Home/Blog
John Christy examines one of the seven bullet holes in our NSSTC building, fired on the weekend of the 2017 March for Science.
Last week I had the privilege of being invited to present a talk at a small conference of world experts in a variety of disciplines. The venue was spectacular, on the French Riviera, and we had an entire late-1800s hotel to ourselves, right on the Mediterranean. For me, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I had the feeling that the organizers wanted the event to have a low profile, and so I won’t mention names.
I had about 12 minutes to lay out the case for climate skepticism. My talk was generally well-received and led to many follow-up discussions over the following days.
One of the attendees was an elderly particle physicist who was also a Nobel Prize winner. During Q&A, he mentioned how he had been teaching a climate class at his university for several years, and that he thought my skepticism was unwarranted. He was convinced that the Antarctic ice sheet was headed for collapse and we would have to deal with a 30 m rise in sea level as a result.
What was more than a little disturbing was that he openly declared that climate policy would not be able to move forward like it needs to until old skeptics like me die out. Part of my talk was about the fact that credentialed and published skeptical climate researchers are indeed slowly dying out, with an average age of around 70 now, and that governmental bias in climate funding will basically kill off skeptical research if things don’t change.
I approached him afterward and politely said I didn’t think either one of us was going to change our minds, and hoped we could just enjoy the nice dinner that was planned for us. He politely smiled and agreed to that.
I guess what was interesting to me is that the “belief” (his word) in catastrophic climate change, like religion, exists at all education levels. One also can’t help but notice how Nobel Prize winners tend to also be experts in all disciplines after they win their prize. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.
The whole experience was quite fascinating.
UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that Hawking never received a Nobel Prize. The fact is that I can’t account for the lack of Hawking’s Nobel Prize at the moment, and it is a travesty that I can’t.
Most Nobel Prize winners have a highly advanced knowledge in a narrow field. Winning the Prize makes them feel like universal experts. Quite a few Nobelists signed a Hitler’s initiative “100 scientists against Einstein”.
https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090224224804AA2GQL1
It is not the credentials of the scientist that is of most importance, but the open-ness of the scientific method employed. If the scientific method is working properly, other scientists will challenge difficult-to-justify scientific claims. My concern is that many younger scientists do not fully appreciate that, and are too willing to be swept up in the excitement, notoriety, and politics of the moment.
True, some Nobel prize winners were “against Einstein”.
But the truly aberrant historical fact is that some Nobel prize winners and other significant figures actively supported Hitler and his explicitly-stated Nazi policies. Let us not forget that Hitler was the 1938 Time’s magazine man of the year.
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19311221,00.html
It is often said, not without reason, that most people by far would have been Nazis if they had been in Germany at the time.
Well, there are all types of people among the anti-human climate alarmists. Among the prominent ones, I have noticed, are the type that would have moved to Germany in order to become Nazis so that they could volunteer to work in concentration camps.
Of course, this applies to many Malthusians.
Laura…”It is often said, not without reason, that most people by far would have been Nazis if they had been in Germany at the time”.
Beginning in the early 1930s, the Nazis were filling concentration camps with dissidents. If you spoke out against the party you went to a camp. If you were German, you were not likely to survive the experience.
The camps were run by the famed Waffen SS who were later regarded as an elite fighting force. It’s ironic that they were actually prison guards.
Had I been in Germany in those days, and I had a family and loved ones, I would have been careful about expressing my true feelings. There were Nazi groupies, to be sure, but it seems difficult to say how many Germans were onside with the Nazi program.
It would have been much safer for the average German to go along to get along. That does not mean they were all into it heart and soul.
We know there were army leaders who disliked Hitler and what he stood for and some of them paid a horrible price for a failed putsch. Rommel was forced to commit suicide over his connection to it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The camps were run by the famed Waffen SS”
Not true.
“they were actually prison guards.”
The 3rd division was initially formed by concentration camp guards, some would rotate back, but the organisations were separate, both committing atrocities.
I was waiting for a fellow history enthusiast to correct above point, Bravo
Brad
Gordon Robertson…
“Beginning in the early 1930s, the Nazis were filling concentration camps with dissidents. If you spoke out against the party you went to a camp. If you were German, you were not likely to survive the experience.”
How did the Nazis get to amass the power you credit them with in that paragraph? The answer is well known. Germans supported them freely and massively.
I will grant you that, while I have zero interest in the Nazis, I do have other interests. You might enjoy listening to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2C90l7YlT8
Ah, the time-tested technique of smearing ‘the prominent ones’ of your opponents.
Goebbels would be quite proud of you.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Laura says:
“Well, there are all types of people among the anti-human climate alarmists. Among the prominent ones, I have noticed, are the type that would have moved to Germany in order to become Nazis”
I can see another pattern. Their ideas were divorced from reality, and it led to a disaster. They believed in a conspiracy against them, for economical gain and control of the world. Their ideology said others were inferior so they attacked the USSR and declared war on the US. The facts proved each act fatal on its own.
So if your ideology can’t handle the facts, what do you fix?
Godwin’s law strikes again.
Didn’t know that one!
I agree, George. The fact that a person won the Nobel Prize in a certain field of science does NOT make that person an expert in all other fields of science. Svante Arrhenius is a classical example of this. He won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for his excellent work in electrolytes, but his 1896 paper about the CO2 impact on climate and the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” (http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) was a colossal failure! In this publication, Arrhenius shows remarkable inability to distinguish between a-priori assumptions and empirical evidence. He proposed a mathematical model to “predict” the effect of atmospheric CO2 on the global surface temperature (his Eqs. 3 & 4) that violates a basic principle of dimensional analysis, i.e. measurement units on the left-hand side of his equation do NOT math the units on the right-hand side! Specifically, his Eq. 4 claims T^4 = dimensionless number which, of course, is a total physical nonsense. Yet, his 1896 paper (which could not have passed peer review today!) is being quoted by followers of the AGW concept as a great achievement of the 19th-Century climate science. It’s really pathetic … Everyone, who cares about the truth regarding climate change, should read Arrhenius (1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) in order to understand the unphysical roots and ABSURDITY of the climate “greenhouse theory”…
So, yes, Nobel Laureates can talk nonsense when expressing opinions about fields of science outside of their expertise.
In regard to the dying “breed” of skeptics that Dr. Spencer refers to, I don’t think the situation is that bad. There is now a new wave of skeptics, who bring forward research results that falsify the very foundation of the “greenhouse” climate concept. Here is one such paper:
Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. doi:10.4172/2573-458X.1000112 (https://tinyurl.com/ydxlfwn7)
Here’s a discussion:
https://tinyurl.com/yag6g3vy
“First off, the authors used fake names to publish the paper in an open access site. In fact, it is the same two authors of the paper you linked, except that they spelled their names backwards (Nikolov -> Volokin; Zeller -> ReLlez). Ummm…what? Also, they later retracted the paper. Also also, the journal they published in is now defunct.”
Svante,
You are WAY behind the curve on this news. Do some more Google search to find out, why we were forced to use pseudonyms, and that our paper was not retracted but WITHDRAWN for reasons NOT related to its scientific merit. Also that paper was later published in an expanded form (see the reference on my previous reply above).
You may also update your understanding about the use of pseudonyms in science. It’s an old practice and it’s a valuable approach for various reasons, see this 2013 research paper on this topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661313000661
Good luck!
OK, so the premise is:
“A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years.”
And this recent study was yours?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Sorry I can’t, please ban me.
from discussion:
“And it does not mean that “temperature is only influenced by pressure”. On the contrary: just as much, pressure is influenced by temperature – if you somehow lowered the mean temperature of a given planet, surface pressure would drop as well”
No it doesn’t.
on Earth you have 10 tonnes of air above each square meter, increasing temperature or decreasing, does not affect it’s weight.
Increasing or decrease temperature could affect the mass of atmosphere by subtracting or adding gases. But if amount weigh of remains constant so does it’s pressure.
Nope.
Doesnt appear to be anything wrong with eqn 3 and 4 in Arrhenius paper, if you read it carefully.
Nate, do you understand dimensional analysis? It sounds like you don’t … Arrhenius Eqs 3 and 4 are contrived nonsense from a physics and math standpoint of view …
Yes, of course i do. He defined various constants en route to those equations. The constants appear to have the right units.
In any case, it is a 120 y old paper.
Its main ideas were correct and influential. They have been built on since then.
Nate,
This is where the problem is – Arrhenius Eq. 3 & 4 do not have matching (equal) units on both the equal sign. On the left-hand side is temperature T^4 (Kelvin^4), while on the right-hand side is a ratio of dimensionless number. If you read carefully the text, it becomes clear that all variables on the right-hand side have no units including the CO2 amount represented by K, which given in terms of relative optical depth. So, Arrhenius Equation 3 & 4 is totally fabricated with no physical meaning. And this is the FOUNDATION of the “Greenhouse” climate concept. It’s pretty tragic!
Yeah, looking at it again, I find that I can’t figure out what he’s done in eqn 3.
‘Equation 3 & 4 is totally fabricated with no physical meaning.
I think that’s a bit over the top interpretation.
Up to that point (eqn 3) it mostly makes sense. The terms that are there make sense to me. The physics is correct. In the end he makes calculations that again seem to make sense. Modern papers have repeated the calculations (no-one blindly accepts his results), made some improvements, but in the end find similar results.
Its written in an old fashioned style that is hard to follow. We probably need to read his earlier and later papers.
I think more likely
a. he has not explained very well what he’s doing at eqn 3
b. We are missing something
c. He means proportional to, or a its a typo
My argument would be as follows:
The jig is up this year for AGW, as I have been saying. AGW has hi jacked natural variations within a climatic regime to attribute the recent warming to mankind. That being ENSO,( look at the MEI index over the past 3 or 4 years), lack of explosive major volcanic activity and the sun itself which I say had a warming effect on the climate up until the end of year 2005. Thereafter a cooling effect but lag times have to be taken into consideration.
Year 2018 is a key year because this is the first year my two solar conditions are present in order for solar to have a significant cooling impact on the climate.
They are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (post 2005-present) and following that a period of very low average solar parameters (which commenced in year 2018).
All solar influence moderated by the geo magnetic field. Sometimes in concert ,sometimes in opposition.
Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year. Albedo being the other ,which I say are both tied to very low prolonged solar conditions.
I have talked about this so much but to get to the chase I see year 2018 as a transitional year to a different climatic regime ,one similar to what was present during the Dalton.
What is prevalent is more often then not when the climate transitions to another regime it usually does it at the top of the previous climatic regime.
Post 1850-2017 the climate has been in the same climatic regime with variations +/- 1C due to ENSO and volcanic activity, which is in no way unique.
The test is on and I like what I see but this is the top of the 1st inning(cooling has scored) but we have many innings to go.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
I knew I had read that before…
David, please stop trolling.
Trolling on all other websites now that nobody visits your own blog? Probably for good reason David.
Made yourself look foolish in your “debate” with Wiese, so now you of course go back to trolling Spencer’s site to make you feel better?
There are going to be a lot of people with egg on their face if and when the temperatures go down. I wonder how they will blame that on CO2. (I’ve already had arguments with people absurdly claiming that we will somehow get both warming and cooling)
Of course being with egg on the face might be a good thing. Cooling will mean famine.
I’m appalled to find I want evidence of strong cooling. I like warmer weather and I am apprehensive of life during a Maunder or Dalton cooling scenario complete with famine, plague, and war. However, I also don’t like the globalist agenda including economy destroying carbon policies that seem based on the AGW hoax.
Whilst cooling is not to be welcomed, we are better equipped these days (with the aid of fossil fuels) to adapt and cope with a cooling scenario.
I do not envisage that times will be as harsh, even if temperatures were to fall to LIA levels.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year.”
Looks like it was subducted then:
https://tinyurl.com/ybo3coub
Salvatore, back in Dec 2010 you said the following.
“The meridional cir. AO NEG 3 , as we speak, if it should continue, will evenually lead to more snow cover ,if so earth’s albedo could increase which could bring about further cooling. We will have to see how this, among solar,volcanic eruptions, oceanic temp etc etc all play’s out.”
Is it my understanding that these did not play out as anticipated until now. That you were expecting these in the earlier part of the decade? Or were there subsequent modifications in your theory?
I had hoped to live to a see a stake driven through the heart of the Global Warming monster, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’ll be 74 this year and to read that a Nobel prize winner in physics believes the Antarctic Ice sheet is headed for collapse is disheartening. Does the man not know that Antarctica is well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time?
Ice mass balance on the continent is a function of snow fall decades or centuries ago and the calving of ice bergs today. Temperature has nothing to do with it. Or does he believe the fairy tale that warm sea water sinks to the bottom and then flows up hill to melt the ice sheet from the bottom?
So temperature has nothing to do with ice mass. Hmm.
I can’t see that idea getting much traction.
DA,
On that basis, it seems to have cooled mightily since the last time Antarctica was ice free.
Just something else you can’t see, and it’s a fact, not just one of your ideas.
Try harder.
Cheers.
I can’t see the idea that temperature doesn’t have much to do with the Antarctic Ice Balance gaining any traction either, but then it really doesn’t get above freezing anywhere in Antarctica hardly at all, so how does temperature have anything to do with the ice mass balance?
More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.
More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.
Why?
——–
Temperature doesn’t get much above freezing because that’s how phase transitions work.
Heat up a block of ice that’s at a temperature below freezing, and the temperature will rise. But when the temperature get to 0 C, it stops rising and the ice starts melting. Only when the ice is all melted will the temperature begin to rise again.
Example: average Arctic temperature north of 80 N:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Dave, your link is to Arctic, not Antarctic temperatures.
Temperature doesnt get much above freezing because thats how phase transitions work.
Most of Antarctica is well below freezing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica#/media/File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png
Steve, my link was to demonstrate temperatures not rising much above zero in an icy region. Same will hold everywhere — it’s a general thermodynamic property of heat and matter.
David Appell, the temperatures in the Antarctica has gone down for the last 30 years, both airtemperature : http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_4919.png
and seatemperature: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_6524.png
The number of freezing degrees has increased: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_4229.png
while the number of melt-degrees has declined massivly: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_3688.png
How it is possible for ice to melt (“faster than ever”) under these conditions is very strange I think !
David Appell…at 8:58 PM … my link was to demonstrate temperatures not rising much above zero in an icy region. Same will hold everywhere …
You didn’t post a link to Antarctic temperature because it isn’t above zero anywhere.
The ice mass balance maybe negative but if it is, it’s not due to melting.
West Antarctica is where the melting is occurring and where warming has been extreme. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1671
While East Antarctic has been stable.
This pattern agrees with decades old predictions.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
To the extent that West Antarctica is melting, it’s due to subglacial volcanism, not warmer air or water.
But in any case, the WAIS is barely a pimple on the posterior of the gigantic East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the world’s fresh water. It’s not just stable, but gaining mass. It stopped retreating over 3000 years ago.
“West Antarctica is melting, it’s due to subglacial volcanism, not warmer air or water.”
Blog science, not real science.
Have a legit reference?
The potential sea level rise is 30 feet from the WAIS, what you call a ‘pimple’.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Yeah, an outlier among such studies. Most recent analysis disagrees.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
Your fallacy is: argumentum ad populum.
“Bart says:
June 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM
Your fallacy is: argumentum ad populum.”
Is there a reason to prefer Zwally 2015 over other such studies, particularly a multiple sensors and solutions composite study like Shepherd 2018?
Given that they don’t differ substantially on West Antarctica being in trouble is there any meaningful difference in the context of projected sea level rise?
As the WAIS is subject to powerful influences beyond a few meager 10ths of degrees of temperature, it isn’t relevant to the question of AGW.
Pfft. Obviously relevant to predicting future SLR.
And of course your fallacy is cherry pick.
These are mass balance studies not attribution studies. Differing on attribution doesn’t change the question as to why one might be preferred over the other.
“Differing on attribution doesnt change the question as to why one might be preferred over the other.”
No, but it renders it moot.
‘Moot’
If you apply the usual Bart false premise.
‘a few meager 10ths of degrees of temperature’
Nate, please stop trolling.
For the record there is some Antarctic melt water:
Antarctic Scientists Go Chasing Waterfalls
Interesting. Wow.
Beautiful. Note that it was first observed in 1912.
From the article:
‘Most importantly for climate studies, the systemand the waterfallseem to respond to slight changes in local temperature. After the coldest summers, the waterfall shuts down. And in the wake of warm summers, like the one from late 2014 into 2015, it flows at a thundering pace for almost a month. At the low end of our estimate, its the Potomac, Bell told me.’
Bart says:
June 21, 2018 at 12:48 PM
Beautiful. Note that it was first observed in 1912.
BINGO! I have to go back to the IPCC AR4 report’s table 10.7 that says that Antarctica’s contribution to sea level is negative and that AR5 says it’s positive? Essentially static is what I’m thinking.
Steve,
Average temp at South Pole around -49 C.
A fair way to go before Antarctica becomes ice free again, I guess.
David lives in WarmWorld, where the GHE exists, Schmidt is a scientist, and Mann won a Nobel Prize for tree-whispering.
Meanwhile, back in the real world . . .
Cheers.
There has been no warming at the South Pole since record keeping began there.
Yet, according to the greenhouse gas hypothesis, that is precisely where the effect of more CO2 should be felt the most, since the air there is so dry.
Felix,
“Yet, according to the greenhouse gas hypothesis, that is precisely where the effect of more CO2 should be felt the most, since the air there is so dry.”
Actually, that is not correct. The rise in atmospheric GHGs is not expected to cause any average warming at the South pole (or over the rest of the highest altitude regions in Eastern Antarctica), due to a combination of surface attitude and very low surface temperatures. There has actually been a net surface cooling at the highest altitudes in Antarctica due to rising CO2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_Antarctica#/media/File:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1981-2007.jpg)
In any case, putting all arm waves to the contrary aside, Antarctica is not going to melt any time soon.
Steve,
‘More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.’
So you are basically saying the data on mass balance is BS.
Because? Just cuz. Cuz it disagrees with my beliefs.
You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat caused by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side, that melting?
You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat created by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side, that melting?
It never ceases to amaze me that Alarmists continue to repeat the same old debunked lines and offer the same old debunked references from their own Alarmist sites.
You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat created by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side… that melting?
It never ceases to amaze me that Alarmists continue to repeat the same old debunked lines and offer the same old debunked references from their own Alarmist sites.
There are volcanoes beneath, that have been there for eons. Have they just now become active?
Evidence?
I don’t know if you consider this blog science.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
Could this be Blog Science?
“Could the volcanoes blow away Antarcticas ice? The scientists were unable to determine volcanic activity in the range, according their recent study in the Geological Society of London. But even inactive or dormant volcanoes can melt ice because of the high temperatures the volcanoes generate underground.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica
Yes volcanoes have been found-but no evidence that they have recently become more active is reported.
From the story “But even inactive or dormant volcanoes can melt ice because of the high temperatures the volcanoes generate underground.”
So 91 undiscovered active or dormant volcanoes. Both of which can melt ice from below. Newly discovered. Not known before. They are melting ice. Melting ice that was not known to be melting prior to the volcano discovery. Is this blog science?
Nate says: … at 5:24 AM
So you are basically saying the data on mass balance is BS.
Because? Just cuz. Cuz it disagrees with my beliefs.
Considering that the IPCC’s table 10.7
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
in their AR4 report said Antarctica was a negative contributor to sea level rise in all scenarios and since then Government funded scientists are telling us the opposite. I surmise that the ice mass balance is close to static over time. But I really don’t know. After all, Government funded scientists are going to find what the government wants them to find.
But if Antarctica is in fact losing ice, it’s not due to temperature and it would follow not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. If you think it is, that is, you think Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers are melting you need to provide the links to data that show temperatures warm enough to melt the ice. Or how warm sea water sinks to the bottom then flows uphill to melt the ice from beneath.
‘ I surmise that the ice mass balance is close to static over time. But I really don’t know.’
Indeed you don’t
” After all, Government funded scientists are going to find what the government wants them to find.”
Funny, see Bart comment above, on NASA results finding ice gain, vs other papers showing ice loss, most recently this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
‘Newly discovered. Not known before.’
But clearly they have been there a long long time. As has the ice.
The accelerated melting is a recent phenomenon. Unless you show evidence that the volcanoes have RECENTLY become active, then they are not the cause of the accelerated melting, as you claimed.
Steve,
One mechanism of accelerated ice loss is explained here:
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change
Warmer ocean contacting grounding line of ice shelves.
Evidence of destabilized ice shelves is clear, been reported in many papers.
‘you think Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers are melting you need to provide the links to data that show temperatures warm enough to melt the ice. Or how warm sea water sinks to the bottom then flows uphill to melt the ice from beneath.’
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6214/1227 ‘Multidecadal warming of Antarctic waters’
Nate says: at 6:07 AM
One mechanism of accelerated ice loss is explained here:
Thanks for the link to the video most enlightening:
Time mark 1:12 to 1:22 National Geographic shows us an animation of warm sea water flowing uphill and downhil along the ocean bottom to melt the glacier at the grounding line. What they don’t show is the sea ice that surrounds Antarctica nearly all of the time.
Whether National Geographic shows it or not, the sea ice is there and the the warm water has to flow under it. Sea water freezes at -2°C (28.4°F). There isn’t going to be any plume of water, warm enough to melt freshwater ice, flowing for miles under the sea ice.
There’s a saying, “Beware of carefully worded non-sense.” You have to wonder when National Geographic made this video did someone pipe up and say doesn’t that warm water have to flow under the sea ice? Maybe they like their pay check and just kept their mouths shut.
Steve,
The fact is that the evidence is clear that the accelerated erosion and melting at the base of ice shelves is observed.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5575/2020.full
‘ There isn’t going to be any plume of water, warm enough to melt freshwater ice, flowing for miles under the sea ice.’
I wish skeptics, such as yourself, would be more skeptical of their own ideas.
IOW, dig deeply into the facts, read the papers, try to understand them, before announcing that you have found a glaring error made by the experts.
Nate says: … 9:51 AM
…dig deeply into the facts, read the papers,
try to understand them, before announcing that
you have found a glaring error made by the experts.
There’s just too much stuff that doesn’t add up. The polar bears aren’t dying like they’re supposed to, hurricanes are about the same, the multi-meter sea level rise claims are clearly ridiculous, precipitation in the United States is up, extreme tornadoes are down, methane really isn’t 86 times more powerful than CO2. I suppose I could go on.
The data manipulation is pretty much off the charts. Every month NASA’s GISSTEMP puts out their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and the latest for May is out. Here’s the link
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
There are 1660 monthly entries and 879 (53%) of them have been changed since April. Averaged up annually all the changes since 1979 have been positive. This goes on every month.
I don’t much care what all the experts claim. The duck test says that it looks like there’s something fishy going on.
Steve Case, you are indulging in Blog Science. According to Nate, it’s irrelevant. He has already made up his mind any rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless. You are wasting your time.
‘ He has already made up his mind any rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless. ‘
I look at the evidence, and don’t reject/accept based on ideological reasons.
‘There are 1660 monthly entries and 879 (53%) of them have been changed since April. Averaged up annually all the changes since 1979 have been positive. This goes on every month.’
I believe they adopted an updated SST data set. It affects all, but slightly.
Don’t trust them, look at any of the half dozen surface data sets.
‘rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless.’
Apparently there is lot going on with the circulation of deep water around the antarctic, its salinity vs sea ice, density effects etc, that make it warmer than near the surface.
Without getting informed about these complexities, it is unlikely a blogger can make an intelligent conclusion about it.
I am no expert on it. Its good to realize that other people are.
The Other Brad says: at 1:22 PM
… you are indulging in Blog Science. … You are wasting your time.
There are lurkers. Every now and then I get a private message from some one. Hard to say how many people read blogs and don’t post. I don’t post on every blog or article I read.
‘I dont much care what all the experts claim.’
Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
Steve, did you become an expert on anything in your career?
You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?
Nate, please enlighten us. Maybe I missed it. You ask Steve about his expertise. For what are you an expert?
Nate … at 5:35 AM
‘I dont much care what all the experts claim.’
Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
…did you become an expert on anything in your career?
You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?
Nate … at 5:35 AM
‘I don’t much care what all the experts claim.’
Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
…did you become an expert on anything in your career?
You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?
I’d accept the expertise of Climate Science
If climate science wasn’t pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate scientists didn’t rig the peer preview process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If IPCC reports weren’t re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn’t try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn’t appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn’t resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.
Stev,
I would respectfully suggest that many of these items are false, simply accusations, or overgeneraliztion.
Others are true (lawsuits, refusal of FOI requests) but arguably can be justified, if you know the background.
If you have real evidence to back up these claims (fudging, rigging) I’d take look.
Some are just plain conspiracy theories, that are IMO, highly improbable.
As I said to someone else here, there is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization that applies to many of these claims about climate scientists:
Wiki:
“A faulty generalization is a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that phenomenon.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, we may generalize about all people, or all members of a group, based on what we know about just one or just a few people.”
My suggestion, have a beer with a climate scientist. You will find that, in general, they are regular people who do their job with integrity.
Let me just add an example.
Based on some videos I’ve seen, I might conclude that most cops are racist and want to harm black/brown people.
Would you agree that’s a proper conclusion?
Brad
‘You ask Steve about his expertise. For what are you an expert?’
My expertise is materials science.
Nate says … at 2:05 PM
…
If you have real evidence to back up these claims (fudging, rigging) Id take look.
Re-writing historical data is done in broad daylight. The best example I know of is GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index see my post June 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM Your comment on the post keyed in on my statement “I dont much care what all the experts claim.” and ignored the GISSTEMP changes I pointed out. Out of 1660 monthly entries, 879 (53%) between April and May of this year were changed. That should raise eyebrows. But when you analyze those changes a pattern develops that should set off alarm bells, but it doesn’t and it goes on every month. Here’s a comparison of what that looked like in 2015 compared to the 2005 data LINK. Maybe you would like to comment why entries after 1980 are consistently bumped up and most of the earlier entries are reduced.
Nate says:
June 20, 2018 at 2:11 PM
Let me just add an example.
Based on some videos Ive seen, I might conclude that most cops are racist and want to harm black/brown people.
Would you agree thats a proper conclusion?
I’ve had good experiences (most) with cops and bad experiences (a few). Considering that I would fit into the regular people to have a beer with category I really shouldn’t have had any bad experiences. Way too many of them are arrogant assholes. Answer the question, “What sort of person wants to become a cop?” and you might figure out why that is. The police academies need to do a better job of weeding out people who shouldn’t be cops. That’s easier said than done of course.
Steve,
I appreciate your comment on your police interaction. It wasn’t completely clear, but I think you agree that it is not reasonable to pass judgement on all or most police, based on a few instances caught on tape.
Nor do I think its reasonable to pass judgement on all or most climate scientists for similar few instances of (possible) bad behavior. Do you?
The GISS data changes. You seem to assume there are nefarious reasons for these, but, this is an unproven suspicion. As you said its done all in the open. Thats means anyone can go through what they’ve and try to figure out if done for legit reasons. Has anyone looked at their reasons?
Here is their explanation of the most recent significant change
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst5vs4/
Notice that the most recent decades are suppressed by this change, counter to your narrative.
A big change before that produced a significant lump in the 1940s temperature that looks out of place. Its still there. This runs against the narrative that changes are all done to better fit models.
Maybe a future correction will determine this lump is wrong, maybe not. There were issues with ocean temp during WW2.
But again, there are a half dozen, at least, other independent surface temp records, from Berkeley, UK, Japan, elsewhere. There are even a group of skeptics who produce their own analysis. All generally find similar trends. They are all imperfect estimates, but the best we have.
Do you reject them all?
“steve case says:
June 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM
. . . The data manipulation is pretty much off the charts. . . .”
The best explanation for temperature record adjustments I’ve seen is this article:
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
Note that the article linked above references two follow on articles going into regional consequences and time of observation bias adjustments that can be found at the links below:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
From Nate:
“The accelerated melting is a recent phenomenon. Unless you show evidence that the volcanoes have RECENTLY become active, then they are not the cause of the accelerated melting, as you claimed.”
I don’t claim it. Scientists claim it. From 2014…
https://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html
From the article:
“The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.”
As you can read Nate, not previously known. The information was “unobtainable.”
This is blog science.
Brad,
Thats good stuff. They are figuring out in detail what is contributing to melting, and some of it is geothermal energy.
They don’t appear to be claiming this has recently changed, nor are they claiming this explains recent accelerated melting. It is one piece of the puzzle.
BTW, I don’t call that blog science–it came from an actual research publication.
I call that science.
‘where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.
As you can read Nate, not previously known. ‘
I don’t understand the point this is making?
Do you think: Not previously known to us = not previously happening?
My last time to feed the troll.
Nate states: “They don’t appear to be claiming this has recently changed, nor are they claiming this explains recent accelerated melting. It is one piece of the puzzle.”
From the article:
“Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.
The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.”
“The combination of variable subglacial geothermal heat flow and the interacting subglacial water system could threaten the stability of Thwaites Glacier in ways that we never before imagined,” Schroeder said.
