The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2018 was +0.19 deg. C, down from the July value of +0.32 deg. C:
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.54 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.12 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.42 +0.21 +0.29 +0.50 +0.29 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.21 +0.16 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.25
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through August 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for August, 2018 should be available after Labor Day here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
My guesstimate of +0.17 was very close. In fact I got +0.18 but downgraded it to be conservative.
Whew, I was worried we were going to have to wait until Tuesday. Thanks, Dr. Spencer!
yeah, I know some people like their monthly fix, so I went in to work for a bit this morning.
Dr. Spencer, do you have any thoughts on the impacts of the smoke from the fires in the Western U.S. and Canada on the low temperature for the USA48 in your data? On a larger scale, has the rapid increase in coal burning by China and India added enough tropospheric sulfates to offset a significant fraction of AGW since around 2000?
Cheers Dr Spencer! Enjoy the rest of the long weekend and pack that sweater with USA48 @ +0.06 ! hehe
As Mr Spencer admitted a couple of months ago, the temperature in the troposphere above the USA that his data is measuring has little to do with ground temperatures.
bob…”As Mr Spencer admitted a couple of months ago, the temperature in the troposphere above the USA that his data is measuring has little to do with ground temperatures”.
Neither do the thermometers, especially after the data from them is fudged by NOAA.
So back in April, all the thermometers in the USA got it wrong, and it was in fact a warm month, is that right?
@Bobdesbond,
Good. That +0.06 is then safe from ground pollution and progressives.
I’m sure that comment means something to you, Jamie dearest.
Dr. Spencer, thank you for coming in to work this morning. A lot of us folks are eager to find out if indeed the “earth has a fever!”
Thanks Roy for all your hard work. Look forward to your 39 year average temperature trend. About 0.013 C/year?
Thanks +1.
David…”Thanks Roy for all your hard work. Look forward to your 39 year average temperature trend. About 0.013 C/year?”
That’s actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.
And I’m one of them.
Thank you.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Thanks for your work Roy. I wonder when people will realize that the benefits of carbon outweigh any potential downsides.
Remembering how quickly we are chopping down forests, what do you see as the future benefits to humans of future increases of atmospheric CO2?
Maybe you could give a cite for the claim of reduced forest coverage? The US government shows it as being roughly constant for the past century.
https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf
Typical effing Yank who thinks the USA is the world.
I bet you also think that GLOBAL temperatures were high in the 30s.
Anyway … hope you enjoy your “North America minus Mexico Series” next month.
OK, so your answer is, “No, I don’t have a cite for my claim of quickly reduced forest area.”
Just look at the Amazon, dimwit.
Amazon is not the world. Quite the contrary. The forest cover is, if something, increasing. What happens in Amazonia is that criminals (often poor people who Dims love so much) burn down some forest to get some quick wins, and the government doesn’t do a thing to put an end to this. Not that it were easy, but they don’t really even try.
I bet you think Amazonia is Trump’s fault, or possibly Chevron’s. As if the local criminals were not responsible of the whole mess. It is a white man’s (and not Brazilians’) fault when portuguese-speaking Brazilians cut down their trees and cause bad feelings in Western countries.
Bobdesbond: (I suspect you are a fellow Brit) There’s no need to be abusive just to state your position. Your point about the Amazon needs a little correction:
Brazil has actually slowed its deforestation, but in other countries like Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Paraguay, and Uruguay, deforestation is increasing. You should also be aware that a report in Science last year stated that researchers have found ‘hidden’ forests all over the world which equate to 2/3rds the size of Amazonia. It represents a 9% INCREASE on the world’s trees. So although you are roughly correct on deforestation, all is not doom and gloom. And that’s a running theme through people like yourself – you fail to see any positives, and focus only on doom.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Barry Foster
I’ve never been to the whiny isles.
Interesting concept … if you discover forests you never knew existed, then the planet has undergone reforestation, just by virtue of your discovery!!
Who knew science could work this way!!
No, Bobdesbonddesbobbonddesbondbobdesbondesbob, you are not getting it. Please STOP trolling.
wert,
Not sure if your history of Amazonian forests is correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest
The benefits are quite apparent in rate of growth and water use efficiency of plants both increasing. If only we could get Central America, South America, and Indonesia to embrace more fossil fuel use, they could reverse the removal of forest cover like the West has.
It has to come through political pressure – from Trump. However, I believe that deforestation is because of agriculture, not burning for fuel.
Barry – yes, that’s the major cause.
I think that “people” are beginning to realize that the opposite is true. For example, the projected rise in sea-level will render major coastal areas uninhabitable. The people who lost their homes in California this summer have experienced just one of those downsides in their own lives.
People might realize that New Orleans is sinking much faster than sea level is rising:
“New Orleans is sinking, according to a study using NASA airborne radar. The subsidence, or sinking rates, of the city and surrounding areas is caused by naturally occurring geologic and human-caused processes. According to this latest study, subsidence is happening at higher rates than what previous data has shown using different kinds of radar, which before had been lower resolution and not as spatially extensive.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0518/How-fast-is-New-Orleans-sinking-Faster-and-faster-says-new-study
It’s expected that areas where land is subsiding will see the effects of sea level rise first.
But SLR costs are showing up.
In Miami Beach, where only 20% of SLR is land subsistence, they’re spending $400 B to address sea level rise. Some of the money comes from all FLorida taxpayers, and some of it comes from a $7/month increase in monthly stormwater fees for residents. NJ is spending (federal money) $300M for their Blue Acres property acquisition program.
The Louisiana Office of Community Development was awarded $48.3M to move 99 residents off Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana
https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-save-a-town-from-rising-waters/
Chutzpah:
The oil industry is asking for $12 B for for 60 miles of seawalls to protect refineries from climate change effects
https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/news/erry-2018/08/88ce31f2fa4310/oil-industry-wants-government.html
$14 B in home values lost:
“According to a new report by the nonprofit First Street Foundation, housing values in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut dropped $6.7 billion from 2005 to 2017 due to flooding related to sea level rise. Combined with their prior analysis of 5 southeastern coastal states with $7.4 billion in lost home value, the total loss in 8 states since 2005 has been $14.1 billion.”
https://www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-costing-billions-in-home-prices-7920a7a8-8db4-45b1-ad21-357c4d522fcb.html
In Miami Beach, 50% (not 20%) of sea level rise is due to subsidence, based upon InSAR data.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/arctic-florida/pdfs/fiaschi-wdowinski.pdf
And how can you mention SLR without mentioning it’s been rising naturally since at least the 1850s? Even if we accept some acceleration since 1950 based upon the Church & White dataset, and assume all of that acceleration is anthropogenic, it amounts to only 1 inch per 30 years.
So, nature never changes, right David?
Even the people who model SLR can’t explain why sea level was rising so much in the early 20th Century.
Roy W. Spencer,
Even the people who model SLR cant explain why sea level was rising so much in the early 20th Century.
Well, there would be a plausible explanation: https://tinyurl.com/yaoyjf6x
Roy…”In Miami Beach, 50% (not 20%) of sea level rise is due to subsidence, based upon InSAR data”.
Seems to me the same issues were reported in the Huston area following flooding from the hurricane that parked itself over the city. There has been significant subsidence in that area, leading to the unexpected extent of the flooding.
Re the Fiaschi / Wdowinski slide (not peer-reviewed):
…one of the limits of SAR interferometry, is
that it is generally not possible to obtain results in areas covered
by vegetation, because of the loss of coherence in the SAR
images. Despite the overall high reliability of the results
obtainable through InSAR, it is necessary to validate them with
the standard ground-based techniques such as, levelling and
GPS surveys
https://www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XLI-B7/23/2016/isprs-archives-XLI-B7-23-2016.pdf
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
I think you have too much faith in the IPCC, long term temperature has been tracking ln(CO2) long before 1950. That’s the bold black line here:
https://tinyurl.com/y8kyzwsk
We have had 3 inches in the 25 years of satellite measurements.
You are assuming 2/3 of that is natural?? Big assumption.
If the 6 inch rise in the 20 th century is mostly natural, it would be unprecedented in the last 2000 y.
Appell suggests that
$7/month is $84/year. If ALL 20 million Floridans pay $84, you’ll collect 1.684 billion / year.
A twenty-million population of Florida is not spending 400 billion dollars. Now, $400B it is only $20,000 per capita, which is about on par with what progressive-minded governments shove out the window on a good day. I should know, since I’m the peasant paying.
I found evidence that Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions, which is a good money, but still very very little.
There might exist speculations on how much a certain sea level rise could cost; I guess 400 billion is possible number there in some long time estimate. But they ‘are not spending’ now that sum of money. Prove me wrong…
Nate says
You don’t measure the water in the garage from a satellite. Just forget that. You measure the high tides and storm surges with respect to the land you stand on.
Then you try to either build high enough so don’t need to worry, or adapt to what happens. We have wonderful insurance agencies telling us what to not do in order to keep feet dry.
If the water rises into my living room, I’m not exactly worrying that sea level has been satellite-measured on the average to be 3 inches higher somewhere in the middle of the sea. (Out of which 1 or 2 inches is ‘natural’.)
When we talk about adaptation, it is pretty simple thing. When people start buying sea-front properties from Wyoming, that’s adaptation. When people bathing in Miami sea-front money complain their Tesla was wetted in a basement, I’m not so impressed.
The US used to be place where people laid as they made. Now it appears Florida is turning back into a swamp.
Anybody care to point out the effects of CO2 on Central England Temperature Record’s Summer temperatures?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/image2.png
And subsidence isn’t the only issue, cessation of sedimentation is the other 49% of the issue. For the Gulf Coast, it is removal of sediment source from channelling and damming of rivers, on barrier islands like Miami Beach it is the removal of silt and sand after overwash. Besides, every student halfway through their B.Sc. in geology could tell you that barrier islands are rarely preserved in the geologic record and should not be expected to make stable sites for cities.
Roy, 20% of Florida’s SLR is due to land subsidence, according to this site, who cite the IPCC 5AR:
https://sealevelrise.org/florida/causes/
The site has a lot of experts behind them:
https://sealevelrise.org/about-us/
===============
Sea level rise has been *accelerating* during last century.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//haysl13.jpg
and its accelerating has even been detected in the satellite era, to be be 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2.
R.S. Nerem et al, “Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era,” PNAS, February 12, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
Adam Gallon says:
Anybody care to point out the effects of CO2 on Central England Temperature Records Summer temperatures?
Rise of 0.4 C.
Wanna talk about the effects during spring, autumn and winter?
wert says:
A twenty-million population of Florida is not spending 400 billion dollars
$400 *million*
David Appell says:
In Miami Beach, where only 20% of SLR is land subsistence, theyre spending $400 B to address sea level rise.
I wrote that wrong — it’s $400 MILLION, not BILLION.
—
Home valuations are being lost, too — $14 billion so far:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/09/sea-level-rise-is-already-starting-to.html
Svante says:
I think you have too much faith in the IPCC, long term temperature has been tracking ln(CO2) long before 1950. Thats the bold black line here:
No at all.
Your chart clearly shows a faster-than-linear temperature increase.
Yes, Dr Spencer seems to assume:
“The period of substantial human-caused warming is generally agreed to be only since 1950 (U.N. IPCC AR5).”
The chart shows it’s more like 1750.
We were in a long term decline so, in Richard Alley’s words, the human part of the warming is little more than all of it.
“You don’t measure the water in the garage from a satellite. Just forget that.”
I know, satellites are for nerds. What good are they for seeing disasters coming ahead of time?
https://www.space.com/37943-hurricane-harvey-satellite-video.html
Why is local land subsidence some kind of argument against problems with sea level rise? Obviously local land subsidence would exacerbate the effects of rising sea level. I’d want my garage on rising land, thanks.
It’s like the “mostly natural” temperature argument.
If you have a problem, why make it worse?
If you suffer from a natural disaster you should work against it.
Bodesbond disappears and David Appell apears. Is that a coincidence?
swannie…”For example, the projected rise in sea-level will render major coastal areas uninhabitable”.
That propaganda has been with us since 1988 when Hansen lied on national TV about the effects of CO2. That was 30 years ago and sea levels have not risen noticeably.
There is no proof that CO2 has anything to do with wild fires. California has them every year and they are related to weather.
Gordo, There have already been reports of the unusual warmth and dryness this past summer in California. Such conditions are highly correlated with forest fires. Whether those conditions are related to AGW is a matter for careful data analysis, not propaganda, such as you typically produce.
Sea-level rise is an obvious consequence of a warmer world as the oceans’ waters expand because of the warming. The rate of rise could be much greater as the result of melting glaciers over land. There’s still quite a bit of uncertainty regarding how fast the glaciers will melt, but there’s already considerable evidence that such melting is underway, such as the loss of high altitude glaciers in the tropics.
Nate said 3 inches, out of which some is unnatural. I’m afraid, since at this speed I’m gonna die before I see the sea.
I’m afraid CO2 is partly behind the California fires. As bush grows faster due to CO2 fertilization, the burnable load is higher and as somebody tosses a cigarette or drives a train, finally everything goes up in flames faster than before. It is unprecedented. At least if you let the loads grow enough.
Gordon Robertson says:
“That was 30 years ago and sea levels have not risen noticeably.”
Wrong. According to AVISO sea level data, global average sea level has risen 8.5 cm since 1993.
Its acceleration in the last 25 years is 0.084 +/- 0.025 mm/y2 according to
R.S. Nerem et al, Climate-changedriven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era, PNAS, February 12, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
That acceleration adds about 25 cm to SLR in 2100, compared to the linear projection.
In Florida, “Flooding Has Increased By 300% since 20003; sea level has risen by 8 inches since 1950, nearly half of it (3 inches) has occurred since 2000.”
https://sealevelrise.org/florida/
David if sea level rise is such a concern why can I not find one mention of concern by any sea mariners.ie merchant seamen,fishermen,coastguards or any denisons of the high seas.as one person I know put it.if no one told you about the rise in sea levels you would live your whole life and die and never know ,I fish the North Sea and no one has brought the subject up. .either we are unique or it is a none problem.
Why would someone who floats on the ocean be concerned about the rise of it?
Ask Miami Beach about SLR. Norfolk, VA. Tangier’s Island, MD. Olympia, WA.
Why are oil refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast asking for $12 B to be protected from the impacts of SLR?
It’s been quite obvious, and discussed here and elsewhere for several years, that Miami has a critical flooding/slr problem which will cost probably $Billions to manage. Continuing to do the climate wars dance on this subject is most tedious. Miami, and a good portion of Florida, was built virtually at sea level. Developement occurred without any thought that the slow march of slr would eventually take its toll.
“Climate Change” has little, if anything to do with it, except in the writings of propagandists who have demagogued the subject mercilessly.
Two and half years after the end of the 15/16 El Nino and still no apparent trend in the anomaly that would indicate that a step change in anomaly will occur. A clearer picture would be expected to develop over the next twelve months. This is where it starts to get interesting.
Yes, there are no step changes, just short term fluctuations on top of a long term rise:
https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z
Hehe, no it isn’t. That’s just a common talking point used by CO2 warmists who haven’t actually bothered to look into these matters themselves, and who don’t want others to do it either:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/noise-trend/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-ii-step-1/
Wiggle matching without significance testing doesn’t even rise to the low level of mathturbation.
As usual the cry of “look at the data!”. With your eyes. The snake-oil patter.
Except what we are looking at is graphs, not data. Looking at the actual data, and rigorously testing it, would be something.
There are statistical tests for step-changes. And you “look at the data,” for that. You don’t just eyeball graphs.
There are statistical tests (e.g.) to tell you which data model fits best (which only makes it the most likely), whether linear trend, step-jump, sine wave or order of polynomial.
And then there are statistical tests to check if the results from those tests might be fooling you.
But as soon as someone tells you your eyes are enough – and the same person scorns the rigours of testing the data – then you know you are being sold a line.
Skeptics complain of data being adjusted as if it is some sort of ad hoc process to get a better ‘fit to AGW’. In the article linked above, the data is adjusted in ad hoc ways to get a better fit for the argument.
Data adjustments done by professionals are not ad hoc but to remove false artefacts. They are quantified, tested multiple ways to prevent bias, and explained in methods papers. That’s nothing like what we see in the article above.
b,
The problem is that your data is meaningless. Totally.
You cannot describe the mythical GHE, you cannot propose a testable hypothesis for something that does not exist, and you haven’t got a theory about anything really, have you?
Data is a collection of numbers – nothing more, nothing less.
If you are actually being so stupid and ignorant as to claim that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, bully for you! Be prepared for laughter!
Thermometers are designed to measure temperature, which is a measure of heat.
CO2 cannot create heat. It can prevent heat from reaching a thermometer – lowering the observed temperature, all else remains equal. Maybe you are merely deluded, like Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and the rest of the climatological pseudoscientific loonies.
Try praying harder – it will help to block out the laughter.
Cheers.
Yes, Mike, putting more CO2 into the air between the sun and a thermometer sitting in air at ground level will cause the thermometer reading to increase by a small amount. Easily calculable with some basic engineering emissivity calculations….pardon me for laughing at your stupid and ignorant pot-kettle-black comment.
DMacKenzie, how about sharing those “easily calculable basic engineering emissivity calculations” with us?
Or, are those calculations as imaginary as your laughter?
barry…”Data adjustments done by professionals are not ad hoc but to remove false artefacts”.
No scientist of repute would go back to old data, apply a statistical algorithm to it, and claim the data was wrong.
Only idiots like those at NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut would participate in such pseudo-scientific chicanery.
When the Great Climate Shift appeared in 1977, several scientists were advocating the step change be eradicated since there was no apparent reason for it. Then the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was discovered, explaining it fully.
It should be noted that the 0.2C attributed to the step change should come off the claims of anthropogenic warming, as well as the cooling attributed to the Little Ice Age.
Roy Spencer continually updates his data set with new algorithms. What do you think happened between versions 5.6 and 6.0? The nonsense you spout gets more specious by the week.
Somehow you think a ‘step-change’ in the data disproves AGW. That would be based on the farcical presumption that AGW relies on a monotic, year on year warming. Only idiotic skeptics try to pretend that anyone believes such nonsense or makes such a claim (apart from other idiotic skeptics).
When the Great Climate Shift appeared in 1977, several scientists were advocating the step change be eradicated since there was no apparent reason for it.
Hah! Good luck trying to demonstrate that “some scientists were advocating for the step change to be eradicated.” What, did they apply to their local government, stand in the park with megaphones, or send out petitions? What form did this “advocacy” take, I wonder?
b,
Where’s your “sharp and consistent definition” of AGW? Mislaid along with Trenberth’s missing heat, and Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, do you think?
You cannot even define AGW!
Maybe you could explain the principle behind AGW, including how and where it may be reproducibly observed and measured. If you can’t, you are just spouting climatological pseudoscientific nonsense, hoping you won’t be challenged.
Off you go, now, and dream up some more strident assertions. Maybe throw in an irrelevant and pointless analogy or two for good measure. If that fails, deny, divert, and confuse has worked in the past – maybe you can get away with the same tactics of demonstrating stupidity and ignorance, disguised with sciency verbiage.
You’re welcome – no need to thank me.
Cheers.
barry @ September 1, 2018 at 9:52 PM
“That would be based on the farcical presumption that AGW relies on a monotic, year on year warming.”
Either rising CO2 must produce warming, or it does not have to. If it does not have to over a finite interval of time, then it does not have to at all.
There is no empirical evidence which unambiguously establishes that we are experiencing AGW. If there is further no requirement that rising CO2 must result in rising temperatures, then there is nothing at all upon which to base this fear campaign. It is simply another end-of-the-world neurosis such as has afflicted humankind since the beginning of history.
Gordon Robertson says:
“No scientist of repute would go back to old data, apply a statistical algorithm to it, and claim the data was wrong.”
They certainly do when the measurement methods have changed over time.
How would you account for such changes, Gordon?
I know you won’t read anything that challenges you, but others here might:
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
“Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
“Either rising CO2 must produce warming, or it does not have to. If it does not have to over a finite interval of time, then it does not have to at all.”
When convenient, applied math guy Bart seems to forget about confounding variables.
Ah. Bart.
You said:
“Either rising CO2 must produce warming, or it does not have to”
In reply to me saying:
“That would be based on the farcical presumption that AGW relies on a monotic, year on year warming.”
Your comment doesn’t respond to mine. I’ve bolded the bits you seem to have missed.
If it is farcical to presume that AGW does not produce relentless warming, it is no less farcical to presume that it is inevitable. If the evidence is ambiguous, then the evidence is ambiguous.
You want to counter what I said without actually dealing with what I said.
“Relentless”, huh? I said “monotonic, year on year warming.” And if you think anyone ever said or argued CO2 warming should be monotonic, or if you yourself actually believe than internal variability should cease under CO2 warming, then you’re no better than the twits who post here more regularly.
Contrariness makes you stupid.
Monotonicity is pretty relentless.
It is argued that CO2 is a dominant factor. If it is dominant, then its influence should be clearly observable above others. If it is not, then you have no empirical basis upon which to attribute warming to CO2. Natural variability powerful enough to cause the pause is powerful enough to cause everything you see.
It’s not that you can’t rule it out, it’s that you can’t rule it in. And, given the complexity of the aggregate response, you cannot claim you’re sure of it anyway. There is currently no basis whatsoever to establish that AGW is occurring.
“It is argued that CO2 is a dominant factor. If it is dominant, then its influence should be clearly observable above others. If it is not, then you have no empirical basis upon which to attribute warming to CO2.”
The idea when looking at data and fitting to theory is not to ignore be ignorant of all confounding variables. That makes little sense.
CO2 can be the dominant factor controlling the long term trends in temperature, while natural variation, such as ENSO, volcanoes, PDO, can be important on shorter time scales.
All forcings, natural and anthro, should be considered.
I just don’t see why you have a problem with that.
“CO2 can be the dominant factor controlling the long term trends in temperature, while natural variation, such as ENSO, volcanoes, PDO, can be important on shorter time scales.”
And, it could be the dominant long term factor in early onset Alzheimer’s, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and the prevalence of hangnails among fisher crews along the Dalmatian Coast.
We could speculate all day what it could cause, but without data, we have no basis to confirm it.
“And, it could be the dominant long term factor in early onset Alzheimers, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and the prevalence of hangnails among fisher crews along the Dalmatian Coast.”
The difference is there is no prior hypothesis or proposed mechanism to connect these things to CO2.
Besides, what we were discussing was whether or not AGW must account for all variation.
It need not.
“The difference is there is no prior hypothesis or proposed mechanism to connect these things to CO2.”
It does not matter. There is no unambiguous empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis. Until you have that, you cannot just assume it is correct.
“It need not.”
Again, whether it does or does not, there is no confirming evidence. The hypothesis is, at best, in limbo.
Bart says, September 6, 2018 at 7:00 PM:
This simple scientific principle, this basic fact of life, is something that these people will NEVER (!!) grasp. They will just keep on assuming it is correct. Simply because the hypothesis itself says so. Circular? Noooo …
“Thus there is an underlying physics based mechanism for a linear trend.”
So what? That means precisely jack squat without verification.
“And its possible to predict magnitudes.”
Of course it is. That’s trivial. Any model can predict magnitudes. The question is whether they are skillful. Climate models have not proven to be, so far.
“The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.”
So what? Do I need a theory of aerodynamic lift to observe an airplane flying?
“I see no reason to arbitrarily cutoff data at 1900. Just take into account increasing error going further back in time.”
We cannot quantify the error going back. We can only guess, and the guesses cannot be validated.
Bart,
I just don’t see how your method could match the skill of Hansens’s AGW model in 1980, predicting the decadal trends of the next 40 y, looking at the record to that point:
https://tinyurl.com/y8hl7mvy
Yes, that’s lame. I guess it is to prove the warming goes in steps and since CO2 doesn’t then CO2 is not related. This is non sequitur at best.
“There are statistical tests for step-changes. And you look at the data, for that. You dont just eyeball graphs.”
Wrong. Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models. The degree to which a model “fits” is not a reliable metric for determining how predictive it is.
Any dense basis can be used to model any process over a finite interval of time to arbitrary precision. This is an excellent way to fool yourself.
No one’s using fits for predictive purposes.
Bart says:
Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models.
Confirmation bias writ large!
I trust my eyeballs, but I don’t trust Bart’s.
Therefore its better to measure things with reliable tools and knowable error bars.
Headline: SCIENTISTS ANNOUNCE DISCOVERY OF THE HIGGS BOSON!
lead paragraph:
Geneva, Switzerland
In Switzerland today at the CERN high energy particle laboratory, scientists announced they have detected a new particle based on eyeballing their data.
“We just looked at it,” said Luigi Sipriano of his group’s data, “and the Higgs was clearly there. At least it was to me.”
Some of his teammates, working now for up to ten years on this project, insisted on analyzing the data with mathematical techniques, but Sipriano called them off, saying it was clear to him that eyeballing the data was good enough.
Anyone who disagreed, he said, “clearly wasn’t seeing straight.”
David, please stop trolling.
Ha!
Well put, David.
When one argument-loser compliments another, you know its Vomit Town.
The characteristic pattern of the Higgs was seen. They wouldn’t have considered it valid were it not readily observable.
https://home.cern/sites/home.web.cern.ch/files/image/inline-images/abelchio/zeeevent_aug21_v5.png
“Higgs was seen”
“readily observable”
Hardly
“Spotting this common Higgs-boson decay channel is anything but easy, as the six-year period since the discovery of the boson has shown. The reason for the difficulty is that there are many other ways of producing bottom quarks in protonproton collisions. This makes it hard to isolate the Higgs-boson decay signal from the background noise associated with such processes.”
“To extract the signal, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations each combined data from the first and second runs of the LHC, which involved collisions at energies of 7, 8 and 13 TeV. They then applied complex analysis methods to the data.”
DREMT
“When one argument-loser compliments another, you know its Vomit Town.”
Sounds a lot like trolling, DREMT. That would be a No-No.
Which argument have I lost, DREMT?
I have yet to see you win an argument.
How about ‘The moon doesn’t rotate’?
If you win an argument, I will be the first to congratulate you.
FYI Nate: when I don’t bother responding, it is because you haven’t made a point worth responding to.
Bart says:
The characteristic pattern of the Higgs was seen. They wouldnt have considered it valid were it not readily observable.
What Nate wrote.
(And my comment wasn’t meant to be taken literally.)
Nobody did, David, we just took it to be trolling.
You don’t need to respond to facts, such as “They then applied complex analysis methods to the data” to find the Higgs.
Up to you.
But this fact still refutes your ridiculous assertions that eyeballs are “more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models”.
“If you win an argument, I will be the first to congratulate you.”
DREMT/Halp takes on a new job as ‘neutral’ judge and jury.
I see your unhealthy obsessions are still very much rampant. All I ask is that you try to stop trolling.
“Obsession” I believe you trolled me first in this thread, DREMT/Halp/Tesla.
More nonsense from an obsessive troll.
David – ditto. I gave you the diagram.
Wrong. Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models.
My point was not about arbitrary models. Straw man.
Your eyes are the tools for a first pass. Then you test to see if the data are doing what you think they are doing.
That’s stats 101, under the heading, “How to not fool yourself.”
The degree to which a model “fits” is not a reliable metric for determining how predictive it is.
Why are you talking about predictiveness? That’s nothing to do with what I was saying.
FTR, I don’t think that a linear regression of the last 40 years, or a 3rd or 4th order polynomial or whatever, tells us where temps will be after another 40 years.
“My point was not about arbitrary models.”
All of your “statistical tests” are based on models that are unvalidated and disconnected from actual physics. A model of a linear trend with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary. A model of step changes with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary.
Such elementary models are just shots in the dark. I regularly have to code massive filters that are based on actual validated physical models with measurements that have their own characteristic dynamics. By way of comparison, I am in the major leagues, and you are playing with marbles. You can bamboozle neophytes with your faux sophistication. I’m having none of it.
“Why are you talking about predictiveness?”
Because that is the entire purpose of having a model. You don’t need a model to tell you what has already happened. You already know it has happened. You need a model to tell you what will happen in the future. Even when you use a model to illuminate what has happened in the past, it is so you can project what will happen in the future.
E.g., the model for the Higgs boson is not needed to confirm it exists because we don’t care if it exists unless it can do something for us. To make it do something for us, we need to be able to use it to predict particle interactions and the evolution of systems of particles.
“By way of comparison, I am in the major leagues, and you are playing with marbles.”
I don’t think you are aware of what leagues commenters are playing in.
We know you’re smart, Bart.
But then its hard to understand why you say such ridiculous things, regarding measurement, statistics, data analysis, and data that disagrees with you must be unreliable, etc, etc
More of it:
“the model for the Higgs boson is not needed to confirm it exists because we don’t care if it exists unless it can do something for us”
Complete failure to understand science.
“elementary models are just shots in the dark. I regularly have to code massive filters that are based on actual validated physical models with measurements that have their own characteristic dynamics.”
When doing science, and you’ve collected data that needs to be compared to various candidate theories, you should not assume the data has a certain functional form that matches one of the candidate theories.
You CAN try out various statistical models to fit the data and try to determine which model best fits the data, linear, polynomial, exponential etc.
Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.
“You CAN try out various statistical models to fit the data and try to determine which model best fits the data, linear, polynomial, exponential etc.”
To what purpose? To create swirly patterns that dazzle the eye?
No, the purpose is to use past data to project future events, so that we may derive the benefit of foreknowledge.
“Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.”
That is a valid method of teasing out a relationship. But, until an unequivocal match with theory is found, it is just an exercise. It establishes nothing.
“But then its hard to understand why you say such ridiculous things, regarding measurement, statistics, data analysis, and data that disagrees with you must be unreliable, etc, etc”
Statistics are means of data compression, and a statistical model that does not apply to the data can be worse than useless. Canned mathematical routines based upon specific assumptions can never replace the function of a conscious mind in analyzing data with unknown properties.
Data that disagree with me are not necessarily unreliable. But, data that cannot be validated or consistently corroborated cannot be considered reliable.
Bart,
A model of step changes with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary.
That’s pretty much where I started when I entered this conversation.
I don’t know what straw man you have in mind, but my point was that statistical analysis is a check on assumptions. ‘Step-jumps’ were an assumption I challenged.
That was it. You’ve brought a whole bunch of not-what-I-said to the party.
You use your eyes for a first pass. If you’re telling me that you do an eyeball check and hand in your conclusions to your superiors without any further analysis, then I’m gonna call you out for a liar.
“Step-jumps were an assumption I challenged.”
But, without a valid statistical model to check the assumption, you have no legitimate way to check it.
“If youre telling me that you do an eyeball check and hand in your conclusions to your superiors without any further analysis, then Im gonna call you out for a liar.”
I do if they don’t pass the check. And, I start there before selecting a model, which must not only be consistent with the data, but consistent with the physical processes involved. Randomly throwing darts at a board is no way to analyze data.
“And, I start there before selecting a model, which must not only be consistent with the data, but consistent with the physical processes involved. ”
I don’t follow. You already agreed with me that
“You CAN try out various statistical models to fit the data and try to determine which model best fits the data, linear, polynomial, exponential etc.
Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.”
is a valid approach.
Second, in choosing, as you do, to fit climate data to linear trend plus 60 y oscillation, what physical process is this consistent with? It seems arbitrary.
“Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.”
You can do anything you please. The question is whether it is productive. Fitting an arbitrary model to data is unlikely to provide insight into the process, or predictive skill.
“Second, in choosing, as you do, to fit climate data to linear trend plus 60 y oscillation, what physical process is this consistent with?”
Cyclical forcing with long characteristic time constants and/or solution of the governing partial differential equations via modal expansion.
Personally, I believe the ~60 year cycle is probably a beat frequency between the solar cycle and tidally induced precession of the Earth’s axis of rotation. These are at ~11 years and 9.3 years, respectively, producing a beat at 11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60 years.
“Personally, I believe the ~60 year cycle is probably a beat frequency between the solar cycle and tidally induced precession of the Earth’s axis of rotation. These are at ~11 years and 9.3 years, respectively, producing a beat at 11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60 years.”
Speculative at best. No way to predict a magnitude of this effect, unlike AGW.
And the 150 y linear rise in temp? What underlying physical mechanism produces ongoing linear rise? When does it stop and why?
“No way to predict a magnitude of this effect, unlike AGW.”
Sure there is. Get the angle between the polar axis and the Sun, use it in an appropriately phased sinusoid, and fit the amplitude to the observations.
You can argue that is not a validated model, but AGW is not a validated model, either. You can argue it requires empirical data to produce a fit, but AGW relies on empirical data as well.
“What underlying physical mechanism produces ongoing linear rise? When does it stop and why?”
I don’t know, but I know its onset preceded significant rise in CO2.
The climate has always varied due to a complex web of interlinking drivers and responses that we do not fully understand. Having a putative explanation for the variations does not elevate that explanation to fact.
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 9:01 AM:
It is not an assumption. It is an observation. The steps are there. In the global temps relative to scaled NINO3.4 SSTa:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/total.png
(Red curve: NINO3.4 SSTa, scaled x0.146; blue curve: Had-CRUt3gl, adjusted down 0.064K from Jan’98.)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-11.png
(First (East Pacific) step, 1979.)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-21.png
(Second (West Pacific+North Atlantic) step, 1988. Note: red NINO curve lifted to align it with the blue Had-CRUt curve from 1979 onwards.)
continued …
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-31.png
(Third (West Pacific+North Atlantic) step, 1998. Red curve once again shifted up to match the level of the blue curve, now from 1988 onwards.)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/post-step-32.png
(Post Step 3. Red curve brought up to the level of the blue one, from 1998 onwards.)
“and fit the amplitude to the observations.”
No, that is not a PREDICTED magnitude. It can’t be predicted can it? Then it is not a real theory. It is just numerology.
What underlying physical mechanism produces ongoing linear rise? When does it stop and why?
I dont know, but I know its onset preceded significant rise in CO2.”
OK there is no known underlying physical mechanism. Your model is linear but it could be something else.
In other words completely arbitrary. Exactly what you accuse us of doing.
“In other words completely arbitrary. Exactly what you accuse us of doing.”
But, much longer term. When you draw lines from any time after 1970, you are picking up additional warming from cyclical variation that is readily apparent, and is unlikely to be sustained. The longer term underlying trend stretches back to at least the early 1900’s (global average temperature data before that are highly speculative).
In this universe, cause must precede effect. The long term trend was in evidence long before CO2 started rising significantly.
With AGW, there is a well developed theory, and a forcing that can be quantified. The GHG forcing has been ~ linear since the 70s.
Thus there is an underlying physics based mechanism for a linear trend. And its possible to predict magnitudes. Some uncertainty remains on feedbacks.
This hypothesis, magnitude, and form of T rise are testable.
The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.
On the arbitrariness scale, AGW, is near 0, and your alternative theories are quite the opposite, very high.
” The longer term underlying trend stretches back to at least the early 1900s (global average temperature data before that are highly speculative).”
I see no reason to arbitrarily cutoff data at 1900. Just take into account increasing error going further back in time.
If we take the periodic component seriously, and remove it, the remaining trend since 1850 is at least quadratic.
“Thus there is an underlying physics based mechanism for a linear trend.”
So what? That means precisely jack squat without verification.
“And its possible to predict magnitudes.”
Of course it is. That’s trivial. Any model can predict magnitudes. The question is whether they are skillful. Climate models have not proven to be, so far.
“The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.”
So what? Do I need a theory of aerodynamic lift to observe an airplane flying?
“I see no reason to arbitrarily cutoff data at 1900. Just take into account increasing error going further back in time.”
We cannot quantify the error going back. We can only guess, and the guesses cannot be validated.
“If we take the periodic component seriously, and remove it, the remaining trend since 1850 is at least quadratic.”
Not by much, if at all. The residual from periodic + linear is very small:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg
CO2 emissions did not really take off until mid-century. This rise was established long before that could have been a significant driver.
““If we take the periodic component seriously, and remove it, the remaining trend since 1850 is at least quadratic.”
Not by much, if at all.”
This disagrees. https://tinyurl.com/y7uskazq
Again, no logical reason for choice of year 1900, other than to hide contrary evidence.
Good way to fool yourself.
“Of course it is. Thats trivial. Any model can predict magnitudes.”
Yours doesn’t (what is the predicted magnitude of your linear trend?), so that is an utterly ridiculous assertion.
N:”The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.”
Bart: “So what? Do I need a theory of aerodynamic lift to observe an airplane flying?”
You can’t be the same Bart who said this:
“All of your ‘statistical tests’ are based on models that are unvalidated and disconnected from actual physics.” A model of a linear trend with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary.”
and this
“Such elementary models are just shots in the dark.”
“This disagrees.”
Clearly, the stuff before 1900 is not dependent upon CO2.
“Yours doesnt “
Of course it does. Just extrapolate the linear trend + cyclical term forward in time.
It has skill. In the early 2000’s, I predicted a peak in mid-decade based on the cyclical pattern. By 2010, it had become apparent that such a peak had, in fact, occurred.
“You cant be the same Bart who said this:”
I am not doing statistical tests on short term data based upon arbitrary models. I am observing long term patterns.
Bart,
“Clearly, the stuff before 1900 is not dependent upon CO2.”
Yes but you need to see that it flattens out during this period, to compare to the later decades.
“Yours doesnt “
‘Of course it does. Just extrapolate the linear trend + cyclical term forward in time.’
Uh, so your prediction is based on the idea that past performance DOES predict future results?
Hows your stock portfolio doing?
I prefer to make predictions based on the fundamentals, in this case physics, which you have said is important.
Again, absent AGW, there is no fundamental reason to predict a never-ending linear trend.
Your method assumes the linear trend will continue, but does not predict an end, which clearly it must have.
“It has skill. In the early 2000’s, I predicted a peak in mid-decade based on the cyclical pattern. By 2010, it had become apparent that such a peak had, in fact, occurred.”
The peak in mid decade is now surpassed. Your peak is no longer a peak.
D,
Unfortunately, Nature doesn’t seem to believe you or the calculations you cannot show.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Bad luck for you.
You remain as stupid and ignorant as ever. Maybe you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that replacing CO2 at 20 C with N2 will cause a fall in temperature?
Dream on.
Cheers.
Barry Says:Skeptics complain of data being adjusted as if it is some sort of ad hoc process to get a better fit to AGW. In the article linked above, the data is adjusted in ad hoc ways to get a better fit for the argument.
Data adjustments done by professionals are not ad hoc but to remove false artefacts. They are quantified, tested multiple ways to prevent bias,
Since the 1st of the year GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
has been adjusted for 110 of the 252 monthly entries from the 19th century. And for all of the 516 monthly entries since January 1880, 516 have been adjusted. And for the 12 monthly entries for 2017 adjustments have been made to JAN, MAY, JUL, OCT, NOV & DEC.
So every month 25-30% of all the LOTI data is modified. I have LOTI files back to 2002 and since then it does add up. Looks like this:
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
And if you analyze what changes were made to what years it looks like this:
https://s6.postimg.cc/x2t8mty0x/GISSTEMP_Changes_2018_05.gif
(The values are in 0.01 degrees Celsius for both charts.)
All of the changes since 1970 add up in the positive column and nearly all of the changes prior to 1970 were negative.
That there is an obvious pattern is matter of fact, why those changes form a pattern is matter of opinion.
My opinion? It looks fishy.
Steve: adjustments (=corrections for biases) *REDUCE* the long-term warming trend.
David Appell says:
September 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM
Steve: adjustments (=corrections for biases) *REDUCE* the long-term warming trend.
Dave, This graphic
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
generated from LOTI as it was in 2002 and as it is today in 2018 shows that the long-term warming trend has *INCREASED*
Steve,
Hi.
So you see changes. the sum of changes produces more warming. If you are curious, you ask why. Then investigate.
Have you done this?
Or, worse, do you not investigate why and instead make assumptions?
David’s right, BTW. The raw data has a higher centennial trend than the adjusted. Mainly from cooling the long-term SST record (by significantly adjusting earlier temps upward).
So if you want raw data instead, get ready to be disappointed.
Meantime, why don’t you read the many methods papers out there and commentary besides and fill in your knowledge gaps? I’ve linked you to this kind of material in the past, but I can’t make you inform yourself. IIRC, you just don’t want to go there.
Barry says @ 7:07: So you see changes.
Yes I do, lots of changes, double digit percentages of changes every month all the way back to 1880.
Barry says: the sum of changes produces more warming.
It would appear so, the trend increased and the changes form a pattern
Barry says: If you are curious, you ask why. Then investigate. Have you done this? Or, worse, do you not investigate why…?
I’ve read about the homogenization techniques, and quality control of station data. I have a reply from Dr. Reto Ruedy at GISSTGEMP. I had asked why 100 year old data is constantly changed.
Barry says: Or, worse, do you … make assumptions?
Pointing out that changes are constantly made and form a pattern isn’t an assumption, it’s a matter of fact.
Barry says: David’s right, BTW. The raw data has a higher centennial trend than the adjusted. Mainly from cooling the long-term SST record (by significantly adjusting earlier temps upward).So if you want raw data instead, get ready to be disappointed.
Put up a link to a graph and a data source.
Barry says: Meantime, why don’t you read the many methods papers out there and commentary besides and fill in your knowledge gaps? I’ve linked you to this kind of material in the past, but I can’t make you inform yourself. IIRC, you just don’t want to go there.
So you want me to read about; Time of day observation, Change in instrumentation, Station moves, Urban Heat effect, Ship engine intakes vs. buckets. That kind of information? Or are you claiming there’s something way different and much much more?
So you’ve read up on the methods paper, and yet you always carry on as if you haven’t.
It’s like you don’t want anyone to know that the data is interrogated for bias. You seem to want to give the impression that all that is behind corrections is a need to create fake warming.
You notice that much of the data changes on a regular basis. I know why and it isn’t the least bit nefarious. Do you know why?
It’s because NOAA puts out monthly updates with the data they have at the time. But they don’t get everything in one big download. Data for previous months and years keeps coming in from around the world, and this gets added to the database. That’s why there are slight changes all the time. This is apart from any changes in data handling, which are less frequent.
Roy Spencer’s UAH data has the same thing happening to it. I have kept copies of the data stretching back a few years, and the older monthly anomalies change, even if there hasn’t been a formally published change in methods.
Here’s a chart of sea surface adjustments, that significantly cool the long-term record (by raising temps in the past).
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual-640×465.png
This is the article the chart comes from. A pretty good overview of why adjustments are necessary, and how the adjustment methods are tested for biases.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
Raw SSTs can be got from here:
http://icoads.noaa.gov/products.html
The chart of raw/adjusted for all global (land and sea) is in this article.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
The thing is, when skeptics actually do the work – create their own global temp records (or US) – using raw data, they come up with very similar products to the institutes.
It’s only those who have not done the work that continue to complain about adjustments. If even skeptics are coming up with similar results, where’s the beef?
Skeptic Phil Condon at the Air Vent:
“There are high trends from GHCN, so high in fact that anyone who questions Phil Climategate Jones temp trends will need to show some evidence. Certainly Phil is an ass, but it no longer seems to me that he has directly exaggerated temp trends one bit.”
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
Anthony Watt’s published paper on US temp record finds bias in min and max across different station classification, but the mean trend from their selection is virtually indistinguishable from NOAA’s average (min/max mean) temperature series for the US.
The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time‐of‐observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01C/decade….
Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.
http://www.landsurface.org/publications-protected/J108.pdf
And we all know the results from BEST.
Barry says:
September 4, 2018 at 5:42 PM
So youve read up on the methods paper, and yet you always carry on as if you havent.
…
Its because NOAA puts out monthly updates with the data they have at the time. But they dont get everything in one big download. Data for previous months and years keeps coming in.
And the pattern that I point out, I guess you’re saying that’s just the way it shakes out.
You provided a link to this graph
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual-640×465.png
Some questions:
1. When were those changes made?
2. Why do the 2002 LOTI 2018 LOTI data sets
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
disagree with that chart?
I suspect the answer to #1 Explains #2
I look at data, I look at the blogs too, but I don’t quote them usually. Carbon Brief – Clear on Climate is a blog
Here’s the link to the paper on buckets:
CORRECTION OF INSTRUMENTAL BIASES IN
HISTORICAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA
Looks like the 1948 physical tests weren’t actually re-done, but there was excellent agreement between the model and the 1948 Mark II canvas bucket data. The paper dated from 1993. Is that when the changes were made?
You know Barry, Besides this discussion on changing 100 year old GISS temperature data, I look out my window and at the data. And over the decades in my neck of the woods it’s mostly not happening, winters are warmer and summers are cooler. I look at Ryan Maue’s charts that show that hurricanes are about the same. I see charts that show that extreme Tornadoes in the United States have decreased over the years. I look at sea level data from the PSMSL and it looks like it undulates over the decades. Right now it’s up, pretty much like it was in 1950. I see that the Satellite data for sea level from the ’90s was recently changed, resulting in an acceleration curve that didn’t exist before. I do a daily Google search on “sea level” in the news and find ridiculous headlines about this or that community that will be under water and in text they talk about carbon emissions and ignore their local tide gauge. From what I see on the net, I’m fairly sure the polar population is up over the last decade. Well, I could go on.
You provided a link to Ocean Data
http://icoads.noaa.gov/products.html
That link wants me to:
Log in with an ID and password
Download special software.
Meet certain requirements.
Not going to happen.
2. Why do the 2002 LOTI 2018 LOTI data sets
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
disagree with that chart?
The chart I linked shows the difference between raw and adjusted temps. It shows that the raw data has a higher long-term warming trend than the adjusted data.
The chart you are showing shows 2 adjusted data sets, I believe – no raw data. It would take some reading (16 years worth of methods papers) to figure out what the changes are based, on, but one obvious one is that there are many more stations and better coverage in the 2018 version.
The long-term warming is higher in the raw data.
There’s another look here, with reference to both land and SSTs, for which adjustments have the opposite result (SST trend gets cooled, land-only trend gets warmed), but a warmer raw trend for land+ocean.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
So Steve,
I pointed to 3 different skeptic groups that downloaded the raw data (and sourced their own), did the work, and came up with results virtually identical to the institutes: Phil Condon, Anthony Watts and the BEST group.
Nothing to say about that?
Skeptics have been doing the work. Condon got a higher trend than Phil Jones. Watts got the same mean trend as NOAA for the US. BEST got higher global trends than NOAA and GISS.
Are you aware of this work?
Do you think they’re fudging the data?
barry says:
September 5, 2018 at 4:20 AM
2. Why do the 2002 LOTI 2018 LOTI data sets
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
disagree with that chart?
The chart I linked shows the difference between raw and adjusted temps. It shows that the raw data has a higher long-term warming trend than the adjusted data.
The chart you are showing shows 2 adjusted data sets, I believe – no raw data. It would take some reading (16 years worth of methods papers) to figure out what the changes are based, on, …
Well you have finally addressed my question, and you can’t answer it.
… but one obvious one is that there are many more stations and better coverage in the 2018 version.
So then it must follow (is obvious) that new stations are being found every month with data going back to the 19th century because since 2002 over 7500 of the monthly entries have been changed to the data prior to 1900. And as I point out, over all the years, these changes form a pattern. What’s the expression? Oh yes, “Shit happens” It’s just bad luck that all of these new stations with old data add up to something that looks fishy when actually that’s the way it shakes out.
barry says:
September 5, 2018 at 4:25 AM
So Steve,
I pointed to 3 different skeptic groups that downloaded the raw data (and sourced their own), did the work, and came up with results virtually identical to the institutes: Phil Condon, Anthony Watts and the BEST group.
Nothing to say about that?
Skeptics have been doing the work. Condon got a higher trend than Phil Jones. Watts got the same mean trend as NOAA for the US. BEST got higher global trends than NOAA and GISS.
Are you aware of this work?
Do you think theyre fudging the data?
I’m interested in data that I can actually see for myself. I can’t practically download the raw data that the volunteers wrote down 100 years ago, and I have no way of knowing what adjustments were initially made to those numbers.
How does that go, “There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” Donald Rumsfeld.
I know that early version of GISS had stations mostly from the US and Europe.
With a warm 1930 for both regions.
This made the record cooler than present.
Because when data from elsewhere came in, especially the Southern hemisphere, those regions didn’t have the same uber-warm 1930s.
That made the global record change because it wasn’t all weighted heavily in the US and Europe.
Why it changed from 2002 to 2018, you read up, seeing as you’re interested, and then tell us.
Because until you investigate like skeptics before have done, then “it’s fishy,” sound like an ignoramus trying to sensationalize.
I repeat:
Skeptics got the raw data. They did the work you haven’t done. They verified the official records.
They all started out saying, “This is fishy.”
They changed their minds after doing the hard yards.
So when Steve Johnny-come-lately Case calls “fudge” before doing the work…
Read up the links. These are actual skeptics (Anthony Watts, fer Chrissake) who finally did the hard work.
At the very least it should make you less inclined to call “fudge.”
Unless you like spinning that line in ignorance.
Unless you’re really about the messaging, not about the honest, humble truth-seeking.
Barry says: September 6, 2018 at 9:10 AM
I know that early version of GISS had stations mostly from the US and Europe. With a warm 1930 for both regions. This made the record cooler than present. Because when data from elsewhere came in, especially the Southern hemisphere, those regions didn’t have the same uber-warm 1930s. That made the global record change because it wasnt all weighted heavily in the US and Europe.
Because when data from elsewhere came in,
Is that data still coming in?
Why it changed from 2002 to 2018, you read up, seeing as you’re interested, and then tell us.
I don’t know, and you don’t know and it looks like you don’t care. If you would like acknowledge that those changes form a pattern and that you don’t know or care about that either, then that would be great.
Besides the pattern it’s the number of changes that are being made:
Between July and June of this year, the monthly entries in these two files
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index … 1880-06/2018
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index … 1880-07/2018
were changed as follows:
Chgs…Total..Pct….Time Line
457….1656…28%….1880 to 2018
183…..252…73%….1880 to 1900
..6…….6..100%….Jan to Jun 2018
Yes, 73% of the 19th century data was changed just last month and every month this year so far has been changed.
Because until you investigate like skeptics before have done, then “it’s fishy,” sound like an ignoramus trying to sensationalize. I repeat: Skeptics got the raw data. They did the work you havent done. They verified the official records. They all started out saying, “This is fishy.” They changed their minds after doing the hard yards.
I can’t investigate what was initially done to the raw data, but I can look at what it was in June and what it is in July. I can also compare the well over 100 versions of LOTI that I’ve collected to see that what one would think is established data changes every month.
So when Steve Johnny-come-lately Case calls “fudge” before doing the work Read up the links. These are actual skeptics (Anthony Watts, fer Chrissake) who finally did the hard work. At the very least it should make you less inclined to call fudge. Unless you like spinning that line in ignorance. Unless youre really about the messaging, not about the honest, humble truth-seeking.
One of the reasons I dog this one, is I never see anyone on the blogs I follow bring up the sheer number of changes being made every month. There’s lots of talk about the pattern, “Lower the past and increase the recent” they say, but as you point out they talk about the raw data. But data that you would think would be settled isn’t. They changed every monthly entry January to June of this year when July came out for God’s sake.
Well you’re right I don’t understand why the GISSTEMP LOTI data is changed over and over and over and over again every month and it’s unlikely I’ll find out.
Well youre right I dont understand why the GISSTEMP LOTI data is changed over and over and over and over again every month and its unlikely Ill find out.
I already answered that!
“Its because NOAA puts out monthly updates with the data they have at the time. But they dont get everything in one big download. Data for previous months and years keeps coming in from around the world, and this gets added to the database. Thats why there are slight changes all the time. This is apart from any changes in data handling, which are less frequent.”
Now, for someone who complains that no one ever answers your questions, what steps have you taken to answer them yourself?
I came across this GISTEMP FAQ in 2 minutes of googling.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
Answering questions like:
“Do the raw data ever change, and why do monthly updates impact earlier global mean data?”
And
“How did the GISS analysis and their sources change over time, and how did this affect the results?”
And
“Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?”
And
“Why are some current station records different from what was shown before 2012?”
There are also the methods papers to read, as well as papers commenting on changes, and blogs doing the same. Sources that give answers instead of posing loaded questions.
Have you not troubled yourself to look this up, or are you hoping someone will do the work for you?
barry says:
September 9, 2018 at 2:08 AM
Well you’re right I don’t understand why the GISSTEMP LOTI data is changed over and over and over and over again every month and its unlikely Ill find out.
I already answered that!
I’ve been through the GISS Frequently Asked Questions page here’s one you highlighted:
Q. Do the raw data ever change, and why do monthly updates impact earlier global mean data?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.
These occasional corrections are one reason why monthly updates not only add e.g. global mean estimates for the new month, but may slightly change estimates for earlier months. Another reason for such changes are late reports for earlier months; finally, as more data become available, they impact the results of NOAA/NCEI’s homogenization scheme and of NASA/GISS’s combination scheme, particularly in the presence of data gaps
My comment is “Occasional Corrections!?” GISS changes perhaps 25% of the monthly entries since 1880 every month. That comes to maybe 80,000 changes made since 2002, the earliest record in the current format I can find. There are earlier reports back to 1997.
I’m not asking you to explain it; I’m just asking you to acknowledge the number of these changes. And that it produces a pattern. I’m asking that people acknowledge that as a matter of fact. “Why such a large number?” And especially, “Why the pattern?” Leads to an unproductive discussion which is what’s been going on here. But a discussion that simply establishes fact, i.e., how many data entries have been made and how many have been changed should be straight forward. Additionally if you graph those changes out, what it looks like should also be reasonably straight forward.
Now if you think that those tens of thousands of changes to the LOTI that I claim have been made is off the mark, then I will be glad to send you the nearly 120 out of a possible 192 monthly editions of the GISS LOTI that I’ve gleaned from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and you can load them up into Excel to count and graph it all out yourself.
I really don’t want to discuss the why.
Kristian,
If you can avoid the knee-jerk sniping at the messenger, this is an excellent post on the pitfalls of what you are doing – and goes into more depth, too.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/steps/
And I’ll quote the most relevant parts.
“Let’s apply the same regime shift detection tool (from Radionov) used by the blog post’s author. It indicates 6 regime shifts over the 100-year period. Each of the regime shifts is strongly statistically significant, theres absolutely no doubt about it….
This illustrates one of the most important lessons in statistics: just because your model is overwhelmingly statistically significant, that doesnt mean your model is correct. It only shows that the null hypothesis is wrong….
The other fact of the matter is that for these data, the trend is perfectly linear. This is artificial data, and thats how I designed it a linear trend plus random noise.”
This is a level above what you’ve done – this actually applies significance testing (and still gets step-changes as statistically significant). But it shows the folly of over-interpreting – whether by eyeballing graphs, or, at a more granular level, from testing the data for the patterns you think are there.
There are a couple of other posts from the same statistician on step-changes
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/step-2/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/
See if you can wrestle with the message here. I know what run-of-the-mill ‘skeptics’ would do.
barry…”If you can avoid the knee-jerk sniping at the messenger, this is an excellent post on the pitfalls of what you are doing and goes into more depth, too”.
Allow me to snipe on Kristian’s behalf. Tamino is an uber-alarmist and a musician by trade. He dabbles in misinterpretations of science that suit his AGW belief system and prided himself at one point on being Hansen’s bulldog.
If the rants of Tamino are all you have for evidence, you have no evidence, as Mike has already implied.
Tamino is David Appell on steroids.
b,
Statistics applied to irrelevant numbers are meaningless. Tamino may wax as lyrical as he likes, and appeal to his own authority as loudly as he likes.
It makes no difference. Statistics are derivations of historical numbers, and do not predict the future at all. Correlations are meaningless, particularly if you cannot even describe why you are correlating one set of numbers with another set of numbers.
Tamino cannot describe the GHE, any more than you can. Just more deny, divert, and confuse, in the usual fruitless climatological pseudoscientific fashion.
Carry on. Maybe you can bend Nature to your will, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
barry…quote from tamino…”Theres a good bit of hand-waving about visual inspection of graphs (which really amounts to it sure looks like a step change), but the essence of the proof comes from modelling the data as two different straight lines, one fit to data before the purported step change, the other fit to data after the purported step change. The stated conclusion is:”
*****
This amounts to a statistician telling an observer that he/she should not trust his/her eyes but instead, believe a modeled version of the data.
That is utter, pseudo-scientific rubbish. If you look at an accurately plotted graph of data, and you see a sudden step change why should you ignore it and accept a smoothed version of the same data in a model?
Modelers are not scientists, they are mathematicians playing with numbers, aka number-crunchers. It’s the height of arrogance for modelers to claim to be bona fide scientists when it’s plain their models do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.
