probe of some sort is often required and all it does is allow the EM to interact with it, which produces an electric current. I’m not sure, but if an EM field can cause an electron to gain the energy for it’s charge to cross an electric field of 1 volt, the energy produced is one eV.
Can that energy be attributed to the EM field when it is doing nothing? That’s the question I am asking. I guess the same question can be asked about a heated gas before inserting a thermometer. Does the gas have a temperature? It can have relative heat levels but does it have a temperature before the human invention of a thermometer is inserted.
In fact, can any energy be attributed values if it is not acting on something and being measured by a human?
This is a more philosophical question than practical, I am only trying to draw attention to EM as an energy flowing through space. If its not interacting with electrons, how can we measure it in eV?
There are no meters that measure EM directly as an energy source. The EM must be converted to another form to be measured.
Gordon Robertson
Have you ever played the computer game “Minesweeper”. You can’t see the hidden squares. Do they have a mine or not under them that will end the game? You figure out if there are mines by logical inference from the values given by the surroundings. You may not be able to measure the energy of EMR until you convert it, but you can infer that it has a given amount of energy by the effects it produces on some detecting device. Using logical inference (which is a necessary precept of science and a coherent structured Universe) you can then determine that the EMR did indeed have the energy you measured by the conversion device.
EMR can be measured in eV or joules or any other energy term. If you have lots of EMR then W/m^2 is acceptable. You have this much joules/sec in a given area moving across space. When it encounters matter it will be converted to forms of energy that can be detected. Visible light with our eyes, heat when IR.
I guess I do think your current line of thought is interesting.
norman…”you can infer that it has a given amount of energy by the effects it produces on some detecting device”
It’s called potential energy.
“EMR can be measured in eV or joules or any other energy term. If you have lots of EMR then W/m^2 is acceptable”.
I am not inferring anything I am just engaged in discussion with you. If we both learn from the interchange, all the better.
The thing for me is that the eV applies to the charge on one electron, if it is possible to measure one electron. It’s not the electron mass per se that counts it’s the electrical charge the electron it’s carrying. If the charge accompanies the electron through a potential difference of 1 volt, then the energy of the electron/charge is 1 eV.
I see your point about larger amounts of electrons producing a higher level of eV, since eV is related to joules and joules to watts. However, the energy you are measuring is the energy of the electrons, not the EM flux per se. The EM definitely causes the electron’s charge to gain an energy of 1 eV but that energy belongs to the electron, not the EM.
I would love to know more about this stuff at a deeper level but most stuff I read features the math and not the subjective explanations. I really have to dig for that. Then again, there often is no physical explanation available.
You also have to keep in mind that all this stuff is theory. That goes for electrons, EM, heat, and all energy. There is something there but what is it? No one has ever witnessed the energies involved or even an electron as a particle.
Gordon Robertson
Yes the whole atomic model is a theory but it is based upon empirical evidence. The model will be used as long as it provides a useful tool to understand the microscopic unseen world. If it fails to be useful scientists will come up with a new model that will. So far the current atomic model works well enough that a major change to it is not necessary or warranted.
The hilarious, un-educated, yelping chihuahua informs us that if the atomic model fails, “scientists” will come up with another one that will also fail!
Norm states: “If it fails to be useful scientists will come up with a new model that will.”
Just let poor Norm ramble, and he will always make a fool of himself, AGAIN.
g*e*r*a*n
Once again you demonstrate for all to see that you do not know what you are talking about. I am the one who has actual education at higher levels in science. You have nothing but blog versions of distorted and misleading science that you hold on to for dear life.
Here is the real deal. I am hoping to educate you slightly or at least demonstrate to all posters that you are a complete phony and haven’t the slightest clue or knowledge of anything scientific. A complete fraud, total phony and pretender.
For any interested to see the reality of what g*e*r*a*n really is. A phony.
https://www.wired.com/2009/09/the-development-of-the-atomic-model/
Quote from the article: “Scientists build models. When new evidence is collected, the models change.”
Yes g*e*r*a*n reveal to all that you never studied any higher level science. You are clueless about the scientific world and its methods. You are unable to logically think and infer from evidence. You have ADD and cannot possibly read material in textbooks. You make up unreal and unsupported versions of science and pretend you know what you are talking about. You call the valid science I post as pseudoscience and you claim your phony made up declarations are reality and fact. You post an absurd cartoon about radiant flows between plates that is totally wrong and unsupported by any valid science but act as if it has validity.
con-man, I took out all the inaccuracies and redundancies, from your last comment. Here’s what was left:
“”
Glad to help.
Norm, just for fun, I did a quick review of your comment at 9:56 PM, above.
After taking out all the personal slurs and redundant rambling, what was left is in quotes, below:
“”
Same goes for every comment by your sock puppet.
Yes, I agree. But snake is only 12-years-old. What would we expect?
Finally an admission that you do indeed have a sock puppet on this site. But I’ve never heard Mike Flynn referred to as “snake” before.
Well then, you’re as confused about frequent commenters, as you are about the bogus GHE.
You appear consistent, but being consistently wrong is not good, is it?
You agreed that you have a sock puppet. If not Mike Flynn, who is your sock puppet then?
Well yes, you did use the word “your”. But that is not what I was agreeing to. That’s my fault in not being clearer in my response.
But often, when replying to nonsense, I do not make extra efforts to worry about all the technicalities and semantics.
Hope you will forgive me.
Pray tell – when you said “yes, I agree”, what exactly were you agreeing to?
Remember – it was in response to my comment immediately preceding that one of yours, so your response should reflect that.
Here is your shot at redemption – you have the opportunity to be 100% clear in your response. I suspect you will take your usual option of not directly answering my question.
des, I don’t feel any obligation to respond to nonsense. Do you?
When did you stop killing your neighbors’ pets?
Snape says:
“two plates, when pressed together, are exchanging energy via conduction. When separated they are obviously exchanging energy via radiation. […]
what method would transfer heat at a faster rate, conduction or radiation?”
Kristian taught me that radiation occurs internally as well as on the surface, and of course it has to be that way.
So part of conduction is actually radiation (X), the rest is molecules in direct contact (Y), so you have:
A) Together: X+Y.
B) Separated: X.
I.e. heat transfer rate A > B
Do you agree Norman?
Conduction involves molecules vibrating other molecules. That rate is determined by the molecules. That’s why different materials have different heat transfer characteristics.
Radiative heat transfer is at the speed of light, to the surface. Then conduction takes over.
In the plates scenario, the slight gap would not affect anything. That’s why the green plate would have the same temperature as the blue plate.
Conduction in metals in generally by free electrons.
(And before you try to correct me – yes I know we are not talking about electrical conduction.)
No need to correct you, des. That’s correct.
In fact, electrons, within molecules, are involved in thermal conduction also.
Here’s the lesson I got from Kristian:
https://tinyurl.com/ybls8kzp
Makes sense to me, why would a molecule radiate at the surface but not underneath it?
I agree it would be much less than by free electrons or direct collisions.
Svante
The radiation emitted by molecules inside a solid object would constitute Kristian’s photon gas or cloud. The net effect of such radiations is zero. If they exist they neither add nor subtract any energy from the body. Only at the surface does radiant energy add or lose net energy. If the surface absorbs more than it emits, it will increase in temperature. If it loses more it will cool. EMR only penetrates a few microns in most materials (transparent and translucent it can travel much better), so EMR generated within an object has no net effect and that is why it is not included in any heat transfer equations.
Norman,
I guess you are right, but if there is a heat gradient inside the material then radiation ought to transfer some heat, even if those tiny differences propagate in micron sized hops.
It would be inconvenient to separate such an effect from ordinary conduction.
Gordon Dunning-Kruger,
The UAH anomalies for Jan, Feb and Mar and +0.26, +0.20, +0.24.
These are arrived at my subtracting FROM an “absolute temperature” (whatever that means with regard to the satellite record) the average “absolute temperature” for the baseline that is being used.
When you change that baseline, all that changes is the CONSTANT average that you are subtracting from the monthly readings. If I change the baseline period to one where the average anomaly is +0.20 for the original baseline, then those anomalies will become +0.06, 0.00, +0.04. If I switch to another baseline period whose average anomaly in the original system is -0.20, then the monthly anomalies will become +0.46, +0.40, +0.44.