All the models indicated a presupposed conclusion that it was Man Made Global Warming causing the melt. The ‘scientists’ were not aware of the geothermal activity of 91 newly discovered volcanoes melting the ice from below at the rate they presumed. It was “unknown”. They did not know the extent of the melt via geothermal melt. You’ve claimed they knew all along. The did not know and still don’t because, as laid out in the article, they need more research to determine the affects of the geothermal activity.
Thank you for contributing to Blog Science Nate.
Brad,
I understand you think I’m annoying, I probably am, but Im just telling you my straight-up opinion. Take it or leave it.
I read that passage, too. But you seem to have missed my point completely.
Again I ask:
‘Do you think: Not previously known to us = not previously happening?’
Upon arriving at the south pole, did the explorers exclaim, “Wow, we discovered the South Pole, it now exits”?
If geothermal flux has been there for eons, which seems most likely since the ice has been there for eons, and we have just now found it, then it can be a contributor to melting. But something else, is likely causing the INCREASE in melting.
The paper says “geothermal heat CONTRIBUTED significantly to melting” Natural contribution does not mean NO anthro contribution, and the paper is not saying that, is it?
BTW, adding to the confusion perhaps.
The heat flux they found is TINY.
“Thwaites Glacier catchment has a minimum average geothermal flux of ∼114 10 mW/m2 with areas of high flux exceeding 200 mW/m2”
Nothing like Kilauea.
200 mW/m^2 could melt 2 cm thick layer of ice in a year.
Nate says:
June 21, 2018 at 6:18 AM
The GISS data changes. … As you said its done all in the open.
To the extent that entries for each month are published on the internet until they are removed and replaced by the next month’s numbers.
Thats means anyone can go through what theyve [done] and try to figure out if done for legit reasons.
No, you have to copy and save each month to figure what was changed. Figuring out why the changes are made isn’t really possible. For example the entry for January 1880 was listed as -29 in this past April and when the May numbers were published it was changed to -28. Can you figure out why the January 1880 entry was changed?
Has anyone looked at their reasons?
Some time ago I emailed Gavin Schmidt to ask why 100 year old data is routinely changed. I got this response:
Your main concern seems to be why data from 1880 get affected by the addition of 2018 January data and a few late reports from the end of 2017. To illustrate that, assume that a station moves or gets a new instrument that is placed in a different location than the old one, so that the measured temperatures are now e.g. about half a degree higher than before. To make the temperature series for that station consistent, you will either have to lower all new readings by that amount or to increase the old readings once and for all by half a degree. The second option is preferred, because you can use future readings as they are, rather than having to remember to change them. However, it has the consequence that such a change impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station record.
They said the changes impact data back to the beginning of a station record. I know that January 1880 has been changed about as often as every other entry in their Land Ocean Temperature Index, and I doubt that all the stations have records back to 1880. So I’m having difficulty wrapping my mind around exactly what they’re doing let alone why they’re doing it.
Here is their explanation of the most recent significant change
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst5vs4/
Notice that the most recent decades are suppressed by this change, counter to your narrative.
Overall the ERSST v5 vs. v4 update didn’t change much. This graph:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wck4lc.jpg
using the May 2018 issue of the GISS LOTI didn’t change much:
https://s15.postimg.cc/u25l1fswb/LOTI_2018_vs_2002.gif
Can you explain why ALL of the changes since 1980 average out to an increase?
I can’t explain it, I only know what it looks like.
“Can you explain why ALL of the changes since 1980 average out to an increase?”
Per the linked article there is a dominating bias associated with the transition from liquid in glass thermometers to electronic instruments starting around 1980.
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
Steve,
That is cool that you reached out to find out about the changes and got a response. Keep them on their toes.
IMO, the response sounds plausible. I have often wondered how they deal with such things-changes in stations and instruments.
They could just leave everything alone and use the raw data, but that would emphasize the heavily sampled places, big cities, in the past. Then as we added in new stations in the mountains, things would look like they were getting colder, or hotter for deserts. Just some of the issues to deal with. You have to do something.
Here’s the thing that IMO helps. I know how scientists think. Scientists worst nightmare is to be proven wrong. GISS has competitors, plus skeptics like you, who are holding them accountable.
If over time, their record keeps deviating from the others, they’re going to look bad. Slight differences are fine, but if these build up to big differences. They will have to explain why and they better have good reasons.
Steve,
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Here you can quickly compare trends between data sets. Try from e.g. 1975. Those on the left are considered more ‘global’ because they include more of the arctic.
nate says:
June 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM
nate says:
June 22, 2018 at 8:02 AM
Thanks for the replies. Why GISSTEMP makes hundreds of changes each month to their Land Ocean Temperature Index is a mystery. Not all stations go back to 1880, I expect that most don’t so why is January 1880 changed just as often and as January 1998?
Mark B said that the bump up in 1980 is due to the fact that liquid and electronic thermometers read differently.
After a brief search I find that not to be true. Mercury is being phased out because it’s toxic. Liquid filled thermometers don’t require a battery and all the wires & chips and meters that go with them. Going back to 1880 and changing the data because you say your electronic digital read out would have given a different answer back then is a real stretch and insulting to those long gone record keepers.
Steve,
Hi mate.
Thanks for linking to the IPCC report from 11 years ago on Antarctic ice sheet contributions to sea level.
It allows us to get some perspective on the state of understanding at that time. Quoting from your link:
“It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”
I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something lie, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”
And any changes in understanding that emphasised warming effects are greeted just as you have done.
You respond to how things look to you. Not from a rigorous examination of the underlying science. That’s why your responses are predictable.
A truly interested and skeptical person would be interested in how understanding evolved, not automatically responding in predictable ways to the results.
barry says:
June 22, 2018 at 8:33 PM
Steve,
Hi mate.
Thanks for linking to the IPCC report from 11 years ago on Antarctic ice sheet contributions to sea level.
It allows us to get some perspective on the state of understanding at that time.
And at the time I told you what they would say in the AR5 when it comes out. Too bad I can’t link to that dead website.
Quoting from your link:
“It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”
I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something li[k]e, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”
What I said up thread was, “I have to go back to the IPCC AR4 report’s table 10.7 that says that Antarctica’s contribution to sea level is negative and that AR5 says it’s positive? Essentially static is what I’m thinking.” Turns out I’m wrong here’s what the AR5 says:
13.4.4 Antarctic Ice Sheet
13.4.4.1 Surface Mass Balance Change
Because the ice loss from Antarctica due to surface melt and runoff is about 1% of the total mass gain from snowfall, most ice loss occurs through solid ice discharge into the ocean. In the 21st century, ablation is projected to remain small on the Antarctic ice sheet because low surface temperatures inhibit surface melting, except near the coast and on the Antarctic Peninsula, and meltwater and rain continue to freeze in the snowpack (Ligtenberg et al., 2013). Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures …
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
Quoting from your link:
“It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”
I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something lie, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”
And any changes in understanding that emphasised warming effects are greeted just as you have done.
You respond to how things look to you. Not from a rigorous examination of the underlying science. That’s why your responses are predictable.
A truly interested and skeptical person would be interested in how understanding evolved, not automatically responding in predictable ways to the results.
As I’ve pointed out to you over the years, you ooze a wonderful tone of high handedness but you’re in there biting and eye gouging with everyone else. Well anyway if you hadn’t shown up I wouldn’t have fired up the search engine through the AR5 to find that snippet about the surface mass balance change. (-:
(In a few hours I’m off to the north woods of Minnesota for a week to slap mosquitoes and listen to the wolves howl.) IOW Internet access will be spotty or zero.
Shorter: You were wrong. I am as bad as everyone else.
Glad to prompt a bit of revision. Most skeptics wouldn’t have been as honest.
Barry says at 4:06
Instead of side tracking into assessing each others predicted behavior, why not address some of the points:
At least one source, the IPCC says Antarctica is projected to contribute negatively to sea level for the remainder of this century.
This thread is about Antarctic ice sheet collapse.
The discussion about warm ocean water melting the ice sheet from below.
The discussion about surface melting in Antarctica given that there is some liquid water on the surface and temperatures are reported as well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time.
I Pads in the woods well anywhere are clunky facsimiles of real PCs so if I can continue to access the net I wont be very wordy and no links.
Beating a dead horse. Newly discovered active volcanic activity.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/uori-rdv062618.php
Yep, and from the article the researchers noted:
“However, Loose cautions, this does not imply that volcanism is the major source of mass loss from Pine Island. On the contrary, “there are several decades of research documenting the heat from ocean currents is destabilizing Pine Island Glacier, which in turn appears to be related to a change in the climatological winds around Antarctica,” Loose said. Instead, this evidence of volcanism is a new factor to consider when monitoring the stability of the ice sheet.”
Professor Karen Heywood, from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, the United Kingdom, and chief scientist for the expedition, said: “The discovery of volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet means that there is an additional source of heat to melt the ice, lubricate its passage toward the sea, and add to the melting from warm ocean waters. It will be important to include this in our efforts to estimate whether the Antarctic ice sheet might become unstable and further increase sea level rise.”
Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?
No, said Loose. “Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet.”
re: “steve case says:
June 22, 2018 at 2:01 PM
Mark B said that the bump up in 1980 is due to the fact that liquid and electronic thermometers read differently.
After a brief search I find that not to be true.”
I missed this earlier, but if you’re still following the thread, I’m curious what you found in your brief search that contradicts the linked article.
I think their point is that the temp of -75 rises to -73 it won’t make much diff to the ice, but precipitation will.
Scott,
a. What is temp of ocean water?
b. W. Antarctica air temps in summer reach freezing temp.
Nate,
Ummm.. no, average temperatures in West Antarctica, even in summer, are well below freezing. Most of the peninsula averages below zero in the summer. Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isn’t from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica. You would be well served sticking closer to the facts.
‘Reach’ does not mean ‘average’. It is more related to maximums.
Heres Wiki
“The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 C (63.5 F) at Esperanza Base, on the Antarctic Peninsula, on 24 March 2015.[10] The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57 C (−70.6 F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −26 C (−14.8 F) in August to −3 C (26.6 F) in January.[11] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3 C (9.9 F) on 25 December 2011.[12] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15 C (59 F) have been recorded,[clarification needed] though the summer temperature is below 0 C (32 F) most of the time. ”
At McMurdo, the mean is -3 C, clearly the maxima will be > 0C.
I was thinking of near the coast, such as McMurdo, but you are right, the interior matters.
Esparanza Base on Upper end of Antarctic Pennisula:
Wiki
“Mean monthly temperatures range from −10.5 C (13.1 F) in June, the coldest month to 1.4 C (34.5 F) in January, the warmest month.[8] “
steve,,
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change
‘Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isnt from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica.’
Video shows exactly that, surface melting, plus melting below the ocean surface.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
June 19, 2018 at 10:24 AM
steve,,
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change
Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isnt from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica.
Video shows exactly that, surface melting, plus melting below the ocean surface.
I saw that and because is was National Geographic I doubted that it was true. But I didn’t say that here. Yes there’s some melt water.
“National Geographic” and “Scientific American” are no longer reliable in my opinion.
There will still be believers in 50 years, the people making money off it won’t stop and of course those for who it’s a religion will keep the faith.
I wouldn’t be so skeptical about being skeptic , the Sun is going into a major minimum and earth cooling will follow shortly possibly significantly, Now is the time to put yourself on the record and secure your scientific credibility and future carrier.
Global warming has only few years in it left.
Eben
The last minimum during the LIA cooled the Earth by 0.3C.
That is 23 years at the current UAH warming rate.
Enough to give us a bit more time, but not enough to reverse the warming.
And what happens after the minimum ends?
What happens when the minimum ends?
Global temperatures rise.
Salvatore Del Prete
Exactly.
Like a volcano such as Pinatubo a solar minimum would temporarily lower the global temperature.
A Dalton minimum would drop the global temperature 0.3C below the trend while it lasted, and tempearures would return to the trend line when the minimum passed.
No the trend line is not real that is artificial.
I have said if prolong solar minimum conditions continue the climate will shift back into a Dalton like climate regime. That was more then .3c colder then what is present by the way.
The climate post Dalton-2017, has been in the same climatic regime ,+/- 1C in response to ENSO,VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY ,and very strong solar activity until the end of year2005.
That resulted in the climate shifting out of the Dalton regime to what we have now (2017) with up’s and downs of 1C against the backdrop of an overall temperature rise.
That trend I say has ended, with year 2018 being the transitional year because the solar conditions necessary to stop it are now in place. This is the first time since the Dalton Minimum that they are in place.
Solar being moderated by the geo magnetic field which this time is acting in concert with solar not in opposition.
They are 10+years of sub solar activity(post 2005) with a period of very low average value solar parameters (year 2018).
The result of this being overall lower sea surface temperatures which is happening now and has been for the past year , and a slightly higher albedo which I think is also happening. If true lower global temperatures.
I say if solar stays in the tank the global warming trend ends(it has thus far for year 2018), followed by a down trend 2019 and beyond.
With overall oceanic temperatures off by some .25c over the last year that in itself will put a halt to any further global warming even if the lowering oceanic trend were to stop at this level much less continue further down which I think is very likely.
The test has finally arrived we are in the 1st inning and global cooling in the top of the first is ahead.
Salvatore Del Prete wrote:
May 4, 2017 at 5:42 AM
“I was wrong on the solar activity it was way higher then I thought it was going to be back then. 2011 mid 2016”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245576
Which trend line?
The trend from the 1940s until 1977 was dramatically down, until the PDO flipped. Then Earth warmed slightly for about 20 years, comparable to the warming of the early 20th century. Since then, it has been flat, except for the 2016 super El Nino. For the past two years, Earth has cooled, reverting to the flatline of the temperature plateau since the 1998 super El Nino.
The beneficial warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age is nothing about which to worry.
Felix says:
Then Earth warmed slightly for about 20 years, comparable to the warming of the early 20th century. Since then, it has been flat, except for the 2016 super El Nino.
So except for the warming, there hasn’t been any warming. Confirmation bias.
Want to explain why the annual GMST for the 2015-16 El Nino season was 0.4 C higher than 1997-98, and why it was 0.4 C warmer than 1982-83?
Why do El Nino years keep getting warmer. And La Nina years? And neutral years?
This scenario — another solar Maunder Minimum — has been well studied. There is very little cooling, and it’s easily swamped by GHG warming. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.
“On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
“Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
DA,
Still afflicted with the delusional belief that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
GHG warming? Neither you nor anybody else can actually demonstrate such a thing, let alone propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis!
Keep trying to whip up fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Hopefully, you’ll become so exhausted that you will have to get a real job. Less effort, and more reward. You don’t need to thank me.
Ah well, nobody has ever accused fanatical cultists of being too reasonable.
Cheers.
Mike,
‘GHG warming? Neither you nor anybody else can actually demonstrate such a thing, let alone propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis!’
Ok, Mike, one more try. Here is GHE hypothesis explained
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
First page under heading GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Have at it.
Second page: Test of the hypothesis is described.
“The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experimentsover a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars,Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of 5, 5.50, and 7C km^-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence
and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3).
So Mike, unless you can clearly demonstrate what they’ve done wrong, your oft repeated meme is proven FALSE.
WRONG DAVID 100% WRONG!
Salvatore, what problems have you found in the methodology of those papers?
Three scientific papers refuted by hand-waving.
S,
Facts don’t go away if you flap your hands at them.
Would you believe a scientific paper because you have blind unswerving faith in “scientists”?
Good for you! Cult leaders depend upon unthinking belief – just look at people who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
How sad is that?
Cheers.
MF said: “Facts don’t go away if you flap your hands at them.”
Written by a guy who apparently can’t provide an alternate scientific explanation for the facts presented in my Green Plate Demonstration.
Do you ever get tired of “flapping your hands” to no effect?
swannie…”Written by a guy who apparently cant provide an alternate scientific explanation for the facts presented in my Green Plate Demonstration”.
He doesn’t have to, already been done. Your experiment demonstrated interference with heat dissipation, not back-radiation.
E,
You demonstrate that a hotter object can raise the temperature of a colder at a distance.
What alternative explanation is there?
Flap on, laddie. Maybe you can flap a disprovable GHE hypothesis into existence, but I doubt it.
Are you disagreeing with anything I wrote? It would seem not.
Cheers.
Mike, you are the reality distorter in chief. And teller of lies and half-truths specialist.
The experiment also showed a cool object causing a warmer object to get warmer.
You forget that part??
If facts are on truly your side, why do you need to hide them, cherry pick them, lie about them?
Gordo wrote:
Gordo repeats another example of his deviant physics by assertion. He has offered no physical basis for claiming that “heat dissipation” causes the Blue plate temperature to increase. For starters, I suggest that he define his term “heat dissipation” and then show exactly how my demonstration “interferes” with this process.
Mike “Flapper” Flynn comments without mentioning the main point from the demonstration. Of course, it’s true that the Green plate is warmed as it is placed close to the Blue plate. But, why does the temperature of the Blue plate also increase? Still no science from either Mike Flapper or Gordo.
E.Swanson, you’re problem is you have found a way to prove to yourself what you already believed. That’s NOT the way science is done.
swannie…”its true that the Green plate is warmed as it is placed close to the Blue plate. But, why does the temperature of the Blue plate also increase?”
I have told you that several times. Without your green plate in place the blue is free to radiate based on a different temperature gradient. When you put the green plate right in front of it, the radiation from the blue plate is altered and it cannot dissipate heat so quickly, so it warms.
You are confusing a warming due to radiation from a colder plate, which contravenes the 2nd law, with the blue plate operating in a cooler mode without the green plate raised.
The blue plate would have an optimal temperature for the conditions. If you cut off it’s ability to radiate in the vacuum but still exposed it to EM from a hotter source it would reach that optimal temperature. If you remove the radiation insulation from the green plate side, without the green plate in place, it would cool based on the temperature differential between it and the glass on your container.
If you now raise the green plate so it’s right in front of the blue plate it’s like insulating the blue plate so it cannot radiate as well. The temperature gradient will be reduced due to the blue plate warming the green plate which is nearby therefore the blue plate warms closer to it optimal temperature.
It’s all explained in S-B: q = ebA(To^4 – T^4)
If you mess with the To – T gradient you change the amount of radiation it can emit and the temperature of the blue plate changes accordingly.
Nothing to do with a back-radiation warming that contradicts the 2nd law.
swannie…”He has offered no physical basis for claiming that heat dissipation causes the Blue plate temperature to increase”.
I have offered as evidence the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that governs such an interaction. I have offered as evidence the 2nd law which claims heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
You are hung up on the belief that the blue plate MUST warm due to an illegal back-radiation from a cooler body to a warmer body. You refuse to consider any other way the blue plate could warm even though the scientific logic presented to you is sound.
You don’t get the meaning of heat dissipation. A body warmed from an external or internal source reaches a maximal temperature that is limited by the energy delivered to it. If the body is NOT allowed to dissipate heat through conduction, convection, or radiation, it will remain at that maximal temperature.
Your blue plate has been allowed to dissipate heat via radiation, especially when the green plate is not interfering with it’s radiation field. Since it is allowed to dissipate heat it stabilizes at a temperature below the maximum temperature.
In other words, the blue plate is cooling itself based on the temperature difference between it and its surroundings, the glass cover. When you raise the green plate so it’s right in front of blue plate, the BP radiation warms the GP but not to the temperature of the BP. Therefore, the temperature gradient has been decreases and the radiation from the BP decreases.
It has to warm closer to it’s maximum temperature. That warming does not come from back-radiation from the GP, it is the BP warming itself because its rate of heat dissipation has been decreased.
Remember, the BP receives energy from an external source and its temperature at any time is represented by the difference of heat gain – heat loss. Your GP is interfering with heat loss by blocking the BP’s EM emission, therefore the BP must warm to maintain the heat gain – heat loss balance.
nate…”The experiment also showed a cool object causing a warmer object to get warmer”.
It causes the warming by forcing the object to warm itself not by injecting heat into the body. The hotter body was warmed to its temperature as a balance between heat gained from and external source minus heat lost due to radiation (it’s in a vacuum).
With the colder body in proximity, radiation from the hotter body warms the cooler body but only to a fraction of the hotter body temperature, as indicated on swannie’s diagrams. Any EM emitted by the coder body will not raise the temperature of the hotter body (2nd law).
The hotter body warms because the colder body is blocking its radiation field, causing the hotter body to warm due to a reduced heat dissipation.
That is not the case in the atmosphere. The surface sees the entire atmospheric temperature at the surface as the end point of its temperature gradient not the temperature of CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperature is set by the 99% of it represented by N2/O2.
GHGs cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
‘The hotter body warms because the colder body is blocking its radiation field, causing the hotter body to warm due to a reduced heat dissipation.’
Ok, same principle applies to GHE.
JD,
‘E.Swanson, youre problem is you have found a way to prove to yourself what you already believed. Thats NOT the way science is done.’
So if he got a different result – you would not object to the experiment. THAT is not how science works either.
His experiment was simply confirming well known, much-tested physics. If he got a different result-that would be quite strange.
BTW the history of science is full of research done to prove what was believed. Darwin spent 20 y doing it.
Gordo wrote:
,
You post the S-B equation, then fail to understand that the second term is the “back radiation” from the second body, such as a plate parallel to the first or the surrounding area, such as the bell jar or even the room. Thermal radiation is photons and they do not interact with photons from other sources. There’s no accepted physics of which I’m aware that makes the interpretation you give. There is no “gradient”, as in conduction thru a body, just two (or more) bodies at different temperatures each emitting thermal EM radiation. The only way in which the Green plate can influence the Blue plate’s temperature is for some of the thermal radiation from the Green plate to be absorbed by the Blue plate, since the vacuum has suppressed almost all of the convection.
Gordon Robertson
I read your posts.
There is a variation (if E. Swanson wants to run it) that will blow your elaborate fake physics into small pieces.
E. Swanson could use a highly polished metal or a good mirror instead of the green plate. Now if he measures the temperature of the green plate it will not rise much at all but the blue plate will increase in temperature even faster than with the green plate. How will you explain that situation with your fantasy physics.
You could also drill a hole in each plate and have a type of IR sensor that is aimed at each plate. With this you could easily prove you don’t have the slightest clue of what you are talking about and just making stuff up as you go along.
With such an infrared detector you first get a baseline reading for the blue plate at steady state temperature without the green plate. Then move the green plate in position so the hole allows the IR sensor to view the blue plate. You will see the IR actually shows an increase in the IR from the blue plate not a decrease as the blue plate temperature goes up. This is what actual scientists have known for many years and it is based upon actual experimental results. Increase the temperature of a surface and it radiates more.
If you get an IR camera you can do simple tests yourself and help you understand the REAL physics. Take the IR camera and point it at your hot burner. Now put a plate a few inches above the burner but leave room for you IR camera to view the burner. As the burner temperature goes up you will see more IR emitted by the burner (that is all your IR camera is able to pick up). The radiant energy loss did not decrease and cause the burner to heat up, the opposite is the case. There are other tests you can do. All of them would show E. Swanson’s understanding in spot on. He knows what he is talking about. You should listen and learn and not waste so much time making up fantasy science.
Man you really need to study real physics. You are way off!
Svante, Nate, E Swanson and Norman, please stop trolling.
E. Swanson,
Gordon is still one photon short of a net energy transfer when writing stuff like this:
“GHGs cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.”
However his description of the impact of SB calculation here…
“If you mess with the To T gradient you change the amount of radiation it can emit and the temperature of the blue plate changes accordingly.”
…is correct. There is a temperature gradient between two bodies at different temperature regardless of being connected (conduction) or in a vacuum (radiation). If there was no gradient, there would be no net heat flux. Although both plates are warming, the net heat flux from blue to green decreases as the gradient decreases.
“The only way in which the Green plate can influence the Blue plates temperature is for some of the thermal radiation from the Green plate to be absorbed by the Blue plate, since the vacuum has suppressed almost all of the convection.”
Some of the radiation from the green plate will always be absorbed by the blue plate unless you have a way of keeping the green plate at 0K. Why not spend your experimental time figuring out why CO2 might not add any extra energy to the planet’s surface? I’ll help you with this attempt disproving the null hypothesis, if I can.
Mike,
I’m awaiting your review of the long sought testable GHE hypothesis.
entropic….”The last minimum during the LIA cooled the Earth by 0.3C….”
The LIA acted in two phases, both reducing the global average 1C to 2C.
Gordon Robertson says:
The LIA acted in two phases, both reducing the global average 1C to 2C.
Where are the data showing that, Gordon? You keep claiming it, but never produce any evidence.
Humboldt’s current is still very cold.
http://cr.acg.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Stratospheric polar vortex will never allow to melt ice in Antarctica. Even with high geothermal activity.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
For all those who feel inclined to appeal to authority in the form of NASA –
“Two years ago, NASA dismissed and mocked an amateurs criticisms of its asteroids database. Now Nathan Myhrvold is back, and his papers have passed peer review.”
Condescending and patronising mockery doesn’t make facts go away.
Thinking that NASA, NOAA,, the NSF, are devoted to the pursuit of knowledge using the scientific method may not be the smartest decision.
Facts are facts. Fantasy (the GHE, for example), is fantasy.
Cheers.
Wikipedia says:
In interviews with CNN, […] Myhrvold has discussed ways to reverse some of the effects of global warming/climate change by using geoengineering.[48] Myhrvold and other inventors working with Intellectual Ventures have proposed several approaches, including one that would use hoses, suspended from helium balloons 25 kilometers (16 mi) above the Earth at high latitudes, to emit sulfur dioxide, which is known to scatter light.[49][50] Another approach would stimulate the formation and brightening of marine clouds to reflect more sunlight back into space.[48]
S,
I’m not sure if you have a point.
If you don’t, your comment is not only irrelevant, but also pointless.
As usual?
Cheers.
You say no GHE, but your admirable free thinker is on the case with solutions???
25 km long hoses, of the required large diameter sound quite heavy.
The scale required sounds extreme. But who knows?
Who knows indeed!
With enough taxpayers cash forwarded to the respective Climate Scientists Im sure they will spend many happy years trying to figure it out!
This sort of geo-engineering proposal scares me more than anything else. We don’t know with any certainty what drives climate change … so screwing around with climate to try and alter it sounds completely insane, is at best immoral, and should be illegal with severe punishments.
Wow, 30 m. We better get pumping sea water onto Antarctica to freeze if we’re going to reverse that…
In past episodes of climate change, sea level changed by 10-20 meters for each degree C of temperature change.
Look at the last time we came out of the glacial maximum 23,000 years ago. 120 m of SLR for about a 5 C increase in global mean temperature. That’s 25 m/degC.
Sure, it takes a few millennia to get there. But once started there’s no stopping it, unless you geoenginner.
DA,
Think, David, think.
There’s not enough enough free water on Earth to fulfil your fantasies.
Not to mention things like plate tectonics, orogenics and all the rest of the things that dim witted alarmists remain sublimely ignorant about.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years years. Cherry pick away. Quote your peer reviewed articles, authored by the likes of Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and the rest of the madly capering climate clowns.
Maybe you could rend your garments, and rush about proclaiming “Doom! Doom! Repent or die!”
How would that suit you?
Cheers.
MF the flapping troll complains about cherry picking as he cherry picks irrelevant factoids which are 4.5 Billion years out of date.
E,
Are you disagreeing with something I wrote?
If you are claiming that the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years is irrelevant, maybe you could provide some support for such a bizarre statement?
No?
I thought as much. Carry on heating things with heat sources. Not much point, is there?
Cheers.
Mike Flapper fails to understand that almost all of the cooling was essentially over billions of years ago. True, there’s still a very small residual heat flow, but that adds almost nothing to the surface temperature. From Wikipedia “Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust”. That heat flow is trivial compared with the energy from the Sun.
But, Mike Flapper knows this, he just wants to toss out another Red Herring to confuse those who don’t know the facts.
E,
“Essentially over”?
Any continuous outward heat flow shows cooling. That’s what cooling is!
Slow but sure. You just don’t know what you are talking about do you?
You admit the Earth cooled (CO2 notwithstanding) for billions of years, then you seem to be claiming it stopped, then miraculously started heating again (in spite of the fact that you say it is is still slowly cooling)!
You sound ridiculous because you are trying to defend the indefensible.
No GHE. No disprovable GHE hypothesis. No science – just more irrelevant pseudoscience.
Cheers.
Mike Flapper, No, I’m claiming that your reference to geothermal energy from radioactive decay is a straw man, since the energy which reaches the surface is tiny and has almost no effect on the temperature of the Earth’s surface. It has nothing to do with the warming due to greenhouse gases.
E,
Are you quite mad? I agreed out that you are correct. The Earth is losing energy. It is cooling. If you think that a body heats up by losing energy, you are probably stupid and ignorant enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter by blocking part of the Sun’s radiation.
The Earth has cooled since its creation. Very hot in the middle still. Even close to the surface, the hot stuff leaks out – Hawaii is but one current example.
Maybe you have a cunning idea to stuff all that heat back inside, but it won’t work. It’s gone. Forever. No amount of CO2 will bring it back!
What are you disagreeing with? Nothing? I thought so.
Cheers.
‘If you are claiming that the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years is irrelevant, maybe you could provide some support for such a bizarre statement?’
Well, the heat flowing from the Earth doesn’t seem to stop winter from coming to my neck of the woods. It happens every year.
And the cooling off of the Earth doesn’t seem to stop the warming we get every summer in my area.
So yes, it would appear to be irrelevant.