Gordon Robertson says, September 1, 2018 at 6:31 PM:
What Tamino fails to realise (or tries to hush up) is the fact that you never spot a step change in a set of data by just looking at that set of data in isolation. That’s ridiculous. THEN you will fool yourself. No, you discover it only when comparing your dataset to OTHER relevant/related sets of data. Like in this case here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
What physical process(es) in the last several decades caused a step change?
This amounts to a statistician telling an observer that he/she should not trust his/her eyes but instead, believe a modeled version of the data.
Your opinions blind you. THIS is what Tamino wrote about data models in the first link:
“This illustrates one of the most important lessons in statistics: just because your model is overwhelmingly statistically significant, that doesnt mean your model is correct.”
Exhibiting exactly the sort of knee-jerk messenger shooting I warned of, you missed where your mischaracterization is completely contradicted at the first link.
And do you know what else you got wrong? Tamino is saying that the ‘skeptics’ used modeling as proof of their claims. That bit you quoted is about what they did, not what he did.
And di you get as far as the 3rd lin, because the very first sentence in that post is:
“One of the most important lessons to learn about statistics, and not forget, is that just because your model is statistically significant, that doesnt mean its right. In fact, just about all models are wrong. And some models, even some which strongly pass statistical significance, arent even useful.”
You don’t ever read for comprehension. You read for little bits of text you can rail against. You always miss the point. Your characterization of fault here is what the skeptics Tamino is excoriating did, not Tamino. In fact, he agrees with you. But your knee jerks so much it hits you in the eyes.
We’ll see if Kristian does better.
b,
Tamino can have any delusion he likes
Pseudoscientific climatological types have no testable hypothesis about anything. They can’t even describe the nonsensical supposed “greenhouse effect”.
Climate is the average of weather – that’s all. Of course the climate changes, and nobody except a mentally afflicted person would claim otherwise.
The “skeptics” you refer to merely assert that climatological pseudoscientists cannot even describe what it is they are talking about! CO2 causing heating? You can’t even bring yourself to claim that, because it is ridiculous!
Off you go, now. Have a grizzle about someone laughing at your stupid statistics, models, and all the rest of your pseudoscientific folderol. The laughter you hear might not only be mine.
Cheers.
I’m sorry, barry, but this is not “an excellent post on the pitfalls of what” I’m doing. It is an excellent exposition of how people who are not the least bit interested in the actual physical processes behind the observational data being plotted, only in ways to statistically manipulate and “interpret” them, as if the data had no connection whatsoever to things happening in the physical world, rather just randomly generated inside a mathematical model. Like Tamino. And you, apparently.
Quoting Hare & Mantua (the ‘discoverers’ of the PDO pattern): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222545801_Empirical_Evidence_for_North_Pacific_Regime_Shifts_in_1977_and_1989
(Emphasis added.)
This is just one piece of the puzzle, barry. You should read some papers on this subject. Some are cited in my blog post linked above. It is mighty interesting.
Tamino ASSUMES (without evidence) a background (CO2) trend and interprets all the ups and downs along the graph as just inconsequential noise on that trend, when the data itself tells a very different story. Rooted in NATURE itself. The background trend that he “sees” is nothing more than the statistically generated linear trend line that you draw across the data. And it happens to go up only BECAUSE of those abrupt upward shifts in the data. There is no gradual increase in the data, with noise just randomly distributed. The data increases in a very systematic fashion indeed: decadal no-change (regimes) > intra-annual change (regime shifts) > cycle repeats. You realise this as soon as you actually start making an effort to try and FOLLOW the processes at work within the real Earth system, rather than just sitting in front of your graph trying to figure out ways to make it agree with your preconceived ideas about what SHOULD be going on in the real world … Like Tamino does. And you, apparently.
First, you’ve linked to a paper on climate regime shifts in the North Pacific and Bering seas. There is no connection in this study to, or discussion of, global temperature indices. Nor is there that in Trenberth’s paper that came out around the same time. The PDO is associated with heterogenous cold/warm regions during each phase. Early papers don’t make the global connection. That comes later, with varying results that you see fit to ignore. Are you read up on this topic? If so, you’re not honest about the variety or weight of opinion.
Secondly, you can’t read.
Tamino ASSUMES (without evidence) a background (CO2) trend and interprets all the ups and downs along the graph as just inconsequential noise on that trend… The background trend that he “sees” is nothing more than the statistically generated linear trend line that you draw across the data…
I’ll quote Tamino on your idea of what he “sees.”
The idea is silly. For one thing, greenhouse-gas theory doesnt imply that temperature must follow a linear pattern.
That’s the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the first link.
Skim much? Did you even read his posts before commenting?
He goes on:
…claiming that “Warming during 1960-2010 was clearly a non-linear process” is simply stating the obvious, whether one is talking about “at station level” (as the blog post does), or about global averages, or the output of compute models.
Did you read the link, or are you rebutting from memory?
Tamino’s point is that you should not trust your eyes, you should not even trust models – including linear ones – that give you statistically significant results. You need more rigour.
He has 10 times the rigour (and skill) that you do.
If it wasn’t already obvious from your arsing up of what he is saying in these posts.
The PDO may have some influence on global temperatures. But you haven’t demonstrated it, and you have in no way demonstrated that there are step-jumps with any statistical rigour whatsoever. Eyeballing graphs doesn’t cut it, and applying ad hoc jumps and trends without establishing a quantifiable basis for these choices is simply making the elephant wiggle his trunk.
You commit first order mistakes in handling data. Worse, you don’t do any testing for significance or fit. You trust your eyeballs. It’s the 1st thing you learn NOT to do in stats 101.
Thirdly, you’ve gone from a post about three ENSO-related step-jumps in 1979, 88 and 98. The PDO shift is in 1976/77.
You’ve got step-jumps on the brain, and no physical basis for them. In any similarly variable data set with an underlying continuous signal, you are boundto see step-like jumps if you filter your brain for them. It’s virtually inevitable – even if the data is actually linear.
That’s Tamino’s point. Don’t fool yourself with what you want to see.
The skeptics he takes to task at least attempted some statistical analysis to check their results. You don’t even get that far. You fool yourself wholeheartedly.
Roy has shown that step-jumps don’t reject a continuous underlying trend.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
El Ninos are exactly the kind spike that could create the impression of step-jumps when there is a continuous rising trend. I’d guess that, unless a volcanic eruption accompanies a strongish to very strong el Nino, it will look like a step jump follows more times than it won’t.
Just you watch. 2016 will be the latest in a growing line of ‘step-jump’ start years according to the skeptic milieu who are into step-jumps as the antidote to AGW. And the next strongish el Nino will be the start of the next one, barring volcanic eruption or meteor strike.
Because the warming of the last 100 years is going to continue.
You can bet on it. I’m still willing to. No takers yet.
So what is your best bet about the coming cooling, Kristian? Or do your views have no predictive quality? Can you read the tea leaves for global temps in the PDO/AMO patterns you seem so sure about, or is your whole interest in these things about debunking AGW?
barry says, September 2, 2018 at 5:00 AM:
And by that you have effectively disqualified yourself from any further discussion on this topic. You have shown that you do not understand the physical processes at work. You look at a graph tracing real-world observational data and think it’s all about statistics. That statistics alone will answer your questions. PDO does not in any way have an “influence on global temperatures”, barry. PDO is but a symptom. One particular set of SST patterns (out of several) seen in the North Pacific. It is not itself a cause. It is a signal. One indicator (out of several) of a particular climate state. There are tons of papers out there on these things. Like I said, just one piece of the puzzle. More pieces in the linked blog post. The one you of course can’t be bothered to read. Because you fear you might learn something you don’t really want to learn. Better to stay ignorant and rather listen to Master Tamino.
Well, if you refuse to actually read up on the subjects you’re opining about, as you tend to do, you will never gain any actual understanding, and you will remain a mere mindless barking dog.
Bye for now.
Kristian, it’s pretty well accepted that the PDO has an effect on surface temperatures, and probably (as Trenberth said) gave the impression that over the 1980s and 1990s warming due to CO2 was thought to be too high.
Sorry, Kristian, amping up the arrogance is a poor smokescreen.
I’ve read a ton on the PDO. You can’t even accurately parse a blog post.
You have shown that you do not understand the physical processes at work.
The causes of the PDO are still unknown. The physical processes are varied, and only a handful are well established. Are you pumping up your chest here or did you have a point?
You look at a graph tracing real-world observational data and think it’s all about statistics. That statistics alone will answer your questions.
You’re an idiot.
It’s remarkable that you attribute a view to me that is 180 degrees from what I’ve written. It seems you go completely blind when encountering views that challenge yours. No other way to explain this extraordinary wrong-arsed take on what people are saying, whether Tamino, me or whoever else ruffles your unnuanced convictions.
His message and mine are the same – don’t trust your eyes to tell you the truth, use them for a first-pass approximation. Test your take on data with statistical analysis, and be wary of false positives.
For the rest, your views are incoherent.
You chimed in on a post about global temps and step-jumps. You introduce ENSO and the PDO to that conversation and then say the PDO is unrelated to global temps. You definitely made a positive connection between PDO and global temps in your blog posts.
We’ve already accounted for the 1979 global step (Step 1). It occurred as a direct result of the PDO (PDV) phase shift from a ‘negative’ (cool) to a ‘positive’ (warm) regime in 1976/77
In your reply just above you say;
PDO does not in any way have an “influence on global temperatures”, barry.
This apparent lack of coherence is your doing, not mine. If you’ve walked off with a good bye, that’s probably because you posted before reading and thinking and don’t know how to walk it back. A little less entrancement with your own views may help you comprehend other people’s comments.
The PDO has indeed been tied – and untied – to global surface temps. That’s part of the literature.
But this digression has gone far enough.
Step-jumps inglobal temperatures do not have an explained physical basis. Because data is noisy and there are spikes (such as with el Ninos), the data can appear to be step-jumps when they are by no means necessarily so.
You do no significance testing for your views. you just draw straight lines and presume. this is a first order mistake. It’s basic and it’s foolhardy.
I do not claim AGW forces linear trends, or that these best describe the evolution of global temps for the whole record. But people here announce that the temp data are definitely step-jumps (and say that el Ninos cause them).
Quite the opposite of what you claim, I’m arguing for a more cautious appraisal of temp data.
You and the people you defend are incautious, uncritical, and unskeptical.
Your arrogance is part and parcel of that. Your scorn at any significance testing is as hollow as your agenda is clear.
You could come clean and say you are not familiar with the techniques, and cannot perform them.
You could bullshit about by saying that these methods are not foolproof and are overrated – but it would obviously be BS.
Instead, you’ve avoided the point for a few posts. Because you’d rather appear the expert in your own limited domain than suffer the ignominy of real scrutiny – and especially and more sadly – real self-scrutiny.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry says, September 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM:
Hahaha! Ok.
Bye, barry.
Ha!
Good old Kristian. He can always be counted on to arrogantly lecture people on things (like PDO) that he is thoroughly confused about.
Perhaps he should argue it out with himself first, before deciding other people are misguided.
Bye-bye, Kristian.
Yes, bye-bye Nate and barry. Please stop trolling.
Yes, DREMT.
barry has forever earned himself a new nickname: “‘You’re an idiot’ barry”. When you know you’ve got nothing, just call your opponent an idiot. Really makes you look like a winner …!
The problem, Kristian, is that Barry showed very clearly you contradicting yourself.
Then you call him “disqualified” for taking a position YOU took.
I would also call that idiotic.
Really makes you look like a winner !
Nate says, September 5, 2018 at 7:16 AM:
Um, no, he didn’t. He (and you, apparently) might THINK he did, but, no, he didn’t.
Again, no. He disqualified himself when stating the following:
“The PDO may have some influence on global temperatures.”
This is NOT a position I took, Nate. If that’s your belief, then you can’t read. The PDO is not a physical process that is able to ‘influence’ anything. If you think so, you have some reading to do.
I’m sure you would, Nate.
What Tamino fails to realise (or tries to hush up) is the fact that you never spot a step change in a set of data by just looking at that set of data in isolation. That’s ridiculous. THEN you will fool yourself. No, you discover it only when comparing your dataset to OTHER relevant/related sets of data. Like in this case here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
So barry sets up a straw man. As if I’d claimed you could just look at a single graph in isolation, without any kind of context, and distinguish actual steps from noise in the data.
Yes, DREMT.
Oh dear.
Chumming up to the resident troll to get another pile of bollocks in after saying good bye.
You got what I said and what Tamino said 180 degrees wrong.
You contradicted yourself.
You avoided – or missed – the point in spectacular fashion.
I hope you’re a shill. That’s the explanation that best excuses such a waste of intelligence, and your ‘appalling reading skills’.
Look forward to you replying to what was said, and not what you wished had been said.
K: “The PDO is not a physical process that is able to ‘influence’ anything. ”
Noting an association, a correlation, between the phase of PDO and global climate is what you have done, what many others in the literature have done…
and now Barry has the audacity to do.
This leads you to, once again, get on your semantic high-horse and lecture people about the horrible errors they are making by talking about things in the wrong way (according to only you).
All very pointless and hypocritical.
So barry sets up a straw man. As if Id claimed you could just look at a single graph in isolation, without any kind of context, and distinguish actual steps from noise in the data.
I’ll just repeat myself here.
“Youve got step-jumps on the brain, and no physical basis for them.”
I presume by “context” you meant “physical processes behind the data.” Was I right?
El Nino events could be step jumps or just spikes. But you have posted neither the stats nor the physics to determine either way, just ad hoc data fudging.
I’ve never said what kind of trend there is. Neither did Tamino. That was all your straw manning. All your off the wall, wasted bluster.
All I did was call out specious certainty. You should loosen your grip on that.
Let’s get Kristian on the record more clearly. The bolding is just as he posted it:
“We’ve already accounted for the 1979 global step (Step 1). It occurred as a direct result of the PDO (PDV) phase shift from a ‘negative’ (cool) to a ‘positive’ (warm) regime in 1976/77, as the East Pacific experienced a significant wholesale surface warming while the West Pacific did not similarly cool to offset that warming”
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-iii-steps-2-3/
So Kristian has connected the PDO to global effects as a “direct result”. But when I suggest that the PDO may effect global temps he says:
“by that you have effectively disqualified yourself from any further discussion on this topic…. PDO does not in any way have an “influence on global temperatures…”
barry, YOU are a troll. Please stop.
barry says, September 4, 2018 at 6:48 PM:
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 9:19 AM:
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 9:44 AM:
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 10:17 AM:
‘You’re an Idiot’ barry (or just ‘… Idiot’ barry for short) once again shows what a winner he is.
Well done, Kristian.
Nate says, September 6, 2018 at 9:43 AM:
Two things:
1) The only PDO phase shift I’m discussing is the 1976/77 one, in association with the so-called “Great Pacific Climate Shift”. It is the only one over the course of the last 45-50 years where the PDO index correlates with global temps:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/pdo-1970-2018.png
2) Yes, an association, a correlation between the PDO index and global temps, Nate. That is NOT the same as believing the PDO to be an ocean process of some kind, somehow itself capable of exerting an influence on global temps. The PDO made its jump at the same time as global temps did. That’s the association. That’s the extent of it. No one is claiming the PDO caused the jump in any way. The PDO phase shift was just an expression (one out of several) of the basin-wide “Great Pacific Climate Shift”.
All of this you would’ve known, Nate, if only you’d bothered to READ my blog posts on this subject. But that is of course of no interest to you. You’re not here to read or understand what I actually write, or to look at the actual evidence I present. You’re here to misdirect and misrepresent. Just like barry.
No. barry wrote the following: “The PDO may have some influence on global temperatures.”
Which gives away his fundamental ignorance on this subject. He also hasn’t read my blog posts. Just like you. Yet he pretends he knows everything about my position. He’s not interested in the processes behind the data. Which are readily observable, readily traceable. He just wants to be able to play with the data, as if it were comprised of just randomly generated numbers. Just like Tamino.
K:
“He also hasn’t read my blog posts. Just like you.”
FYI.
Arrogantly bludgeoning people with your opinions disguised as facts does not encourage people to seek out and read your much longer essays, which are very repetitive, very opinionated, chock full of assumptions and inferences that don’t always stand up to scrutiny.
There are plenty of other, better ways of learning about climate science and forming our own opinions.
K:””The PDO made its jump (1977) at the same time as global temps did. Thats the association. Thats the extent of it. ”
Not sure why you neglect the 1920s, 1940s, 2000s correlated jumps.
“No one is claiming the PDO caused the jump in any way. ”
Roy Spencer, for one has suggested the PDO is a cause of much of the 20th century global warming pattern.
See here for an example of a well written essay on the topic.
https://skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-advanced.htm
Nate says, September 8, 2018 at 8:00 AM:
Quite a confession. But thanks. That’s all I needed to know.
You’re all like little children in a sandpit. Don’t like something? Just scream at it until it goes away.
Look,
If you’re going to loudly opine about someone else’s position on a specific topic, you better start by making sure you know and understand what that someone is actually saying first. Otherwise, stay away. If you don’t want to know, just leave it be.
I do get that you people have made a virtue out of ignoring this fundamental rule of mature, productive discourse, and rather prefer setting up straw men and misrepresenting your opponents as a deliberate debate tactic. But this circumstance doesn’t prevent me from continuing to point out the fact that you do. In fact, at this point, that’s all I need to do. It is abundantly clear (and has been for a long time), after all, that even trying to have any sort of objective discussion about anything climate with you people is utterly pointless and a complete waste of time …
Nate says, September 8, 2018 at 9:03 AM:
*Facepalm*
Q.E.D.
The chart of raw/adjusted for all global (land and sea) is in this article.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
The thing is, when skeptics actually do the work – create their own global temp records (or US) – using raw data, they come up with very similar products to the institutes.
It’s only those who have not done the work that continue to complain about adjustments. If even skeptics are coming up with similar results, where’s the beef?
Skeptic Phil Condon at the Air Vent:
“There are high trends from GHCN, so high in fact that anyone who questions Phil Climategate Jones temp trends will need to show some evidence. Certainly Phil is an ass, but it no longer seems to me that he has directly exaggerated temp trends one bit.”
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
Anthony Watt’s published paper on US temp record finds bias in min and max across different station classification, but the mean trend from their selection is virtually indistinguishable from NOAA’s average (min/max mean) temperature series for the US.
The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time‐of‐observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01C/decade….
Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.
http://www.landsurface.org/publications-protected/J108.pdf
And we all know the results from BEST.
Wrong sub-thread
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says average surface temperatures on Earth rose 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) between 1880 and 2016, and that change is accelerating in recent years. In 2017, 159 nations ratified the Paris Agreement to try to halt the warming at 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C) above Earth’s average temperature before the Industrial Age. Given industry’s and transportation’s reliance on fossil fuels, many studies say that agreement will be difficult to keep to.
For example, a 2017 study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggests that Earth’s climate will be 1.5 degrees higher as early as 2026. This would happen if the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) fluctuates back to a warm period, instead of its current cool period. (IPO changes similarly to El Nio and La Nia in the Pacific).”
https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html
In some time after the beginning of 2019, what will NOAA say about global average temperature between 1880 to 2018.
I wonder whether they wait until they give the average of 1880 to 2019- as it then would be a round number of 140 years.
It seems the guys of Geophysical Research Letters can’t figure out
what ocean oscillation is going to do. And tend to think it would be important and I have no particular insight into what they going to do.
The escalator graph:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
Yeah, it’s funny. It were funnier though if the data were not reinterpreted in retrospect to fit the linear trend so awesomely well.
I just can not believe my eyes when I see some linear fits; they are too good given the chaotic nature of Nature.
It’s easy to do linear regression — the fit is what it is, with associated uncertainties. It’s not up to you to tell Nature what to do.
Really? How is the bottom quartile of the data looking now vs before the El Nino?
Where’s the equivalent graph for the Anthropocene component?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
Predicted June18-Aug18 average = 0.00 C
Actual June18-Aug2018 average = +0.24 C
You sure showed him, David! I guess to you it seems like your the stronger and that you’re pounding him down where he should be. But to me, it just seems you are the equivalent of a bully. To me, you’re just a mean person. I have no clue why a nice guy like Roy allows you on here.
But now that you’re done with Salvador, show the rest of us the truth. What is your prediction David?
Surely someone that posts on here as much as you post must have an actual opinion. Out of all those models, which one is correct? Take a stand. Show us the correct one. If you don’t have a prediction of your own, be half as brave as Salvador and at least pick one of the many models that the IPCC looks at and tell us which one is correct? Tell us oh perfect one – which model is correct?
Mike…”I guess to you it seems like your the stronger and that youre pounding him down where he should be. But to me, it just seems you are the equivalent of a bully”.
What would you expect from someone who was banned from WUWT for insulting the deceased mother of the host. Anyone with any decency would have apologized but Appell just smirks and justifies his behavior.
That kind of behavior seems prevalent with alarmists.
Salvador doesn’t hurt anyone with his predictions. David is a mean person and I’m really surprised Roy doesn’t ban him.
If Salvator makes these very bold predictions (and keeps changing them when he is wrong) it only makes sense that he is being called out on it.
If you want a prediction from me: The next decade will be warmer on average than the current one.
Salvatore hurts anyone with any realism. He also hurts the cause of scepticism.
wert says:
Salvatore hurts anyone with any realism. He also hurts the cause of scepticism.
Yes, that’s a very good point. Salvatore’s long series of bad predictions stand against anyone who really does want to discuss skepticism about how climate is changing, and why.
As many have said, We need better skeptics.
Gordon Robertson says:
“What would you expect from someone who was banned from WUWT for insulting the deceased mother of the host.”
Gordon lies.
I made a joke about Watts’ denialism — that he denies everything, his denial is so bad he even denies his own mother exists.
Of course, I knew nothing about Watts’ mother. But Watts saw the chance to play the victim and attack me for it, which, being Watts, he did.
Then people like Gordon, who care nothing for honesty, repeat the lie.
David, please stop trolling.
Salvatore only missed by that much!
Yeah and I’d be one of them. Thanks for ‘the fix’ Roy.
Now on to reading the inevitable abrasive comments by the brainwashed few.
The NCEP Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS) preliminary monthly average global mean surface temperature for August 2018 based on daily CDAS averages was 16.367C, which is the lowest August average since August 2013 at 16.266C. The August 2018 global mean surface temperature anomaly referenced to 1981-2010 was 0.147C compared to 0.220C for July 2018 and was the lowest global mean surface temperature anomaly since 0.089C for April 2015.
Lots of graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
Because El Nio will not develop, the surface temperature will not increase.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Sorry. El Nino.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
What’s more, in the winter period, strong stratospheric intrusions in the north threaten.
“Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
And if it does, will you announce that you were wrong, or will you act like you never made the claim?
I hope that you will announce it. I am waiting.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat4_sstanom_1-day.png
What does a map from today have to do with an event that is not supposed to have begun yet?
Look under, Ren.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Look at the winter in the southern hemisphere.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer1×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
La Nina is more likely than El Nino.
El Nino could have developed at the beginning of August, but it did not happen.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
I haven’t seen anyone forecast an El Nino for August. But the IRI-Columbia puts it at a 60% chance by fall and a 70% chance by winter.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
El Nino could have developed at the beginning of August, but it did not happen.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
“La Nina is more likely than El Nino.”
According to no one but you, Ren.
The required westerly wind bursts have already happened.
The subsurface ocean heat content is already enroute to the East-Central Pacific.
There is no choice now about nino 3 and 3.4 warming in the next 2 months.
The only question is how strong and sustained the warming will be.
Do you think that for two winter months in the southern hemisphere, the eastern Pacific will warm up?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
Ren,
SH is entering Spring. Perfect time for an El Nino. At the moment all signs point to that.
Boom. The AGW hoax is all but debunked.
{rolls eyes}
If only back into your head, never to arise again.
L,
The eye rolling is accompanied by facial contortions, and an excess of drool.
Next comes vigorous flapping of brightly coloured pieces of paper created by the pedestrian mathematician Gavin Schmidt, accompanied by mewling demands to look at his “evidence”.
The evidence is clear. David is unable to distinguish fantasy from fact, and possibly believes that CO2 has magical energy creating properties. He probably even believes that a reduction in the rate of cooling is warming, or heating!
Oh well, it takes all kinds, I suppose.
Cheers.
Lewis, are you wishing me dead?
Classy.
David, please stop trolling.
I can now post the full numbers for a little experiment which limits climate noise. As we can see the full warming is a little less than .3 C.
When combined with the cooling experienced from 1940-1980 we end up with about .25 C of warming for the past 80 years. If that is all we see in the next 80 years I don’t see a problem.
RSS
April-August 1980-81 14.5 C (58.1F) .03C
April-August 1990…..14.6 C (58.1F) .05C
April-August 1995-96..14.6 C (58.2F) .10C
April-August 2001-02..14.8 C (58.6F) .31C
April-August 2007…..14.7 C (58.5F) .24C
April-August 2014…..14.8 C (58.6F) .30C
April-August 2018…..14.8 C (58.6F) .30C*
UAH
April-August 1980-81 14.4 C (58.0F) -.06C
April-August 1990…..14.5 C (58.1F) .02C
April-August 1995-96..14.6 C (58.2F) .09C
April-August 2001-02..14.7 C (58.4F) .19C
April-August 2007…..14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
April-August 2014…..14.7 C (58.4F) .17C
April-August.2018…..14.7 C (58.5F) .22C
Net warming from RSS = .27 C, UAH = .28 C
What is the rationale for such strange selections?
Limiting “climate noise” (you mean weather noise) is done by omitting Sep-Mar data? Que??
Much of the noise in climate comes from ENSO. It is well known that ENSO peaks right around the NH winter solstice. Hence, eliminate the fall/winter months to eliminate much of the ENSO noise. This also tends to reduce AMO noise.
In addition, it helps selecting years without the effects of two major volcanoes (It is not all weather related.) and full year ENSO events.
What’s left is then examined to again eliminate as much of the ENSO noise that is left.
ENSO is in no way symmetrical in the way it falls out over the seasons. Symmetrically excising data from the record creates a false filter.
Here are some indices that show this.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/ensoevents.html
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/mei.data
3 different indices on 3 different ENSO metrics for thoroughness – no cherry-picking of sources here. There are other sources, too, Australian and European.
A simpler way is to use all the data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12/trend/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/trend
Results:
UAH = 0.50
RSS = 0.78
Why do skeptics keep assuming trends in the future (or past) are supposed to be linear?
Why would anyone use all the noisy data?
Have you heard of a least-squares fit?
Because in most cases more information is better, and in this case there is significantly more information than what you selected, for which the rationale is not well-supported (see above).
With this much information and using a linear regression for the overall change, the ENSO fluctuations make very little difference to the outcome, and regardless of whether an ENSO event lies at one end or the other of the time series.
The weight of all those numbers overwhelms the fluctuations with a linear regression. More data – in this case – is definitely better. I’ve tested that.
Whereas the fewer data points, the more the noise will affect any signal, giving you less confident results.
b,
You really have no clue, have you?
Measurebation achieves nothing, Even financial planners reluctantly admit that the future cannot be predicted from examining the past, so your obsession with numbers supports exactly nothing.
What is it you are really trying to say? Something that cannot be expressed in words, perhaps?
Sciency sounding nonsense is still nonsense. Fodder for the ignorant, stupid, gullible and deluded.
Test some more data. Let us know how it scores. Do you award prizes for data which passes your test? Maybe you could torture the failing data, until it does what you want!
Cheers.
Apart from the non-symmetrical rise and fall of ENSO events, there is also the lagged effect to global temps, which can be anywhere from 2 to 6 months, so you have to account for that as well with the kind of analysis you want to do.
There are a number of studies that attempt to filter out ENSO influence from global temperature data (as well as solar and volcanic influence). These methods tend to take various ENSO indices and offset them against global temperature for each month. This method retains the larger number of data points for more robust analysis of any underlying signal. Here are a couple for your interest.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI3089.1
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
I used a 3 month lag.
There is really little value to keeping a lot of extra noisy data when looking at something like GAST. Beginning and end values are basically all you need if you can eliminate the noise from them. It’s not a lot different that looking at weight in a diet.
How do you decide what’s noise and what isn’t?
David, we’ve been following the global temperature data for decades. We know ENSO and major volcanic eruptions produce noise.
These are not the only things that cause noise in the global temp data.
Do you understand that the fewer data points you use, the more prone your analysis to be a product of the noise? Even if you remove the noisier parts?
Beginning and end values are basically all you need if you can eliminate the noise from them
You believe that removing the noisier parts of the data will get you closer to the “truth.” This isn’t so. If you want to know the centennial trend, using all the data will give you a better approximation than using a tenth of it.
It’s not only end values that affect the trend. And the change derived from a trend from least squares is a better approximation than just choosing 2 end points. Using only 2 points can seriously skew the results! Move an end point up 0.3 C and simply subtracting the first from that will give you a change of 0.3 to your result. Running a regression with that end point lifted 0.3, and the result will be barely different from the original. That is the power of using more data.
As you saw, the 2016 el Nino increased the absolute change derived from regression by 0.05 C. But use 2016 as an end point and simply subtract, and the result will be much larger: an additional 0.25C
Barry, it all gets down to how representative are the end points.
You can argue my end points are poor and that would be a reasonable objection. We will see over time. It may turn out 2018 is a poor year. I would prefer to have data before and after to put a year into context. But, that data doesn’t currently exist.
The reason I looked at a few of the internal years is to put the end points into context. That is somewhat like doing a trend. One could do a least squares trend on all of my points but it wouldn’t change much.
Richard M says:
“When combined with the cooling experienced from 1940-1980 we end up with about .25 C of warming for the past 80 years.”
Very ad hoc, little science.
Also, UAH and RSS do not offer 80 years of data. Nor is there any reason to expect warming to remain linear.
Very little science is required. It is very simple math. Your objection smells a lot like denial.
Your math smells a lot like garbage.
It’s ad hoc with no logic behind it. Cherry picking at its best.
All you have is denial. That is obvious. You provided nothing of any substance to support your impotent attack.
There is nothing wrong with attempting to remove noise from data. Your method as described leaves a lot to be desired. ENSO events are not seasonally symmetrical, yet you have treated them as such. It also seems that you’ve removed Ninos only but not Ninas (is that so?).
Trend analysis reduces the noise considerably while keeping all the data. Smooths also do this. There are many methods.
Signal processing includes uncertainty bars. Where are yours?
Barry, I attempted to remove both El Nino and La Nina effects. In one case I averaged two years where one was Nina and the other Nino. That doesn’t always work because their intensities can be quite different.
Cherry Picking (Urban dictionary):
“When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld……”
Your “net warming” for UAH is based on 35 months of data. What happened to the other 441?
Most of the rest of the data is infected with noise. That just happens to be reality.
How did you determine that the months you cherry-picked are not “infected with noise”?
All months are infected with some noise. I used the ONI to try and find the times where there is less noise, or where the combination of warm/cold noise balances out.
Sounds very arbitrary.
Not arbitrary at all. You remove what you know to be noise. While that doesn’t mean all the noise is gone, it should provide a more representative signal. Sounds like you are a signal processing denier.
Richard M says:
Most of the rest of the data is infected with noise.
Noise is an inherent part of the data.
Yes, there is always noise but when you have solid evidence that the noise translates into variations in the temperature then it is best to remove that noise. There’s a whole field of science dedicated to this … it’s called signal processing.
And what are the results after that field is applied to monthly temperature data?
(Show your math.)
David, I already did for anyone able to do simple arithmetic.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
On our menu this week, we have something to offend everyone.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Entree
======
Global warming – how long do we have left?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left
.
Main
====
Solving Global Warming is easy. _ (a do it yourself guide)
https://agree-to-disagree.com/solving-global-warming-is-easy
.
Dessert
=======
If the earth was an apple pie… _ (a delicious global warming dessert)
https://agree-to-disagree.com/if-the-earth-was-an-apple-pie
.
Coolistas score this month , The temperature is still exactly the same as 30 years ago , warmistas still two degrees short of climate alarm.
Until next month . . . . . .
July 31 2017 in Sydney was 18.6 C average with a high of 26.5 C.
This was a Winter’s day.
The previous Summer, on December 15, the average temperature was 18.2 C with a high of 19.1 C.
I conclude that in Sydney Winter is colder than Summer.
We are measuring and discussing planet Earth here , not your planet Sydney
b,
I conclude that you are stupid, ignorant, and deluded.
Mark Twain reputedly said “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”
Are you really claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
If you are, I would suggest you need to say so, otherwise people might conclude you are a member of some bizarre cult with supposedly powerful hidden secrets, not to be revealed to unbelievers!
Time for another appeal to spurious authority, do you think?
Cheers.
We are measuring and discussing planet Earth here , not your planet Sydney
You are making the mistake of confusing weather with climate. My example demonstrates that folly using climate change that everyone is familiar with – the seasons.
In the same way that Summer was “back” during mid-Winter on July 31 2017, global temps are “back” to where they were 30 years ago as of last month.
IE – actually not “back” at all.
That’s just tiresome, dude.
w,
I assume you have a reason for thinking why I should give a fig for your opinion, but you are choosing to keep your reasons secret, in the finest climatological pseudoscientific tradition.
Are you perhaps annoyed that I give reasons for my conclusions?
You could always give reasons why others should conclude that you are not, indeed, stupid and ignorant.
I really don’t care one way or the other. Of course, you have the perfect freedom to feel as bored or annoyed as you like. Your choice.
Cheers.
Roy,
SLR 1 inch in 30 y? How did you get that?
We have had 3 inches in the 25 years of satellite measurements.
The lag effect is nearly over but the overall anomaly is not that high and the tropics are not that hot. There may still be room for a few more surprises for JCH and if El Nino does not develop then the absolute temps cannot go that high and may continue falling into close to zero anomalies. If a proper La Nina all bets off.
Interesting to watch the contortions the ground stations will have to go through to cut off the good news.
Perhaps we will have to use ATTP’S 60 airport stations only to keep the flags flying.
2018 will end up being in the top 10 warmest years (currently 6th).
If you’re keen to make it look colder than that there are many rhetorical devices at your disposal.
Yawn. We’ve seen a total of .3 C of warming when the noisy data is eliminated and much of that is likely natural. Wonder what is going to happen when the AMO goes negative in a few years?
When you say “we’ve” seen it, you really mean YOU have seen it through your cherry-coloured glasses.
Nope, nothing cherry colored about the ENSO data. It simply exists and I used it. I suspect if my result enhanced the amount of warming you wouldn’t find any fault in it.
Richard M says:
Weve seen a total of .3 C of warming when the noisy data is eliminated and much of that is likely natural.
Natural due to what cause(s)?
Why do El Nino years keep getting warmer? And La Nina years? And ENSO-neutral years?
Graph:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
Natural warming will also lead to ENSO years getting warmer. In particular, the AMO tends to enhance winter temperatures which are also enhanced by ENSO. You want to attribute the increase in the ENSO temperatures to CO2 but the AMO is also a perfectly logical reason. We will find out in time which is right.
Note that my analysis still finds some warming more in line with low climate sensitivity values.
What is causing natural warming?
Richard M says:
You want to attribute the increase in the ENSO temperatures to CO2 but the AMO is also a perfectly logical reason.
Where does the AMO’s added heat come from?
David, sounds like you are an AMO denier. It has been tracked backed for centuries.
As for what is causing the natural warming, it is very likely the same cause that led to the many historic variations that have been documented by science. There are lots of theories as to what drives those variations. I happen to feel ocean current changes is one of the best.
Is denial your middle name?
Have you checked to see if AMO is aliasing global temps? Have you checked for lead/lag in the respective data sets?
Seriously, does no skeptic actually do any proper work on this stuff? Is it all eyeballing wiggles on graphs?
Judith Curry. The last great hope but she seems to have gone emeritus since her last on stadium waves.
Weve seen a total of .3 C of warming
Yeah, no. Not when the methods suck.
You got an R statistic, p stat or any kind of significance testing for your result?
No. Not when an amateur can make a few uninformed choices that give them a result they like.
Not even uncertainty estimates! You can take off the lab coat.
Here, let me help you out, Richard.
You reckon that the big bad el Nino of 2016 is responsible for the overall warming trend in the UAH data? Or that its inclusion nearly doubles (adds 0.2 C to) the actual warming since the beginning of the satellite record?
Here is the linear trend from 1979 to present and 1979 to Dec 2015.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/to:2016/trend
Let’s do the math imagining that the trend from 1979 to Dec 2015 continued for a full 40 years (to Dec 2018), and do the same with the trend 1979 to July 2018.
Trend:
1979-2015: 0.113 C/decade
1979-2018: 0.128 C/decade
Multiply by four to get the overall change:
0.452 C
0.512 C
Neither of those results are closer to yours than they are each other.
The 2016 el Nino did not turn your result into my result. We have the ‘pause’ from Jan 1998 to Dec 2015 in the UAH data as the final 18 years of the first series, and still the overall warming is closer to the result with the el Nino year than to the one using your method.
So either the 2016 el Nino year is not responsible for a massive difference or there is something else going on, eh?
NB: the results have an uncertainty of just over 0.06C, so the two results are consistent within uncertainty intervals.
And despite that uncertainty not overlapping with your results, you would find that your uncertainty is considerably greater owing to having far fewer data points. So happily our results likely coincide – within uncertainty intervals.
The 2014-16 El Nino is just one aspect of the noise that leads to a larger trend than is real. So yes, there is more going on. Let us know when you go back and read my original comment where I specify the causes of the noise.
I responded to that immediately, and have been waiting for you to pick up on the comment.
ENSO events are not seasonally symmetrical, yet you have treated them as if they are, starting and ending in the same months for each cut. Your filter doesn’t match reality.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Barry, I removed the entire year from consideration if it looked like ENSO affected the April-August time period I used. Did the same for volcanoes. That reduced the symmetry problem.
Then you are putting more weight on end effects, instead of less. The change you are measuring is not overall, but only the difference between one point and another. All of the data is noise-laden, so you are in effect measuring noise, not trend.
Linear regression is a superior method than subtracting end points to get overall change. It’s as simple as that. It would be an improvement to regress your own selected data. But with so few data points, the uncertainty would be considerable.
There are simple alternatives.
EG, Average all anomalies for the 1st half of the record, and then again for the second half. (We’re nearly at 40 years, so I’ll just extend this year by the average of it so far (0.23). Won’t make much difference if the actual average turns out to be, say, 0.2C different.)
That will give us a 2 central estimates 20 years apart. Take the difference of those and multiply by 2 (40 years) to get an estimate of the overall change.
The benefit of this is that both very strong el Ninos are in separate bidecadal averages. This is a good way of evening out all ENSO effects. It won’t be perfect, but it will make ENSO effects negligible to the whole series.
I wrote all that before averaging the data. This is the result.
1979-1998: -0.080
1999-2018: 0.158
That’s a difference of 0.238.
To extend the 20-year average difference to a 40 year change, just multiply by 2.
0.476
No end effects are perturbing this result in any significant way, and we haven’t had to make ad hoc choices that strip away the majority of the data.
This method corroborates the linear trend analysis (within uncertainty), indicating that the result may be robust.
UAH global TLT data, BTW.
Perhaps we will have to use ATTPS 60 airport stations only to keep the flags flying.
Why stop there? We could use all rural. We could use all golf courses. We could use all airports instead of just 60.
That would take some work, of course. The kind of thing never done by people who snipe from the sidelines.
b,
Why stop there? Why bother with reality at all?
Just use a computer model to generate data, and pretend it’s real. Say it’s supported by 97% of scientists (dressed in white coats, of course), and people will believe.
Just like 9 out of 10 dentists (dressed in white coats) prefer Brand X toothpaste.
Good for a laugh, anyway. People might even pay you lots of money for creating such pseudoscientific nonsense.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
It’s funny to watch the evolution of ‘skeptic’ arguments. 2016 was a big el Nino, hottest year in the record, so therefore it has to be disallowed from any data analysis. But just you wait, the ‘pause’ will be back by the end of 2017.
Whoops, 2017 was also quite warm, and the pause didn’t come back, so 2017 is disallowed because of the ‘lag’ of el Nino, which apparently lasts for a couple of years (instead of a few months) after the el Nino, if the following year is too warm.
And hey, the beginning of 2018 was a little bit too warm to be counted. These el nino lag effects do drag on, you know.
Finally, 2.5 years after the finish of the 2016 el Nino, skeptics are satisfied that its effects have worn off, and we can now start using the monthly data.
You must really be in a panic. We are sitting right about at the same level as the pause. There’s been no real measurable warming this century when you remove ENSO noise. Sorry but that’s what the data is telling us.
Let us know when some real warming shows up that isn’t caused by El Nino.
Panic?
Are you ok? What story would you like to hear to settle your nerves? Shall we tell the one about the evil scientists exposed by a plucky band of internet bloggers and their hangers-on?
b,
How about the fable of the undistinguished mathematician who thought he was a climate scientist (Gavin Schmidt), and the geologist who not only thought he was a climate scientist, but also thought he was a Nobel Laureate (Michael Mann)?
Ably assisted by the man who couldn’t find what wasn’t there (“Travesty” Trenberth), and with a supporting cast of assorted bumbling buffoons.
How’s that for a fairy story? No relation to reality of course – that would make climate science an oxymoron, wouldn’t it? I much prefer your story about the evil scientists, although I’d probably call them delusional, rather than evil.
Keep those fantasies coming.
Cheers.
Barry since late 2017 and through today the trends are down with out the aid of La Nina for the last several months, and the one that did take place was very weak and short in duration.
Short-term thinking. It’s the basis behind all your wrong predictions.
No la Nina to from late 2017?
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
How many things can you get wrong before you start being more cautious about what you say, Salvatore?
No Barry, there is nothing funny in unfounded expectations. And you used scare quotes right. That’s not skeptic.
What we learn from here? Maybe that short-term (under 10 years) fluctuations have little meaning. Even 30 years might be too short. But life is also short.
Contrary to popular belief, forested area is increasing both in the U.S. and worldwide. In the U.S., total merchantable volume on federal, state and private lands is 57% greater than is was in 1953.
Links, data, please. Let’s not establish any new ‘popular beliefs,’ eh?
b,
Let’s see you provide a description of the GHE, eh?
Wouldn’t want anybody thinking that the climate can be prevented from changing, or any other witless pseudoscientific nonsense, would we?
I suppose you are convinced that CO2 is somehow evil, but you can’t really put your finger on it. Do you think plants grow better if you restrict the amount of CO2 food?
Cultist garbage. Learn physics.
You don’t need to thank me.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
I use insulation to prevent things getting too hot.
Dont you?
Is that what the GHE does? I agree.
Cheers.
In the U.S., total merchantable volume on federal, state and private lands is 57% greater than is was in 1953.
You realize that this very specific metric (“merchantable”) could easily lead astray about total forestation/deforestation.
EG, to start with an extreme example, if only 10% of US total forest area was “merchantable” (right kind of trees with economically viable access), and half of all US forests were cut down, while the area of “merchantable” forest was doubled through planting….
That would still be a net loss of forest.
So, being proper skeptics, we want data and studies. We also want sharp and consistent definitions on which to base metrics.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y
b,
Maybe you might care to define “climate” in a sharp and consistent way.
For example, the climate of California (or somewhere else, if California doesn’t suit you) – how would you define it? Has it changed over the last century? How much? Up or down?
Go on. Measure away – show your workings. I’m only joking, of course. You can throw unsupported assertions around, but these no longer have the authority you desire.
How’s that sharp and consistent definition of the GHE coming along, by the way? Or hasn’t it progressed beyond the belief stage yet?
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
I use insulation to prevent things getting too hot.
Don’t you?
Is that what the GHE does? I agree.
Cheers.
Do you mean clouds.because they are the only recognised none theoretical part of the atmosphere that insulates.
Don
To hell with “merchantable”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0tp3pD7w7A
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VSmpW6C6JKo/Ue9EZ0qHK6I/AAAAAAAAIO0/8sKadJFrU34/s1600/Old_Growth_vs_Clearcut.jpg
******
Aerial view of a “managed” forest (Pacific NW, USA):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lewis_and_Clark_River_2148s.JPG
+1
A few of the more than 90,000 miles of logging roads in the states of Oregon and Washington alone:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5127518.gif
https://www.conservationnw.org/our-work/wildlands/sustainable-forest-roads/
90,000 miles:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b7YkVpM0Rfs
*******
The new forest:
https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-a-clearcut-with-revegetating-planted-trees-133399394.jpg
The tropical Atlantic is cool and there are still no hurricanes. A tropical storm has formed that has little chance of becoming a hurricane.
Sorry.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_eatl_1.png
Global ACE is running significantly ahead of average for this time of year. Mostly due to the NE and NW Pacific.
Ryan Maue says to watch the Atlantic over the next two weeks.
Year-to-date ACE compared to recent averages:
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/
Another hurricane threatens Hawaii.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Don
The 90,000 miles of Oregon/Washington logging roads only accounts for those on National Forest service land. 100’s of thousands of additional acres have been, and still are, being logged on BLM, State, and privately owned land. This is the typical practice:
” In western Oregon, clearcuts are usually implemented on a 40-60 year rotation – meaning that after each clearcut, trees are replanted and then cut again 40-60 years later, though this timeframe has been shrinking as economic pressures to liquidate timber for investment firms grows.”
IOW, cathedral forests are replaced by tree farms:
http://forestry.sfasu.edu/faculty/stovall/silviculture/images/textbook/resizedimages/clearcut4_merrit.jpg
I definitely think Cathedral Forests should be reserved for those who like to visit them, if they can be maintained in a condition that will not support wildfires (just remove the undergrowth). Stay away from clearcuts, as they are inhabited by wild creatures.
And for the other species who live there. Humans don’t have to dominate every square inch of the planet.
@ Svante and Barry,
You both are unfamiliar with limitations of mathematical concepts that cannot and so not represent REALITY. The data is REALITY. We are interested in causation, NOT mathematical abstractions that cannot and do NOT provide any insight whatsoever into the actual physical process as they occurred in REALITY.
For example, superimpose a forward moving linear curve upon the data and then calculate the slope and spit out constant warming at N per decade. Meaningless for anyone that has an honest interest in attribution of the physical processes that the DATA is the measurement of. You see it everywhere where the linear slope is superimposed over the data the linear curve is claimed to be the actual reality despite the DATA clearly and irrefutably being one step in the entirety of the data since 1979 with extremely insignificant increase in anomaly pre 1997 and pre 15/16.
Tell me, with a linear curve what are the physical processes that is producing linear increase in anomaly over the entirety of the dataset at N per decade. Thats right! You cant. And so you know why? Because the linear curve is an abstract concept. It is a mathematical construct, not a PHYSICAL emipiral REAL WORLD measurement. Do you understand that? Mathematics is NOT physics. And PHYSICS is NOT mathematics.
Please see the great Richard Feynman for further insights into the character of physical laws and the folly of mathematicians who do not understand the fundamental and crucial difference, much like Plato, who destroyed empirical observation and the advancement of knowledge in science for over a 1,000 years with his mathematics is EMPIRICAL observation rubbish. Thank God for Kepler or the likes of the two of you would still be calling the shots on what the scientific method is in the Earth sciences and where would be then?! Crystal spheres, the perfect solids and living in the dark ages.
https://youtu.be/obCjODeoLVw
GC…amen!!
GC,
Seconded. Of course, one can just continue adding new epicycles – for a while, at least.
I’ll go with Feynman. Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!
Cheers.
“The data is REALITY.”
OK then reality is thousands upon thousands of numbers. Meaningful to you?
No, data without analysis, without interpretation is just gibberish.
All data requires ANALYSIS.
One very basic piece of analysis asks: how much is temperature rising over time? What is, on average, the temperature rate of change?
The best way to do that is NOT to take a point in 1970 and another in 2013 and find the difference, because the data is bloody noisy.
The best, and most statistically robust, way to do that is to fit the noisy data to a line and find the slope, and error on slope.
The data NEED NOT be linear to do this analysis.
This 30 y rate-of-change or 50 y rate-of-change, with error, can then be compared to predictions.
It is useful to do so.
N,
Analyse this –
Average temperature of surface – above the temperature of molten rock.
Average temperature of surface – below the temperature of molten rock.
The first is the temperature of the Earth after creation. The second is the present situation.
I call this phenomenon cooling. What would you call it?
No GHE. CO2 has proven to be ineffective in preventing the Earth from cooling over the longest period available. Maybe you are convinced that the new physics, which Gavin Schmidt claims prevents him from documenting his computer game adequately, has changed the properties of CO2.
CO2 has no heating properties. None.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
And an insulator merely impedes the transfer of energy. Otherwise, four and a half billion years of atmospheric insulation would have made the molten surface hotter, and not allowed it to cool.
Maybe you’re delusional, and thinking about magical pseudoscientific atmospheric insulation, which is required to allow the surface to heat when exposed to bright sunshine – or something.
If you put sufficient insulation between the Sun and your head, you may be able to prevent your brain from overheating. Your thought processes appear somewhat deranged.
No CO2 heating. No global warming due to any greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
And an insulator merely impedes the transfer of energy.
Is your house insulated?
DA,
Indeed it is. It would be very much hotter otherwise. Don’t you need to insulate your house to keep it cool?
I believe my refrigerators and freezers use insulation to help keep the contents cool. You might even find any you come across use the same principle.
Do you have a point, or are you just pointlessly trolling?
Cheers,
Perfect opportunity, Mike, to admit that insulation can keep things warm. But you only ever seem to mention its ability to keep things cool.
Might explain your inability to grasp the GHE.
Perfect opportunity, Nate, to stop trolling. Just try it.
“the temperature of the Earth after creation”
Mike, long ago we all gathered that you think Earth Science has no point.
Now we see why. Earth was created and ever since managed by God.
N,
Long ago, maybe you decided that fantasy is superior to fact.
You may gather what you wish where you wish.
Still no GHE. CO2 still heats nothing – that is reality, regardless of what you gather from your fantasy world.
Gather away.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
DA,
Thanks for the support, David. It saves me the trouble of pointing out the stupidity and ignorance of people who believe that the indescribable GHE results in global warming.
As Fourier realised, each night the Earth rids itself of the day’s heat from the Sun, plus a little bit more of its own.
Hence the present non-molten Earth’s surface.
Learn some physics. Allow some facts to intrude into your fantasy.
Cheers.
Mike,
It is your fantasy that geothermal heat is significant for climate.
You have never shown evidence to support this red herring.
If no evidence is needed for you to hold and disseminate your opinion, Mike, then maybe you need a different forum than science blog.
Maybe you’d do better handing out literature in the train station.
Nate,
It is your fantasy that you do not troll.
You have never shown evidence to support this red herring.
If no evidence is needed for you to troll this comment thread, Nate, then maybe you need a different forum than a science blog.
Maybe youd do better handing out literature beneath your bridge.
Still trolling, DREMT/Halp/Tesla…and still boring and pointless.
You are indeed, Nate, you are indeed.
GC wrote:
Tell me, with a linear curve what are the physical processes that is producing linear increase in anomaly over the entirety of the dataset at N per decade. Thats right! You cant.
temperature change is proportional to forcing
forcing varies as ln(CO2/base_level_of_CO2)
CO2 is increasing exponentially.
=> linear temperature change.
GC, you are right, we must have physics, here’s some:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
You mentioned my name, GC, but then said a bunch of stuff that doesn’t relate to what I have said or what I think.
The trend discussions come with a context. Not always the same context. And context is everything. That is why you fail.
More of the same but the trend is down in contrast to last year.
And..predictably, Salvatore does learn a single damn thing when his predictions are wrong — again.
does NOT?
Yes, thanks.
I said last year this would be happening this year(lower overall temperatures) in response to weakening magnetic fields solar/geo.
If I am correct in that the magnetic fields have much to do with the climate then it will follow that past tools used to forecast the climate will fail (if the magnetic fields are extreme enough either direction, in this case weakening ) unless they incorporated magnetic field strengths which we know they did not.
That is the essence of my argument and why I am so against the models and pretty sure that AGW is over, and trying to make this point, in my article which will be coming out soon.
It comes down in large part to galactic cosmic rays and just how much influence do they have in global cloud cover and explosive volcanic activity.
The evidence is there when one looks at the global electrical circuit and forbush events .
If you get the cloud coverage wrong and do not incorporate major future volcanic activity in any fashion the climate forecast will not be correct.
This is why I say how could any one think models in this environment will perform well, unless of course one thinks the magnetic /climate connection is hogwash.
My two cents , but it is early and I know better then to celebrate more time is needed but I like the trend..
Seismic Monitor shows 30 day past earthquakes mag. 4.0 or higher up from an average of 680 to now 940!
Please explain the Physics behind how cosmic rays cause earthquakes. In answering, please remember that the vast majority of earthquakes are not associated with volcanism.
Here is your answer Bobdesbond.
Theodore White
The ‘mechanism’ Dave Burton is electromagnetic. All seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are triggered by external pressures being forced on the Earth’s magnetic field.
The stress that is put on Earth’s magnetic field begins at the ionosphere, which can be observed by the appearance of luminous phenomena very close to regions showing tectonic stress, seismic activity or soon-to-be volcanic eruptions.
The connection between prolonged minimum and maximum solar phases to large magnitude earthquakes and increased volcanic eruptions is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence that is easily found online.
There is strong statistical data which shows powerful correlations between major volcanic activity and numerous earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more on Richter scale to the Sun’s Grand Minimum states.
Over the last several decades scientific papers began to appear that clearly show correlations between galactic cosmic ray and low solar activity with a rise of destructive geological events like earthquakes & volcanic eruptions.
This has been supported by statistical evidence that extend back centuries.
A 1967 study published by the Earth & Planetary Science Letters discovered that solar activity plays a significant role in the triggering of earthquakes.
Then, In 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, also discovered a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes.
Additional research by The Space & Science Research Center found direct correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world.
The study examined data of volcanic activity between 1650 – 2009 along with earthquake activity between 1700 – 2009 while utilizing solar activity data.
The findings of study said that there was very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events – worldwide.
The correlation for volcanic activity was larger than 80 percent and 100% for the greatest magnitude earthquakes measured with Solar activity lows.
Moreover, the findings concluded that there was proof of a strong correlations between global volcanic activity among the largest of classes of eruptions and solar activity lows; with 80.6% occurrence of large scale global volcanic eruptions taking place during the Sun’s minimums and 87.5% occurring for the very largest volcanic eruptions during times of major solar minimums.
We are entering such a period of a Grand Solar Minimum with the start of solar cycle #25 – due to begin anytime between now and the year 2020.
When I forecasted back in 2006 that the world would enter global cooling just before the Sun entered its Grand Minimum and would see an ‘increase in large magnitude earthquakes and numerous volcanic eruptions, some conventional scientists derided me by saying that there was no physical mechanism.
This, despite the fact that I named that mechanism – which is electromagnetic and penetration of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system.
Then, two years later, in 2008, NASA announced that a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending earthquakes on the ground below has been found.
The finding fell into agreement with additional scientific studies performed by other space research institutes.
For example, orbiting satellites above the Earth picked up disturbances that were 100 to 600 kilometers above regions that have later been hit by earthquakes.
Fluctuation in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the Earth’s ionosphere have been observed, and huge signals have been detected many times before large magnitude earthquakes struck.
These are climatic events which feature seismic activity connected to atmospheric disturbances caused by celestial bodies and the Sun’s quiescent phase, which is underway.
During times when the Earth’s axis rotation slows, in concert with the Sun’s minimum output and weakened heliosphere allows cosmic rays to enter our solar system and straight into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Planetary modulation relative to the Earth and the condition of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) of outer space where our planet lives and transits – all play significant roles.
The fluxes of cosmic and solar radiation charges the Earth’s ionosphere.
The result means a rise in anomalies of the Earth’s geomagnetic field which produces Foucault currents – also called ‘Eddy Currents.’
Eddy currents are essentially loops of electrical currents that are induced within conductors by a changing magnetic field in the conductor. This is due to Faraday’s law of induction.
Anyway, eddy currents flow in closed loops within conductors, in planes that are perpendicular to the magnetic field.
The eddy current heats the rocks inside faults as the shear resistant intensity and static friction limit of the rocks decrease.
This is the physical mechanism that trigger earthquakes and volcanic eruption, but it is an ‘effect’ of what is happening where the Earth lives – and that is in outer space.
You see, during eras of solar minimums high energy cosmic radiation can and does penetrate deep below the Earth’s surface.
It is the reason why most earthquakes that occur during solar minimum are deep earthquakes.
The stress on the Earth’s Magnetosphere during solar minimum is higher because the Sun’s Heliosphere is weaker which allows the high-energy charged particles of cosmic rays to flood into our solar system.
For instance, on average, the flux of cosmic rays is 20 percent or more – higher during solar minimums.