The relative gaps between the data don’t change when you change the baseline period. (Except for rounding issues, when the change has more decimal places than the displayed data.) It really is that simple.
The fact that you are incapable of seeing this simple arithmetic for 12 year olds sheds light on your lack of understanding of other key mathematical and scientific concepts.
des…”When you change that baseline, all that changes is the CONSTANT average that you are subtracting from the monthly readings”.
The baseline ‘IS’ the average of all the anomalies, that’s why I find it a peculiar way of doing things. The baseline has to change dynamically as the time series gets longer.
If you create a baseline over 150 years using a baseline from 1950 – 1990 how can you compare it to one created from 1980 – 2010?
One argument against the surface baseline is it’s location between 1950 and 1990. It was based on the average of many surface station anomalies, then the number of stations was drastically reduced. They did not change the baseline, they continue to apply it to 10% of the surface stations upon which the 1950 -1990 baseline was determined.
For me, the UAH baseline is far more accurate since it encompasses nearly the entire record. I don’t see how the surface record can be converted to the UAH baseline.
Furthermore, the UAH data is based on a scan of 95% of the Earth’s atmospheric surface layer. The surface record is based on a sparse coverage of mainly the land surface, featuring two a day temperature averages. Sats scan bazillions of oxygen molecules per instantaneous sweep of their scanners.
It’s a bit of a joke to me that surface coverage of the SST using ships’ water intake temperatures and mostly submersed Argo buoys is taken seriously. I think the satellite coverage is far more accurate and comprehensive.
It would not surprise me if NOAA is not monitoring UAH to see what the sats get for the SST then programming their models to get similar results, with a bit added on to satisfy climate alarmists.
If you got into NOAA headquarters you’d likely see researchers sitting around crystal balls while consulting with swammies.
In other words, you want to hide the warming by having the baseline climb with the temperatures.
des…re dunning-kruger effect…”In the field of psychology, the DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is”.
You will also find in the field of psychology, many slackers who could not get a meaningful degree elsewhere. Many daddies send their sons/daughters to university to get them out of their hair and the kids select courses in psychology because they are very easy to pass.
I studied four years of psychology as a minor subject while studying engineering. There have been really good psychologists like Carl Rogers, his student Eugene Gendlin, Abraham Maslow, to name a few, however, I’d guess that many of them are the slackers I described who could not figure out a human condition due to their lack of sense.
Rogers did a study on the effects of therapy and concluded that only 60% worked, including his own. He measured the therapeutic effect of psychoanalysis as being no better than no therapy at all.
His student, Gendlin, followed up that study trying to understand why. He concluded that certain people have an innate ability to understand the process and allow their bodies to heal. The rest do not and therapy fails.
I am wondering why you don’t seek therapy yourself since you not only fail to recognize genius in your midst, you resent it. You lack the ability to engage in a meaningful dialog based on science. You have preconceived notions of statistics and it’s application and you are not willing to let go of them to explore further.
How would psychologists like Dunning and Kreuger be able to ascertain whether a person has low ability when they themselves meet that criterion. If they conducted their research in the jungles of New Guinea, they would conclude all the natives had low ability yet when it came to survival, they would die while the natives thrived.
Intelligence in our society is measured by the ability of a brain to process information on a contrived test. It’s really a measure of intellect, not intelligence. You strive to be intellectual, mistaking it for intelligence.
We all have innate intelligence but we tend to stifle it behind a superficial intellect. I am striving to set mine free, how about joining in rather than sitting back like an envious schoolboy?
You didn’t need to go beyond your first paragraph. I’m glad you understand.
But I am somewhat confused … in the course of one month you have gone from studying engineering to having studied engineering. That’s an odd time of the year to finish a degree, wouldn’t you say.
des…”But I am somewhat confused in the course of one month you have gone from studying engineering to having studied engineering. Thats an odd time of the year to finish a degree, wouldnt you say”.
I replied with a long reply to get the message across that you had cherry picked jargon from psychology without understand that psychology, in general, is about as useless an art as AGW and climate modelling. Psychology has had a century and a half to make an impact since Freud revealed there is more to humans (unconscious processes) than what meets the eye, yet here we are offering dumb studies on ability to understand what is going on.
With regard to my engineering background, you’re not somewhat confused, you’re a whole lot confused. If you want to challenge my understanding of physics why don’t you challenge me on the physics, especially physics related to electrical engineering? I have challenged you in particular on statistics related to trends and you have yet to supply a convincing argument indicating you are more than an armchair enthusiast.
Why don’t you stick to trying to deal with the science rather than using the typical alarmists ploy of trying to discredit (ad hom) the poster? I have a thick skin when it comes to ad homs and I find some of them humourous, even when aimed at me.
Sites like desmog blog and SkS spent a lot of their time trying to equate skeptics to oil companies. When they could not attack Roy or John of UAH on the data, they resorted to ad homs and innuendo.
If you must use an ad hom, try accompanying it with science, so people can see you know what you’re talking about or can verify it.
I have never claimed I am studying engineering, I have only claimed that I studied it decades ago. When I studied engineering none of the current bs about space-time, black holes as a fact, or the Big Bang as a fact, were taught. Even evolution had no particular importance, and its still does not.
I have witnessed a slew of arrogant, opinionated jerks take over science, especially with the AGW pseudo-science.
You’ll have to excuse my present skepticism about science that has no basis in fact.
Gordon,
Please read this post carefully.
I had not seen this article before and after reading the article it corroborates my notion that the current GHCN series is based on totally fudged calculations (statistically derived).
The paper explains the reason for more weather stations in the 1990s.
Not from deletions – from adding weather station data retrospectively.
The paper you have finally read is the original paper that contains the original “station dropout” chart. It is fig 2.
Chiefio’s claim that stations were deleted is based on no evidence whatsoever, and he is either ignorant of the truth or doesn’t want to admit it because it spoils his narrative.
When called on it he wrote:
“First, that there is no person actively pruning thermometers. While the spin put on my position has tended to say there is active intentional removal of thermometers for malicious effect; I have gone out of my way to point out that I can not know any persons intent, only the result. Ive also said that it is possible, though increasingly remote as a possibility, that the thermometer drops are a passive action…
But in either case, Im more interested in the FACT of the thermometer deletions (or drops) from the record and what that says about data bias; than about whether there has been a sin of omission or of commission.”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/kusi-coleman-tv-show-discussion/
Chiefio has no idea about whether stations were deliberately cut or not. That’s just the spin he puts on it.
The fact is that five and a half thousand stations were added by hand, retrospectively, during an acquisition project that lasted several years in the 1990s. This data was acquired from places that did not and do not make their data available monthly to GHCN.
When that project finished in the late 1990s, the 1500 monthly updating stations continued to send their data to NOAA.
That is why there are more stations in the 1990s – because they were added to the database. The opposite of what you think happened.
From the original paper:
“Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them”
Please let’s have no more nonsense about “75% of weather station data was slashed.” It is the exact opposite of the truth.
Foot note: 60 random stations will give you a good approximation of global warming.
https://tinyurl.com/y78vd3jz
Notes on Chiefio’s claim that having fewer cold stations in the latter period increases the trend.
First, Chiefio has self-admittedly not crunched the numbers to check his claim. When asked to corroborate his view after checking work that HAD been done, he said:
“At some point I might get to it, but right now Ive got a large backlog of things Ive said I would do that Ive not yet done.”
[inline reply to linked comment]
He’s never done it.
People who did do the analysis said this:
Roy Spencer:
“But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset at least not since 1986.”
Clear Climate Code:
“It is certainly not the case that the warming trend is stronger in the data from the post-cutoff stations.”
Zeke Hausfather:
“There is no significant difference between the temperature from discontinuous and continuous stations, suggesting that there was no purposeful or selective dropping of stations to bias the data. If anything, discontinuous stations have a slightly higher trend over the century than continuous stations.”
Skeptic Jeff Condon also remarked similarly at The Blackboard:
“I also verified the dropout issue seemed to have little effect back when this was being discussed. No posts on it but if anything the stations cut short seemed to have slightly greater warming trend.”
To sum up:
Chiefio claimed the majority of weather station data was deleted – with no evidence whatsoever that this is what had actually happened.