Nate, not to mention the warming and cooling in the Pleistocene ice ages, or the drop into and out of a couple of snowball Earths about 700 Myrs ago.
Mike Flapper, Of course the Earth is cooling, doing so when ever it rotates away from facing the Sun. But, while facing the Sun, the Earth heats up, even as energy continues to exit the TOA. On average, the Earth never cools enough to freeze the global oceans, nor do the ocean’s surface warm above 40C. And, CO2 absorbs some of the incoming solar energy before it reaches the surface, warming the atmosphere, while also blocking some of the IR exiting the the surface. The implication of your posts is just plain silly, yet you call me mad.
Your straw man comments are just give us yet another example of your Trolling for Fun and (perhaps) Profit.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
DAVID- I has been stopped in the past every single time. That is why we are still here.
DA,
But 23,000 years ago that rise was natural. I guess by that I am referring to not man made (as if man is not natural)
Would you propose if we could go back in time, to geoengineer that increase away? Oh, and what is your explanation for that rise, and what was the CO2 level prior to that rise?
Why does it matter if the rise was natural? The planet warms, ice melts, water expands, sea level rises. Why will it be any different time?
You just don’t get it, do ‘ya Scott?
So the planet warms (before AGW) and it’s natural, but you are 100% sure that the current rise is because of AGW? Or might the temperature be rising naturally with a small addition from Man?
The fact that C02 has been higher than now while temps cooler in the past doesn’t give you pause for reflection?
Maybe the additional CO2 man has added to the temperature has caused some increase in temperature. Could that be helpful to our species (and others) in the event of a significant cooling event coming naturally as part of the normal cycle? These are valid questions don’t you agree?
swampgator says:
So the planet warms (before AGW) and its natural, but you are 100% sure that the current rise is because of AGW?
Because that’s what the science has concluded. There are no known natural factors that should be causing warming now. In fact, a slightly cooling sun and Milankovitch factors should now be causing a COOLING.
So some people say man is now causing 110% of the observed warming.
Or might the temperature be rising naturally with a small addition from Man?
Due to what?
The fact that C02 has been higher than now while temps cooler in the past doesnt give you pause for reflection?
When was that?
CO2 isn’t the only factor that determines climate. How many times must this be shoved in your face until you understand?
Tales of 30 m sea level rises due to Antarctic ice melting seem odd.
Fossilised remains of things like dinosaurs and trees are found at near present sea levels in Antarctica. At the time when Antarctica was ice free, either the present coast was much higher, sea levels were not much higher than now, or the alarmist GHE fanatics haven’t the faintest idea what they are talking about.
Humans are powerless to alter weather to order, and not much better at predicting the weather any better than a child with a straight edge and pencil. So much for so called climate scientists.
Antarctica used to be ice free. Good luck with stopping the same thing happening again, if Nature decrees.
Cheers.
” During Q&A, he mentioned how he had been teaching a climate class at his university for several years, and that he thought my skepticism was unwarranted.”
This is the depressing part of Dr. Roy’s story. What is this professor using for data? None of the temperature records show any long term warming for Antarctica. The recent estimates of ice mass show mass gain or trivial loss amidst overwhelming uncertainty. Are there college students that will accept his “belief” without any data to support it?
UAH LT v6 shows +0.31 C of warming for SoPol land.
http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#Diagram%20Antarctic%20MAAT
I don’t see much change in these records.
But the data are very scattered; the R^2 value for a linear fit is just 0.01
Temperature change in Antarctica 1981-2007:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239
DA…”Temperature change in Antarctica 1981-2007…”
From article:
“Climate scientists who want to know how average temperatures on Antarctica might be changing must wrestle with the fact that ground-based weather stations are few and far between…”
The data comes from NOAA who have 1 surface station in the Canadian Arctic and none….zero…nada…zilch…in Antarctica. This article is just more in the line of the NOAA fabricated temperature series.
Gordon Robertson says:
The data comes from NOAA who have 1 surface station in the Canadian Arctic and none.zeronadazilchin Antarctica.
You’re lying again.
NOAA South Pole Observatory:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/spo/
+McMurdo Station
So that’s at least two operated by NOAA.
This page lists about 20 Antarctic weather measurement sites:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/antarctica-weather
20 whole? GTFOH…
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/multimedia/fall11/antarctica-US.html
How many stations are needed to get a good-enough measure of Antarctica’s mean surface temperature?
Enough to prevent spatial aliasing. A lot more than 20.
How many?
That data is wrong David.
WHY is that data wrong?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/historical-temperature-trends-in-antarctica/
TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN ANTARTICA.
“The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a major warming over the last 50 years, with temperatures at Faraday/Vernadsky station having increased at a rate of 0.56 C decade^−1 over the year and 1.09 C decade^−1 during the winter.”
Turner, J., Colwell, S., Marshall, G., Lachlan-Cope, T., Carleton, A., Jones, P., Lagun, V., Reid, P., Iagovkina, S. (2005). Antarctic climate change during the last 50 years. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 279-294.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.591.9578&rep=rep1&type=pdf
DA…”The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a major warming over the last 50 years….”
They are talking about a small section near the northern end of the Peninsula, closer to South America than mid-Antarctica. You won’t see anybody farming down there anytime soon.
0.56C/decade for temperature of -50C means it might warm to -45C in 10 years. Maybe.
When polar expert, Duncan Wingham, an alarmist, was asked if glaciers were melting in Antarctica, he replied that it was far too cold for that to happen.
Gordon Robertson says:
They are talking about a small section near the northern end of the Peninsula, closer to South America than mid-Antarctica. You wont see anybody farming down there anytime soon.
It’s the area most affected so far, calving off giant icebergs, potentially increasing the flow of land-based ice to the sea.
Much of the WAIS sits on the sea floor, with ice shelves that go out on top of water. It’s warmer ocean water that’s eating away at this base, and it’s not at -45 C.
The WAIS contains about 10% of Antarctica’s ice, or about 6 meters of sea-level equivalent.
The Past Few Decades
Doran et al. (2002) examined temperature trends in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica over the period 1986 to 2000, reporting a phenomenal cooling rate of approximately 0.7C per decade. This dramatic rate of cooling, as they describe it, “reflects longer term continental Antarctic cooling between 1966 and 2000.” In addition, the 14-year temperature decline in the dry valleys occurred in the summer and autumn, just as most of the 35-year cooling over the continent as a whole (which did not include any data from the dry valleys) also occurred in the summer and autumn.
DAVID THIS IS WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN ANTARCTIC.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/
No agenda there…
You don’t like an agenda of doing good science and thinking about it?
I guess I’m not surprised.
The data doesnt matter hes on the taxpayer funded gravy train.
So long as he regurgitates the Alarmist lies he will get paid.
As always with the Alarmists, follow the money!
Since you think this of others, I’m assuming then that that’s also your modus operandi — you lie and cheat in your job in order to get ahead and get a better salary.
Yes?
David, please stop trolling.
David, just does not understand why /how the climate changes.
CO2/AGW has nothing to do with it. Zero.
The sun modified by the geo magnetic field has everything to do with it.
We have the TEST now DAVID.
Year 2018 and going forward.
Salvatore, don’t lecture me on how the climate works. Every single one of your numerous and endless predictions has been wrong. Clearly whatever ‘understanding’ you base them on is wrong. And yet you merrily breeze along and come here repeatedly to tell us what’s going to happen, next week or next month or next year, time periods you for some reason cannot grasp have nothing to do with long-term climate change. You have demonstrated you learn nothing and you know nothing and you reinforce that with every inane comment. I think it’s time for to stop commenting, sit down quietly for a few years and figure out why you’re always wrong and why nearly every one of the world’s scientists thinks CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas.
DA,
You don’t need to appear more stupid and ignorant than you are.
Name one of those scientists, and quote his “thoughts” – if you can.
Try and find even one who has written a scientific description of the GHE.
Thoughts are no substitute for facts. Anybody can think what they like – Nature doesn’t care. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer any hotter at all!
Maybe you need to think harder, or pray harder, or something.
Cheers.
SdP, MF, please stop trolling.
Dang. Posted in wrong place – correction follows –
Eh?
Moi? Quelle horreur!
Cheers.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
DREMT impersonator (neither comment is from the original DREMT), please stop trolling.
DREMT
Is this a game of process of elimination? Are you a regular poster and we are supposed to figure out who you are by process of elimination?
Who have you not trolled so far? And who is the impersonator?
Norman, I had no intention of commenting under this article, until I saw yet more comments under my name which I had not made. I consider that to be trolling (plus surely a breach of site commenting policy, to comment using somebody elses name).
DA…”Salvatore, dont lecture me on how the climate works”.
Somebody has to, you’re hopeless in science without some kind of guidance.
DAVID – has been taken in by the AGW SHAM.
David you have no understanding of the climate and this will be coming more apparent as the months go by and no further global warming takes place.
I can’t wait to see what your reasoning will be.
What happened to the test that we had in 2010?
What happened was the sun going forward from year 2010-2017 never met the two conditions I said it would have to meet in order to exert a more significant climate effect.
Now in year 2018 it is happening, which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general followed by a period of time of very low average solar parameters equal to or greater in degree of magnitude change and duration of time that is associated with typical solar minimum between sunspot cycles.
ALL THE FACTORS ARE IN:
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
ALL THE FACTORS ARE IN YES DAVID I SAID THAT IN 2010.
David, I thought all the factors were in back then but I was wrong the solar factor which is the whole ballgame turned out not to be in.
However David in year 2018 the solar factor is in, my two solar conditions have finally been meant, and the climate test is on.
8 years later but it has arrived.
So if you were wrong then why should anyone think you are right now?
I cannot see a problem with sceptical climate science sustaining itself in the United States because it is based on far right ideology and hatred of the left. If you are on the left then you are responsible for the AGW movement even if you are not. You are subject to frequent rants from bloggers about how evil the left are not likely to make any on the left change there views on AGW and yet we are told by them that we must accept some AGW just to appease some. We did not have the political correctness that we have when I was younger and that is wrong because people have to be brainwashed into accepting the truth as believed by a certain group in society, educators and the media, and also being asked to pay for them to do this usually through taxation.
donald…”I cannot see a problem with sceptical climate science sustaining itself in the United States because it is based on far right ideology and hatred of the left”.
I’m a socialist and one of the biggest anthropogenic global warming/climate change skeptics you’ll find.
I don’t think global warming/climate change propaganda has anything to do with right or left, it’s strictly a warm and fuzzy feel-good feeling propagated by the politically-correct who think they know what is best for the world.
The Club of Rome is an exclusive club of the wealthy and privileged and a front-runner in global warming propaganda. Then you have Maurice Strong, the Father of Kyoto, who is a billionaire capitalist who fancies himself as a socialist. At the Rio Summit, his wife was running around with other hippies celebrating the good they were doing for the world.
Strong had some strange ideas about population control and a woman’s right to control her own body. He also suggested we’d be better of if our industrialized society collapsed.
Eh?
Moi? Quelle horreur!
Cheers.
Satellites show that the wind rules the climate. When the jet stream weakens over the oceans follows global cooling. It starts with a drop in sea surface temperature.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tpw/global/anim/latest72hrs.gif
The geomagnetic storm caused a sudden increase in seismic activity. Another earthquake above 5 Richter in the area of the Kilauea volcano.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00966/lowr8fh089jv.png
Roy…”I guess what was interesting to me is that the belief (his word) in catastrophic climate change….”
Not like the belief in particle physics about Higgs bosons and the likes. They likely still believe that the universe started with a Big Bang, based on the overwhelming evidence [sarc /off] that the universe seems to have a +3K residual temperature and that Doppler shifts in stellar spectra seem to suggest the universe is expanding.
Expanding from where? Where is the centre? How big is the universe anyway?
The universe is likely hyper-spatial (more than the 3 extended macro dimensions that we observe).
In terms of visualization, reduction to 2 dimensions allows our brain to make sense of this.
The part of the universe we can observe can be conceptualized as the 2D surface of a balloon, a rubber sheet expanding. In every direction we “look,” we see the rubber sheet moving away from us. The furthest points on the rubber balloon are moving away from us the fastest.
We can’t look thru the balloon sheet to the other side, our sight-line only extends along the rubber sheet surface. Looking thru the balloon sheet would violate GR, causality, and the speed of light in a vacuum.
So if you are living on the surface on an expanding balloon, where is the center? It is the observer. We live in a relativistic universe.
And people wonder why physicists things they are Center of the Universe. Sheeesh.
Expanding from where? Where is the centre? How big is the universe anyway?
Expanding from everywhere. There is no center. No one knows how big the universe is, but the observable part is now thought to be 91 billion light-years in diameter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size_and_regions
We don’t know what makes up 95% of the universe.
I will guess STEVEN CHU because he has the nobel prize and is vocal about climate change, and has government/ political ties.
Is 70 elderly?
I wouldn’t call Dr. Chu a particle physicist, but maybe that’s just my take.
He was Energy Secretary in the Obama Administration, though, hence suspect.
Thanks for the interesting post. It sounds like you enjoyed yourself. I had a similar experience during my scientific career (in Switzerland) and the host even covered the expenses of my wife joining me for the event and touring the country afterwards!
As far as the NP winner goes I was immediately reminded of the Tolstoy quote: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
“climate policy would not be able to move forward like it needs to until old skeptics like me die out.”
There is a lot of historical precedent to support that comment.
Plate tectonics, quantum theory, come to mind.
Nate
Science advances one funeral at a time.
― Max Planck
Robert has it right. This is why over the last year overall sea surface temperatures are falling.
Robert I. Ellison, SAYS
Power flux imbalances change from negative to positive on an annual basis. The average is 0.8W/m2 consistent with rates of ocean warming. The trend over the period of record is negative. Such large swings in imbalances cannot be due to greenhouse gases.
The result is a very large annual variation in energy from the Sun the energy in component. Annual variability has significant implications for ocean heat change. Ocean heat does not change slowly as a result of greenhouse gases and thermal inertia but warms and cools rapidly in response to the very large annual signal.
2W/m2 as I gave said to yet again below assumes no response in the system but the system has of course responded and the energy imbalance from greenhouse gases is not remotely 2W/m2. If there is energy equilibrium on an annual basis and there is the current greenhouse gas energy imbalance is at most 0.03W/m2. This is an order of magnitude less than obtained by assuming that all ocean warming is anthropogenic it is n
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Robert has it right. This is why over the last year overall sea surface temperatures are falling.
A natural variation. Not a long-term trend — the long-term trend is very much upward.
Yes David it is a natural variation which is all that we have natural variations.
The long term trend WAS.
So you don’t think CO2 ab.sorbs infrared radiation.
That’s an astounding result, Salvatore. Can you prove that? There will surely be (speaking of) a Nobel Prize in that for you.
Don’t you want a Nobel Prize, Salvatore?
If overall sea surface temperatures keep falling and the albedo ticks up ever so slightly AGW theory will no longer be viable.
This is happening as I speak. The climate is heading toward a climatic shift again like it did in the late 1970’s, natural nothing to do with wonder gas CO2.
Climate shift at the very least much less a climatic regime change.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
If overall sea surface temperatures keep falling and the albedo ticks up ever so slightly AGW theory will no longer be viable.
Did CO2 suddenly stop being a greenhouse gas?
D, PST.
It is rare for rainwater to form lakes in this part of the desert, which is known as the Empty Quarter. Sand composing dunes of all shapes and sizes, interspersed with salt flats, make up the majority of the landscape. According to news reports, this desert received on average 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) of rain per year. It has been about 20 years since rainwater last filled the flats.
The rainwater is expected to give rise to summertime vegetation. Al Arabiya reported that such vegetation will be a boon for camel owners, who expect to feed the animals on the plants for the next two years.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=92295
Stephen Hawking is not a Nobel price winner.
You are right HKan. But he did win the Novel prize, which pays better and provides more status. Makes me wonder if SHs stance on AGW late in life wasnt intended to influence the Nobel committee.
Hawking did not win a Nobel Prize.
Hawking never won a Nobel Prize.
The volcanic activity along the West Antarctic Ridge under the West Antarctic couldnt possibly have anything to do with the melting thats happening there, now could it!
http://www.plateclimatology.com/geologic-forces-fueling-west-antarcticas-larsen-ice-shelf-cracks/
Must be the CO2, then. //sarc//
Has that activity increased in recent decades? The melting has.
Roy,
“One also cant help but notice how Nobel Prize winners tend to also be experts in all disciplines after they win their prize. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.” Actually lots of them come to mind.
Sounds like you encountered Nobel Prize winner David J. Gross. But I suspect he will die well before you do.
I have noticed that renowned experts are generally correct when they discuss their field of expertise. However, they make assumptions about other matters outside of their knowledge and have a 50/50 chance of being correct or downright wrong about these.
It is then difficult to tell this esteemed scientist that he is talking b*****Ks but I’m afraid that he probably is.
I sometimes wonder whether the best response is to say that with respect, he is quite wrong. It may prompt these people to actually investigate their beliefs rather than assume them. If these people really are bright, they will realise that they are supporting assumptions without checking them out for themselves.
Like a broken record (if you’re in your 70s you know what that means), I keep equating current climate hysteria with the cholesterol hysteria that plagued my industry (cattle) for about 50 years. Finally now, the cholesterol scare is pretty much dead as far as the diet-cholesterol link goes – my MD used to promote vegetarian; Now, the same MD promotes meat, milk, eggs, turmeric and sunlight.
I’d even go so far as to say that the newer climate hysteria has replaced the old cholesterol hysteria, there being only so much room at the top for a current mainstream hysteria. No doubt there will soon be diagnosed a HDD — hysteria deficit disorder for all of us with sound minds and nothing to hate but hate itself.
Based on the cholesterol experience, expect about 50 years of climate hysteria, which means about 10 or 20 more years of climate hysteria — if we still have something akin to democracy by then and it’s still not against the law to speak one’s thoughts.
/
HCD
Dr. Spencer, send him this list of challenges. I’d love to hear his rebuttals. I can’t believe a particle physicist would believe such garbage. Having a Nobel Prize just shows how meaningless that award has become. The climate alarmist’s science is so bad a child should be able to identify it. None of the work from Michael Mann would pass in the physics departments of the world. There is no hiding the decline in physic models. Anyway, here is a link to the challenges of Michael Mann’s work. In any real science, you only need one unexplainable observation to reject the theory. There are plenty of answers the climate alarmists can’t defend in the below-linked article. My bet is you won’t get a response.
The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/the-winning-strategy-to-defeating-climate-sophist-michael-mann/
Your blog post, when youre not ranting and calling people names, says this:
The Progressive CAGW Theory is a giant house of cards, founded upon Michael Manns infamous Hockey Stick graph.
You have a big misunderstanding. The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesnt attribute a cause to them, it just deduces what they were. So it has NOTHING to do with AGW, or the future, or whats causing the warming. AGW is *not* founded on the hockey stick.
Major fail.
PS: The hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, and by methods using completely different mathematical techniques.
If you honestly believe that something that utilized unique researcher specific statistical techniques like Mike’s Nature Trick to hide the decline is reproducible and the fact that he ignored instrumental data prior to 1902 and the fact that there is nothing about the underlying physics of a CO2 molecule that would justify a dog-leg developing in a temperature chart that BTW doesn’t line up with the dog-legs in NASA’s new Sea Level chart, then there is no way you and I will ever agree. I’m familiar with dataset construction and if I ever did what Michael did, I would know I was doing it for all the wrong reasons. The only way to reproduce the Hockey Stick is to simply do exactly what he did with the data sets he used. That isn’t independent verification anymore than someone simply recopying computer code.
To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/to-win-the-climate-debate-the-right-questions-must-be-asked/
CO2isLife says:
If you honestly believe that something that utilized unique researcher specific statistical techniques like Mikes Nature Trick to hide the decline
Obviously you don’t know what that phrase was referring to.
Hint: it wasn’t real temperatures, either globally or locally.
… The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesnt attribute a cause to them, it just deduces what they were …
As everyone knows by now the ‘hockey stick’ graph was a combination of an approximate linear trend line from ~1000 AD to ~1900 AD based on widely disparate temperature proxies with a plot of those, and only those, proxy samples that followed the general trend of the 20th surface temperature record tacked on.
To say it was the result of a deductive rather than an inductive progress is quite right, the authors started with assumed 20th century anthropogenic warming and deduced the result, the graph, from that premise.
… inductive process … (spell correct).
That should be inductive process.
Chris Hanley says:
June 18, 2018 at 3:53 PM
As everyone knows by now the ‘hockey stick’ graph was a combination of an approximate linear trend line from ~1000 AD to ~1900 AD based on widely disparate temperature proxies with a plot of those, and only those, proxy samples that followed the general trend of the 20th surface temperature record tacked on.
Are you able to give a valuable proof of what you pretend?
{ By ‘valuable’ I mean a source other than WUWT, Trickszone or the like. }
The hockey stick flaws have been exhaustively analysed by Steve McIntyre on his blog.
McIntyre published a paper or two that went nowhere, and now he’s become a conspiracy theorist. Meanwhile more and more research has bolstered the hockey stick result. And as I showed below, the hockey stick shape is required by elementary physics.
“A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
A huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Coverage of Tingley and Huybers, who used independent mathematical techniques:
“Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
Chris Hanley says:
As everyone knows by now the ‘hockey stick’ graph was a combination of an approximate linear trend line from ~1000 AD to ~1900 AD based on widely disparate temperature proxies with a plot of those, and only those, proxy samples that followed the general trend of the 20th surface temperature record tacked on.
Major misunderstanding.
There was no “linear trend” in the methodology, there was a reconstruction of past temperatures based on a variety of proxies. The 19-20th century proxies were used to calibrate the GMST from the proxies with measured temperatures.
Straightforward idea. (The math isn’t.) Nothing deceptive about it in the least.
Lots of followup studies give the same result. For example
“Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.” Wahl and Ammann, Climate Change, November 2007, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 33-69.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9105-7
And it’s very easy to show that the hockey stick is required by the laws of physics. The math is trivial:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-even-easier-way-to-get-hockey-stick.html
The hockey stick is BS! End of story.
How about giving evidence when you make your pronouncements, Salvatore? Because your word is no good here.
Michael Mann’s opinions when it comes to the climate mean NOTHNG.
Many disagree — Mann is being invited to speak all over the place. And he keeps winning awards — I saw another one on his Facebook feed just yesterday, I think.
Here I made an attempt to understand the climate alarmism, it’s roots.
http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html
Dr. Spencer, here is another one to forward to your Physics Friend. BTW, in physics there is no “consensus” there are simply experiments and results. Imagine if all we had from our friends in the physics departments were “consensus,” “Peer Review,” and Computer models that didn’t model what they intend to.
Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/
Climate “Science” is Anti-Science; How do you Disprove a Consensus?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/10/climate-science-is-anti-science-how-do-you-disprove-a-consensus/
In your opinion, what is best proxy temperature indicating global land and/or ocean temperature from period of 1000 AD to 1900 AD?
Don’t have a good answer for that one, but CO2 blankets the globe, so the effect of CO2 doesn’t need measurements from all around the world.
1) Central England instrumental records go back to 1650, and there are other long-term records as well.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/climate-science-on-trial-temperature-records-dont-support-nasa-giss/
2) Ice Core data from Vostok would be void of any influence from H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect
Once again, to isolate the impact of CO2 you need to isolate the data sets that isolate the impact of CO2. You don’t need records from all over the world. Warming can be due to plenty of things other than CO2.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/isolating-the-contribution-of-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/controlling-for-h2o-and-urban-heat-island-effect-greenland-validates-co2-doesnt-drive-warming/
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/co2-cant-explain-ground-measurement-variations/
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/ground-measurements-dont-implicate-co2-climate-scientists-are-using-the-wrong-data-sets-for-their-models/
–CO2isLife says:
June 18, 2018 at 3:43 PM
Dont have a good answer for that one, but CO2 blankets the globe, so the effect of CO2 doesnt need measurements from all around the world.
1) Central England instrumental records go back to 1650, and there are other long-term records as well.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/climate-science-on-trial-temperature-records-dont-support-nasa-giss/ —
Land has a different average temperature than ocean.
Land warms and cools at different “rate” than ocean.
Global average temperature is about 15 C.
Ocean average temperature is about 17 C
Land average temperature is about 10 C
Ocean higher average temperatures warm land’s cooler average temperature.
If Ocean average temperature was about 16 C, average land temperature would increase by much more than 2 C
If ocean average temperature was 18 C, average land temperature increase by much more than 2 C.
If land average temperatures were to warm or cool by 1 or 2 C, it does not have much effect upon ocean average temperatures.
Ocean warms land, and land cools ocean, but there is much more ocean area than land area [and other factors]. Much colder land and/or land over long period of time being cold do or can affect ocean temperatures.
Whereas changes in ocean surface temperature have a relatively quick affect [ie time period of weeks or months] on land temperatures.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zPmsIBNGdZ8/T-HSS-YYKRI/AAAAAAAAE5Q/WMNVXEtAcAc/s1600/Medeival+Warm+Period.jpg
That’s a cartoon, not a graph. And an outdated one at that.
What I sent is what is the real temperature changes over the past widely recognized.
I think the climate debate would be over if an understanding of enthalpy of water in its 3 phases was understood by influential ‘progressive’ proponents of climate disaster, like David Appell. Two things about Antarctica: warming up -50C by 3 or 4C does not water make. Second, the average height above sealevel of the entire continent is 2500m and that folks, need I say it, is above the ‘snowline’.
I’ll add a freebee: The reason glaciers calve or ice shelves break off over time is not warming, it’s snowfall on top of their sources in the interior of the continent that causes outward flow outwards toward the ocean. Non of this is controversial.Were progressives surprised that Antarctica was recently determined to have been icebound continuously through global temperatures much warmer 8 million years ago when CO2 was about what it is today. If progressives arent mystified that the Sierra Nevada gets 10s of meters of snow each winter and Kilimanjaro, and the Hindu Kush…them it should be easy to accept that Antarctica isnt going to give up its iciness anytime soon. Its just physics as they say.
Gary Pearse
The problem is not that snowfall becomes ice sheets which melt when they meet the sea. This is normal and, in the past, has been in balance.
The problem is that the rate of melt is increasing. Water is now melting out of Antarctica faster than snowfall is replenishing it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
The net melting is increasing sea levels. Not a problem if you live on a hilltop, but a bit awkward if the sea laps your doorstep.
https://www.theinvadingsea.com/2018/06/17/the-dirty-word-in-south-floridas-watery-future-retreat/
entropic…”The problem is that the rate of melt is increasing. Water is now melting out of Antarctica faster than snowfall is replenishing it”.
It’s far too cold for glacial ice to melt on mainland Antarctica….Duncan Wingham, Polar expert.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/
Gary…”The reason glaciers calve or ice shelves break off over time is not warming, its snowfall on top of their sources in the interior of the continent that causes outward flow outwards toward the ocean”.
Let’s not forget gravity and ocean wave action. When the glacier flows downhill, it does so on a fluid form of ice due to the change of state produced by the pressure above. As you say, the ice pushes out over the ocean and it is partly supported by the water. Gravity acts as a force down the way and the water wave action works as a variable force up and down the way.
Eventually, something has got to give and it does. The oceans in the Antarctic region are some of the most fierce anywhere, with waves at times 100 feet high.
The ice flows in front of the ice ledges act as a buffer zone to absorb wave action but for whatever reason, the pack ice moves off, exposing the ledges to the full fury of the Southern Ocean.
Given that, what happens when the water is warmer?
The reason glaciers calve or ice shelves break off over time is not warming, its snowfall on top of their sources in the interior of the continent that causes outward flow outwards toward the ocean.
“West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat driven by Holocene warm water incursions,” Claus-Dieter Hillenbrand et al,
Nature volume 547, pages 4348 (06 July 2017).
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22995
That is northern hemisphere.
And I assume land.
Gbaiki
The best modern proxy data for the last 10,000 years is Marcott et al 2013.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.full
Look particularly at Figure 3.
This is a joke, right? The problems that have been identified with Marcott are legion.
–This is a joke, right? The problems that have been identified with Marcott are legion.–
I think problem is where he spliced historical record with modern measured temperature.
Or if remove this wrong part, it seems pretty good.
If you got better one, I like to see it.
But rather 10,000+ years, I more interested in the time period between 900 AD and 1900.
I think that time period is particularly important.
Lack of “better” does not imply “good”. Nobody should rely upon any estimate that cannot be independently verified. I consider anything before the modern direct instrument era to be, at best, suggestive. At worst, entirely misleading.
What problems with Marcott et al, specifically?
n.h.
If overall sea surface temperatures stay around the levels we have now much less fall there will be no further warming.
and the planet’s been cooling since 2002.
What effect does CO2 have on tropical average temperature?
What effect changes tropical temperature, the most?
I do not think co2 has any effect on temperature because it changes in response to temperature.
If the oceans cool significantly CO2 concentrations will not keep increasing at the rates they have been.
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation? And that the Earth emits it?
Yes ,yes,yes! Plus I accept there is a GHG effect.
The difference is the whole GHG effect is governed by the environment whereas you say the GHG effect governs the environment.
That is essentially the difference ,that’s it but it makes all the difference n the world when one accepts or does not accept AGW.
So if you accept that CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect, why wouldn’t more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?