Over the last 250 years consider the fact that these major volcanic eruptions took place during strong solar minimum and Grand Minimums:
*Grimvotn (Iceland) 1783/84 (14 km3)
*Tambora (Indonesia) 1810 (150 km3)
*Krakatoa 1883 (5.0 km3)
*Santa Maria (Guatemala) 1902 (4.8 km3)
*Novarupta (Alaska) 1912 (3.4 km3)
Salvatore Del Prete says:
The ‘mechanism’ Dave Burton is electromagnetic. All seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are triggered by external pressures being forced on the Earth’s magnetic field.
More junk science.
An analysis of temperature changes in warm and cold air masses of extratropical cyclones in both hemispheres with their movement during geomagnetic disturbances at the minimum of solar activity was performed. The location and movement of air masses of cyclones was determined by thermobaric maps at the 500 hPa level. In the conditions of a classical cyclogenesis, a warm air mass cools from day to day, while the cold air mass warms up. During geomagnetic disturbances, favorable conditions for increasing intensity and cyclone lifetime are formed, i.e., in a warm air mass, the temperature increases at heights lower than 300 hPa, while a cold air mass warms up more slowly. The distributions of the temperature of air masses of extratropical cyclones were shown to change due to the changes in geomagnetic activity.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793217050115
AGW is the junk science David.
It has a better track record than you, Salvatore.
But then, so does a squirrel putting nuts in hat.
David, please stop trolling.
You can’t argue with David. Salvatore he thinks ships and boats don’t notice any sea level rise because they float around for ever and never return to land.wonder why they built all those harbours and docks .he lives in a CO2 induced coma.and the Sun is only there to ripen his tomatoes.
A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth’s cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.
The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.
Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html#jCp
In addition to the well-studied significant upper atmosphere ionization effect during GLE 69 on 20 January 2005, it is shown that ionization effect is significant at sub-polar and polar atmosphere (Mishev et al. 2011; Usoskin et al. 2011), with fast tropospheric decrease. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the ionizaton effect at low altitudes may be negative due to Forbush decrease of GCR at middle latitudes. Therefore the effect of sporadic solar energetic particle events is limited on a global scale but most energetic events could be strong locally, particularly in sub-polar and polar region, affecting the physical-chemical properties of the upper atmosphere.
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2013/01/swsc120040/swsc120040.html
Currently, the level of ionizing radiation GCR is very high.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00970/36d078b6x1mb.gif
The next question or questions that need to be known are what are the threshold levels of change to cause a more significant climatic change in contrast to a minor one.
For example everyone (I think)agrees there is a point where if solar activity /geo magnetic field decreased enough it would effect the climate.
The argument is in my opinion which is first of all how much of a decrease is needed and secondly is that decrease achieved at times when solar activity tanks.
The caveat this time unlike recent earlier times is the geo magnetic field is weakening at a rapid clip and the same questions could be ask about it, which is are there thresholds of weakness for this field when combined with solar that results in a climatic impact?
I say yes.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 28, 2017 at 8:00 AM
“Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.”
“…Solar is finally entrenched in the values I said is needed to have a climatic impact following x years of sub solar activity in general.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273890
I am satisfied with the way it is going. I rather be early then late with any prediction.
I do not want to predict something after it happens.
You were wrong about this summer. By a lot.
Why were you wrong?
====
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
If I am wrong by a lot and the temperature trend is down what does that make AGW?
You have already been down by a lot.
You said summer 2018 would be below 0.00 C.
It was actually 0.24 C.
Why were you so wrong?
David it is going in my direction not yours.
Salvatore, you said summer 2018 would be below 0.00 C.
It was actually 0.24 C.
Why were you so wrong?
David, please stop trolling.
Moving on from my forest rant……..
“From 1600 until 1645 events increased during the Maxima in some of the tectonic plates as Pacific, Arabian and South America. The earthquakes analyzed during two grand solar minima, the Maunder (1645-1720) and the Dalton (1790-1820) showed a decrease in the number of earthquakes and the solar activity. It was observed during these minima a significant number of events at specific geological features. After the last minima (Dalton) the earthquakes pattern increased with solar maxima. The calculations showed that events increasing during solar maxima most in the Pacific, South America or Arabian until 1900.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258471897_Influence_of_Solar_Cycles_on_Earthquakes
Sal
Upon further reading, the author who I just linked seems to agree with you WRT the very strongest earthquakes and volcanoes:
https://watchers.news/2015/06/09/cosmic-solar-radiation-as-the-cause-of-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions/
Snape ,that is where I am coming from.
Oops! No, I confused myself, completely different author. Lol
0.19 C looks a little paltry compared to some anomalies we’ve seen in UAH over recent months/years. Let us not be too dismissive of it though; it slips into the top 10 warmest Augusts in the UAH record (making it to number 9). Not too shabby.
TFN
If protest is what you are seeking
Self-crucifixion always will fail.
There is no way known, to the thinking,
To drive in the final nail.
Geoff
TFN
Since 1979. Wow
Regards
Harry
If CO2 actually did what alarmists claim it does , since 1988 by now the 13 month average would have to be 1 whole degree C above the current place , which would put it above and completely out of scale range of this chart , the chart scale would have to be increased at least 1.7 extra degrees upwards to accommodate this plus the usual 0.5 short spikes variations
The fact there is nothing of the sort happening already thoroughly debunks CO2 caused global warming,
Only the stuck on stupid do not comprehend this simple fact.
You seem to be confused. The claim is only 0.2C per decade at the moment, making a 0.6C rise from a negative starting point. The UAH rise is two-thirds of that. Eff knows where you get your claim from.
The UAH LT rise is +0.50 C since 1979. RSS’s is +0.75 C since then.
Eben says:
If CO2 actually did what alarmists claim it does , since 1988 by now the 13 month average would have to be 1 whole degree C above the current place
Why?
DA,
Why not? Or are you just trolling?
Cheers.
For you stuck on stupid this is why. can you read pictures ???
https://s15.postimg.cc/jhqxckzcb/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.jpg
That graph has a lot of problems
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
not the least of which is that it’s never been submitted for publication or peer review.
DA,
Trying to describe the GHE has a lot of problems.
Not the least of which is that nobody has ever managed to do it.
Even in a peer reviewed publication, where you pay to publish (there’s a great scam, eh?).
Ah, the wonders of climatological pseudoscience. A mathematician masquerading as a scientist, a scientist masquerading as a Nobel Laureate, a meteorologist complaining that it’s a travesty he cannot find something that doesn’t exist!
All based on precisely nothing – no new observation, no testable hypothesis, no resultant theory as a result.
Just a collection of bumbling buffoons desperately seeking undeserved adulation – and a continuing flow of funds from the public purse!
They might be stupid and ignorant, but possess a certain amount of rat cunning – some at least, I suppose.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
Nope. That won’t work, will it?
Not unless you have invented some new type of insulation. Real insulators don’t add heat.
They merely reduce the rate at which an object achieves thermal equilibrium with the environment.
You might be aware that the surface of the Earth is no longer molten, atmospheric insulation notwithstanding. It has cooled.
The surface temperature drops at night – in spite of atmospheric insulation.
And so on.
Maybe you have been afflicted with a severe attack of climatological pseudoscience?
The properties of insulators have already been described. The supposed “greenhouse effect” has not. Not even in a peer reviewed journal!
Maybe you could try a spot of deny, divert, and confuse? Support it with some pointless and irrelevant analogies? I don’t think you’ll get a lot of support for trying to redefine “insulation” as “GHE”. I can’t find a single dictionary which defines “insulation” as “GHE” – I don’t think such exists, but climatological pseudoscience isn’t concerned with facts, is it?
Still no CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled since its creation some four and a half billion years ago.
Calculate that, and wave a few graphs in peoples’ faces. Let me know how you get on, if you want.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
September 2, 2018 at 8:16 PM
DA, Nope. That won’t work, will it?
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
I read that somewhere.
Oh yeah, it was here:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
Thank you for quoting me. Unfortunately, you appear to have magically conjured up the acronym “GHE” from somewhere else, and incorrectly ascribed it to me.
Your memory is obviously defective.
If you claim the GHE is merely atmospheric insulation, then there is no global warming on account of the GHE – as I have pointed out in the past.
Insulation between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer cooler, not hotter. And at night, an insulator between the surface and outer space merely slows the rate at which the surface cools. Overall, the Earth cools – slowly.
No mad pseudoscientific climatological GHE making the surface hotter – that would be too ridiculous for words, wouldn’t it?
Once again, thanks for quoting me. Repetition of facts doesn’t hurt, does it? Repetion of your delusional fantasies is optional, of course. I’m sure you can find some, if you try hard enough.
Cheers.
What is the main characteristic of an insulator?
In 1988 hansen presented what CO2 will do to the global temperature . It shows 1.1 degree C increase by 2018.
This is his chart
https://goo.gl/T4YabM
The temperature today is exactly the same as in 1988,
Which part of “exactly the same” you don’t understand ?
Eben says:
The temperature today is exactly the same as in 1988
Wrong.
But thanks for playing.
MF, as usual, distorts physics when he wrote:
The insulation effect works during the day as well as at night, since the Earth is constantly radiating IR energy to deep space. The effect of adding insulation on a system with a (nearly) constant energy input will be to increase the temperature within the insulated space. This effect can be easily demonstrated with simple instrumentation, but MF chooses to ignore such evidence. MF is either hopelessly ignorant of physics or his goal is a malicious attempt to spread denialist FUD.
Bad Appell and Swannie River, please stop trolling.
Eben,
Hansen 1988: B scenario was the one Hansen considered most likely. The increase from before 1988 (when the prediction starts) is about 1 C.
And here’s what happened.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12
Looks very close to me. No fancy trend lines included, which ‘skeptics’ deplore, for some reason.
My eyeballs are so expert at figuring stuff from graphs, so I’m sure you will see the same thing I do….
I think the majority of all the global warming since the ending of the Little Ice Age will be wipe out in less then 10 years from now.
And the global warming since end of LIA is about 1 C ?
And you expect .5 C of cooling within 10 years?
at a minimum
Salvatore said cooling started in 2002.
Why were you so wrong about that, Salvatore?
If you go to my web-site you will see that is not true and my colder forecast was based on specific solar criteria being met which did not happen until late year 2017.
You are the one that is being proven wrong as each day goes by and no progress in global warming is taking place.
It is true, Salvatore.
“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
So why have you been so wrong all these years, Salvatore?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273890
David, please stop trolling.
Below some news on the weakening earth magnetic field and the volcanic effect.
These waves are penetrating electromagnetic radiation of a kind arising from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei. Gamma Rays are beyond X-rays and will obviously penetrate deep into the Earth insofar as the few that do get through our magnetic field. This may be pointing to the cause of an increase in volcanic activity. The Earths magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. According to scientists best estimates, the Earths magnetic field is now weakening around 10 times faster than initially thought, losing approximately 5% of its strength every decade. But they dont really know why, or what that means for our planet. This could be the precursor to the poles flipping.
Volcanoes: Global Pers…
John P. Lockwood, Rich…
Best Price: $60.55
Buy New $59.56
(as of 05:00 EDT – Details)
Here we are in August 2018 and three volcanoes in Indonesia erupt all at the same time. The three volcanoes that are rumbling and spewing ash are Mount Sinabung (pictured here), Gamalama, and Rinjani. In fact, this year we now have 34 major volcanoes erupting worldwide compared to 12 last year and 11 back in 2015. In the Ring of Fire, we now have 6 volcanoes erupting this year with another 5 in Indonesia alone. There are now 4 erupting in South America, 5 in the Mexico/Carribean and Central America. In Africa and the Indian Ocean there are now 4 volcanoes erupting and in the Pacific Ocean, there are yet another 6 erupting. In Europe, we have one in Italy erupting in the Eolian Islands Mt Stromboli. Lastly, there is even one in Antarctica melting ice.
Is this your book you’re hawking, “Salvatore”
no
Still waiting for a string of several months below 0.25 Celsius to indicate potential global cooling in the offing. It’s been a wait of several years by now
Bart…”Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models. The degree to which a model fits is not a reliable metric for determining how predictive it is.
Any dense basis can be used to model any process over a finite interval of time to arbitrary precision. This is an excellent way to fool yourself”.
********
Besides your excellent analysis, there are validated models and unvalidated models. Unless a model can be validated it’s essentially an educated guess. That describes all climate models and the guesses are not all that educated.
Most of AGW is based on model theory and it’s all unvalidated. The IPCC had to develop a convoluted scale measuring opinion because they have little or no fact upon which to claim truth after basing most of their conjecture on models.
How would you determine future climate without a model, Gordon?
How would you determine ANYTHING without a model, Gordon?
Gordo claims to be an engineer, but fails to understand that models are tools which are widely used in engineering. The models are based on real world physical data, as captured in theoretical representations using mathematics. Almost all mathematics is modeling of one sort or another. The models used to assess climate are the result of earlier efforts to characterize the known properties of gasses in the atmosphere and are combined with the dynamical models of the atmosphere’s flowing fluids. The models are similar to those used for weather forecasting, both efforts suffer because of the complexity of the fluid flows across the Earth.
Such models are subjected to validation before acceptance. Until validated, they are considered speculative.
Real scientists form a hypothesis, look for evidence that both supports or contradicts the hypothesis, and only after repeatably verifying the former and providing reliable and repeatable explanations for the latter do they proclaim the hypothesis validated.
This farce of a scientific investigation started with the proclamation that the hypothesis was valid, then looked almost exclusively for supporting evidence, and is busy piling up excuses for the discrepancies. It is bass-ackwards, pathological science.
Bart thinks he knows science. But, no, real science starts with observations, either of natural phenomena or data from experiments which do not agree with previous theories. Then, a hypothesis may be offered or other experiments and observations may be undertaken to verify the previous anomalous results.
AGW theory is the result of scientific efforts to explain the natural world going back to the 19th century and progressing thru the discovery of electrons, atomic and nuclear structures. Those efforts were focused on the emission/absorp_tion of radiant energy in gasses, including CO2 and water vapor, both or which are greenhouse gases. The case for the Greenhouse Effect was built on efforts to explain the temperature profile in the atmosphere and extended from surface measurements all the way to the top of the atmosphere, once it became possible to place instruments in orbit. Those efforts include building models of the energy flows thru the atmosphere from the Sun’s SW energy to the IR EM radiant energy which exits the TOA.
It’s the data, Bart, not some mythical hypothesis, which defines AGW.
“Its the data, Bart, not some mythical hypothesis, which defines AGW.”
Corroborating data are ambiguous and inconclusive.
Malaria occurs most frequently with those who are exposed to nightly air (when the mosquitos are out in force, as it happens). For a very long time, it was thereby assumed that exposure to “bad air” at night caused it.
Extrapolation based upon superficial association is the very antithesis of science. You might as well don a grass skirt and sacrifice a virgin to the volcano. It is primitive thinking.
“Those efforts were focused on the emission/absorp_tion of radiant energy in gasses, including CO2 and water vapor, both or which are greenhouse gases.”
These phenomenon are related, but do not establish that increasing CO2 necessarily results in surface warming, any more than the fact of light bulbs giving off heat in my house establishes that the temperature of the rooms will increase without bound. There are other factors in play.
These posts are out of order, as my first attempt went into filter purgatory when I corrected “emission/absorp_tion” to leave out the underscore. I guess you had that for a reason.
And yes, I meant “phenomena” not “phenomenon”.
“Extrapolation based upon superficial association”
C’mon Bart, it is super-duper hyperbole to compare AGW to malaria and “bad air” hypothesis.
AGW theory is consistent with well-known and tested atmospheric science. Its basic mechanisms have been directly tested. Not remotely a superficial association.
What uncertainties remain about feedbacks are out in the open and being actively researched.
“AGW theory is consistent with well-known and tested atmospheric science.”
No, it is extrapolated from well-known and tested atmospheric science. From the basic mechanisms.
The hypothesis of “bad air” also was consistent with well-known and tested principles. Polluted air makes one sick. Noxious gases seep out of the Earth in numerous places around the globe. People out in the night air came down with the disease. Obviously, the air made them sick.
That chain of logic is no less complete and reasonable and plausible than the chain of logic that leads to AGW.
That is correct. AGW is not validated. There is no unambiguous evidence of it occurring in line with the models.
DA,
The IPCC wrote –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
What sort of a model do the think the IPCC should use, David?
What sort of model would you use to determine that Mann isn’t really a Nobel Laureate, or that Gavin Schmidt is not really a world renowned climate scientist?
The world wonders, indeed.
Cheers.
A gotcha question.
DA,
If you say so, David. Gotcha.
Cheers.
David Appell wrote –
“The GHE is atmospheric insulation.”
Now he asks –
“What is the main characteristic of an insulator?”
Once again, David confirms he justs spouts sciency words without understanding.
Not terribly bright, our David. Apparently unable to describe the GHE in any scientific fashion, he attempts to redefine it as something he admits he doesn’t understand!
Not only that, he appears too lazy to look up the definition of an insulator. So much for the typical climatological pseudoscientific buffoon – unable to explain something, substitutes for it something else he cannot explain.
Maybe David could learn some physics, before presuming to teach his betters. He has now decided that the supposed “Greenhouse Effect” is not an effect at all, in the scientific sense, but a cunning climatological redefinition of the word “insulation”.
Just as in climate-speak, “cooling” is redefined to mean “heating”. Tricky stuff to keep with, the everchanging landscape of climatological pseudoscience.
Cheers.
What consistantly astounds me is the excuses people propose for the lack of warming.
We are told as CO2 goes up so does temp but when it does not we are told natural variability hides the CO2 warming signal, therefore if any CO2 warming trend exists it is hidden in the noise.
This would suggest the CO2 warming trend if it indeed exists is very weak and easily outweighed by natural variability including PDO, Volcanic, El Nino/La Nina solar etc.
And yet these people expect us to dismantle our power generation systems or industry, agriculture, transport sectors in an effort to “tackle” climate change.
They expect us to reduce our lifestyle to third world levels based on a furture warming which shows absoutely no sign of actually happening.
Due to this lack of evidence they are reduced to squabbling over hundreths of degree changes in temp from a month to month and year to year change.
After all these years i would have expected these people to have come up with some pretty solid evidence by now but yet they still do the same thing, they post apocolyptic nonsense as they did then and as they do now. Perhaps they are beyond the point of no return and are beyond help?
“This would suggest the CO2 warming trend if it indeed exists is very weak and easily outweighed by natural variability including PDO, Volcanic, El Nino/La Nina solar etc.”
That is precisely what we are saying … over the course of a few years. Over the course of a number of decades the trend wins out.
It is NOT about where we are now. Only ovine followers of Guy McPherson believe there will be a catastrophe within the next couple of decades. It is about where we will end up a couple of generations from now.
From the IPCC –
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Are you saying that the IPCC is wrong? Maybe it needs to redefine “climate” to suit you, eh?
You really don’t have a clue, do you? Just some mindless faith in a “trend”. Good for you. Maybe you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe you can predict the future by minutely examining the past.
Mind you, your belief is shared by other fortune sellers, who believe they can predict all sorts of things by projecting trends. They never bother to mention that they can do no better than you, I, or a reasonably intelligent 12 year old!
One wonders why Gavin Schmidt needs a very expensive sciency computer game, when a 12 year old with a straight edge and a pencil could project a trend just as well. Maybe you have another strident unsupported assertion to prove that you didn’t really mean “trend” when you wrote “trend”, and you weren’t really implying that you could predict future climate states at all!
Still no GHE, is there? You can’t even describe the amazingly wondrous mythical GHE – it’s obviously a travesty, and someone needs to do something about it!
Good luck.
Cheers,
Cracker right on and so far in Sept. according to one source the global average temperatures are below the 1981-2010 means.
I want to see them go to -.40c below 1981-2010 means.
Another Pinatubo combined with a strong La Nina, and you may yet get your wish.
Sal needs a giant meteor to get what he wants. The lowest anomaly in the UAH record is -0.5C.
No, I’m pretty sure another Tambora would do it.
Maybe – av temps were about 0.3C cooler in the period just after Pinatubo happened. We haven’t seen an anomaly as low as -0.4C since then (25 years ago).
Hey Salvatore,
Take a look at this TSI graph:
https://tinyurl.com/SorceAug2018
and tell me how this solar cycle is travelling in comparison to 11 years ago.
Similar to 11 years ago but the big differences are two items.
Item one this time unlike 11 years ago there are now 10+ years of sub solar activity in general a requirement.
This time in contrast to 11 years ago the geo magnetic field is weaker and weakening further.
Geomagnetic field eh? So nothing to do with the sun then?
B,
So you think it does, do you?
Why is that?
Do tell us.
Cheers.
You know if you read my post that I have said over and over again that the geo magnetic field when in sync with solar will enhance given solar effects.
I have said it so many times.
Trump has also said many times that there has been no collusion.
As you can see, what someone says has little to do with reality.
Thank you for confirming that your outlook is political, and not scientific.
Hahaha … so the fact of Trump colluding with the Russians has some bearing on my opinions on climate, which pre-date Trump’s running for president in a third-world backwater? Is that what you are saying?
Bob,
Where is the evidence there is a trend and if it exists where is the evidence the trend is caused by AGW?
Where is the evidence that shows us where we will end up in a couple of generations?
Its OK to have an opinion i welcome yours but we (here in Oz at least) are destroying ourselves so much there wont be anything left in a couple of generations.
Mr Spencer gives the trend in his data. Do you not believe him?
I also live in Australia. Here in Sydney we are in the middle of an unbroken run of 80 months where the monthly average had not fallen below the long-term (160 year) average.
(Pretty cold today though I must admit.)
B,
What 160 year average? The BOM declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 “unreliable”. This got rid of the inconvenient 1897 heat wave. Inconvenient truth is abolished by climatological pseudoscientists.
What’s your next piece of specious nonsense? A description of the non-existent GHE, perhaps?
Keep asserting nonsense. Somebody might believe you.
Cheers.
The BOM declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 “unreliable”.
Nope, the BoM considers that a national average temp prior to 1910 is unreliable. There are a few places around the country with good records prior to 1910, and Sydney, the oldest city in Australia, is one of them.
b,
From the BOM –
“Why does the ACORN-SAT dataset start in 1910, and not earlier?
Climate observations prior to 1910 were
limited across the Australian continent,
being concentrated mostly around settlements
and in eastern Australia. Many observations from the pre-federation period were taken with non- standard instrumental configurations, and the accompanying documentation is patchy. This makes it very difficult to reconstruct early national data that is consistent with the modern record.”
and –
“Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution as many stations, prior to that date, were exposed in non-standard shelters, some of which give readings which are several degrees warmer or cooler than those measured according to post-1910 standards.”
I note that the BOM has changed its previous position, due to people pointing out the defects in their stance, and now employs weasel wording to disguise the fact that the “official” records start in 1910, allowing breathless claims of “unprecedented” extreme temperatures.
Carry on believing that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. It doesn’t. Any obstruction between the Sun and a thermometer results in less energy reaching the thermometer, allowing it to cool as a result.
Notwithstanding climatological pseudoscientific magical physics of course, where cooling magically becomes an increase in temperature.
Cheers.
Hello crakar24…
Actually I’m busy with NOAA’s newest station dataset (GHCN daily), so it is no problem to show you a comparison of GHCN and Roy Spencer’s UAH6.0 LT for the satellite era:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1535975698146/001.jpg
About 700 stations in the average contributed to the data. They are located in about 125 2.5 degree grid cells, what shows a good dissemination over your continent.
UAH’s data for Australia you see here (rightmost column):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Australia is an interesting corner: the lower troposphere shows a higher trend for 1979-2018 than does the surface (0.18 C / decade vs. 0.12 C).
This might be due to strong poleward advection streams from the Tropics toward the Arctic.
Nothing dramatic so far in your Oz corner. Most warming actually happens in the Arctic regions, but it was warm there 80 years ago as well.
Please do not try to create any spatially or temporally restricted relation between CO2’s concentration and temperatures. You would move into a blind-alley.
Hello crakar24…
Actually I’m busy with NOAA’s newest station dataset (GHCN daily), so it is no problem to show you a comparison of GHCN and Roy Spencer’s UAH6.0 LT for the satellite era:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1535975698146/001.jpg
About 700 stations in the average contributed to the data. They are located in about 125 2.5 degree grid cells, what shows a good dissemination over your continent.
UAH’s data for Australia you see here (rightmost column):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Australia is an interesting corner: the lower troposphere shows a higher trend for 1979-2018 than does the surface (0.18 C / decade vs. 0.12 C).
This might be due to strong poleward advection streams from the Tropics toward the Arctic.
Nothing dramatic so far in your Oz corner. Most warming actually happens in the Arctic regions, but it was warm there 80 years ago as well.
Please do not try to create any spatially or temporally restricted relation between CO2’s atmospheric concen.tration and temperatures. You would move into a blind-alley.
Interesting! Even the word ‘concen.tration’ must be avoided.
B,
No relation between CO2 and temperature?
Why am I not surprised?
Carry on.
Cheers.
B: ‘Please do not try to create any spatially or temporally restricted relation between CO2s atmospheric concen.tration and temperatures.’
F: ‘No relation between CO2 and temperature?’
*
A stupid comment produced by an ignorant person.
Yes, Flynn: carry on to escape out of your permanent mental disease.
Bindidon
Would you please stop feeding this troll.
Bindidon and Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Bindidon
Look what you’ve done now … MF has switches to one of his many alter egos.
Bob/Des/Bond/Bindidon/Snape/Svante/Nate/Norman/barry (whichever entirely interchangeable online persona this applies to) please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team (whichever entirely interchangeable online persona this applies to):
Shut up!
Bindidon, accusing someone of having a permanent mental disease is extremely unpleasant. Please stop trolling.
B,
I know your command of the English language is somewhat lacking, so I asked a question.
You are right. It was stupid and ignorant of me to expect you to understand my question, and even more stupid and ignorant to expect an answer.
I shall endeavour to write more slowly for you in future.
Have you managed to provide a useful description of the GHE (in English) yet?
Do you still believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter?
Can you understand the questions, or do I need to express myself more clearly?
I am always happy to assist those less fortunate than myself.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
The David Appell is a troll.
Bindidon,
Australia is an interesting corner: the lower troposphere shows a higher trend for 1979-2018 than does the surface
Nothing more normal. Physics foresees that. What is very worrying is that this is an exception. There is one fundamental thing wrong somewhere.
25 million Australians
Regards
Harry
Comme d’habitude: des mots, rien que des mots.
Où sont vous sources?
What is this graph designed to portray Bob? What i see is the natural fluctuations one would expect from a chaotic climate.
Lets assume the warming that you see is real what is the cause?
Before you run off and site gobbledegook links which demonstrate nothing CO2 has risen quite a lot over that time period and yet one must squint and tilt their head to see the result.
Once again i ask why are we reducing our country to third world standards based on changes of temp in the hundredths of of a degree C?
Are you talking to me??
Because I can’t see another Bob here, and I can’t see where I’ve linked to a graph.
Once again i ask why are we reducing our country to third world standards based on changes of temp in the hundredths of of a degree C?
Well you’re an alarmist. Which country is this?
David the trends are not your friends.
That depends …
On where you choose the ends …
For your trends.
(taken from the poem ‘The Cherry Picker’ by D. Nier)
B,
First point – molten surface.
Second point – non molten surface.
You decide – cooling or warming?
No cherry picking, mind!
Cheers.
I said late year 2017 is the turning point before that especially up to late year 2005 all factors were in a warm mode.
The ice age pends …
And pends … and pends … and pends …
Is there no ending
To the pending?
I seems that until we become spacefaring, the Ice Age will continue during all the time that humans will live on Earth.
You knew what I meant dear boy.
bob….”The ice age pends
And pends and pends and pends ”
As do the mythical effects of AGW.
–Bobdesbond says:
September 3, 2018 at 2:31 PM
You knew what I meant dear boy.–
You mean growth of glacier ice?
It’s a good question.
If Salvatore Del Prete thinks we going to have .5 of cooling within 10 years, are we to expect, advancement of glaciers, any time soon?
I mean noticeable advancement of glaciers, similar to what was happening during LIA. Or we always getting advancement of a glacier somewhere, key issue is glaciers [plural] advancement- as global pattern or large regional pattern.
And for glaciers to grow, they first have to stop receding.
gbaikie says:
“Or we always getting advancement of a glacier somewhere, key issue is glaciers [plural] advancement- as global pattern or large regional pattern.”
Here’s the regional pattern (fig. 5.1):
https://tinyurl.com/ya5tdbg
Good morning Dr. Spencer, thanks for the update.
-Chris
Tropical storm in Florida.
There is the potential for an AccuWeather Local StormMax of 12 inches across a narrow swath of the lower Mississippi Valley. The duration and exact location of the heaviest rainfall will depend on the exact track of the storm.
Salvatore
We have passed from Cycle 24 into Cycle 25. The reversal in the Sun’s magnetic field has been observed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/12/it-appears-solar-cycle-25-has-begun-solar-cyle-24-one-of-the-shortest-and-weakest-ever/
The UAH temperature record shows that the end of cycle 24 was 0.4C warmer than the end of Cycle 23 in 2008. I await your explaination.
I am not Salvatore but I will give you explanation. If you look up how solar cycles affect temperatures you will see the effect is delayed about one whole cycle, The temperature you point out is not the result of cycle 24 it that of cycle 23
This is why the the full cooling will not be strongly evident until about ten years from now.
The first signal is weak La Nina after very strong El Nino. It means that the temperature has settled.
Eben says:
If you look up how solar cycles affect temperatures you will see the effect is delayed about one whole cycle, The temperature you point out is not the result of cycle 24 it that of cycle 23
Where does the cooling hide for 10 years, and what makes it then come out to play?
It is hiding the same place your missing warming has been hiding for the last 30 years
I do not care what solar cycle we may or may not be in . What matters are the solar parameters which are now low enough(late 2017-now ) to cause cooling.
I said it takes 10+ years of sub solar activity in general to have an effect. Sub solar activity in general started in late 2005.
The rise of .4c for argument sake has already begun to subside and should continue as we move forward from here.
One can easily make the argument that all of the rise up to the end of year 2017 was natural, from the lack of major volcanic activity, the warm mode of the PDO(giving rise to frequent EL NINO’S)/AMO, high overall oceanic temperatures due to the strong solar activity 1850-2005,etc.
I would say the main reason for the lag time in global temperatures post 2005 is the oceans which are slow to cool and retain heat for years. My 10+ years is on the low side if anything. In other words to have cooling start 12 years after sub solar activity in general started is considered quick by most of the people who embrace solar/climate connections.
I think however it is sufficient and one can see that overall oceanic global temperatures have been in a cooling trend since the summer of 2017.
I think the geo magnetic field is very important in all of this and that field is also weakening and should compound given solar effects.
What matters is what takes place from late 2017 – next few years. The test is on now , it was not on prior to year 2017.
What the hell is “sub-solar”?
Sub solar is solar activity that runs below average in relation to solar activity based on years 1850-present.
Would you show me where it occurs in the scientific literature in that context.
Eben
I’m not sure that helps.
Cycle 23 started in August 1996 and UAH shows almost no temperature rise between 1996 and the end of cycle 23 in 2008.
If your one-cycle-lag hypothesis were correct there would be no temperature change during cycle 24, yet we observe 0.4C warming.
Next idea, please.
Winter 2018-2019 northern hemisphere will explain a lot.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00970/h05p5g57d6lj.png
Entropic man if you follow what I have said you would realize that I did not expect cooling to start no earlier then late year 2017.
I have said in order to have solar cooling two conditions are needed.
Condition one – 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (2005)
Condition two – followed by a period of time of very low average value solar parameters equal to or exceeded by that of typical solar minimums but longer in duration.
These two conditions have not occurred since the Dalton until late 2017.
Moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field which when in sync with solar will compound all given solar effects. Which is currently the case.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Entropic man if you follow what I have said you would realize that I did not expect cooling to start no earlier then late year 2017.
False.
“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
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015….”
– Salvatore del Prete, 12/3/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203097
“…if temperatures do not show a decline by then(summer of 2018) in conjunction with very low solar activity we will be in trouble with our global cooling forecast.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 6/2/2017
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2017-0-45-deg-c/#comment-249606
I live in Maine and we experience over 3 meters of sea level rise daily, and have somehow learned to cope with it. Im happy to share some of our technology to those concerned about 1/1000th of that annually. /sarc off
Taylor…”I live in Maine and we experience over 3 meters of sea level rise daily….”
Good point.
T,
Apparently, tidal range around here is 8.1 m.
Average neaps 1.9 m, average kings 5.5 m.
I’m trying not to worry too much about a variation of less than 1 mm per year.
I don’t think CO2 has much to do with it, but you never know.
Cheers.
“Local governments, under pressure from annoyed citizens, are beginning to act. Elections are being won on promises to invest money to protect against flooding. Miami Beach is leading the way, increasing local fees to finance a $400 million plan that includes raising streets, installing pumps and elevating sea walls.”
NYT, 9/3/16
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html
You keep talking as if the solar cycles were some kind of temperature on-off switch. other cycles as oceans multidacadal oscillation play role too.
Get back to me in ten years we will compare the predictions
I forgot the say its not a single cycle effect , it is the cumulative effect of several previous cycles which were very high
Eben good input.
Eben if you are not Salvatore, I like that you used “affect” and “effect” correctly. I always forget witch is which.
Eben is not me.
Salvatore Del Prete is under the impression that within 10 years global temperature will lower by .5 C [or more].
I think it would be better if the global temperature did not cool by .5 within next 10 years, or if this happens this could be counted as bad news.
Many believers of the “greenhouse effect theory” think we would already be .5 C [or cooler] if not for the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. If this the case, I would regard adding CO2 as a positive development.
If .5 C [or more] + .5 C [or more] is a cooling of 1 C [or more] I think a cooling of 1 C I would think it is more than bad news.
Or I think returning to global temperature of pre-industrial or the temperatures of Little Ice Age is not desirable.
0.5C in 10 years???
He predicted 12 months ago that UAH would fall from its trend value of +0.3 to zero by now?
–Bobdesbond says:
September 3, 2018 at 2:29 PM
0.5C in 10 years???
He predicted 12 months ago that UAH would fall from its trend value of +0.3 to zero by now?–
Well I think .5 in 10 years is possible- but I don’t think it is likely.
Also I don’t think CO2 levels have warmed our present world by .5 C
I tend to think we have warming since LIA and that CO2 levels to present time have had as much as .5 C, I more inclined to think it’s been about .2 C or less.
Or I think we are at this moment still, recovering from LIA, and until I see evidence, which allows me to change my mind, I not changing my mind about it.
It seems that the solar activity of late could have effect and no doubt have some non zero effect.
So, actually quite similar to my view about the doubling of CO2, which in terms of near term [decades of time into the future]
a doubling of CO2 could only warm by 0 to .5 C
And I don’t by end of this century, that global average temperature will increase more than 1 C.
Or the global ocean surface temperature about 17 C and don’t expect it to get to 18 C or warmer by 2100 AD.
And by 2100 AD we might be saying Earth average temperature is about 16 C, and say it was about 15 C in later part of 20th and early 21 century.
bob…”He predicted 12 months ago that UAH would fall from its trend value of +0.3 to zero by now?”
As a reality check, can you read 0.3C on a regular room thermometer???
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
Deflection with fluff.
test
I am always going to predict aggressively.
S,
Gutsy move.
As Yogi Berra said –
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
At least you’ll either be wrong or right.
Cheers.
“I am always going to predict aggressively.”
AND incorrectly.
m,
Is that a prediction, perchance?
Cheers.
test
Salavtore…”I am always going to predict aggressively”.
Go for it Salvatore, the gutless alarmists cannot explain AGW or the GHE, never mind predicting anything.
In fact, they cannot predict anything because their data is fudged and all their propaganda comes from unvalidated climate models.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I am always going to predict aggressively.
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
Gordon and I are just the opposite. We’re predicting, on average, only +0.001083 per month.
Check
David L HAGEN
September 1, 2018
“Thanks Roy for all your hard work. Look forward to your 39 year average temperature trend. About 0.01C/year?”
Gordon, “Thats actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.”
ARL sponsored program corroborates low determinations of Climate Sensitivity. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
That’s funny, Dan.
Thanks!
Dan Pangburn says:
ARL sponsored program corroborates low determinations of Climate Sensitivity. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
That calculation is pure junk.
Climate sensitivity isn’t the derivative (let alone partial derivative), it’s the temperature CHANGE after equilibrium is reestablished, not the change in the moment.
In particular, water vapor isn’t to be held constant — it’s an important feedback.
The units don’t even balance in that equation (as poor attempt to use the chain rule), as the righthand side has units of one, while the left hand side has units of temperature per (ppm?).
And that’s just a start. It’s garbage.
DA…”In particular, water vapor isnt to be held constant its an important feedback”.
What’s it feeding back?
Downwelling radiation.
DA,, Valid direct feedback depends only on the temperature of liquid surface water as shown here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlZNZ32VAAEK0kc.jpg and it is only about 6.5% or less.
DA,, The net feedback is even less because the indirect feedback from added clouds from added water vapor is negative. Average global temperature is very sensitive to cloud change as explored here:
DA,, The net feedback is even less because the indirect feedback from added clouds from added water vapor is negative.
That’s still an area of uncertainty, and most papers say it is positive.
Link got stopped by WordPress filter. It is ref [22] in my blog/analysis. (click my name)
Apparently your confirmation bias got the best of you regarding units. Both sides of the equation are simply ratios of numbers, i.e. dimensionless.
This passes WordPress. To use it, take the hyphens out
http://low-altitude-clouds.blogspot.com
binny…”About 700 stations in the average contributed to the data. They are located in about 125 2.5 degree grid cells, what shows a good dissemination over your continent”.
You forgot to mention that 95% of the data is derived statistically in a model. They are not real, physical stations but the output of massaged data via interpolation and homogenization.
NOAA admitted they use less than 1500 stations globally. If 700 of them are around Australia, it doesn’t leave much of anything to fudge the rest of the planet.
Of course your myopia and gullibility prevent you understanding that.
Rose is right, Robertson, in her meaning about you.
You are the least competent, most ignorant and most stubborn person commenting here, and above all you are a psychotic liar.
You are so dumb that you even can’t make the difference between
– GHCN V3
– GHCN daily
and
– what NOAA derives out of them (what I did not at all talk about).
You are so incredibly incompetent that you still did not manage to grasp about reference periods, baselines and anomalies.
And never, never would you be able to process all the data located in
https://tinyurl.com/y9rk9xfr
by using the GHCN daily station list
https://tinyurl.com/yb4yjv72
All that builds the reason why you keep behind your cowardly faked pseudo real name, and discredit and denigrate the work of others.
Poor Robertson…
Bindidon, at least try to stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Seems as if no one is able to get you to stop trolling. You seem to be one of the biggest trolls. You contribute zero percentage of useful information and only go after posters with valid science knowledge. You do not go after the biggest troll of them all, JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n).
If you applied your standards in an unbiased fashion you would have more valid claims. As it stands you are just an ignorant troll defending stupid posters for no apparent reason except you are too stupid to understand the flaws in their arguments.
Norman,
Seems as if no one is able to get you to stop trolling. You seem to be one of the biggest trolls. You contribute zero percentage of useful information and only go after posters with valid science knowledge. You do not go after the biggest troll of them all, David Appell.
If you applied your standards in an unbiased fashion you would have more valid claims. As it stands you are just an ignorant troll defending stupid posters for no apparent reason except you are too stupid to understand the flaws in their arguments.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
There you go. JDHuffman pops up with a trolling comment. Apply your standards to his posts. Tell this poster to “Please Stop Trolling”.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman says:
“You do not go after the biggest troll of them all, JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n).”
Since Dr Roys Emergency Trolling Team is the same as those two.
There’s a picture of them here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycko6qkv
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Are you JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n)?
So you will still apply complete biased administration of your comments. Sad. A political troll that is anti-science. You support the people who make up physics, declare things that are not supported, ridicule valid science, but you will never tell real trolls to stop trolling. Why is this? Why such a double standard?
Apparently, it seems I am whoever the commenter I am talking to is obsessed by.
Svante
Yes DREMT may be Huffman(g.e.r.a.n), it could also be a group of dirupters so that the two may not be the same person but part of a trolling group. I remember an mpainter (who may be one of these) poster, who got banned, but posted at all times of the day. When questioned on this the poster admitted there were more than one person using the same posting identity. Huffman and g.e.r.a.n are the same person, not sure about the others. They do pop up to support whatever odd notion g.e.r.a.n posts.
With his Moon rotation you had a J-Halpless jump in. When the topic came up again there was this odd N. Tesla poster who just happened to be reading at the same time the Moon rotation came up again. They pop up to help g.e.r.a.n then go away. You have DREMT pop up to help g.e.r.a.n then this one also goes away. It is either on person or a group. Have not been able to tell from the nature of the posts.
There is certainly a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Norman, you are one of them.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “There is certainly a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Norman, you are one of them.”
No that would apply to you. I link to actual physics material. You do nothing but troll and support trolls.
JDHuffman, a huge troll that insults and denigrates, is left alone by your posts, yet people with valid science are not.
You are a complete troll because of your trolling bias. If you tell JDHuffman to stop trolling (when he does) I will see at least a fair application of your posts.
Posters who post real and valid science are not the ones ruining a scientific blog, posters who perform actual experiments are not ruining this blog. Posters who make up their own physics with zero support are the ones who ruin a science blog and make it a political wasteland. You are one of those by supporting the pseudoscientists (JDHuffman, Gordon Robertson) who post here on a regular basis.
There is a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Misinterpreting valid science, and drawing false conclusions from poorly conducted experiments. They make up their own version of physics, and try to support it by any dishonest means available. They are either lying to themselves, or trying deliberately to deceive others. Either way, they are trolling. Norman, you are one of them.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Let me examine your latest troll comment.
YOU: “There is a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Misinterpreting valid science, and drawing false conclusions from poorly conducted experiments. They make up their own version of physics, and try to support it by any dishonest means available. They are either lying to themselves, or trying deliberately to deceive others. Either way, they are trolling. Norman, you are one of them”
So you are deliberately lying now. What poorly conducted experiment was a false conclusions were made. Support your lies please.
What physics have I made up? You are intentionally a liar, why, have you no character? Show an example of physics I have made up in my posts, please or quit your lies.
You are not a troll but an outright liar.
No I am not the troll, you are just a dishonest lying poster. If you do not attempt to prove your false and derogatory lies then you need to follow your own advice and “please stop trolling”.
It is one thing to be a deluded idiot. An intentional liar is a sad character to be. Will you be like JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n) and not attempt to prove your false allegations?
Take my posts and prove I make up physics. Demonstrate you are not a dishonest liar. You will not be able to do so.
Continue lying, it is what you fanatics do the best. Twist, distort and intentionally lie. You do not mind the dishonest person you are. I guess being a liar makes you happy in some way, you think you get away with something.
See, not pleasant, is it Norman? You can dish these insults out, but you certainly cant take them. Now please stop trolling. You are only making yourself look worse and worse.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yup you are a JDHuffman clone. I asked you to provide evidence for your false claims and you squirm out like a wet worm.
I asked you to prove any physics I have made up. A challenge to you. You are not able to do it so you post this:
“See, not pleasant, is it Norman? You can dish these insults out, but you certainly cant take them. Now please stop trolling. You are only making yourself look worse and worse.”
I do actually prove Gordon Robertson, and Huffman make up physics with actual physics links. You will not do this because you can’t.
So follow your own advice. Quit trolling. Either provide evidence of your false allegations or quit the troll.
Since I am not trolling, as you are, there is nothing for me to stop. Pointing out false and misleading physics is NOT trolling. You are trolling, I am not. That should explain it to you.
Norman, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yup. Predictable. You can’t address your own false allegations so you continue on the line of avoiding the task. I figured you would. If you are not JDHuffman you use his same tactics. Avoid, divert, ignore.
I guess you have to be a dishonest jerk to fit in with your crowd.
N, JKRATM.
Binny…”You are so dumb that you even cant make the difference between
GHCN V3
GHCN daily”
I repeat, NOAA admitted, based on it’s GHCN stations, that it only uses less than 1500 stations globally. The rest, including the 700 you mention, represent manufactured temperatures created statistically in a climate model.
I claim that partly because you referred to gridded cells which are so numerous they cannot have real temperature measuring devices in each one. Therefore, most of the cell temperatures are derived statistically in a model using sparse real data from cells up to 1200 km apart.
Some of the stations to which you refer are there on paper but NOAA does not use them. You do, then you present them as fact in graphs and explanations. That’s why I call you an idiot.
You refuse to see the outright chicanery being perpetuated by the likes of NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut, lining up like a good little lemming to get your spoonful of propaganda each day.
You still have not explained why NOAA and GISS have to reduce the confidence levels related to the probability their fudging is correct from the standard 90% level to 48% and 38% respectively in order to promote a very ordinary year like 2014 into the hottest year ever.
You fail to grasp the ridiculous in their claims. They proclaim 2014 the hottest year ever then add that the claim is “PROBABLY” true, with a probability of 48% and 38% respectively.
In other words, it’s a damned lie, yet idiots like you believe them just because they are NOAA and GISS.
That’s outright cheating and the only possible explanation is a political influence. NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are run by uber-alarmists and they are all fudging the surface temperature record to reflect the pseudo-science of AGW.
Phil Jones of Had-crut has been hounded by Steve McIntyre to release the Had-crut data set for independent audit. Jones has steadfastly refused and in the Climategate emails he urged his fellow cronies not to cooperate with an FOI presented to the UK government by McIntyre to get access to Had-crut data.
Gordon Robertson says:
I repeat, NOAA admitted, based on its GHCN stations, that it only uses less than 1500 stations globally
How many are needed, Gordon?
I repeat, NOAA admitted, based on its GHCN stations, that it only uses less than 1500 stations globally.
That information is years old, and the station count back then had a peak in the 1980s at around 6000 stations, tailing off at the end to about 1500.
There are now more stations in the historical record, and the near real-time updating stations number upwards of 2500 at present, IIRC.
That’s all about GHCN monthly. That’s not the dataset Bindidon is using.
There is a larger data set called GHCN daily, which has a larger number of stations (100,000). That’s the one Bindidon is using. From that latest methods paper on GHCN daily:
“Government exchange data (Table 3) refer to data collected through official GCOS or bilateral agreements. Under such agreements, Environment Canada and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, for example, have provided their complete digital, daily database for inclusion in GHCN-Daily (with more than 7500 and 17 000 station records, respectively).”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00103.1
A subset of these stations have long-term temp records, which are used for GHCN monthly. A large number of the 100,000 stations have too-short records to be used for long-term climate assessment, and less than a 3rd of of the 100,000 stations have temp data – precipitation data is the largest repository.
Bin, I went to link the station count chart you’ve posted, but it’s no longer there. Your charts don’t remain for long at the service you use. If you post the result again, I’ll save the pic at my image storage site.
Yes barry you are right, I am sorry for that.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536136392100/001.jpg
I’ll try to find another uploading site keeping the data permanently.
Thanks, saved that one. Do you have the same for GHCN monthly? I’d like Gordon to see that there are still more than 6000 stations in the historical data.
Robertson
I repeat: you are the most unexperienced, the most incompetent and the most pretentious commenter on this site.
You do not know anything about temperature measurements.
Why do you not learn to do the same job as I did, Robertson?
Simply because you prefer to discredit, denigrate and lie all the time. That is your dirty, disgusting hobby here.
Never and never would you be courageous enough to write your nonsense for example at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc site: she would let ban you immediately. Even Anthony Watts would.
Poor Robertson!
Bindidon, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You forgot to mention that 95% of the data is derived statistically in a model. They are not real, physical stations but the output of massaged data via interpolation and homogenization.”
All the raw data are from real, physical stations.
Then the raw data are corrected for biases. How would you prefer to correct for those biases, Gordon?
PS: Adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend.
1 : All the raw data are from real, physical stations.
2 : PS: Adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend.
Do you mean that the adjustments of stations data reduce the long-term trends?
If yes, do you have a reference?
I don’t know where we could obtain such a reference.
But when you generate raw data out of a GHCN station set in a baselined form and compare the output with e.g. GISS land-only data, you obtain this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536092899583/001.jpg
The GHCN daily anomalies wrt the reference period 1981-2010 were all generated station by station, thus implying a prescan eliminating 12814 of the 35575 stations, namely those lacking the full data necessary for constructing the station’s local baseline for the reference period.
Linear estimates in C / decade:
1. 1895-2018
– GHCN daily 0.128 ± 0.004
– GISS land 0.103 ± 0.002
2. 1979-2018
– GHCN daily 0.251 ± 0.015
– GISS land 0.217 ± 0.073
The difference is not so very great (between 15 and 20 % less), but most people pretend that the inverse holds (“they cool the past to make the present warmer”).
If you don’t believe me, do it yourself!
Bindidon,
Interesting. What is the number of stations in the sample, say around the 1930s?
Look at the graph:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536136392100/001.jpg
It shows you also immediately that an averaging of all stations must be performed such that the world does not look like USA’s backyard.
Thank you but that’s not the question. My request was for the number of stations in your sample around the 1930s.
This is an element that can help understand your surprising result. The nature of so-called raw GHCN data is not so obvious.
I do not understand what you mean: in the graph, you perfectly see what you need, namely how many stations were active in the 1930’s.
More precisely:
1930 | 2763
1931 | 2829
1932 | 2872
1933 | 2935
1934 | 2978
1935 | 3043
1936 | 3340
1937 | 3457
1938 | 3530
1939 | 3643
*
“The nature of so-called raw GHCN data is not so obvious.”
What exactly do you mean here ?? Where did you obtain such ‘information’ ?
Oups this time the good thread.
I am interested in the sample of your graph comparing raw GHCN to GISS land.
You wrote :
So you say you have 22761 stations between 1981 and 2010. How many do you have in the 1930s ?
As for the nature of raw GHCN data : not all series are in fact raw. The French series are for example already adjusted by MeteoFrance. It’s a statistical analysis of the data that showed it to me and it was confirmed by Victor Venema. He apparently has his entry into the institution and, given his opinion on the question, we can not suspect him of lying on this point!
phi
Not one temperature time series on Earth is raw! Who could ever be naive enough to expect such a nonsense?
All measurement institutions check for outlier evidence in order to avoid their distribution all around the world.
But all pseudoskeptics feel the need to think of manipulation occuring everywhere.
The greatest specialist here is Goddard alias Heller who published absolute nonsense about GHCN V3 adjusted vs. unadjusted data. I know this because I processed both data streams two years ago.
Victor Venema is all you want but a pseudoskeptic. He is a very honest scientist.
Errors can include getting the date wrong and putting the decimal point in the wrong place. Station names change, and that can create errors, especially if 2 stations have the same or similar names.
If you think data sets should include mistaken daily values of, say, 312 C, then yes, you are right to complain that data is not purely ‘raw’.
Bindidon,
You are a sophist.
I said French series were adjusted, not just controlled. Do you know what the adjustments are? Yet, this is what you claim to evaluate with your chart!
You do not answer my simple question. You say you have 22761 stations in your sample between 1981 and 2010. How much is left in the 1930s?
phi
Before you call me a sophist, maybe you should manage to accurately read my comments.
You ask for the third time in sequence
“You do not answer my simple question. You say you have 22761 stations in your sample between 1981 and 2010. How much is left in the 1930s?”
1. In the comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319129
you see a link to a graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536136392100/001.jpg
showing you the temporal distribution of station activity.
2. In the comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319197
you see the list of active stations during the 1930’s:
1930 | 2763
1931 | 2829
1932 | 2872
1933 | 2935
1934 | 2978
1935 | 3043
1936 | 3340
1937 | 3457
1938 | 3530
1939 | 3643
Do you have problems with English, phi? Va-t-il nous falloir passer au français? Aucun problème pour moi, c'est ma langue maternelle.
*
But sometimes we all do mistake, and I inverted the number of stations having successfully passed the reference period test for 1981-2010. The correct number is 12814.
That is easily seen in the graph above showing the number of active stations per year. Never and never could there be over 20000 stations having been active between 1981 and 2010!
*
Now back to my pretended sophism.
I speak about ADJUSTMENTS, phi.
See for example the GHCN V3 record for the VOSTOK station in Antarctica. There you see in the unadjusted series that somebody entered -3.20 C instead of -32.00 C.
In the adjusted series, this data has been invalidated.
Somewhere else (I think it was in Spain) it was detected that a station had produced data differing from reality by 0.5 C. That was corrected, what produced a jump in the adjusted series – but the unadjusted data was not changed.
Please show me REAL ADJUSTMENT examples corresponding to what you pretend.
And finally I ask you like barrys did: what would you do if you were responsible for all stations in France?
Would you leave all errors you detect in the record, thus letting every user (GISS, NOAA, Had-CRUT, JMA etc) correct them in his own dataset?
Who is the sophist here?
Bindidon,
Who does not understand or does not seek to understand?
I’m asking you how many of the 12814 stations in your sample are active in the 1930s, and you give me the number of active GHCN stations in that period. Your graph is not that of your sample which should have a constant number of 12814 between 1981 and 2010.
Seen?
You confuse quality control with adjustments. Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations, are intended to suppress sudden jumps in the series. Each correction has the effect of modifying all values of the series located either before or after the jump.
This operation is not neutral, it provokes, at least in the cases where it was quantified properly (in particular USHCN and the alpine zone, Böhm 2001), a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 °C for the XXth century.
My bad: the graph I linked to was the one showing all active stations (35755 in the grand total), and not only those having data in a given reference period (here: 1981-2010) making them able to contribute to an anomaly-based time series.
*
“Your graph is not that of your sample which should have a constant number of 12814 between 1981 and 2010.”
No. Because the 12814 were a static information based on yearly presence; some stations are dynamically rejected because their monthly reference period was not complete enough.
*
“You confuse quality control with adjustments. Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations, are intended to suppress sudden jumps in the series.”
No. I do not confound anything. Homogenisation is understood today as the process of comparing a station’s data with that of its neighbours in order to eliminate UHI and similar outliers. Performed by GISS since… 1998.
*
“This operation is not neutral, it provokes, at least in the cases where it was quantified properly (in particular USHCN and the alpine zone, Böhm 2001), a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 °C for the XXth century.”
You wrote here exactly the contrary of what Böhm, Auer et alii published:
“A comparison of the homogenized series with the original series clearly shows the necessity to homogenize. Each of the original series had breaks (an average of five per series) and the mean of all series was systematically biased by non-climatic noise. This noise has subdued the long-term amplitude of the temperature evolution in the region by 0.5 K.”
All that becomes quite clear when one reads the full article at
http://www.homogenisation.org/files/private/WG1/Bibliography/Applications/Applications%20%28A-B%29/bohm_etal.pdf
namely that the authors were able to perform a cooling bias correction in the CRU dataset.
Did you really read the paper itself? Or did you rather read a ‘critique’ of it made by some ‘skeptic’?
Bindidon,
Too bad you do not have a graph of the actual number of values. In any case, your calculation does not demonstrate what you think.
Homogenisation is understood today as the process of comparing a station’s data with that of its neighbours in order to eliminate UHI and similar outliers.
The definition is still not fixed. That’s why I wrote : Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations.
You wrote here exactly the contrary of what Böhm, Auer et alii published
This noise has <b/subdued the long-term amplitude of the temperature evolution in the region by 0.5 K.
You have a very serious problem of understanding!!!
I wrote : This operation is not neutral, it provokes.. …a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 °C for the XXth century.
Bindidon,
Too bad you do not have a graph of the actual number of values. In any case, your calculation does not demonstrate what you think.
The definition is still not fixed. That’s why I wrote : Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations.
This noise has subdued the long-term amplitude of the temperature evolution in the region by 0.5 K.
You have a very serious problem of understanding!!!
I wrote : This operation is not neutral, it provokes.. …a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 C for the XXth century.
phi
Firstly, let me apologise for having thought you would turn Böhm’s scientific result into its contrary: that is what happens here all the time after all, and I must confess that this makes me sometimes a bit paranoid.
I begin to understand that you are all but a clone of the Robertson clown.
*
Secondly, we need some convergence concerning baselines.
You were wondering about the average number of GHCN daily stations per year being in my comment lower during 1981-2010 than the number of stations I computed a baseline for (and they were indeed 22761, not 12814: this was the number of rejected stations).
This is due to the fact that I used for GHCN daily (35575 stations) the same objects and methods as for GHCN V3 (7280 stations) 2 years ago.
At that time I had the problem of achieving a compromise between temporal baseline accuracy (as many data in the baseline as possible) and spatial station accuracy (as many stations as possible).
The 22761 stations were obtained with a minimal temporal requirement (at least one month per baseline year).
This is the reason why a maximum of 16310 stations appears in the chart instead of the 22761.