In fact, the opposite is true.
Chiefio believed that the loss of colder stations toward the end of the record would bias the global record warm – despite never doing the due diligence to substantiate that belief.
In fact, ‘skeptics’ and others did the analysis that demonstrated he was wrong.
I’m not serving propaganda here, Gordon. What I’ve cited here was what unfolded when Chiefio first made the claims. I followed the debate closely at the time and read all sides.
Chiefio did a lot of programming code to test the data. But he also made a number of assertions that he never checked or tested. Others did, and I did. These are the results.
Please deal with the substance of these posts. No rhetoric, please. No politics. In the rigorous hunt for truth, stick to the topic and drill into it, don’t go off on tangents. NOAA did NOT “slash” 75% of weather station data.
Thanks barry.
barry, even if it were not intentional, do you agree that the result “cooled the past”?
Did you not read the following part of his post:
Skeptic Jeff Condon also remarked similarly at The Blackboard:
I also verified the dropout issue seemed to have little effect back when this was being discussed. No posts on it but if anything the stations cut short seemed to have slightly greater warming trend.
So by taking out the stations that had a “slightly greater warming trend”, would that not “cool the past”?
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/
I am not going to look at one of your denier websites. Link to real science if you want me to read it.
Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how removing stations that have a greater difference between past and present, while keeping stations that have a lower difference between past and present, would create an overall greater difference between past and present.
Des, Heller is a “Lukewarmer”. He’s not a “denier”. He believes CO2 can “warm the planet”. Like many, he has no relevant science background. He actually bans real Skeptics from his blog.
I’m surprised you don’t like him.
Still waiting for your explanation.
Well des, you seem to prefer my “own words” over the actual data. I flattered, so here goes:
If you were to selectively remove certain stations, you could probably come up with whatever result you desired.
Please don’t change the assumptions. You said “So by taking out the stations that had a ‘slightly greater warming trend’, would that not ‘cool the past’?”. THAT is what you are supposed to be explaining.
des, I’m not changing any assumptions. I’m just saying if you can select the stations to eliminate, you can change the results to fit an agenda.
If you can’t understand that, I probably can’t make it any clearer.
G,
barry, even if it were not intentional, do you agree that the result “cooled the past”?
I think you’re mixing memes here.
No, the ‘station dropout’ issue did not result in cooling the past. Mainly because the ‘dropout’ issue affects the latter part of the record.
It was the temps post 1990s, that mattered, because that was when the big drop in station count happened.
There are graphs in some of the links I gave, and this one, which is referred in one of the above from Clear Climate Code, gives trend lines as well for stations that were continuous past the 1990s, and stations that dropped out in the 1990s.
http://clearclimatecode.org/trendy/
The skeptic argument was that the stations that were dropped should have produced a cooler global trend if they were included. But they actually had warmer trends, which you can see in the graph (blue line): the ‘dropped’ stations had cooler pasts.
But again, the past was not ‘dropped’ from the record, so your point here is irrelevant.
Well, you probably don’t agree with this then:
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/
barry….”It was the temps post 1990s, that mattered, because that was when the big drop in station count happened”.
Ding, ding, ding!!!
If you can drop 90% of the station data in a time series, and it makes no difference, what kind of bs science were they offering in the past????
G.that is NOT about the station dropout issue – the issue Gordon and I are talking abut. You’re mixing memes. You’re trying to conflate them to slip in some other crappy misinformation.
You’re also making little sense, Gordon.
Ding ding what?
GHCN stations were not deleted. NOAA did not disappear thousands of weather station data.
It’s also true that you can get a fairly good approximation of global temp trends (long-term) with a well-spaced subset of quality stations.
There is literature and blog posts on this stuff. Some of it has been provided here. Either you are lazy or willfully ignorant.
Barry
Ever noticed that whenever Gordon gets called out so emphatically, he vanishes from the thread until the next month? He will return next month and continue to make the same BS claims, pretending never to have read your post. When that happens, please continue to shove this down his throat.
Yes, it happens every time.
I’ve posted this stuff many times.
For him. Drawn his attention to it.
He disappears.
On this specific topic – the lie that 74% of stations were deleted – I will continue to call him out.
barry…”On this specific topic the lie that 74% of stations were deleted I will continue to call him out”.
The utterly amazing part is that NOAA admitted to doing that, claiming they were using less than 1500 stations out of 6000. The GHCN number was around 7200+ stations in 1992.
Your rebuttal is absolute crap just as your rebuttal was crap to my revelation of the IPCC claim that no significant warming occurred between 1998 – 2012. They called it a warming hiatus and you are still in denial about that statement even though I linked to those very words.
The thing that worries me about alarmists is how utterly dense you all are.
Your rebuttal to chiefio is to cherry-pick a minor point while ignoring his major point, with proof, that NOAA et al have slashed 90% of the reporting stations since 1990.
“The utterly amazing part is that NOAA admitted to doing that”
LIAR!
Quote NOAA saying anywhere that they deliberately cut or deleted 75% or 90% of station data.
You can’t! Because they did not. On the contrary, you CAN quote them saying that they ADDED data.
How can I get the facts into your thick head?
NO DATA WAS DELETED.
It was ADDED. Retrieved from weather stations that DID NOT SEND MONTHLY REPORTS TO GHCN.
When this project was finished in the 1990s, the 1200 stations that were reporting monthly continue to report monthly. That is why the graph tapers off at the end – because 5,500 station did not and do not send updates!!
Far from deleting stations, this swell of station data in the mid-1990s is a result of retrospectively adding it! The exact opposite of what you keep saying is actually what happened.
How in hell can you not understand plain English?
Do you even understand what I’ve written here? The FACTS, man! It’s a matter of historical fact, not ignorant ‘interpretation’.
Chiefio has no idea! He’s never checked his own spin, and he’s on record saying so (as I quoted above) while walking back from the deletion spin.
Stop being so obstinate and read the information. It’s linked for you, explained to you. It’s not propaganda, it’s a matter of historical fact.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Des says:
April 9, 2018 at 7:22 AM
When that happens, please continue to shove this down his throat.
*
Des, I’m afraid that would bring harsh criticism to barry from the ecologist corner because of the goose foie gras :-))
des…”Ever noticed that whenever Gordon gets called out so emphatically, he vanishes from the thread until the next month?”
Ever consider that I have other things to do in my life other than sitting around awaiting a reply from you? When I have the time, I do reply, even though it’s utterly futile trying to have a sincere and intelligent scientific discussion with you and your fellow alarmists.
barry…”The paper explains the reason for more weather stations in the 1990s.
Not from deletions from adding weather station data retrospectively.
The paper you have finally read is the original paper that contains the original station dropout chart. It is fig 2″.
*********
How is that possible when the paper is dated 1999 or something like that? GHCN only acquires the data, NOAA and GISS do with it what they like.
It’s like having a data repository where you can pick and choose the data you like. My reference was to the NOAA division, dealing with present global temps, slashing data and you provided paper about GHCN. I have not claimed GHCN slashed data I referred specifically to NOAA.
I know that GHCN, NCD-C, and NOAA are inter-related but the rash claims you see about global warming comes from NOAA.
There are loads of stations around the globe acquiring data and only some are accepted by NOAA as reporting stations. It is those stations NOAA has slashed by 90% since 1990.
1) GHCN is a NOAA product – specifically, it was collated by the National Climate Data Center (N.C.D.C.), a division of NOAA, with assistance from Arizona State Uni and the CDIAC (government dept)
2) The paper is from 1997
3) One of the 2 authors (and compiler) is a NOAA employee
4) It documents how the GHCN database was increased from special projects during the 1990s
5) NOAA did not “slash”, cut or delete 75% of weather station data. It added thousands of weather station data retrospectively. That’s why there’s a large addition through the 1980s and 1990s, tapering off to what was then the regularly updating data streams (1200 stations back then)
N.C.D.C. now goes under the name NCEI – National Centers for Environmental Information. You can see the old and new name at this NOAA link.
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/
As usual, remove the dash.
I continue to be astonished at how little you know of the topic. GHCN is a NOAA collaboration product!!
You can get useful information here:
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
Gordon,
The dropout of stations is directly from the GHCN data base.
The paper I’ve linked for you shows the dropout graph in figure 2.