For the same reason that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter!
Belief versus reality. Fantasy versus fact.
Still no GHE (which is why you can’t even describe the GHE, can you?).
Next stupid gotcha?
Cheers.
“…why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?”
For the same reason increased alcohol consumption beyond a particular point does not make one more popular at parties: it’s a nonlinear function.
“…why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?”
Also, because feedbacks from any increase in IR active gases may be zero or negative. Richard Lindzen has a recent explanation which I will post below unless someone else already did.
I beseech you David Appell: Please do not post any of the references impugning Dr. Lindzen’s work. Don’t be a woose. Do your own research.
“It’s okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don’t really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that’s okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it’s great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/09/established-science.html
Bart says:
why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?
For the same reason increased alcohol consumption beyond a particular point does not make one more popular at parties: its a nonlinear function.
Being nonlinear does not imply an effect stops doing what it does.
And then there are the feedbacks….
You asked why it wouldn’t. Well, it wouldn’t if the functional dependence is not monotonic, one reason for which could be multivariate dependence upon confounding variables (a.k.a., negative feedbacks).
It’s not a given. There is no physical imperative that increasing concentration must result in greater warming.
David Appell,
I despise resorting to name calling. But you are a low life *ss. What are trying to compensate for? Are you short or just a little short somewhere?
David, PST.
CB: What name calling?
Your claims are almost always wrong. I’m going to continue pointing that out.
Bart says:
Its not a given. There is no physical imperative that increasing concentration must result in greater warming.
There is — conservation of energy.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
Perhaps, you misread. I sai he won the Novel prize.
J,
I say so too. You need to use a sledgehammer here sometimes – not just for walnuts, nuts of any type. Some people just do not appreciate that you can never have too much pun.
Cheers.
Gordon, I was relatively apolitical many years ago and voted on merit and apparent wisdom of the candidates. A number of my family are socialist no matter if candidates are capable or not. In recent years I have argued with family members that the party they think they are voting for no longer exists
The ‘new left’ came from the centre and have taken the space once held by old left. The old left at least had the economically disadvantaged as constituents. Today the new left gets voted in nationally but their constituency is outsourced to a Eurocentric UN global governance klatch which includes some of the people you mention, which I bet you identify as right wing. It gets weirder! Donald Trump supporters are the disadvantaged that have been disenfranchised an impoverished for years. If yours is the old party in name, you actually dont have a party.
Gary…”The new left came from the centre and have taken the space once held by old left. The old left at least had the economically disadvantaged as constituents”.
I no longer support any political party, even the politically-correct socialist parties in Canada, the provincial and federal NDP. A while back, they began supporting special interest groups and lost sight of the average Canadian. When they started openly supporting global warming propaganda I washed my hands of them.
People have to realize that the old left in North America were the true socialists. They came about it naturally, not through political philosophy. They were oppressed in the work place and they did something about it by organizing into unions.
As my dad pointed out from his life experience, when the UK Labour Party (socialist party), were dealing with people going through tough times, their focus was on helping those people. However, when times got better, their policies became downright stupid, being based largely on dogma and philosophy.
That’s what we are seeing today with the Left. Most of them have gotten fat and they lack the interest in justice they once had. They have replaced that pursuit with watered-down, politically-correct views.
That’s why the Democrats lost to Trump and no one was happier than me, even though I do not support Trump with his economic views.
There is a lot wrong with this world but the average North American no longer cares. Most are totally into themselves, begrudging the unemployed insurance or the poor a decent basic means of surviving.
Gordon says:
Thats why the Democrats lost to Trump
In fact, the Democratic candidate received 3 M more votes than Trump.
Only a flawed and archaic constitutional feature made Trump the winner. With a minority of the votes.
The “flawed and archaic constitutional feature” will make America great.
The politicians crafting constitution were somehow better politicians than we find in modern times.
I doubt any nation at present could be up to task of making a better kind of government. And none to date, have.
But I believe if you change things, it is possible to do this, and opening space frontier is what I would call changing things.
–Here I made an attempt to understand the climate alarmism, its roots.
http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html. —
Hmm, pretty long.
I say roots are primitive – as in primitive human.
All great religions are a step away from primitive human. The abandonment of the great religion is a step back to primitive human.
Mixing modern technology with primitive worship of nature is not a good thing.
So do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t ab.sorb it?
DA,
So do you think bananas don’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think apples don’t ab.sorb it?
About as relevant, if you can’t even point out what your nonsensical comment is supposed to mean.
Stringing random sciency words together is fun, but otherwise pointless.
Cheers.
Mike Flapper wrote:
And we know you are an expert by your often repeated posts devoid of content.
Generally, your comments seem well-intended, if not worthwhile. But these juvenile retorts to Mike’s efforts are annoying. If you don’t like Mike’s comments, ignore them.
You’re not a troll. But you could be worse, an Appellite.
Sorry, E. Swanson.
That comment came from me.
Gordon Robertson says:
June 18, 2018 at 3:40 AM
The data comes from NOAA who have 1 surface station in the Canadian Arctic and none… zero… nada… zilch… in Antarctica. This article is just more in the line of the NOAA fabricated temperature series.
Robertson, you are a paranoid liar living in a nonsensical hatred of NOAA.
1. NOAA’s GHCN daily stations in the Canadian Arctic
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360733166/001.jpg
Separated into 5 degree latitude bands
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360856721/001.jpg
2. NOAA’s GHCN daily stations in the Antarctic
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360935689/001.jpg
Sources can be found within
https://tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw
Why do you lie all the time, Robertson?
Thanks for that, Bindidon. Now watch Gordon completely ignore this information, and repeat the same lies again next week.
I took a look at the Antarctic daily stations graph and noted that there are probably 10 sites that have a long enough temperature history to be used for climate studies. But I’m assuming that those sites have been consistently active through the century. I could be wrong. The graph is not very informative.
SMS says:
June 19, 2018 at 5:01 PM
The graph is not very informative.
Well you have seen above where my life companion had his sources from.
There you see a somewhat bigger file
ghcnd-inventory.txt
In that file each station has a starting resp. ending date.
You might isolate those stations located in Antarctica busy with temperature measurements, and having produced measurements from 1954 till today.
The graph was intended to show Robertson’s lies, and not to inform you about all the rest.
Nate appears to believe that the GHE has been described scientifically, and that a disprovable GHE hypothesis exists. He wrote –
“Ok, Mike, one more try. Here is GHE hypothesis explained
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
First page under heading GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Have at it.
Second page: Test of the hypothesis is described.
The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experimentsover a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars,Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of 5, 5.50, and 7C km^-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence
and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3).
So Mike, unless you can clearly demonstrate what theyve done wrong, your oft repeated meme is proven FALSE.”
Nope. No description of the GHE – which is probably why you couldn’t actually quote it, reverting to the usual stupid and ignorant tactic of providing a link to a nonsensical piece of pseudoscience.
No need to demonstrate anything there – it doesn’t exist!
On to Hansen’s bizarre “explanation’ of the non-existent.
You might notice that his first “explanatory” statement is demonstrably ridiculous. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. No evidence that absorbed and emitted radiation balance. Jus the usual ratbag assertion from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Keep trying. Look at other descriptions of scientific effects. Then you will start to appreciate why no such thing exists for the so called Greenhouse Effect.
Claims that purport to explain the non-existent are delusional.
By the way, assumptions and modelling are not experiments.
Cheers.
‘You might notice that his first explanatory statement is demonstrably ridiculous. ”
Tell us which statement, then demonstrate away, Mike.
‘ No evidence that absorbed and emitted radiation balance.’
Is that supposed to be the demonstration?
You mean the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the Earth? Or do you mean its temperature is not stable, within a narrow range?
Its all very vague, as expected.
Mike,
Weak response, very weak. That all you got?
I expected more considering how often you plea for a testable GHE hypothesis.
Entropic, you didnt note my mention of the 8 million years+ of stability of the antarctic through warmer periods than now. New studies are already making last years “accelerating” sea level rise stuff obsolete, as it should for enthalpy reasons and because of ultra low temps, high latitude and elevation of the continent. Ice melting in the sea doesnt do much, shelves breakoff and glaciers calve but new snow makes new ice. This is not controversial science. Now if it stops snowing, yeah we have a problem, but healthy births of icebergs is a sign its all working fine. In Alaska, some glaciers have melted back inland for 10s of km because of reduced nourishment from snow over the last 250 years. Dont listen to the 20 to 100Gt crowd, it only seems like a lot and dont even read papers using numbers of olympic swimmingpools or hiroshima bombs worth of energy. This is intended as children’s literature.
At the end of the last glacial max, 51,000,000 km^3 of ice melted, that’s 51 million Gt, that’s 51 quadrillion tonnes of ice and sea level rise was 125 meters. This and enthalpy should quiet the fears of a thoughtful person. Coral grew to keep pace, as did river deltas which are very much larger today BECAUSE of this sea rise! A bit more isnt alarming. Notwithstanding your favorite politicians pronouncements, or Al Gore’s admittedly high quality productions or even an esteemed scientist disaster proponent, you are allowed to think for yourself and even to speculate that they could be mistaken from time to time.
Gary Pearse says:
June 18, 2018 at 4:54 PM
New studies are already making last years “accelerating” sea level rise stuff obsolete…
Could you provide your readers with a link to a paper?
Gary,
I rather like the way the NSF finally accepted that Archimedes’ principle still applies. Sea ice melt does not make sea levels rise.
Some climate clowns still express amazement when the ice pushed into the ocean by a flowing glacier eventually breaks off!
They seem unaware that ice is quite rigid, and the continuous flexing of the sheet eventually causes breakage. No miraculous heating rom underneath necessary!
All part of the rich but silly climatological tapestry – more hole than whole.
Cheers.
GAry,
‘. Ice melting in the sea doesnt do much, shelves breakoff and glaciers calve but new snow makes new ice. This is not controversial science. ‘
Do you really think scientists are not aware of basics?
If you read articles, you would see that it is the acceleration of the glacier flow that is being observed.
It is believed that the loss of massive floating ice shelves is facilitating this acceleration. Uncorking of the bottle.
Agreed
Last post -I was agreeing with Gordon’s fuller treatment of glacial outflow and adve tures in the sea.
Pango
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/14/even-gooder-news-east-antarctic-ice-sheet-the-big-one-remained-stable-throughout-the-pliocene
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/nasa-glaciologist-jay-zwally-puts-the-hammer-down-antarctica-is-gaining-ice/
Thanks GP
People a la Middleton are imho by far too polemic to be taken seriously.
I’ll therefore await Zwally’s conclusions going far away from his recent results (2015):
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Wait and see I would say.
LaP,
Might, if, and think – mainstays of wishful thinking, unless backed by sound science.
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Back to drawing brightly coloured pictures for you!
Cheers.
No, David. The scienciness isnt settled.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/upcoming-research-will-buck-the-consensus-and-show-antarctica-is-still-gaining-ice/
Also, as cold as it is in most of Antarctica most of the time, the ice doesnt melt. Ice loss is mostly due to sublimation into the cold DRY air blowing over it.
Gee, scientists don’t know that ice doesn’t melt when the temperature is far below zero. Right.
So why do you suppose they are still concerned about melting Antarctic ice?
Why haven’t you asked yourself that question?
DA,
Maybe because your “scientists” are stupid and ignorant?
Some of them are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that melting sea ice raises sea levels. The NSF reluctantly admitted they were talking nonsense – it took several years for them to admit they were in error. I suppose that the National Science Foundation knows something about science, but apparently not a lot.
Are these the scientists to whom you refer? Or are you specifically excluding scientists from the NSF, NOAA and NASA? Any others?
Why haven’t you asked yourself that question?
I understand, David.
Cheers.
DA…”Gee, scientists dont know that ice doesnt melt when the temperature is far below zero. Right”.
The idiots programming models would not know that. Or some geologists like Michael Mann, who concluded it has warmed in Antarctica since 1950.
Nor do they seem to get it that solar energy input is missing in the Arctic several months of the year.
Gordon, you lie about people and then blame them for not meeting your lies.
It’s despicable.
David, once again, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, once more, please stop trolling
Impersonator, once again, please stop being so lazy, and get your own idea.
just a thought says:
June 18, 2018 at 5:46 PM
The best methodology we have is to monitor tide gauges, which continue to show no acceleration in sea level rise, which is increasing at a similar rate to the 1920s to 50s.
*
When I read such Homewood blah blah, I have a problem in believing what he wrote above it upthread.
Did you ever download tide gauge data, jat?
SLR by tide gauges in mm/yr (CSIRO)
1880-1920: 1.3
1920-1950: 1.5
1950-1980: 1.5
1980-2013: 2.6
SLR by sat is actually at 3.2 mm/yr.
binny…”Did you ever download tide gauge data, jat?”
How many gauges do they have monitoring ocean levels? How do they average over the different tides?
How do they account for different ocean levels? Yes, the ocean levels can vary a foot between Australia and South America.
How much of the rise is due to humans dumping garbage in the oceans including several billions worth of poop.
Yuck!! I’m never swimming in the ocean again. Have you ever seen one whale bowel movement. Reminds me of a whole lot of alarmist propaganda.
Gordon Robertson
I did answer your question about poop on an earlier thread. I do not think you saw it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/#comment-305276
Gordon Robertson says:
June 18, 2018 at 7:45 PM
Robertson
The Flynn guy calls everybody stupid and/or ignorant he wants to discredit or denigrate, and you call everybody an idiot you want to discredit or denigrate. David Appell you even named a dumb ass!
This your comment proves again that you are the perfect sum of all Flynn and you think about other people.
This your comment is of the same vein as your incredibly dumb and pretentious comments about GPS, time dilation, Lorentz, Einstein etc etc.
It is even worse than your repeated lies about NOAA’s presence in the Arctic or in the Antarctic.
How is it possible not to shame about writing such ignorant nonsense?
LaP,
If I call people stupid and ignorant, it is because they have shown themselves to be stupid and ignorant (as opposed to wise and knowledgeable).
If you can show me to be wrong, based on facts, I will obviously change my views.
You cannot, of course, which makes you stupid for misrepresenting me based on your unsubstantiated opinion, and ignorant for not being able to present facts to back up your opinion.
If people choose to feel offended, denigrated, or discredited, that is their choice. Blame me for your stupidity and ignorance, if it makes you feel better. I won’t mind.
Oh-so-sad that you believe in mythical concepts like the uindescribable GHE. Why do you care what anyone thinks? I certainly don’t – why should I? Why should you?
Oh well, feel as upset as you like. You obviously choose to, otherwise you would provide a fact or two to contradict what I write. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
June 19, 2018 at 3:57 AM
If people choose to feel offended, denigrated, or discredited, that is their choice. Blame me for your stupidity and ignorance, if it makes you feel better. I wont mind.
You behave exactly as dumb as does Robertson.
If there are here two stupid and ignorant persons, then these are Robertson and… Flynn.
La Pangolina, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Impersonator, try not to be too upset that someone had the idea to call out the real trolls on this site. And try not to be so desperate that you have to post as another commenter because you realise how effective this idea is.
LaP,
Did you ever download the continental vertical displacement data – seeing as how tide gauges are generally attached to continents?
Maybe you could use lots of brightly coloured markers and make a graph?
Mt. Everest is going up, parts of US East Coast going down – can you graph the effects on sea level for me?
Cheers.
Mike Flapper, Scientists who analyze tide gauge data to study changes in SL have included local changes in land elevation in their work for many decades. Peltier’s work on relative SL comes to mind.
E. Swanson, what other factors contribute to SLR? Are the other factors accumulative?
IOW, isn’t SLR inevitable, even with no AGW?
JDHuffman says:
IOW, isnt SLR inevitable, even with no AGW?
Why? A little bit of land subsidence in some places?
SLR was 1 meter in 5000 years before the industrial era, an average rate of 0.2 mm/yr. Now it’s it’s 17 times faster — and 20 times faster if you take into account SLR acceleration.
David Appell, land masses erode continually. The eroded material ends up at ocean depths. It adds, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
SLR is inevitable.
JDHuffman
YOU: “David Appell, land masses erode continually. The eroded material ends up at ocean depths. It adds, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.”
A PhD candidate geophysicist has already calculated the contribution and it is quite small and has nothing to do with the current sea level rise rate.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-sea-rise-can-be-attributed-to-sediment-from-surface-erosion
Well, anonymous Norman, even if you go with the “estimates” and “assumptions”, you end up with millimeters. Then add in the other contributing “estimates” and “assumptions”.
And these don’t go away. They add year after year.
JDHuffman
I think you misread the ballpark calculation on the link. The final amount was nanometers not millimeters. A nanometer is one million times smaller than a millimeter.
You would get a millimeter rise in a million years. The current sea level rise seems much greater so other causes must be responsible.
I hope you realize scientists are not so foolish that such a thought did not cross their minds already. They did calculations and found the amount caused by sedimentation is far to small to account for the current level of sea level rise. They can calculate that warming of the ocean will create expansion of water comparable to what they are finding so that would be a far more likely candidate. It is a process of elimination to find a likely cause.
Anonymous Norman, I did not misread the “ballpark” calculation. It was you that wasn’t able to figure out my comment.
Over the industrial era, even if you believe the “ballpark”, the SLR would be affected by millimeters.
Then, if you add in the other factors, the result is even greater.
Zealots do not like facts that counter their beliefs, but if all of Earth’s land were leveled, sea levels would be over 1 mile above the land.
JD,
No one else here seems to care that a poster is anonymous. Why do you? Why the need to make it personal at all?
It is their choice, isn’t it? They must have their reasons, which are ultimately none of your business.
JD,
A million years to reach 1 mm, that’s negligible. That means it should be ignored. Right?
Mike Flynn
Tide guages do indeed rise and fall with the land they are attached to.
The average isostatic movement is a rise of 0.3mm/year.
As a result, global sea level rise as measured by tide guages is 0.3mm less than as measured by satallite altimetry.
I’d like someone to explain the 10 km difference between the poles and the equator and how the sea level distribution is changing as the earth rotational velocity slows. It seems to me there should be water (and land too) migrating north and south as the equatorial bulge reduces.
La P, do you have a link to CSIRO’s data? Thanks.
Everybody should be able to search for that! Here is the very first link proposed by Google:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html
Your comment was about tide gauges. That link isn’t.
–The best modern proxy data for the last 10,000 years is Marcott et al 2013.–
So that is global (someone complained 80% proxies were marine).
There is this to look at:
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/were-not-screwed
Gbaikie
“someone complained 80% proxies were marine”
Earth’s surface is 70% marine.
Gbaikie
Did you notice the author of the Financial post article.
Outside the clmate change denier community Ross McKittrick is not regarded as a reliable source.
Entropic man, no one outside your cult is regarded as a reliable source.
That should tell you something.
Huffman, you do not seem to realise that exactly the same holds e.g. for your friend the Robertson genius, who discards, discredits and denigrates evrything outside his cult.
Indeed, Huffman: That should tell you something.
La Pangolina, yes, it does tell me something.
It tells me that your obsession with Robertson far supersedes any rational interpretation of relevant facts.
LaP is right.
Kierkegaard:
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to
believe what isn’t true, the other is to refuse
to accept what is true.”
JDHuffman
I do belong to a cult. We are called scientists and we follow a ritual called scientific method.
My favourite description of Ross Mckittrick is at RationalWiki.
” Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist, best known for undermining global warming denialism by advancing a series of bizarre and implausible objections to mainstream science. ”
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
His contributions include:
No Hockey stick
No such thing as average temperature
Global warming does not exist because degrees are the same as radians.
Major population centres in Antarctica.
( I dont understand the last three either. 🙂 )
Entropic man, is attacking someone that doesn’t believe as you, part of your “scientific method”?
JDHuffman
I’m attacking bad science. None of McKitricks stuff makes scientific sense.
There are sceptics like Richard Lindzen who try to make a proper scientific case for lukewarm, which puts them in a minority but within the tent. They are regarded as mistaken by the consensus, but have earned respect.
McKitrick is outside the tent, pissing in the dark. He writes bullshit with no valid scientific basis and attracts somewhere between pity and contempt from climate professionals.
Incidentally, are you related to H D Huffman? He wrote a hypothesis to explain the temperature on Venus without GHGs. Unfortunately it violated the 1st law.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
No relation, but it’s interesting that you are researching me.
Maybe that’s why you can’t use your real name. Too much to hide?
There is no hockey stick. Average temperature is an ill-defined quantity. The rest are no doubt intentionally garbled to poison the well.
This is just a red herring argument, specifically, your fallacy is: argumentum ad hominem.
–Incidentally, are you related to H D Huffman? He wrote a hypothesis to explain the temperature on Venus without GHGs. Unfortunately it violated the 1st law.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
—
Why do you think it violates 1st law?
I think sunlight warms Venus clouds and the sun heated clouds warm the air. Do you think that violates 1st law, also?
JDHumffman, Gbaskie
Just curious. The name was familiar and AGW denial tends to run in families. Witness the Idsos and the Pielkes.
It is not unusual for scientists to use a nom-de-plume when commenting on threads like this one. It separates their unofficial comments from their official statements.
I use a nom-de-plume because my children asked me to. They became embarrassed when a Google search revealed my secret identity as “Speaker to Weirdos”.
Why does Huffman violate the 1st law?
Venus receives solar insolation of 2601W/M^2. With an albedo of 0.77 Venus reflects 2002W/M^2 and absorbs 599W/M^2.
To make his maths work Huffman assumes that all 2601W/M^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is creating energy from nowhere, which is a 1st law violation.
Entropic man, since you’re seeing 1LoT violations, see if you can find same with your “standard forcing equation”.
Bart says:
“Average temperature is an ill-defined quantity.”
= (1/A)*[surface integral over the surface]T(r dA
where A = area and T is temperature.
Harry D Huffman’s results came from setting planetary albedos to zero. Pure junk.
Why does Huffman violate the 1st law?
Venus receives solar insolation of 2601W/M^2. With an albedo of 0.77 Venus reflects 2002W/M^2 and absorbs 599W/M^2.
To make his maths work Huffman assumes that all 2601W/M^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is creating energy from nowhere, which is a 1st law violation.
From what he says, he allows for reflection.
Things that reflect can get quite hot in space, but stuff that reflects, don’t absorb as much energy.
Anyway, it is assumed the clouds [of Venus] reflect most of the sunlight.
What if the clouds didn’t exist, what effect do you think that would have on Venus temperature?
Or slightly different question, how much would Venus atmosphere reflect without having any clouds?
“best known for undermining global warming denialism ”
What if he was “best known for undermining global warming beliefs?”
David Appell @ June 20, 2018 at 3:43 PM
What, physically, does it mean? Temperature is an intensive quantity.
Average Temperature of near-surface air. Why is it hard?
Because it’s not particularly physically useful. Temperature is an intensive quantity. It does not tell you how much energy there is unless coupled with heat capacity of the environment in which it is measured. So, when you average temperatures of environments with different heat capacities, you cannot connect it directly to the store of energy.
It’s like averaging the number of crates of apples you have, regardless of the size of the individual crates. It can’t tell you, on that basis alone, how many apples you have.
‘Not useful’
It is useful if you care about temperature where humans live. (air has same heat capacity worldwide…with some variation due to rel humidity).
Maybe more useful to look at average global enthalpy of near surface air.
If you care about energy increase, ok, OHC contains by far most of it, and is being measured. It shows a strong upward trend, and can be used to test models.
“It shows a strong upward trend, and can be used to test models.”
And, even if one entertains the conjecture that it is possible for LW radiation to produce heating of the skin layer that then mixes with deeper waters, it would be far, far, far less powerful a heating force than SW radiation, completely in the noise. It’s ridiculous, really.
Moreover, the heating is on the order of 100ths of degrees, due to the much greater heat capacity of the oceans, and you can’t heat the air by 10ths, much less ones, of degrees with a body that has only heated by 100ths.
Dr. Spencer has shown it is possible experimentally to thermometrically detect an increase in the temperature of a tub of surface temperature equilibrated water at ~6″ depth from increased LW night time radiation from added cirrus over tub of water that is not in the cirrus view.
As I recall a few tenths of a degreeF in accord with his heat capacity calculations and using the LW IR load measured from a reasonably nearby NOAA ESRL station. Search on: roy spencer experiment
I cannot find your reference. However, I hardly think such a crude experiment, without complete isolation from other sources of heating, is dispositive.
It simply beggars belief. LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, we’re talking microns if that, with almost immediate release via evaporation.
SW, on the other hand, penetrates much farther, and there has been a marked uptick in solar activity within the past half century.
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
Dr. Spencer builds a surface night time high cirrus cloud detector:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Experiment is better learned from than assertions like:
“LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, we’re talking microns if that, with almost immediate release via evaporation.”
Of course, there are more than just CO2 wavelengths from the added cirrus atm. column incident on the one water tub.
“Experiment is better learned from than assertions…”
Right, and demonstrations of perpetual motion are better than clinging to some capricious dogma like conservation of energy.
“Of course, there are more than just CO2 wavelengths from the added cirrus atm. column incident on the one water tub.”
And, the tub is subject to influences from all sides. As I said, crude, and not at all dispositive.
“the tub is subject to influences from all sides.”
The tubs are double insulated on all sides save the top water in view of the sky. Would you think triple or quadruple insulation would change the result? Not me but only way I’d be convinced is to try it.
A) sytrofoam is a good insulator, but not a great one.
B)… save the top water… is rather a substantial weakness. Different interface to the air means different heat dissipation characteristics via convection.
Pro tip: if a result appears too good to be true, it probably is. That is why sanity checks are so important.
Does it make sense that radiation that can’t even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference? No, it does not. The experiment needs better controls.
‘Does it make sense that radiation that cant even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference? No, it does not. The experiment needs better controls.’
Uggh , this has been debunked here a number of times.
1. 1st law. Where did the energy absorbed in the first micron go? Disappeared?
2. Any of you can try the experiment at home, that I did, or the one Roy did. Water can be heated by pointing a ceramic IR heater down at the surface of a bowl of water. One can even block convection with a layer of saran wrap. Either way, it works fine.
3. In the ocean there is lots of mixing of surface water.
4. In most cases the NET flow of IR is from the ocean surface to the atmosphere or space. The DWLWR is simply reducing this NET.
‘Moreover, the heating is on the order of 100ths of degrees, due to the much greater heat capacity of the oceans, and you cant heat the air by 10ths, much less ones, of degrees with a body that has only heated by 100ths.’
You are cherry picking the temps of the lower ocean depths. Near the surface we are talking ~ 1 C. It naturally decreases going deeper. The measurements are integrating the total energy, and it is increasing, as expected.
“Does it make sense that radiation that can’t even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference?”
Yes it does make 1LOT sense. You are such a naysayer, geez.
The added radiation is absorbed by the water in the tub, doesn’t matter the exact depth, with the water free to evaporate given the surface conditions. Simple calculations show the measured amount of temperature change at depth due the resonably nearby measured incident radiation variation is in accord with basic theory.
If you think the double styrofoam going to more layers, or different insulation, or something else is important, prove it by test not assertion. Informed, critical readers will not believe you have any kind of point until you do so.
This is such a ridiculous discussion. The things people will believe…
Uncontrolled experiments with non-representative excitations and many unquantified extraneous inputs on scales many orders of magnitude less than that of the system they are meant to mimic prove precisely diddly squat, guys.
Simple inspection shows you are wrong Bart, this is obviously a controlled experiment with not only representative excitations but the very excitation of interest and sufficiently minimized unquantified extraneous inputs on the same exact scale of interest as the system of interest to prove the science & even accompanied by calculations supporting the results.
Yours is such a ridiculous discussion Bart. The things people will deny…
‘This is such a ridiculous discussion. The things people will believe’
Bart, you made the assertion. We and science disagree, and cite theory and experiment.
You cite neither, and wildly wave hands about.
We await your evidence or experiments.
Pro tip: if a result appears to disprove his assertions, Bart will find a flimsy excuse to blow it off.
Usually with this technique: https://giphy.com/explore/wacky-waving-inflatable-arm-flailing-tube-man
What is your excuse for each of my points 1-4 above, Bart?
Let me add a #5.
5. If you point an IR thermometer at the surface of warm water, it will accurately measure its temp. Try it at home, please.
What does this mean? It means that water is a good black body radiator in IR, emissivity ~ 1, which is well known.
It means water can effectively exchange heat to another object via radiation.
It means the rad. heat transfer eqn applies to ocean surface.
It means radiative heat flow from the ocean DEPENDS on the temperature of the ocean surface and the temperature of the lower atmosphere.
QED
BTW, you guys are constantly saying stuff like
‘LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, were talking microns if that”
Let’s put that to bed once and for all:
The HEAT penetrates via just conduction much more than microns.
Heat applied to the surface of water will penetrate this far in time t:
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/heat-penetration-calculator#|timeinput_60
t = 1 minute, 6 millimeters
t = 1 hour, 45 millimeters
t = 6 hours, 111 millimeters
“…this is obviously a controlled experiment with not only representative excitations but the very excitation of interest…”
No, it isn’t. The interface with the convective environment at the top is a major uncontrolled variable. The styrofoam is permeable over the hours-long timeline. The materials are not uniform, the sensors are not calibrated. There are dozens of uncontrolled aspects.