Requesting all months to be present in all baselines reduces the amount of available stations down to 3319 stations, and setting the bar at 50% gives us at least 13250 of them.
Below you see two charts:
– one shows the temporal station distribution wrt the baseline completeness level (you see that a 100% completeness gives us exactly the number of stations expected)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536352656582/001.jpg
– one shows the time series constructed out of the available stations (stations not fulfilling the baselining requirement are automatically excluded)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153635273430/001.jpg
Linear estimates 1895-2018
– 22761 baselines: 0.06 C / decade
– 13250 baselines: 0.06 C / decade
– 3319 baselines: 0.11 C / decade
Linear estimates 1979-2018
– 22761 baselines: 0.23 C / decade
– 13250 baselines: 0.26 C / decade
– 3319 baselines: 0.28 C / decade
Please draw your own conclusions.
Nota bene
As opposed to the GHCN daily plot in the GHCN/GISS comparison, the 3 plots above were generated without grid averaging, thus giving the US stations their usual predominance (over 50%) and hence a somewhat lower trend.
People having a higher math/stat background than I of course can obtain much better spatiotemporal baseline presence.
I am a simple layman, and have lots of fun.
Here is a pdf version of the anomaly chart above:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536354309104.pdf
You can scale it up to say 400 or 800 % and thus will obtain a much better comparison of the 60 month running means in the three plots.
phi
I wrote in the comment above (September 7, 2018 at 2:50 PM):
“… with a minimal temporal requirement (at least one month per baseline year).”
Sorry! I should of course have written:
“… with a minimal temporal requirement (at least one year per baseline month).”
Evidemment.
Bindidon,
Thank you for the clarification.
I will not go into details but quickly some elements.
In my opinion, the interest of adjustments quantification resides mainly in the demonstration of the predominance of cooling jumps in the raw series.
This bias is an enigma, the explanatory attempts contained in Böhm 2001 are unlikely.
Your methodology contains a potential defect because the sample varies over time.
You may have a way to test Böhm’s explanations. If he is right, the jumps are statistically independent of the series history and you should get a similar result with constant sample. In addition, this would mean that US and the alpine zone are exceptions.
The alternative explanation is that the stations are subject to a constant increase of the warming perturbations and that the cooling jumps are partial corrections notably at the occasion of thermometers relocation. This implies that statistically the series do not contain significant cooling jumps in the early decades and therefore, at constant sample, you should get lower trends.
You could test this for example on 1931-2010.
Do you think that the important difference between your two graphs comes from the difference of spatial representativity?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536092899583/001.jpg
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153635273430/001.jpg
phi says:
Do you mean that the adjustments of stations data reduce the long-term trends?
If yes, do you have a reference?
Sure. See the graph in Karl et al, Figure 2b (“With Corrections Versus Without Corrections”) for the temperature data with and without adjustments. Compare the trends bias corrections REDUCE the long-term global warming trend.
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
Ooooh look! A graph!
Cheers.
David Appell,
My question was specifically about the stations. The visible effect on your graph is due to a correction of the SST.
Adjustments to station data make the long term trend warmer.
Adjustments to SSTs make the long term record cooler.
The combination of both makes the adjusted record cooler than raw.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
barry,
Adjustments to station data make the long term trend warmer.
Yes and that’s why it’s interesting to understand why Bindidon is coming to an opposite result.
For a start, the data in my link is from the GHCN monthly data set, which has upward of 7000 stations (at peak). That’s the data set with long-term station records.
Bin’s data set is GHCN daily, which includes many short-term station data. The entire data set is 100,000 stations. A majority do not have temp data (2/3 of all stations are precipitation only).
Also, there is no weighting in Bin’s plot, so if one area has a bunch of stations more than another, that area’s trend will dominate.
Europe and the US will comprise a large portion of the dataset, and their log-term trends are less than global. The reason for the difference is most likely due to a preponderance of station data in areas that have not warmed as much as global.
Also occurred to me: US raw data has time of observation bias that cools the trend, as well as instrument change bias. This will impact the global trend, as US stations are probably the largest number for any country.
barry
“Adjustments to station data make the long term trend warmer.”
Not necessarily.
“Also, there is no weighting in Bins plot, so if one area has a bunch of stations more than another, that areas trend will dominate.”
WOW! You seem to know what I do even better than myself!
Sorry: you are ‘plain wrong’, as Grant Foster uses to say.
The graph I presented somewhere above in the discussion with phi, comparing GHCN daily with GISS, is very well based on a station data grid averaging (2.5 degrees, like for UAH’s time series).
And yes: a grid averaging indeed makes the world a bit warmer. Simply because it looks that way at bit less like the US!
My poor Bindidon,
You obviously have no idea of the structure of the data you are manipulating. Well clever who can understand what you have tinkered.
There are 673 GHCN stations with complete monthly data between 1981 and 2010 for about 3000 land cells of 2.5 x 2.5 !!!!
GISS and others can ponder because they use all the available series. They integrate them using an effective yet questionable method.
No, I won’t answer with ‘My poor phi’.
“You obviously have no idea of the structure of the data you are manipulating.”
Are you sure?
You are possibly talking about GHCN V3, I am certainly talking about GHCN daily.
Let us go back to our main exchange subthread.
phi
I come back here after a longer comment on ‘our’ pipeline.
“There are 673 GHCN stations with complete monthly data between 1981 and 2010 for about 3000 land cells of 2.5 x 2.5”
1. Do you know this:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/03/area-weighting-and-60-stations-global.html
2. Do you know about the wonderful redundancy level in UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536355729727.jpg
The blue plot was obtained by selecting 1024 evenly distributed cells within the 9504 cell grid, and constructing a time series out of their averaging.
phi says:
“My question was specifically about the stations. The visible effect on your graph is due to a correction of the SST.”
PLenty has been written about the urban heat island effect, which isn’t that big to begin with. Go read it, especially from the 1980s-1990s.
The larger problem isn’t with the stations themselves, but with the methodology used to read them. These articles are the best I know to explain the issues:
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
“Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
David Appell
PLenty has been written about the urban heat island effect, which isnt that big to begin with.
Reported to 100% urbanized areas, energy expenditure and evaporation deficit produce on average in temperate climate about 50% more sensible heat than rural areas. Which isn’t that negligible to begin with.
I am interested in the sample of your graph comparing raw GHCN to GISS land.
You wrote :
So you say you have 22761 stations between 1981 and 2010. How many do you have in the 1930s ?
As for the nature of raw GHCN data : not all series are in fact raw. The French series are for example already adjusted by MeteoFrance. It’s a statistical analysis of the data that showed it to me and it was confirmed by Victor Venema. He apparently has his entry into the institution and, given his opinion on the question, we can not suspect him of lying on this point!
DA…”All the raw data are from real, physical stations.
Then the raw data are corrected for biases. How would you prefer to correct for those biases, Gordon?”
David Appell’s fantasy world resumes.
Yes, the raw data is from real stations but at one time NOAA was using 6000 stations to cover the planet. Now they are using less than 1500 stations.
They use the data from those stations in a climate model where the data is interpolated and homogenized to create synthesized temperatures, which represent the majority of temperature data points.
In fact, NOAA is going so far as to create ‘reference’ stations with which they can compare real temperatures to see if they need adjusting.
Gordon Robertson says:
Yes, the raw data is from real stations…
So you admit you were wrong.
…but at one time NOAA was using 6000 stations to cover the planet. Now they are using less than 1500 stations
Why have you always ignored Barry’s replies to you, calling you out?
PS: Only ~100 stations are needed.
DA,
Do the long suffering taxpayers get a refund for all the money wasted collecting all the useless records for a century or so? Who is going to be prosecuted for using 6000 stations when only 100 or so are necessary?
Are you the only person to become aware of this colossal waste of time, effort and money? Maybe you can get a whistleblowers’ percentage.
Why are any stations at all needed? Surely computer models are just as useless at predicting the future – or a 12 year old child with a straight edge and a pencil could be employed for a few minutes at a time as required.
I hope you get the reward you so richly deserve.
Cheers.
Gordon,
The number of stations now peak above 6000 in the 1980s, and go down to about 2500 in the present.
The 6000 station data is still there. It hasn’t been deleted. it just hasn’t been updated.
The only reason there is a larger number of stations back in time is that the people who make GHCN went looking for historical data and added it in. This was data that wasn’t from the regularly updating stations. Nothing was deleted. It was added.
It’s still all there in the GHCN monthly database.
Robertson
Stop your disgusting lies!
Bindidon, please stop your disgusting trolling.
“The GHCNM v3 has been released. This version currently contains monthly mean temperature, monthly maximum temperature and monthly minimum temperature. The station network for the time being, is the same as GHCN-Monthly version 2 (7280 stations).”
The data for 6000 stations are still there, Gordon.
CAGW is so disconfirmed…
We’ve enjoyed 0.05C/decade of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, for a total of just 0.85C of beneficial warming over the past 168 years… Oh, the humanity…
Since 1979 (UAH start), we’ve enjoyed about 0.13C/decade of beneficial warming recovery, with most of this attributed to: PDO/AMO/NAO 30-year warm cycles, the strongest 63-year Solar Maximum event in 11,400 years (1933~1963), El Nino/Super El Nino spikes, and natural variation.
CO2’s contribution has been minimal; perhaps just 0.2C~0.3C over the past 168 years.
From 2020, the PDO, AMO and NAO will all be in (or about to start) their respective 30-year cool cycles, and a 50~75-yr Grand Solar Minimum event will also start, leading to cooling global temps for many decades to come.
CAGW projected the early 2000 warming trend would be 0.2C/decade (not even close), and will soon increase to 0.3C/decade (a pure fantasy)…
CMIP5 model mean projections show global temp anomalies should be near 1.2C by August 2018, but UAH’s anomaly was just 0.19C last month (6 TIMES lower than projections)…
It looks like the current El Nino cycle will be a La Nada event, but it’s still a bit early… We’ll see by the end of this year how strong it will be…
A La Nina event will likely start in 2020, in combination with: the start of a GSM, the PDO being is a 30-year cool cycle, AMO starting its 30-year cool cycle and the NAO starting its 30-year cool cycle…
CAGW will soon be laughed at…
sam…”CO2s contribution has been minimal; perhaps just 0.2C~0.3C over the past 168 years”.
I could go along with that if you changed it to 0.02C – 0.03C.
Ignoring radiative transfer in the atmosphere is like claiming animals don’t consist of cells, or that electrons don’t exist because you can’t see them. There isn’t even a word for how wrong it is, and how dumb.
It is also not what is happening. You know that of course, you are just trolling again.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
I must have accidentally nudged the automatic citation feature.
By all means, don’t dare look at any of these citations, let alone discuss them.
You’re clearly not here for the science. So why are you here?
DA,
“Radiative Forcing” is nonsensical pseudoscientific climatological jargon, much like “climate sensitivity” or “heat accumulation”.
Any paper containing such words has probably been published only after its author has paid to have it published. There is probably a market for such nonsense among the stupid, gnorant and delusional.
Books relating to astrology or cooking will likely be more profitable, and more useful.
Cheers.
David, you cannot even follow the simplest conversations. You claimed people here are ignoring radiative transfer in the atmosphere altogether, as if it does not even happen. That is obviously false, and I said so. You then link to those papers (as you have done countless times before) even though it does not logically follow. Weird (and trolling).
DA…”Ignoring radiative transfer in the atmosphere is like claiming animals dont consist of cells….”
Radiative transfer from the surface is inefficient and insignificant. Problem is, alarmists have not learned that yet.
Prove that for us, Gordon. Enlighten us. Please.
(PS: It’s not just from the surface. Big mistake.)
DA,
Prove that he is wrong. You claim to be here to correct people.
Correct away – I am always open to new facts.
Cheers.
E Swanson wrote –
“The effect of adding insulation on a system with a (nearly) constant energy input will be to increase the temperature within the insulated space. This effect can be easily demonstrated with simple instrumentation, but MF chooses to ignore such evidence. MF is either hopelessly ignorant of physics or his goal is a malicious attempt to spread denialist FUD.”
Misleading nonsense. Increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a surface thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
All you need is sunlight, a thermometer, and insulation of your choice. Actually, even a conductor will serve just as well – a sheet of silver or copper, if you have one to hand.
Or you can just wait for a cloud to pass between the Sun and the thermometer, if you prefer.
No climatological pseudoscientific misdirection or redefinition needed.
No wonder none of these GHE enthusiasts can actually describe the deity they worship, and it’s a travesty that they can’t. No GHE. No CO2 heating effect. So sad, too bad.
Cheers,
Mike…re swannie’s comment….”The effect of adding insulation on a system with a (nearly) constant energy input will be to increase the temperature within the insulated space”.
What swannie fails to understand it that it’s not the insulation raising the temperature. The room temperature, pre-insulation, is a result of heat in versus heat out and the heat comes from a heat source.
All the insulation does is affect the heat out factor, it cannot change heat in.
The only insulation in the atmosphere is the 99% made up of nitrogen and oxygen. It acts by absorbing heat from the surface and not releasing the heat for a lengthy period.
CO2 at 0.04% can supply no insulating effect. The piddly amount of heat it acquires by converting surface IR to heat can do nothing to raise the temperature of the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson
E. Swanson knows physics of heat transfer. You do not want to learn it. He has also done actual experiments to prove his view is correct and you have done nothing of this sort.
The atmosphere prevents all but an average of 40 W/m^2 energy from the surface making it to space. The surface emits an average of 390 W/m^2 so it means the atmosphere is absorbing 350 W/m^2. CO2 absorbs a percentage of this amount (minimum estimate is 10%, upper range around 20%).
If you put a cold plate over a hot burner, the cold plate will absorb most the IR from the burner, none will make it through. The plate will heat up and start emitting more IR. Some will be emitted back toward the burner, increasing its temperature a bit, some will be emitted on the opposite side of the burner away from the plate.
Do some experiments. You will find all your ideas are wrong and flawed and you will have to start over from scratch. Start to learn the REAL physics and not the blog version you are addicted to.
No Norman, you’re getting even more confused, instead of learning.
The atmosphere is NOT trapping 350 W/m^2! Think about how stupid that sounds!
JDHuffman
When did I use the word “trapping”. The GHG in the atmosphere absorb 350 W/m^2 of surface IR. They emit more than this because they also absorb solar incoming IR as well as being warmed by latent heat and thermals.
Not sure what prompted your response and changing of my word choice.
“The atmosphere prevents all but an average of 40 W/m^2 energy from the surface making it to space.”
JDHuffman
Yes from the surface emission. As I stated, the atmosphere emits more than it absorbs from the surface.
The surface IR is mostly absorbed and then the heated GHG will emit IR.
Still does not explain your incorrect use of terminology.
Do you claim that the atmosphere is not absorbing surface IR? What is it exactly you are tying to state?
Norman Grinvalds does not understand physics, so he is usually wrong. In this example he gets caught, and tries to spin his way out.
First, Norman claims, erroneously:
“The atmosphere prevents all but an average of 40 W/m^2 energy
from the surface making it to space.”
Then he tries to somehow redeem himself:
“As I stated, the atmosphere emits more than it absorbs from the surface.”
He gets tangled in his pseudoscience, and ends up arguing with himself!
g.e.r.a.n
Sorry you are wrong. Nothing I said was wrong. All was completely true. You are just trolling.
Where is your idiot buddy, Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:, when he is needed. You need to stop trolling and being a general idiot.
Norman says: “Sorry you are wrong. Nothing I said was wrong. All was completely true.”
And that’s why Norman will always be a clown.
Norman, you are the living embodiment of why I am necessary. You have absolutely no ability to be critical of yourself in any way. Yet so many of your comments, like the last one, are utterly devoid of content. Just a collection of insults and a couple of statements to the effect that you are correct.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Most your posts are useless. When you do try to post some physics you show how little you understand. Rather than trying to point out flaws in my physics (which you are not able to do, you are not smart enough to even attempt such a task) you post empty nonsense. You need to be insulted when you are an idiot. Why do you think making a stupid pointless comment (like telling only a select few to stop trolling but letting the biggest troll on this blog, who is not David Appell, but g.e.r.a.n post his trolling comments freely without any reaction from you) deserves praise? When you post like an idiot why do you believe you are entitled to respect?
JDHuffman
And that is why you will always be wrong. Is there anything you have been right about so far? I don’t think so. You have a track record of claiming to know physics but not presenting any of it but your own notions of how things work.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
I have shown you many times where you are wrong based upon established physics. Your comeback is the standard “He does not understand what he is reading” without the slightest explanation of what I don’t understand. I guess that is an attempt to fool people into thinking you know what you are talking about when you don’t really know anything. Sad deluded poster.
Two more substance-free comments. Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman, I’m glad to see you are studying that link. Someday, maybe you will understand it?
Your constant attempted insults only reveal your pathetic desperation and abject insecurity.
JDHuffman
I do not continue to study your link. I bring it up to show how little physics you understand and how you make up what you don’t know. Experimental evidence proves it to be incorrect. You would be much wiser to reject your made up physics. Accept that you are wrong and correct your flawed notions. Persisting in deluded reality is not going to help you.
Norman, continue to study that link.
Reality is good.
Norman…”E. Swanson knows physics of heat transfer. You do not want to learn it. He has also done actual experiments to prove his view is correct and you have done nothing of this sort.”
You and swannie make a great pseudo-science team.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry to pop your delusion bubble. E. Swanson not only understands real and valid science much better than you ever will, he goes much further and does actual experiments to prove his view is the correct one.
No Gordon you are the one who makes up their own physics to suit your deluded beliefs and Conspiracy theories. You are a true pseudoscience poster by the very definition. You make up ideas with zero evidence, the material you pretend to understand (like Clausius work) is wrong and when people bring up direct quotes you are wrong you are so deluded you further twist and distort the quotes. Pure pseudoscience. When you do your own experiments and prove even one of your wacko ideas, then I will consider your ideas. As it stands you make up whatever sounds good to you and pretend you know what you are talking about. When people correct you you ignore them as it does not fit your political agenda.
You got the psedoscience experts on this blog, You, JDHUffman, DREMT, J-Halpless, N Tesla. Just a bunch of crackpots pretending they know physics. Not one of you knows the slightest bit of physics.
Your goof ball Huffman thinks this is valid even when experimental evidence proves it is BS, false and made up. Does not change this moron’s mind. He will be as stupid today as he was yesterday and will continue to post his endless unenlightened garbage, defended by the stupid DREMT (who is probably a sock puppet of g.e.r.a.n).
This is pseudoscience. It is all you know Gordon and all you care about.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
The dunce has the plates the same temperature. E. Swanson’s experiment shows him to be a deluded idiot. Doesn’t phase this crackpot or you. Yet neither you nor the idiot (and the annoying idiot DREMT) will do your own experiments of any type. You live in the world of pseudoscience where you make up whatever idea you like and pretend you know physics.
Another comment with zero substantive content, just personal abuse and proclamations of who is correct and who is not, according to your subjective opinion. Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman embraces dishonesty, as he rejects reality.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The annoying troll.
So you make the claim about me “proclamations of who is correct and who is not, according to your subjective opinion.”
Really?
We have an actual experiment done by E. Swanson in vacuum conditions that show blue/green plates are at different temperatures.
We have your buddy making this claim about the state of the two plates.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
What is my subjective opinion? There is actual facts on this matter. It is not an opinion nor subjective. Not sure what you are trying to say but it is most likely wrong.
Quit trolling. Follow your own advice.
Real plates possess some degree of thermal resistance. Perfectly-conducting, ultra-thin thought-experiment plates possess none. With real plates, get some insulative effect. Apparently, 10 degrees C worth. With thought-experiment plates, get none. End of discussion.
Now, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman embraces dishonesty, as he rejects reality.”
Yeah right! Coming from the poster that got banned as g.e.r.a.n and comes back and pretends he is not. Talk about dishonest.
Also you reject reality. You post a phony energy transfer diagram of plates and have them at the same temperature when experimental evidence proves they do not reach the same temperature. You just make up things and get upset when other posters challenge your BS.
Your troll partner does his/her best to protect your BS from scrutiny by distracting posters with the stupid “Please stop trolling”.
Now the two of you are tag teaming me because I call your posts stupid and ludicrous.
The only question remaining is when you will let go and post “hilarious”. You use clown and very funny but you are avoiding your signature “hilarious”.
Delusional Norman believes every commenter is his hero ger*an.
And, that’s only one of his many personal problems.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Okay good, you are finally making a claim. Now if you don’t want to be a troll what evidence do you have to support you claim that thermal resistance will cause the green plate to be much cooler than the blue plate and what is the logic you have to reach this conclusion?
JDHuffman
YOU: “Delusional Norman believes every commenter is his hero ger*an.”
Really? Hmm. I think I have suggested only you and DRMET could be g.e.r.a.n. I am not sure about DRMET, I am fairly certain you are. Two would not even come close to the several dozen commenters on this blog. Not sure what point you were trying to make. Like most your pointless posts. I guess you need to do something with your time. You get drunk and post on Roy’s blog. I guess it passes the time for you.
Norman, you’re such a clown. You suspect anyone that uses the word “hilarious” to be your hero, ger*an.
Norman provides the proof of his own dishonesty that he earlier demanded from me, as he changes my statement, asks me to defend his altered version of my statement, and most amazingly of all, says that if I dont do this, I will be a troll!
Norman, please stop trolling.
“All you need is sunlight, a thermometer, and insulation of your choice. ”
OK. I’ll take the challenge. My insulation is a piece of glass, on a wood frame.
The temp reading on the thermometer rises from 80 F to 105 F.
N,
No it doesn’t. What is it you are not saying? Is your thermometer not on the surface? Have you perhaps placed it in a fish tank with a blackened bottom?
Or you can tell me that you placed another piece of glass between the Sun and the original, and the thermometer rose another 25 F! And so on.
Either you are stupid and ignorant, or you have discovered a new principle of physics.
I suspect a semantic trick, but you provide insufficient information.
Cheers.
Repeated the experiment, Mike. Easier setup that anyone can reproduce.
Exact recipe.
Large pizza box, remove lid. Cut large round hole (D ~ 30 cm) in bottom. Poke digital meat thermometer through the side of the box.
Place on dirt, hole on top, in sunshine. Ambient temp 85 F.
Wait 10 m, check temp. 105 F.
Cover hole in box with glass window, or plexiglass sheet. Both work same.
Wait 10 m. Check temp. 149 F.
Super-clown Nate believes he has invented a “solar oven”.
That’s why he is a “super-clown”.
JD promised the other day to never respond to my posts anymore. Already he can’t resist.
But yes, JD, it is not a new invention. It works well for capturing solar energy for hot water heating too.
And yet, somehow, Mike Flynn denies its reality.
N,
Not at all. A surface insulated from direct sunlight is colder than that same surface exposed to direct sunlight.
My solar heated water collection panels achieve around 185 F, or so.
Put a pizza box over the panel, shielding it from the direct rays of the Sun, and it won’t get nearly as hot. That is no doubt why manufacturers do not cover their panels with insulation in the form of pizza boxes!
Stupidity and ignorance is no substitute for the scientific method.
Tell me all about the GHE, which apparently is not an effect, and has no relationship to greenhouses! Your delusional fantasies are shared by many. Belief is no substitute for fact.
I confidently predict that placing a pizza box in the Sun will result in a higher temperature than placing it in a refrigerator, or exposing it to the unconcentrated rays of the Moon. Do you think you could make it hotter exposing it to CO2?
Go away, if you choose. Hide from the laughter.
Cheers.
“All you need is sunlight, a thermometer, and insulation of your choice.”
The insulation of my choice was clearly glass (pun intended), Mike. The temp of the thermometer rose considerably with the glass between the sun and the thermometer.
Your challenge was met.
Your favorite meme is proven FALSE. Now you can stop saying it.
MF (and Gordo) again distort the science, as usual. The insulation effect occurs on the outgoing side of the heat transfer process. MF’s comment again presents only the inward flow of sunlight thru the atmosphere, which is not the important portion of the problem.
As another experiment, suppose one places a heat source within an insulated box, along with a temperature measuring instrument of some sort. With the insulated box itself located in a space with (nearly) constant temperature, such as a room, measure the temperature difference between the inside of the box and the room after the box temperature has reached steady state. Now, add some more insulation around the box and then measure the temperature within the box again.
The box could be as simple as a cheap Styrofoam beer cooler and the heater could be a small wattage incandescent light bulb. Measure the temperature with an indoor-outdoor digital thermometer, which are readily available from many stores. You could use a second cooler for the added insulation, since they are typically designed with in a stacked configuration for sale, so one could simply place the first cooler within the second and add the second top above the first, sealing the joints.
Science and engineering tells us that the temperature difference will increase. The heat source doesn’t cause the box temperature to increase, it’s the extra insulation. Surely you will agree with this conclusion, even without performing the experiment yourself.
E. Swanson, you are confusing “radiative” and “conducive” heat transfers.
That happens often in pseudoscience.
That should be “conductive”, not “conducive”!
(Foiled again by auto-correct.)
g.e.r.a.n
No E. Swanson is not confused about the terminology. Your reading skills are what is lacking. Note he chose the words carefully just for people like you.
E. Swanson: “insulation effect” he did not say insulation, he said insulation effect.
Take an infrared heater turn it to maximum and sit in front of it. You will feel the IR energy hitting your skin. Now put a wooden door in-between you and the heater. The door keeps the IR from reaching you, you no longer feel it. It is effectively insulating you from the IR energy.
HERE:
“insulate
verb
Definition of insulate for English Language Learners
: to add a material or substance to (something) in order to stop heat, electricity, or sound from going into or out of it”
So the wooden door will stop IR from reaching you. It is insulating you from the IR, it is stopping the heat from reaching you.
The only one here that is full of pseudoscience (and you don’t know what it means but you like the sound of it) and confused by concepts and words.
Grinvalds, trying to make a point by mixing conductive and radiative properties just indicates you do not understand physics.
But, your humor is appreciated.
E,
You wrote –
“MFs comment again presents only the inward flow of sunlight thru the atmosphere, which is not the important portion of the problem.”
There is no problem. You complain that I depict reality, which apparently defeats your purpose. Without incoming sunlight, there is no surface heating of consequence. Your blue plates, green plates – all cool in the absence of a heat source – the Sun.
You cannot even describe the GHE in which you seem to believe. Nor can anyone else. The pseudoscientific climatological clowns seem to claim that reducing the amount of sunlight transmitted through the atmosphere makes surface thermometers hotter.
Complete nonsense of course, caused by the inability to accept facts. An instance of the scientific ignorance of the GHE believers is demonstrated by the name “Greenhouse Effect”. Another would be the madness of adding “fluxes”, or radiative intensity from sources of different temperatures.
Oh well, I suppose that is not as bad as the NSF refusing for years to believe that Archimedes’ principle applies to floating ice! Don’t believe me? Look it up.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Four and a half billion years of cooling.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
You cannot even describe the GHE in which you seem to believe.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
Everything DA sees is now the “GHE”.
The atmosphere is now the “GHE”.
The IPCC would be so disappointed….
DA,
The Greenhouse Effect is not an effect at all?
Just more climatological pseudoscientific delusion?
Generally, increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer results in less radiation reaching the thermometer. The thermometer cools as a result.
Obviously, climatological insulation is of a more magical nature. It creates more energy than it absorbs, resulting in perpetual motion though the miracle of positive feedback.
This is no doubt the reason for Gore’s millions of degrees, or your surface temperature of 760,000 K after a few years. Only in your delusional fantasy, of course. Pity.
No CO2 heating. Four and a half billion years of cooling seems to have occurred. Maybe you are confused about the difference between heating and cooling?
Cheers,
Mike Flynn says:
Generally, increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer results in less radiation reaching the thermometer.
Depends on the type of insulation, doesn’t it?
DA,
Why do you ask that?
Do you not know how insulation works?
Maybe you should tell NASA about your special knowledge of magical insulation where the less there is, the better it works.
Keep on trolling.
Cheers.
swannie…”As another experiment, suppose one places a heat source within an insulated box….”
***********
You are still not getting the fact that the heat source supplies the heat, not the insulation.
If you placed a heat source in a room and you were able to prevent all dissipation, the room would reach a maximum temperature which it could never exceed. If you now allow dissipation, the room temperature will drop to a level that is the difference between heat in from the source and the heat out (dissipation) through the walls and ceiling, as well as radiation.
If you come along and slow the rate of dissipation by adding insulation, the room temperature will move upward toward THE MAXIMUM LEVEL THE ROOM WOULD BE WITHOUT DISSIPATION. You have not heated the room with the insulation, you have interfered with the balance between heat from the source and heat loss to the atmosphere.
The heat always comes from the heat source and the ambient temperature measured near the heat source reflects the degree to which the heat can be dissipated.
It is not the insulation adding the heat, it is always the source. Insulation cannot make a room warmer by adding heat. The room warms because it had already cooled due to dissipation. It was not at it’s maximum possible temperature.
Going back to your first experiment, you had a heat source, which was a metal plate placed on an electric ring of a stove. Under the present conditions, it was radiating, conducting, and convecting to and through the surrounding air, and had reached a steady state ambient temperature, which you measured.
The plate was not at its maximum temperature because it was losing heat to the air. Then you installed another metal plate a few inches above the heated plate. That interfered with the convection of hot air which needed to rise straight up. Therefore the heated plate could not cool as quickly and it warmed toward the maximum temperature it would have reached had all dissipation been prevented.
The same thing happened in your evacuated experiment but this time, due to the vacuum, conduction and convection were not issues. You started out with a heated plate (blue plate) radiating to space through the vacuum. The plate reached a temperature you measured but that temperature was not the maximum temperature the plate could reach, since it was dissipating heat through radiation.
Then you raised another plate in close proximity to the blue plate (green plate), noting that the temperature rose on the blue plate. No wonder, you had interfered with its ability to radiate heat, which it had done freely before.
You concluded, in contradiction to the 2nd law, that both plates were back-radiating heat to the heated plates.
You were wrong.
Clearly you accept that insulation will increase a house’s temperature, as will a coat worn in winter.
That’s all that we needed to know.
DA,
Your reading skills are abysmal – or maybe you are just stupid and ignorant.
I insulate my house to lower the internal temperature. What part of this are you incapable of understand?
A coat’s temperature is whatever you measure it to be. Immersed in liquid nitrogen, it will be cold. Lay it in bright sunlight, much hotter.
Wrapped around a live human, it will be hotter than wrapped around a dead human on a mortician’s slab.
What words are you trying to put in my mouth? I don’t blame you for the attempt – your mouth generally seems full of foot.
Does your refrigerator contain insulation to increase the temperature of the contents? Carry on trolling.
Cheers.
MF wrote: “I insulate my house to lower the internal temperature. What part of this are you incapable of understand?”
Not knowing where you live or how your house functions, I would guess that you use an air conditioner or heat pump to cool your house. The insulation reduces the rate of energy consumption necessary to run the HVAC to keep things cool. Just standard brute force engineering that.
Or, if you live an an area where nights are sufficiently cooler than your desired temperature, the insulation may function to attenuate the daily temperature cycle within your house, compared to the daily cycle of the great outdoors.
E,
Are you disagreeing with my statement?
Have you any reason for doing so, or are you just trying to avoid an inconvenient truth?
As to your last sentence, you have accurately characterised the action of the atmosphere in relation to the Earth’s surface. Not as hot as the airless Moon, and not as cold, either.
Just physics – no CO2 heating. No magic.
So sad. Too bad. Off you go, and waffle about “Just standard brute force engineering, that.”
Do you think that might make inconvenient fact vanish?
Cheers.
MF has gotten himself in a bind. He can’t bother to describe his house or it’s environment, perhaps because he is afraid that if he admits that he has a machine to cool his house that he will admit that heat by conduction flows from hot to cold and his cool environment is artificial.
E,
Your mind reading skills are in dire need of an upgrade.
Maybe you need to establish a few facts on which to base your stupid and ignorant assumptions.
You guess away furiously, because you cannot find anything anything factual to disagree with, can you?
My house is insulated to prevent the Sun from heating the interior to temperatures which result in the absence of insulation. The solar hot water (flat collector type) system on the roof gets to about 80 C or so. The floor inside is around 27 C, insulated from the direct rays of the Sun. The adjacent road surface is 52 C or so, but wii be a little hotter later on. Take a wild guess at which temperature I find more amenable, if you wish.
No machinery involved.
It is not my fault if your fantasy cannot cope with reality. Now tell me again what you think I am afraid of, and why. Feel free to demonstrate your levels of stupidity and ignorance if you think it will be of benefit.
Cheers.
MF, Since you failed to report your night time minimum, I still think you may be using a mechanical device, i.e., a fan, to move the night time air thru your house to cool it below the daily average temperature outside. Of course, you are overstating your conditions, since the daily high air temperature will be less than the solar heated surface of the road which you mention.
Just another round of misinformation from your twisted troll brain.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordo (and MF), The temperature of an object is the result of the the energy flowing in and the energy flowing out. Once these flows reach steady state, the temperature won’t change. Gordo’s notion of a “maximum temperature” is meaningless, as you’ve defined it for a condition of no “dissipation”, by which I presume you mean no convection, conduction or radiation energy loss. In truth, without any heat loss, continuing to add energy to the body would result in the temperature continuing to climb until the material melts or vaporizes. There is no such thing as a “maximum temperature”, since there will always be energy lost to the surroundings.
That said, you have now achieved the realization that there is a steady state temperature within the insulated box or at the Earth’s surface within the atmosphere. And, you apparently agree that increasing the insulation of the box would result in a higher temperature within the box. But, you still claim there’s some mythical “maximum” beyond which the temperature can not increase, which is hogwash.
If you could only make the next logical step and agree that the atmosphere acts similar to the insulation for the box in that the temperature at the surface is the direct result of that insulating effect. Of course, the energy comes from the Sun, just as the energy into the heated box comes from the heating device, that is, from outside.
Of course, you again trot out your deviant physics regarding my Green Plate Effect demo, claiming that the Green plate “interfered with its ability to radiate heat” by the Blue plate’s IR EM radiation energy loss, ignoring the well known effect of the back radiation from the Green Plate toward the Blue plate. All bodies radiate thermal energy all the time. Do tell us what happens to the IR EM from the Green plate in the direction of the Blue plate, if not being absorbed by the Blue plate ?
E,
My house is insulated to reduce its temperature, whether you care to believe it or not.
Just as a refrigerator (an insulated box) uses insulation to keep its contents cool, or the space shuttles was heavily insulated to keep its occupants cool (and alive).
You might notice the temperature drops at night, atmospheric insulation notwithstanding.
You may have noticed that the surface is no longer molten, atmospheric insulation notwithstanfing.
You may even have noticed that the temperature drops precipitously during a total solar eclipse, atmospheric insulation notwithstanding.
Or maybe not. Believe as you wish. Many of a climatological pseudoscientific bent agree with you – quasi religious cultists of all types abound. Keep praying.
Maybe you can reverse four and a half billion years of cooling though the power of prayer, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
MF fails again. He might have noticed that I was pointing to the basics of convective heat transfer, which is that thermal energy flows from higher to lower temperature and insulation retards the rate of that energy flow thru the insulating medium.
He may have noticed that the cooling of a refrigerator or, most probably, the cooling of his house are the result of a mechanical device which moves thermal energy out of the cooled space.
He may have noticed that I agree with him, especially about that cooling during the night time. I too have experienced the effects of a solar eclipse. However, he fails to notice that the night time cooling rate is a function of the relative humidity, with dry air allowing faster cooling than humid air. He apparently has no clue that the difference between these rates of cooling is the result of the greenhouse gas, water vapor. And, as usual, he fails to go further and make the obvious connection between the greenhouse gas, water vapor, and the other important greenhouse gas, CO2. Increasing water vapor results in a warmer surface, which is what physics tells us will also result from increased CO2.
E. Swanson,
He apparently has no clue that the difference between these rates of cooling is the result of the greenhouse gas, water vapor.
Not so simple, condensation of moist air slows the night cooling.
Increasing water vapor results in a warmer surface, which is what physics tells us will also result from increased CO2.
No, physics does not say anything about the effect of an increase in CO2 on surface temperature.
phi, the night time cooling may not continue down to the dew point, which indeed slows the cooling further. Until the dew point is hit, the rate of cooling in humid air is less than that in dry air.
Physics tells us that CO2 and water vapor have similar effects on the rate of cooling of the atmosphere, but different wave lengths in the IR EM radiation spectrum are involved. The other important difference is that the concentration of water vapor is a function of temperature, whereas, CO2 is constantly increasing.
E. Swanson says, September 5, 2018 at 7:53 AM:
Nope. As always, observation trumps ‘theory’. Increasing WV (and clouds) slows the cooling rate during the night AND slows the warming rate during the day. The latter effect, however, is much stronger on balance, and so the NET result of putting more water into the tropospheric column is LOWERING – not raising – of the average surface temperature:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/
E,
I’ll just point out that the highest surface temperatures on Earth occur where there is the least amount of supposed “greenhouse gas” between the surface and the Sun – the arid tropical deserts, such as the Libyan desert, where daytime temperatures can reach in excess of 50 C.
Your statement –
“Increasing water vapor results in a warmer surface, which is what physics tells us will also result from increased CO2.” does not accord with observed facts. Arid deserts are characterised by a lack of water vapour, rather than a surfeit.
Stupidity, ignorance, and preferring climatological pseudoscientific fantasy to fact, cannot change reality. Maybe you need to leap to some more bizarre conclusions, based on nothing more than your obviously defective mind reading abilities. Learn some real physics, if you choose.
Still no GHE. You can’t even describe such a preposterous effect, can you? Nor can anybody else!
Cheers.
MF, No doubt, desert temperatures can be rather high. The important facts would also include the daily low temperatures (which can drop below freezing at night), as in, the diurnal temperature change for deserts vs. more humid environments.
Perhaps MF the physics expert can provide real world data which shows that the diurnal temperature change for desert conditions is less than that for more humid areas. I don’t have the time to look for it, so it’s up to MF to support his silly claim.
Changing somebodys claim and then asking them to back it up seems to be the new troll trick in town. Swansong, better clean up your act. Stop that trolling, please.
After about 5 minutes, I found these references:
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States
Diurnal temperature range as an index of global climate change during the twentieth century
Reassessing changes in Diurnal Temperature Range: A new dataset and characterization of data biases: A new dataset of DTR changes
Swanson pretends not to get it.
You changed Mike Flynns claim, then asked him to support your altered version of his claim!
ES, PST.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, September 7, 2018 at 1:30 AM:
Hehe. Swanson also pretends not to get what the “GHE” is actually supposed to be about. Slower warming during the night is NOT it. An elevation of the AVERAGE surface temperature is. However, more water in the tropospheric column evidently leads to a LOWER T_s, not a higher one. Because the water BOTH slows the nighttime cooling AND the daytime warming, and the latter effect proves to be much more significant overall.
K:
“With as much heat coming IN, but with much, much less radiant heat going OUT. Why hasnt this circumstance forced the average surface temperature in the Congo to be much HIGHER than in the Sahara-Sahel? ”
“The Congo, sfc:
Heat IN, 177.96 W/m2.
Heat OUT, [51.08 (net LW) + 126.88 (cond+evap) =] 177.96 W/m2.
Heat balance.
Mean temp: 26.1 C.
Sahara-Sahel, sfc:
Heat IN, 178.84 W/m2.
Heat OUT, [103.13 (net LW) + 75.71 (cond+evap) =] 178.84 W/m2.
Heat balance.
Mean temp: 28.9 C.”
Although the Sahel has slightly higher average temperature, in fact the the near-surface air in Congo will have much greater heat content (enthalpy), owing to its much higher relative humidity.
The hurricane season in the Atlantic will be very calm. The temperature of the eastern tropical Atlantic is very low. This is due to the weak jet stream in the north of Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
ren…”The hurricane season in the Atlantic will be very calm”.
Thanks, ren, appreciate your on-going info.
Yes, that tends to be the case as El Ninos develop.
Sorry.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00970/9gsh9kpubl9z.png
Miami Beach spending $400 billion? LOL. Where does he get his information?
“Miami Beach’s $400 Million Sea-Level Rise Plan Is Unprecedented, but Not Everyone Is Sold,” 4/19/16
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-beachs-400-million-sea-level-rise-plan-is-unprecedented-but-not-everyone-is-sold-8398989
“Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise,” Business Insider, 4/12/18
https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4
“Rising Sea Levels Reshape Miamis Housing Market,” WSJ 4/20/18
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-fears-reshape-miamis-housing-market-1524225600
So million, not billion. Basic errors from a basic troll.
I corrected my comment above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-318748
Yes, I know, you wrote it wrong, apparently! Keep on trollin
I make mistakes. When I do, I correct them.
Very commendable. Now, if you could only stop trolling, this blog would be a better place. But, that will never happen, since your ego is too large for you to accept that you are simply a nuisance rather than the major player in the debate you feel you are.
I’m here to correct people. Whether you like it or not.
No, you are a troll.
{smile}
Exactly.
Gordon
As we age, our mental faculties tend to deteriorate. Nothing to be ashamed of, but I would recommend you let the calculator on your device do math for you.
I.e., if you go along with a yearly increase of 0.01 C as a result of CO2……..
“Thats actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.”
……then 168 years at that rate results in an increase of 1.68 C, rather the bizarre calculation of 0.02C – 0.03C.
******
Again, let technology (in this case a calculator) be your friend.
Again, let technology be your friend.
snape…”I.e., if you go along with a yearly increase of 0.01 C as a result of CO2..
Thats actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.
then 168 years at that rate results in an increase of 1.68 C, rather the bizarre calculation of 0.02C 0.03C. ”
…………
Rather than sniping at me you might learn some physics rather than living in a world of bizarre thought experiments.
My implication is that the IGL sets an overall percentage of warming available to CO2 based on its percent mass. That means if there was 1C warming over a century and a half, CO2 would account for about 0.04C of the warming.
In other words, 99.96% of the 1C would come from nitrogen and oxygen.
Why do you ignore radiative transfer?
DA,
Why do you keep posing stupid gotchas, while piously proclaiming you are here to correct people?
Are you even more stupid and ignorant than you appear?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
(Sorry, the duplicate sentence was a typo. I’m getting older too.)
Tropical storm Gordon threatens New Orleans.
ren…”Tropical storm Gordon threatens New Orleans”.
I assure you, I had nothing to do with it.
When they get to R, I’m going to write to them and suggest they call it tropical storm ren, with a small r.
The hurricane is approaching Hawaii.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00970/xzmaa071acro.png
The influence that added CO2 has on average global temperature is shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
Dan, that’s still funny, just as before.
Most folks will understand it. Apparently you do not.
Dan, likely most folks will NOT understand it, as your infatuation with it demonstrates.
Hint: Where did the initial values originate?
(GIGO.)
Dan…”Most folks will understand it. Apparently you do not”.
It’s hard understand why some folks think radiation from cooler WV in the atmosphere can warm the warmer surface.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its hard understand why some folks think radiation from cooler WV in the atmosphere can warm the warmer surface.
Because unlike you, some of us know what the 2LOT actually says.
DA,
“Second law of thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time.”
Seems fairly clear to me. Do climatological pseudoscientific types claim this to mean other than what it says?
Maybe you could explain how the operation of this law allows the use of the considerable heat energy contained in the Antarctic ice cap to raise the temperature of a teaspoon of liquid water?
No? I thought not – just more blather, eh?
Cheers.
D,
I think you might mean that most climatological pseudoscientists believe that CO2 has magical powers to create heat. Certainly, the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt co-authored a pal reviewed paper claiming something of this nature.
The paper was titled –
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”, and of course is nonsensical, a flight of pseudoscientific fancy, replete with all the nonsense jargon so beloved of the fumbling bumblers. “Terrestrial greenhouse”, “greenhouse gas”, “global climate”, and all the rest!
Worth a read, if you enjoy a laugh.
Cheers.
Dan Pangburn says:
ARL sponsored program corroborates low determinations of Climate Sensitivity. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
That calculation is pure junk.
Climate sensitivity isn’t the derivative (let alone the partial derivative), it’s the temperature CHANGE after equilibrium is reestablished, not the change in the moment.
In particular, water vapor isn’t to be held constant — it’s an important feedback.
The units don’t even balance in your equation (a poor attempt to use the chain rule), as the righthand side has units of one (viz., no units), while the left hand side has units of temperature per (ppm?).
And that’s just a start. It’s all garbage.
DA,
Climate is the average of weather. No more, no less.
No “climate sensitivity”. Just more climatological pseudoscientific claptrap.
There is no “climate equilibrium”, either. Even more sciency sounding delusional rambling.
Keep analysing.
Cheers.
There is no climate equilibrium, either.
The definition of climate sensitivity for a factor X is the temperature change from before the perturbation of X exists to after it is applied and equilibrium is re-established.
Your mistake if you assumed that’s what would actually be measured in a real climate system. ECS is a theoretical value.
David,
Climate is the average of weather. It is sensitive to nothing at all – it’s an average, a number.
You are spouting climatological pseudoscientific garbage. Your mythical ECS is on a par with your mythical GHE. No wonder you can’t measure it! Any value is pure fantasy – even referring to it as “theoretical” is more climatological delusion.
You have no testable GHE hypothesis, because you cannot even describe the GHE, can you? Hence, no theory derived from your non-existent hypothesis.
Or is your theoretical ECS value based on the theoretical R value of the atmosphere? You claim the GHE is just the ever changing and chaotic value of the insulating effect of the atmosphere, don’t you?
Maybe you could analyse an equilibrium value for a chaotic climate, derived from the chaotic nature of atmospheric physics. Or maybe not, seeing how it appears to be impossible – even using classical methods (according to Feynman).
Your excuse that fantasy is superior to fact might not convince a lot of readers.
Carry on regardless.
Cheers.
You claim the GHE is just the ever changing and chaotic value of the insulating effect of the atmosphere, dont you?
No, you do.
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
You appear confused. What 10 year lag?
Is this some secret climatological pseudoscientific code for something?
Cheers.
DA,
You appear to have been seduced by your own fantasy,
Where does GHE appear in the sentence you quoted?
Nowhere, that’s where! Misrepresentation and uttering obvious falsehoods might not be as convincing as you would wish.
Keep at it – at least you might be able to convince some bumbling buffoons that the Greenhouse Effect is not an effect, and has nothing to do with greenhouses. Or maybe not – it will depend whose delusional fantasy prevails!
After all, the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt thinks he is a climate scientist, and the geologist Michael Mann thinks he is a Nobel Laureate. On the other hand, you believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
Ah, the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
You can’t carry out a rational conversation about a topic. Pity.
You’re back to be dismissed and ignored.
DA,
Dismissed and ignored? Should I be cut to the quick?
Cadge 20 cents from another true believer, and call someone who might give a toss!
You are wasting your dismissal and ignorance on me, as usual.
Good luck with finding someone who might actually be concerned about your awesome powers – ignorance in particular might worry them, I would think.
Carry on blathering – at least you are able to utilise the 15 hours of the journalism course you attended. See? It wasn’t a complete waste of your valuable time, was it?
Cheers.
DA,, I just noticed your repeat post so I will repeat my response.
Valid direct feedback depends only on the temperature of liquid surface water as shown here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlZNZ32VAAEK0kc.jpg and it is only about 6.5% or less. The net feedback is even less because the indirect feedback from added clouds from added water vapor is negative. Average global temperature is very sensitive to cloud change as explored here: http://low-altitude-clouds.blogspot.com
(dashes added to prevent being blocked by WordPress filter. Remove dashes/spaces to use link)
Dan, your equation is badly wrong, so presenting more of your own claims doesn’t accomplish anything.
The cloud feedback is probably positive:
Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.
Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.
Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.
Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earths energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.
Hello bilybob, I’m sure you are still watching this site.
You may remember my assumption that very high or very low temperatures in the GHCN daily ‘TAVG’ data stream might very probably be due to strange mixtures of Fahrenheit and Celsius.
I therefore suppressed this stream during a global scan, and was not surprised that
– (1) all strange temperatures in the USA disappeared, letting Greenland Ranch’s homologated world top temperature of 56.7 C appear solo again, and Verhojansk (Eastern Siberia) became again the world’s coldest place outside of Antarctica;
– (2) the difference between presence and absence of these erroneous extremes in a monthly averaging of the daily data nevertheless is below 0.01 Celsius.
Bindindon. Yes, still scan this site from time to time. Your observations make sense. I believe you had mentioned earlier that the F vs. C may have been a data entry issue.
Thanks for following up with the update. Busy week for me, so won’t be participating until maybe the weekend.
David Appell wrote –
“Where does the cooling hide for 10 years, and what makes it then come out to play?”
More climatological pseudoscience. David cannot find a lack of heat, hiding or otherwise, and it is obviously a travesty that he can’t!
He needs to track down the source of the cold rays, and could probably use the services of a cartoon character who specialises in the art.
Heat cannot be trapped, stored, or accumulated in any useful sense. Cold is merely the absence of heat.
Cheers.
What’s the physical basis for this purportated 10-year lag in surface and LT temperatures?
DA,
You appear confused. What 10 year lag?
Is this some secret climatological pseudoscientific code for something?
Cheers.
Apologies for posting in wrong place initially..
“I will never spin and if I am wrong I will admit it.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
—
salvatore del prete says:
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 6 days
2018 total: 137 days (55%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
2008 total: 268 days (73%)
2007 total: 152 days (42%)
2006 total: 70 days (19%)
http://spaceweather.com/
And the more important parameter … total solar irradiance?
Bob, “total solar irradiance” is fairly constant, that’s why some people call it the “solar constant”.
And, don’t overlook the fact that sun spot numbers vary drastically.
Exactly. Which is why global climate changed by only a fraction of a degree (equivalent to Pinatubo) during the Maunder minimum. LIA temps were already depressed without the help of the MM, and it added about half a degree to the cooling.
And despite the claims of LIA enthusiasts, scientists have no idea whether we are going all the way to a Maunder-like minimum.
right BOB.
The LIA wasn’t caused by solar effects.
The important solar parameter is not the TSI. It’s the ASR.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
from:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
That reconstruction indicates it was less during LIA. And it might be right.
–Bobdesbond says:
September 5, 2018 at 2:50 PM
Exactly. Which is why global climate changed by only a fraction of a degree (equivalent to Pinatubo) during the Maunder minimum. LIA temps were already depressed without the help of the MM, and it added about half a degree to the cooling.
And despite the claims of LIA enthusiasts, scientists have no idea whether we are going all the way to a Maunder-like minimum.–
Predicting sun is difficult.
SHADOWS OF VENUS IN THE ATACAMA DESERT: “The Atacama Desert in northern Chile is one of the best places in the world to look at the sky. The desert’s unique combination of high altitude, clear skies and zero light pollution make it a global destination for astronomers. On Sept. 1st, astronomer Daniele Gasparri was standing under the Milky Way in the Atacama Desert when something caught his eye–not up in the sky, but rather on the side of his car. “It was my Venus shadow!” he says.
“The sky in Atacama is so dark that even the light of Venus can generate clear shadows,” marvels Gasparri.”
http://spaceweather.com/
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 7 days
Gordon
First you said the sun’s been getting hotter recently (but only over Vancouver😏),
“Gordon Robertson
July 27, 2018
Salvatoreits obvious that the summer Sun has felt hotter the past few years. The effect on the skin is noticeable even here in our temperate rain forest climate.”
…..now you think the ~ 1.0 C warming is the result of rising N2/O2 levels??
S,
Learn to read. Otherwise, you might be judged delusionally attempting to misrepresent, or just stupid and ignorant.
I understand you probably don’t care about the difference between fact and fantasy. I don’t blame you. Facts, such as four and a half billion years of cooling, can be a problem for GHE.
Carry on. Learn physics after you have learnt comprehension.
Cheers.
Is the sun getting hotter outside your cave? Maybe you and Gordon should do a little brainstorming…..figure out what the hell is going on?
S,
You could always continue trolling. Just avoid facts and try to be cryptic – that might convince others that Earth’s surface hasn’t cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Worth a try, do you think? Or do you think you might be seen as an ignorant and foolish troll?
Cheers.
Let’s not forget Huffy’s space dust/SLR connection or Salvatore’s impending ice age.
Where’s Nurse Ratched when you need her?
S,
Why do you feel you need treatment? A nurse is unlikely to help, particularly if you are suffering from a delusional psychotic condition.
“Treatment for this disorder is challenging, especially if the delusion is long lasting. Antipsychotic medications can be helpful, but delusions sometimes do not get better with pharmacological treatment. Since patients may not believe they have a mental disorder, they may refuse all treatment, including psychotherapy.”
I’ll let others decide if believing that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes it hotter. That sounds delusional to me, but it may sound reasonable to climatological pseudoscientists.
I’m reasonably sure that Nature doesn’t care one way or the other – facts are facts.
Cheers.
What’s the margin of error?
M,
I’m tempted to reply “the margin of error”, but I won’t.
Cheers.
Or, if someone accused me, (correctly), of facetiousness, I might be more serious –
“The margin of error expresses the maximum expected difference between the true population parameter and a sample estimate of that parameter.”
/humour off.
Cheers.
American predictions predict that Herman will bypass Hawaii. It can be seen, however, that the jet stream falling in the north of Pacific pushes Herman to Hawaii.
https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/hi/h5-loop-ir4.html
Dr. Spenser (and others).
One important dimension of the trends would become more visible if the months were colored in the UAH graph..
I did a quick variant for Globe here http://cfys.nu/graphs/UAH%20Colored.png to illustrate.
Notice how NH summer months’ (5-8) trend deviates from other months.
It becomes clear that summer months are trending down since 1998. It also looks as if high anomalies were more random summer vs other before 1998. Later years the lowest above is almost always summer.
Comments?
Remove 1998 and 2016 and tell me if summer still appears to be trending down.
Convenient to use or exclude El Nino years depending on what you want to argue…
My main point was that coloring of months adds perspective. I took the lowest hanging fruit that can easily be read from the graph as an example.
Analyzing a bit step further:
It looks as heat ramp up is never during summer months.
It is very clear that summer months have lower slopes
There is a shift before/after 1998
Colors tells you more!
And numbers tell you even more. Look at Barry’s calculations below.
Summer is May June July and August in the Northern Hemisphere?
I’ll do a linear regression only with the actual Summer months. Jun-Aug.
Result:
1998-2018: 0.09 C/decade
I’ll see what happens if we add May in:
Result:
1998-2018: 0.08 C/decade
Comments:
There is a positive trend over the period, though not statistically significant. This is because the very warm summer of 1998 was immediately followed by some very cool summers. 2004 and 2008 are the coldest summers in that short record.
I wouldn’t expect there is enough data to say anything much at all. I would not have been surprised to see a cooling trend just from random variation.
AGW predicts Winters warming faster than Summers. However, this time period isn’t long enough to get a fix on that.
Here’s a chart of the regression:
https://imgur.com/a/C5Eki
You might want to correct your title. It says “Arctic sea ice”, and that is enough for Gordie to claim a fraud.
I mean “Antarctic”.
It’s the title of the ‘thread,’ not my choice. The title of the chart is inside the chart. Standalone below.
This should be a better version.
https://i.imgur.com/um4zjaG.png
Yes, the linear square root trend is slightly upwards also for summer months. However if I had put 0.560M in the bank summer of 1998 and my holding after summer 2018 is 0.225M my trend was not positive! Right? (Average anomaly went from 0.560C to 0.225C)
But again this was NOT my main point. Do your trend analyses on the other months and tell me if colors indicates something or not.
WTF is “Linear Square Root trend”???
Surely you mean “least-squares”.
Or perhaps “root mean square”, but that is not the name, merely a descriptor of the process.
To say “Linear Square Root trend” displays an utter lack of understanding about the process.
My main language is not english.
You obviously understood what I meant so need to be impolite.
I understand you are upset because I came up with an idea you never though of, but please be reasonable.
Hahaha – “an idea you have never thought of”
I am in the process of doing a detailed month-by-month, season-by-season, year-by-year and decade-by-decade of the US temperature time series. I guess I must be so smart for thinking of analysing the seasons separately for the annual data, because no one has done that before, right? fp
Sigh, It was about the presentation part…
Interesting to follow what you conclude about USHCN/CRN though. Is here the best place to follow?
However if I had put 0.560M in the bank summer of 1998 and my holding after summer 2018 is 0.225M my trend was not positive! Right?
No, that is the difference between 2 years. 1998 and 2018. It has noting to do with any trend.
When you used the word trend in your first post, you were referring to the trend of all summers, not just 2 of them. You said:
Notice how NH summer months (5-8) trend deviates from other months.
It becomes clear that summer months are trending down since 1998. It also looks as if high anomalies were more random summer vs other before 1998. Later years the lowest above is almost always summer.
What one sees by charting the months is that in the first half of the record there are some colder summers with values below the zero line, and in the second half of the time series there is only one month below the zero line.