This is a paper about GHCN, as you’ve noted.
Look at figure 2!
It’s exactly the profile of station count that Chiefio shows on his website (from 2009).
This is’t about NOAA cutting stations at all! It’s about how the GHCN data is compiled and added.
Gordon Robertson says:
April 7, 2018 at 9:37 PM
The baseline ‘IS’the average of all the anomalies, that’s why I find it a peculiar way of doing things. The baseline has to change dynamically as the time series gets longer.
Here again, for about the 100th time, you see the level of Robertson’s ignorance and incompetence.
You can’t teach people like Robertson. Because their primary goal is not to learn: it is to propagate their liying narrative ad nauseam.
Even still today, Robertson did not understand yet that a baseline is NOT AT ALL the average of all the anomalies, and DOES NOT HAVE to change dynamically as the time series gets longer.
What an incredible, unscientific nonsense.
Baselines are a statially anf temprally dependent average of absolute values over a given period, Robertson.
Spatially dependent in so far as you don’t average over the Globe or even a region of it, but over the smallest context available, e.g. a single station or a grid cell.
Temporally dependent in so far as for example
– if your unit is the day, you average each singe day over the period, thus obtaining a 366-day average vector;
– if it is the month, you average each single month over that period, thus obtaining a 12-month average vector;
– if it is the year, you average all years over that period.
The anomalies are then constructed by subtracting, from each absolute time series unit, the corresponding averaged value computed during the step above. Thus anomalies have to be changed only if one or more values within the baseline period have changed.
A good example for you, Robertson, is this:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
It might look a bit cryptic to you, but is in fact nothing else than the sequence, for the period 1981-2010, of UAHs 2.5 degree grid cell monthly absolute averages, out of which anybody can constrct a climatology for any part of the Globe.
*
But I know that you will ignore all this, and in one or two day/weeks will come again with your unscientific, ignorant and reckless blah blah.
Pang, you must have forgotten your comment above. You left behind a lot of unfinished business.
You had implied that you agreed with me that “back-radiation” does not mean the sky can heat the surface. So, I asked you to clarify: “Pang, are you now denying that ‘back-radiation can ‘heat the planet’?” To which, you have not responded.
You also stated: “Ice cubes and other bananas are of no interest here.”
Ice cubes and bananas are “of no interest” if you want to avoid science. But in reality, ice cubes and bananas are a “thorn in the eye” to the GHE pseudoscience. Do you understand why?
No I didn’t. We aren’t paying game clock chess here.
Are you unable to respond coherently?
binny…”Even still today, Robertson did not understand yet that a baseline is NOT AT ALL the average of all the anomalies, and DOES NOT HAVE to change dynamically as the time series gets longer.
What an incredible, unscientific nonsense.
Baselines are a statially anf temprally dependent average of absolute values over a given period, Robertson”.
*********
NOTE: REMOVE THE ‘-‘ FROM ncd-c in link below:
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature
“A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline”.
So tell me binny, is there a difference between the absolute temperatures representing anomalies and the temperatures used to derive the average? If there is, maybe you could explain where they came from.
I don’t care if you average it over seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, or years, it’s still an average of temperatures over a range. Put away your Googled wiki definitions and think about it.
An anomaly is the difference between the absolute temperature and the average of absolute temperatures over a range. It’s either warmer than the average or cooler than the average,
It’s little wonder you alarmists are so screwed up about climate science. I have tried to explain to all of you that the general negative anomaly trend between 1979 and about 1997 on Roy’s UAH graph represents temperatures below the 1981 – 2010 average. Post 1998, the trend was flat till 2015. How do you represent both of those trends with an overall 0.13C/decade trend line?
The UAH baseline has been changed several times to reflect the increasing range of temperatures. It’s the cheaters at NOAA, Had-crut, and GISS who insist on a static baseline from 1950 – 1990, which emphasizes cooler temperatures. Furthermore, that baseline was constructed using 90% more reporting stations than are used today, with all cooler stations reported.
In 2009, the UAH baseline was 1979 – 2009. Today it’s 1981 – 2010. What do you think it was in 2000, or 1990? It has changed dynamically with the range.
I don’t know if UAH plans to keep it at the 30 year point of increase it.
binny…Ok, I see what you were raving about. I said the baseline is the average of the anomalies, which was an obvious product of brain-lock. If you look at the other posts I have made on this subject, I have said the average of the temperatures over a range.
I have always been clear about the difference between anomalies and absolute temperatures, an anomaly being the difference between the baseline and the absolute temperature.
When I referred to the UAH anomalies being 0.2C above the baseline from 1998 – 2015, you surely did not think I thought 0.2C was the absolute temperature. I have made several posts in the past in which I complained about the use of anomalies rather than the absolute temperatures.
What if Mercury had an atmosphere?
Mercury having an atmosphere, would be sort of like our Moon having an atmosphere. And it thought that the Moon had an atmosphere around time of it’s formation and it’ known that the lunar Apollo program increased the tiny lunar atmosphere by a measurable amount.
It is guessed that Mercury atmosphere is about 10,000 tonnes, if true, Mercury has much better vacuum than compared to our Moon which could have same amount but the Moon is much smaller
than Mercury.
Mercury is smaller than Mars, though Mercury has high density, it’s slight less than Earth’s density, but Earth has an usually high density (this aspect, supports idea that a Mars size plant hit proto Earth, and added a portion of it’s iron core to Earth, and remain part of mars like planet formed into our Moon- besides being small our Moon has quite a low density, or it’s thought the Moon was formed by lighter material of Earth and lighter material of the large planet size rock that hit proto Earth.
If giant impactor theory is correct, then the Moon had to have had a much bigger atmosphere, though dwarf planet and !arger, should always have atmosphere, at formation and due impacter with volatile material, comets being obvious, but even dry space rocks can water in them, which would be released by the high energy impact.
Or the Moon had an atmosphere and has had at atmosphere within its 4+ billion life. And the same is true of Mercury.
But given tens of millions of years, the Moon and Mercury can lose atmospheres and become near vacuum worlds.
And if you add atmosphere to Mercury or the Moon, they will return to being a near vacuum world, but in human timescales they could appear to be “permanent”.
Or though chances are very low, Mercury or the Moon (or Mars)
could be hit by something big, and gain more atmosphere.
Though a way to add atmosphere could be to change orbits of space rocks so they hit them and that is very likely to happen very soon (geologically speaking).
So Mars (about same size as Mercury) as about 25 trillion tonnes of atmosphere (vs Mercury 10,000 tonnes or very, very small fraction).
Mars is thought to have had a much bigger atmosphere billions if years ago (nearer to time of it’s formation). I don’t really buy this idea, I would agree it could/would have had more atmosphere, but not necessarily a lot more.
The belief that Mars had more atmosphere is based upon the greenhouse effect religion which is all about atmospheres causing planets becoming a lot warmer and currently Mars is quite cold, and billions of years ago, the Sun would have been cooler (not warmer). And there is evident of liquid water on Mars (and sci fantasies of Mars, may be worms in their heads).
It’s been thought for decades that one could terraform Mars by adding more atmosphere and/or lots of various magical super greenhouse gases.
Whereas I tend to think more water is added to the Mars surface which would involve impactors bringing water from space and/or impactors causing water to erupt from a impactor heated mars surface. Or modest size impactor hitting polar ice cap, should cause “floods”. And there glacial ice near equator
and basically, everywhere.
Or if talking 1 billion years, Earth has hit by many large impactor, and 1 billion years in future is the same (will
Oops.
Earth has been and will be hit by large impactor, a billion years in past or future. And Mars roughly has been and will be hit by about twice as many as Earth has or will be hit.
Just to finish sentence, but planning getting to adding an atmosphere to Mercury. Later, coffee, now.
Let’s start by having enough atmosphere so there 1 psi of pressure on the sunlit side of Mercury. So that’s a lot more atmosphere than Mars, or roughly 15 times more.
Mercury has lower albedo than the Moon, or Mercury is closer to blackbody as compared to our Moon (it is different stuff and stuff is oxided more by sun, and has had less impactors, which garden and lightens).
But if add this modest amount of atmosphere, it should become more similar to Mars, which is:
“Bond albedo 0.250”
Earth being: “Bond albedo: 0.306”
And:
Geometric albedo 0.170 0.434 (Mars and Earth)
And let’s look up
Geometric albedo because I forget it.