“The HEAT penetrates via just conduction much more than microns.”
Conduction is very weak, and evaporation carries much of the heat away before it can penetrate. There is no chance whatsoever that LW radiation on the water has greater impact than the SW radiation that penetrates deeply. And, SW radiation on the oceans has been increasing significantly over the past half century or so.
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
The interface with the convective environment at the top is every much the same as any calm night over water.
The styrofoam is twice the amount which keeps ice frozen over similar nights and beverages cold as any camper knows.
The materials are as uniform as ever occurs in nature.
The sensors were well calibrated.
There are dozens of aspects similar to every natural backyard such as this one.
Conduction is operating normally, and evaporation causes some enthalpy change at the top and some of the enthalpy change can penetrate several inches deep as shown by the recorded temperature log overnight.
Sure SW has greater effect than LW on water of this depth as SW has more power per m^2 per sr and that would be shown in the T log if the experiment was allowed to run through dawn to say hi noon.
Bart,
‘Conduction is very weak and evaporation carries much of the heat away before it can penetrate’
Quadrupling down?
‘Weak’ means what? ‘Much of’ means what? 60%? 20%? 5%? How do you know?
Heat clearly is able to penetrate quickly via conduction to depths of ~ cm. It is a quantitative fact, an experimental fact. Heat having penetrated a cm is no longer causing much evaporation.
And that is neglecting the mixing effect of wind and waves.
C’mon Bart, sometimes you just have to let it go, learn, and move on.
“The interface with the convective environment at the top is every much the same as any calm night over water.”
It is different for different coverings.
“The styrofoam is twice the amount which keeps ice frozen over similar nights and beverages cold as any camper knows.”
Most campers know the ice will melt substantially within a few hours.
“Weak means what?”
It means it penetrates with diminishing impact with depth. With a material with poor heat conduction like water, it diminishes rapidly.
It is a flea compared to the SW elephant. It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.
“ice will melt substantially within a few hours.”
Substantially? Few? And Bart is the commenter with “the sensors are not calibrated.”
Bart is clutching at straws, has not established his asserted counterpoints with experiment, Dr. Spencer’s experimental results & calculations still stand despite Bart’s “pro” efforts to suggest it is not reality.
‘It means it penetrates with diminishing impact with depth. With a material with poor heat conduction like water, it diminishes rapidly.’
You do not seem to understand what a quantitative argument is and why it is important in science. You keep making qualitative, hand-waving, unsupported statements. Unpersuasive.
“It is a flea compared to the SW elephant. It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.”
Again no numbers, just assertion, nothing to support it.
This is like arguing with the fanatics on the other side that R.W. Wood’s crude experiments do not falsify the GHE. You desperately want it to be true, so you cling to any tenuous rationale that it might be true.
C’mon, guys. LW radiation in the CO2 band is not heating the deep oceans. Deal with it.
‘C’mon, guys. LW radiation in the CO2 band is not heating the deep oceans. Deal with it.’
Ahh, the time-tested denier technique. Can’t prove your point, just say it more emphatically!
Bart, you seem quite determined to wreck your credibility as an intelligent poster.
‘ It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.’
Look, the point is SW is always a NET input, and LW is most often a NET output.
With AGW, the LW output (and convective) are simply reduced a tiny bit.
So I don’t really know what your problem is.
“..any tenuous rationale..”
Experimental data on the actual atm. is not a “tenuous” rationale Bart, the evidence is solid.
Added icy cirrus LW at night is shown to affect the temperature thus cooling rate of ambient surface water free to evaporate at last on the order several inches deep in accord with calculation. Deal with it.
“Look, the point is SW is always a NET input…”
By that, I suppose you mean net zero, i.e., constant. It isn’t.
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
Your fallacies are: argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem.
If only you were as good about disproving claimed fallacies as you are at labeling them.
Did you notice the author of the Financial post article.
Nope. but good to know.
“Outside the climate change denier community Ross McKittrick is not regarded as a reliable source.”
Ross was involved with a Congressional investigation of “hockey stick” and I read some of his stuff, but I don’t know much about him.
Do you know what the meaning of reliable source, means?
I would say he is not someone you want to listen to, if you want to cling to beliefs.
re Antarctica….
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/antarctic-ice-flow-and-arctic-sea-ice/3401828
From Duncan Wingham…polar expert….
“Duncan Wingham: It’s extraordinary, this idea that Antarctica is melting. I think it is in the popular press and in the popular mind, and so when you point out something that is true, namely it’s too cold in Antarctica for the ice to melt, everyone is rather surprised, but it is just a fact. The most northerly part of Antarctica, the tip of the peninsula, is unusual in that it is far to the north of most of the continent and the temperatures do actually reach the melting point in summer in the peninsula. For the most part Antarctica is just too cold.
So what actually happens is it breaks off, literally, into large icebergs which then float around in the Southern Ocean where they do indeed melt. Before 1992 there were no satellite data and as a matter of fact we knew very little about what the Antarctic ice sheet….”
The ice isn’t melting where it’s too cold to melt, it’s melting where it isn’t.
“While West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula has been losing ice for a long time, East Antarctica has experienced a mix of ice gain and loss, which some has cited as a reason not to worry about global warming. The latest study emphasizes that the variations in East Antarctica are not nearly enough to make up for the rapid loss throughout the rest of the continent.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a21577520/antarctica-melting-way-faster-anyone-expected/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/14/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-lying-beneath-antarctic-ice-sheet/#7eb7044824d1
Did you read your own link?
“It does not appear any of the volcanoes are to blame for the recent melting of ice sheets in Antarctica.”
but
“A concern among scientists is the potential impact these volcanoes could have on further melting and destabilizing the Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
Boilerplate disclaimer. You have to issue one, or you don’t get published.
boiler plate?
You guys are being illogical.
Discovery of buried-in-ice volcanoes in a remote location.
Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.
The act of discovering them does not make them become active.
Bart thinks that quoting what the researchers is “boilerplate.”
Bart doesn’t know what “boilerplate” means.
“Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.”
Non sequitur.
“Bart doesnt know what boilerplate means.”
I suggest you look it up.
‘Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.
Non sequitur. ”
If it doesnt follow if you are either plain dumb, or being willfully ignorant. I assume the latter.
It does not follow. It implies nothing of the sort. It simply implies nominal balance has been struck between activity and freeze state.
You have a habit of leaping beyond the evidence to your preferred interpretation. Science is hard precisely because human intuition has proven so unreliable as a basis for understanding complex phenomena.
‘ It simply implies nominal balance has been struck between activity and freeze state.’
Hmmm. Would that be possible with a ‘very active’ volcano?
What does ‘very active’ mean to you?
To me, very active is Kilauea, or I’ll give you Iceland with its hot lakes.
You are being ridiculously nitpicky.
In another discussion here, a paper reported measurements near a Antarctic volcano heat flux of 200 mW/m^2. Thats milliWatts!
Not remotely close to a Kilauea or Iceland.
‘You have a habit of leaping beyond the evidence to your preferred interpretation.’
Possibly.
But you have a habit of leaping to conspiracies, to explain disagreeable results.
Case in point ‘Boilerplate’
From the study –
“We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 19922017 (5 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.”
Modelled? They don’t fancy the gaining result, so it gets ignored
Best climatological practice – if you don’t like the result, just discard it!
Even imaginary model results!
Cheers.
Anyone want to bet a simple bet for fun.
What will the Temp be for June 18 from the May 18 value of 0.18C?
I guess up to 0.23C. My guess is based on La Nina patterns plus a lag, but the amount is really just a guess because data noise is often greater than monthly values.
good guess, then I’ll take 0.24
A somewhat interesting comparison:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/thermal_expansion_ocean_heat_timeseries.html
Lastly, and possibly most damning, is that the Hockey Stick suffers from extreme heteroscedasticity. The distal variation is much higher than the proximal variation. In the year 1,000 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to +0.4, in the year 1902 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to -0.2, and then post 1902 the behavior totally changes with the introduction of instrumental data. Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures. (Click Here) Why this is so damning is that the extreme variation identified in the Hockey Stick occurred with extremely stable CO2 levels. CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply cant explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years. CO2 was essentially a constant, yet temperatures variations were much higher than today. Temperature variation around the year 1350 had a range between +0.5 to -1.0. If you substitute data that has been controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O, temperatures post-1920 are stable, even though CO2 has increased over 30%. If Michael Mann understood his own chart he would understand that it does far more to rule out CO2 as the cause of warming, than it implicates CO2.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/the-winning-strategy-to-defeating-climate-sophist-michael-mann/
Exactly CO2 IS LIFE.
If CO2 is life, why isn’t there any life on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2?
That’s like telling a person in the desert dying of thirst that it would be too dangerous to give them water because they might drown. As I recall, Venus has 230,000 times as much CO2 as we have on Earth. Yet, we are fretting that we might see 2x what the pre-industrial level was (around 275 ppm). It has been estimated that during the glacials, plant life was very stressed at 200 ppm or below. We are seeing global greening as life is now breathing more freely with more CO2.
Your use of Venus as an example is disingenuous. On Earth, CO2 is indeed necessary for life, and there is abundant evidence that more has been, on the whole, better.
I agree!
That was the point, Roy — CO2 also makes the world warmer. The “CO2 is life” people never mention that.
You can’t just say CO2 is good for plants without also considering that it increases temperatures and changes precipitation patterns. Or without considering that warmer temperatures increase the prevalence of many diseases, weeds and insects. Or that the nutritional content of plants decreases.
“Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf
And the 200 ppm argument is a canard. A lack of anthropogenic CO2 would not have atmospheric CO2 now at that level. Even 350.org argues for 350 ppm, not 280 ppm let alone 200 ppm.
CO2 also makes the world warmer.
Yes but this is not even necessarily detrimental to life on Earth. It’s all a matter of how much and we don’t know for sure, yet. Science cannot tell.
And there is also no science that shows that 280 ppm of CO2 might be an optimum in any respect.
So I find the catastrophist rant on one side of the fence as absurd as the denial of the CO2 GHE on the other side of the fence.
And, yes, IMO one cannot rule out that warming eventually turns out to be catastrophic but it is actually vain to invoke a precautionary principle. Simply because it is a delusion to believe that we are even remotely in a position to really take action and curb rapidly the CO2 emissions. This is technically not yet possible at appropriate scale anyway.
Roy,
Or like saying “If drinking as much water as we can is good for us, why not just live under water.”
David Appell, do you have any of your own research or more than two sentences of your own thoughts that shows an increase in CO2 causes warming?
Idiot tracker says:
CO2 also makes the world warmer.
Yes but this is not even necessarily detrimental to life on Earth.
There have been extinctions when climate changed too much too fast. Sometimes an entire “extinction event.”
So I find the catastrophist rant on one side of the fence as absurd as the denial of the CO2 GHE on the other side of the fence.
I’ve never argued there will be a catastrophe. It’s not a scientific term. Why don’t you define it first?
Chic Bowdrie says:
“….do you have any of your own research or more than two sentences of your own thoughts that shows an increase in CO2 causes warming?”
It’s a scientific fact the CO2 causes warming. Why don’t you go read some papers that established that fact, and a few textbooks, then get back to me when you do.
D, PLEASE stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, PLEASE stop trolling.
Impersonator, stop being so lazy. Get your own idea.
Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures.
Actually it’s very easy to derive a hockey stick from very basic physics and some algebra:
1) temperature change is proportional to change in radiative forcing
2) RF is proportional to log(CO2)
3) CO2 was flat before about 1850, has been increasing exponentially since.
This implies temperatures should have been flat before 1850, and increasing linearly after 1850, viz a hockey stick.
CO2 has not increased exponentially. It has, at most, been quadratic in the modern era. Moreover, concentration has not tracked emissions. The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.
“The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.”
Not even close to true. Just look at satellite data, Dr. Chrisy’s Chart, or any data set controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. Temperatures clearly trace ocean cycles and CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans, visible radiation does.
Oh yes, it is a remarkably good fit:
https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o
I think you have misunderstood, though. As it is a rate of change relationship, the arrow of causality is temperature to CO2, not CO2 to temperature.
It’s not at all clear that temperature is leading C-dot:
https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz
And here we see again how nonsensical these little WFT games can be:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1958/derivative/plot/gistemp/scale:0.27/offset:0.05/from:1958
GISS LOTI and CO2 perfectly match on many peaks (around 1973, 1987, 1998, 2016), and that means… NOTHING.
There can’t be imho any computable match between temperatures and CO2 concentration within short periods, as it mainly depends on how much the oceans accept CO2 intake during these periods.
And WFT always seems out of date. Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6. (There are some big differences.)
UAH NSSTC Lower troposphere temperature
Source: UAH National Space Science and Technology Center
Data URL: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/
Reference: John Christy, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville (formal reference unknown)
“There cant be imho any computable match between temperatures and CO2 concentration within short periods…”
This is CO2 rate of change, and there is a really good match.
“Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6.”
Both are available. Look farther down the pull tab.
David Appell says:
June 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM
And WFT always seems out of date. Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6. (There are some big differences.)
How could anybody trust in what a person says and writes when this person has such a superficial view on things that s/he isn’t even able to detect such trivial matter?
What a quark soap indeed!
Why don’t you explain how you manufacture the fit, Bart, and see if others agree with your approach to the analysis?
It’s plainly obvious. I use the WFT site to get the data. I numerically differentiate the CO2 data and then average it over 12 months to eliminate the yearly cycle. I add an offset for the arbitrary temperature anomaly baseline, and then I scale the data to account for the different units, and they lay right on top of each other.
Effectively, since the baseline is arbitrary, it is a single parameter fit using a simple scaling factor.
La Pangolina: To whom is your comment referring? He’s wrong. v6 is available, and that is what I used.
Why not look at the record back to 1959? Thats what most people would do.
Why not average T over 12 mo as well, to be fair. Thats what most people would do. But it no longer fits.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1958/derivative/plot/gistemp/mean:12/scale:0.6/from:1958
Bart says:
Its plainly obvious.
Petitio principii. It’s obvious — on this graph, there are several points where CO2 peaks before temperature.
https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz
Nate –
“Why not look at the record back to 1959? Thats what most people would do.”
Because we do not have good temperature records that far back. However, there are solid indications that the relationship has held at least that long:
https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7
“Why not average T over 12 mo as well, to be fair.”
Your neurosis regarding how you think the data should behave in no way negates the fact that there is an excellent match here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o
David –
It’s plainly obvious how I produced the fit, which was the question asked, so no, sorry, no fallacy here.
As to the other, these are not deterministic data, and your criticism is fatuous.
in this graph you made another adjustment of 12 to 24 mo. average in order to achieve a ‘fit’.
Why do you need make that adjustment? How do you explain it?
When I make logical choices for parameters (same filter cutoff), I get no fit at all.
A second parameter is clearly needed to be adjusted, filter cutoff.
So its clearly not what you you said prior ‘it is a single parameter fit using a simple scaling factor.’
Its just a house of cards.
“Why do you need make that adjustment? How do you explain it?”
The data are lower quality compared to the satellite data, and require more smoothing.
“When I make logical choices for parameters (same filter cutoff)…”
That’s not a “logical” choice. That is you impressing your own biases upon the data. It is ignoring the fact that one is a spatially fixed point measurement, while the other is an average over the entire globe.
The relationship is what it is, and it is powerful and compelling. Figuring out why the relationship exists in the form it does is what science is all about.
‘The data are lower quality compared to the satellite data, and require more smoothing.’
Obviously you just adjusted the filter until it looked like a fit to you. Now after the fact you make up BS (quality?) to justify it.
That is nothing more than a second adjustable parameter. You are lying.
The data, prior to your two year smoothing clearly does not have the frequency-independent relationship you desire.
What to do? Filter to manufacture a fake frequency-independent relationship.
It is just bleeding obvious
“The relationship is what it is, and it is powerful and compelling.”
Only to willfully ignorant people looking only for confirmation of their beliefs.
You are clutching at straws.
Bart says:
“CO2 has not increased exponentially. It has, at most, been quadratic in the modern era.”
As usual, no analysis to back up your claim.
CO2 has risen exponentially because the economy rises exponentially.
Moreover, concentration has not tracked emissions.
CO2 has certainly risen with emissions. It doesn’t duplicate it because the carbon cycle also responds to natural variations.
The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.
Define “tracked.”
This shows C-dot peaks coming both before and after temperature peaks.
https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz
If dT caused C-dot, annual C-dot wouldn’t peak in May while annual temperatures peak months later.
“It doesnt duplicate it because the carbon cycle also responds to natural variations. “
No, it doesn’t duplicate it because it isn’t significantly dependent upon it.
“This shows C-dot peaks coming both before and after temperature peaks.”
Amazing how many people think we’re dealing with a deterministic system here.
“If dT caused C-dot, annual C-dot wouldnt peak in May while annual temperatures peak months later.”
Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.
Bart repeats his logical errors over and over again.
False dicotomy-
All variation in CO2 must be explained by emissions, else no variation can be explained by them.
‘Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.’
Earths spatially averaged temp oscillates on an annual basis, with a peak in July.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
CO2 der. reaches a minimum in July, clearly anticorrelated with Earth temp.
Makes sense, the maximum in NH biosphere growth then.
Throws a monkey-wrench into the all one mechanism theory.
Your fallacies are: straw man, ignoratio elenchi.
BS, every legitimate counterfactual you label a strawman.
Bart says:
Amazing how many people think were dealing with a deterministic system here.
Hilarious. You make a claim, and then as soon as it’s challenged you say, oops, I didn’t mean THAT.
Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.
For what physical reason would the C-dot be proportional to the temperature anomaly but not the temperature?
“…counterfactual …”
That word does not mean what you think it means.
“You make a claim, and then as soon as it’s challenged you say, oops, I didn’t mean THAT.”
It appears you are not very familiar with stochastic systems.
“For what physical reason would the C-dot be proportional to the temperature anomaly but not the temperature?”
Because it would be sensitive to departure from normal conditions which had brought it to its present state. Surely, you have done perturbation analysis at some point in your technical career?
It should be apparent that CO2 varies naturally for at least three reasons, the seasonal cycle, for which it is anticorrelated to temp., to ENSO for which it is correlated to central pacific temp, and to global temp, which it is correlated as seen during ice ages.
This makes perfect sense for a complex system with several carbon sources and sinks.
Do you still want to assert that there must be singular mechanism?
I’ve never asserted a singular mechanism, just a dominant one. And no, I do not see any of your reasons as compelling when I can look at the plot, and see the series lying virtually right on top of each other in affine similarity.
“Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist
Thirty years after a former Nasa scientist sounded the alarm for the general public about climate change and human activity, the expert issued a fresh warning that the world is failing “miserably” to deal with the worsening dangers. While Donald Trump and many conservatives like to argue that climate change is a hoax, James Hansen, the 77-year-old former Nasa climate scientist, said in an interview at his home in New York that the relevant hoax today is perpetrated by those leaders claiming to be addressing the problem. Hansen provided what’s considered the first warning to a mass audience about global warming when, in 1988, he told a US congressional hearing he could declare “with 99% confidence” that a recent sharp rise in temperatures was a result of human activity.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning
Was that the meeting where Hansen “adjusted” the room thermostat. to make the room warmer?
That wasn’t Hansen, but (allegedly) Congressional staffers. Or is it an urban myth?
PS: NO.AA data shows 0.54 C of warming since Hansen’s testimony.
And, Hansen’s net worth has risen to multi-millions.
It has? What’s your source for that?
Nowadays, it is not unusual for retirees to be worth over a million dollars.
Hansen deserves at least 2 million given his accomplishments.
He shared $25M with Veerabhadran Ramanathan just recently. He’s been cleaning up.
Trump may be correct about the News. Sad! I looked up the Net worth of James Hansen and 3 sights gave wildly different results.
Low was $300,000 up to $8 million. Too much variation to be good news.
Here are the three sites:
https://celebritynetworthwiki.org/richest-celebrities/james-hansen-net-worth/
https://net-worths.com/net-worth/james-hansen-net-worth-6/
https://networthpost.org/net-worth/james-hansen-net-worth/
And this matters why??
Hansen’s science stands on its own merits-ad homs are irrelevant.
You guys are the ones all into conspiracy theories about climate skeptics being in the pay of some evil entity, usually the oil companies or the Koch brothers. There are allegations floating about that Dr. Spencer, in accepting travel reimbursement of some piddling amount for speaking at some conference or other, is doing the bidding of his paymasters.
Well, Hansen’s making real money. Real BIG money. So, why aren’t the money-is-the-root-of-all-evil crowd going after him?
We all know why.
a. Does he not have the right to be rich? Weird.
b. If you think he’s done by sketchy means-shows us the evidence.
c. If so, so what?
Isaac Newton was a dick and played dirty. So what? His work stands on its own.
$8,000 isn’t “piddling,” and it’s a lot more than travel expenses.
But I don’t have a big problem with it.
Bart says:
Well, Hansens making real money. Real BIG money.
You still haven’t said how much.
Or the source for your claim.
Nate – I will remember you said so the next time you try to impugn the integrity of a skeptical scientist.
David – Wikipedia lists several of his honoraria, including the $25M Tang Foundation prize to which I referred. And, 8000/12,500,000 = 0.064%. Please. I don’t think it was $8K either, more like < $2K.
25 million!!
Bart, the Tang Prize is US$1.34M, with a research grant of US$0.33M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Prize#Laureates
OK so, the entry was:
“In June 2018, Hansen was named joint winner, with Veerabhadran Ramanathan, of Taiwan’s Tang Prize Foundation prize. Hansen’s prize had a total value of NT$25 million.”
I missed the “NT”. Current exchange rate is 30.33, so that is $0.82M.
A million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Bart says:
A million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Where is the second million, and the third, and….?
Bart says:
I missed the NT.
I hope you’re not an accountant!
Hawking was a theoretician. The Physics Nobel committee tends NOT to award prizes to theories as theories can be proven wrong a few years later. Experiments, well done with good statistics, are most often awarded the prizes. Einstein didnt get a Nobel for the relativity theories, but only for a theory explaining the photoemission of electrons experiment.
So your one example is someone getting a Nobel Prize for theory.
Also Kip Thorne, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and David Politzer, Gerald ‘t Hooft, Martinus Veltman, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Salem, Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, Thouless, Haldane and Kosterlitz, Eglert and Higgs, Nambu, Glauber, Abrikosov, Ginzburg and Leggett, and more.
By my count 7.5 of the NPs in Physics since 2000 went to theorists.
Kip Thorne was awarded when gravitational waves were confirmed. Higgs received the award in 2013, after the Higgs boson was detected in 2012.
Some of the others could be argued to be purely theoretical, but I don’t think your list really negates RJ’s point.
He wrote, “…as theories can be proven wrong a few years later.”
That’s not been true for any Nobel Prize winning theorist, who are not as rare as he claimed.
He said “tends”, and he is right. The Nobel committee, at least for the serious prizes, does not like to take chances, as they shouldn’t. Those pure theorists who have won have generally been of the sort who solved various mathematical or physical dilemmas that bedeviled already successful theories, so can essentially be considered already successful on that basis.
No, it doesn’t “tend” for theorists who won the Nobel Prize. Their work hasn’t gotten corrected later on.
One More Post for your Nobel Prize Winning Friend
Michael Manns Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/michael-manns-hockey-stick-rules-out-co2-as-cause-of-global-warming/
Sure, sure.
Nobel Prize laureates do not read non peer reviewed blather.
Actually I’ve read several of his rants/posts, and pointed out their errors. They are basic and copious. Too many and too wrong to ever need to read him again or take anything he says seriously.
I’ve never heard of a Physicist refer to peer review. They refer to experimentation and reproducibility. When you have neither, you argue consensus and peer review. You can’t fake an experiment, you can easily rig Peer Review. Glad to hear you support the anti-science of science by authority. I’m still trying to figure out how to reject a peer review or consensus. They never taught that in science classes I’ve taken.
Peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right — it means it’s not obviously wrong, it acknowledges relevant previous work, and it adheres to basic scholarly standards.
I dare you to submit your claims to a good, peer reviewed journal.
That might be interesting. I encourage anyone needing a paper to publish, feel free to borrow any of the arguments detailed on the CO2isLife website. I’d love to see why they reject the criticism of the Hockeystick. Nothing on CO2isLife is original work, I simply connect the dots and review the science.
I told you twice why I rejected your criticism of the hockey stick: it has nothing to do with climate drivers, it’s simply a reconstruction of past temperatures. It doesn’t find or attribute any cause to the temperature changes.
Right?
“Right?”
Not right, at least in the original HS paper since possible forcings of the shape were discussed. Less than a minute of research found from MBH98:
“Attribution of climate forcings”
“We take an empirical approach to detecting the possible effects of external forcings on the climate. The reconstructed NH series is taken as a diagnostic of the global climate, and we examine its relationship with three candidate external forcings during the period 16101995 including (1) CO2 measurements as a proxy for total greenhouse-gas changes,(2) reconstructed solar irradiance variations and (3) the weighted historical ‘dust veilindex’ (DVI) of explosive volcanism (see Fig. 31.1 in ref. 40) updated with recent data.”
But that analysis is independent of and in addition to the hockey stick itself. The hockey stick is a reconstruction of temperatures, regardless of the cause.
Of course, anyone is going to attribute its blade to, mostly, CO2.
CO2, why wouldn’t you write up your own brilliant arguments and submit them to a journal yourself? No confidence?
CO2, here’s a good example of where you’re wrong; up above you wrote:
Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/
but you don’t know the research:
Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003
DAVID questions you will have to answer.
As overall sea surface temperatures keep falling what do you think the global temperatures are going to be doing going forward?
As overall sea surface temperatures keep falling what do you think the reason could be?
Why is not the CO2 effect keeping the sea surface temperatures from falling?
That is what you and all that support AGW may have to come to terms with.
Good Luck you will need it.
Answers:
SSTs won’t keep falling.
CO2 doesn’t make natural variations disappear — they still exist. Short-term trends are a combination of both.
Columbia’s IRI is predicting a 65% chance of a moderate El Nino this (northern hemisphere) winter.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
What does EL NINO have to do AGW?
I thought ENSO was a natural climatic factor.
How come AGW has to hi jack naturally occurring climatic factors to prop itself up?
What does La Nina have to do with AGW. Yet the relatively cold waters of the two back-to-back La Ninas have had you proclaiming AGW is dead every month now.
I have never said that.
What I have said is overall sea surface temperatures cooling will result in the climate cooling.
It might cool slightly until the SSTs increase again. Warming has been the dominant trend for decades, despite some downward SST variations that invariably fool people like you.
Salvatore,
The CO2 warming theory is just that the added CO2 should cause some push of the climate in the warming direction. That’s about it. It doesn’t mean the climate must warm. In fact, it doesn’t even mean the net anthropogenic influence is warming.
So CO2 pushes the climate towards warmer, but doesn’t cause warming. Sure.
How’s this David, a little clearer, more specific for ya’?
So CO2 pushes the climate towards increasing global mean lower atm. thermometer temperatures, but global mean lower atm. brightness temperatures don’t always increase month to month in UAH TLT series as there are many other independent forcings. Sure.
OK, so CO2 does cause forcings.
And it’s known that it, and other human GHGs, is the dominant forcing:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-5.jpg
But that doesn’t mean the climate must warm. It may or it may not.
Yes, it does mean the planet must warmed. Just as CO2 has caused in the past.
–David Appell says:
June 20, 2018 at 3:24 PM
Yes, it does mean the planet must warmed. Just as CO2 has caused in the past.–
We live in world which has an icebox climate.
I like your optimism.
A icebox climate has a cold ocean.
Colder oceans hold more CO2.
We live in a world which has a amazing shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, this shortage of CO2 in atmosphere is a blinking sign which says, life could be on this world.
This blinking sign does not tell you a lot, other than a clue that must be reason for this shortage of CO2
Our extreme shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to the cold ocean [and other factors].
Roy wrote:
The fact is that I can’t account for the lack of Hawking’s Nobel Prize at the moment, and it is a travesty that I can’t.
The problem was that Hawking never proposed something new that was then found by experiment or observation. Hawking radiation, what he’s best known for, is too feeble to detect anytime soon — and you’d have to be verrrrrrrry near a black hole’s event horizon and risk getting pulled in!
Richard Lindzen on feedbacks and the “iris effect”:
“Im not sure what you mean by spearheading [the iris hypothesis, according to which increased sea surface temperature in the tropics does result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earths atmosphere]. In 2000 I published a study of upper level cirrus behavior in the tropics as a function of surface temperature (together with two colleagues at NASA). As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was
sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”
“There immediately followed a series of papers that criticized our work. Each of these criticisms was easy to dismiss, and we did so in published responses. However, subsequent papers inevitably referred to our paper as discredited, and never referred to our responses to the criticism. However, the fact that upper level tropical cirrus shrinks with increasing surface temperature has been confirmed in several subsequent papers. Moreover, since the water vapor feedback is only relevant in the absence of upper level cirrus, one cannot actually separate the iris effect from the water vapor feedback. The combined feedback is more accurately referred to as the long-wave (i.e., infrared) feedback, and direct measurements confirm that this feedback is zero or even negative.”