Generally speaking, summers appear to have become warmer over the period, with a few exceptions. In strictly statistical terms, the uncertainty is too great to say this has likely occurred.
“Linear square root trend,” is not actually a thing.
Clarifying a bit:
“What one sees by charting the months is that in the first half of the 1998 to 2018 record there are some colder summers with values below the zero line, and in the second half of the time series there is only one month below the zero line.”
You are so eager to prove that we are statistically still in a warming trend even starting at cherry picked 1998 that you miss the point. I give you that my statement was wrong in statistical terms because the least square algorithm smooths the 1998 peak. It was not my main point though.
1. Would you agree that the slopes for summer months are lower than for the other months?
2. Does the coloring make this visible or not?
I’ve not met you before, MrZ, so my default was politeness and just dealing with the content of your posts. So when you write:
You are so eager to prove..
you are starting a different conversation, which is about motive, and is personal. I just wanted to you to know that you started that kind of conversation between us, not me. If it happens again, I will probably descend with you. I am not infinitely patient, by any means.
You spoke of the trend. I calculated the trend. I posted the result.
I also said the the (positive) trend was not statistically significant. IE, statistically meaningless. I am not trying to “prove” anything, just reporting results.
1. Would you agree that the slopes for summer months are lower than for the other months?
I don’t understand what that means. You speak of “slopes” in the plural. What slopes are you referring to? The ‘trend’ from May to July for each year? I honestly can’t tell what you mean.
MrZ, a word of warning…do not feed the troll.
MrZ,
I can explain, my explanation is inspired by the wise words expressed by a resident commentator.
The NH summer causes an increase in co2 levels, as co2 levels float in the air like blankets they act as an insulator thus causing the surface to cool. Pretty simple really and “this has all been predicted in a co2 enhanced warming world”.
The alternative is co2 has SFA to do with climate and Salvatore’s version of the sun controls the climate comes into the frame of discussion.
Thanks for your input you have raised a very interesting point for those interested in searching for truth based on facts.
Regards
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations peak around May and FALL during the NH summer, bottoming out around September.
This is a strawmen argument. You can’t honestly believe that a 4ppm deviation in CO2 is the cause?
My laymen guess is that CO2 can only insulate and not heat. Even if back radiation and the energy imbalance (0.6W/m2) certainly delays cooling its impact is minuscule when the sun shines at 800W/m2. Compare holding up a lit match infront of a forest fire for an extra heat sensation.
The cause of WHAT?
I am refuting his claim that CO2 levels rise in the NH summer, NOTHING MORE.
Try not to read between the lines – you are not very good at it.
You have the gall to falsely claim a straw man while making one yourself. Yet I’m sure the irony will be lost on you.
But don’t worry, Mikey will come to your rescue with a pithy comment (most likely a deliberately unanswerable question).
Sorry, I understand I read you wrong here.
Are you German by chance Bob I know Germans suffer from a lack of a sense of humour
It is clear from MrZ’s reply that there was no attempt at humour.
Are you saying you were trying to be funny?
This is SAL . Using Ava because I can’t transmit.
My only thought is the climate is now at a crossroad. Thus far from late year 2017-present the trends are down.
The questions are how far down do the temperatures go and for how long?
Wow, like you mean a whole year, man?!?! Like, man, that’s never happened before, has it do you think man?
Trying to find any kind of conclusions about which way the temperature is going from this above data set is no different than reading chicken bones .
There is nothing but noise in it.
The bottom line remains no such thing as “global warming” can be observed from all actual historical existing data, let alone it being caused by anyone or anything , it remains purely as a theory and a real bad one at that.
Agree.
If you look at a series of 5 year averages (ie. 1979-83, 84-88, etc), would you still say there is “nothing but noise”?
“Noisy weather” or “noisy climate”?
We are talking about climate, right?
Okay, “noisy climate” it is.
Nup – climate by definition cannot be “noisy” over periods of a few decades.
Source for that definition?
I want to know what the average temperature is from 1981-2010. Can be?
Average temperature of what?
global average air surface temperature temperature?
I would say it’s about 15 C
global average land air surface temperature is about 9.5 C
average air surface temperature of 50 states of US:
About 9.5 C
China:
About 7.5 C
Australia:
About 22.25 C
Africa:
About 24.5 C
Europe:
about 9 C
India:
about 24.5 C
Russia:
About -4.5 C
This says absolutely nothing about global warming.
Eben
I’m betting the planet will continue to warm because that’s what model simulations and physics tell us.
The temperature record provides supporting evidence and gives clues regarding sensitivity, but I agree is not by itself a predictor.
S,
Bet away. Your assumptions are as valid as anyone’s, I suppose. What do you get if you win your bet!
I agree the temperature record is not a predictor. It is a rather pointless historical curiousity, of no practical use whatever – apart from providing employment for pseudoscientists unable to get real work elsewhere. Someone thought it was a good idea at the time, I guess.
Even describing the numbers as reflecting “surface” temperatures is just the usual nonsensical climatological pseudoscientific redefining of “not surface” to “surface”. And, of course, 70% of the surface is covered by water, making any attempt at “averaging” (beloved of fumbling bumblers) really silly. “Sensitivity”? You jest, of course!
At least if you peer into the future using a bowl of chicken entrails, you get a chicken dinner. Using past temperature records, you get confusion and derision.
All good fun, of course. Possibly a little expensive, but provides endless entertainment laughing at the antics of the capering climate clowns.
Cheers.
Sort of OT, I am afraid, but the RSS trend keeps creeping upwards, currently at 0.197° per decade. Would somebody care to comment, it does not seem to tally with UAH?
Different methods handling much the same data. The 2 teams have to wrestle with calibrating between different satellites over time, accounting for instrument drift (orbital drift/decay), and winnowing a tropospheric temperature from different angle views of the surface/atmosphere from satellites.
These are just some of the challenges.
Just Google
rss adjustments predicted
“it does not seem to tally with UAH?”
That’s because Carl Mear’s is a tried and true global warming propagandist. He could care less about the truth. RSS data used to show less warming than UAH, so he got pissed off several years ago and made arbitrary adjustments to correct the situation.
It must be good to be in a position to be able to make any unjustified claim you wish without fear of having your non-existent scientific reputation tarnished.
As Spencer indicated in a discussion with Judith Curry:
“John reviewed their [Mears] original paper submission to JGR, in detail, asking for additional evidence — but not advocating rejection of the paper. The JGR editor ended up rejecting it anyway.
Mears & Wentz then revised the paper, submitted it to J. Climate instead, and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on, Einstein.
So let me get this right …
The initial paper was rejected, as most are, and then resubmitted.
Then the paper was revised, as most are.
Nothing wrong so far.
And then Spencer claims “and LIKELY asked that we be excluded as reviewers”.
“LIKELY” …. so he is just making this BS up.
And THIS is your “evidence”???
Bob,
Don’t worry about it. I did not expect you to get it since you are an alarmist lemming as well. You don’t need to “get” anything. We got it covered.
B,
This would be the situation of the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt, I suppose.
He can make any claim at all, not being a scientist, without fear that his non-existent scientific reputation might be damaged.
Obviously, breathlessly proclaiming “Hottest year EVAH!”, based on his calculation that a probability of 0.38 was involved (less than a coin toss probability) probably didn’t do much for his mathematical reputation.
But hey, climatological pseudoscience doesn’t need to let fact interfere with a delusional fantasy, does it? As long as there is steady supply of stupid, ignorant and gullible acolytes, all will be well.
Cheers.
exactly rss data is tainted. I do not use it.
If RSS is tainted so is UAH.
If the makers of RSS seem to be AGW adherents, Spencer and Christie are very obvious AGW antagonists. They’ve gone to congress to champion the ‘skeptic’ side.
Me, I assume that both groups are doing the best work they can and coming up with different results. I’m not partisan when it comes to the temp records.
b,
I’m glad you accept that historical temperatures actually existed, and opinions have no effects on facts.
Cheers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
exactly rss data is tainted. I do not use it.
Tainted how?
Skeptic Gone Wild writes:
Thats because Carl Mears is a tried and true global warming propagandist. He could care less about the truth. RSS data used to show less warming than UAH, so he got pissed off several years ago and made arbitrary adjustments to correct the situation.
Which it is already noted is an assertion utterly free of any substantive evidence.
Such logic cuts both ways, and with more emphasis.
Spencer and Christie’s UAH record was suddenly ‘cooled’ with their latest revision, after running hotter than RSS for years. They are AGW skeptics who go to the US congress to play politics on the matter, so OF COURSE this ‘revision’ is BS.
I don’t believe either statement is true. But the ‘logic’ is equally valid – even more so for the UAH team who take their views into the realm of politics.
The ‘logic’ is specious.
MrZ
“However if I had put 0.560M in the bank summer of 1998 and my holding after summer 2018 is 0.225M my trend was not positive! Right? (Average anomaly went from 0.560C to 0.225C)”
Imagine the 20 year trend was perfectly flat, despite lots of ups and downs. That’s what a heart rate monitor looks like. So, using your investment analogy, you “bought” on an upbeat and “sold” on a downbeat……..and from that concluded (incorrectly) that the trend is not flat.
Mr. Flynn,
“Even describing the numbers as reflecting surface temperatures is just the usual nonsensical climatological pseudoscientific redefining of not surface to surface.”
lol! If we slithered across the ground like worms or snakes, then actual surface temperatures would be of great interest. As it is, only the soles of our feet (protected by shoes) tend to come in contact with the ground.
For that reason, “near surface” is the relevant measurement for humans. Not sure about numbats.
S,
The IPCC –
“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of . . . ”
Obviously, the IPCC does not share your sentiments, but makes equally stupid and ignorant statements, in typical climatological pseudoscientific fashion. I suppose you will try to defend the IPCC bumblers by saying “surface” doesn’t “really” mean “surface”, but something else entirely!
You might care to ustify sea “surface” temperatures while you are at it. People don’t live just below the surface, or on the surface, for that matter, but that is apparently where “surface” temperatures were measured.
No matter. Real scientists are generally more truthful.
As to real surface temperatures, they are quite important to growers of crops which grow on the actual surface, but of course the climatological “surface” is not the surface at all!
It seems you want not to agree with me, but you cannot find any facts supporting your disagreement. Just the worn out tactics of deny, divert, and confuse.
Next you’ll be telling me that the “Greenhouse Effect” is not an effect at all, and has nothing to do with greenhouses! That might explain why nobody can describe it, do you think? How sad.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO THE FLYNNTROLL? Stop feeding it.
B,
If you are telling Snape to either address issues with facts rather than trying to deny, divert and confuse with irrelevant and information free comments – or say nothing at all, I agree.
I presume you find yourself in the same situation. Refraining from commenting would seem to be your best option, if you want to avoid appearing stupid and ignorant.
Do you disagree with anything I have said? Can you provide any facts to support your disagreement?
Appeals to climatological pseudoscientific authority do not count as fact. Mad assertions of the sort that a GHE exists, without even being able to describe such, are not facts.
Off you go, now. Have a think, and let me know – if you wish, of course.
Cheers.
Des
I make a point of not feeding him after midnight:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EHvUOM0M1m0
Ever watched, Big Bang Theory?
“With large amounts, theobromine can produce muscle tremors, seizures, an irregular heartbeat, internal bleeding or a heart attack. The onset of theobromine poisoning is usually marked by severe hyperactivity.
…
If you have a small dog that has eaten a box of chocolates, you need to call and go to your veterinarian right away. Do not wait.”
https://www.hillspet.com/dog-care/nutrition-feeding/is-chocolate-bad-for-dogs
“…
William Happer, a physics professor and vocal critic of mainstream climate science, has joined the White House as a top adviser, says Sciencemag.
Happer, 79, told E&E News in email that he began serving yesterday on the National Security Council as the senior director for emerging technologies.
…
Happer has accused both NOAA and NASA of manipulating temperature records and claimed that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would accentuate plant life, citing satellite data showing a greening of the planet.
The public in general doesnt realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine, he told E&E News during the interview in January.”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/09/05/trump-adds-physicist-will-happer-climate-science-opponent-to-white-house-staff/#more-38481
Yeah, and plus, we are in an Ice Age.
Happer is criticized because he is not a “climate scientist”. But understanding Earth’s energy balance requires a solid knowledge of the relevant physics, not demonstrated by “climate science”. That’s why we see such horrendous mistakes as adding/subtracting different radiative fluxes, “cold” warming “hot”, CO2 “trapping” heat”, etc.
Yes.
greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science.
There is so many ways that it is.
One important aspect is that lacks an author.
Another aspect is lack of any agreement by anyone- unless
you count compromising as agreement.
Anyhow, re Happer
WUWT has two blog posts about it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/06/the-great-climate-debate-report/
And:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/06/william-happer-joining-trump-national-security-council-cnn-report-happer-climate-denier-trump-adviser/
gbaikie says:
greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science.
There is so many ways that it is.
One important aspect is that lacks an author.
Fourier (yes, that Fourier), 1827:
“On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space,” Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Sciences, 7 569-604 (1827).
https://is.gd/jk6kXl
English translation by William Connolley:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
English translation by William Connolley:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
…
“The interposition of the air greatly modifies the effects of the heat at the surface of the globe. The solar rays, traversing the atmospheric layers compressed by their own weight, heat them quite unequally: those which are most rarified are also coldest, because they extinguish and absorb a smaller part of these rays. The heat of the sun, arriving in the state of light, has the property of penetrating diaphanous solids or liquids, and loses this property nearly entirely when they are converted, by their interaction with terrestrial bodies, into IR.
This distinction of SW and IR explains the elevation of temperature caused by transparent bodies [**gh?**].”
…
Not greenhouse gases- but a greenhouse effect.
Would you agree?
I would agree with Fourier there is greenhouse effect of both Earth’s atmosphere and transparent liquid of it’s ocean.
Continuing:
“The mass of water which covers a great part of the earth, and the polar ice, present less obstacles to the SW than to the IR, which returns to exterior space. The presence of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same type, but which, in the current state of theory and because of the lack of observations, cannot be exactly defined.”
And I think that due to “lack of observations, cannot be exactly defined”.
The public in general doesnt realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine, he told E&E News during the interview in January
What propagandistic rhetoric.
We’re in a heat famine, too. But anyone arguing that we’d be better off with a sudden global increase of 10C needs a brain transplant.
We’re also over-supplied with organic life “from the point of view of geological history.”
Statements just as inane – but not as politically motivated – as Happer’s are easily formulated.
Waters off New England in midst of record year for warmth
“The waters off of New England are already warming faster than most of the world’s oceans, and they are nearing the end of one of the hottest summers in their history.”
“The gulf warmed at a rate of about 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, which is more than three times the global average, Pershing said. That rate has jumped to more than seven times the global average in the past 15 years, he said.”
“”Warming in the GOM has been pushing out native species like cod, kelp and lobster, and fostering populations of species typically found in the Carolinas,” Bruno said. “Although it’s an extreme example, it mirrors what we’re seeing across most of the world.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/waters-off-maine-midst-record-year-warmth-57501376
I can’t believe you people are still debating the temperature record. But then again, nothing should surprise me. Apparently Donald Trump believes there are ghosts in the White House.
MYKEY it was all natural.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“it was all natural.”
Dr Richard Alley says:
“We actually have high confidence that the warming that is happening now is not natural cycle. If anything, over the past few decades, nature has tried to cool us off a little bit The sun has dimmed just a little bit. We have blocked the sun with particles from our smokestacks just a little bit. And yet it has warmed.
If you were to ask how much of the warming that we see recently has been caused by our greenhouse gasses, it’s a little more than all of it.”
Alley is a geologist, Svante. He probably knows even less of the relevant physics than you do.
Alley is an outstanding climate scientist who has won lots of prestigious awards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley#Awards_and_honors
He is greatly respected among the climate science community, and he’s also one of the nicest people in all of science.
As a recovering rockhound, I appreciate geology. A competent geologist can find some really cool rocks, not to mention oil and gas deposits, and precious metals.
Just as an incompetent “camp follower” can win meaningless awards in pseudoscience.
As if you get to judge someone like Richard Alley.
You don’t.
Of course, only the great David Appell troll is fit to be judge, jury and executioner of everyone he surveys.
S,
Michael Mann is a geologist. He was highly confident he was a Nobel Laureate
Richard Alley is apparently a geologist with high confidence in the heating abilities of “greenhouse gasses”.
Michael Mann’s high confidence was misplaced. So is Richard Alley’s.
Greenhouse gasses? Spare me. Nobody has ever made anything hotter by inserting more gas between the Sun and a thermometer. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.
If you are going to appeal to authority, best to choose someone who knows what they are talking about.
Cheers.
Svante says, September 6, 2018 at 2:22 PM:
Hahaha, it’s always this “expert” SAYS and this “expert” THINKS, isn’t it?
Alley is of course referring to TSI, the convenient go-to solar parameter of all warmists/alarmists. However, as anyone with half a brain should (and does) know, TSI is not the relevant solar parameter when it comes to ‘global warming’ or ‘cooling’. ASR is. ASR is the amount of solar energy actually absorbed by the Earth system, the solar heat. TSI is not.
Either Alley is just happily ignorant about this basic and crucial distinction (I don’t buy that), or he’s willfully deceitful about it, busy pushing a political agenda rather than doing real, objective (purely observation-based) science. My money is on the latter …
Where’s the time series for surface globally averaged ASR?
Indeed. Where is your observational basis for claiming that the Sun has been contributing negatively to ‘global warming’ over the last decades …?
“Where is your observational basis for claiming that the Sun has been contributing negatively to ‘global warming’ over the last decades…?”
Sunspot number – I took care to phase match start and end dates.
https://tinyurl.com/y9bkm7eo
TSI – phase matching was a little trickier.
https://tinyurl.com/yaqg5cmg
Or you could run it from the middle of the peaks.
https://tinyurl.com/y8evpb8a
I’d say that constituted observational evidence that the sun itself has had a negative impact on global temps over the last few decades.
I trust that you were referring specifically to the big yellow orb in the sky this time, Kristian – the bolded bit of your sentence – and not to your usual metric.
If you could link the time series for globally averaged ASR, that would be helpful.
barry says, September 9, 2018 at 11:53 PM:
Sunspot number and TSI do nothing to indicate the solar thermal influence on Earth’s climate, barry. ASR does. ASR = ‘absorbed solar radiation’, net SW, TSI minus albedo, Q_in(sw).
The ASR is Earth’s heat in from the Sun. TSI isn’t. TSI is simply the specific intensity of the Sun’s radiative flux measured at 1AU.
barry says, September 9, 2018 at 11:53 PM:
No. That’s what I’m asking you for. You’re the ones who claim to know that the Sun has contributed negatively to Earth’s temperature over the last decades. That’s why you’re the ones who should provide such a time series, to show how ASR has gone down overall during the modern era of global warming. Yes, it would indeed be helpful.
You do understand the difference between ‘heat’ and ‘not heat’ in a thermodynamic energy budget, don’t you, barry?
barry,
TSI is the 340 W/m^2 (1360/4). ASR is the 240 W/m^2 (1360*(1-a)/4) used in the global ToA energy budget (ERBS, CERES, HIRS, ISCCP FD). The ASR is the solar HEAT to the Earth. That portion of the incoming SW (TSI) that is actually being ABSORBED by the Earth system. Net SW (incoming SW (TSI) minus outgoing/reflected SW).
WASHINGTON “A National Academies committee recommends that NASA pursue development of a large space telescope to search for potentially habitable exoplanets, but declined to choose a specific concept for such a mission.
The Exoplanet Science Strategy report, requested by Congress in a 2017 NASA authorization act and released by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine Sept. 5, also recommends continued development of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) and funding by the National Science Foundation of two large ground-based observatories.
The recommendations of the report are based on an underlying conclusion that the science of exoplanet research has advanced to the point where it will soon be possible identify planets that are potentially habitable and even discern so-called biosignatures, or evidence of life, on them.
If we choose, we could learn the answer to that question we could figure out whether or not theres life on planets orbiting other stars in the next 20 years, said David Charbonneau, a Harvard University professor and one of the co-chairs of the study, in a briefing about the report here.”
https://spacenews.com/exoplanet-report-recommends-development-of-large-space-telescope/
I am not particularly keen on the idea.
Nor was keen on idea of SLS or James telescope- which both way behind on their schedules [and was predictable that they would be]. And even not years behind completion and both were operating, don’t think much of them.
Oh that reminds me to check on recent count:
” As of 1 September 2018, there are 3,823 confirmed planets in 2,860 systems, with 632 systems having more than one planet.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet
I have no confidence that anyone could identify exoplanets which are potentially habitable. But if an exoplanet was identified as habitable, what the good which could come from it, would perhaps be a desire to build much bigger telescopes.
If we explore the Moon and find minable water, then we will build much bigger telescopes.
If the Moon had rocket fuel, the Moon would be a good place to put all kinds of telescopes- radio telescopes and 100 meter diameter optical telescopes, plus what might be more exciting lots of smaller telescopes available to any all who want look at something.
You’d be happier on a blog about outer space, instead of trying to force this blog away from its topic of climate change.
You might happier on a blog about “climate change”.
Or maybe “weird climate” or we are going to die from climate change/weird climate.
Oh here someone who needs some comments:
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/columnists/weird-climate-and-weak-leadership.html
M,
What is your point?
I suppose you have data which shows that any warming is not due to a hotspot as per –
“The team piggybacked off previous research showing a relatively hot spot beneath New Englands upper mantle. Using data from EarthScope, they then observed a localized plume of warm rock beneath central Vermont, western New Hampshire, and western Massachusettsand found geologic evidence that its on the move.”
If you learn some real science, you might be able to diminish your CO2 GHE fixation. No temperature rises are due to CO2, but delusional believers cannot accept this. They exhibit unwarranted pride in their stupidity and ignorance.
Have you examined alternative sources of heat (which causes changes in temperature, unlike CO2)?
No? I thought not.
Cheers.
“The waters off of New England are already warming faster than most of the worlds oceans, and they are nearing the end of one of the hottest summers in their history.
At least we agree about the warming. ———unless you would like to claim NASA has fudged the data?
(and moved the cod and lobster as well !!!)
m,
If temperatures have gone up, they have gone up.
Where do you think the additional energy came from? Not from CO2, unless you accept the delusional thinking of deranged climatological pseudoscientists!
Any thoughts, based on fact?
Cheers.
Bookies place odds on anonymous White House official
“Hours after MyBookie posted numbers, Canada-based Bovada issued its own Trump-leak odds and listed embatted AG Sessions as its favorite at 5-to-2.
He was followed by Pence (3-to-1), Kelly (4-to-1), Mattis (4-to-1), UN Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley (10-to-1), Javanka (15-to-1), Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats (15-to-1), White House counsel Don McGahn (15-to-1), Melania Trump (50-to-1) and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway (50-to-1).
Bovada listed President Trump, himself, as the potential mole and Times writer at 25-to-1.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/bookies-place-odds-on-anonymous-white-house-official/
Linked from https://www.drudgereport.com/
It’s silly. I would think it’s a member FBI or Justice.
They quite delusional and it would seem that they imagine that they are senior officials.
Or completely made up by NYT, as this gang seem quite fond of writing fiction.
I bet it was the ghost !
What a motley crew that list of names is. A case of Dumb, Dumber, Dumber Still, …, Trump.
There’s a simple test to see who is out of their mind, just ask them about climate change.
These are OK:
https://tinyurl.com/z9nf248
https://tinyurl.com/y7rjq3eb
https://tinyurl.com/yauqohq6
Although the sensible ones tend to be ousted:
“Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser HR McMaster both indicated that the US was open to negotiations on staying in the landmark international agreement to limit mankinds role in global warming.”
https://tinyurl.com/ybjsydhz
I do not believe that one positive qualifies Tillerson as generally “sensible”.
Trump might be brilliant in terms of who he hires.
Nikki Haley seems doing quite well as Ambassador to the UN.
She seems to making UN be more relevant- which is an amazing feat.
Svante sure is grasping at straws.
What will he do with all that straw? Build a straw man?
JDH,
Svante needs to be careful. Piling up too much straw may result in spontaneous combustion. I suppose being incinerated by your own strawman is similar to being “hoist by your own petard”!
Ah well, I guess stupidity and ignorance is its own reward.
Cheers.
Agreed, Mike Flynn.
But we haven’t even mentioned the wondrous benefit all that burning straw would provide to the planet. More CO2 = more grapes = more medicinal wine.
JDH,
From the King James Authorised Bible –
“Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.”
More CO2, I say!
Cheers.
Good point Bobdesbond, here’s another clue:
“If our leaders seek to conceal the truth or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom”.
“Americans should seek a fact-based society, rather than one based on wishful thinking … [and] hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises”.
https://tinyurl.com/y9hmmt3t
My first impression is that the story is an imitation of the Q-Anon story line.
Mykey
Thanks for that! For at least a year I’ve been looking at a graphic (updated every 5 days) that shows subsurface temperature anomalies:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wksl_anm.gif
Notice the “dark blob” off the coast of New England. It’s been there the whole time and stands out like a sore thumb.
I’ve been very curious but thought it must be some sort of computer glitch because it never changed.
*******
Here’s the website if you’re interested:
http://www.stormsurf.com/page2/links/ensocurr.html
Hmmm … the title for that first link says “sea level anomalies”, not “subsurface temperature anomalies”.
Sea surface temperature in the area of Norman hurricane activity is high.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_cpac_1.png
High sea surface temperatures near a hurricane … who would have thought …
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Global Warming – Did we Pass or Fail?
A detailed analysis of global warming, in the different regions of the Earth.
– The Arctic region
– the Antarctic region
– the Land
– the oceans
This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming.
Can we save the Earth, and the human race?
Have the 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits, become irrelevant?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail
There is no AGW so the subject is a non starter.
You say that with religious conviction. Let me guess – you’re a god botherer.
B,
No guess necessary for you.
Stupid, ignorant, gullible, and likely suffering from delusional psychosis. No point in claiming otherwise – you would, wouldn’t you? Facts have no impact on the delusional – from Joan of Arc, to Trofim Lysenko, to James Hansen – they promote their beliefs to their dying day, fact and logic notwithstanding.
You have your beliefs, I have facts.
Others are free to choose whichever path suits them.
The fact that you cannot describe the GHE, or explain the role of AGW in reversing four and a half billion years of surface cooling will not alter your delusional beliefs one iota. The misery and unnecessary death resulting from delusional belief leaves the believers unaffected.
They believe that it may be necessary to exterminate people in order to save them. An example might be to call for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, killing all plant life, and removing humanity from the face of the Earth. This seems to be a bad idea to me. Not to you, it seems.
Carry on fantasising.
Cheers.
Description of GHE:
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Salvatore Del Prete says:
There is no AGW so the subject is a non starter.
Salvatore, do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
David, are you a troll, or are you a troll?
This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming.
You are speaking of your own article.
That sort of bald self-promotion might work for some people. It’s an immediate write-off for me.
Barry,
I could have said, “This is THE most important article ever written about global warming.”
But I am modest.
If you don’t read the article, then it is YOUR loss.
Warning – There is a scandalous self promotion following this warning!!!
====================
Global Warming – Did we Pass or Fail?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail
====================
And I will take you off my christmas card list.
One of the problems with Alarmists, is that they have no sense of humour. Lighten up, Barry.
=============================
Monty Python’s Galaxy Song
————————–
Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Barry,
And things seem hard or tough,
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
And you feel that you’ve had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough,
Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It’s orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it’s reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It’s a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
But out by us it’s just three thousand light-years wide.
We’re thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
We go ’round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that’s the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere out in space,
‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth!
Sheldon Walker says:
This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming.
But the author won’t submit it to a peer reviewed journal.
And I know why….
David,
If you know why, then why don’t you tell me?
I have a full-time job as a computer programmer. I don’t have time to chase peer-reviewed journals.
Since I am not a rabid Alarmist, they would never publish my article, anyway.
Why should I waste my time, trying to help a bunch of idiots?
I can have much more fun, mocking them from my website.
Regards,
Sheldon
https://agree-to-disagree.com
Since I am not a rabid Alarmist, they would never publish my article, anyway.
So much for your feigned neutrality.
Des,
“Hmmm the title for that first link says sea level anomalies, not subsurface temperature anomalies.”
Satellites measure sea surface temperature directly, but only the top 0.01 mm. They have to measure subsurface anomalies indirectly, by looking at tiny changes in elevation (the result of thermal expansion, or the other way around).
“Sea Level Anomalies are departures of the sea surface from some long term mean. Positive anomalies indicate more heat content (warmer waters, a deeper thermocline) whereas negative anomalies indicate less heat content (cooler waters, a shallower thermocline).”
https://envisat.esa.int/live/envisat_live_04.html
*****
Or from Stormsurf:
“Subsurface warm water is evidenced by increases in surface water height as compared to normal. Cold water at depth is evidenced by decreases in the surface water height. This data can be used to validate the presence of Kelvin Waves in the equatorial Pacific. Data obtained from the Jason-2 satellite.”
Until and when the climate becomes unique (which it is not even close to being)) AGW is a myth which has hijacked natural variation which will be proven as we move forward.
If AGW is really real then the global temperatures are going to continue to rise to higher levels not stay the same much less start to fall.
Now that all natural factors are in a cold mode(late 2017) as opposed to being in warm mode for the last 150 years let’s see how much global warming takes place.
I will answer it less then zero because the global temperatures are going to continue to fall.
As for as El Nino(if it comes which is very questionable) it will be a non factor because if it comes it will come in the face of overall sea surface temperatures falling and a cold North Atlantic.
So above the 1981-2010 average is a “cold mode” is it?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I will answer it less then zero because the global temperatures are going to continue to fall.
And this time you really, really, really, REALLY mean it, right!?
That is not what I am talking about at all.
So are we supposed to guess what you mean by “cold mode”, are we?
B,
So we are supposed to think you are not a stupid and ignorant troll, trying to be gratuitously offensive for no good reason, are we?
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
For Huffy and her collection of sock puppets:
” More CO₂ will probably warm the troposphere and the earths surface. But the magnitude of the warming is very poorly known. My educated guess is that doubling CO₂ concentrations will warm the surface by about 1 C and will warm the middle troposphere by about 1.2 C. These are numbers that you calculate from the direct effects of more CO₂. The much higher equilibrium climate sensitivities quoted by the IPCC, say 3 C for doubling CO₂, come from assuming that the relatively small direct temperature increase from more CO₂ is greatly amplified by the changes in the properties of water vapor and clouds. There is less observational support with each passing year for this positive feedback on the direct warming from CO₂.”
-William Happer
******
Like Dr. Spencer, agrees with the physics of the GHE, but disagrees with the majority opinion regarding sensitivity and feedbacks.
I doubt ECS will be near 1C. I bet it’s less than 0.5C, which puts it undistinguishable from the noise of natural variability, or where we don’t even know if the net anthropogenic influence is warming or cooling.
The 1C estimate arbitrarily assumes the watts are equal to watts of Pi (post albedo solar power in) in their intrinsic ability to further warm the surface. This is highly, highly doubtful if not overtly wrong, i.e. no greenhouse warming signature in the 1C estimate.
We’ve already had 1 C of warming, can’t stop at 1.5 C, and will almost surely get to 2 C. With CO2 about 2/3rds of anthropogenic forcing, ECS is clearly > 1 C.
DA, your funny beliefs are not reality, but funny nevertheless.
A science flake-out.
S,
As with the general run of fanatical GHE believers, you might have missed a few relevant words –
” . . . probably . . .”, “. . . very poorly known . . . “, “. . . guess . . .”, ” . . . less observational support with each passing year . . . “.
Quite apart from that, quite brilliant scientists have been known to have quite firm beliefs in things which were found to be false. Newton believed in alchemy, Tyndall in the luminiferous ether, Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth as less than 20 million years, and so on.
Appeals to authority aren’t nearly as effective as producing a few facts to support your opinions, are they?
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? Some science.
Cheers.
Will Happer says:
…The much higher equilibrium climate sensitivities quoted by the IPCC, say 3 C for doubling CO₂, come from assuming that the relatively small direct temperature increase from more CO₂ is greatly amplified by the changes in the properties of water vapor and clouds
They aren’t assumptions, they’re consequences of the laws of physics. And the water vapor feedback was observed last decade.
Here’s a description of one climate model’s atmospheric science. See section 4.9.2, titled “Water vapor.” See all those equations? Those are calculations, not “assumptions.”
“Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR/TN464+STR, NCAR TECHNICAL NOTE, June 2004
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
Will Happer and Richard Lindzen are effective destroyers of Alarmist junk science.
What blows my mind is that neither of them understand that the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis is false.
By continuing to talk in terms of temperature change per doubling of CO2 they are validating a theory that does not meet the Feynman test.
“Feynman test”?
Here is a quote from Feynman that explains the difference between “Science” and “Non-Science = Nonsense”.
“If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”
Richard Feynman,
Experiments that support the enhancing GHE:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
How does any of that relate to the Arrhenius hypothesis that falsely says:
dT= 5.43 ln(A)?
That’s a simple calculation not about ECS, but about CO2 forcing.
Here’s a nice paper to study:
“Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,” Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
Link at:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-if-co2-gets-really-high-say-1000.html
More:
Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
Why do you waste your time quoting irrelevant papers?
Instead of explaining why you think Arrhenius was right you raise a dust storm of worthless papers.
At least 95% of peer reviewed papers on “Behavioral Science” are junk in spite of “double blind” techniques. “Climate Science” sets even lower standards given the stubborn refusal to fact experimental facts that contradict the Arrhenius hypothesis.
If you don’t like Feynman remember Albert Einstein:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
gallopingcamel says:
At least 95% of peer reviewed papers on “Behavioral Science” are junk in spite of “double blind” techniques.
Ha!
That’d be relevant if we were discussing behaviorial science…. But we aren’t, are we?
PS: 150 W/m2.
Feynman would be the first one laughing at you fools.
Not sure why you keep referring to that argument you lost, over the 150 w/m^2.
If Arrhenius is false, where is your missing 150 W/m2?
DA, you should consult more with your partner in pseudoscience, Norman.. He has lost 350 W/m^2.
“The atmosphere prevents all but an average of 40 W/m^2 energy from the surface making it to space. The surface emits an average of 390 W/m^2 so it means the atmosphere is absorbing 350 W/m^2.”
Maybe you clowns could just average the figures, or something?
Anything is better than learning physics, huh?
JDHuffman
Not only does your physics suck, you have little reading comprehension or ability to understand simple concepts. Probably because you are really drunk when you post. I can get that.
Fact, the atmosphere does absorb (on average) around 350 Watt/m^2 of surface IR energy (clouds included).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg?download
On this graph the Surface is emitting 398.2 W/m^2 and the atmosphere is absorbing 358.2 W/m^2. I have already explained it to you simply. Put down the alcohol for a moment and sober up, it will make sense to you then. I know why everything is funny and you see clowns. (in the older days it was pink elephants).
The atmosphere absorbs 358.2 W/m^2 but it emits a total of 510.2 W/m^2 (clouds emit 29.9 W/m^2 and they count this separately).
David Appell question is a good one that you ignore because you can’t answer it logically. The Earth’s surface averages an emission of 398.2 W/m^2 in this graph and the energy leaving Earth system is 239.9 W/m^2. The difference is 158.3 W/m^2.
I really don’t know why you post. You don’t know any physics. What you think is real physics is phony made up crap. You refuse to even attempt to learn real physics. You pretend like you were an engineer somewhere and people paid you money to design heat transfer equipment. This is more of your made up reality.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Anyone who believes this to be valid physics has NEVER taken an advanced physics course in their life and definitely has never engineered anything to do with heat transfer.
Do an actual experiment proving your lunatic physics. You will not be able to, the real world does not follow drunken g.e.r.a.n’s version of reality.
norman…”On this graph the Surface is emitting 398.2 W/m^2 and the atmosphere is absorbing 358.2 W/m^2.”
Good grief, norman, you are surely not seriously presenting that fiction from Trenberth and Kiehle. Trenberth even admitted it is a fiction created from supposition and estimates.
It’s obvious that this nonsense from Trenberth et al rivals the fiction of the hockey stick.
Gordon Robertson says:
Trenberth even admitted it is a fiction created from supposition and estimates.
Prove it. Cite that claimed admission. Or withdraw it.
Gordon Robertson
I tried on another thread. I will try here. No doubt it will do not good as you are deeply entrenched in your deluded beliefs and will systematically reject empirical data which goes against your established false and fake physics.
https://directory.eoportal.org/image/image_gallery?img_id=218018&t=1339757099635
Try to understand the information this empirical graph tells you.
The Earth’s surface would be emitting approximately as a black body at 320 K at this location (desert in summer, hot surface).
If the atmosphere did not absorb most the radiant energy, you would have a spectrum close to the 320 K BB spectrum drawn in dashed lines.
You can see the BB 320 K spectrum in the atmospheric window.
What the graph is showing is the intensity of IR per wavenumber that is reaching a sensor on a balloon high above the surface (35 km). Proof that GHG are absorbing all but a small amount is because what you see is an emission spectrum of GHG from colder regions of the atmosphere. The Water Vapor spectrum comes from warmer regions between 240 and 280 K that are emitting IR. All the surface IR has been absorbed, if it had not been than it would be at around the 320 K spectral intensity. The Carbon Dioxide is emitting from much colder temperatures. All the surface IR is absorbed within 100 meters by GHG. The atmosphere cools and the gases at the cooler regions emit much less IR so the spectrum has a much smaller intensity.
“What blows my mind is that neither of them understand that the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis is false.
By continuing to talk in terms of temperature change per doubling of CO2 they are validating a theory that does not meet the Feynman test.”
Well, that’s interesting point.
One could say the basic problem is there isn’t a competing theory or model.
There is something like 4 theories about how Moon formed, and one theory seems to make most sense, giant-impact hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
But the others aren’t “disproved” rather they are less likely.
It seems the that CO2 levels have nothing to do what causes glacial and interglacial periods. Nor that CO2 is not acting like a greenhouse.
I have idea that ocean act like a greenhouse.
A greenhouse or car with windows rolled up can cause air temperatures of around 80 C.
But so can a solar pond.
And in “all respects” solar ponds work better than greenhouses- can cause high temperature and can maintain that high temperature for long periods of time- they block convectional heat loss.
And I think lots people don’t seem to understand the mystery of Venus and why it’s hot- but then again, “everyone” knows, and it has nothing to do with CO2.
But tend to think the radiant effect of CO2 and H20 gas has some warming effect- does act as insulation. But the doubling of either doesn’t need add some value like increasing global temperature by
some value of .5 to 5 C.
As basic idea, I think a world completely cover with ocean water has high average temperature, so say average temperature of 25 to 30 C. But such world lack high air temperatures which could reach 50 C.
And land allows such high air temperature, but in terms global average temperature, land lowers the amount of energy absorbed- and lowers average global temperature. Or dry land lowers global average temperature- the wetter the land the less the cooling effect- or absorbs more energy.
I think what is needed is to model world completely covered with ocean, and rather then a guess, have a more precise value for it’s global air temperature.
It seems the that CO2 levels have nothing to do what causes glacial and interglacial periods.
Not true. The CO2-temperature mutual feedback added about 1/3rd to the bare warming (5 C global avg) from the last glacial maximum.
Then there’s this result:
“Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation,” Jeremy D. Shakun et al, Nature 484, 4954 (05 April 2012).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
DA, you’re such a clown.
From the abstract: “The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear”
Learn some physics.
Typical first sentence for any paper. But most people read beyond the first sentence.
No clown. That’s a show-stopper for realists.
Glacial/intergacial transitions are not caused by CO2 changes. The cause (almost certainly) is orbital variation.
gbaikie…”One could say the basic problem is there isnt a competing theory or model.
There is something like 4 theories about how Moon formed”
This is the crux of the problem as I see it. Paradigms are usually invoked and maintained by strong personalities then maintained through consensus.
There is a decent chance that much of the scientific theory based on the analysis of the past is wrong.
If it’s wrong, then prove it wrong.
You won’t, and you can’t.
@gbaikie,
“It seems the that CO2 levels have nothing to do what causes glacial and interglacial periods.”
There is an impressive correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last seven glaciations (~850,000 years). It has to mean something. Here is my explanation yet David Appell, Thomas J. Stocker and a bunch of “Respectable” climate scientists disagree:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
Take a look at the comments. Notice that I resisted the temptation to Zap the yapping troll (David Appell) when empowered to do so. Our revered Dr. Roy shows even greater restraint given the endless affronts from our resident troll.
“And I think lots people dont seem to understand the mystery of Venus and why its hot- but then again, everyone knows, and it has nothing to do with CO2.”
Actually CO2 does matter given that it makes up ~97% of the Venusian atmosphere. However you can’t explain the temperature of the Venusian surface using the Arrhenius theory.
IMHO Robinson & Catling have a “First principles” model that explains the surface temperature of Venus with high accuracy. The model also works for six other bodies in our solar system. Several times I have tried to link the key R&C NatGeo letter in this blog but it always gets rejected. However you can find the link in the fourth paragraph of this guest post:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
Until you find your missing 150 W/m2, everything you write is just obscuring matter.
Re: ” It has to mean something. Here is my explanation yet David Appell, Thomas J. Stocker and a bunch of “Respectable” climate scientists disagree:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/”
And from it:
“Do you know anyone who can tell you when the next glaciation will start based on Milankovich’s theories?”
Yes, Javier:
Nature Unbound X – The next glaciation
Posted on August 14, 2018 by curryja | 518 Comments
by Javier
https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/
That Javier screed was a tough read. He had me really worried for a while because he seemed to be taking Ganopolsky and Archer seriously. I love these two gentlemen because they tell us there won’t be another glaciation for at least 150,000 years as long as we keep on burning fossil fuels!
It would be wonderful if we could prevent the next glaciation simply by buying a bigger gas guzzler!
In the end Javier rejected Ganopolsky and Archer. He says the next glaciation will start in 1,500 to 2,500 years. He may be right but none of us will be around to verify his prediction.
–gallopingcamel says:
September 8, 2018 at 11:59 PM
That Javier screed was a tough read. He had me really worried for a while because he seemed to be taking Ganopolsky and Archer seriously. I love these two gentlemen because they tell us there wont be another glaciation for at least 150,000 years as long as we keep on burning fossil fuels!–
Did you read the comments?
He doesn’t have complete universal agreement.
I welcome the attempt.
I would say follow the ocean temperatures.
As say a lot, the ocean average is about 3.5 C.
I would rather say it was 3.375 C – or I tire of saying about
3.5 C.
Back in early part of Holocene, Earth had higher average air temperature and I hear the ocean was warmer.
Or warmer than about 3.5 C.
Global average air temperature are the average ocean surface temperatures.
And it seems the Milankovitch cycles are all about average ocean temperature. Though I suppose it could be just the average ocean surface temperatures, and/or certain regions of ocean surface temperatures.
And I think lots people dont seem to understand the mystery of Venus and why its hot- but then again, everyone knows, and it has nothing to do with CO2.
Actually CO2 does matter given that it makes up ~97% of the Venusian atmosphere. However you cant explain the temperature of the Venusian surface using the Arrhenius theory.
IMHO Robinson & Catling have a First principles model that explains the surface temperature of Venus with high accuracy. The model also works for six other bodies in our solar system. Several times I have tried to link the key R&C NatGeo letter in this blog but it always gets rejected. However you can find the link in the fourth paragraph of this guest post:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
Well I agree one can sort of called the acid clouds as “greenhouse effect”
Or lacking them, Venus is not particularly hot.
But what mean by everyone knows is demonstated when the Messinian salinity crisis is discussed and related to why they knew it occurred- part of proof.
“Nonetheless, one can study the forces at play in the atmosphere to arrive at a good speculation of the climate. As winds blew across the “Mediterranean Sink”, they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high even during the coldest phase of any glacial era. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 C (18 F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 C (72 F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Under this simplistic assumption, theoretical temperature maxima would have been around 80 C (176 F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain permitting little life other than extremophiles. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
So you have air temperature at about 80 C. One could add *during glacial period*!
But it is not surprising to me that one can have say 50 C air temperature in locations on earth as you do during interglacial periods.
But to get to 80 C, on Earth you need a deep depression- like a dried up Mediterranean sea.
If you dig a hole the temperature will rise ~10 Kelvin for every kilometer of depth if the humidity is low. The DALR (Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate) applies. For moist air the lapse rate could be as low as 8 Kelvin per kilometer.
Why stop at 4 km? Keep digging until you get to 46 kilometers and then you will have the same temperature as on the surface of Venus. The pressure will be about 80 bars.
When you dig a hole like that the DALR will be overwhelmed by the geothermal gradient which is 25-30 Kelvin per kilometer in most places.
To save you all that digging there is a trench almost 11 kilometers deep in the Marianas. The temperature there would be 128 degrees Centigrade but for the fact that it is filled with water.
“To save you all that digging there is a trench almost 11 kilometers deep in the Marianas. The temperature there would be 128 degrees Centigrade but for the fact that it is filled with water.”
And it’s not surrounded by land- so you would not add to the high daytime land air temperature- you add to surface temperature of ocean, which might be 30 C.
If you remove all the oceans, you changing “sea level” or all continental land mass become huge mountains. And these high mountains are going to have lower air temperature.
And lacking an ocean such a world has lower average temperature- but the 70% of surface which were ocean basins will be much warmer air than the huge continental mountains.
So the extinct ocean basins might have temperature comparable to Sahara desert, the part of basins near tropics could reach such daytime highs, but further from tropics, the basin air temperature are going to get much cooler during day and quite cool at night.
So average global temperature might be around 0 C.
And present global land temperatures [the huge continental mountains] average temperature would something like -10 C [or colder].
I have name for a theory, “The actual greenhouse effect of Atmosphere and Oceans”
So we had blog post about how atmosphere was sort of like an actual greenhouse.
And I generally, agreed.
And I would also say a solar pond is sort of like the ocean.
Or there are two sort of actual greenhouses- the atmosphere and the ocean.
And sort of like have two greenhouses on the Moon- have big one and smaller one in the bigger one.
Now two greenhouses might not be hotter than one, or saying in particular that smaller one in bigger one is warmer.
Roughly a greenhouse on the Moon should have air temperature of about 120 C, and smaller one should not necessarily be warmer- it might be, but not my point.
Instead the smaller one could covered solar pond- which should keep the larger greenhouse warmer as compared without the smaller one, during the lunar night.
Anyhow a actual greenhouse is about reducing convection heat loss, and our atmosphere and our ocean do this. And do this without adding greenhouse gases or clouds or other “warming effects”.
GC,
“……..they are validating a theory that does not meet the Feynman test.”
The theory predicts a surface and ocean warming trend, cooling stratosphere, arctic amplification, receding glaciers, and increased water vapor.
Correct on all counts.
Ms Snape, if you could produce the derivation and proof for the Arrhenius equation, then you might have some credibility.
A new experience, huh?
S,
You demonstrate stupidity and ignorance. You cannot describe this wondrous “theory”, can you?
What is it called? Where has it been described?
You cannot even describe a testable GHE hypothesis, so you decide it is not necessary as part of the scientific method. Leaping straight to a non-describable “theory” might seem clever to you, and the other cultists, but won’t convince real scientists.
Using stupid pseudoscientific terms like “arctic amplification” won’t help.
There is no GHE. There is no CO2 heating. There is no “climate change” theory.
Learn some physics. Then learn a little about science. Or remain in your comfortable fantasy where cooling is heating, and Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate.
Your choice, of course.
Cheers.
There is no CO2 heating.
Mike Flynn says:
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
“Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
E,
You appear to be disagreeing with something I didn’t say, rather than something I did.
Maybe you could try quoting me, and then supporting your reasons for your disagreement – although I don’t believe you can, of course.
That is because you are stupid and ignorant, unable to support your mad delusions with fact. You reluctantly agree that reducing the amount of water vapour (a supposed GHG), results in higher maximum temperatures, rather than lower. No heating – no increase in temperature. No GHE due to a GHG, in other words!
As to your silliness about insulation, you refuse to admit that placing insulation between the Sun and a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
As to the 2nd LOT, thermal energy flows from hotter to colder. The Sun, at around 5800 K, is hotter than the surface of the Earth. Insulation impedes this glow. You claim it makes the surface hotter. You are suffering from an attack of climatological pseudoscience, obviously. Quite delusional.
No GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis. No CO2 heating. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
DA,
Thanks for assisting with the spread of fact.
Result? Less radiation reaches thermometer. Temperature drops as a result.
Bad luck for climatological pseudoscience, eh?
Cheers.
The amount of 15um radiation from the sun is paltry compared to that from the surface of the Earth.
“Solar radiation occurs over a wide range of wavelengths. However, the energy of solar radiation is not divided evenly over all wavelengths but, as Figure 1 shows, is rather sharply centered on the wavelength band of 0.2-2um.”
https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/blackbody.gif
Whereas 15um is right in the peak of earth radiation.
b,
You don’t appear to be contradicting anything I said. That seems a peculiar way of discussing things. Is it another climatological pseudoscientific redefinition. – agreement redefined to be disagreement?
Magical stuff, this climatology, eh?
How are you getting along with describing the GHE? Maybe you could redefine it to be neither an effect, nor anything to do with greenhouses! Do you think that might work?
Cheers.
The Arrhenius hypothesis is stunning in its boldness and simplicity. It can be boiled down to a single equation:
dT = 5.43 ln(A)
Where A is the CO2 concentration ratio.
In 1850 the CO2 concentration was ~280 ppm compared to 406 ppm today.
Therefore A= 1.45 and dT = 2.02 Kelvin
The observed “delta T” over the (carefully chosen) time interval is ~0.8 Kelvin so the hypothesis prediction does not meet the “Laugh” test……let alone the Feynman test.
Rather than admit that the hypothesis is false, “Climate Scientists” suggest that we can fix the problems by changing the sensitivity constant from 5.43 to some other number. After wasting untold billions of dollars nobody can come up with a number that works…..duh!
cam…”The Arrhenius hypothesis is stunning in its boldness and simplicity. It can be boiled down to a single equation:
dT = 5.43 ln(A)
Where A is the CO2 concentration ratio.”
Not a knock on you, I enjoy your analysis in general. However, the equation is speculated without the slightest bit of evidence that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere fits that equation.
It would seem that Arrhenius took his equation for chemical reactions and applied it directly to the atmosphere with the presumption that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would behave that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation
Sorry, misread your comment, GC. I don’t know anything about the Arrhenius hypothesis.
S,
What is the “theory” you claim is correct?
You don’t know anything about that, either, do you?
I understand.
Cheers.
Ms Snape admits: “I don’t know anything about the Arrhenius hypothesis.”
She doesn’t have a clue about all the pseudoscience she’s been swallowing. She makes a dumb blonde appear smart, by comparison.
E Swanson wrote –
“MF, No doubt, desert temperatures can be rather high. The important facts would also include the daily low temperatures (which can drop below freezing at night), as in, the diurnal temperature change for deserts vs. more humid environments.
Perhaps MF the physics expert can provide real world data which shows that the diurnal temperature change for desert conditions is less than that for more humid areas. I dont have the time to look for it, so its up to MF to support his silly claim.”
Perhaps you could learn some physics.
Maybe you could quote something I wrote, and provide support for any disagreement you may have. I pointed out that the highest surface temperatures on Earth occur in places with the least supposed GHG, water vapour, in the atmosphere.
Erecting a straw man, claiming that I wrote something I didn’t, just makes you appear stupid and ignorant. What I wrote about high temperatures being observed in areas with low GHG concentrations is supported by fact, as well as basic physics. It happens to be true, whether you like it or not!
If it doesn’t support your bizarre GHE fantasy, tough. If you don’t believe insulation works both ways, tough. Take as much offense as you like – neither Nature nor I care. Still no GHE. No heating due to GHGs,
Off you go, now. Dream up some more misrepresentations – I’m sure at least some stupid and ignorant GHE believers will happily share your fantasies.
Good luck.
Cheers.
MF, So the highest temperatures occur in some desert locations. No surprise, since it’s well known that dry air heats faster than humid air. But, the dry air also cools faster at night. The difference between the two daily extremes, called the diurnal temperature range, is thus greater in dry regions than in more humid regions. But, what’s been found is that that DTR is decreasing as the night time cooling is now less than the daytime heating as both temperatures are increasing.
MF also wrote:
A bit up thread, I wrote:
He might have noticed that I was pointing to the basics of convective heat transfer, which is that thermal energy flows from higher to lower temperature and insulation retards the rate of that energy flow thru the insulating medium.
Remember all that talk around here about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Insulation doesn’t “cool” anything, it only retards the rate of flow of thermal energy moving thru it.
+1 for ES
Sorry DA, but you lose again.
Maybe if you “double down”?
That’s what losers do.
But you already knew that….
I pointed out to E Swanson that my house is insulated to keep the interior cool during the day, by reducing the effects of the Sun. He refuses to believe me, obviously.
“MF, Since you failed to report your night time minimum, I still think you may be using a mechanical device, i.e., a fan, to move the night time air thru your house to cool it below the daily average temperature outside. Of course, you are overstating your conditions, since the daily high air temperature will be less than the solar heated surface of the road which you mention.
Just another round of misinformation from your twisted troll brain.”
I provided some actual temperature measurements to support my statements. He doesn’t like facts, apparently, and wanders down various rabbit holes, expecting me follow. Bad luck for you, E Swanson.
Still no GHE. No testable hypothesis, no theory, no nothing. Time for you to make some more ridiculous claims on my behalf. Then you could argue with yourself. You would probably manage to lose even those arguments, difficult though it would be.
Carry on.
Cheers.
MF claims to have provided “actual temperature measurements to support my statements”.
Hardly. Where are your records of daily low and high temperatures? Where are your corresponding measurements of your low and high temperatures inside your house? Where is the data for heating or cooling degree days for your location? Where is your description of your actions, such as using a fan or opening windows at night? Heck you haven’t even given any sense of the location of your house, so that one might independently seek climate information.
MF gives us nothing in the way of science, only a few cherry picked temperatures and lots of hand waving, as usual from MF the troll.
E,
What are you blathering about?
What statement of mine are you trying to disagree with? Certainly none that you are prepared to quote.
My house is so nsulated to keep it cool through the day. This is the period when the Sun shines. It works. Stepping into the shade results in lower thermometer temperatures. You may choose not to believe this fairly obvious fact, but it is true nonetheless.
Here’s the first dictionary definition of insulation I found (Cambridge dictionary, Merriam-Webster is similar) –
“the act of covering something to stop heat, sound, or electricity from escaping or entering, or the fact that something is covered in this way: . . . ”
Maybe you dwell in a fantasy where climatological pseudoscience redefines insulation to be “not insulation”.
No matter. Maybe you could bring yourself to quote me, before erecting your numerous straw men. All you are doing is appearing stupid, ignorant and ridiculous – to me at least. Others may have alternate views.
Still no GHE, is there? No testable GHE hypothesis, either. No AGW theory, no nothing. Just the shared fantasy of a motley collection of climatological pseudoscientists.
Carry on making bizarre claims on my behalf.
Cheers.
MF, your dictionary quote is wrong. Thermal insulation doesn’t “stop” heat from entering or escaping, it only slows the flow.
No matter, you conclude:
I repeated my request for information and factual data. You have repeatedly provided no such evidence to back your claim. Perhaps you think engineers and scientists who seek facts are all “stupid, ignorant and ridiculous” for their pursuit of truth.
Don’t feed the trolls.
E,
Don’t tell me. Tell the dictionary publishers. Maybe, in the finest climatological pseudoscientific fashion, you can pretend you can give a better, more widely accepted definition. I will understand if you can’t quite seem to remember where you left it. Maybe with your GHE description?
Even NASA points out that a fair proportion – 30% or so, of the Sun’s radiation doesn’t reach the surface. That part was obviously slowed to a halt. Some would call that “stopped”.
You still haven’t managed to quote me, and support then your disagreement with anything I actually wrote. You may repeatedly request anything you like. If you can tell me what you are specifically disagreeing with, and why, I will gladly provide extra information, if It will help you comprehend.
Just stating that a dictionary definition is “wrong”, doesn’t help. Appeals to your own authority might impress you, and others who share your bizarre delusions. Not me, obviously.
You need to specify which engineers and scientists you refer to. Obviously, in any sample of such, 50% will be below the average intelligence level, which would make them relatively stupid. Any who did not achieve 100% in their exams (having tried, and failed to provide correct answers), have demonstrated ignorance by definition. So yes, some are stupid and ignorant.
According to Einstein “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” I assume engineers and scientists are human. Feynman was of the opinion that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Presumably he included engineers and scientists in the class of people who were ignorant of an understanding of quantum mechanics.
Go on, now. Redefine stupidity and ignorance to suit yourself. It won’t change the fact that you haven’t been able to find anything that I wrote that was significantly incorrect.