No wonder I forgot it. Anyhow bond albedo attempts account for all reflection rather than visible light. But the foray seems to indicate the airless world reflect more light straight back when sun is perpendular, but I would say with atmosphere more is reflected non perpendular (or different way say the same thing, sort of). Or because got atmosphere added, you don’t get less reflected perpendular, but get a lot more non perpendular reflected light. But in terms just the land surface, it reflects less perpendular and a lot less non perpendular when have atmosphere.
And now those geometric albedo numbers make a lot more sense to me. Got to check something, mercury:
Geometric albedo 0.142 0.434. (Mercury and Earth)
And since add about 15 times atmosphere than mars,
the Geometric albedo would exceed Mars, more than .170, probably double the 0.142 value. So, Mercury and Earth:
Bond albedo 0.068 0.306
Plus atmosphere and I would say triples (or more) the 0.068 value.
Coffee.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6czxxn
It wouldn’t allow me to post that link,so tiny it.
BTW tiny
https://tinyurl.com
In case others have same problem posting some links.
I also remove other stuff, but my guess is link was the reason it was blocked from posting.
Got some, need more coffee.
1 psi of non greenhouse gases (N2,argon,and O2′ but if creating O3 interferes with non greenhouse gas plan, skip it).
Now I think it is crazy to assume the atmosphere would not warm without greenhouse gases, particularly mad, when you consider how hot the Mercury surface would be with about 14,440 watts to 6272 watts per square meter of sunlight when the sun is at zenith.
Mercury goes around the Sun in 88 days, and when nearest to sun it stops spinning and is tidally locked with the sun, so when sunlight is 14440 watts, the sun stands still in the sky.
The period of orbit when closer to sun, is shorter.
Not sure how long sun stops in the sky (would be good trivial question). But it’s something like a couple of earth days.
The time between spring and fall equinox, should be shorter, than fall to spring equinox. And “summer” on the season less world (zero tilt to axis) would quite short and longer “winter” – further from the sun.
If it stayed at distance of getting 14440 watts, an ideal thermally conductive blackbody would have a uniform temperature of 502 K or if at the 6272 watt distance: 408K
From link given (tiny):
“Average temperature: 440 K (167 C) (590-725 K, sunward side)
Oops again, trying to put ” at end of the quote.
Another quote from same:
Inclination of equator (deg) 0.034 23.44
Mercury vs Earth and mercury has tilt of less than 1 %
The moon is about 1.5 degree and has small polar region so
Mercury, has about 1/5th of the radius of Lunar polar region.
Here interesting, NY times story:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/27/science/space/28nasa-mercury-discoveries.html
Five of Messengers
Discoveries About Mercury
“Once thought to be a dull round rock with craters, Mercury turned out to be much more interesting. Here is some of what NASAs Messenger spacecraft, doomed to crash this week, has revealed about the closest planet to the sun.”
There Is Ice There
“While the surface on the day side of Mercury reaches 800 degrees Fahrenheit, it is much cooler near the poles. In some of the craters, daylight never shines, and temperatures remain extremely frigid, about minus 370 degrees. Radio telescope measurements from Earth had hinted at something reflective in the craters. Multiple measurements by Messenger confirmed that water ice is indeed there.
(As hot as Mercury can get, it is not the hottest planet in the solar system. Venus, with its thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, is hotter.)”
It was thought there was ice at mercury poles, long before it was thought there was ice our Moon’s poles (though I should mention that before we went the Moon ’61, some guy at NASA mentioned he thought there might water at the lunar poles, but it was only in 1998 when measurements gave a strong clue that there could water ice at lunar poles).
Anyhow it was long thought that Mercury had water at poles and now thought there could be more water on mercury than the moon, but it is speculative.
So Moon has tiny polar region, and Mercury has tiny, tiny polar region (almost a dot rather than region). So how can blazing hot planet have water which is around 50 K ?
Insulation ??
We know the day is long, it is about twice as long as the period (88 days x 2) and day freezes when closest to Sun, almost so that if in the sunlit side, one can appreciate intense blazing of the Sun.
On Earth we have the tropics 23 1/2 degrees N and S and it is 40% of surface area of Earth. That means the South or North half is about 20% of entire.
Let’s draw region on Mercury, we will call it the termination zone and it will longitude rather than latitude.
And in middle of zone is the sun rising or setting. And this zone always goes thru the poles. And this zone is as wide as 23 1/2 degrees latitude, having 11 3/4 in sunlight and other 11 3/4 degree getting really cold. So sunlit part going from warmish to cold and other part zone is going from cold to really cold. So 1/2 of zone is sunlit and is 10% of surface area of Mercury. And warmest of sunlit part of the termination zone has the sun 11 3/4 degrees above the horizon.
And in cooler part the termination, one could stand where sun is below horizon and see mountains lit by sunlight or could be on a mountain and face the 14440 to 6272 watts per square meter sunlight, though level a ground is not lit by sunlight.
One could give the zone a different name, the land of shadows, because in warmer part of zone, you also be shadow due to mountains, or being in a depression/impact crater.
And if count the termination zone or land of shadow, which centered on the mercury poles, as the polar region, then you don’t have a tiny polar region
“On average, 176 Earth days elapse between one sunrise and the next on Mercury – this is therefore the length of the Mercurian day .
Since Mercury revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit and rotates around its own axis comparatively slowly, the Sun appears to move in a strange way in the sky above that astronaut on Mercury’s surface . At some moment, he or she would watch the Sun come to a complete halt. Then the Sun would appear to move backwards for some time before returning to its original position, performing a loop in the sky.”
Were the day 360 days, it would take one day to travel 1 degree, being less the 1/2 of 360, the sun travels a bit more than 2 degrees in 24 hours.
Mercury radius is 2439.7 km. Diameter: 2439.7 * 2 = 4879.4 and
Circumference of 15,329 km.
Divide by 360 degrees is 42.58 km per degree of latitude.
And termination zone of 23.5 latitude wide is 1000.63 km wide.
And if you travel west at speed of 85 km in 24 hours or 3.54 kph the you will keep up with sun or keep up with moving termination zone/land of shadow.
And depending start in zone, if travel average of 3.54 km per hour, you will walk on a ground of about the same temperature.
Now, what is the temperature of the ground within this moving zone? Starting no atmosphere.
Oh, right, temperature varies depending how close Mercury is from the sun, which is cycle of 88 days.
So walking in zone and at about 3.54 kph (2.2 mph) and sun is 10 degrees about horizon and not walking in depression or not having mountains ahead, the sun could shining on you at 14440 watts per square meter, but sun is shining with less intensity upon the level ground.
Edge of zone is 1 3/4 longitude ahead of you, 42.58 times 1.75
Km being: 74.5 km ahead of you. And 3.54 km ahead of you is hour ahead of you and would have also had sun very close to 10 degrees above horizon. At 10 degree, something vertical will cast a shadow 5.67 times longer than its height, which means the level ground gets 5.67 times less sunlight.
If at shortest distance: 14440 watts, then each square meter gets 2546.7 watts per square meter. And if furthest 6272 watts, then it is 1106 watts of sunlight getting to each square meter of level ground.
So roughly where walking will be about same temperature as the lunar surface at noon, about 120 C, getting a bit cooler and warmer during the 88 day cycle.
If instead walking where sun 5 degree above horizon, the shadow length is 11.43 times heigth:
14440 / 11.43 is 1263 watts
6272 / 11.43 is 549 watts
Which like walking hot desert on Earth or walking on Mars during noon. Of course sunlight reaching vertical (someone walking) is still 14440 to 6272 watts per square meter.
If walking towards a 10 meter cube box, it casts a shadow, 114.3 meters long, its roof gets 1263 to 549 watts, its front side receives 14440 to 6272, and other 4 sides receive no sunlight.
When walking where sun is 1 degree above horizon, its casting a shadow 57.3 times longer than vertical:
14440 / 57.3 = 252 watts
6272 / 57.3 = 109.45 watts per sq meter
And 10 meter, has shadow 573 meter (1/2 km) long.
And 10 meter cube, has shadow 573 meter (1/2 km) long.