“Interestingly, there is a problem called the Early Faint Sun Paradox. This refers to the fact that about 2.5 billion years ago, the solar constant was about 30% less than it is today, but the evidence is that the climate was not greatly different from todays climate. My student, Roberto Rondanelli and I showed that the simplest explanation was the iris effect. In summary, the iris effect still seems eminently viable.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/18/a-conversation-with-prof-richard-lindzen/
The Iris effect is still very much an unproven hypothesis.
“Careful analysis of data reveals no shrinkage of tropical cloud anvil area with increasing SST.”
Hartman, D.L.; M.L. Michelsen (2002). “No evidence for iris”. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 83 (2): 249254.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
“feedback is zero or even negative.”
Looks like the opposite is true:
https://tinyurl.com/ybo3coub
What has global ocean heat content got to do with putative atmospheric temperature rise feedback?
That’s a very detailed plot of non-existent observational data and if valid would represent a temperature anomaly at 700m of about 0.1C – 0.2C.
Just be grateful it’s not going the other way.
The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.
Exactly, Svante.
Of course the planet accumulates energy — at times.
And dissipates energy at other times, it’s never in perfect balance.
Svante says:
The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.
So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades?
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr
–David Appell says:
June 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM
Svante says:
The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.
So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades?
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr —
Global temperature has been increasing for more than century and increasing for the shorter period of decades.
A significant accumulation of energy generally occurs over centuries as does significant loss of energy occurs over centuries.
Depending on time period you pick, it is either accumulating or losing. And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.
And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.
Why? Due to what?
DA…”And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.
Why? Due to what?
I’m sure gbaikie means it is accumulating wrt the lower energy level during the LIA. It’s a relative accumulation whereas the LIA represented a relative loss.
Why is energy accumulating since the LIA?
And do those hypothetical sources explain what has been observed since then?
“So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades? ….”.
Search me, do have an easier question — why wouldn’t it, why shouldn’t it?
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, according to the IPCC more than 50% of the warming since ~1950 (> 0.4C or >0.6C/cent) is most probably due to human CO2 emissions.
gbaikie says:
“Depending on time period you pick, it is either accumulating or losing. And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.”
Quite right, it looks like this:
https://tinyurl.com/ydynpfy5
I found skepticalscience.com only good for humor.
I found a lot of links to science there.
The graph is based on Shakun et al., Marcott et al., and the instrumental record.
Marcott said we are not yet past the Holocene maximum. That was in 2013, three years later we might have gone past it.
The Holocene is 11,650 years.
You can move that hockey stick blade down if you like, or tilt it with the UAH data. The message is the same.
Svante,
This graphic is seriously flawed, it’s illusionism and not science.
1. Mixture of data of different and inconsistent natures without mention of this inconsistency.
2. Use of different smoothings according to periods and types of data.
No validity.
1. So you want to join them with a gap?
2. You think the current excursion is normal? Evidence?
Svante,
1. It is not a question of gap, the data are anyway floating because they are only anomalies. No, the fundamental problem is that the proxies used are not consistent with the instrumental temperatures. Moreover, in the particular case, the last value of Shakun-Marcott is just a sinister joke. See for example here:https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/
2. It is impossible to say whether the current excursion is singular or not based on this graph. With the smoothings used, comparable past excursions would not appear.
phi,
1. The Marcott uptick is not robust, the paper says so. There is other evidence for it though.
2. In 200 years we have seen a change that matches the entire Holocene average variation. Short excursions could have gone unnoticed. I say that is highly unlikely, and the cause would have been different. You can disagree if you like, this is about probabilities.
Svante,
In 200 years we have seen a change that matches the entire Holocene average variation.
No, nothing like this is observable. The proxies whose dependence on temperature is demonstrated does not indicate any particular behavior for these last 200 years.
phi says:
There are other papers on that, for example the one we discussed before:
https://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f
I haven’t done the proxy homework you suggested. How do you think the real fig. 3 should look?
Svante,
To give you an idea of the situation, there is, to my knowledge, no quality proxy that reports higher temperatures for the decade 1990-2000 than for 1940-1950. However, I have been looking for almost 10 years! If anyone has anything, I would obviously be very interested.
On these graphs you can find four examples of good proxies (TLT, 2 MXD, glaciers):
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/atsas.png
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/polar2.png
We can add this graph which gives an idea of the general problematic:
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/anom_thn.png
Thanks, that clarifies what you mean.
I think your MXD graph has a diverge problem:
https://tinyurl.com/y9b9ddl3
As for the glaciers, your reference says:
Svante,
If you are looking to determine a parameter and you have 50 measures. 49 are consistent and only one diverges.
Are you gloing to build 49 different dubious explanations for 49 divergences because it’s the 50th value you like?
You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Phi, I have a lot of faith in Occam’s razor.
Your graphs have the 50th value which is the MXD with the well known divergence problem.
No, Svante.
These graphs show precisely that instrumental curves are the lamb duck.
More difficult to restore the sight to the blinded than to the blind!
And no sea level rise?
Same thing. Observations of sea levels are consistent with proxies but not with station temperature curves.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/slide061.png
My proposal is still valid:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306467
Sea level works like a global thermometer, but your graph shows acceleration, not absolute levels.
It is never on the negative side though.
Here’s a graph of sea level, how’s that for a proxy?
https://tinyurl.com/y7kfpjl8
Svante,
Sea level works like a global thermometer
No, absolutely not in the time scales represented. Here the rate of change is a global thermometer because it depends on the ice melting which is itself a function of temperature.
If temperatures varied around a zero anomaly there would be no sea level rise, right?
No why ?
An anomaly is an arbitrary value. What we do know is that in the nineteenth century we experienced global temperatures corresponding to a stagnation of the sea level. These values were briefly found around the 1970s. This corresponds to a balanced level of continental ice volumes.
For our purposes, let’s put the zero global temperature anomaly where the sea level is steady.
Now look at the graph again:
https://tinyurl.com/y7kfpjl8
Are we above or below the zero anomaly?
The slope is indicative of a given temperature. From 1930 to 2000, this slope is fairly regular on average, no general acceleration. So no significant rise in temperature that can be inferred. It’s consistent with all other proxies.
phi says:
So coming up from the last ice age, no significant rise in temperature can be inferred:
https://tinyurl.com/hc4bpt3
We can not compare these two time scales. In the long time scales counted in thousands of years, the ocean level is the thermometer because ice volumes have time to reach equilibrium. For short times scales counted in tens of years, the relation temperature – melt anomaly is almost linear and it is the rate of variation which is the thermometer.
So what would you infer from this:
https://tinyurl.com/ycskz8zb
Ok, seen. you are right.
My opinion is that this reconstruction suffers from the same defects as those of temperatures. Change of coverage, resolution and method at the point of behavior breakdown.
But if you have the raw data, I’m interested.
From the paper :
We assess the relationship between temperature and global sea-level (GSL) variability over the Common Era
Estimates of global mean temperature variability over the Common Era are based on global, statistical metaanalyses of temperature proxies
In other words, this graph is constructed on the basis of hockey sticks temperatures reconstructions.
Sorry, no validity.
You misunderstand. First they estimate global sea level, then they compare with temperatures.
Your first quote continues:
Sea level proxies, not temperature proxies.
Your second quote is about other studies, not this one.
Ok, seen. you are right.
My opinion is that this reconstruction suffers from the same defects as those of temperatures. Change of coverage, resolution and method at the point of behavior breakdown.
But if you have the raw data, I’m interested.
I would like to take you up on your offer to look at raw data, but I’m afraid I don’t have the time in the foreseeable future.
Chic Bowdrie
Perhaps CO2 concentrations above 5000ppm had something to do with it?
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/1-anotherlinkb.jpg
Using the standard forcing equation ∆f=5.35ln(C/Co), 5000ppm would produce a forcing of 5.35ln(5000/280)= 15.4W.
Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.
Applying the IPCC warming effect, 3.7W/ degree C, the temperature change becomes 46.2/3.7=12.5C.
30 % less insolation would be 1360*0.7=952W.
This would produce a temperature reduced as the 4th foot of the relative insolation change, from the present temperature of 287K.
That is 4th root(952/1360)*287= 280.7K or 7.7C.
Not that for at least the Last 600 million years temperatures have been around 5C warmer than the present, about 292K or 19C.
Using these figures, without CO2 a weaker Sun would produce a global temperature of 7.8C. Add 5000ppm of CO2 and the temperature warms by 12.5C to a hothouse Earth temperature of 20.3C, 6.3C warmer than the present. This is comparable to the paleoclimate estimates.
Bog standard CO2 theory produces figures which match reality.
For comparison, please show your calculations using the iris hypothesis.
Entropic man says:
Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.”
Climate sensitivity gives a temperature from a forcing, not another forcing.
A climate sensitivity of 3 C for a CO2 doubling is equivalent to 0.81 degC/(W/m2). Then 5000 ppm would bring 12.5 C of warming.
However, this equation for the radiative forcing of CO2 doesn’t extend to 5000 ppm. A paper I wrote about here
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-if-co2-gets-really-high-say-1000.html
calculates that the forcing goes like the constant*ln(CO2)+constant*ln^2(CO2), which is somewhat higher.
Plus of course the feedbacks would be huge.
David Appell
3/3.7 is 0.81. Our calculations of the effect of climate sensitivity are equivalent. I just did in two steps rather than one.
Note also that the climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.
We seem to be using different definitions of climate sensitivity. Yours is the temperature rise produced by a given forcing. Mine is the forcing +feedbacks/direct forcing
I find you paper unconvincing. It produces calculated values why are too high when compared with paleo data.
You wrote:
Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.
You wrote that a forcing becomes a forcing. That’s not correct.
BTW, the second doubling of CO2 is unlikely to cause the same effect at the first doubling, since most of the ice is melted in the first doubling and there ice-albedo effect is less for the second doubling.
In other words, climate sensitivity is unlikely to be a constant function of CO2.
Chic Bowdrie
You were asking if increase in CO2 would raise global temperature. The portion of your post was that the IRIS effect would cancel the Water Vapor Feedback.
From your link:
“Grégoire Canlorbe: It is commonly admitted that temperature increases follow the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels—and not the other way around. In this regard, fossil fuels emissions are easily believed to be the most plausible origin of contemporary increasing CO2 levels. Do you question this dogma?
Richard Lindzen: I’m not sure what you are saying. In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, but increasing temperature can also increase CO2 (for example CO2 follows temperature during the cycles of glaciation). That said, it is not unreasonable to claim that the observed increases in CO2 over the past two centuries are mostly due to fossil fuel emissions, cement production, and land use changes (i.e., man’s activities).
The question is can this increase in CO2 produce much in the way of climate change. Increases in CO2 have produced about a 1% perturbation in the earth’s energy budget. This impact was so much smaller before around 1960, that almost no one (including the IPCC) claims the impact was significant before that date. Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface.”
NOTE: “I’m not sure what you are saying. In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming,”
Norman
If you would first put info you copy from somewhere into this tool’s upper window
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and pasted the bottom window’s contents into this blog’s comment window, your explanations would be more readable.
La Pangolina,
“…explanations would be more readable.”
Don’t bother reading his explanations. He doesn’t understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.
I wasn’t asking if an increase in CO2 would raise global temperature. I’m asking where is the data that shows it? Lindzen says what most people stuck in the oversimplified GHE model hypothesize: “In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, ….” Unfortunately there is ample evidence that any slight effect from CO2 is masked by natural factors. Lindzen explains:
“Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface.”
There is more evidence supporting the Iris effect than there is for more CO2 causing global warming. Again from Lindzen:
“In 2000 I published a study of upper level cirrus behavior in the tropics as a function of surface temperature (together with two colleagues at NASA). As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”
“The combined [iris effect and water vapor] feedback is more accurately referred to as the long-wave (i.e., infrared) feedback, and direct measurements confirm that this feedback is zero or even negative.”
The bottom line is that any temperature effect claimed from increasing CO2 will be confounded by natural thermostatic cloud and iris effects designed to keep the planet temperate. The master designer at work.
Chic Bowdrie
You make the claim that “Don’t bother reading his explanations. He doesn’t understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.”
Rather annoying post from you. I quite understand the science. The sad thing is you read the article, post more and still don’t understand the topic. Really a sad fact on your ability to comprehend what you read.
From your own post form the WUWT interview:
LINDZEN: “As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”
You have to increase the temperature of the tropics to create an IRIS effect. It is not saying that CO2 will not cause warming, he states the amplification of feedback is what is questioned.
You also fail to grasp what he is saying about he 1%. So far it seems all posters accept that there are multiple factors governing global temperature. Lindzen points out cloud cover changes or ocean circulation can compare to this 1%. The difference is those effects are temporary, which you can see in Roy’s graphs on global temperature. The 1% change from CO2 increase would be a constant. It can be swamped by other effects but will always remain in the background.
Chic Bowdrie says:
The bottom line is that any temperature effect claimed from increasing CO2 will be confounded by natural thermostatic cloud and iris effects designed to keep the planet temperate.
So why didn’t that happen during the PETM?
Chic Bowdrie says:
June 20, 2018 at 5:49 AM
Dont bother reading his explanations. He doesnt understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.
Bowdrie, I don’t need any remarks of that kind, and especially not from an arrogant person like you.
David is trying to use natural climatic events to prop up AGW which he has to do because it does not exist.
Salvatore, I was making fun of you, with your 3-month long graph from Ocean Tidbits that you think shows AGW doesn’t exist.
oh.
But I have the data from last summer which shows overall oceanic temperatures back then running around +.35c deviation.
https://tinyurl.com/y7xpfqax
So from last summer- through today we are off by -.25c give or take .That is significant and I do not think it is over not if I am correct on what influences the overall sea surface temperatures.
Which is weak visible near UV/UV LIGHT.
“from last summer” = natural variations.
So the question is DAVID how strong, and for how long does this natural variation become going forward?
I say if solar is in the tank it is going to become stronger and last long in duration ,with or without CO2 influences.
Salvatore, natural variations always exist. And they invariably fool people like you:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/newsletter/2012/07/images/graphic_lightpenetration.jpg
It shows to what depth various light waves from the sun penetrate the ocean surface.
It is known during prolonged solar minimum UV light can decrease by 6% or more and since this penetrates the oceans to significant depths it must have a temperature effect.
Also Near UV light penetrates the ocean surface even more but it’s percentage change is not as great as UV light.
Some say visible light in some range of the spectrum actually increase when solar activity is low while all other wavelengths(all in agreement )decrease.
The take away is UV light/Near UV light decrease at times of solar minimums and penetrate the ocean surface to great depths (several meters) which results in the oceans receiving less energy and thus cooling.
The ocean heat content will follow overall sea surface temperatures down over time.
Well, you got my wondering about UV.
So was looking at stuff. Apparently they can measure TSI {Total Solar Irradiance] better now, with accuracy of .01 watt and is suppose degrade less over mission time.
And here, there reconstruction of TSI over a few centuries:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
And a graph:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
That is not about UV, just something I ran across looking for data about UV.
No the measurements are still not reliable.
Why aren’t the measurements reliable?
I had similar question, but I would change it, to how reliable to they need to be.
{Or for what purpose do they need to be more reliable so they are reliable, enough}.
More decimal places costs money. It’s always a compromise.
I’d like Salvatore to tell us why he thinks the data aren’t reliable.
Science is a painful process.
There other expenses which costs lot of money, I don’t begrudge the cost of accuracy.
down over time
A century? Or two?
Please Salvatore, calculate the energy stored at oceans’s surface, and compare that to their total heat content down to 2,000 meters.
I guess: factor 1,000 at least.
By over time I mean now moving forward. The sun and only the sun determine overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content.
What matters for the climate is overall sea surface temperatures and they have fallen .25c in less then a year with more to come.
That will effectively end AGW.
A graph made especially for Salvatore:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
I think I said 2018 is a transitional year not 2017, or 2016 , or 2015 etc
And when it doesn’t happen in 2018, you’ll say it will be 2019. Then, for sure.
“I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of the solar cycle maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 7/13/2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-june-2013-0-30-deg-c/#comment-84963
Solar TSI peaked in Feb 2015, according to LASP daily data.
UAH LTE v6 peaked in Feb 2016.
Einstein only won 1 Nobel Prize in 1921 – and strangely it was for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect… Relativity, what’s that?
Some say that the general relativity didn’t really conform to the Nobels will, where he said to award the money “…to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. The benefit and even correctness of the GR was not obvious back then (single, albeit correct prediction validated by eddington is not really a foolproof validation), and it was way too bizzare and hard to swallow, some people still have issues with it. In the end, it didn’t benefit anyone till the development of GPS in the 80s so no, it didn’t qualify. As for the special relativity – yeah, weird, some say it was possibly due to antisemitism. Others may speculate that the einstein’s contribution to the special relativity was more of teh conceptual rather than substantial as the theory itself had in mathematical sense already been contained in the maxwellian electrodynamics, and just needed to be extracted and re-thought and applied to the physics as a whole.
Sounds well to me: plain and unpretentious.
coturnix19…”The benefit and even correctness of the GR was not obvious back then (single, albeit correct prediction validated by eddington is not really a foolproof validation), and it was way too bizzare and hard to swallow….”
Nothing has changed. Today, we have an advantage over Einstein in that we know definitively that time does not exist. In the days of E., psychology was in its infnacy and no one was challenged the thought processes of humans.
Early in the 20th century, Jiddu Krishnamurti began an exploration into that domain outside the field of psychology and his conclusions had the likes of Aldous Huxley and George Bernard Shaw, clamouring for more. Even physicist David Bohm joined K. to discuss his observations.
If time does not exist, then there is no such thing as space-time. I am not in any way claiming that the work of Einstein was all for naught, I am merely pointing out that nothing can change based on time therefore his theories about time dilating and dimensions changing at the speed of light are sheer nonsense.
No one has ever tested that and the experiment of Eddington during an eclipse sounds pretty Mickey Mouse when you consider that the Sun is a huge ball of electrons and protons with a huge EM field and electric charges. That alone should bend light.
Einstein admitted there are no good tests of his theory and that Newtonian physics could cover most of it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“…when you consider that the Sun is a huge ball of electrons and protons with a huge EM field and electric charges. That alone should bend light.”
Why? Photons have no charge, so how would an electromagnetic field affect them, Gordon?
And why do you think the Sun has a net charge??
DA…”Photons have no charge, so how would an electromagnetic field affect them, Gordon?”
Protons have an equal and opposite charge to the electron. It’s the equal and opposite charge that holds atoms together.
DA….”And why do you think the Sun has a net charge??”
Doesn’t need one with all those electrons and protons running around. Protons and electrons making up the solar wind interact with our magnetic field, so why should the EM fields of light passing close to the Sun not interact with the solar wind and/or charges in the Sun?
coturnix…”it didnt benefit anyone till the development of GPS”
GPS does not rely on relativity theory. There are certainly no requirements for the bogus notion that time dilation is a factor.
GPS electronics cannot detect time dilation since time does not exist. The GPS satellites operate on a different time base that the ground stations and that information is transmitted in the signals from the sats, along with altitude, velocity, etc.
Relative position could be worked out by trial and error if required.
Gordon Robertson says:
GPS does not rely on relativity theory.
Another lie from Gordon.
Gordon, what do you think you’re gaining by denying reality?
Gordon Robertson says:
June 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM
GPS does not rely on relativity theory.
Robertson, you’ve been shown so often how ignorant and unconscious you are about GPS and time dilation.
You know nothing, arfe an expert in nothing whatsoever and are the scientifically most uneducated commenter this web site has ever experienced.
Even the Flynn guy tried to explain you in a previous thread how wrong you are, but he was not courageous enough to go to end with that.
Why are you lying all the time, Robertson? Why don’t you try to learn a bit instead of lying?
How can you be so dumb to deny science like this?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7951
La Pangolina
I posted this video to Gordon Robertson on a previous thread. He ignored it.
Your paper would be too daunting for Mr. Robertson. That is why I use this nice video. It is basic, not real complex and demonstrates time dilation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZkTfCHKFJQ&t=2113s
My strong feelings is that Gordon Robertson is a troll. When you present him with facts he ignores them and pretends you never showed him the facts.
I am sure this troll will make an strong effort to ignore this video because he won’t be able to make up his own physics to dispute it.
He only responds when he can make up some garbage science. Even the skeptics realize he is clueless but that does not deter this troll.
Where is the Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team when it comes to Gordon Robertson?
Nice video clip, Norman, but it won’t make a bit of difference. Gordon doesn’t accept real world experiments and measurements — he lives in Gordonland, where he is the smartest person in the world and knows more than Einstein, Planck, Clausius, and any other scientist you’d care to name.
Gordon is interesting, but for the wrong reasons.
Gordon says “GPS does not rely on relativity theory”.
Then David Appell, La Pangolina, and Norman (afraid to use his last name) all jump out to insult Gordon.
So how about you three each write why Gordon is wrong. No links, just in your own words. You like to write, you’ve just proved that. Tell us why Gordon is wrong.
JDH, we’ve all written about this several times already on other posts. But it goes into one of Gordon’s ears and out the other, because there is not a rational person between.
Is that right? Can you link to such examples?
Otherwise folks might think it is just in your imagination.
Of course I can link to such examples.
But it’s not worth my time.
JDHuffman
I have not done tests no time dilation myself so why should I make up physics like Gordon Robertson does.
I linked to a video of an actual experiment proving time dilation of mesons.
What would my words matter? I think the science stands on the evidence. If an issue comes up I will try to find evidence for the topic.
So I am not sure why you decided, at this time, to request own words proving Gordon Robertson is wrong about time dilation.
Can you elaborate? What are you seeking?
You say I insult him. Not at all, if I called him ugly or fat that would be an insult. I point out he is probably a troll (which seems very likely). I point out he makes up physics which he has done numerous times. What exactly is insulting about pointing out the reality of a pretend poster? Why should his behavior be praised? If you can explain why peddling made up physics and pretending to be some type of genius authority is a good thing I will reconsider what I think of this poster. I will await your response.
Nameless Norman, hiding his real name, now tries to back peddle out of it.
David Appell, who spends hours here, suddenly doesn’t have time to back up his words.
La Pangolina, so far, is MIA.
And these three like to call others “troll”!
JDHuffman
I kind of gave you the benefit of doubt since I had not interacted with you much before (unless you are a previous poster who is using a different posting name).
Reasoning with you is a waste of time. You are a whiner about last names (if I posted it it would not make any difference as to what I post). I think it is just a stupid tactic on your part in an attempt to discredit a point because you do not have knowledge to refute it, you are not a very bright person (as seen in some of your really stupid posts above and your continuation of stupidity after people spent time explaining it to you).
You claim I “back peddle”. That is stupid nonsense. What backpeddle? You requested a really stupid thing (use my own words to tell why Gordon is wrong about time dilation) rather than use a valid tested experiment. Since you are so far gone from understanding science (you think any opinion is good) then why should I waste any time with the likes of you? What value to scientific contribution do you offer? You know very little and offer you own opinionated points with zero supporting evidence and think such is better than valid science.
Anonymous Norman, the reason we have not interacted much is because I do not comment often.
You are hiding so that you can maliciously attack others. This is a perfect example. You have written about 500 words, just in this subthread. You have attacked, insulted, and denied. But, you have not presented the science of why Gordon is wrong, in your own words.
JDHuffman
I do not hide to maliciously attack others. You just use that as a tactic. You are a disrupter. You have zero interest in science and come here to disrupt things. You still wouldn’t know me if I gave you a last name, you could look it up on the internet I guess but you still are not a friend of mine.
You post as JDHuffman. What does that mean. There could be thousands of JDHuffman’s. I know on more about you than if you posted as Oliver Twist. The posting name is not that important. What matters is the content of the posts.
I did appeal to your reason but you fail to provide any. The experiment I linked to demonstrates Time Dilation of Mesons. What more is needed? The experiment shows he is wrong. What are you defending?
Also I know you are a disrupter with zero scientific knowledge with an interaction with you above about view factor. Both I and Tim Folkerts explained it to you and you failed to even try and understand the concept or what was being talked about. You made the foolish assertion that we were avoiding the question about fluxes adding. Nothing of the sort, we were explaining very clearly why adding ice will not increase the energy to a surface. That you are just a disrupter with no interest in learning or science was confirmed by that interaction.
And now down here you are still a foolish person trying to disrupt by rejecting a actual scientific experiment and pursuing a stupid point about needing to explain a point in one’s own words rather than showing experimental proof.
I think soon I will quit responding to you. I kind of like dorky Gordon Robertson so I will probably continue with debates with him. You are very unreasonable and intentionally disruptive without real reason to be that way.
In another exchange above I gave you a calculation about sedimentation and you tried to attack the link with stupid points about “estimation” and “assumption” like these are bad things for a general idea on something.
You have demonstrated that you are one to avoid. I am really glad you don’t post often here.
Anonymous, and now belligerent, Norman, you continue to sling insults, deny reality, and avoid writing why Gordon is wrong. Your link to the YouTube is just a distraction. You cannot say, in your own words, why Gordon is wrong.
If you decide to run, you can join David Appell and La Pangolina, who were also unable to support their own words.
JD…”So how about you three each write why Gordon is wrong…”
I have explained it several times to them and not one has rebutted with an indication they understand the issue.
Satellites remain in orbit due to their momentum, which is essentially mass x velocity. They are launched at an altitude at which the force of gravity acting against that momentum, which wants to take the sat on a tangential course, gives a resultant course which is the orbit.
Time has nothing to do with that momentum, it was created by a force from the rocket engines flying the sat into orbit, strictly a force and mass situation. However, once in orbit, the sat has telemetry to detect its altitude, velocity, etc. It also has an onboard atomic clock which provides a local time source for the sat and its equipment.
BTW…the atomic clock is actually a very regular frequency generator where the frequencies are a measure of the result of atomic forces. Nothing to do with time. It was we humans who divided down the frequency to synchronize with out invention, the second. People don’t seriously think an atom’s frequency of vibration is generated based on a human clock, do they?
The sat transmits that data via a communications signal and when it sends the signal, it send reference pulses for the ground station, which is running on a separate time source. No problem, it’s a matter of sorting out the reference pulses to sync the ground station to the sat data. Once that’s established, it’s a matter of communicating via electronic communication.
Where would time dilation come into that scenario, especially at velocities which are a small fraction of the speed of light? You can throw out the ‘c’ parameter altogether and go with straight Newtonian relativity.
This is all done using electronic communications and the system behaves like a normal servo system. There are reference values and error correction circuits, no time dilation sci-fi required.
And yes, time dilation is sci-fi. I have explained in detail how time was derived (invented) from the regular rotation of the Earth hence there is no reality to time. How can something lacking a physical presence dilate?
norman…” That is why I use this nice video. It is basic, not real complex and demonstrates time dilation”.
*********
But far too complex for you to begin understanding the utter nonsense being foisted on you by these relativity wannabees.
They begin the video by claiming clocks run at different rates as they approach the speed of light. Can you seriously not see the hole in that argument? It’s big enough to drive a semi-trailer through it.
What drives the average clock? With the older ones, it was a wound up spring driving gears. For digital clocks, it is a crystal oscillator that has it’s frequency of oscillation divided down to usable frequency and the pulses are counted by a counter which has been designed to roll over when it reaches 60 seconds, then 60 minutes. The minutes counter then rolls over every 60 minutes to give an hour.
An atomic clock, as I have explained several times, has a natural frequency of vibration CONTROLLED BY ATOMIC FORCES. Nothing to do with time. We use it’s frequency because it is very stable and we can use that as a base for out INVENTED second.
Tell me…please…how any of that can change as the velocity of the clock reaches the speed of light?
Some idiots think humans would age at different rates if some remained on Earth and others traveled at the speed of light. What utter garbage. Humans age due to issues in cell division and cell division has no clock built into it.
In your video, where two scientists are dressed like loggers, and think like loggers, they are claiming mu-mesons are clocks. It’s the same argument as the atomic clock scenario. Mu-mesons are driven by forces, not time.
They don’t even begin to get their inherent stupidity. They tell you that the clocks are related to human observers. The human observer is holding the clock and doing the measurements and if he/she is on a platform moving relatively to motion on another moving platform, he/she will experience SOMETHING changing as the relative velocity increases.
This is a problem inherent in human observation and is related to distortion in the human mind. Time dilation to the human mind is an illusion based on the relative motion between the human mind and the real world.
Einstein SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT. He missed it and lead the science world on a sci-fi mystery tour. In his treatise on relativity he DEFINED time as the position of the hands on a clock. Everything he has done with relativity is based on observations from the human mind, not what is actually going on with the observed phenomena.
In a nutshell, the observed phenomena involves masses driven by forces. The human mind sees changes in position of an object due to that action of the force on the mass, and in order to quantify the motion, he invented a clock, the basis of which he derived from a fraction of the Earth’s period of rotation.
There is no relationship whatsoever between the force-mass system and the human invention of time. The human mind has imposed its invention on real phenomena and completely misinterpreted what is observed.
I cannot speak for what Einstein was thinking, I don’t think he was someone who would miss something so obvious. However, those following him have seriously added to the problem to the point where everyone seems to have accepted time dilation as a reality.
It is not.
I might add that time dilation comes down to an APPARENT shortening of intervals (measurable distances)due to illusions in the human mind. It’s like passing a moving train while you are in a train going in the other direction. The windows in the other train go by in a blur of motion, with an entire coach seeming narrower never mind each window.