Carry on believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Good luck with heating anything with your blue and green plates.
Cheers.
The temperature of the tropical Atlantic is still low.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_atl_1.png
Now three storms in the Atlantic:
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1038075898648567809
Just as Joe Bastardi predicted.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319422
No Dan. Temperature has units. So does CO2.
The units dont balance in your misapplication of the chain rule. Your equation is junk, which makes your conclusion junk.
DA,
What are the units of CO2? Grams or kilograms?
Does it make a difference?
Cheers,
The units in Dan P’s equation don’t balance no matter what you take for the units of CO2.
Right Dan?
Because his use of the chain rule is not just wrong, but whacked.
DA,, As you should have been able to grasp, both sides of the equation are simply ratios of numbers, i.e. dimensionless. Unlock your mind.
It all comes down to the strengths of the magnetic fields. Notice I said fields. It is just not the solar magnetic field that matters but also what the geo magnetic field is doing. When both solar/geo magnetic fields are in sync the given solar effects will be compounded as is the case now. Both are weakening.
As I have been expecting the cooling has now started in response to the weakening magnetic fields. It started in late year 2017.
My two solar conditions necessary for cooling being 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (2005) followed by a period of time of very low average value solar parameters (late year2 017) which will lead to overall lower oceanic sea surface temperatures(less UV light) and a slight increase in albedo due to greater cloud coverage/snow coverage and an increase in major explosive volcanic activity. This due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays and a shifting to where they are directed.
In addition the less EUV light contributes to a more meridional atmospheric circulation with the zones pushed equatorward which lead to lower global temperatures and an increase in global cloud/snow coverage.
Earthquake activity of 4.0 magnitude or higher has increased 30% over the last 30 days. More evidence of weakening magnetic fields.
I said way back over a year ago that year 2018 would be the transitional year and so far so good. Overall oceanic sea surface temperatures off almost .2c since last summer while overall global temperatures are running colder then last year thru the end of August.
I know it is early and the trend has not been long but it has to start sometime, some place and I say that sometime, someplace is now.
AGW CROWD- are not capable of seeing a turn in the climate they essentially have their heads in the sand.
salvatore del prete says:
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
https://imgur.com/Od0lDU0
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
In the chart above the climatic shift of the late 1970’s shows up quite well and natural variability was in a warm mode on steroids, from 1977-2005.
That started to change in 2005 and transitioned in full by late year 2017.
The only question is how much cooling ? That will depend on how weak the magnetic fields become and the duration of the weakness.
Scary chart Salvatore, we are one degree above preindustrial.
It has to start at some time and place, and as I said natural warming climatic factors from 1977-2005 were in steroids.
Natural warming due to what factors?
High -solar activity until late 2005- equates to warm oceans.
warm AMO
warm PDO- more intense EL NINO’S as a result, less LA NINA’S
+AO
+NAO
Low major explosive volcanic activity.
Especially during the period 1977-2005.
Cherry picking, hand waving, no numbers. As usual from you.
Solar TSI has been decreasing since the 1960s.
cold PDO.
La Nina years keep getting warmer. So do El Nino years. So do neutral years.
Low major explosive volcanic activity.
Especially during the period 1977-2005.
Where are your numbers showing this?
Pinatubo 1991
Svante worries that the planet is about to boil, while rational, and responsible, people enjoy life.
C’est la vie!
I do enjoy life, just want maximized enjoyment for everyone.
svante…”Scary chart Salvatore, we are one degree above preindustrial”.
Based on corrupt IPCC proxy data that the PI was at 280 ppmv, ergo the planet has warmed 1C due to CO2 increases.
The planet has actually re-warmed from the LIA.
Surface datasets clearly show the world has warmed 1 C since the beginning of the industrial era.
The fact Gordon won’t address: temperatures are now ~0.5 C above the beginning of the LIA. Why, if all of modern warming is just some LIA recovery?
One AGW contrarian posts a temperature chart. Another contrarian says its rubbish data.
But the second contrarian never says that to the contrarian who posted the chart. He waits for his enemies to show up and talk about it before dissing the data.
100% tribalism. Zero intellectual integrity.
Now barry, was that a fair account of the preceding discussion, or not?
Salvatore said:
In the chart above the climatic shift of the late 1970s shows up quite well and natural variability was in a warm mode on steroids, from 1977-2005.
The chart based on temperature data he has previously said is rubbish. And that he only accepts UAH global temp data.
These ‘skeptics’ can’t keep their stories straight.
No intellectual integrity whatsoever.
were on –cor
I think 13 month average passes 8% of seasonal variability to the resulting graph. If the first and last month of the window are weighed by 0.5 then the pure seasonal variation goes to 0 and filtering of higher frequencies is slightly improved. E.g. filtered[i] = (0.5*raw[i-6] + raw[i-5] + … + raw[i+5] + 0.5*raw[i+6])/12 .
David AGW is over get over it.
“I will never spin and if I am wrong I will admit it.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
DA, are you able to adhere to the same standard?
I will never spin and if I am wrong I will admit it.
(I can already give you the answer)
David if the temperatures go up from here -next few years I will be wrong. How much clearer can that be.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
On the other hand David you will never admit to being wrong no matter what happens going forward which makes you irrelevant.
Salvatore, what did you learn from your failed prediction?
Why did it fail?
My prediction is looking pretty good.
The question you asked me is what you will have to ask yourself. Why did AGW fail?
Your prediction was a complete failure.
Why?
salvatore del prete says:
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
What ever you say Dave.
Are you going to deny even this, Salvatore?
Shame on you.
DA,
Are you going to keep up the pointless trolling?
Have you managed to describe the GHE yet? Found a testable GHE hypothesis? No?
Double shame on you David!
Cheers.
David, perhaps therapy would be your best bet after all, rather than venting all your daily frustrations on somebody you have never met. It gets a bit boring having to read through all your desperate, relentless, perverse, utterly obsessive and ludicrously repetitive attacks on the same individual.
Then don’t read me.
Or be careful, you might learn something.
The only thing I have learned from reading you is about how somebody who has failed at life chooses to waste his time. Its a sad read.
As if I care what some anonymous Internet coward thinks.
Just trying to help. Carry on trolling then, if it makes you feel better.
Of the two of us, you’re the one who has never posted a single thing related to science.
You are a science-related troll, that is true. Asking you to stop trolling is probably pointless, I suppose, since that is your entire life…but somebody has to at least try.
Salvatore,
Dude, please stop making your predictions. No one knows what’s going to happen going forward. Even if it turns out you’re right, it could just be dumb luck. There are too just many unknown and unpredictable variables to deduce what will happen.
Remember, there are basically only 3 outcomes in the coming decades. It could warm, it could cool, or it could stay about the same. This gives everyone 1 in 3 chance by dumb luck alone. Keep this in perspective.
RW says:
No one knows whats going to happen going forward.
Scientists do know.
It will keep warming, decade-after-decade.
Laughable.
DA has no clue.
But, everyone loves a clown.
RW…”Dude, please stop making your predictions”.
Salvatore’s predictions are a breath of fresh air compared to the tripe passed off here as science by the alarmists. Remember, they have been blatantly predicting up to 4C warming by 2100 even though their gods at the IPCC can only venture ‘projection’ based on the bs programmed into climate models.
Salvatore was completely wrong.
And now he isn’t man enough to admit it.
—
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
And you are a troll, but are not man enough to admit that. PST.
David,
“Weve already had 1 C of warming, cant stop at 1.5 C, and will almost surely get to 2 C. With CO2 about 2/3rds of anthropogenic forcing, ECS is clearly > 1 C.”
I doubt it. Yes, we’ve had close to 1C of warming up until now, but we don’t know how much of it was natural (or could have been natural). Besides, the warming that occurred early in the past century isn’t distinguishable from the warming in the latter part (that got us up close to 1C now), and that was before there was any significant anthropogenic CO2 ‘forcing’. So clearly nature can warm the climate a good amount on its own.
The warming could be over or it could continue in the coming decades. The coming decades could just as easily cool. No one knows what will happen. You’re dealing with such small changes in the energy balance, as doubling CO2 is only a little over 1% increase in atmospheric opacity, and the 1C intrinsic 2xCO2 estimate arbitrarily assumes the watts are equal to watts of post albedo solar forcing in their ability to warm the surface. This is dubious at best.
RW says:
Yes, weve had close to 1C of warming up until now, but we dont know how much of it was natural (or could have been natural).
Yes, we do: -10% of it was due to natural factors.
Natural factors are now, on their own, leading to cooling.
If you disagree, tell us what natural factors have been causing warming.
You can’t, and you won’t.
90 % is due to natural forces the rest is urban heat island effect and land use.
What’s your proof?
The historical climatic record.
Which part of the historical record, specifically?
1200ad-present and I DO SUBSCRIBE to the the hockey stick BS.
Salvatore:
What was the time span of the Maunder Minimum?
Did it start in 1200 AD??
(No)
Salvatore:
The Maunder Minimum:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png
About 1640-1710 CE.
1200ad-present and I DO SUBSCRIBE to the the hockey stick BS.
That sentence makes no sense – unless you are telling us that you endorse BS.
I assume Salvatore meant DO NOT SUBSCRIBE. Not something worth trolling about.
RW says:
The warming could be over or it could continue in the coming decades. The coming decades could just as easily cool.
Very wrong. You clearly do not understand anthropogenic warming.
DA,
It’s pretty simple.
Member of anthropogene burns stuff. Warming results, due to exothermic nature of burning stuff.
Want more warm? Burn more stuff. Want less warm? Burn less stuff.
In the long run, as for the past four and a half billion years, the Earth will continue to cool.
Cheers.
RW…”Yes, weve had close to 1C of warming up until now…”
You might want to call it re-warming since the warming began at the end of the 400 year Little Ice Age where global temps dropped 1C to 2C below normal.
It is notable that several solar minima occurred during the LIA.
Gordo is wrong: the LIA wasn’t global, nor caused by the Sun, and GMST then only declined about 0.4 C:
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
Correction David the Little Ice Age was caused by the sun.
Wrong again.
Sorry, no. The climate’s sensitivity to solar irradiance simply is not that great.
(If you disagree, prove it, with science — data and calculations. You can’t.)
The LIA (not global) started before the Maunder minimum, and ended after it was over. Yes?
It is magnetic fields not solar irradiance!
Salvatore Del Prete says:
It is magnetic fields not solar irradiance!
Why should I believe this?
What the proof of it?
David post the BS wrong manipulated hockey stick graph, which know one in their right mind would eve accept as being real.
no one -cor
Salvatore, the hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, and it’s easy to show it’s required by basic laws of physics.
Go learn.
David, please stop trolling.
DA has nothing better to do!
David Appell wrote –
“No Dan. Temperature has units. So does CO2.”
What a stunning revelation! Some things can be measured!
Obviously, David’s 16 hours of intensive journalism studies have served him well.
“No Dan. Temperature has units. So does CO2.” – says it all, really. Who could possibly disagree with such an insightful comment?
Or David Appell might simply be stupid, ignorant, and delusional. Still no GHE. Still no CO2 heating.
Cheers.
You asked
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319384
I delivered
David, the global warming is over and it ended in 2017 .
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 6:47 AM
“I said year 2017 is going to be a transitional year in the climate.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
—
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 2, 2018 at 6:13 AM
“Year 2018 is the first year I ever said was a transitional year.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-314681
Exactly and this is why year 2018 is distinctly cooler then year 2017 which was cooler then year 2016.
Admit you were wrong.
Admit you are a troll. Its the first step towards getting help.
The only way I will admit I am wrong is if the global temperatures from here increase.
Wow, Salvatore. You made a prediction It was wrong. And now you aren’t even honest enough to admit it.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
Being honest enough to admit you are a troll is your first step to recovery, David.
Your definition of “troll” = presenting real science and evidence.
You think the truth should be out of bounds.
No David, you do not present real science and evidence. You just troll. The same thing over and over again.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Have to agree with David Appell. You post zero or incorrect science. You only call people presenting real science data trolls. The actual trolls on this blog, Mike Flynn and JDHuffman get not attention from you at all. Mike Flynn repeats more than anyone and has yet to present an actual science argument.
You present nothing but troll other people’s post. You are devoid of any rational or valid points. You spend your time here telling valid scientific people to stop trolling.
N,
Don’t you believe in free speech?
You obviously don’t agree Feynman’s opinion that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Reality doesn’t care what you or I think. It just is.
If you wish to insist that increasing the amount of GHGs between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, don’t be surprised if somebody asks you to back yourself up with a reproducible experiment.
Another Feynman quote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Not applicable to you – you don’t even have a theory about the GHE or GHG heating. That’s because the whole idea is laughable. If you notice people laughing at you, it might just be because you are too stupid and ignorant to realise how stupid and ignorant you are! Some people can be harsh and unfeeling – generally climatological pseudoscientific types. Not me, I’m all brightness and light, a believer in free speech and natural philosophy.
Your turn, Norman. Feel free to throw in a relevant fact or two. Or just whine and complain, if you prefer.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I have already demonstrated your point with empirical data. You are immune to factual information.
YOU: “If you wish to insist that increasing the amount of GHGs between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, dont be surprised if somebody asks you to back yourself up with a reproducible experiment.”
It has already been given to you with actual spectral data. You choose to ignore it and pretend it has not been presented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
This graphic gives a general idea, I have given you specific actual measured values that you just reject and then act like no one has given you this material to examine.
The GHG will absorb around 77 W/m^2 of the incoming solar flux, they will emit around 340 W/m^2 to the surface. I would say that 340 W/m^2 is considerably greater than 77 W/m^2. If you removed all GHG you would get 77 more W/m^2 reaching the surface but you would lose 340 W/m^2 leading to a much cooler surface with a much colder temperature reading (this would be average both Day and night included).
Of course you don’t accept these type of graphs as they are averaged amounts.
Here is a specific graph with data you can use to see you are wrong.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b951cb97794a.png
In this clear sky graph of desert air you can see a solar flux reaching a surface sensor of about 1050 W/m^2. If the incoming solar is 1365 W/m^2 over this area, you would have an atmosphere that absorbs 315 W/m^2 of solar incoming energy. But if you look at the graph, the GHG that are present in this dry air emit over 400 W/m^2 at this same time. They are still emitting more DWIR than is being lost by atmosphere absorbing the solar IR, the thermometer is still hotter because of GHG. You are wrong on your point and empirical evidence shows this to be true. You offer nothing in the way of evidence to prove you point. Quotes are not evidence. What evidence do you have to support you declaration?
Poor Norman believes if he types long enough, maybe he will get something right.
So far, his plan is not working….
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Well here is an example for you to become a valid moderator type poster. I posted a valid point that is completely correct and your buddy troll posted a stupid troll comment. No content, no counter argument. Just a stupid troll post and yet I do not see you telling him to quit trolling. Why are you so biased?
JDHuffman has nothing at all to say but trolling. Tell him to quit trolling. If he thinks I am wrong then he needs to clearly explain why using valid physics. The Dork will not do that nor has he EVER done it. Yet you let this low life slide. Why? He is a far more intent troll than David Appell. Appell comes up with counter points and offers evidence in support for them. What does you dork troll buddy do? Nothing but troll. If you read his posts you would have to determine 95% are pure trolling. No content at all, zero physics, but some derogatory comment about some poster. Read them and prove me wrong.
The only physics he posts are incorrect graphs of energy flow.
Wrong again, Norman.
There wasn’t a “valid point” in your entire comment. You just link to something you can’t understand. Then you mis-interpret it, and believe that’s science!
All you can do is type out long, dis-jointed comments, filled with name-calling.
As you can see, I don’t waste much time with you anymore. You can’t handle reality.
JDHuffman
Since your good buddy won’t do it, someone has to.
JDHuffman please stop trolling.
Well done, Norman. Instead of your usual lengthy diatribe full of abusive, off-topic, rambling nonsense, you have made perhaps your first ever polite, succinct comment. I knew if I led by example, I could help trolls such as yourself.
At last! A 12 step program for trolls like DA.
150.
No, just the 12. 150 would be far too many steps.
Kristian says,
“…….so the NET result of putting more water into the tropospheric column is LOWERING not raising of the average surface temperature”
“As always, observation trumps theory”
********
When was it observed that adding water vapor to the lower troposphere caused the planet to cool???
Kristian says,
…so the NET result of putting more water into the tropospheric column is LOWERING not raising of the average surface temperature”
Ridiculous.
Here’s just some of the evidence for an increase in atmospheric water vapor:
IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.
“Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence,”
Katharine M. Willett et al, Nature Vol 449| 11 October 2007| doi:10.1038/nature06207.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html
“Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content,” B. D. Santer et al, PNAS 2013.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract
“How much more rain will global warming bring?” F.J. Wentz, Science (2007), 317, 233–235.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233
“Analysis of global water vapour trends from satellite measurements in the visible spectral range,” S. Mieruch et al, Atmos Chem Phys (2008), 8, 491–504.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/491/2008/acp-8-491-2008.html
DA,
Not even up to your usual stupid and ignorant (not to mention delusional) standard!
Even you would not be so deluded as to claim that increasing the amount of water vapour in the tropospheric column above an arid tropical desert will make it hotter, would you?
On second thought, maybe you would. You appear to think that increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter! Ah, the miracles of climatological pseudoscience.
Cheers.
S,
You wrote –
“When was it observed that adding water vapor to the lower troposphere caused the planet to cool???”
Obviously you didn’t like Kristian’s statement of reality, so you query a claim you have created in its stead!
However, I’ll point out, yet again, that the hottest places in the world have the least water vapour between them and the Sun. As are the coldest places, which also receive the least sunlight.
Basic physics, which you appear to be completely ignorant about. Because you press on regardless, this makes you stupid as well.
You have wasted 3 question marks making yourself appear even more ridiculous – that is, an object of ridicule. I’ll provide all the ridicule you desire, at your command. It will be my pleasure.
Cheers.
As always, Snape, you’re one of two things: either you’re just stupid, or you’re willfully deceitful.
We’re not talking about the planet here. Read the discussion in question. We’re discussing the mechanism allegedly behind the “GHE” – more water in the tropospheric column (over one particular spot or region) slows the cooling rate of the surface beneath at night. And then I simply pointed out that the opposite will happen during the day, more water in the tropospheric column (over that same spot/region) will also slow the heating rate of the surface. And the NET result of these two opposing effects is a LOWER T_s, not a higher one. This is readily observable.
Wilfully deceitful, as are all the trolls at work here. If only they would stop trolling, this blog would be a better place.
This blog would be a much better place if people insulting others as ‘idiot’, ‘dumbass’ (or dumb@$$ by full cowards), ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ would not appear here at all.
This name calling is the one and only reason why Rose and I call them ‘dumb’, ‘pretentious’, ‘boaster’s and… ‘ignorant’.
If such cowards would be absent, our reactions wouldn’t appear as well!
*
One more time I say: never and never would any one of them be courageous enough to send such disgusting comments to Climate Etc or WUWT! Even Postma probably wouldn’t.
They would be banned there within a day.
Maybe they were all already, and spout their shit here because it is the only place where they are allowed to do.
So…this blog would be a better place if you werent here…by your own admission? Confused.
DREMT,
+1
barry…”I repeat, NOAA admitted, based on its GHCN stations, that it only uses less than 1500 stations globally.
That information is years old, and the station count back then had a peak in the 1980s at around 6000 stations, tailing off at the end to about 1500″.
********
Here is the NOAA link for April 10, 2015.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045648/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Your propaganda and outright lies in defense of AGW is both pathetic and an act of sheer desperation.
Give it up, barry, and get it that your desperate theory is clinging by threads. The desperation is so intense that major politically-motivated scientific outfits like NOAA, NASA GISS, and Had-crut have resorted to obfuscation and outright lies to prop up this lame theory.
Only ~100 stations are needed to get an accurate enough measure of GMST:
“Spectral Approach to Optimal Estimation of the Global Average Temperature,” Samuel S. P. Shen et al, JAMS 1994
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)0072.0.CO;2
No use paying for a lot more stations when they aren’t needed.
PS: Naturally, Gordon will not be able to understand this reasoning.
DA,
Are you outraged that so much money has been wasted over the years?
I estimate the Global Average Temperature to be 288.35388 K. That will be a dollar, thank you.
I estimate next year to be much the same as this year. That will be another dollar, thank you.
Who needs ~100 stations?
Prove my estimate is incorrect – or give me my dollar!
Cheers.
Kristian…from a bit back…”You [barry] look at a graph tracing real-world observational data and think its all about statistics. That statistics alone will answer your questions”.
I have told barry this several times and many other alarmists, especially binny (Bindidon) who lives for statistics.
Number-crunching is a tool to aid in visualizing a problem, it should never be used alone to draw conclusions. When I studied statistics as part of my engineering program, the first thing they taught us was to never blindly accept an average without understanding the context of the data from which it was derived.
It gets maddening in the field of nutrition. Researchers go to a lot of trouble to prove the benefits of something like vitamin C, then some dweeb comes along after that fact, using statistical methods, and claims a proof that vitamin C beyond the RDA is of no benefit.
In reply to such dweebs, Linus Pauling, an expert on chemistry, even as it applies to the human body, pointed out that a 150 pound billy goat makes 12 grams of vitamin C per day to maintain it’s body.
The US government suggests 75 mg per day for humans, some 160 times less than a goat makes naturally, which has a similar mammalian body. That lead Pauling to claim the goat seems to know more about vitamin C than the government.
Pauling knew the processes in the human body intimately that requires vitamin C and he claimed 75 mg was barely enough to prevent scurvy. Yet here we have dweeb statisticians claiming Pauling is wrong.
Gordon: Some animals, like cats & goats, can make the Vit C they need. Most animals do.
Humans can’t. (Nor gorillas or chimpanzees.)
So we have to get it via what we eat.
—
So what’s your point?
DA,
“Number-crunching is a tool to aid in visualizing a problem, it should never be used alone to draw conclusions.” seems reasonably pointy to me.
He may have been using examples to support his opinion, unlike the usual run of strident climatological pseudoscientists, who just run down the nearest rabbit hole when faced with inconvenient facts.
You wouldn’t be stupid and ignorant enough to claim that the future can be predicted by intense and detailed number crunching of historical numbers, would you?
Of course you would!
Cheers.
BARRY…”Summer is May June July and August in the Northern Hemisphere?”
Typical barry propaganda. May is, and always has been, late spring, with summer officially starting mid June. Of course, that depends on where you live in the NH.
Here is Vancouver, Canada, where the seasons are distinct, May is still cold at night. If you go camping on the May 24th holiday in the Interioro, away from the coast, it can get downright cold at night.
The first part of June tends to be stormy and unpredictable, even though it is warmish (around 20C in the daytime). Real summer weather in our neck of the woods is July and August.
This year has been an exception. It’s been hot here since mid June. Whereas late June tends to be a bit cool and rainy, this year it is shaping up to be the opposite. It has been cool at noghts the past couple of weeks and it’s overcast and raining today, September 7/18.
Sometimes summer here is extended a few weeks into September. This year it seems the opposite, the hot weather was early and September is headed for a cooling.
The message is that it’s not possible to claim NH summers extend from May – August. It has always been July and August in my neck of the woods, and even that’s debatable. Often, the unstable weather of June extends into July.
Barry: Meteorologists consider Jun-Aug to be northern hemisphere summer (JJA).
Gordon: Some animals, like cats & goats, can make the Vit C they need. Most animals do.
Humans cant. (Nor gorillas or chimpanzees.)
So we have to get it via what we eat.
So whats your point?
DA,
Number-crunching is a tool to aid in visualizing a problem, it should never be used alone to draw conclusions. seems reasonably pointy to me.
He may have been using examples to support his opinion, unlike the usual run of strident climatological pseudoscientists, who just run down the nearest rabbit hole when faced with inconvenient facts.
You wouldnt be stupid and ignorant enough to claim that the future can be predicted by intense and detailed number crunching of historical numbers, would you?
Of course you would!
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
Typical barry propaganda.
It’s not “propaganda” to disagree about then NH summer begins. Just a disagreement.
Gordon completely fucked up who said what. MrZ politely corrects the record below.
barry, please try to remain calm.
Gordon,
I need to clarify here that the May-August “summer” is my fault.
I was asking for feedback on this way of graphing UAH data http://cfys.nu/graphs/UAH%20Colored.png
Point was that color adds a dimension to the graph. I wanted to demonstrate that with colors you can visualize that a cluster of months have different trends than others.
I made two mistakes that confused/destroyed the whole discussion above.
1. Included May as summer month. Point was about the visual and I should have stayed with June-August. (Reason for May in the graph was May was very hot this year where I live so I wanted to see how it related to the cluster of summer months globally)
2. I called the development 1998-2018 a downward trend. We are still below 50% of the 1998 peak for the summer months but it was statistically wrong to call that a downward trend.
I will repeat this graphing next month with more carefully thought through argumentation.
For barry
1. Gordon Robertson says:
September 4, 2018 at 5:22 PM
Yes, the raw data is from real stations but at one time NOAA was using 6000 stations to cover the planet. Now they are using less than 1500 stations.
2. Gordon Robertson says:
September 7, 2018 at 5:59 PM
Here is the NOAA link for April 10, 2015.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045648/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
***
barry, J.-P. and I we know quite a lot concerning the Wayback machine. It seems you are not familiar enough with it!
It is easy to see how dumb Robertson is. He is dumb enough to think he can manipulate anybody here.
Let us go to the Wayback machine’s home page, and investigate the history of NOAA’s page:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
You see immediately that Robertson deliberately choosed a saving dated April 10, 2015 (04:56:48) with the intention to let us believe that the information he shows is quite recent.
But in fact, the very first saving of the same page with the same contents is dated March 23, 2010 (00:04:33).
At that time, barry, the GHCN V3 temperature and precipitation dataset did not exist officially yet. The very first V3 status info is dated November 18, 2010.
As NOAA wrote the incriminated page shown all the time by Robertson, GHCN still was at the level V2, a version deprecated since many years.
Robertson is not only dumb: he is the dishonesty in person.
The GHCN V3 is still actual, and none of its 7280 stations has ever been ‘slashed’.
Wow, that’s blatant. Thanks for pointing it out.
Thanks, La Pangolina. I don’t think Gordon chose the date deliberately, and I think if we looked at previous times he’s linked that page, it will always be on that date. He just doesn’t know how to use the service.
The first capture date is unlikely the original date of publishing of the page. It could be as early as 2009 (see bottom of page).
I’m aware that GHCNv3 was published after that page was written, but GHCNv2 also had 7280 stations all up.
Gordon is so wrong he’s not even wrong.
Well, Gordon commented below, and it seems he was trying to prove that NOAA was still making the same ‘claim’ in 2015 that they did in 2010. So he does know how to use the wayback machine.
His point is silly, though. That a web page was not updated hardly constitutes evidence of a claim being perpetuated, and there are plenty of updates on GHCN elsewhere on the web.
Gordon just refuses to look at them. He clutches that web page like a security blanket – and completely misrepresents it to boot.
David, all you need to keep critics like myself quiet is simply to have the global temperatures increase from where they were say back 2 years ago say by another .2c or so from now over the next 5 or even 10 years.
You have so much conviction with AGW that you should embrace the challenge unless you are afraid because you know full well that natural forces rule the climate and hence it just might cool for the next 10 years.
David, put your money where your mouth is as the saying goes.
Salvatore, you’re not a “critic,” you’re an endless source of bad predictions. And you won’t admit when you’re wrong. You’re the boy who cried wolf.
salvatore del prete says:
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
David I gave you a simple challenge. Why do you not take it? Reason being you do not even have enough confidence in your precious AGW to say it will boost temperatures by a mere .2c in the next 10 years.
Yet you boast about how sure you are about AGW. Does not wash.
Salvatore, it’s comments like this that show you don’t understand climate or AGW at all.
For some reason you are unable to grasp that natural, shorter-term fluctuations invariably exist along with man’s GHG influences.
This is precisely the reason why your predictions are wrong again and again and again, time after time. Yet you never learn.
Dr. Spencer,
I think you might appreciate this artice for obvious reasons.
David Appell, Barry, et. al:
This may give you pause in your zeal to educate the rest of us.
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
What’s the relevance to climate science?
DA,
Climate is the average of weather, no more no less.
The IPCC states that future climate states are unpredictable, quite rightly.
Only someone who is stupid, ignorant, and delusional, would believe predicting climate states is possible with any more precision than I could provide.
Are you such a stupid, ignorant, and delusional person?
Or is the IPCC collectively stupid, ignorant and delusional?
Maybe you and the rest of your ilk should concentrate on endlessly reanalysing and adjusting historical temperature records – no doubt hoping for an epiphany! I await with breathless anticipation (not really, only joking) your shouts of “Eureka!”, in true Archimedean style, prior to your announcement of “Appell’s Principle”. I’m sure the balding bearded bumbling buffoons will prostrate themselves at you feet in worshipful adoration (not really, still joking).
Maybe “climate science” could be used in dictionaries as an example of use of oxymoron. What do you think?
Cheers.
David apparently doe snot think global average temperatures will rise another .2c due to AGW over the next 10 years.
The UAH trend is 0.13C per decade.
The UAH peak to peak ENSO amplitude is about 0.8C.
ENSO could negate the trend in that short term interval.
ENSO is not going to matter one way or the other when all is said and done.
The fact is cooling has started and it is not ending anytime soon and you can kiss AGW good bye.
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
David, please stop obsessing.
Kristian,
“As always, Snape, youre one of two things: either youre just stupid, or youre willfully deceitful.”
I misread your comment, so I guess that makes me just stupid. When you wrote,
“and so the NET result of putting more water into the tropospheric column is LOWERING not raising of the average surface temperature…”
…..I didn’t pay attention to the word “column”, and assumed you were applying your claim to the whole planet. Sorry about that.
******
Out of curiosity, have you compared the average TLT temperatures above the Congo and Sahara?
S,
You wrote “Out of curiosity, have you compared the average TLT temperatures above the Congo and Sahara?”
Out of curiosity, do think poorly thought out gotchas make you look wise and knowledgeable, rather than stupid and ignorant?
Go on, tell me you weren’t simply trolling. You don’t have any cogent reason for asking such a witless question, do you?
Keep going trying to pretend that increasing the amount of water vapour between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Try to deny, divert, and confuse, all you like. Erect and destroy as many straw men as you wish – you still can’t describe the GHE because the concept is nonsensical. Even the sublimely ignorant Appell admits it is not an effect, and has no connection whatsoever to greenhouses!
At least that gets him off the hook as far as trying to come up with a testable hypothesis for a non-existent GHE.
Keep at it Snape. One day, you might figure out what you’re trying to say, and actually say it. Continually admitting to stupidity and ignorance is not a good way to impress impartial observers with your wisdom and knowledge, is it?
No GHE. No GHG heating, either. Complete and utter delusional claptrap. Learn some appropriate physics – then tell me where I’m wrong, and why.
Cheers.
Snape says, September 8, 2018 at 6:57 PM:
The Congo:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/the-congo-tlt.png
Sahara-Sahel:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/sahara-sahel-tlt.png
Same tropospheric level, average TLT ~ 2-2.5 K higher above the Sahara-Sahel region than above the Congo. According to RSSv4.
“The academic from the University of Technology, Sydney, said if we believed in science as part of the function of our everyday lives, we should believe in climate change.
“You cannot pick and choose if you dont accept climate change, you should not be given penicillin or painkillers or even visit a doctor,” he said.
“You should not be allowed to fly or drive a car either. But I guess that as most climate deniers also pick and choose the bits of the Bible they subscribe to as well, I should not be surprised.””
Of course, because he is stupid, ignorant, and delusional, he can’t actually find anyone at all who doesn’t believe that the climate changes!
All about belief. It seems that if you don’t share this lunatic’s beliefs, you will be denied medical treatment – presumably until you change your evil, unbelieving ways! What a fool! Totally delusional, and quite possibly believes that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Cheers.
Gordon,
The link is from at least 2010..
https://web.archive.org/web/20100504014037/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
You do not know how to use the wayback machine. The article is probably older than even 2010 (look at the bottom of the page), but that is when the wayback machine first captured the web address. Wayback machine captured the web page 156 times between March 2010 and Jun 2017.
Yes, the GHCN station data comprises more than 7000 stations now, as I said. This is from the GHCNv3 version notes:
“The GHCNM v3 has been released. This version currently contains monthly mean temperature, monthly maximum temperature and monthly minimum temperature. The station network for the time being, is the same as GHCN-Monthly version 2 (7280 stations).”
https://tinyurl.com/y7fjyha6
Or you can read the actual published paper that details the GHCN monthly database (not that you will).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD016187
The 6000 station data are still there. The number of weather stations peaks in the 1980s and 90s, and tails off to a bit over 2000 stations in the last few years.
Oh look. My graph is more brightly coloured than yours, and my numbers are far superior.
/sarc off
Still won’t help me predict the future will it?
Anyone who claims the ability to usefully predict future climate states is either a fool or a fraud – no matter how much foot stamping or hand waving they employ..
Who claims to be able to predict future climate states better than me? Come one, come all. Stump up your cash, and place your bets – might prove interesting!
Cheers.
Barry…”The link is from at least 2010″.
Once again, Barry and Binnie show an utter disregard for basic logic while leaning heavily on obfuscation.
The initial argument from you was that the NOAA admission of cutting back to under 1500 stations globally was old. You inferred things had changed since ‘back then’ and more stations were currently in use.
I used the Wayback’s 2015 year to show NOAA was still claiming that in 2015. That’s when Wayback last scanned the site. Therefore, in 2015, NOAA was still claiming to have cut back from 6000 stations globally to less than 1500.
That link is to the main NOAA site. Surley they would have changed it by 2015 if what they claimed was not true.
It was also around 2015 that the Obama admin began its witch hunt of climate deniers, whatever that means. That’s when the page disappeared, no doubt withdrawn as part of the Obama propaganda machine, directed by the uber-alarmist EPA.
Rocket scientist David Appell tuned in with the amazing news that the planet could be covered by only 100 stations. The Earth has a surface area of about 510 milliom km^2. That would mean one thermometer every 5.1 million km^2.
Since Canada is nearly 10 million km^2, you could cover Canada with 2 thermometers. But where would you locate them. The SW corner of Canada has a mild temperature year round whereas the north has a frigid climate most of the year.
Even in the SW corner near Vancouver, temperatures vary wildly between Vancouver and a desert climate area 150 miles NE, where the summer temps are up to 20 C warmer in summer and 20C cooler in winter.
Are you alarmists really all that stupid?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Rocket scientist David Appell tuned in with the amazing news that the planet could be covered by only 100 stations. The Earth has a surface area of about 510 milliom km^2. That would mean one thermometer every 5.1 million km^2.”
Did you read the Shen et al paper yet?
You are not only stupid, Robertson. You are simply unable to understand anything. Look at the nonsense you write:
“I used the Wayback’s 2015 year to show NOAA was still claiming that in 2015. That’s when Wayback last scanned the site. Therefore, in 2015, NOAA was still claiming to have cut back from 6000 stations globally to less than 1500.”
How is it possible to be so dumb?
NOAA never did ‘still claim’ that in 2015.
The Wayback machine has crawled the same page in 2015 as in 2010 BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REMOVED INBETWEEN. It was the SAME page with the SAME contents.
The last successful crawl was done by Wayback On February 12, 2016 (08:06:18).
After that, you see that the page had been removed:
‘Got an HTTP 301 response at crawl time’
Poor Robertson…
Gordon Robertson says:
Since Canada is nearly 10 million km^2, you could cover Canada with 2 thermometers.
Error.
This error shows you didn’t read the Shens et all paper, let alone understand it.
One would need more than 2 stations to measure the average temperature of Canada to such-and-such a variance.
But the question is how many stations are needed to measure the GLOBE, not Canada. You incorrectly assumed the number scales linearly, when it does not.
Barry,
I think you agree there was a dramatic drop in number of reporting stations beginning of the 1990 decade.
In your analyses have you compared slopes for stations in QCU vs QCA data series for that period? If you do you will see that QCA slopes increase dramatically in comparison with QCU between 1989 and 1991.
In hope that the language barrier does not come between us again, here is the method I used:
A. Calculate the slope for every station for its whole active period using non-flagged QCU TAVG data. I did this for each month individually with stations that had at least 3 OK measurements.
B. Do the same for QCA TAVG data
C. Calculate average slope across the currently active stations for every year for both data series
D. Compare QCA and QCU results.
One would think unadjusted and adjusted data should result in similar slopes…
MrZ
Are you serious? Do you really restrict an estimate analysis to a period encompassing no more then three years?
Maybe you are searching for perfect cherries to pick, like people like Goddard aka Heller do all the time?
Two years ago, I found at WUWT many references to posts published by Heller on his blog, concerning so-called manipulations in the GHCN adjusted time series compared with the unadjusted one.
All examples had shown – of course by accident I imagine – linear QCA estimates lying above their QCU’s for the incriminated stations. Not one station was reported in his posts showing a QCU trend above the QCA, so the Goddard folks were all crying and shooting in the comments.
That made me a bit suspicious, and thus I computed the linear QCU and QCA estimates for all available stations during their entire lifetime, and created a plot showing the sorted difference list.
The graphic plot below has been generated in Jan 2017 but should be still actual enough for you:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536520222527.jpg
Maybe you think a while about what I mean…
And this is a chart generated at about the same time, comparing QCU and QCA time series for 1880-2016. I upload the pdf variant, so you can have a look at your terrible QCU/QCA difference around 1990:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536521269460.pdf
Interesting Bindidon,
In wordings it looks as we are doing the same thing but there must be some difference as we end up with different results. My calculations was done this spring and I would like to do them again to double check.
Can you please describe your calculation process in concrete steps?
Was my description clear enough?
I have one clarification on the 3 years. That was the MINIMUM span I used, shorter lived stations got filtered out. I did try with longer spans as well but difference was minimal.
For those interested here is a famous Reykjavik example in the interim http://cfys.nu/graphs/Reykjavik.png
Yellow and blue lines are v2 and v3 adjusted series and pink is unadjusted.
Some might call Reykjavik a cherry pick but it is a good example that trends between unadjusted and adjusted do differ. I hope to prove the sum of adjustments is biased.
I hope to prove the sum of adjustments is biased.
It’s already been demonstrated for a long time:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Figure5.png
http://www.homogenisation.org/files/private/WG1/Bibliography/Applications/Applications%20%28A-B%29/bohm_etal.pdf
Unfortunately, if this is easily demonstrated at the regional level, the highlighting is more difficult at the global level. The attempts of Bindidon prove it well. There are pitfalls especially because the series are on average short.
Having said that, a bias in adjustments does not necessarily invalidate them. We must understand its origin and determine whether the correction is justified or not. It is also possible that this bias is indicative of a larger problem, large enough to invalidate all temperature index. In fact, the solution is not so complicated and if the problem was approached with a minimum of scientific mind, no one would speak of an exceptional warming since the beginning of the twentieth century.
Thank you MrZ for the reply & feedback.
Like you I will redo all the job because I promised barry to generate up-to-date data, and the move from ‘GHCN V3’ up to ‘GHCN daily’ made some 1.5 years old results possibly obsolete.
What I did in spring 2017 was to run in two passes over ‘qcu.dat’ and ‘qca.dat’, and in each pass
– to generate absolute time series for each station separately;
– to compute for each station its linear estimate over its entire lifetime.
The rest consisted of
– computing the trend differences between QCA and QCU;
– eliminating outliers (stations with less than 5 years existence, or a trend difference exceeding 2.5 C / century);
– to sort the rest.
The reason why I choosed to calculate trends over a fulle life span was simply that Heller did as well. One could calculate these trend differences for stations whose lifetime is not below 100 years, or for those sharing the same 50 years, etc etc.
Thanks for mentioning Reykjavik, this example is best known to me, as well as Cape Town, Darwin, Palma de Mallorca, Falls Village, etc etc etc. The ‘skeptic’ world is full of hints on these examples.
I can only repeat: interestingly, all stations mentioned show a positive difference QCA minus QCU (the red line in the plot); none is mentioned that shows a negative one.
My concluding question to you, MrZ is: how can you expect QCA keeping all the time nearest to QCU when QCA’s reason to exist is to suppress all detected erroneous measurements in QCU which were not detected before?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536598024811.jpg
Hi Bindidon!
Thanks for response and kind tone in your response.
For me this is NOT political but rather educational. I have no problem admitting when/if I am wrong because I have then learnt something. I am admittedly a little stubborn though in that I need to understand where I am wrong.
If you have energy please analyze my response to barry below.
It looks as we are doing 100% the same thing so maybe the difference is only how we present and interpret the results. Again I hope the below graph explains more clearly what I have done.
You ask about adjustment lowering the trend. By pure luck I mention Sydney below 😎
Then I think QCA and QCU should more or less even out between upward and downward adjustments across the high number of stations. They don’t according to my analyzes.
Looking forward to your response.
Hello MrZ…
Thanks in turn for the friendly response.
After a download of GHCN V3 TAVG’s most recent data, I can only write that nearly nothing has changed:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153661517823/001.jpg
Your SYDNEY example (numbers correct despite the restriction to Januaries) was indeed very welcome, but not primarily because it shows a QCA trend below that of QCU.
It is – more by accident than by intention as you wrote above – a good example because it pretty good shows the reason why QCA is below QCU, as is shown by the anomaly chart:
As you can see, the difference (in black) between the two series is only due to the correction of a 0.36 C cooling bias in the past from Jan 1859 till Aug 1914, what of course resulted in the trend becoming higher.
I suppose you immediately understand that if the correction had been due to a warming bias in the past, the Sydney station certainly would have been added to Goddard/Heller’s ‘Woaaah more warming adjustments’ station list, like a few others I don’t remember the name of.
Ooops! Sydney chart missing.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536616588432/001.jpg
Thanks, I get the same for Sydney.
Continued below
A little addendum
Linear estimates in °C / decade for GHCN V3 QCU vs. QCA, computed by Excel's LINEST function
– 1880 – 2016: 0.214 ± 0.006 >< 0.229 ± 0.006
– 1979 – 2016: 0.399 ± 0.032 >< 0.424 ± 0.031
and, though statistically 100 % insignificant
– 1989 – 1991: 7.797 ± 1.785 >< 7.331 ± 1.654
and Bindidon it was all natural.
You’ve never presenting anything even close to proof of that, just some unquantatative word salad.
But Salvatore: this is completely off topic.
It’s not about the number of stations. In fact, it’s not about the stations at all:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/why-there-is-no-reason-for-you-to-trust-the-official-global-temperature-records/
Kristian…from your link….”But to what extent can we be confident that this is how the global average surface temperature (GAST) anomaly actually evolved over this time frame?
The truth is: We cant. At all.
This is fundamentally a matter of data coverage, but just as importantly it is also a matter of methodology. How do you make up for a paucity of data? How do you properly compile, weight and interpolate data into a reliable global average when that data….”
That’s the point, isn’t it? You will find full agreement on this site from a guy who has researched it deeply. He goes deeply into how the GHCN record has evolved in a disorderly, over-la[[ing fashion and how it has affected GISS and Had-crut.
Quote: “The GHCN input data to GIStemp has issues (they -NOAA/NCD.C- deleted 90% or so of the thermometers between about 1990 and 2009) with those deletions focused on cold places. This is the second set of reports most folks ought to read
An example:
on GHCN…an authoritative history:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
More…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
another:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
Only ~100 stations are needed to get an accurate enough measure of GMST:
“Spectral Approach to Optimal Estimation of the Global Average Temperature,” Samuel S. P. Shen et al, JAMS 1994
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)0072.0.CO;2
working link:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0442%281994%29007%3C1999%3ASATOEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Gordon Robertson says:
This is fundamentally a matter of data coverage, but just as importantly it is also a matter of methodology. How do you make up for a paucity of data
Why do you assume there is any? You’ve never proved that….
MrZ,
I’m not sure how you’re using QCU/QCA to analyse the effect of fewer stations post-90s, but the analysis was done by many people and found either no difference or that the dropped data had warmer trends than non-dropped stations (up to the 1990s).
So it’s a statistical non-issue, and the politicizing of the drop-out (the accusation that it was deliberate deletion, and deliberately chosen deletions to warm the temp record) was simply false.
Gordon Robertson to this day still believes that GHCN stations were deliberately ‘slashed’ in their thousands, and that it was done to fudge the global temp record. No amount of pointing him to the truth can change his mind, and so he brings up the same lie month after month after month.
Thank for the word of warning barry,
I don’t think any stations got selectively cancelled and their history is still in the data series. However something radical is happening with the adjustments at the same time there is a large drop-out. My method could be wrong but it is strange it points to those years.
I will revisit my calculations, not to waist your time, and come back with graphs if I still think I am right.
See Bindidon answer above as well.
MrZ…from Barry…”Gordon Robertson to this day still believes that GHCN stations were deliberately slashed in their thousands, and that it was done to fudge the global temp record”.
This is not a belief there is blatant proof. I have listed several links from Chiefio above in which he details the slashes globally.
It’s pathetic, but not as pathetic as Barry or Bindidon who have an authority figure fetish about GHCN and NOAA.
To make matters worse, NOAA admitted it right on their site, as recently as 2015. I linked to that above as well, where they admit to slashing the global station count from 6000 to less than 1500.
Anyone today using GHCN data is fooling himself/herself dearly. The record is corrupt and as Kristian pointed out, so blatantly amended that it has become essentially meaningless.
NOAA, through GHCN, has created warming since 1970 through fudging the GHCN record.
ps…I am not claiming the initial issues with GHCN were deliberate. In the 70s, no one was thinking global warming/climate change. However, the record became discombobulated and in an attempt to fix it, NOAA made it worse.
I do think that NOAA has become corrupt in that they have a political influence going on today which began with the Obama era EPA.
I think GISS and Had-crut have become corrupt through association. I am not claiming Schmidt of GISS is corrupt but his good buddy Michael Mann, with whom he runs realclimate, was caught in the Climategate emails conducting some very shady business. When the issue about Mike’s Trick surfaced, which essentially hid declining temperatures, Schmidt rushed to his defense.
Jones of Had-crut was also implicated in Climategate, boasting about using a trick of Mann’s to hide declining temperatures, He also boasted that he and Kevin (presumably Trenberth) would block skeptic papers to the IPCC. Both have the clout, being Coordinating Lead Authors.
The evidence is there for anyone who cares to look.
Bit of history to corroborate what I’m saying.
In the mid 1990s there was a project undertaken to source historical weather station data to substantially increase the GHCN database.
Up to that point the majority of stations were in the Northern Hemisphere, with a large fraction located in the US and Europe.
Digitizing much of this old data (much from defunct weather stations) was done by hand. Millions of datum points read off old paper inventories and keyed in. They didn’t then have the optical machinery to read typed entries, and in any case many were written by hand.
The result of this project was a massive increase to the database, up to the mid-90s. But it was a once-only addition. These stations were not part of the monthly updating stream.
The paper that accompanied the finished project is here:
Peterson and Vose (1997)
No stations were cut, they were all added. The reason for the drop-off is that the record goes back to the roughly 1500 stations that were regularly updating to GHCN at the time (it’s now a bit more than 2000 regularly updating stations).
One of the consequences of getting more data from around the world seeing as Europe and the US have a relatively lower averaged trend than global, is that the record warmed a bit.
As for changes to methods/data after the mid-90s revision, for that you’ll need to look at other papers.
One thing woth pointing out is that the raw global data has a warmer long-term (centennial) trend than adjusted. That’s mostly due to SST adjustments, which make the pre-1940 temps much warmer.
barry,,
I have now checked my formulas and procedures from the spring and they look OK to me.
Here is the graph http://cfys.nu/graphs/SlopeDiff.png
The GHCNM v3 QCA and QCU datasets are drawn in C / century.
To make it easier to reproduce I have here focused on one single month, January.
Two stations to validate my trend calciulation on (same formula as Excel LINEST)
62004030000 Reykjavik
QCA 0.023206 C / year
QCU 0.009189 C / year
50194768000 Sydney
QCA 0.005656 C / year
QCU 0.008822 C / year
As I stated above my method is to map out every stations linear trend value for all active years. Then calculate the average across active stations for each year.
To be included the station must have at least 3 measurements otherwise it is excluded.
If QCA is higher than QCU then there is a warming rate bias in the adjustments.
Also see the “drama” 1989-1991.
Numbers correct!
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319779
But this
“If QCA is higher than QCU then there is a warming rate bias in the adjustments.”
is really disputable.
Your slope diff graph above I do not understand yet. I’ll concentrate myself on it.
It is getting very late here so I will go to bed shortly.
The link to the anomaly graph you talk about above did not get through…
Please note that I did trends from 1900 and onwards (Guess you got that when validating the two example stations)
“If QCA is higher than QCU then there is a warming rate bias in the adjustments.”
-Does not conclude that the adjustments are incorrect, just that there is a bias i.e. more corrections in one direction than the other.
“Your slope diff graph above I do not understand yet. I’ll concentrate myself on it.”
If we only had two stations I’d simply put:
0.023206 for every year Reykjavik is active for its QCA trend value and 0.009189 for QCU
0.005656 for every year Sydney is active for its QCA trend value and 0.008822 for QCU
Overlapping years will be the average of the two and non overlapping the active stations’ values
Same process but for all stations provided they have 3 or more OK measurements (qcflag and >-99).
Might be talking to myself here. The thread is old and getting very long but anyway…
Here is GHCNM v3 QCU/QCA January gridded into 100x100km cells. I have used anomalies to merge the stations within the cells and then converted back to temperature using the baseline. Baseline is the average temperature over the lifetime of the stations within a cell.
http://cfys.nu/graphs/January%20QCU%3AQCA%20Diff.png
Our graphs are at this point fairly similar but mine is still focused on January alone.
The QCA vs QCU adjustments for January over the 1900-2018 span is approx. 0.2 degrees C (pink vs blue).
What sticks out more than the adjustments are the two sudden jumps beginning of the 1950 and 1990 decades. You have the same in your graph. I don’t understand how GISS filters that out, -yet.
Comments?
On the station counts. I did this, also in the spring.
http://cfys.nu/graphs/StationHistory.xls
Because the spikes are located on decade shifts it is indeed believable that they had a project to “retro collect” data by decade.
The first couple of years in 1990 is interesting though. To me it looks as if they want to smooth the jump caused by the “temporary” stations.
Note on the Excel:
-Added = First measurement appears
-Stopped = Year of last data measurement in the record
-Paused/Resumed indicates that was at least one year with missing or qcflagged data.
Looks good at a first glance! Thanks for doing the work.
Please download again http://cfys.nu/graphs/StationHistory.xls
I just added a station lifespan graph.
barry is right that many stations were both added and stopped during the 1950-1990 period. However many older stations were stopped as well. One can say that a big portion of the station base got swapped.
“One can say that a big portion of the station base got swapped”.
Yes.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536708076553.jpg
The increase around 1950 and the drop around 1990 are both interesting. A country-based sta might reveal the reason (for example, the break-down of the USSR).
Currently it looks as if the main 1990 decade drop-outs are:
Australia
Canade
China
and Turkey
Take this with a grain of salt for now.
I am redoing also those spring calculations with stricter and documented rules. For example it makes sense to require 10months of OK data to consider a year valid because that is what NOAA use for their yearly average. I also want to compare QCU and QCA.
Let me know when you come to grips with my warming bias claim 😉
Hi again,
Here is the refreshed GHCNM Station material http://cfys.nu/graphs/GHCNMStationHistoryRev1.xls
As we have already concluded the 1950-1990 decades are very interesting to analyze further.
In my opinion, if on purpose or not, the station change during this period adds to the warming trend. I save my arguments till later but it relates to how you infill data for stations that lacks data for the selected anomaly baseline period.
I included an analyze on how the average latitude changes over the years. I first gridded the data to avoid bias from nearby “clustered” stations. This confirmed the general understanding (well in discussions I have had elsewhere) that latitudes trends towards the equator.
Moreover, and to my surprise, the analyze also shows that altitudes trends higher. This needs further study like STDEV because very few locations can change the average a lot depending on their altitude.
There is also, in my mind, a clear bias between the QCU/QCA data. Here I am waiting for barry and Bindidon if they can acknowledge my somewhat homemade method. If so that method can be used to check what effect the above actually has.
“There is also, in my mind, a clear bias between the QCU/QCA data.”
Do you mean something like this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536782283960/001.jpg
(Do not worry about the strange anomalies generated by a very old revision, I’m actuially adapting GHCN V3 to the GHCN daily corner.)
Don’t forget that in comparison to what e.g. GISS makes out of that data, the bias you claim about seems to be somewhat negligible.
Nice,
Can I read it as You are ok with my method?
Just want to make sure we have common ground before I put in the effort.
About daily, have you looked at v4?
Big benefit in that IDs are the same. Otherwise correlating is a task on its own unless you only grid of course.
Could you produce a monthly anomaly graph like I did?
I then could compare more accurately.
I apologise: I lack the time to concentrate on what you did exactly.
Anyway, the graph I produced was a simple averaging of all station data into months.
This is by far the major bias in GHCN daily, because in that case a vast majority of US stations (18000) compete with the rest of the world (18000) as well) whereas when a time series is generated out of a first averaging into e.g. a 2.5 degree grid a la UAH, you have about 200 US grid cells competing with about 2000 cells in the rest of the world.
A comparison of descending sorts of the monthly data produced by these two alternatives is amazing.
Yes I can and I will eventually. But first I will focus on pin-pointing biases using the trend method.
Like you rightly state with averages you should grid. A good analogy I use is:
“If I have 500 thermometers in my garden and you have only one you can beat me on MIN/MAX but you have no chance to affect our combined average.”
I try to do things in new ways because that is the only way you can get alternative views. Here is one example:
When gridding using lat/long you get different sized cells and should compensate using COS depending on the cells Lat for a properly weighted average.
I instead first calculate x- and y-coordinates as km from Lat/Long 0,0. I can then round and group to any size perfect square. So far in this analyze I am using 100x100km. (I think you have about 277km at the equator). I used this method for “Station Latitudes” in the Excel I linked.
When plotting I can either use the mid lat/long for my cells or just use the x/y. The latter gives a skewed map (like a diamond) but it is accurate in terms of cell size and weight.
G’day for now.
Hi Bindidon!
Here is one reason for the QCU/QCA bias I detected…
Have a quick look on those two in the QCU and QCA series and compare as is and as averages:
ID: 41678793000
ID: 41678793002
They share the same 100x100km cell and QCA is a joke.
I will use stations’ lifetime baseline and anomaly to filter those. But in doing so I am also filtering some of the bias…
…should have said it is for January.
Hello MrZ…
Pleas allow me for a little question.
What do these two stations in Panama have at all in common, similar latitude and same longitude excepted?
41678793000 8.4000 -82.4200 26.0
DAVID 124U 51FLxxCO 8A 3TROP. SAVANNA C
41678793002 8.7800 -82.4500 1200.0
LOS NARANJOS 1398R -9MVxxno-9x-9TROP. MONTANE A
David is at the pacific coast, at 26 m altitude and is an urban site with 125000 habs. Los naranjos is a little village in the mountains near a volcano, at 1200 m altitude.
What’s the matter with you, MrZ?
I had a closer look at your two stations, and I am wondering why you loose your time (and mine btw) with stations both having recorded temps over no more than 10 (TEN) years only (1971-1980).
It’s time for me to retire from our conversation.
David will live and die by AGW theory.
“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
David, please stop obsessing.
Paleo reconstructions show CO2 levels many times the current
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
A simple bar chart puts CO2 level in context
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeuAH_4VMAAlBDd.jpg
Unless you take into account the weaker (less radiant) Sun as you go back through time, such comparisons are useless.
(The Sun’s irradiance has been increasing by about 1% every 110 Myrs.)
Plus changes in planetary albedo from the continents being in different positions and of different sizes in the past.
The prevailing assessments assert that in the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into AND WARMED UP FROM the Andean/Saharan ice age. This argues that the perception of the cooler sun in the past is either wrong or of low importance.
Dan Pangburn says:
The prevailing assessments assert that in the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into AND WARMED UP FROM the Andean/Saharan ice age. This argues that the perception of the cooler sun in the past is either wrong or of low importance.
DAN can’t be wrong! — it must be the entire rest of the scientific community.
Get real, Dan.
The prevailing assessments assert that in the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into AND WARMED UP FROM the Andean/Saharan ice age. This argues that the perception of the cooler sun is either wrong or irrelevant.
There is large amount of uncertainty about the arrangements of the continents during the Ordovician Period.
Some claim there wasn’t plate tectonic movement prior to 700 million years ago [there is so much uncertainly the longer you go back, such silly claims can be made].
I would say snowball earth is about as plausible as the idea that Venus once had ocean and/or Venus was similar to Earth, billions of years ago.