So have shadow zone and its 20% of entire surface area of Mercury. 1/2 of zone is in darkness unless mountain can catch sun rays and/or terrain allows sunlight to reach within this strip land which is about 500 km wide. The surface of other half of shadow zone is mostly in sunlight, terrain features can put areas into shadow.
The mostly lit part is 11 3/4 degrees latitude wide or about 500 km wide, and it is 10% of entire surface, and is 20% of the sun lit hemisphere. So 80% of sun facing side has hot surface, and the 20% is much cooler.
And night side of mercury has the other 1/2 of shadow zone, and shadow is 20% of total area of night side.
The 80% of night side is somewhere around 100 K, and shadow zone is warmer than this in terms of average temperature.
The 500 km wide half which is mostly sunlit is how you can characterize the Mercury polar regions and lunar polar region (though since Moon is smaller so less than 500 km plus moon has about 1.5 degree axis tilt and Mercury about .5 tilt).
Or over the 172 day “day” all polar region will get mostly lit half of region of shadows.
The region with ice would in the 0 to 5 degree half of 11 3/4 degrees sunlit region.
And you get the 30 to 100 K regions (which are always this cold – or ice can’t exist if not) due to topography within this 250 km radius region which centered at both poles.
With our Moon I think it is smaller potential region due the moon being smaller and due to Moon greater tilt of 1.5 degrees. Advantage of our Moon in got colder planetary core, and lacked any significant volcanic activity for probably a longer period than Mercury, or Mercury might not get as cold as 30 K, as has reported with lunar dark craters at the polar region. And the Moon topography might be better for having water ice, but Mercury has lacked as much exploration as Moon so this might not be the case.
176 day “day” not 172 day
So if Mercury had 1 psi atmosphere on sunlit side, basically 30% of Mercury would have about the same temperatures, and 70% of Mercury would warm by a considerable amount. And if there is any frozen water on Mercury surface regions, it would evaporate and become trace gas of atmosphere, even if there was trillion tons of water at poles of Mercury.
Mercury would be hot in equatorial region, and hot in mid latitude and not very hot in polar regions, but warmer than night side of planet. Or the region of shadows would had moderate temperatures.
Now hot air temperatures would not be much of a problem, or direct sunlight would problem, not particular difficult to deal with, if using adequate technology.
Or bigger problem is lack pressure, at 1 psi, you need a pressure suit to breathe.
A big problem would be dust storms and perhaps strong wind.
Let’s add enough pressure to breathe without a pressure suit.
A minimum pressure is 2.5 psi. Which about 1/2 of the pressure at it Everest, and like Everest, one would need a oxygen mask.
With 2.5 psi, the hot air could be problem, and dust storms and wind become worst. The 30% of sunlight area is still quite hot, and hotter because of the hot air, and might need to wear spacesuit in terms of controlling temperature, or a refrigerated suit, which is easy to cool if you have water.
Apollo spacesuits used a block ice in backpack.
And the 70% region would be warmer and region of shadows near equator, could get quite warm or hot. And global wind become more of an issue.
What if make 5 psi or double the amount from 2.5 psi.
Because of low gravity (1/3 of earth) one has about as much atmosphere as Earth, but it weighs less.
In summary, to terraform the Moon, Mercury, or Mars, you should not add more atmosphere, to get enough pressure to breathe without a pressure/space suit.
What is needed to get the pressure needed is water, and water is very abundant in our solar system.
And having a near vacuum or vacuum, has many advantages or having vacuum can better than Earth with its thick atmosphere.
Having very thick atmosphere, like Venus, has some advantages and it would be good if you want cities floating in the sky. Or with sky ships, Venus would be good tourist destination, but in terms value to Earthlings, the moon is Earth gateway to solar system and stars, Mars is place to grow plants, for use on Mars and exported to Earth orbits and moons, and elsewhere in solar system.
Assuming Mars has lots of available water to grow plants (Mars has enough CO2 for growing plants).
Your experiment with the plates is interesting. However, The earth does not remain at a constent temperature because it rotates. Clouds contain water which has been heated by the sun during the day. If the air temperature below them is lower, it will heat the air below it. Im just a common man but your experiment seems not to address the reality that we live in.
You’re correct CC. The plates scenario is nonsense. It was conjured up as an effort to prove “cold” can warm “hot”. But that was a bust.
svante…”Eric Steig at Jeff Id’s site said that you should be able to capture global trends with just 60 well-chosen sites”.
Stieg wrote a paper with Michael Mann claiming Antarctica had warmed since 1950. Of course, Mann made a fool of himself as part of MBB98, where they claimed the 1990s were the warmest decade in 1000 years.
Turns out Mann’s statistical analysis was suspect yet here he was teamed with Stieg, another uber-alarmist, claiming Antarctica had warmed since 1950. Turns out they had over-interpolated temperatures from the much warmer northern tip of the Antarctica Peninsula to the much colder mainland temps.
Mann is a geologist, where does he get off trying to impersonate a climate scientist?
One of the warming stations they cited was under 4 feet of snow.
I guess anyone can make unscientific claims about covering the globe with 60 stations. However, many of us are interested in a scientific coverage, not a whole lot of conjecture.
ps. NOAA can’t even get it right using 1500 surface stations.
Speaking of Mann and his flubs, here’s an article by a guy rejected from a journal for trying to point one of them out and being rejected by Mann’s friends running the journal. Eventually, Mann published a paper confirming the guy’s claims.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-michael-mann-smooth-operator/
Svante…why do you look up to these people?
I think scientists are human, with strengths and weaknesses.
I think Mann might have written a paper that was below par.
I think Willis paper might have been rejected because he had no scientific credentials. They might have considered him a crackpot.
Roy Spencer Ph.D.:
https://tinyurl.com/y7ao7wh2
https://tinyurl.com/y8teohu9
The ‘skeptic’ analysis of Antarctic temps since 1952 concurred with Steig that there had been warming on average across the whole continent, but a bit less warming than in the Steig analysis.
MBB98 is not a thing – you mean MBH98, and that only went back to about 1400, not 1000 years.
You mean MBH99, which went back a thousand years, and which appeared in the 2001 IPCC report.
One of the earliest multiproxy reconstructions (of the NH only), it posited that the 1990s were likely the warmest decade in the previous millennium, and that 1998 was likely the hottest year.
If you’re going to crit a paper, at least get the fricking claims in it right.
Nearly 20 years later MBH99 holds up fairly well when compared with more than 30 other millennial reconstructions from all sorts of different proxies, and despite the imperfect choices made with the math back then. The last decade of the 20th century still compares hot to the millennial record, though less certain of being the warmest, and the first couple of decades of the 21st century look likely to be the warmest of the last 1000 years.
The only reason MBH99 became such a hot talking point was that it was featured heavily in the news in Canada when the 2001 IPCC came out, and Steve McIntyre (who is from there) got obsessed with it. Steve and contrarian websites whipped up a lot of noise about it and eventually it made the news as a contrarian talking point. All politics. And all a lot of hoo-hah, it turns out, when later reconstructions by different groups using different proxies and different methods came up with similar results. Steve tried to chase all those down, too, but eventually gave up as reconstruction after reconstruction kept turning out similarly.
Here’s a list of millennial reconstructions, for anyone who is interested:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
And long-term reconstructions from other proxies:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/papers-on-temperature-reconstructions-from-boreholes/
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/papers-on-stalagmite-reconstructions/
barry…”The only reason MBH99 became such a hot talking point was that it was featured heavily in the news in Canada when the 2001 IPCC came out, and Steve McIntyre (who is from there) got obsessed with it. Steve and contrarian websites whipped up a lot of noise about it and eventually it made the news as a contrarian talking point”.
Nothing like running loose with the facts.
Steve McIntire became interested in MBH because he is an expert in statistics and he smelled a rat. Turned out to be a big, fat rat. He and his partner Ross McKittrick, another expert in statistics, weeded out the methodology in Mann’s statistics and reached the conclusion that white noise of any nature could produce a hockey stick shape using Mann’s algorithm.
M&M began pestering the US government about it who were reluctant to check it out. Finally they appointed a panel from the National Academy of Science and a statistics expert.