That’s an illusion of the human mind, not an actual change in the coach/window dimensions.
If you want to observe true relativity, you need to get the human mind with its foibles out of the equation. Put detectors on what is being observed and feed the data back to a computer so it can track the changes and show them visually as static amounts. In that case, I can assure anyone that no time dilation will occur.
You could attach a sensor to each body to measure a set distance and another sensor to track the clock speed, and I guarantee you no change in either will be detected. It’s the human observer who creates the changes, in his/her mind.
binny…”How can you be so dumb to deny science like this?”
How can you be so dumb as to search through Google for an article supporting your position without knowing what the article is about?
This is not an article about time dilation its an article about people who don’t understand time. They are observing Doppler-shifted spectra and translating the shifts as time dilation.
Doppler shifting occurs when one body emitting light of a known wavelength shows up as a wavelength shifted in the EM spectrum. What does that have to do with time?
When a body is traveling away from us, the waves of light reaching us are affected by the velocity of the body. They stretch out producing a longer wavelength which translates to a lower frequency. The wavelength appears shifted toward the red end of the spectrum and is referred to as red-shifted.
What does time have to do with that? The velocity of the body is the result of an applied force at an earlier time. Time plays no part in the motion of the body and it appears, once again, you are content to appeal to authority rather than think out the problem for yourself.
Don’t feel badly, the researchers in your article don’t get it either. Not one of them has questioned what they are measuring.
DA…”he lives in Gordonland, where he is the smartest person in the world and knows more than Einstein, Planck, Clausius, and any other scientist youd care to name”.
You forgot to mention that I’m the most handsome as well.
Gordon Robertson
I know you try to sound intelligent with a philosophical point about time, and I do like your attempt.
I do think you are a moron to make claims about scientists that are several IQ points above your level. These are some very bright minds you denigrate out of sheer frustration that you are unable to even grasp the ideas they talk about. You reach out for a few points to attack without having a clue about the content. I realize you never will understand it.
Here you can do the experiment yourself, they even tell you how. You can see if the brilliant scientists in the video are as dumb as you claim.
http://www.teachspin.com/muon-physics.html
Go for it Gordon. It will be good for you to do real science instead of making it up. Maybe you will learn something. Don’t get scared by the fact you will find out you were wrong about everything. It is a painful state that can only be alleviated by learning the truth.
“The Truth is out there” Don’t be afraid to prove yourself wrong and all your opinions just hot air. You will build upon the ashes a strong scientific background no longer based upon deluded fantasies and internet crackpots.
Gordon Robertson
We need to talk about this again. You did not understand my point on a previous thread.
YOU: “In a nutshell, the observed phenomena involves masses driven by forces. The human mind sees changes in position of an object due to that action of the force on the mass, and in order to quantify the motion, he invented a clock, the basis of which he derived from a fraction of the Earths period of rotation.
There is no relationship whatsoever between the force-mass system and the human invention of time. The human mind has imposed its invention on real phenomena and completely misinterpreted what is observed.”
Again, a mass changes position driven by a force. Humans observe that there is a rate of change of position. Did they invent this rate of change of position? Even without a clock the human could compare one rate to another, say a running cheetah moving and a person walking. They might use a term like the cheetah moves faster than the person. You confuse an actual rate change to the units used to describe the rate change, to give it a measurement so it can be used in calculation. The actual rate change exists outside the units of measurement. The rate of change was not invented by man. The units for that rate (meters/second…miles/hour) are what man created NOT the rate.
So this rate of change, a chemical reaction. The concepts are all related, time, mass, energy, space. Man did not invent any, man put units of measure on them. I wish you would understand this point. I don’t think you can.
Gordon Robertson
This is for you to read.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html
Gordon Robertson, anonymous Norman is trying to change the topic. The topic is your statement “GPS does not rely on relativity theory”, which is absolutely correct.
I challenged anonymous Norman, La Pangolina, and David Appell to state in their own words why they accused you. Of course, I knew they could not.
(I worked in GPS implementation for about 7 years.)
Feel free to refer to this comment thread the next time any of the three clowns insults you. Not that you will need to. You seem overly qualified to handle clowns.
norman…”Humans observe that there is a rate of change of position. Did they invent this rate of change of position?”
Humans have no means of observing a RATE of change. Humans have no in-built clocks, they need an external clock. Furthermore, if time was real, they would only have to tap into the time source and use that to measure rates of change. If you can find one, not invented by humans, that measures in hours, minutes, and seconds, let me know.
Of course, humans can observe change, even a change in a rate of change, such as the difference between velocity and acceleration. There is even another rate of change called a jerk factor, which is the rate of change of acceleration. You might see it in a good sprinter who slow accelerates out of the block then rapidly accelerates.
Humans cannot measure the rate of change, therefore we invented time to enable quantifying the rate of change. We invented the second, based on a small fraction of the period measured for one revolution of the Earth in its orbit.
David Appell will be along to claim that a period is evidence of time, but it does not have to be. I can build a clock-like device with one hand that measures from sunrise to sunrise. I can verify it by running it again, as many times as I like. The measurement of that one-handed clock is the period of the Earth’s rotation and it has not yet been divided into hours, minutes and seconds.
Gordon Robertson, please stop trolling
Impersonator, stop being so lazy. Get your own idea.
The Real DREMT
I think your impersonator is only providing balance to the blog. You single out scientific minded people and call their points trolling while never questioning the irrational and unscientific claims of so called skeptics.
I think it is great that the two of you are active to provide balance to the force.
If you were to proceed uncontested the DARK SIDE of the force would take over this blog. The unscientific, irrational, illogical and made up science would sink the blog into a realm of fake physics.
Is that what you really want? Are you a Sith poster?
I call out people who are trolling, when they are trolling. My impersonator is simply lazy.
coturn: there are no physicists who deny general relativity, which has passed all experimental and observation tests presented to it.
Strawman detected. I didn’t say physicists deny it, i said some have issue with it. Justgoogle how many there is preprints on arxiv studying possible extensions and modifications to it.
Who has an issue with it?
Those preprints you mentioned take GR as a *starting point*, and are looking to add on to it (“extend”) in order to explain dark matter or dark energy or quantum gravity or some such.
But they don’t doubt GR. In fact, they’re hoping their theories reproduce it in some limit. Because they know GR has never made a bad pre- or postdiction.
Uhm, it, the general relativity has been validated quite well – now (except for gravity probe, galactic rotations and incompatibility with equally well validated qft), mostly by ruling out its numerous competitions, BUT back then it was indeed beautiful but mostly speculative theory that just started to be explored. R u sure ure not confusing general and special relativity?
BTW, i think the sheer genius/luck of einstens, who discovered correct and beautiful theory from pure reason served very badly to the 20th century science, where countless scientists have been since taking einstens path, trying to discover new theories usingreasoning and beauty criteria. Theoretical physics nowdays suffer from this immensly, with hundreds of thousands of expensive intellectual effort directed into developing super complicated theories not rooted in reality (string theory for example, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Climatology btw suffers a bit from this as well, albeit for a good reason.
That’s because there is a lack of experimental data — particle experiments are now so costly that experimentalists don’t even know where too look but where theorists tell them.
Read “Lost in Math” by Sabine Hossenfelder. You’ll probably like it. I just finished it and it’s all over this topic.
But science requires experimental data, and/or multiple independently verifiable observations. Without it, it is not really a science – it is just applied math. Which you may consider science, but it is not a natural science.
What theoretical particle physicist doing today is a lottery: they guess and hope they would be right some time in the distant future. Einsten bet 10 man-years and won. Modern string theorists probably bet hundreds of thousands of man-years, and they are losing badly. I blame einstein – bad example indeed. no wonder they didn’t award him nobel prize for that one of his theories.
Theoretical physics nowdays suffer from this immensly, with hundreds of thousands of expensive intellectual effort directed into developing super complicated theories not rooted in reality (string theory for example, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Climatology btw suffers a bit from this as well, albeit for a good reason.
Climatology has absolutely nothing to do with this. I’s just applied physics and not at all a “theory”. Nor has AGW which is based on ordinary well established and experimentally tested physical principles.
There is presently really a deep “crisis” in theoretical physics but this has not the slightest impact on climatology. Quantum loop gravity, string theory, etc are various attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics and work out a “theory of everything”. The phenomena at stake are rather out worldly (very high energy physics, black holes, cosmology, etc) and candidate theories difficult to test. String theory is indeed a nightmare.
coturnix…”the general relativity has been validated quite well”
I am not debating that truth, I am questioning side issues such as time dilation and dimensions of bodies changing due to them traveling at the speed of light.
Einstein admitted that Newtonian physics could cover most issues dealing with relativity since the velocities are so low compared to the speed of light that the velocity of light factor can be neglected. In that case, a person could work out relativity problems with a slide rule and a stubby pencil.
He also mentioned that little in the way of experimental proof had been offered, IMHO, that applies particularly at speeds significant wrt the SOL.
There’s also an issue with the Lorentz equations, which were forced on relativity issues. One might say they were established based on the theory related to the distorted mind of a human observer, not the reality of the process being observed.
I regard relativity issues relating to time dilation as something that takes place in the human mind, not the real world. Regarding your comment on string theory, astronomer Wal Thornhill claimed it works in every universe but our own.
Hope Lubos Motl does not drop by at this time. ☺
+idiot tracker
Climatology has a different problem that makes it somewhat similar to the theoretical physics, namely that it is also purely theoretical. This is because the climate is a singular, real-time highly nonlinear system, hence it is not possible to perform any real experiments on it, while it takes as long to observe it as to check the predictions. Predictions? Those cannot be tested and proven, unless you wait for it to happen but such a prediction is useless.
As a result, there is not way to actually scientifically study the climate here and now, one can only build speculative models of it or try to infer its behavior from paleoclimatology.
The climate system of course is made from multiple subsystems, each of which can be studied scientifically, and some of them are quite well understood (others – not so much, but they are slowly being studied as well). But you can’t study climate as a whole the same way, except for studying its past by looking through the fossil record. This latter part of the climatology is science, but the predictive modeling is just a speculative applied numerical math (basically, computer games) – and that’s what makes it similar to the string theory as such. In fact string theory is more scientifically accurate since it operates with precise analytical math rather than computer games. And I’m not saying that it is not possible to know, describe or discover the correct theory of climate – it is quite possible I believe, as, apart from the question of the general navier-stokes equation solution existence, the climate is based on known physics, but what I’m saying is that there is no way to scientifically (that is through observation and experiments) know or prove that the solution you have is real and correct one.
coturnix…”Some say that the general relativity didnt really conform to the Nobels will…”
My understanding is that Nobels are handed out for new research. Although E’s relativity may seem new, he admitted himself it is covered significantly by Newtonian physics.
E. did add a new wrinkle but maybe it was not viewed as being sufficiently new to merit a Nobel.
they used to be handed for current research (as worded in the nobel’s will). Today they don’t do it anymore.
“Lack of better does not imply good. Nobody should rely upon any estimate that cannot be independently verified. ”
I had question about what one thought was best (for period 1000 to 1900 as) but that could changed to “another which equally adequate” if that is better question. But main thing is recently but not after 1900 AD.
Because just want what proxies and only proxies indicate in terms of global temperature. And not the splicing which generally, is badly done.
Why is the splicing “badly done?”
Even Mann knows splicing is bad, and claimed he didn’t do it.
Source? Citation?
goggle search: mann hockey stick spliced
First hit:
–Apparently holding the same incorrect belief as Steyn (misinformation tends to spread when nobody corrects errors like Steyn’s), Mann responded:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.–
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/06/splicing-right-or-wrong/
continuing:
Mann said this in late 2004 so I can’t fault him for being unaware of what would happen after 2010, but given the response Mann shows to this accusation, I find it strange this practice would be an accepted one a mere ten years later. Plus, I thought it was interesting nobody has pointed out any recent examples of it happening despite at least one being easy to find.
And:
Some people, including Steve McIntyre, claim this shows Mann spliced instrumental temperatures onto reconstructed temperatures. The caption for it does say:
Relationships of Northern Hemisphere mean (NH) temperature with three candidate forcings between 1610 and 1995. Panels, (top to bottom) as follows. ‹“NH, reconstructed NH temperature series from 16101980, updated with instrumental data from 198195.
Which certainly supports that interpretation. However, the “splice” is clearly identified in the figure’s caption, and if you look closely at the top chart of the figure, you can see the instrumental data is plotted differently than the reconstructed data. It takes a careful eye to see, but it is there. One might be concerned about using spliced data like this for calculations like those used in correlation coefficients in the bottom chart, but at least the splicing is made rather clear. That’s not the case in some examples.
….–
But it was spliced they met at nearly the same spot, so whether you clearly mark it, it is still a splice, though indicating it is different is better, than not indicting this. The story was there was data from proxy for later period, but wasn’t included, and this was called Mike’s trick [not by “deniers” but by his “friends”/”peers”].
Second:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
and third entry:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/25/spot-the-hockey-stick-n-2/
gbaikie…”Even Mann knows splicing is bad, and claimed he didnt do it”.
He eventually did admit it and wondered what was wrong with splicing modern data onto proxy data. A question that should have concerned him was why the proxy data was declining when real data was rising.
Outside the skeptics, you have the deluded and dishonest.
Thanks gbaikie for your honesty!
And be happy that I make a strong difference between sound skeptics and those I call the pseudoskeptics.
A pseudoskeptic is what?
Someone pretending to be skeptical but knows the truth.
Or are wearing tee shirt proclaiming, I am a skeptic, but is clueless of what a skeptic is.
Definition
1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
2.
PHILOSOPHY
an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.
I am a skeptic [def 2} in many ways, but I am particularly skeptical about politicans
But I agree all political systems are evil, but so far democratic systems are or at least seem, less evil.
gbaikie says:
A pseudoskeptic is what?
Someone pretending to be skeptical but knows the truth.
I would say someone who claims to be “skeptical,” but without knowing or acknowledging the science.
In truth there are very few skeptics around — most here are deniers. Which is a shame, because science and climate policy definitely needs skeptics. But much better ones.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/04/un-ipcc-expert-reviewer-dr-vincent-gray-there-is-no-correlation-whatsoever-between-carbon-dioxide-concentration-and-the-temperature-at-the-earths-surface/
This I think show there is no CO2/TEMPERATURE CONNECTION.
Pretty clear cut.
Salvatore…”This I think show there is no CO2/TEMPERATURE CONNECTION”.
The author of the article, expert reviewer Vincent Grey, forced the IPCC to acknowledge that climate models are unvalidated therefore they can predict nothing. The IPCC had since stopped using the word predicted and have begun using the word projected.
Since the IPCC has no proof that humans are causing the warming, everything spewed by alarmists in that regard is opinionated tommy-rot.
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf
Climate models can’t predict, ever.
All models of the future can’t.
A model is only as good as its assumptions.
Gordon, would you please specify the annual CO2 emissions out to 2100? The changes in solar irradiance? Volcano eruptions?
That’d be a good start. Until then models can only project, based on assumptions about the future.
Obvious.
DA…”Until then models can only project, based on assumptions about the future”.
Then why has the IPCC tied their wagon to climate models and passed it off in their glossy literature as truth?
Do you accept that climate models can’t predict?
And so Appel demonstrates Lindzen’s observation. In 2018, responding to a comment citing Dr Lindzen’s contemporaneous interview, Mr Appel cites a 2002 paper, but not the rebuttal. Apparently this is like modern big city politics, keep (re-)counting until the right side wins, then stop.
Add Robertson and Flynn, build the inverse of the sum, and you are not that far from… Appell.
binny…”Add Robertson and Flynn…”
Being singled out by binny is comforting. It means our (Mike Flynn and myself) are trashing his/her propaganda and fudged graphs so well that he/she is rendered speechless and reliant only on ad homs.
JohnC: the fact is, there just isn’t any support for Lindzen’s hypothetical iris effect in the scientific community. Scientists weren’t convinced. And still aren’t. There are lots of rebuttal papers. But I doubt you’ll pay any attention to them, because your needs require something, anything, no matter what, that denies AGW.
Ah, yet another Argumentum ad populum. Popper would be so proud.
I present papers, and that’s not good enough. I make informed judgements, and that’s not good enough. Deniers will reject any and all arguments, or else they would explode.
And straight to Ad Hominem, true to form.
Are you paid to do this? Have you disclosed all of your funding sources to the denizens here?
As for the rebuttals, are these controlled reproducible experiences that find for the null? Or model simulations? Or just opinions? I would be happy to read an example that you trust.
Here is a paper I wrote to refute your claims:
http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/scicache/786/scimakelatex.350.swampgator.swampies+friend+Joe.Someone+who+disagrees+with+David+Appelle.pdf
Clearly you don’t know what “ad hominem” means.
ad hominem
ˌad ˈhmənəm/Submit
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
“vicious ad hominem attacks”
DA, IMO “denier” labels are attacks against the messenger, no?
Maybe you have a more nuanced understanding?
this from WIki:
Gratuitous verbal abuse or “name-calling” is not on its own an example of the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.[2][3][4][5][6] The fallacy occurs only if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not ad hominem attacks.
People who deny are “deniers.”
It was a perfectly good word before the Holocaust, and it still is after the Holocaust.
Ok, DA, how about the disclosure of your funding sources? You knida skipped over that (simple) part.
How do you earn a living specifically?
My disclosures: Pharmacist and SB owner. Own 3 ICE vehicles, 2 are trucks with V8s. Also, longtime Tesla fan and Model 3 reservation holder. Weird, huh?
I’m hopeful you will be so transparent good sir.
Since you can’t disprove the science I present here, you opt for a different track and fall to the personal level. Classy.
I’m a writer. I get paid for what I write.
“Im a writer. I get paid for what I write.”
This is hardly an answer. It’s like saying “I’m a scientist, I get paid to do science”
If that scientist is paid for example by the sugar industry and his research is regarding carbohydrate metabolism, this would be good to know.
If you are paid to write on blogs like this by interested parties that would be good to know. According to your own website you wrote 5 articles last year. They must pay big bucks for each article!
I suspect you are paid to go on climate related blogs and refute posts by those not fully on board with CAGW theory.
Nobody pays me to write on blogs. How ridiculous.
Does anyone pay you to write to write on blogs?
Now if you’re done attacking me personally, how about addressing my points, with logic, science and reason.
DA…”JohnC: the fact is, there just isnt any support for Lindzens hypothetical iris effect in the scientific community. Scientists werent convinced. And still arent…”
By scientific community are you referring to Climategaters like Trenberth, Mann, Jones, Schmidt et al?
I’m referring to everyone I know, all the scientific journals I track, and to the 22,000 or so people at the twice annual AGU conferences.
You believe Linden only because you want to believe him, not for any scientific reason. I doubt you’re ever read a single one of his papers.
John…”citing Dr Lindzens contemporaneous interview, Mr Appel cites a 2002 paper, but not the rebuttal”.
David Appell does no like to confuse matters by getting both sides of a story. He interviews only climate alarmists, the more dogmatic the better.
Gordon, so who should I talk to or read to get the “truth?”
Who did you talk to or read to get it?
Salvatore…”AGW theory will no longer be viable”.
Was it ever viable? Strikes me as a populist notion which is short on science and high on opinion.
This from the most backward country on AGW:
“…70 percent of Americans now accept that global warming is occurring, and 58 percent agree that it is mostly caused by human activities….”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/global-warming-now-brought-you-your-local-tv-weathercaster-n884831
AND DAID 99% of the population has no idea of what we discuss on this site, and would not understand it.
Most people know next to nothing about the climate , and I do not mean if you support or don’t support AGW.
They just do not know.
People aren’t as stupid as you seem to think, Salvatore.
I think public is aware we live in warming world and are happy about it.
This has always been the case, that people have wanted a warmer world- how else can term tropical paradise, makes sense, and why do they vacation at such places?
Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?
Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?
What about those cities on seashores?
Do farmers want a warmer world? Northern people?
Or do YOU want a warmer world, but refuse to move, and you don’t care what happens to anyone else?
“What about those cities on seashores?”
Because of 7″ per century rising sea level??
“Do farmers want a warmer world? Northern people?”
Do we care about farmers or northern people?
“Or do YOU want a warmer world, but refuse to move, and you dont care what happens to anyone else?”
I have moved, I believe the tendency is for people to move.
{I moved to a warmer place, and then moved to high desert [which cooler that I thought it would be, but seems to be warming up in last few days- probably due to summer}.
gbaikie says:
What about those cities on seashores?
Because of 7″ per century rising sea level??
You’re assuming SL acceleration is zero. It isn’t.
DA…”70 percent of Americans now accept that global warming is occurring,….”
That’s what it is all based on…opinion.
Do you expect 70% of Americans to numerically solve the Schwarzschild equations using ab.sorp.tion data from HITRAN?
They’re wise than you are.
No it was never viable, it was a made up scam.
Salvatore again denies the molecular properties of CO2, whose ab.sorp.tion spectrum was first measured in 1859.
DA,
Unfortunately for such as yourself, CO2 only absorbs around 1800 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen, but there is more than 1800 times as much oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.
Are you now claiming that reducing the amount of enrrgy reaching a thermometer only makes it hotter if the reduction is due to CO2?
You are a funny little fellow, aren’t you? Next you’ll be claiming that slow cooling is really heating!
No GHE. A myth designed to extract money and respect from the gullible. You certainly seem to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are just wrong and then some. You are basing your knowledge on a very simplistic setup by Tyndall many years ago. Do you not think scientists have come up with better instrumentation to get better data? Do you think the computer you use to post on this blog are the same as the ones 30 years ago?
I made a graph based upon atmospheric abundance.
https://tinyurl.com/ya3ldhh2
You can see the Y-Axis is exponential. You can see that CO2 absorbs at least 1 million times more IR than N2 or O2.
Based upon what we see about you is that you have no clue what you are talking about and probably post as a troll to illicit some reaction. Too bad you waste your time trying to annoy posters instead of trying to really learn some science and physics. It is hard, I know, posting nonsense is much easier and for a troll like yourself, much more fun. But the rewards of learning far outweigh the pleasures you get from trolling blogs.
N,
Maybe you could link to something that is freely accessible.Typical foolish Warmist diversion, otherwise.
Precisely what frequencies are you talking about? Do you think that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter?
Or do you believe in magic? I suppose the fact that you cannot actually describe the GHE, or propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis, leaves magic as your only option.
So sad, too bad. Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
This idea worked on a previous thread. I download the Hitran graph to this sight and link to it.
I used wavelength rather than frequency. I used 2 to 50 micron range.
I can try to see if I can make a workable link later.
Maybe you can make your own graphs and explore some science on your own.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will not make it warmer. But the solar flux has very little IR at the 15 micron range and this 15 micron range IR is emitted much stronger by CO2 to the thermometer than is absorbed by it from the Sun’s energy.
You already know I have shown you this numerous times on numerous threads when you ask the same question.
Anonymous Norman, now you are trying to twist around the challenge presented by Mike Flynn.
Suppose you have a perfect emitter that is emitting peak 15 photons, directed at the thermometer. What is the maximum temperature the thermometer could achieve, with no other energy?
Answer: About -80 C.
Next, try to heat Earth with that -80 C thermometer.
(Also, a physical location is “site”, not “sight”. The first time you used it I thought it was just a typo. But, repeated usage indicates you just do not know. Now you do.)
JDHuffman
You have given an example of Wein’s Displacement Law.
Interesting and it does at least demonstrate you have a little scientific background. However you are not being very rational with your point.
Your point has zero to do with Flynn’s comment about CO2 and a thermometer.
The amount of energy CO2 will emit is based upon its concentration and its temperature. The concentration of the gas will give you an emissivity, the temperature will give you a rate of emission of IR based upon its temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Here look and see.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
Exactly what are you trying to describe?
I will attempt and explanation with you. If you have a -80 C radiating source it will radiate some energy to the surface which the surface absorbs. With no other energy added the surface will reach a steady state temperature of -80 C (if the atmosphere remains at that temperature). If you add energy to the surface from another source it will reach a higher temperature than -80 C.
Now if you think it through with logical rational thought process.
If you had an atmosphere at -150 C the surface would only get to -150 C.
If you add energy from another source it will go above -150 C but it could still be well below the -80 C atmosphere steady state temperature.
N,
A cup of hot coffee is hot.
Now add some ice, radiating at 300 W/m2. You have assuredly added hea5 energy to the system.
You are probably silly enough to say the coffee will get hotter!
Off you go, Norman, tell us all about adding energy making things hotter. Does colder CO2 have magical climatological properties, perhaps?
Cheers.
Norman hides his identity so he can hide from reality.
Mike Flynn
You are a Mr. Strawman.
What I highly dislike about attempting to communicate with you is your total lack of rational logical thought.
I make a really valid and good point. You are hopelessly devoid of reasoning ability to even attempt to grasp it, then you come up with a stupid stawman and attribute my highly intelligent thought to a stupid absurd creation of yours that I never claimed and would never claim.
Your stupidity and illogical thought process are legendary on this blog. Why you are like that no one knows. I doubt even you could explain to yourself why you are so illogical and unable to reason.
Hiding his identity, and also hiding from reality, anonymous Norman now launches his personal attacks.
JD, you’re anonymous too.
Or did I miss an identifying link you posted?
Fox News, on Hansen’s 1988 testimony:
“Thirty years later, its clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right.”
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/06/19/nasas-chilling-30-year-old-warning.html
Well isn’t that ironic 😉
DA arguing from Authority using Foxnews as the Authority. I’m loving it!
Just pointing out that the deniers are running out of excuses.
DA,
Who are these deniers, and which excuses are they running out of?
Are you quite bereft of even a semblance of logic, or merely stupid and ignorant?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
They are not correct at all. All of the warming over the past 30 years was natural.
Due to what cause(s)?
High solar through end of year 2005, lack of major explosive VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, ENSO , and a more ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION.
High solar equating to overall sea surface temperature rises and a slightly lower albedo result warmer climate.
Since 2005 things have changed but lag times of 10+ years have to be taken into consideration.
Salvatore, where is your data and evidence?
Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. Data here:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
So that claim is no good.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
and a more ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION.
What does this mean, please?
DA…”Fox News, on Hansens 1988 testimony:
Thirty years later, its clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right.”
That’s interesting for two reasons.
1)10 years after his 1988 alarmist spiel Hansen admitted he had been wrong. He blamed it on his climate models.
2)during the 30 years, we’ve had an 18 year flat trend and little or no warming.
Gordon can’t prove either of these claims. They just more lies.
Another marking the 30th anniversary:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/20/the-thirty-year-war/
Swampgator,
In your link refuting David Appell’s claims, you may have overlooked an egregious error in fig. 3.
It is obvious that David Appell’s claims are worse than we thought.
We are all doomed! Woe, woe, thrice woe!
Cheers.
Indeed sir!
More zonal atmospheric circulation means the global wind patterns are more west /east and less north/south which tends to keep Arctic air locked up in the Arctic.
Then why is the Arctic warming even faster than the sub-Arctic?
Because over the past several years the atmospheric circulation has become less zonal.
–Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?–
Well, Europe and China have a low average temperature, these regions average temperature is about 9 C, and they were a degree or two cooler, so now that they warmer, it is nicer.
And warmer periods in past generally include adjective of optimal. Cooler periods are associated gloomier adjectives, Little Ice Age, other than including “little” is less nice.
–Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?-
They are in warmer world, and even though they get a fair amount of rainfall, they might want more of it. And if they moved out of tropics, they may not like the cold. Though people spend a lot of time indoors, and that they would need spend more time indoors, is probably what is more of disadvantage, rather than difference of temperature.
gbaikie says:
Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?
Well, Europe and China have a low average temperature, these regions average temperature is about 9 C, and they were a degree or two cooler, so now that they warmer, it is nicer.
You make value judgements here — “low,” “nicer.” Whose definitions of these terms are you using here? Do you have any evidence that your interpretation of these terms implies all Europeans and Russians and Chinese and Canadians and Americans agree with you?
Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?-
They are in warmer world, and even though they get a fair amount of rainfall, they might want more of it. And if they moved out of tropics, they may not like the cold. Though people spend a lot of time indoors, and that they would need spend more time indoors, is probably what is more of disadvantage, rather than difference of temperature.
Who elected you to tell us what all these people think?? And how do you know, anyway?
“I would say someone who claims to be skeptical, but without knowing or acknowledging the science.”
I would say, a requirement for science is willingness to be skeptical. Or skepticism is a requirement for science to exist. And skepticism predates and includes more than being limited to a science or scientific
matters.
Scientists are the biggest skeptics in the world. They thrive on skepticism. But intelligent skepticism, of which there is almost zero here.
I thought they thrive on government grants, given on an implicit but strong condition of studying the dangerous globalimate warmange
Do you lie and cheat and commit fraud in order to get a higher salary at your job?
Most people would do it if their boss asked them, which is what the analogy is
David,
I haven’t seen any proof that you have not lied, cheated, and committed frauds to get a higher salary.
Are you a lying, cheating, fraud or not?
Why would you think anyone would believe you, anyway? Facts are more persuasive than unsubstantial assertions – like the existence of a GHE, or a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
Carry on with stupid gotchas – it suits you.
Cheers.
coturnix says:
Most people would do it if their boss asked them, which is what the analogy is
They do??!!