Considering some think Venus was re-surface less than a billion year ago- or hundreds of million of years ago; it’s useful excuse to explain why the is no evidence of any past ocean on Venus.
So I would at least wait for better data about the location of Earth’s land masses at time of the Ordovician Period, before entertaining idea of a snowball Earth.
Go read about the evidence for at least two, possibly 7, snowball Earths in Earth’s history.
I especially like the book by Thomas M. Cronin:
https://www.amazon.com/Paleoclimates-Understanding-Climate-Change-Present/dp/0231144946
Dan Pangburn says:
The prevailing assessments assert that in the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into AND WARMED UP FROM the Andean/Saharan ice age.
Where is that data and evidence, Dan?
Don’t point me to a cartoon figure — I want the real evidence.
Short of having lived back then . . .
This is what the best experts have determined:
Includes paleo temperature http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Hieb https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Kristian
“Same tropospheric level……..”
By “level”, you’re talking about the whole lower troposphere, right?
********
“…….and so the NET result of putting more water into the tropospheric column is LOWERING not raising of the average surface temperature.”
You’ve come to this conclusion by comparing apples to oranges. The two regions, Congo and Sahara, don’t have the same heat input. The Sahara is heated convectively (by wind), the Congo isn’t.
How do we know? The Sahara has a net radiative deficit at the TOA, so the only way it’s able to maintain a steady annual average temperature…….is to borrow heat from other locations.
S,
You wrote –
“The Sahara has a net radiative deficit at the TOA, so the only way its able to maintain a steady annual average temperature.is to borrow heat from other locations.”
Climatological pseudoscience. This is what happens when you try to appear intelligent by asking stupid gotchas.
Carry on, young Snape.
Cheers.
David,
“Yes, we do: -10% of it was due to natural factors.
Natural factors are now, on their own, leading to cooling.
If you disagree, tell us what natural factors have been causing warming.
You can’t, and you won’t.”
For changes on the order of +/- 0.5C no natural mechanism needs to be cited, as the system fluctuates internally by at least this amount over periods of decades without any external mechanism required.
What was the cause of the warming of about 0.5C at the early part of the century when CO2 couldn’t have done it since there wasn’t enough of it yet? No one knows, but it happened.
I’m not saying the added CO2 isn’t a warming influence in the past century. I’m only saying it likely isn’t the dominant influence, and the net anthropogenic influence may not even be warming. The 1C *intrinsic* warming estimate from 2xCO2 assumes arbitrarily that the watts are equal to watts of Pi (post albedo solar power in), which is highly dubious if not overtly wrong (since there is no greenhouse warming signature in the 1C calculation).
What was the cause of the warming of about 0.5C at the early part of the century when CO2 couldnt have done it since there wasnt enough of it yet? No one knows, but it happened.
1. Early CO2 (it’s earliest forcing is linear, then logarithmic)
2. Some solar heating
3. Some volcanic aerosol clearing and reductding in ice-albedo feedback.
DA,
CO2 heats nothing. Forces nothing. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter, will it?
You might be having a psychotic episode, or maybe just an attack of stupidity combined with ignorance. Hard to say.
Now’s your time to quote a fact or two from me, or maybe tell everyone yet again that the Greenhouse Effect is not a scientific effect at all, and not related to greenhouses either! How about flapping a brightly coloured (yet strangely pointless and irrelevant) picture in someone’s face?
That’ll fix ’em, I’m sure!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I have an answer for you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319646
Norman, don’t ignore the response.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319655
JDHuffman
Please stop trolling.
You linked back to a troll comment with zero content. Zero physics. Zero purpose to be reposted. Why not let Mike Flynn answer for himself?
Wrong again Norman. My response reminded you of your continuing mistakes. Your rambling comment is fraught with pseudoscience.
Constantly trying to unload your BS, as you run from reality, makes you a worthless troll. Face reality. Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
I know considerable more actual physics than you do. You are the one who needs to take their own advice. You need to learn some physics. I already have.
There is no bogus physics in my post. It is based upon actual empirical data. I just don’t think you are intelligent enough to understand what I am saying so retort with a negative comment about my lack of understanding.
Sorry you are just wrong and ignorant. Please don’t get offended when I correctly call you a dork. Your post is the post of an ignorant dork pretending to have knowledge that they do not possess.
Now please explain what pseudoscience is in my post, what is rambling in the post? What is BS?
If you understood physics at all (which you don’t) you could provide answers. You can’t provide explanation because you don’t know any physics.
Your modus operandi is to do google searches to find things most people don’t know (like the first name of Poynting) and then act like this makes you an expert in physics. Sorry it does not make you any wiser in the field.
You think this is valid physics. I suggest you run this by an Professor of physics at a University and see if they think you are a knowledgeable person on the topic of physics. Good luck with that one.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Norman, typing out a long illogical comment is not science.
But it is funny (or “hilarious, if you prefer)!
And, I’m glad to see you’re studying that link. Who knows, maybe someday you will understand it?
JDHuffman
What is illogical about my post?
Why don’t you send your graphic to a physics professor and then YOU will learn something. Primarily you do not understand physics. That would be a good reason for you to avoid sending it.
In fact just quit responding to my posts.
Norman inquires: “What is illogical about my post?”
Grinvalds, you never face reality. All you do is repeat your same jabber. You are always claiming that people do not provide evidence. But when they do, you can’t understand it. You just don’t have the background to understand basic physics. You can’t even understand something as simple as “rotating on its own axis”.
You seem to believe all you have to do is keep typing and you will eventually get something right. But it never happens. So then you get frustrated as start your name-calling.
JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n)
It is you who do not understand what rotation on an axis means. You also do not seem to understand how gravity works. You think it holds the Moon like a rod attached. Not at all. The Moon rotates once for every orbit on its own axis. If it went flying off it would keep rotating around once every 28 days or so. You are the one who does not understand physics. Sorry, reality bites.
I actually get it right most the time. When errors are pointed out to me I correct them and learn. I will also continue to read more (which you are not able to do because of your ADD).
I am sure this post is already to long for your very limited attention span. I can read physics books, sorry you can’t. I can also follow the logic and use the equations. Something you can’t do. Sorry you are such a limited dork. Every blog needs a dork.
Norman, please stop trolling.
JDH: “You seem to believe all you have to do is keep typing and you will eventually get something right. But it never happens. So then you get frustrated as start your name-calling.”
Norman: “Sorry you are such a limited dork. Every blog needs a dork.”
Norman proves me right, yet again.
JDHuffman
YOU: “JDH: “You seem to believe all you have to do is keep typing and you will eventually get something right. But it never happens. So then you get frustrated as start your name-calling.”
Wrong again. My reaction is to your asshole posting which precedes any name-calling on my part.
I was giving Mike Flynn information using empirical data.
You responded like a asshole jerk (for no apparent reason except that is what you are).
If you want to point out flaws in what I post do it in a reasonable fashion with good science. No you don’t do that you respond with jerk comments.
YOU: “Poor Norman believes if he types long enough, maybe he will get something right.
So far, his plan is not working….”
I will be a nice person if you respond in kind. If you are a jerk I am going to respond to you as such. It is not frustration prompting insults. It is solely because you are a jerk with your posts.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
A win/win for you would be if JDHUffman quit responding to my posts. If he stops then what you call “trolling” stops. I asked him not to post to me when he was g.e.r.an but he is unable to grant requests. As long as Roy tolerates I will treat the jerk as he is one. If he changes and communicates in a reasonable fashion, I will likewise do the same. Pretty simple solution.
Wrong, Norman. You responded to Mike, here, dragging up a comment you had already made. You just cant let things lie. You have to ask yourself why you are always so desperate to discuss the GHE. Are you trying to convince others, or yourself?
Norman gets his pseudoscience exposed, and he starts his childish whining.
Predictable, yet humorous.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “Wrong, Norman. You responded to Mike, here, dragging up a comment you had already made. You just cant let things lie. You have to ask yourself why you are always so desperate to discuss the GHE. Are you trying to convince others, or yourself?”
Wrong about what? I responded to Mike not JDHuffman. If Mr. Huffman has valid physics to counter mine, I like that and would be thankful. He is not able to provide such information nor are you.
JDHuffman declares fluxes don’t add. No reason for this statement. It is based upon nothing at all. He brings up AM radio, I prove he is wrong, it does not matter.
I pull up the definition of radiative flux: “Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
Obviously you can add fluxes. I suggested to Mr. Huffman to turn on another light in his room and see if it got brighter. If it does, fluxes add, both lights are adding photons to the area of your pupils.
I am trying to use valid science to prove to people who do not know the science that GHE is real and valid and based upon laws of heat transfer and radiant energy. Not sure why you consider that trolling.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman gets his pseudoscience exposed, and he starts his childish whining.
Predictable, yet humorous.”
What pseudoscience have you exposed? None so far.
I am still asking you to send your link about energy exchange between plates to a University Professor and let me know what they think.
When you expose anything I say that is wrong I will be thankful. Just saying you expose something is far from actually doing it. Prove my post to Mike Flynn is wrong. Why don’t you. And maybe DREMT can also prove it wrong.
You should be more like Herb Rose from your Principia-Scientific International blog. When I pointed out his error he thanked me. At least he knows when he is wrong.
“Grinvalds, you never face reality. All you do is repeat your same jabber. You are always claiming that people do not provide evidence. But when they do, you can’t understand it. You just don’t have the background to understand basic physics. You can’t even understand something as simple as “rotating on its own axis”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Norman, you were wrong about what you claimed would be a win/win for me. And, you are wrong about what I consider to be trolling. You change the subject again and again and again. THAT is trolling, for a start. Originally, you were responding to Mike saying if you wish to insist that increasing the amount of GHGs between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, dont be surprised if somebody asks you to back yourself up with a reproducible experiment. That is what he said, word for word, that you quoted in your response to him. Not only did you not respond with a reproducible experiment, you responded with something other than even thermometer measurements.
Then, as JD Huffman replies to you dismissively (and rightly so), you continue with your child-like ranting about how you have the correct physics, others have false and fake physics, you read the textbooks, others dont, blah blah blah. It is boring. It is a waste of space. And it is trolling.
You obviously have become obsessed with discussing the GHE. As I said, ask yourself why.
Please dont bother responding with more subject changes, or any of your proclamations about who is correct and why. I really dont care. Just STOP TROLLING.
Norman appears to have fled the scene. Nothing new.
If he happens to return, here’s some more reality for him to evade. He made the fallacious claim: “When you expose anything I say that is wrong I will be thankful.”
But I have exposed his incompetence before, and here was his “thankful” response:
“The difference between me and you is I will study the material and learn it, making mistakes along the way, I am not ashamed of making mistakes as long as I learn from them. This was an area that is new to me and someone like Tim Folkerts pointed it out to me. Things your will not do.
“You are far to arrogant and smug to be able to learn anything and from you last post you seem to think making mistakes and learning are terrible. That is why you remain stupid, your super ego is too large for you to learn when you are wrong. You would rather meander around a topic for several threads then have even the slightest possibility that you are wrong about the topic. You do it all the time regardless of posters.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I will have to disagree with most your post and try and correct your errors.
I gave Mike Flynn empirical evidence (which is valid science). With GHG you have more energy reaching the thermometer than without any. Science is also a logical and rational process.
The logic goes like this. If you add more energy to a thermometer its temperature will rise. That is the assumed truth (it can also be demonstrated experimentally but it seems so obvious, an experiment would not be needed).
Therefore, because GHG increase the energy to the thermometer, its temperature will rise. The graphs I provided gave proof of this conclusion. An actual experiment would not be feasible since you would have to remove all GHG to achieve it. You would need to use empirical data, the laws of physics and logic to derive a reasonable conclusion.
This statement you make is not correct: “Then, as JD Huffman replies to you dismissively (and rightly so), you continue with your child-like ranting about how you have the correct physics, others have false and fake physics, you read the textbooks, others dont, blah blah blah. It is boring. It is a waste of space. And it is trolling.”
Trolling is not pointing out people have false and fake physics. That is pointing out reality. I do read textbooks and link often to valid science. THAT IS NOT TROLLING. Learn the actual term “trolling”.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling
Telling a poster they are making up physics and then proving it true with actual evidence is not trolling. It is preserving the integrity of science. If I tell someone they don’t understand physics for no reason with no supporting evidence I would think that after a period this would be trolling. Not what I do. Basically you don’t know what trolling means and define it for anyone who understands science and provides support for their claims (like David Appell, who makes claims but offers considerable support for them…this is not trolling).
Since you say “Just STOP TROLLING” at least give me a definition of what the term means to you. I can’t understand your application of it based upon the accepted understanding of what it means.
JDHuffman is a troll and does trolling. His posts are designed intentionally to annoy. He does not support his claims against a poster, just calls them clowns (he used to falsely call me Con-man) or says they use pseudoscience. He does not give evidence for any of his claims. He just makes them to provoke. To actually troll. He is a real troll and if you want to understand trolling, read his posts. If you want to moderate trolling tell him to stop. It is really easy to see if you open your eyes and read.
Norman, you have not disagreed with my comment, nor have you corrected any errors. Instead, you just proved every word correct. Now, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I guess that means you will not give explanation for your term “trolling”. You will continue to use it in a vague and undefined state only applying it heavily to scientific posters.
Why do you hate science with such passion that you must waste your time here trying to interfere with all rational and logical scientific posters?
All the posters you apply your undefined term “trolling” to are very intelligent, knowledgeable posters. They make good logical points, many support their points. You have yet to tell JDHuffman once to stop posting.
No I am completely correct about you. You don’t know what trolling means and you only use it on rational science thinkers.
JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n)
So what have you proven me wrong about? That post was probably after you meandered around a specific question I was asking you. What is the context?
So what physics understanding of mine have you proven flawed or incorrect?
None, you never will.
Here is another one for you to consider.
You could actually set up an experiment by using a zip line.
You paint half a ball green and the other half red. Say the line is 100 feet long. Stand in the middle of the line, drill a hole through middle of the green and red sides and put the line through the ball. Stand in the middle of the line and have a friend pull the ball along and watch it. As it approaches you (with no rotation) you will see the green side at first. As it moves directly overhead you will see equal red and green. As it moves away and you look at it you will see more and more red. This is what happens if the ball can’t rotate.
If you set up another experiment where the ball slowly rotates as it moves at such a rate that all you ever see is the same green side. It can only do this if it is rotating. The ball starts green and as it moves toward you with slow rotation the green side will always be in your view, you will never see the red side. As the ball passes overhead all you see is green as the ball rotated 90 degrees in the same time it moved from the end to you. As it moves past it continues to rotate and all you see is green as it moves away.
You can understand that to see the same side on a straight path the ball must rotate or you will see the other side, but if the path is curved the concept confuses you to no end. Weird!
Just as EMT predicted, Norman believes he can type his way out of another mess he got in. Another long, rambling comment, trying to run from reality. No wonder people call hm a “con-man. But, he is only fooling himself.
He bragged, like a braying jackass, how he would be so “thankful”, whenever he was shown to be wrong. Then, presented with an example of the exact opposite, he went into total denial. He can’t handle reality.
For his latest deception, he has conjured up an inaccurate and unscientific “experiment”. But again, he can only con himself.
Norman, everything you just said in your response to me was a fabrication. You cannot debate honestly, which is why I ask you to stop trolling.
This is the beginning of the end for AGW.
I always said by year 2020 AGW would be obsolete that is one prediction I did make 8 years ago which has not been adjusted.
But cooling started in 2002.
“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
David, please stop obsessing.
Have you noticed that no one pays the slightest bit of attention to you?
Ironically, you’re the biggest troll of all.
False, David, as your reply to me proves. I would love it if people didnt respond, but I just keep getting response after response. Norman is particularly obsessed with me.
“These maps show monthly net radiation in watts per square meter. Places where the amounts of incoming and outgoing energy were in balance are white. Places where more energy was coming in than going out (positive net radiation) are orange. Places where more energy was going out than coming in (negative net radiation) are purple.”
Notice the Sahara:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/CERES_NETFLUX_M
S,
Complete nonsense, as well as irrelevant.
Nobody has ever managed to measure total radiation in or out accurately.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, in spite of the Sun, radiogenic heat (vastly reduced now, of course, due to radioactive half-life considerations), and all other heat sources.
This shows that the Earth emits more radiation than it receives, long term.
Each day, an object on the surface warms. Each night, that object loses all that heat. No heat accumulation. No GHE. No heating due to CO2. So sad, too bad.
Believing NASA would have you believing that the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that the Greenhouse Effect is a scientific effect, and has some relationship to greenhouses!
Dream on, young Snape.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Snape. You’re looking at the ToA. The surface temp is set … at the surface. The Sahara-Sahel and the Congo has the same average heat input (and output) to the surface.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/#comment-389
Kristian – where is the time series for global average ASR?
Without that your claims are meaningless.
David – where is the time series for global average ASR?
Without that your claims that the Sun has contributed negatively to ‘global warming’ over the last decades are meaningless.
Some people seem to create huge theries out of a completely erroneous chart.
I read Okulaer’s post on his blog, and what do I see? A chart made with WoodForTrees comparing HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 with a wrong offsetting. Very professional.
Here is the correct version (with a baselining wrt UAH’s reference period 1981-2010):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/from:1880/offset:-0.46/compress:6/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1880/offset:-0.21/compress:6
You feel that when people base a complete post based on such nonsense, it is really not neccessary to continue reading.
Here is another chart to compare land and ocean temperature series (with 60 month running means):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536538522973/001.jpg
Nothing happened in 1970.
What we see is what we know: the oceans were warmer than the surfaces at the end of the 19th century, but since 2000 the trend reversed (what makes Salvatore lucky).
Woo hoo!
Let the battle of the charts commence! Extra colours gain extra points!
The more comparisons and adjustments, the better.
Cheers.
Bindidon says, September 9, 2018 at 6:18 PM:
A wrong offsetting!? Seriously? THAT’S your objection? IOW, you didn’t get the point made AT ALL …!
OF COURSE there’s an offset. To more clearly illustrate the point!
Again, I haven’t made a “theory”. I’ve made an observation. The data speaks for itself.
Okulaer
This is my last comment about your nonsense.
Here is your original WFT chart:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/c4-vs-h3.png
Yuo wrote – not on the basis ob observations as you pretend, but on the basis of an incorrect representation of correct data:
“What do we see?
The two curves definitely covary.
BUT, from the years just prior to ‘the modern era of global warming’, starting in 1976-77, and up till today, the global temperature anomaly over LAND appears to have increased by about twice the amount of the global temperature anomaly over the OCEAN. However, if we follow the two curves backwards in time from that very same period, we find that there is absolutely no overall difference in warming and cooling rates between the two domains. The amplitudes are basically the same.
In what universe does this make any physical sense at all?”
Here again is the correct chart with correct plot displacement showing anomalies wrt exactly the same reference period (1981-2010):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/from:1880/offset:-0.46/compress:6/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1880/offset:-0.21/compress:6
The offset you use (-0.06) to displace HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 is wrong, Okulaer.
Download the data
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/CRUTEM.4.6.0.0.global_n+s_monthly
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_annual_sh_ts.txt
compute their baseline offsets wrt 1981-2010, and soon you see that the correct displacement between the two time series is 0.25, and not 0.06 as you incorrectly guessed.
And that, Okulaer, is a huge difference, showing that your text is as wrong as the displacement you used.
That you can’t even admit such a simple mistake is incredible.
The offset you use (-0.06) to displace HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 is wrong, Okulaer.
There is something you have not yet understood. These curves are not fixed on the y-axis, you can move them as you wish. Offset, baseline, normal period, are purely arbitrary notions.
phi
You are as usual somewhat arrogant.
It is no so long time ago that ex-weather reporter Anthony Watts still ignored the meaning of baselines when representing anomalies computed out of different ones, and was crying about GISS making the world warmer than it is – solely on the base of a wrong comparison with UAH, e.g.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6-land/from:1979/mean:12
Someone took pity on him and explained him the difference between anomalies on the basis of 1951-1980 and those based on 1981-2010:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.42/plot/uah6-land/from:1979/mean:12
*
Even purely arbitrary notions, phi, have sometimes a correlation which to (deliberately) ignore leads to (intended) wrong results.
Again: you are here the sophist.
There is no arrogance. The fact is that you continue to not understand that the anomaly curves are floating. It is just more interesting, when comparing two curves, to make them overlap somewhere. To make the normal periods coincide is arbitrary.
Aplogies: I unintentionally selected UAH land-only!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.42/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12
But I very well understand that, phi.
The fact that you still do not understand is that making time series coincide lets you draw sonetimes dramatically wrong conclusions.
But I very well understand that, phi.
So this is a very recent understanding because I reacted to this sentence that you wrote a few hours ago: The offset you use (-0.06) to displace HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 is wrong, Okulaer.
Let me show again what I precisely mean.
If we zoom on the HadSST vs. CRUTEM comparison into the satellite era and compare them with UAH land vs. UAH oceans while ignoring the baseline problem, we obtain this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536585716519/001.jpg
The immediate reaction of many people would be: ‘Oh! UAH and HadSST correlate quite good, an we see that CRUTEM is an outlier. Land surface termperature measurements are clearly wrong.’.
Would they think that way when looking at this?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536585542642/001.jpg
Or would they think, like me, that the land/ocean divergence began around 2004, an not… in 1970?
And how do you think about this genial guest post at WUWT some years ago, pretending that NOAA would produce faked warming when compared with Had-CRUT4?
I can’t find back to the post, but here are
– the graph on which the guest’s misinformation was based
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536586825891.jpg
and
– the graph showing a more correct comparison
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536588115498.jpg
But.. feel free to continue thinking that Okulaer is right! I have no problem with that.
Kristian’s graph is perfectly correct : https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/c4-vs-h3.png
It highlights a divergence appearing around 1970 using an offset adapted to the illustration of the phenomenon.
Does it bother you so much that you use sophistry:
Here again is the correct chart with correct plot displacement showing anomalies wrt exactly the same reference period (1981-2010):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/from:1880/offset:-0.46/compress:6/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1880/offset:-0.21/compress:6
Arbitrary solution that hides but does not remove the still very real divergence.
My concluding remark is that, if you consider Olukaer’s chart
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/c4-vs-h3.png
be absolutely correct, then the chart
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536586825891.jpg
must be in your opinion absolutely correct as well, because both are based on exactly the same kind of interpretation, namely to discard the relation between anomalies and their reference periods.
Pretty genial.
You should write a paper about this (including the two examples above of course) and publish it. Some will love it!
I tried plotting the comparison with the 12-month running mean and no offset. I also used the whole data set.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/mean:12/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:12
I can tell myself a story that during the mid 1900s, the land and sea were in virtual lockstep, before than land was cooler, and after land was warmer. I can describe this as 2 climate shifts at 1920 and 1980. Or I could say that land warmed more than sea surface temperatures.
If I match baseline:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/mean:12/offset:-0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:12
Only thing I can say here is that the land warmed more than SSTs.
I think Bindidon’s point is to show that you can tell yourself all sorts of stories by jimmying the data this way and that.
I’ll add, as I’ve said before, that it quite specious to jimmy the data to prove a point you already believe. It’s the exact opposite of the scientific method, which is to test data to try and break your opinion, or at least put some probability on it. That’s the whole point of the null hypothesis. Is this kind of rigour anywhere evident in Kristian’s work?
phi says:
September 10, 2018 at 4:43 AM
There is no arrogance. The fact is that you continue to not understand that the anomaly curves are floating.
What does this even mean, “floating??”
phi says:
September 10, 2018 at 2:39 AM
The offset you use (-0.06) to displace HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 is wrong, Okulaer.
There is something you have not yet understood. These curves are not fixed on the y-axis, you can move them as you wish. Offset, baseline, normal period, are purely arbitrary notions.
These data aren’t measuring the same thing, Einstein!
You’re stupid.
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
The point I am making is that there is no right or wrong offset per se. Kristian’s graphic representation is relevant because it highlights a simple relation, simpler than with other offsets. It’s still an illustration, the interpretation is another thing. But we can not make sophism like Bindidon, pretend falsely that an offset is wrong and deny an observable.
What is the observable?
Read the bloody post, barry!
Kristian, where is the time series of global average ASR?
It’s clear now that Kristin doesn’t have such data, the most important data of all to prove his theory.
David Appell says, September 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM:
Indeed. Where is it?
Kristian: Where is the time series for global average ASR?
Yes, David. Where is it? You’re the one who needs to present it, not me. Because you’re the one who makes the claim. I’m simply telling you that TSI isn’t indicative of the Sun’s thermal influence on the Earth system, ASR is.
Kristian
Looks like the answer for ASR has been calculated to be 163.3 W/m^2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
No, Norman: time series.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The time series is the same as the number I gave. It has not shown much of any change for ASR from 2001 to 2017.
I can’t post the graph here but you can make your own.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
Go to this link to generate your own graph.
1) In “Parameters” check the box Surface Fluxes
2) In “Temporal Resolution” I used monthly mean
3) In “Spacial Resolution” I clicked global mean
4) Left Time range alone (from 2000 to 2017)
5) Put in your email
6) Click “Visualize Data”
7) Scroll through the graphs to reach “Surface Net Shortwave Flux All-Sky” That would be the ASR (incoming to reach surface minus the reflected solar). It averages at around 163 watt/m^2
I corrected you, youre welcome.
Gordon,
The initial argument from you was that the NOAA admission of cutting back to under 1500 stations globally was old. You inferred things had changed since ‘back then’ and more stations were currently in use.
More stations are currently in use. There is now more than 1500 stations included in the monthly update. Here is a 2015 update to the station number count – posted at WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/chart2.png
Still about 6000 stations at peak (70s to early80s), and declining to just over 2000 at the end.
The total number of stations in GHCN monthly is 7280. Of course, not many have century-long data, and that’s why you only see about 6000 at peak during the 70/80s.
The 6000 station data were not cut. They’re still there. It’s just that most of them don’t provide monthly updates.
How do you get monthly updates if a weather station no longer exists, for example?
I used the Waybacks 2015 year to show NOAA was still claiming that in 2015. Thats when Wayback last scanned the site. Therefore, in 2015, NOAA was still claiming to have cut back from 6000 stations globally to less than 1500.
They never claimed to cut back from 6000 stations. They added extra historical data and simply maintained the 1500 stations that provided them with real-time data.
You seem to believe that they were getting monthly updates from 6000 stations worldwide and then just deleted most of them. You’re a fool. They never had 6000 monthly-updating stations. They only ever had about 1500 that updated each month. The rest of the station data was sourced and added manually. It was never deleted. It’s still there. All that data is still there.
Correct.
I’ll download GHCN V3 TAVG as soon as I have time to do (I’m actually busy with GHCN daily).
And I will show the actual situation including August 2018.
And similarly to GHCN daily, it will be interesting to look not only at the number of active stations per year, but also at the yearly number of 2.5 degree grid cells encompassing all these active stations.
Here is the grid info for GHCN daily:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536572965885/001.jpg
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536573140609/001.jpg
Of course: pseudoskeptics believe that is all nothing else than trash made out of fudged data. Let them think that way, barry!
Woo hoo! Data, lots and lots of data!
Maybe if you rub yourself all over with data, or build some idols with it, or shred it into straw and make straw men out of it, it might give you the power to peer into the future. What do you think?
If it sounds ridiculous, you’re right. Data, chicken entrails, runes of power – choose your preference.
You don’t even have a clue what the data means. Recording temperature, or pressure, or wind speed, or cloud cover, still won’t reveal the future to you. Bad luck for you.
Maybe you need more data?
Cheers.
And you wonder why people ignore you….
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
WoodForTrees’ conceptor Paul Clark has given us lay(wo)men a pretty tool to show and compare many time series.
It was amazing for example to compare UAH6.0 and the old RSS3.3 and to show how similar they were (though their anomalies are not based on the same reference period: 1981-2010 for UAH, and 1979-1998 for RSS) through a simple offsetting of the RSS anomalies by their mean during UAH’s reference period.
*
But Paul Clark gave also a tool allowing for any manipulation through data torturing until it looks exactly like what you want to show.
I am anxious to see all the excuses David will be coming up with if the global temperatures over the next several years continues down which I think it will.
Watch him play the volcano card if we should have some major activity , but that is part of my forecast for overall cooling and I have been saying it since as you say David 2002.
If we have another Pinatubo, why would that not be a valid reason for cooling?
Bobesbond, how many times have I said there is a connection between weak magnetic fields and an increase in geological activity which aids in cooling. A 1000 times.
How does geological activity cause cooling?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I am anxious to see all the excuses David will be coming up with if the global temperatures over the next several years continues down which I think it will.
Salvatore, you still understand absolutely NOTHING.
David Appell says:
I am anxious to see all the excuses David will be coming up with if the global temperatures over the next several years continues down which I think it will.
Salvatore, good god, what it is WRONG WITH YOU that you can’t understand that short-term variations aren’t indicative of climate change?
Seriously: why can’t you understand this?
It is gravity which sets up the temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere, not back radiation. Loschmidt explained this in 1876 but climatologists choose to ignore this direct consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Prove me wrong in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
The fundamental assumption in all climate models and climatology energy diagrams is that one can add to solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the cold atmosphere and then use the total (less non-radiative cooling) in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to explain the global mean surface temperature.
Radiation cannot be added that way.
No empirical experiment has ever been published demonstrating that it can be. It would be contrary to Wien’s Displacement Law and their false assumption ignores the fact the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function.
Even if there were a mean of about 500W/m^2 of radiation from a much hotter or closer sun, that radiation would be variable all over the globe and thus produce a lower mean temperature than would the uniform flux needed for Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to be correct.
So it’s laughable that NASA energy diagrams show a net of 390W/m^2 and assume that will produce a mean of 288K. They make a double mistake – adding back radiation and then assuming variable flux will produce the same temperature as uniform flux. Prof Claes Johnson explained why the back radiation merely resonates and is not thermalized in the warmer surface.
Prove wrong my peer-reviewed 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Themodynamics.”
How does a location on the equator of Venus warm by about five degrees (from 732K to 737K) over the course of about four months on the sunlit side? Where does the new thermal energy come from? The direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface is about one-eighth of that impinging on Earth’s surface. There cannot be any heat from the less hot atmosphere that could raise the temperature of the hotter Venus surface.
What does happen is that solar radiation can only raise the temperature of regions in the upper troposphere and above. But then gravity maintains a non-zero tropospheric temperature gradient which is the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) and so the whole thermal profile in the troposphere rises by about five degrees at all altitudes.
The same kind of thing happens on Earth and in every planetary troposphere, and that is why it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus.
Prove wrong my 2016 paper “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis.”
Oh, sorry, Dr Pete Sudbury. I just learned that you’re a retired psychiatrist. Apparently, you’ve learned all about climate change by reading the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology. Well, well, well! So sorry if I’ve confused you with correct physics that refutes the whole scam.
So let me keep it simple for you Dr Pete Sudbury, seeing that you probably don’t even know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says or what entropy is.
It was warmer than the present back in Roman times, and there was certainly overall net (natural) global cooling between then and the Little Ice Age when they skated in the River Thames in London.
Temperatures have to do with gravity and the height of a planet’s troposphere. Luckily Earth’s troposphere is about the right height for comfort. If we had just as much greenhouse gas but a troposphere only half the height, then global mean temperatures would be less than zero C, just as we know the global mean is well below that for our Moon.
And so that is why it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base of the tropospheres of Venus and Uranus, despite the latter having no solar radiation and no solid surface down there.
We now know that cosmic rays assist cloud formation and, guess what, cosmic ray intensity varies partly due to solar activity and also to magnetic fields from the planets. Those clouds do shade the Earth and keep us cooler, you know.
We also know that the greenhouse gas water vapor varies in concentration between about 1% and 4%, so that’s a 3% variation. With carbon dioxide taking up a whole 0.04% of our atmosphere (one molecule in 2,500) that extra 3% of greenhouse gas that we find above rain forests could be assumed to have roughly the effect we might get by increasing carbon dioxide to 76 times its concentration, that is, from 0.04% to 3.04%. The trouble is, it doesn’t happen. Rain forests are cooler than dry regions at similar latitude and altitude as I found when I studied 30 years of temperature data from locations on three continents.
Prove wrong the study in my 2014 book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.”
The temperature gradient changes direction past the tropopause, and again when moving from the stratosphere to the mesosphere.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/250/2017/04/25221217/atmprofile.jpg
The temperature gradient of the whole atmosphere is not remotely correlated to gravity.
Neither gravity nor CO2 can heat the planet.
Like that old saying: “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
barry….”The temperature gradient of the whole atmosphere is not remotely correlated to gravity”
*******
You sure make some really odd statements at times.
Atmospheric pressure is directly proportional to gravitational force. Gravity creates the equivalent of a container in a lab by holding gases in the container called the atmosphere. The difference is that gravity stratifies the pressure gradient in the atmosphere with the highest pressures at the surface.
Although the atmosphere cannot be totally described as a constant volume, it is close enough based on its overall volume. The atmosphere should expand during solar heating and contract at night, but the overall expansion/contraction should be small compared to the overall volume.
Given that the volume is fairly constant that means, according to the Ideal Gas Law, that temperature should vary directly with pressure. And guess what, it does.
The pressure at the top of Everest at nearly 30,000 feet is 1/3rd the pressure at sea level. NO ATMOSPHERIC PROCESS CAN ACCOUNT FOR THAT. Furthermore, heating from direct solar radiation on Everest can warm a human during the day but at night, that same human can freeze to death.
The lapse rate cannot explain it, only gravity can explain it. Temperature also declines proportionately between sea level, where the temperature is highest, and 30,000 feet where it is 1/3 the sea level pressure.
The lapse rate cannot explain that either. Some claim, somewhat correctly, that the negative temperature gradient with altitude is due to natural cooling from the surface upward. However, cooling with altitude is also due to air thinning out due to a lower pressure.
Hot air would not rise if that gravity induced negative pressure gradient did not exist. It rises because it is less dense than the air above it. That is a product of gravity, not some mysterious effect produced in the minds of atmospheric physicists.
Besides all that, the thermals caused by solar heating are only present during the day, and for a while after sunset. Gravity, with its negative pressure gradient and related negative temperature gradient is there all the time.
As I have claimed before, the lapse rate is nothing more than a transient condition acting on top of a negative pressure/thermal gradient produced by gravity.
Gordon,
If gravity is the primary determinant of the atmospheric temperature gradient, why does the gradient change from negative to positive once you reach the stratosphere? Atmospheric gases are still present, and pressure is still decreasing with height.
Why is temperature gradient now the opposite of the gravity/pressure gradient?
Here’s a picture of it.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/250/2017/04/25221217/atmprofile.jpg
+1
That claim is junk.
part 1
barry…”If gravity is the primary determinant of the atmospheric temperature gradient, why does the gradient change from negative to positive once you reach the stratosphere?”
At the altitude of the stratosphere, gravitational force has been weakened. As ren pointed out a while back, the stratosphere is subject to heating from the UV portion of solar energy as oxygen molecules absor.b the UV to produce ozone. I think nitrogen absor.b.s UV as well. Some of the colours in the Aurora are due to nitrogen abso.r.p.tion.
Whereas the surface is heated by broad-spectrum solar energy, the stratosphere is only heated by the UV portion.
part 2
It’s a case of the candle burning at both ends. Your warming in the stratosphere is relative, with temperatures varying, on average, from -50C at the top of the tro.po.pause to -15C at the top of the stratosphere.
Mind you, with the thin air in the stratosphere combined with temperatures when the Sun is on the opposite side of the Earth, I would not lay any bets on that average. When they claim -15C at TOS, I would think that represents a maximum when the Sun is beating down on the stratospher.ic gases.
Gordon Robertson says:
At the altitude of the stratosphere, gravitational force has been weakened.
Bullsh!t.
Calculate, Gordon. Calculate, then think!
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
“We now know that cosmic rays assist cloud formation and, guess what, cosmic ray intensity varies partly due to solar activity and also to magnetic fields from the planets.”
Do we know that GCR have a significant influence on clouds and climate?
We use a global aerosol model with parametrizations of NPF from previously published CLOUD chamber experiments involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, organic molecules, and ions….
Our model suggests that the effect of changes in cosmic ray intensity on CCN is small and unlikely to be comparable to the effect of large variations in natural primary aerosol emissions.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD026844
2017 CERN paper – most recent I could find from that body on GCR, clouds and climate.
Galactic cosmic rays change the global electrical circuit which effects clouds. In addition Forbush events prove beyond a doubt galactic cosmic rays effect cloud coverage.
It is 100% prove Barry. Barry keeps spinning for the soon to be obsolete AGW theory. Before 2020!
All the evidence is there from changes in the global electrical circuit to Forbush events which effect cloud coverage all tied into to changes in galactic cosmic rays.
It is just not the solar magnetic field when it comes to galactic cosmic ray intensities and where they may be concentrated on the earth but also the geo magnetic field strength and configuration.
The bottom line being to get the proper handle on galactic cosmic rays and their impact as it may relate to solar , the geo magnetic field contribution must be taken into account.
This makes the solar /galactic cosmic ray connection much less straight forward, as is the case with all the solar/climate connections. This is why so many can’t get it. They want black and white instant results.
Salvatore…”Galactic cosmic rays change the global electrical circuit which effects clouds”.
It’s a misconception that so-called cosmic rays are radiation like EM. They are actually particles. According to CERN, they are mainly proton from hydrogen nucleii.
https://home.cern/about/physics/cosmic-rays-particles-outer-space
In a stellar atmosphere, electrons get boiled off the hydrogen and the nucleii can exist as protons. The Sun ejects both protons and electrons as a plasma in the solar wind. It seems cosmic particles are one and the same, having originated when stars exploded, albeit a much faster particle.
The slower moving solar particles can be diverted by the Earth’s magnetic field but it seems cosmic particles get through. Syun Akasofu did pioneering work on the solar wind and he claimed the interaction of the protons and electrons in the plasma combine with the magnetic field to induce voltages and currents in the Earth’s atmosphere, surface, and oceans.
One can only imagine what effect higher velocity particles like cosmic particles can have on our atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its a misconception that so-called cosmic rays are radiation like EM. They are actually particles.
Everyone knows this. EVERYONE. You’re late to the party.
It is not 100% proved the GCRs significantly affect cloud development. The study I just linked is the most recent I could find from the CERN scientists, saying that as far as they can tell the influence on cloud formation from GCR is much smaller than local processes.
And correlation between temps and GCRs breaks down completely near the end of the 20th century. Numerous studies show this.
A stronger link is not 100% disproved, either. But your absolute announcement is as wrong as it is unscientific.
Wrong Barry I have said solar activity should have had a warming effect until year 2005.
Solar activity was in an active mode until then.
Also the geo magnetic field has to be evaluated in relation to GCR’S.
FORBUSH EVENTS – prove there is a cosmic ray, cloud coverage connection.
You prove it, since you’re claiming it.
GCR and temps stop correlating by the end of the 20th century.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
Kazil et al. (2006):
“the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response… that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover.”
Sloan and Wolfendale (2008)”
“we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”
Kristjansson et al. (2008):
“no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR”
Calogovic et al. (2010):
“no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.”
Kulmala et al. (2010):
“galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well.”
Laken et al. (2013):
“there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.”
Krissansen-Totton & Davies (2013):
“no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations”
CERN CLOUD experiments, Almeida et al. (2013):
“ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols [that form clouds]”
If this much literature disconnects GCR and clouds
If the people testing the physics at CERN say the effect is minor
If temps and GCR are uncorrelated
Then you are simply ignoring all that evidence and taking up only the evidence that you prefer.
That’s not objective.
That’s not skeptical
That’s not scientific.
It’s sheer belief.
All not true Barry, but then again you believe in AGW.
https://galacticconnection.com/cosmic-rays-the-driving-force-in-climate-changes-volcanos-and-earthquakes/
Barry for every negative article you can produce I can produce a positive one.
Where is the proof in the real world?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0506/0506077.pdf
galactic cosmic rays cloud, global electrical circuit connections.
I have many more.
An experiment at CERN, Europes high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, confirmed this theory of cloud formation and cosmic rays.
From a study.
https://principia-scientific.org/do-cosmic-rays-trigger-earthquakes-volcanic-eruptions/
More Barry.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htm
cloud cover and forbush events
All not true Barry
I posted many studies decoupling GCR and cloud formation.
And you – amateur commenter on blog posts with no scientific qualifications – said that these are “All not true.”
Without you spending one heartbeat of time, not even one sentence explaining why these peer-reviewed studies were “All not true.”
Do you think I am insane? A mindless dupe? That I would give any credence to something you typed on a keyboard and posted on a blog site? Without a scintilla of analysis, just an assertions?
Either you think I am irretrievably stupid, or YOU are irretrievably stupid.
There is no middle road here.
And I am characterizing your remarks for more accurately than you are mine, so….
barry if you were anything like the true skeptic you laughingly pretend to be, you would have put together a series of quotes and citations both for and against.
Physics…good overall article.
“The fundamental assumption in all climate models and climatology energy diagrams is that one can add to solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the cold atmosphere and then use the total (less non-radiative cooling) in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to explain the global mean surface temperature”.
*******
This debate about the 2nd law is misunderstood even by skeptics like Fred Singer. Whereas many modernists are trying to redefine the 2nd law in terms of a mysterious positive balance of ‘energies’, they cannot get past the original definition by Clausius that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.
The net balance of energies is a reference to electromagnetic energy which has been conveniently equated to heat, with both wrapped up as a generic energy. EM and heat cannot be summed, they are entirely different energies. Besides that, the 2nd law applies to heat only, not EM.
Modernists have taken to using the entropy definition of the 2nd law, which was offered by Clausius after he defined it in words. The entropy definition states exactly the same thing. Entropy in an irreversible process can only ever be +ve, and a negative entropy, which would describe the transfer of heat naturally from a colder region to a warmer region, is not allowed.
Those who have claimed a back-radiation heating of the surface of essentially the same amount as it radiates, are all wet. That would represent a perpetual motion machine, where the surface emits heat and the atmosphere absorbs the heat then sends it back so as to warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.
Gordon Robertson says:
Whereas many modernists are trying to redefine the 2nd law in terms of a mysterious positive balance of energies, they cannot get past the original definition by Clausius that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.
Gordon still doesn’t understand Clausius. After all this time.
Gordon does not care about science or truth. Very sad.
Gordo wrote:
No scientist I know of has claimed that, Gordo. Where did you find that fantastical bit of delusional physics, Wattsupwiththat???
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
Ooh interesting!
Soon will the word ‘Physics’ have to be avoided in comments, when this site’s robot detects that ‘Physics’ now is one more of these many nicknames used by Do-ug Cot-ton…
It seems this person’s science is more closely related to the field of Psychics than to Physics.
Mike…a quote from you up-page…
““The academic from the University of Technology, Sydney, said if we believed in science as part of the function of our everyday lives, we should believe in climate change.
“You cannot pick and choose if you dont accept climate change, you should not be given penicillin or painkillers or even visit a doctor,” he said.
“You should not be allowed to fly or drive a car either. But I guess that as most climate deniers also pick and choose the bits of the Bible they subscribe to as well, I should not be surprised.””
*******
This statement from the Aussie is one of the most ignorant statement I have ever read re science. However, it is typical of academics who have found a way to pass exams and earn a degree without the ability to understand the reality behind the questions they are answering.
When I was studying engineering at university, a nice Asian girl in my class had aced 1st year physics and mathematics with a 100% mark on each. I ran some questions past her regarding an engineering course and she had not the slightest idea how to answer them. She had the integrity to admit it.
Many people earn degrees by nothing more than regurgitating what they are taught. They learn to give the correct answer on exams by dutifully doing all problem sets while learning all the solutions by memory. When they hit the exams they are generally set since the questions posed are based on the methods they learned doing problem sets.
That system does not teach a student to learn the underlying theory, let alone understand it. So you get idiots like the Aussie you quoted who ‘BELIEVE’ in climate change because an authority figure told them it is real.
As you know, science is not about belief, or consensus, although many erstwhile modernists believe that to be the case. The universe does not give a hoot about what we believe, or agree to believe, the universe just ‘IS’. It’s up to us to try understanding it and no amount of belief or agreement will enable such understanding.
GOrdon Robertson says:
When I was studying engineering at university, a nice Asian girl in my class had aced 1st year physics and mathematics with a 100% mark on each. I ran some questions past her regarding an engineering course and she had not the slightest idea how to answer them.
We all here see and know your level of scientific understanding, Gordon.
Conclusion: this nice Asian girl was no doubt a genius.
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
Based on the current temperatures around the mid-latitude regions of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, I think Salvatore’s prediction is on its way. In the Northern Hemisphere, a quick sampling of cities like Vancouver, Seattle, Edmonton, Regina, Milwaukee, Toronto, Halifax, Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Berlin and Vladivostok reveal temperatures between 15C and 20C.
Where has all the heat suddenly gone, it’s only early September? Has someone leeched off the CO2?
I only checked two temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere, Auckland and Sydney, which are headed into Fall, and both were a relatively cool 18C and 19C respectively. Both have sub-tropical climates. Perth, on the opposite coast from Sydney was a dismal 12C. Even Hobart was warmer at 18C.
I can see the BOM feverishly fudging temperatures to hide the fact.
Just checked: Durban 16C, Buenos Aires 14C, Rio 21C, and Santiago, Chile 18C.
Beijing is 21 C as of nearly 6 PM PDT.
Heck…Madrid and Rome are only 21C and they are near the Mediterranean.
Yemen, much closer to the Equator is only 16C.
Quito, Ecuador, right on the Equator is only 13C. Other equatorial cities: Nairobi 16C, Cali 26C, Singapore 27C, Medan, Indonesia 25C.
South Pole -80C….yes, that’s minus 80C.
North Pole ….no one seems to have a temperature for the NP, I guess no one is up there taking temperatures. At least there’s a station right at the SP.
The closest I can come is Nunavit, several hundred miles South, which is -10C at Isachsen. Alert, at the north end of Nunavit is -10C as well.
Correction: “…Auckland and Sydney, which are headed into Fall….”
Obviously, that should be Spring.
Here’s an odd one for you. I forgot that Quito, Ecuador is at elevation, some 2850 metres (9350 feet).
Currently, at 9:30 PDT the temperature there is 9C, even though it’s right on the Equator.
Denver, USA is at 1609 metres (5278 feet), the Mile High City. The temperature there is currently 23C.
Quito is on the equator, Denver is nowhere near the equator.
Would anyone like to check to see if there is a GHCN station in Quito, and is it being used in NOAA or GISS calculations?
A reveltion of how NOAA/GHCN corrupts data related to the colder Andes mountains.
Want global warming, move the thermometers from the mountains to the beach.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/
“Same story. The erosion starts mid mountains, then undermines the peaks and it all ends up headed for the beach. 56.8% of Ecuador thermometers are below 100 m in elevation. Guess when you ARE the equator, it is hard to get closer to it, and the only choice is to head down slope”.
The sad truth is that NOAA is ignoring cold regions like the Andes, the Himalaya, etc., while emphasizing lower coastal areas.
The sad truth is that NOAA is ignoring cold regions like the Andes, the Himalaya, etc., while emphasizing lower coastal areas.
The only influence one cold station, or all cold stations, would have on the long-term global trends is if the rate of change for such locations was significantly different from the global average.
In case you don’t get it, the baseline average temp for Sydney is zero. The baseline average temp for Quito is also zero. The baseline for Abu Dhabi is zero. The baseline for Vostok in Antarctica is also…. zero.
Converting absolute temps to anomalies and baselining all weather station data to a common reference period completely removes differences due to elevation or latitude. That’s one of the powerful reasons for using anomalies.
So if weather stations from higher elevations or colder places were warming faster than the global average, then including those places in the global average would increase the trend a little bit.
Gordon still confuses weather and climate. But while we are cherry picking, we should add that this year Sydney had its warmest ever April, and its warmest ever July.
B,
Couple of points –
You are talking about weather.
Not the warmest “ever”. The BOM declared records prior to 1910 “unreliable”, thus getting rid of the inconvenient heat waves of 1896 (over 450 heat related deaths), and 1907-1908 (over 240 heat related deaths).
Birds in Sydney dropped dead from of trees adjacent to Observatory Hill – where official temperatures were, and are still, recorded.
It might help if you could describe the GHE, and explain why it only seems to provide record heating on certain days in certain months, in random years.
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Sydney Observatory hill temp data goes back to 1859.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=066062
Bob is right.
b,
The BOM declared all records prior to 1910 to be unreliable. Are you disagreeing? Or are you saying that temperatures recorded prior to 1910 were all too low, or all too high, or maybe you really don’t know?
The answer is that nobody is prepared to say if temperatures prior to 1910 were reliable.
So, in the finest climatological pseudoscientific fashion, I will have to resort to asking you to prove that the records, which the BOM declared to be unreliable, are actually reliable.
On the other hand, before the first liquid water appeared on Earth, the temperature was everywhere above 100 C. Whether you like it or not – not the warmest “ever”.
Climate is the average of weather, anyway. An average doesn’t even change present weather, let alone the future.
Cheers.
You don’t know what you are talking abut, despite you having quoted BoM upthread about why the 1910 cutoff.
Records prior to 1910 are too sparse/unreliable for a national average. The ACORN-SAT (national) data set begins in 1910.
The 1910 cut off does not apply to individual stations, which records are kept by BoM, as the link above demonstrates.
And yes, monthly records are always weather.
But let’s leave weather and look at the long-term annual record from Observatory Hill.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=066062&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
Gordon Robertson says:
Based on the current temperatures around the mid-latitude regions of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, I think Salvatores prediction is on its way.
Sure, sure.
Salvatore has been consistently wrong. Year after year after year.
Maybe off topic, but the following shows you can patent a physically impossible perpetual motion machine, based on the gravito-thermal myth, as long as you don’t mention the words “perpetual motion”.
“Gravity induced temperature difference device” – US-2003145883-A1
Why do people waste money on stupid things like solar, wind, hydro, and so on?
Gravity does not diminish or wear out! No matter how much you use to power your house, the force of gravity remains unchanged!
/silliness off
Ain’t life grand!
Cheers.
Here is the Arrhenius paper on which modern AGW stands.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
I am not knocking Arrhenius, he was obviously a good scientist, but he was seriously limited as to his understanding of heat as it applies to radiation and the atmosphere.
What is pathetic, is that modern scientists with their ability to read broadly on the basics of heat are still thinking along the lines of Arrhenius in 1896. They seem to have swallowed his theories verbatim rather than questioning their veracity.
Probably the greatest error committed by Arrhenius is presuming that heat is radiated from the Earth’s surface as heat. It is not, the heat is first converted to EM (IR) then radiated. It was a prevalent notion dating back to the 1800s that heat flowed through space as heat. The theory is wrong and should be put to rest.
The greenhouse theory as described by Arrhenius has been proved wrong. He describes it as solar energy warming the soil in a greenhouse and ‘dark rays’ (IR) from the soil being blocked by the glass. Wood (1909), an expert on IR, questioned that theory and disproved it with a simple experiment.
Wood reasoned that the atmosphere received its heat directly from the surface through conduction and that so-called greenhouse warming is the result of the inability of N2 and O2 to release the heat easily.
Arrhenius even talks in terms of calories, which is a gross error with regard to radiation. EM is not measured in calories, a calorie being the amount of heat required to raise 1 cc of water by 1C at 25C. With regard to radiation incident on water, EM must first be converted to heat by the electrons that bind atoms into water molecules before the water can warm and be measured in calories.
Furthermore, the EM causing the heating is broad-spectrum solar energy.
Arrhenius would not have known this in 1896, even though electron theory was being discussed at the time. It was not till 1913 that Bohr got the ball rolling, equating electrons in atoms to EM.
Another error is interpreting the Stefan equation as referring to heat transfer by heat. The equation is clearly about the radiation intensity when heat is converted to IR. If one takes the time to read the history surrounding Stefan, one immediately sees that the basis of the Stefan theory is about heat being transferred from a hotter body to a colder body by EM, and not from cold to hot.
How did Arrhenius miss this? He surely had access to the work of Clausius on the 2nd law, which was finalized by 1876. Why did he not get it that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed the GHG portion of the atmosphere in the first place. Surely a scientist of his eminence would have noted the relationship between such a process and perpetual motion.
And why have all the modern alarmist climate scientists missed this glaring error as well? Why have they rushed to adopt a theory that literally makes no sense scientifically?
All climate models are programmed with a positive feedback from back-radiation that is not possible. The 2nd law negates it.
How long must we endure this pseudo-science before we get back to real science?
Gordon Robertson says:
All climate models are programmed with a positive feedback from back-radiation that is not possible. The 2nd law negates it.
Wrong and wrong.
But I no longer expect Gordon to care about the truth.
Yes, that’s complete BS. Robertson has no interest in facts.
All climate models are programmed with a positive feedback from back-radiation
I mean this is sheer nonsense.
It’s now at the point where Gordon is clearly lying, and he knows he is, and he’s clearly doing it on purpose, and no one here besides a few of us even gives a crap anymore.
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
It seems to me that Earth absorbs more sunlight than any other planet or moon.
It is said Earth absorbs 240 watt and it emits 240 watts on average.
Some quotes:
“The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth. Not only does water cover more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, it can also absorb large amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature. This tremendous ability to store and release heat over long periods of time gives the ocean a central role in stabilizing Earth’s climate system.” And:
“Highlights:
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.
Averaged over Earth’s surface, the 1993–2017 heat-gain rates are 0.36–0.40 watts per square meter for 0–700 meters, and 0.19–0.35 for depths of 700–2,000 meters.
Heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
So according to that all land surfaces and all atmosphere has only absorbs about 10% of the warming over last 50 years.
Now, the amount of energy absorbed by the ocean over last 50 year has not warmed the ocean by say .2 C.
Or 50 years ago our oceans were about 3.5 C and today they are about 3.5 C.
But our ocean have as cool at 1 C and over long time have warmed as high as 5 C. And that is a lot energy which is absorbed.
Or Earth can absorb a lot of energy from the sun- and that scale of absorbing the energy of sunlight has not occurred on any other planet or moon in our solar system.
Now a solar panel might absorb 20% of the sunlight and convert it into electrical power.
Plants might absorb as much 5% of sunlight and convert into chemical energy.
And solar thermal might be about 60% efficient, convert 60% of energy sunlight and raise the temperature of water or make hot water. And ocean as solar collector warms water better than solar thermal collector in terms absorbing energy of sunlight- but would only water by a few degrees, rather than make hot water to wash dishes with or take a hot shower with. Or ocean is very inefficient at making hot water [it doesn’t do it].
Now Earth do not emit the energy of sunlight only when sun in the sky- roughly speaking it emit almost the same amount during night as the day- or a surface on earth could emit as much as 240 watt during the night. Or in some location the night average temperature can warmer than the global average temperature of 15 C. Or in some location nights can remain somewhere around 20 C are emitting more energy as compare to day which does not reach 20 C.
Though of course the average nightside of earth emits is less. Or say somewhere 200 watts rather than the 240 watts average of night and day.
Whereas the Moon at equator might warm to 120 C, but before sunset it’s around 0 C and radiates very little energy during the night- so Moon does not absorb much energy.
Though people will say because it’s surface is similar to blackbody it absorbs 88% of sunlight.
Now with ideal thermally convective blackbody in vacuum at earth distance, this model would have entire surface emit 340 watts and it absorbs 340 watts per square meter.
So that would absorb more energy than Earth, but an ideal thermally convective blackbody does not absorb sunlight like the ocean which is about 1 watt per second per square meter and retaining the heat for 50 years [or thousands of years if ocean warming from 1 C to 5 C].
So each day Earth absorbs and emits more energy per square meter than any planet or moon, plus the ocean storing an enormous amount of heat in oceans over centuries of time. Earth is unique in both respects.
Given that your figure of 240 Watts should clearly be in Watts per square metre, there is no way that the earth absorbs more Watts per square metre than Mercury.
From NASA –
“… measured the light level as being suitable for surface photography, finding it to be similar to the amount of light on Earth on an overcast day with roughly 1 km visibility.”
Wiki –
“In fact, due to the thick, highly reflective cloud cover, the total solar energy received by the surface of the planet is less than that of the Earth.”
It is therefore possible that Earth absorbs more W/m2 from the Sun than Venus. However, it is possible that Venus has lost internal heat at a much slower rate than Earth, and that Venus had far more radioactive material than Earth at the time of its creation.
Venus is different to Earth in many significant ways.
Making statements such as “there is no way” based on precisely nothing of substance might make you appear stupid and ignorant, rather than wise and knowledgeable.
Carry on making apparently wild statements – you can always hope nobody will ask you to back them up.
Cheers.
Bobdesbond was talking about Mercury, not Venus.