Unlike your fabricated rebuttal I have included several links to the M&M critique which outline in great detail what was wrong with the study. In the end , NAS agreed with most of their critique whereas the statistics expert agreed fully. The third link below gives a detailed , unbiased, explanation of the problem with the hockey stick.
In the third link below, McKittrick outlines the problems with the hockey stick study. He reasons, “The hockey stick debate is thus about two things. At a technical level it is about flaws in methodology and erroneous results in a scientific paper. But at the political level the debate is about whether the IPCC betrayed the trust of governments around the world. If the hockey stick incident was truly inadvertent, we can expect the IPCC would, in good faith, be fully supportive of new mechanisms to bias-proof its future reporting-writing process.
https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
https://climateaudit.org/2005/04/08/mckitrick-what-the-hockey-stick-debate-is-about/
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
As it turned out, the MBB fabrication deeply affected the IPCC third Review (TAR) and the public was inundated with the innuendo surrounding MBH. In the end, following an investigation, the IPCC withdrew it’s support, producing a new graph that re-instituted the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
You can hardly claim MBH has been vindicated when it was abandoned wholesale by the IPCC. That’s a akin to a parent beating his kids because he loves them. When zealots get hold of an idea they make up all forms of crap to justify it.
The fact that you cannot read M&M with an open mind, evaluating their critique based on science that NAS and an expert statistician agreed with for the most part, suggests strongly to me that you are a dyed-in-the-wool proselytizer who rejects science in lieu of a fantasy.
ps. from link 3 above, on page 7 of 18…
Hilarious…the geologist, Michael Mann had a problem with more equations than unknowns.
After the analysis by M&M, and the corrections applied, the hockey stick disappeared.
Mike Flynn goes on quite correctly about a testable hypothesis. The first thing noted by Steve McIntyre was that Mann’s data could not be replicated.
Moral: geologists should stick to rocks and leave math to people who know what they are doing.
**************
“…Mann et al. called their method a multiproxy technique, since it combined a variety of proxies. The most numerous, and influential, proxies in their data set are tree ring chronologies. The method required mapping a large sample of proxies to a large sample of temperatures, and it encountered the mathematical problem that there are more equations than there are unknowns. So the dimensions of the data matrices had to be reduced………
……….
In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the MBH98 data set from Mann. He is not a scientist or an economist, he was just curious how the graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98. One of the first things Stephen discovered was that the PCs used in MBH98 could not be replicated. In the process of looking up all the data sources and re-building Manns data set from scratch, Steve discovered quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc. Some of these had small effects on the final results, but replacing the PCs had a big effect. I joined the project in the late summer of 2003 and we published a paper in October 2003 explaining the errors we found in Manns data. We showed that when these errors were corrected the famous hockey stick disappeared.
Most of what you wrote is fabrication, and the stuff that I write is not.
Hilariously, you offer the “3rd” link as an unbiased source – it’s written by McKittrick, who authored the anti MBH paper.
All three of your links are from the authors of the anti-MBH paper. This is where you go for ‘unbiased’ sources?
An unbiased source would be a third party with no axe to grind.
The Wikipeida entry on the saga has such information. I suggest acquainting yourself with it. There are numerous 3rd party reports linked therein, as well as further commentary on those reports.
1) You did not acknowledge that you cited the wrong paper. MBH98 only goes back to 1400. This blithe overlooking of error does not inspire trust in you having rigour and honesty.
1) You did not acknowledge the BS you put on the conclusions of MBH99. IE, you left off the probability likely. This is because you are full of spin instead of rigour.
2) You’ve completely ignored the many following papers that have similar shapes to MBH99. I linked them for you. Your keen insight on this? Nada. Radio silence because it inconveniences your narrative.
In the end, following an investigation, the IPCC withdrew its support, producing a new graph that re-instituted the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Complete BS. A lie. Where do you get fabrications like this from?
MBH99 re-appeared in the very next IPCC report, as well as more reconstructions that had been done since then: one of the many “spaghetti graphs” that show multiple profiles of temperature from different studies.
MBH99 acknowledged that there was a MWP and an LIA. You either haven’t read the paper or have forgotten it.
Maybe a few quotes from the original will help you to understand how wrongly you have it:
“The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels (see Figure 3a). Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age”
And on the 1990s/1998 temps:
“While warmth early in the millennium approaches mean 20th century levels, the late 20th century still appears anomalous: the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium. More widespread high-resolution data which can resolve millennial-scale variability are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached with regard to the spatial and temporal details of climate change in the past millennium and beyond.”
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf
Far more cautious language than the BS way in which YOU pitched it.
Of course, Mann made a fool of himself as part of MBB98, where they claimed the 1990s were the warmest decade in 1000 years.
MBH98 doesn’t go back a thousand years, fool.
barry, if you are the “monitor” of truth, why did you present the “plates”. And, if you did it innocently, do you now admit the false solution is fraud?
If you’re seeking to be a “monitor” of truth, you don’t want to be associated with fraud, do you?
Gordon,
Pick some random stations here:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/timeseries/
Click stations/averages, how many stations do you need to see warming?
Note that only stations within your specified time range count.
norman…”YOU: 2)they are applying two way radiative transfer based on mutual emission and that applies only at thermal equilibrium.
No Gordon. You are wrong here but will not accept it. There is always a two way radiative transfer as any object with temperature will emit”
*******
Tell me, normie, how does an electron absorb EM, jump to a higher energy level, then jump back down to a lower level to emit the energy at the same time? I know quantum theory is full of this nonsense about a particle being in two places at the same time but even true quantum theorists do not subscribe to such pseudo-science.
When a body is hotter than another, the electrons in the atoms are all at higher energy levels. If they jumped back down, en masse, the body would cool. The body would become rather schizophrenic, not knowing whether it was heating or cooling.
These blogs to which you refer, from which I allegedly get my information, were not available in the days of Clausius and Bohr, Heck, they didn’t even have an Internet or fast snail mail. That’s where I get my information.
The fact that the wannabees in your paper are using a model should make it clear they have no idea what they are doing. Why not just build a real cylinder inside another cylinder and verify their claims? Better, still, try measuring a two way transfer of heat.
The paper to which you linked has made a grievous error. Mutual emission/absorp-t-ion of EM applies only at thermal equilibrium. It’s an application of Kircheoff’s Law and he applied it only at equilibrium.
The engineering text to which you link shows a two way radiation but there are no temperatures on either plate between which the radiation is being transferred. It’s all hypothetical blackbody bs.
Gordon Robertson
First of all for many times now, MID-IR is NOT I repeat NOT caused by electron jumps!! That you insist that it does is just nonsense and unreasonable on your part. You have been linked to several science papers clearly explaining the mechanism of MID-IR emission. That you persist in your ignorance of reality is a problem you have, not the scientific community.
Beyond that Gordon. If you actually had any thermodynamics (and I do mean even a little) you would know that the vast majority of molecules (and even with visible light for electron jumps) at room temperature are in ground state. You can read statistical thermodynamics textbooks to get a sense of this. What does that mean? It means most molecules are able to absorb incoming IR radiant energy.
YOU: “When a body is hotter than another, the electrons in the atoms are all at higher energy levels. If they jumped back down, en masse, the body would cool. The body would become rather schizophrenic, not knowing whether it was heating or cooling.”
That is probably one of your really stupid made up physics that is completely wrong, totally made up and has no purpose in being posted unless you are trying to show everyone how ignorant of any science you are.
YOU “The fact that the wannabees in your paper are using a model should make it clear they have no idea what they are doing. Why not just build a real cylinder inside another cylinder and verify their claims? Better, still, try measuring a two way transfer of heat.”
Gordon you are not the least bit interested in any experiments or tests that don’t satisfy your distorted delusional beliefs about reality. Don’t pretend you want experiments. E. Swanson did a series of actual tests which you just reject without even trying to think about what the results show. Your interest is pretend. You only come here to peddle your phony science to unsuspecting nonscientists and there are some who read things here.
Norm says: “It means most molecules are able to absorb incoming IR radiant energy.’
Well,con-man, at least you didn’t say “ALL molecules”. You’re learning. But, to continue your education, molecules typically can’t absorb photons that originated from colder objects. That’s why you can’t bake a turkey with ice.
Norn says: “E. Swanson did a series of actual tests which you just reject without even trying to think about what the results show.”