Maybe you do. What says “most” people would do the same?
And who says the “bosses” of climate scientists (who are who, exactly?) are asking them to commit fraud?
DA,
The self styled “climate scientists”, (no such science, of course – climate is just the average of old numbers), are frauds merely by pretending to be something which they are not. Gavin Schmidt, undistinguished mathematician, for example.
Cheats. when at least one suggests that the whole bumbling crew should conspire to subvert the scientific peer review process, to prevent being shown up for the hucksters they are.
Liars by claiming honours they have not earned, or using “tricks” to lie about their inability to honestly present results which don’t support their bizarre claims.
The “bosses” of this crooked crew don’t need to instruct the recipients of the funding to do anything necessary to keep their snoughts in the bosses’ trough. What possible motive would they have to abandon their rapacious behaviour?
Keep supporting the unsupportable. Toss a fact or two in, from time to time, if you get sick of “gotchas” and irrelevant ad-homs.
Cheers.
Uhmmm…. i believe it is more of a collusion rather than ‘order to tamper with data’, such is the zeitgeist. As for people – yes, people WILL commit crimes if authority tells them to. ever heard of Milgram experiment? i don’t believe that there are people posting on politicized topics who didn’t. Although of course there’s always limits to how much evil a person is ready to do at any point. I don’t think it is a quantifiable information… i mean, in 1933 germans weren’t ready to kill jews – but by 1940 they were.Bu the point is – if somebody either absolves one from responsibility or convinces them that wrong is right, people will commit crimes and other bad things? most of them. They do it all the time on small scale, examples abound.
coturnix…”i believe it is more of a collusion rather than order to tamper with data…”
It does seem to be a disillusioned Good Samaritan syndrome, people lying and cheating as a means to an end. They really think they are being helpful for the good of humanity by lying and cheating about science.
It’s the political correctness that bothers me and the pressure put on other scientists to conform. In the Climategate email scandal, top level IPCC scientists were seen to be colluding with other scientists to influence scientific outcomes.
The Milgram experiment was a fraud:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication
coturnix says:
They do it all the time on small scale, examples aboun
So all the scientists in the world are in on this fraud, and all the journal editors, and all the national academies of every nation on Earth?
And they’re all giggling when they get together at the hoax they’ve pulled off?
If you have evidence of this, please please please call me so I can break the story.
They’re not giggling, they’re trembling, wfearing of losing their funding. proof? hockey stick.
re Richard Lindzen, a real climate scientist as opposed to the wannabee kinds like the modelers and alarmists.
A resume of Lindzen’s publications 1965 – 2014:
https://academictree.org/meteorology/publications.php?pid=287615
https://tinyurl.com/y79sn538
Most ancient civilizations were in the tropics, a lot people live in the tropics, despite the tropical land area being small portion of all land area.
Other than grassland becoming the Sahara desert, in terms of climate, the tropics has remain stable. It is outside of tropics which has greatest changes of temperature and climate.
You can not have a higher average global temperature without significant warming in polar regions.
And only way to warm polar regions is by having warmer water get to polar regions.
A warmer world is a world with a higher ocean surface temperature. Which as said is on average 17 C.
And to increase this average, requires that water outside tropics become warmer.
Tropical waters are already warm, and because they are warm, much energy is evaporated by the tropical oceans and this evaporation limits how warm these water can get.
So a warmer world is not a hotter tropics, rather it is a warmer world outside of the tropics. And it not even a hotter world outside tropics, rather it is more moderate temperature changes with higher average temperature.
Again, you’re assuming what you think is what everyone else in the world thinks.
Excuse me if I reject that as patent nonsense. And also as stunningly myopic and selfish.
Cooling would mean a reduction in land available for growing food. Given a choice between eating and not eating I would choose warming. So would most of us.
So I do indeed, Ken.
But… please manage to keep that nice warming such that the Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic doesn’t get disturbed.
I wouldn’t appreciate Southern Spain suddenly experiencing siberian winters :-))
binny…”please manage to keep that nice warming such that the Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic doesnt get disturbed”.
Nothing to worry about, no significant warming the past 35 years.
Where’s the data showing that?
Most ancient civilizations, at least those that went on to contribute a lot to us today, were located in the sub-tropical climate and/or in tropical higland temperate climate – places with either moderate temperatures, or with cool season but without constant winter frosts. But not in hot tropics! the only exception i’m aware of being the mayans; if you know any others, plz name them.
The tropics do not form small fraction of all land area, the’re actualy quite hefty, taking ~40% of earth surface, and ok, the land are in the tropics is probably smaller as the averaged land is shifted towards the pole, but saying it is a small fraction is simply not correct.
“coturnix says:
June 21, 2018 at 7:01 PM
Most ancient civilizations, at least those that went on to contribute a lot to us today, were located in the sub-tropical climate and/or in tropical higland temperate climate places with either moderate temperatures, or with cool season but without constant winter frosts. But not in hot tropics! the only exception im aware of being the mayans; if you know any others, plz name them.”
Not sure what you mean by hot tropics, but you suggested Mayans was hot tropics. So going to first find “mayans” “climate”: wiki:
“The Maya civilization occupied a wide territory that included southeastern Mexico and northern Central America. This area included the entire Yucatn Peninsula and all of the territory now incorporated into the modern countries of Guatemala and Belize, as well as the western portions of Honduras and El Salvador. Most of the peninsula is formed by a vast plain with few hills or mountains and a generally low coastline”
So, say Guatemala:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/guatemala
Showing an average temperature of a bit less than 24 C, with mean highs of 29 C and means low of about 18.5
And Egypt is average of 23.5 C, with mean high of 31 and mean low of 16.5 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/Egypt
So has nights a bit cooler
Looking for hotter I clicked on Yucatn Peninsula:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/18.48N-91.27W
26.5 C average, mean high 32 C and mean low 21.5 C
Which is roughly, couple degrees hotter.
How India, Delhi- one oldest most significant:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/28.13N-77.27E
Average: 26 C, mean high 32 and mean low 19 C
{but that is outside tropics by a bit- and has cooler nights than location I clicked on somewhere in Yucatn Peninsula}
Babylonian Empire/Mesopotamia
Or just pick Baghdad, Iraq:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/32.95N-45.00E
Average 24 C, mean high 31, mean low, 17 C
Tropics are defined as places where mean monthly temperature never falls below 18C. Neither egypt nor northern india fall into tropics category, they both have cool winters. Arid climates fall in a separate category, as the notion of climate is mostly derived from natural vegetation and deserts have none.
The tropics are defined as the between Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, which lie at about +/-23.5 degrees.
that’s a lame, nearly-useles definition
The tropics do not form small fraction of all land area, there actualy quite hefty, taking ~40% of earth surface, and ok, the land are in the tropics is probably smaller as the averaged land is shifted towards the pole, but saying it is a small fraction is simply not correct.
Tropics is 40% and tropics ocean area is about 80% of tropics:
So 510 million square km divided 40% is 204 million square km of
Area. And 20% of 204 is 41 million square km of land in tropics.
Total land area of Earth is about 148, so less than 1/3 and more than 1/4. Canada is 9.985, so tropics is more than 4 Canada and more that twice US and Canada combined total area. But US, Canada, Russia and China is bigger area.
Probably should said smaller fraction or less than 1/3. US is small fraction and France is a tiny fraction.
Rather than insults, you could provide your view (which probably is generous and all encompassing)
How large is the insult of assuming what the rest of the world’s people want based no evidence whatever, but only your biases and prejudices?
“How large is the insult of assuming what the rest of the world’s people want based no evidence whatever, but only your biases and prejudices?”
Small?
If wanted a poll of people living in tropics, you could have asked that:
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although India has emerged as a key player in global climate negotiations, the average Indian remains unaware of climate change. ”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/125267/indians-largely-unaware-climate-change.aspx
You might also note that most people move south (in the US) when they can, at retirement. Why, to be warmer? Less taxes? The reasons are many, but relatively few move north – although here in NC we have many half backers – those who moved to Florida, found it too… and moved half back.
gbaikie: David has little to offer other than pre-adolescent comments, which he hopes are stinging enough to affect those he attacks. (He’s really not that good, lacking the understanding that to insult someone, that someone has to care what the purveyor of insults thinks) He has a very difficult time accepting the fact that there are those who disagree with his conclusions, even seeing the same facts.
It is the mindset of a true-believer – and no more need be said.
Which advice I fail to take because I find him entertaining to aggravate.
David doesn’t believe that Earth will become like Venus, and such people are the real true believers. But apparently it seems those people are in short supply.
It seems David think the tropics is going to get really hot, an interesting question is what is the hottest the tropics has ever
got.
Hmm what the highest air temperature in tropics.
“The highest maximum temperature was recorded as 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) at Oodnadatta on 2 January 1960, which is the highest official temperature recorded in Australia. The lowest minimum temperature was −8.0 °C (17.6 °F) at Yongala on 20 July 1976.”
But that is just outside the tropics: 27.5423° S, 135.4203° E
And this:
“Why is the Earth hottest at the tropics, and not at the Equator?
Short answer: The answer to this question lies in the difference between the heat of dry air and moist air. Sunlight falling on the Equator generates rising air currents that help in the formation of clouds over equatorial regions, which then cause rains and thunderstorms. This is why the areas lying on the Equator experience lower temperatures, and are not the hottest on the planet (contrary to what you might assume about the equatorial regions).”
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-are-tropical-regions-hotter-than-equatorial-regions.html
But still, what is hottest in tropics?
“There are two reasons why tropical weather is different from that at higher latitudes. The sun shines more directly on the tropics than on higher latitudes (at least in the average over a year), which makes the tropics warm (Stevens 2011). And, the vertical direction (up, as one stands on the Earth’s surface) is perpendicular to the Earth’s axis of rotation at the equator, while the axis of rotation and the vertical are the same at the pole; this causes the Earth’s rotation to influence the atmospheric circulation more strongly at high latitudes than low. Because of these two factors, clouds and rain storms in the tropics can occur more spontaneously compared to those at higher latitudes, where they are more tightly controlled by larger-scale forces in the atmosphere. Because of these differences, clouds and rain are more difficult to forecast in the tropics than at higher latitudes. On the other hand, temperature is easily forecast in the tropics, because it doesn’t change much.”
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/tropical-weather-84224797
Hmm, well there there is pretty warm area in India where lots of people live, it is just outside tropics, Delhi. How about what highest temperature recorded in Delhi. Wiki:
“Summer is certainly not the best time to visit Delhi. It starts in early April and peak in May, with average temperatures near 32 °C although occasional heat waves can result in highs close to 45 °C (114 °F) on some days and therefore higher apparent temperature. The monsoon starts in late June and lasts until mid-September, with about 797.3 mm (31.5 inches)[2] of rain.” and:
Extreme temperatures have ranged from −2.2 °C to 48.4 °C.
Over at Berkeley Earth:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/delhi
The average temperature has increase and yearly is just about 32 C, and since records were keep starting in 1880, the trend has never been below 31 C, with yearly spikes almost getting to 29.5 and as high as almost 33.5 C [looks like around 1988}.
And if look mean lows, it been a pretty steady rise from 1880, and going from just below 18 C and almost reaching 19.5 [or rise of about 1.5 C} and of course yearly having spikes higher and lower.
And looking at mean high it’s gone up about .5 C, since 1880, and from 1880 peaked around 1950, fell a bit for 30 year, then rose to highest levels near present time.
Anyhow 48.4 C in F is 119.12 F which is a pretty warm day.
“And who says the bosses of climate scientists (who are who, exactly?)”
I remember railroad engineer who was a fairy.
But good question, I will check to see who is the latest and greatest.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
DA,
You don’t seem to have much idea about anything, do you?
Have you thought of asking for answers, or do you prefer to wallow in your swamp of stupidity and ignorance?
Oink, oink?
Cheers.
–Hoesung Lee (born December 31, 1945) is a South Korean economist and current chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is professor in the economics of climate change, energy and sustainable development in the Graduate School of Energy, Environment, Policy & Technology at Korea University in the Republic of Korea. Lee received his B.A. in economics from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University. Lee began his career as an economist working for ExxonMobil.–
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoesung_Lee
ExxonMobil seems to have a lot of good leadership.
At present, El Niño and Hurricanes in the Atlantic will not be created.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/mdrssta.png
What we have which is great is two competing thoughts on what the direction of the climate will be from now going forward based on completely different theories.
What makes it even better is nature is cooperating with each of the theories. Low solar for those who believe that one, and increasing CO2 for those who believe AGW theory.
I say it doesn’t get any better. What the climate does will determine (I would think so DAVID) which side is correct or most correct.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“What the climate does will determine which side is correct or most correct.”
No, you have to work out why.
You can be quite right about your solar effect even if it is counteracted by something else.
Svante I have explained in DETAIL why.
I have nothing to work out if I am correct.
You don’t know until you have formulas and calculations with numbers confirmed by measurements.
Here’s some factors for you to put numbers on:
Ozone
Strat. H2O
Aerosols (direct)
Aerosols (indirect)
Black Carbon
Snow Albedo
Volcanos
Solar Intensity
Land Use
CO2
CH4
NAtl. Oscillation
Pac. Decadal Osc.
Southern Osc. Index
Pacific Nino 3.4
Salvatores solar effect
Salvatore,
Dude, you’ve got to stop making predictions already. No one knows what’s going to happen.
How many times do you have to be wrong to realize you don’t know?
RW you like some others have never once listened to what I have said.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN WRONG.
Reason being my predictions on global cooling were based on two solar conditions , which have not been present since the DALTON until year 2018. The only wrong was I thought solar activity was going to be much lower then it was from 2010-2017. I was wrong on solar not the climate impacts of low solar.
LET’S TRY AGAIN.
I said in order for solar to have a climatic impact sub solar activity has to be present for 10+ years(started in 2005) followed by a period of time with average value solar parameters equal to or greater in degree of magnitude /duration of time which is typically associated with solar minimums between typical sunspot cycles. This has not happened until year 2018.
The upshot being this is the first time post Dalton that the sun is quiet enough in degree of magnitude /duration of time where it should result in the climate cooling.
If the climate does not cool from here moving forward then you can say wrong.
Dear Salvatore, the following sentence
If the climate does not cool from here moving forward then you can say wrong.
in the comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308721
has been bookmarked in my browser :-))
Buona notte
Fair enough.
Salvatore says:
What the climate does will determine (I would think so DAVID) which side is correct or most correct.
No, Salvatore, the science is already in — the world will keep warming. But maybe not by next Tuesday.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
MEI INDEX – a very good barometer of what is happening in the tropics is favorable for a slight warming trend or cooling trend within the same climatic regime.
How does the MEI predict future trends?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg
Now when you look at the satellite temperature data versus the MEI INDEX the correlation is quite strong.
MEI INDEX AVGERAE FROM YEARS 2010-2013 = -.2732 slightly cool trend
MEI INDEX AVERAGE FROM YEARS 2014-2017 = +.883 warming trend.
ALL OTHER ITEMS BENG EQUAL WHICH COULD EFFECT THE CLIMATE.
Dr Spencer
I spend 3 or 4 months a year at my holiday home in the south of France and know well the pleasures of spending time there. I wouldnt get to depressed with an elderly physicist having a crack about climate deniers dying out with the baby boomers, baby boomers have no intention of dying out
Talking to my childrens friends I have also noticed a bit of a back lash against the climate religion in the under 25s starting to apear so we will have to see where it goes
Regards
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
ARCTIC SEA ICE COVERAGE- INCREASING.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 21, 2018 at 2:14 PM
Sorry Salvatore, but as so often you are simply wrong.
Here are graphs comparing the seasonal behavior for Arctic sea ice extent, area and thickness (volume).
1. Arctic sea ice extent (15+ % ice)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529620061870/001.jpg
2. Arctic sea ice area (pack ice)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529620180943/001.jpg
3. Arctic sea ice volume
http://4gp.me/bbtc/152961895868.jpg
As you can see, only the volume shows less decrease compared to extent and area. But there is no increase whatsoever.
Sources
1,2: SIDADS by Colorado University, Boulder
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
3: DMI
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
Your in denial. Fine.
Why are you always reflecting in the past?
You do not even look at the present much less the future.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 21, 2018 at 5:12 PM
Why are you always reflecting in the past?
Which past do you mean? Please compare 2018 and 2017, from January till May.
1. SIDADS, Column 3: extent, 4: area, in MKm2 each
2017 | 1 | 13.17 | 11.30
2017 | 2 | 14.11 | 12.25
2017 | 3 | 14.27 | 12.56
2017 | 4 | 13.76 | 12.23
2017 | 5 | 12.62 | 10.95
2017 | 6 | 10.72 | 8.56
2017 | 7 | 7.90 | 5.61
2017 | 8 | 5.47 | 3.61
2017 | 9 | 4.80 | 3.30
2017 | 10 | 6.71 | 5.24
2017 | 11 | 9.46 | 8.02
2017 | 12 | 11.75 | 10.22
2018 | 1 | 13.06 | 11.64
2018 | 2 | 13.95 | 12.22
2018 | 3 | 14.30 | 12.61
2018 | 4 | 13.71 | 12.25
2018 | 5 | 12.21 | 10.77
No real increase here.
2. DMI, column 3: volume, im MKm3
2017 | 1 | 18.21
2017 | 2 | 20.13
2017 | 3 | 21.97
2017 | 4 | 22.80
2017 | 5 | 21.99
2017 | 6 | 18.05
2017 | 7 | 10.00
2017 | 8 | 6.11
2017 | 9 | 6.20
2017 | 10 | 9.42
2017 | 11 | 13.16
2017 | 12 | 16.30
2018 | 1 | 18.90
2018 | 2 | 20.89
2018 | 3 | 22.73
2018 | 4 | 24.12
2018 | 5 | 23.78
Here indeed, there is a little increase. All months in 2018 show an increased volume compared with the same months in 2017.
That was clearly visible in my DMI graph above.
No, Salvatore: I am not in any denial. Data is data.
binny…”Sorry Salvatore, but as so often you are simply wrong.
Here are graphs comparing the seasonal behavior for Arctic sea ice extent, area and thickness (volume)”.
More home made Excel graphs by binny.
Excel is a very good tool for basic graphs. And also those not so basic.
Do you know how to use Excel, Gordon?
The data shows this year Arctic Ice is higher then the recent past and the trend is increasing.
Data is data as you say and the data I showed shows Artic Ice increasing this year.
Look again, it went down yesterday.
Salvatore, what did the ice do between 10:00 am this morning and 10:30 am?
Pick any time zone you wish.
Yes, if that graph you linked is viewed upside down.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“ARCTIC SEA ICE COVERAGE – INCREASING.”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I see, you use a magnifying glass and compare with 2016, which was warmer than now.
The use of the word collapse.
In my opinion it is a building crumpling by an earthquake, something that takes seconds or may be an hour.
You should not use that word for anything that just melts away over thousinds of years.
In that use of the word, NYC will also collapse.
I fact anything might collapse in some time.
Mike Flynn says:
June 20, 2018 at 6:14 PM
Unfortunately for such as yourself, CO2 only absorbs around 1800 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen, but there is more than 1800 times as much oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.
*
CO2 indeed is much rarer than O2 and N2, namely by an average factor of about 2,500. But it absorbs in comparison by far more than the two.
According to
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
you see here a few plots showing how their respective absorp-tion differ (I included H2O, because this trace gas actually still is, as you know, most relevant).
All plots were generated with scaling by atmospheric abundance.
1. H2O
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529614507914.jpg
2. CO2
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529613085873.jpg
3. O2
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529613182612.jpg
4. N2
http://4gp.me/bbtc/152961327346.jpg
You clearly see the highly different absorp-tion levels.
As you easily can see, the scaling intensities stored in the HITRAN database are, in the mean, as follows (in cm-1/cm):
– H2O: 0.005 i.e 5E-3
– CO2: 0.0005 i.e. 5E-4
– O2: 5E-10
– N2: 3E-13
This means that CO2 absorbs about :
– 1E6 (one million times) more then O2
and
– 1.7E9 (nearly two billion times) more than N2.
*
But I wouldnt wonder about you silently discarding this comparison, and endlessly repeating your elder nonsense.
Feel free to do, Flynn! I’m completely indifferent to that.
La Pangolina
Thank you for making up and posting the graphs of gas absorb(tion) at atmospheric abundance. I was trying to do just that but was not quite able to make it work. Someday Mike Flynn might start to think. We can only hope. But not this day! Not this day! (Borrowed from Lord of the Rings).
Norman says:
June 21, 2018 at 4:36 PM
I was trying to do just that but was not quite able to make it work.
Oh it is quite simple: you just need to choose scaling by ‘atmospheric abundance’ instead of by ‘raw intensity’.
Below 5 microns, O2 absorbs quite a lot, but that takes place in the mesosphere, about 80 km above surface.
N2 is nearly inert.
A clear hint to alarmists is that within the atmospheric window where Earth’s IR peaks, no trace gas shows any relevant presence.
If that was not the case, we certainly wouldn’t be here to discuss the point.
Most radiation is going at about 30 degree angle or less, is factor somehow included in these calculations?
The problem with people like you, gbaikie, is that if you have a thought, you automatically assume that nobody on earth has ever had it before.
LaP,
What is your point, if any?
You need to try harder if you are attempting to be gratuitously offensive.
Cheers.
No, I have a thought and I ask a question.
That radiation at 30 degrees cancels by symmetry. So does any radiation at any angle except the normal. At least in the ideal case. Climate models account for horizontal movement though, I think.
binny…”you see here a few plots showing how their respective absorp-tion differ ”
More home-made graphs from uber-alarmist Bindidon.
No, Robertson the liar!
All plotws you see in my comment were not made out of Bindidon’s data, but copied and pasted directly out of
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
You wouldn’t even be able to use that site!
LaP,
Infrared is all light with wavelengths longer than visible light. You are just being silly when you talk about ab.sorp.tion without considering total energy ab.sorp.tion, or, indeed, what happens to the energy after it has been absor.bed!
Part 1.
LaP,
Your graphs, like most of the irrelevant diversionary nonsense you post, are meaningless in the context of the non-existent GHE. If you think that the GHE exists, you should be able to describe it, but of course describing the non-existent is in the realms of fantasy.
So, maybe you could address what I said, rather than misrepresenting my statements into something of your own desire.
Part2
LaP,
So, maybe you could address what I said, rather than misrepresenting my statements into something of your own desire.
As I point out, reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. If around 30% of the total energy from the Sun does not reach the surface, claiming that the proportions due to a particular component makes a difference is completely pointless.
Part3
Mike don’t worry the climate going forward should put this ridiculous theory to bed once and for all.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
LaP,
Maybe you should figure out a GHE definition – then you might be able to sound less stupid and ignorant than you do at present. I am sure you are indifferent to inconvenient fact – but that is your choice.
Part4
LaP,
No GHE, no disprovable GHE hypothesis – just endless assertions that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes thermometers hotter – due to some form of climatological magic!
Don’t bother trying to think – it might give you a headache.
Cheers.
Phew!
And I still don’t know what the problem was!
Cheers.
Ask your Schäferhund, Flynn! It might teach you pretty good about useless redundancy.
JDHuffman says:
June 21, 2018 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous Norman, now you are trying to twist around the challenge presented by Mike Flynn.
Challenge? Which challenge, Huffman?
Flynn manifestly refers to values observed 150 years ago, and has been contradicted often enough concerning that.
John Tyndall was a marvellous scientist, I love to read his lectures again and again:
https://archive.org/download/cu31924012337741/cu31924012337741.pdf
But the technical support he used for his observations lacked the accuracy of today’s techniques, whose development started in the 1940’s, probably due to USAF’s interest in IR detection.
*
By the way let me add that your repeated complain about Norman’s wish to keep anonymous is very interesting, Huffman.
Simply because you seem to be blind on the ‘right’ eye, as you never complain about other people keeping anonymous as well, e.g. ‘Phil’, ‘Skeptic Gone Wild’, ‘Bart’, ‘gbaikie’, ‘Laura’, ‘John’, etc etc etc.
Very interesting.
La Pangolina, before you puke all over yourself again, perhaps you should clean up the mess you left here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308580
binny…”But the technical support h [Tyndall] used for his observations lacked the accuracy of todays techniques, whose development started in the 1940s, probably due to USAFs interest in IR detection”.
Then there’s the eminent scientist/researcher R. W. Wood, with such expertise in IR theory that Neils Bohr consulted him.
Wood could not see IR warming the atmosphere as claimed, he thought it far more likely that the atmosphere absorbed heat directly from the surface and retained it over some time because gases like N2/O2 are poor emitters.
That statement came from him well after Tyndall’s experiments, after quantum theory was established.
Gordon, physics were already in severe decline by Woods time.
Aristotle said that smoke rose away from the Earth because in terms of the 4 basic elements it was primarily air (and some fire), and therefore the smoke wished to be closer to air and further away from earth and water.
Gordon Robertson
Another eminent scientist in the same magazine Wood’s published his idea challenged Wood’s idea and Wood’s did not write up another follow up claiming this scientist was wrong. Links have been posted to you by others about this. That you ignore them indicates you have no desire to learn the truth and only report on your bias.
What century was this again?
Gordon, as Roy pointed out here, Woods’ experiment was fatally flawed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
LaP,
And you still cannot describe your non-existent GHE, can you?
As to John Tyndall, he estimated the total attenuation of the Sun’s energy by the atmosphere to be around 35%. Go on, tell me how incorrect his figure was. Use your latest technological miracles – consult your graphs and models as much as you like.
Still believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter?
Or does CO2 have magical properties?
No GHE. No disprovable GHE hypothesis.
Off you go now, buy more brightly coloured markers. Have fun!
Cheers.
JDHuffman
Above you posted this about sea level rise.
YOU: “Anonymous Norman, I did not misread the ballpark calculation. It was you that wasnt able to figure out my comment.
Over the industrial era, even if you believe the ballpark, the SLR would be affected by millimeters.
Then, if you add in the other factors, the result is even greater.
Zealots do not like facts that counter their beliefs, but if all of Earths land were leveled, sea levels would be over 1 mile above the land.”
I did some more research on the topic.
Here is the data based upon better science tools.
http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Long%20term%20stability%20of%20global%20erosion%20rates.pdf
Using this source you can look at page 212 graph d. It is the sedimentation rates over long periods.
The come up with modern sedimentation at around 20 meters/million years.
If you convert this to millimeters/year
20 meters x 1000 = 20,000 millimeters.
20,000 millimeters/1,000,000 years gives a rate = 0.02 millimeters/year.
The current rate of SLR is 1.8 millimeters/year. So sedimentation would contribute about 1% of SLR. You would still need to look for the cause of the other 99%.
Anonymous Norman, don’t you owe me an answer as to why you believe Gordon is wrong?
Do I need to supply the link for you?
Also, it does not help you to deny the many other major contributors to SLR.
But, deny you must.
JDHuffman
So what are the many other “major” contributors to SLR that you believe I am denying? Help me out, given me some data. A cryptic post does not supply the information you are claiming I am denying.
YOU: “Anonymous Norman, dont you owe me an answer as to why you believe Gordon is wrong?”
Experimental evidence is the answer. Actual tests that have been performed by many people over years. That is an answer in my own words. It should satisfy your request.
N,
The continents are bobbing up and down. So are the sea beds. The crust is in constant motion. The shape of the ocean basins is constantly changing, as is their volume.
You would have to deny this, otherwise you couldn’t claim that sea level measurements had any relevance to ocean volume.
You would also have to deny that it is not possible for heat to migrate from the surface to the depths.
Heated water does’t sink, it rises. Go ahead, deny all you want. The water doesn’t care.
Deny furiously. . Maybe you can deny a GHE into existence, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
Hiding Norman says: “Experimental evidence is the answer. Actual tests that have been performed by many people over years. That is an answer in my own words.”
Norman, you hide your answer as well as you hide your identity.
And, you don’t seem to like cryptic answers.
Interesting, isn”t it?
Mike Flynn
What you state is true about tectonics. What you fail to address is how slow of a process this is. Also you fail to point out if one plate is rising is another sinking? If this be the case the net effect on SL is insignificant
I do know you are wrong about heat getting to the depths. Lakes will overturn based upon surface winds. The whole lake slowly rotates, the warmer surface water is forced down and the colder water near the bottom is forced up. The process also brings nutrients and oxygen to the lower layers.
It will not occur in really deep water, the really deep ocean is not warming much as far as I have read. The big warming is taking place in a few hundred meters down.
Meanwhile,
the NINO3.4 index has gone positive for the first time in about 12 months while the SOI has dropped into negative territory. These facts indicate a tendency towards El Nino conditions.
Importantly, now is the time of year where such ENSO transitions tend to occur. I would bet on an El Nino by the end of the year.
El Nino is a naturally climatic event has nothing to do with AGW, or changing the climate to another regime.
What is much more important are the overall sea surface temperatures in particularly the North Atlantic which can change the climate into another climatic regime.
“El Nino is a naturally climatic event has nothing to do with AGW, or changing the climate to another regime.”
Of course. But it does mean another record global mean temperature record is on the cards.
“What is much more important are the overall sea surface temperatures in particularly the North Atlantic which can change the climate into another climatic regime.”
I don’t think so. Why would such a relatively small region affect global climate?
I think you are dreaming.