Con-man, the reason Eric’s tests were rejected is because they don’t work. You should have learned that if it doesn’t work with imaginary black bodies, it’s sure not going to work in reality.
Keep learning.
norman…”MID-IR is NOT I repeat NOT caused by electron jumps!!”
E = hf.
f = frequency and it applies to any EM frequency.
Hopefully you agree that infrared is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It’s a description of EM radiation of certain wavelengths associated with heated solids, liquids, and gases.
Even in the microwave spectrum, EM from a magnetron will cause vibration in the water molecules and the agitation equates to higher levels of kinetic energy, which is heat. The microwave EM is absorbed by electrons that bind the water molecules together.
The EM from the magnetron is caused by electrons emitting the EM after they are forced to move at high speed past the cavities in the magnetron.
Electrons carry an electric charge and any moving electric charge produces a magnetic field. The electric charge also carries an electric field. Once again, an electric filed + a magnetic field = an electromagnetic field.
The electron and EM are inter-twined. There is nothing else that can cause EM. Not sure about positive charges but in atomic structure the electron is the particle free to move.
The transition between energy shells is considered motion, albeit of an instantaneous duration. Remember, it’s all a model-based theory produced by Bohr and refined by other scientists.
In a magnetron and in electrical circuits, electrons are free to move around. They are literally boiled off a heated tungsten filament in a magnetron. In an electrical circuit, the electrons are injected from a battery or power supply but in solid conductors they are pretty well constrained to move atom to atom.
When you talk about mid-range IR, you seem to be inferring there is something special about that frequency range that is immune to electron transitions in atoms and molecules. If so, why don’t you explain the process rather than inferring a black box within a molecule from which EM magically emanates?
EM (including IR) has to be associated with electrons in matter, including all atoms and molecules. As I have pointed out several times, a molecule is nothing more than two or more atoms bound together by electrons in the atoms. With that type of bonding, the only means of increasing energy in an electron orbital is to absorb EM. The nucleii are not free to move so collision is not an issue.
In gases, with a linear molecule like CO2, the molecule is free to rotate following a collision. It is possible that a rotating electron will emit EM without a transition but we are talking about a CO2 structure absorbing EM and heating up. That’s not possible without an electron transition and the frequency of the electron has nothing to do with the warming.
In solids, all atoms and molecules vibrate, and the cause of the vibration is the variable energy of the electron. The positive nucleii want to repel each other and the negatively charged electrons, being attracted to the positive nucleii, hold the atoms together like an elastic band.
Naturally, with an elastic bond, governed by electrons, the atoms will vibrate. When more heat is added, the atoms vibrate harder, and they will reach a point with excessive heat where the bonds will break.
With increased vibration, translating to a higher temperature, the atoms will emit more intense EM. With solids, when heated, the radiated EM tends to be in the IR bands of the EM spectrum. There is nothing about that frequency/wavelength range that suggests the EM does not come from electron transitions.
Increased vibration must be accompanied by electron transitions to higher energy levels.
How the heck could I make this up???
Gordon Robertson
Either you are dementia or are pretending to be interested. I have given you several links on the process producing Mid-IR. It is NOT electronic transitions. So I am not going to continue explaining to you what you have no interest in understanding. If you want to believe all IR is generated by electronic transitions there is nothing I can do to correct your false beliefs. Belief what you must think it is correct all you want. Nothing I can post or say will every change your false belief on it. I am not interested anymore in correcting your made up physics. If you post the incorrect physics I will tell you it is wrong. That is all I will do. You are not in the least interested in learning the Truth.
Make up your physics. It is what you need to do.
Gordon, you are talking over Norm’s head. Remember, he’s never had any advanced courses. He doesn’t understand that elections are essential to creating an EM photon. Without the motion of the electron, the magnetic field would not exist. It doesn’t matter how that motion occurs, either by transition from orbitals, or from the vibration of a molecule, it is always in quantum intervals. It is those intervals that determine wavelengths.
Norm gets all tangled up about whether the photon is caused by orbital transitions or by molecular vibrations, but that only affects wavelengths. The process is essentially the same–moving electrons.
(But, don’t expect Norm to understand all that.)
g*e*r*a*n
What? “Norm gets all tangled up about whether the photon is caused by orbital transitions or by molecular vibrations, but that only affects wavelengths.”
What tangled? I understand it completely. The energy is what is different. Electron transitions require much more energy than the lesser charge of a dipolar molecular structure. In molecular vibrations the entire atom moves, the electrons move with the atoms, they do not “jump” up and down energy levels. This requires much greater energy and produces visible light.
Not at all sure of any point you are making.
Yeah Norm, it’s clear that you don’t understand photon emission. You keep trying to argue with Gordon when he is explaining how it is the electron’s motion that determines the photon.
How many things don’t you understand?
It’s a long list–radiative physics, 2LoT, black bodies, 1Lot, heat transfer, and toy trains, just to mention a few.
G* to N:
“How many things dont you understand?
Its a long listradiative physics, 2LoT, black bodies, 1Lot, heat transfer, and toy trains, just to mention a few.”
FYI, G*, therapy is available for your condition:
Projection (Psychological)
1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.
Hi Nut.
I suppose you are happy with Norm’s latest con. He’s now claiming the green plate is a “heat shield”.
It’s hard to keep up with all the latest pseudoscience, huh?
G*,
Lets be honest. You’ve never had any real training in advanced physics, have you?
Yet this a regular attack line of yours on all other commenters here. You are PROJECTING what are your deficiencies onto others.
When you do that, regardless of the commenter’s obvious expertise (myself, DA, Tim, Eric, etc, even Roy), you lose all credibility in judging people.
Gordon,
“Increased vibration must be accompanied by electron transitions to higher energy levels.
How the heck could I make this up???”
How? I don’t know. But you do.
Norman is absolutely correct. The transitions that produce photons in mid IR are between different vibrational states of the molecules, with different energies.
How do the electron or proton charges get involved in this?
The molecules must have dipole moments, ie plus-minus charge separation, which wiggles when the molecule vibrates. CO2 has this. N2 and O2 do not.
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/ir-spectrosc.pdf
“We would also see that the dipole moment of the molecule must change during the vibration. Molecules with no dipole moment do not have IR spectra! “
Nut: “Let’s be honest.”
Nut, “let’s” is plural. So, if I am the only one being honest, there is no “let’s”. But, you’re welcome to join me being honest, anytime.
You indicated you have had advance physics courses, but where is the evidence of that in any of your comments. You continually get confused, as do most of your “heroes”.
How many times have I exposed the incompetence of you, DA, Tim, Eric, etc. Dr. Roy has admitted he in not an expert in physics. But the others all claim to be.
And, you completely ignored my comment just above:
“I suppose you are happy with Norm’s latest con. He’s now claiming the green plate is a ‘heat shield’.”
Let’s be honest. Please feel free to join me.
G*, I applaud your honesty. You are not claiming that you have had advanced physics training.
Then I don’t understand why you would consider yourself competent to judge others lack of expertise in these topics?
Nut ponders: “Then I don’t understand why you would consider yourself competent to judge others lack of expertise in these topics?”
Nut, you don’t understand because you don’t even have a basic understanding of physics. That’s all you need to know that an imaginary black body is NOT a “heat shield”.
You don’t even have to have an understanding of physics to know that a toy train is NOT rotating on its axis.
I know a bit of electronics, but I know that I am not competent enough to say: ‘Gordon, you don’t even have a basic understanding of electronics’.
To me and Norman, DA, Tim, Eric and even Eli, you can say things like
“you dont understand because you dont even have a basic understanding of physics.”
Why do you believe that you are able to judge such a thing, with no expertise yourself?
Nut inquires: “Why do you believe that you are able to judge such a thing, with no expertise yourself?”
Nut, why do you believe I have “no expertise”?
I can answer that for you. You don’t WANT to believe I have a firm background in science. You don’t seek truth. You only seek things that support your own belief system.
You try to run from reality, but you can’t escape.
Reality always wins.
“I can answer that for you. You dont WANT to believe I have a firm background in science.”
Evasive answer, G*. Again projecting.
You are the one bizarrely judging people’s knowledge inaccurately when they claim, and demonstrate expertise.
When people say that they have advanced training in whatever, I take th