Are you getting senile, Mike?
I would guess Venus absorbed much more than Mercury- due to it having atmosphere [even though it reflects a lot of sunlight]
Per square meter [Mercury is larger] due to Mercury’s slow rotation, it could absorb less than our Moon.
I would have to check again the rotation of Mercury, it is longer rotational period than the Moon but I would have to check it, again- let’s instead say, it could be less than the Moon.
I modeled the surface temperature of Mercury using the same assumptions that I used for the Moon.
Albedo for incoming solar radiation = 0.49 – 0.40*cos(Theta) where Theta = 0 at noon and 90 degrees at sunset.
IR emittance = 0.95
The average temperature at the equator came out at 341 Kelvin which is pretty close to the observed value. Nobody was the least bit interested so I decided to concentrate my efforts on the Moon.
At perihelion the peak temperature on Mercury is ~720 Kelvin which is slightly lower than the surface temperature at the equator of Venus. At aphelion the peak temperature is ~596 Kelvin.
Since you can’t even find the missing 150 W/m2 on Earth (= surface radiation at T=15 C minus TOA outgoing IR) — why do you think anyone would believe you about your Mercury calculations?
@David Appell,
Deja vu all over again!
The Mercury figures I quoted contain a deliberate error. Are you smart enough to tell me what it is?
Per square meter [Mercury is larger] due to Mercurys slow rotation, it could absorb less than our Moon.
A square meter on Mercury is the same area as a square meter on the moon.
Interestingly, the average surface temp on Venus is hotter than the average surface temp on Mercury, despite the higher albedo of Venus and it being farther away.
The atmosphere is what makes the difference for av surface temps.
As mentioned in the post above, I was able to model the surface temperature of Mercury with good accuracy by assuming its surface properties were similar to the lunar properties measured by the Apollo missions.
The question of rotation is in dispute. Scott Denning and I contend that rotation matters while Ned Nikolov disagrees.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
Baloney.
You think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation.
Which has been demonstrated and known since circa 1950.
Don’t try to pretend we are stupid.
The question of rotation is in dispute. Scott Denning and I contend that rotation matters while Ned Nikolov disagrees.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
If using magical ideal thermally conductive blackbody- rotation speed doesn’t matter.
But when play with magic you get things wrong- Ned Nikolov is wrong.
“The atmosphere is what makes the difference for av surface temps”
Yes I agree, an atmosphere makes a difference in global average temperature.
But a ocean also can also make a difference in global average temperature.
If put tropical ocean on Mars, Mars would have the solar system’s second largest solar energy collector.
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
For clarity:
Interestingly, the average surface temp on Venus is hotter than the average surface temp on Mercury, despite the higher albedo of Venus and it being farther away from the sun.
True.
The highest temperature on Mercury, at the equator, at peri-helion is ~720 Kelvin compared to 737 Kelvin on Venus.
Mercury receives about 14,000 Watts/sq. meter and reflects less than 10% of that but it has no atmosphere to provide a “Greenhouse Effect”.
According to NASA, Venus received 2,636 W/m2 but the planet has 100% cloud cover so ~76% of that is reflected so the power absorbed is only 632 W/m2.
The high temperature on the Venusian surface is mainly determined by the surface pressure of ~90 bars.
An airless Venus would have a peak temperature of ~452 Kelvin (on the equator at noon), so the atmosphere produces a GHE of more than 300 Kelvin.
Venus isn’t airless.
It has a massive greenhouse effect.
It’s clear GP is speaking hypothetically, David.
@David Appell,
Once again you display your poor reading skills. Somehow you missed my statement that the GHE on Venus exceeds 300 Kelvin.
b,
Define senile. I choose stupidity – B wrote Mercury, I saw Venus.
Averages are just stupid in the context of temperature. Surface temperatures on Earth are generally in the range of +90 C to -90 C.
If you could describe the GHE, and propose a testable GHE hypothesis, you might appear scientific, rather than pseudoscientific.
Press on.
Cheers.
–Bobdesbond says:
September 11, 2018 at 4:37 AM
Given that your figure of 240 Watts should clearly be in Watts per square metre, there is no way that the earth absorbs more Watts per square metre than Mercury.–
You picked a poor planet to compare with Earth- no atmosphere and slow rotation.
So let’s look at Mercury rotation. Hmm site:
https://tinyurl.com/ycx3f23k
is not loading for me. I will do it later.
Solar radiation reaching Earth: 1361 W/m2
Solar radiation reaching Mercury: 10359 W/m2
Safe to say Mercury is hit by more solar radiation per meter squared than any other planet in the system.
Facts.
Thank you.
Mercury has an elliptical orbit so the TSI varies significantly:
Perihelion = 13,900 W/m2
Aphelion = 6,460 W/m2
Yes, Mercury gets much more TSI. Proving the original author here wrong.
Thanks.
Yes, GC, I gave the average, which is no impediment to the point.
Earth’s solar constant is also an average over an elliptical orbit, which itself changes position and shape. So you can have high/lows, too, but the average is fairly constant.
@barry,
“Earths solar constant is also an average over an elliptical orbit, which itself changes position and shape. So you can have high/lows, too, but the average is fairly constant.”
That is tremendously important over the long term as theorized by Milankovitch.
gallopingcamel
Variations in the eccentricity of earth’s orbit are important due to the amplifying effect of the ice-albedo feedback, and somewhat less significantly due to the uneven distribution of continents and oceans by hemisphere.
Mercury has ice only in the interior of polar craters which never receive light from the sun, and this limited ice cover doesn’t grow or shrink (not significantly anyway). And there is a 100% uniform distribution of continents – it is ALL continent.
So orbital variation has no ability to affect the climate of Mercury. The average radiation received over the course of one Mercurian year does not change with these cycles.
They say:
“The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth.”
I say, our ocean is the largest solar energy collector in our solar system.
Proof?
So what?
So it takes 500 years or more for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to rise, following and increase in temperature:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
David Appell should be ashamed of the crazy comments he made on the post linked above. He is still hysterically defending the indefensible.
Camel wrote:
So it takes 500 years or more for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to rise
Proof?
I dont believe it. Why should I?
What happened during ice age changes is not what is happening now, GC.
EG, back then atmos CO2 increased from glacial minimum to interglacial maximum by 100 ppm over 5000 years.
CO2 has risen by the same amount (100 ppm) in 100 years.
barry…”CO2 has risen by the same amount (100 ppm) in 100 years”.
There is no observational proof of that nor is there any proof that can be verified by the scientific method.
The presumption that CO2 in the atmosphere was at 280 ppmv pre Industrial Era was claimed on the basis of proxy studies of CO2 bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice. Jaworowsky pointed out that as the bubbles become pressurized at deeper levels of ice they become solids called clathrates. The conversion back to bubbles as ice cores are brought to the surface, and the inclusion of melt water, casts serious doubt on the actual CO2 concentration.
According to Jaworowski, an expert on ice cores, the levels of CO2 varied widely over an area and the IPCC cherry picked the 280 figure. Some of the proxy data showed levels as high as 2000 ppmv.
Beck collated a large amount of studies by reputable scientists, one of them by chemistry expert, Kreutz, who found evidence of global levels of CO2 as high as 400 ppmv in the 1930s.
The knock on Beck is that he was a high school teacher. That would have been fair criticism had he published a paper on CO2 but all he did was collate an impressive number of studies by bona fide scientists like Kreutz above.
As it stands, we are being asked to believe Callander and ignore 30 or 40 scientists who performed valid studies and found CO2 levels much higher than indicated by Callander or the IPCC in the 19th and 20th century.
gbaikie has pointed out that the oceans gather solar energy. They also emit and absorb CO2 based on the ocean temperature. That is, they emit in warm water and absorb in cold water.
During the Little Ice Age, the oceans would have been colder, absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere. In the 1930’s, in the Northern Hemisphere, where records were set in the US, the warmer oceans would have out-gassed CO2.
It’s entirely possible that the atmospheric concentration has varied a fair amount over the past centuries.
Unfortunately Gordon, none of the people you mentioned are experts in the particular field.
Beck’s sloppy work can be dismissed with ease.
His records show big jumps in atmospheric CO2 from one year to another.
But the excellent CO2 records from stations dedicated to measuring it (like Mauna Loa) have all shown a very stable background level for decades. No sharp jumps at all, just a steady rise.
So either background CO2 suddenly stabilized from 1957 onwards, or Beck screwed up by taking measurements from CO2-rich areas, like industrial regions of cities (which he did).
No, Beck’s results are belied by the last 60 years of CO2 records.
Well, I am not getting much argument so I get some elsewhere:
“Like the Earth, averaged over its whole surface the moon receives about 342 watts per square metre (W/m2) of solar energy. We’re the same average distance from the sun, after all. The Earth reflects 30% of that back into space (albedo of 0.30), leaving about 240 W/m2. The moon, with a lower albedo, reflects less and absorbs more energy, about 304 W/m2.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/the-moon-is-a-cold-mistress/
The Moon is a Cold Mistress
Willis Eschenbach / January 8, 2012
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
And more:
“And since the moon is in thermal equilibrium, it must radiate the same amount it receives from the sun, ~ 304 W/m2.
There is something called the “Stefan Boltzmann equation” (which I’ll call the “S-B equation” or simply “S-B”) that relates temperature (in kelvins) to thermal radiation (in watts per square metre). It says that radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.
Given that the moon must be radiating about 304 W/m2 of energy to space to balance the incoming energy, the corresponding blackbody lunar temperature given by the S-B equation is about half a degree Celsius. It is shown in Figure 1 by the short horizontal red line. This shows that theoretically the moon should be just below freezing.
But the measured actual average temperature of the lunar surface shown in Figure 1 is minus 77°C, way below freezing, as shown by the short horizontal yellow-green line …”
So, is Eschenbach, correct?
Does Earth absorb 240 watt per square meter and the Moon absorbs 304 watts per square meter?
Can’t keep how much the moon reflects being the same value, or reflects more, but increase the amount sunlight which is absorbed?
The moon is covered by this fluffy dust. What happens if keep this dust, but have this same amount dust cover a slab of copper.
So say 100 meter square of copper 1 meter thick, cover it with the same amount fluffy dust which covers the rest of the Moon.
So you can’t see the copper, and the sunlight can’t see the 100 meter square slab of copper.
But could somehow find it- would it show a different IR signature as compare to the natural lunar terrain?
So I goggled: “Average global temperature of Moon”
and got Eschenbach’s article.
But this one near top of search results:
The global surface temperatures of the Moon as measured by the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869
“Maximum and minimum global surface temperature maps are shown in Fig. 18. The mean temperature at the equator is 215.5 K with an average maximum of 392.3 K and average minimum of 94.3 K (Fig. 19), representing an average change in temperature of ∼300 K.
Average maximum and minimum temperatures in the polar regions (poleward of 85°) are 202 K and 50 K respectively with a mean average temperature 104 K. ”
I didn’t see where they mentioned global average temperature, but equator obviously has highest average temperature. 215.5 K or -57.65 C. And Eschenbach said it was -77 C or 196 K
And 196 K if blackbody surface emits 84 watts.
And Dave always asking about that missing 150 w/m2
And 304 – 84 = 220 watts, so 220 watt w/m2 missing?
Well, I am not getting much of an argument so I get some:
“Like the Earth, averaged over its whole surface the moon receives about 342 watts per square metre (W/m2) of solar energy. Were the same average distance from the sun, after all. The Earth reflects 30% of that back into space (albedo of 0.30), leaving about 240 W/m2. The moon, with a lower albedo, reflects less and absorbs more energy, about 304 W/m2.”
https://tinyurl.com/y7oqkgsz
The Moon is a Cold Mistress
Willis Eschenbach / January 8, 2012
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
And more:
“And since the moon is in thermal equilibrium, it must radiate the same amount it receives from the sun, ~ 304 W/m2.
There is something called the Stefan Boltzmann equation (which Ill call the S-B equation or simply S-B) that relates temperature (in kelvins) to thermal radiation (in watts per square metre). It says that radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.
Given that the moon must be radiating about 304 W/m2 of energy to space to balance the incoming energy, the corresponding blackbody lunar temperature given by the S-B equation is about half a degree Celsius. It is shown in Figure 1 by the short horizontal red line. This shows that theoretically the moon should be just below freezing.
But the measured actual average temperature of the lunar surface shown in Figure 1 is minus 77C, way below freezing, as shown by the short horizontal yellow-green line ”
So, is Eschenbach, correct?
Does Earth absorb 240 watt per square meter and the Moon absorbs 304 watts per square meter?
Can’t keep how much the moon reflects being the same value, or reflects more, but increase the amount sunlight which is absorbed?
The moon is covered by this fluffy dust. What happens if keep this dust, but have this same amount dust cover a slab of copper.
So say 100 meter square of copper 1 meter thick, cover it with the same amount fluffy dust which covers the rest of the Moon.
So you can’t see the copper, and the sunlight can’t see the 100 meter square slab of copper.
But could somehow find it- would it show a different IR signature as compare to the natural lunar terrain?
So I goggled: “Average global temperature of Moon”
and got Eschenbach’s article.
But this one near top of search results:
The global surface temperatures of the Moon as measured by the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment
https://tinyurl.com/y9t6r59m
“Maximum and minimum global surface temperature maps are shown in Fig. 18. The mean temperature at the equator is 215.5 K with an average maximum of 392.3 K and average minimum of 94.3 K (Fig. 19), representing an average change in temperature of ∼300 K.
Average maximum and minimum temperatures in the polar regions (poleward of 85) are 202 K and 50 K respectively with a mean average temperature 104 K. ”
I didn’t see where they mentioned global average temperature, but equator obviously has highest average temperature. 215.5 K or -57.65 C. And Eschenbach said it was -77 C or 196 K
And 196 K if blackbody surface emits 84 watts.
And Dave always asking about that missing 150 w/m2
And 304 – 84 = 220 watts, so is 220 watt w/m2 missing?
Sorry, for double post. I thought it didn’t work first time so used tiny for links.
Gbaikie
“So each day Earth absorbs and emits more energy per square meter than any planet or moon……”
A surface radiates at a rate determined by its temperature and emissivity. Given the mean surface temperature of Venus is ~ 462 C, and Earth’s mean is only ~ 14 C, why in the world (pun intended) would you think Earth emits more per square meter?
–Snape says:
September 11, 2018 at 12:41 PM
Gbaikie
So each day Earth absorbs and emits more energy per square meter than any planet or moon
A surface radiates at a rate determined by its temperature and emissivity–
Yup
Not not related to how much it absorbs energy.
The ocean average surface of Earth is 17 C- how warm the ocean is not related to how much it absorbs- though related to how much it emits or evaporates. The average surface temperature of ocean does change from day to day, whereas land surface temperature can vary quite a bit. The ground can reach a temperature of 70 C near noon and can be below the surface air temperature at night. And clouds will have large effect on ground temperature. The hotter a ground temperature is, can cause more heat to conducted under the surface and can cause more convectional heat loss to atmosphere. But a wet ground surface can remain fairly cool and lose heat by evaporation [lose heat= absorb more energy from sunlight {which used to evaporate water}].
-Not not related to how much it absorbs energy.-
Should be: Though not related to how much it absorbs energy
And the:
-The average surface temperature of ocean does change from day to day,-
should be:
The average surface temperature of ocean does not change much from day to day,
gbaikie says:
The average surface temperature of ocean does change from day to day
Does it?
By how much?
David does not even bother to read through the comments he responds to properly, he is in such a rush to troll as many people as possible in one sitting.
Physics says:
“blah blah blah”
“Physics” is the immortal Dou.g Cot.ton.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Its-Carbon-Dioxide-After/dp/1478729228
A decent person would not try to sneak back in the house when they’ve been bared from entering.
Like many strident deniers, Dou.g Cott.on is an egotist, above all.
Another fine example of one of Normans so-called scientific posters, making another great scientific point. David, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Wow did you go into hyper drive. I need to clear up your misrepresentation of my original post.
HERE IS WHAT I SAID: “All the posters you apply your undefined term “trolling” to are very intelligent, knowledgeable posters. They make good logical points, many support their points. You have yet to tell JDHuffman once to stop posting.”
There is nothing in that post assuming that every post a person makes will be a scientific post. Most are opinions based upon long term observation. They are not making a scientific point in this post.
When they do make a scientific claim they do NOT make up their own versions of physics and declare that they are valid. This is what JDHuffman and Gordon Robertson like to do. They make up physics with declarations but NEVER support those views with experiment or links to valid science.
I am not sure stating an opinion of a poster would be considered “trolling”. You need to provide your definition of the term.
What is sad about you is you are unwilling to apply your moderation to the biggest troll of all. JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n) who belittles good valid discussion by calling the posters clowns and using pseudoscience but will not support those claims.
When people use phony physics, I will link to the real deal to show how bad their material is. You think this is trolling. You are just wrong and do not understand what you are posting. I doubt you ever will. I do not think you are a very intelligent person. I do not think you have the ability to come up with a definition of the term “trolling” you like to throw around incorrectly on any science based post.
Norman, please stop trolling.
There are still millions of old weather records that have not yet been digitized. And there are crowd-sourcing projects that invite anyone to digitize the hand-written records from old ships logs and weather stations to add to the growing historical database.
https://www.oldweather.org/
https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/edh/weather-rescue
And maybe if Gordon has a quick look at these sources he will realize why it is that station data has not been deleted, it has instead been added retrospectively.
barry…”And maybe if Gordon has a quick look at these sources he will realize why it is that station data has not been deleted, it has instead been added retrospectively”.
Dream on, barry, I’m sure your delusions serve some purpose, maybe a hedge against denial.
Perhaps you’d care to prove him wrong. Or will you continue to insist on Proof by Bluster?
“While this might lead some to conclude that a single day on Mercury is about 58 Earth days – thus making the length of a day and year correspond to the same 3:2 ratio – this would be inaccurate. Due to its rapid orbital velocity and slow sidereal rotation, a Solar Day on Mercury (the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same place in the sky) is actually 176 days.”
https://www.universetoday.com/47834/length-of-day-on-mercury/
“barry says:
September 11, 2018 at 5:50 PM
Solar radiation reaching Earth: 1361 W/m2
Solar radiation reaching Mercury: 10359 W/m2
Safe to say Mercury is hit by more solar radiation per meter squared than any other planet in the system.”
Pretty safe to say, but issue is how much energy does Mercury absorb as compared to Earth absorbing and emitting about 240 watts per square meter.
Not sure where got the 10359 W/m2 number. Wiki says:
Mercury: 14,446 Max and 6,272 W/m2 Min
And max is at Perihelion and where sun actually appears to go backward in the sky.
As far as I know Mercury surface is similar to the Moon- it’s covered by a highly insulative dust, but since it has twice the gravity as the Moon, the dust might be slightly less fluffy and it day from noon to noon is 176 days vs the moon day of 29.5 days.
Or 176 / 29.5 is 5.96 times longer- or round to about 6 times longer.
How cold is night side of Mercury. NASA says:
“The temperature can drop down to minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Sunlight never reaches into the bottoms of some craters near Mercury’s poles. That could mean that ice may be inside those craters, because they always stay cold.”
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-planet-mercury-58.html
And -300 F to C is -184.444 C and K is 88.7056 K.
So as cold as moon- maybe a bit colder.
And roughly if had same day length as moon it would absorb a bit more than the moon, but it’s 6 times longer and roughly it should therefore absorb less than Moon.
And even though Moon gets more sunlight than Earth, the Moon absorbs less energy than Earth.
@gbaikie,
“And roughly if had same day length as moon it would absorb a bit more than the moon, but its 6 times longer and roughly it should therefore absorb less than Moon.”
The rotation rate of an airless body has essentially no effect on the heat absorbed. Even so the rotation rate does matter.
Our Moon and Mercury are believed to be covered in powdered basalt (aka Regolith) with a remarkably low thermal conductivity (0.001 W/K/m) or roughly 1,700 times less than basalt rock. The reason for the low conductivity is the small contact area between dust particles. Conductivity rises with depth because increased pressure causes compaction.
The low surface conductivity means that the surface temperature rises quickly in response to incoming radiation. Thus the day time surface temperature remains constant until rotation periods are measured in minutes. Thus for all practical purposes, the average temperature of the day side of an airless body is not affected by the rate of rotation.
The situation on the night side is completely different as the surface temperature depends on the rate of heat conduction through the regolith. Consequently the rotation rate affects the average temperature significantly. Here is a chart showing temperatures at various rotation rates for the Moon:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/gc-fig2.png
MOON0.01 shows a rotation period of 14 minutes
MOON7300 shows a rotation period of 20 years
MOON0.01 shows a rotation period of 14 minutes
MOON7300 shows a rotation period of 20 years
Let say 1 cm depth of material is warmed in rotation period of 14 minutes.
And 1 meter depth of material is warmed by same amount in 20 year rotation.
20 years has 10,512,000 minutes / by 14 is 750857.
So in the tiome period of MOON7300 day, the MOON0.01 has had 750,857 cm of material warmed to same temperature has 100 cm depth of the MOON7300 day.
Arbitrary assumptions lead to meaningless answers.
“The situation on the night side is completely different as the surface temperature depends on the rate of heat conduction through the regolith. ”
I assume 1 meter below surface of the Moon- say at equator [or where ever] the temperature does not change much.
And with more intense sunlight at Mercury the depth is about 2 meters.
And with the Moon this temperature 1 meter below surface at equator is about -30 C.
There seems to be some confusion.
Let’s look at a slab of rock or something like it, concrete.
Density concrete- 2400 kg per cubic meter
or 20 cm [7.8 inches] thick square meter slab is about 480 kg
Specific heat, Concrete, stone: 0.75 kJ/(kg K)
or 750 joules per kg per K [or C] increase in temperature.
750 times 480 kg is 230,400 joules of heat to raise the slab
by 1 K.
A cube meter of water is 1000 kg, square meter water 20 cm deep
is 200 kg. Specific heat of water is 4.186 kJ/(kg K)
or 4186 joules per kg per K
4186 times 200 kg is 837,200 joules.
So if square meter of water 20 cm deep absorbs 837,200 joules of heat it’s average temperature increase by 1 k. If 20 cm meter square slab absorbs 837,200 joules of heat, it’s average temperature increases by about 3.6 K.
And of course if water 1 meter deep absorbs 837,200 joules per square meter it’s average temperature increase by 1/5th of a K.
Lunar surface has insulative material which will absorb less heat than 20 cm thick slab of concrete. If covered the moon with 20 cm thick concrete and it will absorb more energy than natural lunar surface.
And roughly speaking Earth ocean absorbs sunlight by meters of depth and concrete by inches of depth. The transparency of water allows most of sunlight to instantly heat more than meter depth of ocean water- a meter thick slab of concrete is pretty good insulation. If Mercury surface was solid rock or concrete it could be a pretty good solar energy collector- but still not as good as Earth.
The thermal properties of the lunar basalt and regolith as measured by Apollo astronauts are tabulated in this post:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
I thought I would mention that the lunar dust could be somewhat transparent [say, few mm thick]. I thought I might read it somewhere, so I googled it. And found something else:
Lunar dusty plasmas of the outermost 2 cm of the lunar surface cannot be reliably simulated in laboratories on Earth or near-Earth-orbit because of the complex forces on the daylight lunar dust on the nearside and the low latitudes on which astronauts walked and deployed experiments.”
“To help reduce confusion, lunar dust is defined here into two categories of Apollo dust and Ejecta dust. Apollo dust is defined as all fine dust on and in the vicinity (<10 m) of the surface of Moon that can cause or lead to operational impacts and operational problems for robotic and human expeditions and settlements on Moon (Cernan, 1973) and Gaier (2012) (Gaier, 2005)). Ejecta dust is defined as high speed dust particles resulting from hypersonic meteoritic or cosmic dust impacts on the Moon, including secondary products of ejecta. Ejecta dust has not been directly relevant yet to operational issues for robotic or human expeditions to Moon. "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063317302830
The article long and somewhat strange { I have hear about lunar dust problems/issues as general issue, but not in that way}.
Anyhow, I believe lunar dust is somewhat transparent- though I did not find a reference or some quantified description. But it's weird stuff and in very good vacuum and a low gravity environment.
GC: That 150?
Not sure where got the 10359 W/m2 number. Wiki says:
Mercury: 14,446 Max and 6,272 W/m2 Min
My figure is the mean of those 2 values. The average of a Mercurial year.
The same average is done for the terrestrial value, which is also (roughly) the mean between aphelion and perihilion, but no one bothers to point out the different values vis Earth’s solar constant. Everyone always runs with the average.
So to me this looks like nothing more than a quibble (or someone would have pointed out the different W/m2 for the terrestrial value?).
Just a question.
I don’t think Mercury absorbs more sunlight than Earth, when it’s at Perihelion having sunlight striking surface when and where sun near zenith is 14,446 watts per square meter
Or any moment of time in it’s orbit.
So we talking a global average per square meter- just like earth emits on average 240 watts.
And so as compared using same metric- what are values for other planets do they absorb and emit more than 240 watts per square meter-
At times a portion of Earth ocean would be absorbing 1120 watts per square meter- not counting a region at certain time of day, but rather a global average.
During time when of Lunar eclipse where surface blocked by Earth shadow cools by 100 K in couple hours and warms back up in couple of hours might a different situation- that I wouldn’t consider as counting.
It would be different question [maybe interesting]- when does any surface on any planet absorb the most amount energy in an hour of time?
Does any absorb a 1120 watt hours of energy like Earth ocean does. 1120 times 3600 seconds is absorbing about 4 million joules per hour per square meter of ocean when sun near zenith on clear day.
Where else absorbing 4 million joules in a hour per square meter?
Don’t forget to factor in that Mercury has no atmosphere to impinge incoming solar radiation, and that the albedo is half that of Earth’s. The two W/m2 values were the solar constants at Mercury/earth distance before atmospheres and albedos are factored.
Accounting for atmosphere and dividing by sphere/area, the amount of solar energy reaching each day side surface:
Earth = 163 W/m2
Mercury = 2590 W/m2
(Averaged over 1 full orbit of the sun: mean of perihelion and aphelion)
Are you trying to argue that the oceans are more effective at absorbing sunlight than hard surface? Maybe so. Then there is conduction/convection to consider – Mercury’s surface gets colder at depth faster than Earth’s oceans.
It’s an interesting question. It seems unlikely to me that the absorbing properties of the different planetary surfaces would counter the significantly different (15 X) solar radiation intensities at their respective surfaces.
But someone else will have to calculate it.
“Are you trying to argue that the oceans are more effective at absorbing sunlight than hard surface?”
Yes.
But also I assume Mercury surface is like the Moon’s surface.
Which can also generally be said about other airless bodies.
And the insulation of the surface dust is the major factor of why I say Mercury absorbs less energy from sunlight as compared to Earth.
If Mercury surface was solid rock- that would make a big difference.
But generally I think ocean absorbs more energy than any land surface and including land surfaces of solid rock.
Though concrete or solid rock does have warming effect- it’s part of UHI effect and natural rock also has warming effect compared to other land surfaces.
Ok, so we don’t know.
And if mercury absorbs less solar energy per meter square than the earth?
DA…”At the altitude of the stratosphere, gravitational force has been weakened.
Bullsh!t.
Calculate, Gordon. Calculate, then think!”
************
You claim to have a degree in physics yet you talk like someone who has yet to study high school science.
Any field is subject to distance. Field strength dissipate in inverse proportion to distance. Gravity is no exception.
Calculate the difference. You will find it is very small, wiseguy.
(I bet yoru can’t calculate the difference.)
Gordon Robertson
This link will give you the equations you need to calculate the gravitational reduction at the stratosphere. It would not be much.
https://www.mpoweruk.com/ballistics.htm
Try this one: “ga /g= [R/(R+h)]2”
and this one: “ga = GM/(R+h)2”
At 100 km the gravitational force drops 3% of surface force
Norman, “g” is not “force”. It is “acceleration”.
Learn some physics, quit pretending.
(I know you will be “thankful” I corrected you.)
JDHuffman
No thanks for you needed. Your lack of understanding of the point is the actual error. You maybe need to learn to comprehend what you are reading before posting. It would be helpful to you.
The equation gives the change in acceleration from the surface (acceleration is determined by the force of gravity) and you can get a percentage change in the force from that relationship.
I would be thankful if you had even a little understanding of the point and could correctly make a valid statement. You are not interested in honest and useful debate. You are a troll and do can’t possibly do this.
Wrong again!
(But at least you can type.)
As stated, “g” is not “force”. It is “acceleration”.
No amount of rambling babble can change physics, try as you might.
JDHuffman
That is why you are troll. Acceleration rate is directly proportional to the force causing the acceleration.
First of all when did I state g was a force? I said you can use the equations to calculate the change in the force from the surface to the top of the Stratosphere.
Force and acceleration are directly proportional. The change in acceleration is equal to the change in force.
Here F=ma. If you compare the change in acceleration at the top of the Stratosphere compared to the acceleration at the surface you get a direct change in the amount of force change.
Not sure why you are making a point about nothing. It really is quite stupid on your part and trollish.
ga/g gives you the percent reduction of force (which is Newtons in SI notation).
The discussion is on how much the gravity force changes. The equations I provide will answer that question.
No amount of rambling babble can change physics, try as you might.
JDHuffman
More correctly, no amount of reason and logic can change your trolling.
So again, when did I state that acceleration was a force? I am curious as to how you warped my post into this false troll twist.
Why doesn’t your best buddy DREMT show up and tell you to “Please Stop Trolling”.
I want you to specifically point out where I stated acceleration is a force. Can you do this or will you just bumble along?
Norman, as usual, you cannot think for yourself. All you had to do here was admit you hadn’t been clear. But, you are so insecure you can never own up to your errors. Consequently, you are unable to learn. Someone that only wants to type, doesn’t want to learn.
In a previous discussion, I mentioned Poynting vectors. Instead of learning, you assumed that I didn’t know what I was talking about. All you did was try to discredit me, refusing to learn anything new.
Adding to your indecent behavior, you continually attack and insult others. Just look at your performance on this short sub-thread:
“You are a troll….”
“That is why you are troll.”
“It really is quite stupid on your part and trollish.”
And, with all that, I never called you a name, once.
Without major changes, you will remain all that you have been calling others.
JDHuffman
Some back at you.
YOU: “Norman, “g” is not “force”. It is “acceleration”.
Learn some physics, quit pretending.”
One: I never said “g” was a “force”. Then you go on an tell me to quit pretending. Not very complimentary. Also, you need to grasp the fact you started an unfounded attack on me. Putting a claim I did not make and then telling me to quit pretending.
YOU: “Wrong again!”
A claim you make for no reason except to provoke and emotional response (which is trolling by definition)
AND THIS: “No amount of rambling babble can change physics, try as you might.”
Quite derogatory and unwarranted especially since you are not even attempting to understand the logic I use, again this is trolling.
You make a false claim about me and then refuse to listen to me explain it to you. All trolling. So what name calling did I use exactly. I am describing, correctly, your online posts. They are trolling.
“Without major changes, you will remain all that you have been calling others.”
QED
JDHuffman
When your logic and reason fail to produce sound points and valuable thoughts, then repeat what you had posted.
It still will not make me a troll and stop you from being one. You will troll this blog as long as you find the fish to lure with your derogatory and misleading pointless posts.
I guess calling yourself a “fish” is appropriate since name-calling is so important to you. Maybe if you mature, and learn some physics, you will lose interest in such behavior?
You can have the last word, since that’s important to you also.
Norman…”This link will give you the equations you need to calculate the gravitational reduction at the stratosphere. It would not be much”.
Doesn’t have to be much, it’s affecting molecules with imperceptible masses.
I did the calculation at one time at a certain altitude and g had dropped from 9.8 m/s^2 to around 9.73 or so. That won’t affect a mass as large as a human body much but it will affect a molecule.
Norman…”At 100 km the gravitational force drops 3% of surface force”
3% of 9.8m/s^2 is very close to 0.3m/s^2. That drops g to 9.5 m/s^2.
If you consider that acceleration over 50 km, which would include the stratosphere above some parts of Earth, the gradient would produce the pressure gradient we know exists.
Some people claim surface pressure is due to air molecules in a vertical column pushing down on those below. AFAIAC, That makes no sense. Air is not like water, where the molecules are bonded together by light electrostatic forces. Water acts like a cohesive unit and a cubic foot of it weighs 62.5 pounds.
A cc of water weighs a gram at sea level. Therefore the density of water is weight/volume = 1g/cc. What does that mean? It means dick. We invented density based on the number of molecules of water at sea level in a cc.
Suppose we calculate the density of air based on the same reasoning. We get 0.001225 g/cc. What does that mean? Again, it means dick.
With water, you have a bazillion water molecules bonded by electrostatic charges. They stick together and press collectively on the bottom of a container. Therefore you can sum the amu of the individual molecules.
Can you do that with air? Don’t think so. You can add the individual molecules but they are not pressing on the bottom of the container as a mass. You can claim there are so many molecules (mass) is a given volume, but you cannot claim a cohesive weight based on that.
Weight is the force of gravity on a mass. With a cc of water, gravity acts on the entire mass if the water is in a container. With air, gravity has to act on each molecule individually, as the molecules flit about vertically, and horizontally, up, down and side to side.
Air has to be averaged based on the percentage of each molecule. Air is approximately 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. That accounts for 99% of it so to make things easy let’s forget the other ingredients.
N2 has an amu of 2 x 14 amu = 28 amu while O2 = 2 x 16 amu = 32 amu. Total amu = 28 amu + 32 amu = 50 amu.
If you use moles, 78 moles N2 x 28 grams/gram-mole + 21 moles O2 x 32 grams/gram.mole = 2184 grams + 672 grams = 2856 grams in a gram.mole of air. That accounts for 99% of a mole of air.
Look at water. H2O = 2 x 1 amu + 1 x 16 amu = 18 amu. For a gram mole, that’s 18 grams. So, a mole of water is out-weighed by a mole of air by over 2800 grams.
Why is it we can stand under a vertical column of air 50 km thick and feel nothing? If we did that with water, we’d be crushed.
Air has density, but density is weight per unit volume. That does not mean air exerts a downward pressure based on it actual weight. There are millions of gigatons of air above us and it has little effect on us. Air molecules are separated by significant chunks of real estate and they are always moving.
Molecules of air, for no known reason, flit about randomly in all directions. They do not form a cohesive unit like water molecules, in fact, they repel each other.
The only explanation for the negative pressure gradient then is gravity exerting a force on air molecules that varies with altitude. The strong gravity near the surface compresses the air molecules near the surface. As altitude increases, the gravitational force lessens, albeit slightly, but that is enough to allow the molecules to spread out more.
However, gravity is NOT acting on air as a cohesive unit. If it was, we’d all be flat as pancakes.
Salvatore,
Barry for every negative article you can produce I can produce a positive one.
The difference between you and me is that I know that there are competing theories and comfortably say that the jury is out on the issue.
Whereas you ignore all the science that conflicts with your view and announce that the opinion you prefer is 100% true.
I’m actually quoting you on the “100%.” That’s where I came in on this discussion – to demonstrate that your certainty is completely unwarranted.
That kind of absolute certainty is virtually non-existent in formal science anyway, and marks you as a rank amateur.
On the topic at hand, that kind of absolute conviction is sheer lunacy. It’s completely out of step with the range of valid, scientific opinions on the matter.
Barry the same can be said for AGW theory versus other theories. You embrace AGW and dismiss all other possible theories that counter it.
You are combative and pushing new points while others remain unanswered.
Let’s go one step at a time.
Are you agreeing, then, that because there is a variety of conflicting scientific opinion on the influence of GCR on clouds/climate, that the jury is out?
Answer that with integrity and then I will move on to your point.
I have like yourself when it comes to AGW theory ,have embraced the GCR/cloud/volcanic weak magnetic fields connection theory.
That is a part of my theory how can I question a theory I have come up with.
I am not going to turn against my theory UNLESS the data over the next few years goes against it.
Something you should consider in regards to AGW.
Ok. So your answer is that you ignore all the competing evidence and
“embrace”
your opinion.
You ignore the competing evidence, which is numerous and compelling.
No, I am not like you.
If there is compelling evidence against a view I hold, I alter my view.
I don’t ignore the other evidence.
I never, ever, announce that something is “100% proven.”
Neither should you when there is so much competing evidence. You are basically staking a position and cheering for it, instead of coolly telling the truth on the subject.
That’s my point. I don’t care what you or I think about AGW. I care that you pose as being driven by science when clearly you are driven by something else that makes you “embrace” a point of view.
OK barry, thats enough telling other people what they do and think for one day.
What do we have climate wise as of today versus a year ago.
An increase in geological activity. Mag. 4.0 earthquakes up over 30%
Global Snow Cover above average.
Overall oceanic sea surface temperatures off -.15c.
Global temperatures lower this year thru AUG versus a year earlier.
Things that I am looking for to verify my theory of weakening magnetic fields, both geo/solar equate to a colder climate.
Global cloud coverage trends I think were increasing of late. Anyone have some good data ?
What do we have climate wise as of today versus a year ago.
Nothing climate-wise, only weather-wise.
Global climate and change isn’t measured in 2 years, 5 years or even 10 years. It’s a multidecadal phenomenon.
It’s like comparing summer and winter temps and saying that this is a linear trend that should continue into the future. A multi-year analysis demonstrates the actual pattern.
Would you link to data for global snow cover.
In addition have to see how the atmospheric circulation patterns develop along with the N. Atlantic and watch the PDO.
I sense cold phases for the PDO/AMO, will now be the rule in contrast to the warm phase they were in prior to year 2018.
Saturn is aligned with Uranus, so this is a time of cooling off for relationships between Libra and Sagittarius. My inner guru feels wet times coming on globally, but dry times in certain regions.
My knee is acting up, so there very likely going to be a storm in Timbuktu tomorrow. But if it doesn’t work out that way, it’s because I was hungry when my knee acted up. An empty stomach can skew my predictions by fully 21.967%.
I guess Saturn is the name of Sal’s toy boy.
barry, please stop trolling.
Sal
From what I’ve read, a theory anyway, is that during the warm phase of the AMO, more warm surface water Is moved from the tropics to the North Atlantic. There, having a higher salt content than the surrounding ocean, it sinks, and is no longer able to affect the temperature of the atmosphere.
During the cold phase, the opposite. Not as much warm surface water moves to the North Atlantic, and therefore less sinks. More stays in contact with the air above.
So, according to the theory, the cold phase of the AMO has an overall warming effect on the troposphere.
In a nutshell, the ocean surface would get really hot if there was no overturning, and the cold phase of the AMO is a situation where overturning is slowed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/
the data shows otherwise
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/atlantic-entering-cool-phase-will-change-world-s-weather/
more data that shows otherwise. It is clear cut.
Salvatore, you were told so often that the detrended AMO (as shown in the post accessed by your link) is useful only to show AMO’s cyclic behavior behind its trend information.
If you want to use AMO for climate prediction, you must use the undetrended variant.
Sal
ME: “So, according to the theory, the cold phase of the AMO has an overall warming effect on the troposphere.”
I was referring to the GLOBAL troposphere, not the tiny part above the United States. (See your first link)
******
The second study claims observations are too short to confirm:
“…..However, we do not have direct observations of ocean circulation of sufficient DURATION to support this theory, which has lead some to question whether…….” (emphasis mine)
Nowhere, as far as I could tell, was the global mean studied in relation to AMO cycles.
I would say the area around and adjacent to the N. Atlantic are the areas that will be effected.
As far as the globe it would be the overall sea surface temperatures for the globe.
Bin
The “undetrended variant” you posted throws a monkey wrench into any theory about cycles.
Gallopingcamel,
The high temperature on the Venusian surface is mainly determined by the surface pressure of ~90 bars.
Mainly determined by pressure?
My scuba tank is pressurized at 200 bar.
Why isn’t it hotter than Venus?
Radiative convective models of planetary atmospheres assume that heat enters the system via solar radiation and leaves it via thermal IR.
Heat transfer within the system depends on radiation, convection, conduction and phase changes.
The Robinson & Catling model ignores conduction because its effect is small compared with convection, radiation and phase change.
For reasons I don’t understand, this website rejects links to Robinson & Catlings NatGeo letter that explains their model in detail. You can find it in the fourth paragraph of this post:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
… and in addition to the verboten letter sequence mentioned by barry, do not forget to add a hyphen or whatsoever like in ‘absorp-tion’ when needed.
GC,
I’m sorry, but your reply doesn’t answer my question.
If the Venusian surface temperature is mainly determined by the pressure there (90 bar), then why is my scuba tank at 200 bar – more than twice the pressure of Venus at the surface – not at least as hot as the surface of Venus?
My scuba tank gets warm when filling with gas, but eventually thermally equlibrates with the environment. The extreme pressure itself, once stabilized, causes no heat whatsoever.
The pressure near the surface of Venus is stable. It cannot be a source of temperature.
[If you wish to create links that are not rejected by this website, convert them at:
https://tinyurl.com/
As long as the tinyurl address string contains no verboten letter sequences, any link will be accepted. Works nearly every time]
barry…”My scuba tank gets warm when filling with gas, but eventually thermally equlibrates with the environment. The extreme pressure itself, once stabilized, causes no heat whatsoever.
The pressure near the surface of Venus is stable. It cannot be a source of temperature.”
Have you placed a thermometer inside your scuba tank to confirm that the air inside is in thermal equilibrium with the outside air?
It can’t be, if the pressure inside is 200 psi, the temperature cannot be the same as the atmospheric temperature outside the tank.
No one knows what causes the surface of Venus to be around 450C. We do know that it is bombarded with solar radiation through gas clouds. According to astronomer Andrew Ingersoll, a temperature of 450C contradicts the 2nd law if it is claimed to come from a greenhouse effect. Therefore, the surface temperature must have some unknown cause.
Here’s an interesting calculator for our atmosphere.
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224562962
It proves that air pressure is related to temperature.
Gordon,
Gallopingcamel said that the temperature of Venus’ surface (at 750 C) is “MAINLY” determined by pressure. The pressure at the surface is 90 bar.
I figure that this must mean that pressure alone is responsible for more than half of the temperature at the surface. The 90 bar pressure is responsible for at least 376 C.
The gas in my scuba tank is more than twice the pressure of Venus’ atmosphere at the surface.
If pressure is MAINLY responsible for temperature, then I expect my scuba tank should be several hundred degrees hot.
It’s not. It is in fact cool to the touch half an hour after filling it to 210 bar.
My experience of highly pressurized gas is that it is not several hundred degrees hot.
I don’t think (a fixed) pressure is the MAIN determinant of temperature.
Or my scuba tank should melt my wetsuit.
I would say it this way: The atmosphere of venus is warmed at pressure and and air density similar to Earth sea level. Or the venus air is warmed at levels of venus clouds [where 75% of sunlight is reflected], and average velocity of gas remains constant, and
at rocky surface elevation the dense air travelling same average velocity as air at cloud levels is hotter because there is more gas molecules in a given volume [say, per square cube meter].
Or the temperature of gas is kinetic energy which is 1/2 mass times velocity squared. So the mass is higher density of gas per cubic meter.
So there is not intense energy causing gas molecules to go faster, rather there is more gas molecules in a given volume.
So when pump air into scuba tank, the created higher density air is hot, but it cools. With Venus there is not cooling involved- the molecule average velocity equalizes with the lower and denser air.
Or it’s like Earth atmosphere which cooler air at higher elevation, and the entire column of air warms during day and cools at night- in accordance to the lapse rate.
Pffft. Wrote C instead of K, and rounded to the nearest 50 out of sheer laziness.
The link you tried to post has the forbidden letter sequence D and C adjacent. This is banned because a certain poster (D*ug C*tton) was banned, and kept returning under various sock puppets – most lately as ‘Physics’ in this very thread.
Here is the same link to the PDF converted to tinyurl.
https://tinyurl.com/ycseecl6
I’ve read the paper. It argues that the trop/strat boundary is set at 0.1 bar for all planets, and that using this is an assumption should lead to better estimates of exoplanet atmospheric structure, temperature (and habitability?).
I don’t see that it remotely establishes that high pressure at a planet’s surface is the primary cause of high heat.
Gallopingcamel, barry is just another troll (only a bit more subtle than David). Dont waste your time.
The truth is coming as far as the climate is concerned. The data is going to tell us the story now-next few years.
It is not going the way of AGW presently and if this continues the day of reckoning is going to come sooner rather then later.
All trends END OF 2017 – right now going against AGW.
We shall see.
@David Appell, September 11, 2018 at 11:02 PM
QUOTE
Baloney.
You think CO2 doesnt absorb infrared radiation.
Which has been demonstrated and known since circa 1950.
Dont try to pretend we are stupid.
UNQUOTE
We are not stupid…….you are both stupid and lazy!
On several occasions I have linked the Robinson & Catling radiative-convective model that explains temperatures on seven bodies in our solar system with astonishing accuracy.
For example, thanks to CO2 the temperature gradient in the Venusian stratosphere is anomalous (the gradient is negative).
Just take the time to understand the R&C model. Maybe that will improve your understanding to the point you will stop insulting your intellectual superiors (most of the people on this site).
–Just take the time to understand the R&C model.–
How does the R&C model explain the Ice Age we live in- the glacial and interglacial periods?
The R&C model cannot explain the glaciations that have occurred over the last 850,000 years because it does not include cloud layers.
I have been working on a model that includes cloud layers in the belief that varying cloud cover is a major factor in long term climate change. Milanlovitch cycles are important but clouds may also be significant.
So what could modulate cloud coverage? Jasper Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment at CERN and the work of Nir Shaviv suggests that matter ejected from the sun and cosmic rays are likely responsible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9gjU1T4XL4
–gallopingcamel says:
September 13, 2018 at 1:05 PM
The R&C model cannot explain the glaciations that have occurred over the last 850,000 years because it does not include cloud layers.–
Venus has cloud layers.
What would Venus temperature be if it did not have clouds.
How much sunlight would reflected if Venus had no clouds?
How much sunlight would be reflected if Earth had no clouds?
Why did say “last 850,000 years” instead last 2.8 million years or some number in between it?
“…I have been working on a model that includes cloud layers in the belief that varying cloud cover is a major factor in long term climate change. Milanlovitch cycles are important but clouds may also be significant.”
Many consider clouds having a large effect.
Since an ice age or icebox climate has cold oceans, how could clouds cool the ocean?
Kirby’s work at CERN so far suggests that GCR might have an influence on cloud formation, but that this influence is less significant than local processes.
Shaviv has been linking GCR with global temps for some time. Early work was very overconfident, and emphatic demonstration of the link remains elusive.
While at the Duke FEL laboratory, Nicola Scafetta occupied the office directly above mine.
Nicola used the ACRIM satellite to establish a correlation between solar particles and climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWFvA5K9ySE
You’ll complete the trifecta with Svensmark.
Promoting the views of those who share a certain view might lead the not-well-read to think that there isn’t much in the way of alternative opinion.
But there is plenty of alternative opinion – and those 3 scientists do not carry the weight of it. There is plenty of work showing a lack of correlation between GCR and cloud cover, and also GCR and global temperature.
CERN results are suggestive but by no means conclusive, as they say themselves. At this point it appears that GCR have less of an effect on cloud formation than local factors (2017 CERN paper).
Shaviv, Scafetta and Svensmark may end up being right about GCR/clouds/climate. But right now the jury is still out.
Just let people research and decide for themselves. There is no jury.
For example, thanks to CO2 the temperature gradient in the Venusian stratosphere is anomalous (the gradient is negative).
The tropospheric temp gradient is the same sign as Earth’s, as various probes have discovered on descent. It’s cooler near the top of the troposphere – at temps similar to earth surface – and much hotter down below.
The temperature gradient in the Venusian troposphere is very similar to that on Earth because the ratio -g/Cp is similar for both planets. The troposphere is much thicker on Venus which accounts for the high surface temperature. Also the TOA (Top of the Atmosphere) temperature is ~25 Kelvin hotter on Venus (compared to Earth).
In the stratosphere the situation changes. On Earth the temperature gradient reverses (goes positive), while on Venus it continues negative.
See Figure 1 in the Robinson & Catling NatGeo letter (December, 2013).
I didn’t read your initial post properly. My mistake – read atmosphere, where you said stratosphere.
How would you define stratosphere WRT to Venus? It could be said that it doesn’t have one.
The stratosphere on Venus occurs at a pressure of ~0.1 bar just as it does on the other six bodies in our solar system with dense atmospheres.
However most plots of temperature gradient have altitude on the Y-axis. Here is a link to a paper based on radio occultation (Magellan probe) that shows both pressure and altitude (Tellmann et al, 2008):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008JE003204
Figure 1 shows the troposphere ending at ~60 km and ~0.1 bar. Then there is a region of almost constant temperature followed by a resumption of a negative gradient that is not shown in the Tellmann paper.
Is the Robinson and Catling definition of stratosphere standard? Interestingly, the paper you provided makes no mention of the word stratosphere discussing the Venusian atmosphere, though it does speak of troposphere, tropopause and mesosphere.
I looked around for profiles of the Venusian atmosphere, and found most had a short positive gradient near the top, as there seems to be in fig 1. Makes sense, as the sulphur clouds reflect and insulate against solar radiation.
Norman…”Here F=ma. If you compare the change in acceleration at the top of the Stratosphere compared to the acceleration at the surface you get a direct change in the amount of force change”.
Einstein made that mistake, substituting acceleration for gravitational force and it lead him into a delusion about physical bodies changing length and time dilating as one neared the speed of light.
If you start messing with acceleration, rather than using forces, you take the chance of getting tied in knots.
You have to be very careful with acceleration because the human version is an illusion. In nature, there is such a phenomenon as acceleration, we can see it with our own eyes when we watch a dragster or an airplane accelerating. A change in velocity is apparent if it happens at a decent rate.
The problem is that we tried to quantify it, to give it units, and we had to invent time first. If you take f = ma, the ‘a’ represents a change of position in metres per second per second. We can write acceleration as dv/dt or d^2s/d^2t. Either way, we now have a time element in it.
Some are tempted to write a = f/m and that would be wrong since the human version of ‘a’ is proportional to time, an invention. F as force is real and m as mass is real, but ‘a’ is not real in terms of time.
When a force acts on a mass, two real entities are interacting. The result is a change in position that varies, but who the heck would notice that other than the human mind? A human can view the interaction and see ‘something’ happening, but it’s not really measurable.
Those who think physical bodies can change dimension at the speed of light, or that time can dilate, have fallen for that delusion.
Gordon Robertson
I have already read your philosophical view of time and it is interesting but your derived conclusions from it are not necessarily valid or real.
A real rate of change is as real as any other physical phenomena we observe. Mass, energy and force only exist in the observer as well. No one knows they can exist outside some type of observer.
You are only elaborating on the classic philosophical point that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?
Science cannot deal with the fundamental notion of reality. It assumes that there exists a real world that has values which can be measured. Rate of change can be measured against a fixed and known cyclic rate of change. So if you are using position as the observable change for an object, you use some known fixed value (say the second) to measure the rate of change of position in meters/second.
You can apply your logic to any natural phenomena.
YOU SAY: “When a force acts on a mass, two real entities are interacting. The result is a change in position that varies, but who the heck would notice that other than the human mind? A human can view the interaction and see ‘something’ happening, but it’s not really measurable.”
It is as measurable as anything else is. You put an object on a balance and on the opposing side you put some known standard weights. From this you can “measure” a mass for that object.
Other than an interesting philosophical discussion of reality, I do not know how this point applies to how much gravity changes as you go from the surface to the Stratosphere. The equations I provided will give you a percent change. The equations are quite valid as they are used to determine ballistic missile trajectories. If they assume time is not real or measurable and you can’t use it in any equation to come up with a final position, then the US would probably lose in any World War situation since they would have no way to program missile targets.
As you were already aware, Gordie is a science denier.
@Gordon Robertson,
“Einstein made that mistake, substituting acceleration for gravitational force and it lead him into a delusion about physical bodies changing length and time dilating as one neared the speed of light.”
While building the Duke FEL (Free Electron Laser) in 1995 we used 40 bending magnets to create a closed orbit for 1 GeV electrons. If we believed Newton’s F = ma the magnets would have been set at 5 Gauss.
In order for our synchrotron to work the magnets were set to 10,000 Gauss as predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. How does one explain the need for magnets to be 2,000 times more powerful than Newtonian mechanics predicted?
According to Einstein the velocity of light is a constant in non-rotating reference frames and that means mass, length and time have to be variables.
The relevant equations are m = ϒm0 and ϒ = 1/(sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)) where,
m = mass of particle in motion
m0 = rest mass of particle
v = velocity of particle
c = speed of light
One of the neat features of Einstein’s GTR is that it permits interstellar travel in a human life time:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/
Ship Time and Earth Time may be vastly different. Enjoy!
Thanks for trying to teach one of the most unteachable ‘skeptics’.
But over the long term this might be viewed as hopeless work.
In one or two weeks, you will see comments very similar to this one, as if you had never replied to it.
Merci beaucoup néanmoins!
binny…”Thanks for trying to teach one of the most unteachable skeptics”.
Said by a yes-man and authority figure fetishist who cannot rebut an argument on GTR by his own means.
“… who cannot rebut an argument on GTR by his own means.”
Exactly, Robertson.
But unlike you I am not an ignorant and pretentious boaster staying a life long on his primitive, egocentric narrative instead of learning, and thus keeps trying to rebut arguments he is absolutely unable to.
Stop contradicting people like gallopingcamel, whose knowledge and humility both are lightyears above yours!
Pure trolling from a confirmed sock-puppeteer.
Well well well.
Graham D. Warner horseplays without having much to say.
cam…”In order for our synchrotron to work the magnets were set to 10,000 Gauss as predicted by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. How does one explain the need for magnets to be 2,000 times more powerful than Newtonian mechanics predicted?”
We both know that Newtonian mechanics fails at the atomic level. I have no argument with Einstein’s GTR in principle, when velocities are much slower than the speed of light. My beef is with the outrageous presumptions made in the GTR that physical objects change dimensions and time dilates as the SOL is approached.
Einstein’s GTR is not much different than what can be calculated by Newtonian physics for bodies much larger than atomic size traveling at terrestrial velocities. Einstein admitted that.
I wonder if you’d be good enough to explain why you had to adjust your magnet sizes. What does it have to do with time, time dilation, or the change in dimensions of objects as they approach SOL.
I am not being facetious, I’d like to hear the explanation. I am willing to bet you could explain it without reference to time, by focusing on the forces involved.
After decades of adoration for Einstein, it came as a rude shock to me to realize the erroneous presumptions he made in GTR. In the paper itself, he claimed time is the hands on a clock. I’m serious, read it.
What an incredibly dumb foundation for a theory on relativity. He did not seem to be aware that time has no existence and that the human mind gets involved in time calculations related to relativity, imposing conditions that are simply not true.
In the following article by an expert on time, Einstein’s GTR is described as not even being a theory.
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/
Dr. Louis Essen is the inventor of the atomic clock. He claimed, “I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement). There is really no more to be said about the paradox, but many thousands of words have been written nevertheless. In my view, these tend to confuse the issue. One aspect of this subject which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border line of what can be measured”.
In another dissenting article, Dr. Eugene Gendlin asserted that Einstein had mistakenly equated time to physical phenomena to which time cannot possibly be related. From that came the notion that physical objects change dimensions as they approach the speed of light and that time itself dilates.
That’s a preposterous assumption. How can something that does not exist in reality dilate? We invented time, basing it on the period of the Earth’s rotation. Time exists only in the human mind where it has been entrenched in human memory as past events and imaginary future events based on past experience.
Space-time nonsense evolved from the GTR. Astronomer Wal Thornhill put it aptly when he claimed space-time imposed a 4th dimension of time on a 3-D universe. The 4th dimension does not exist and even the 3-D is shaky. There is of necessity a depth element in the universe but humans imposed a coordinate system on the reality then added a 4th dimension arbitrarily based on the human invention of time.
From that point on, science evolved based on illusions inherent in the human mind. We began including time in calculations with the presumption that time could be an independent variable, which is nonsense.
When you look at Newton II, f = ma, the basis of the formula is that a force applied to a mass causes it to change position, given certain initial conditions. However, when you transpose the equation to read a = f/m, the basis becomes nonsense.
‘a’, with it’s roots in the human invention of time, does not equal f/m in reality. You cannot derive time from force and mass, even though Einstein seemed to think that.
@Gordon,
When in high school it never occurred to me that Einstein’s GTR would ever matter in my everyday life yet I ended up building an accelerator that convincingly confirms the theory.
In the accelerator situation one frame of reference is the laboratory. The electrons have another frame of reference that is moving relative to the laboratory frame.
When things are moving really fast it is usually difficult to make measurements on objects in the moving frame but in the case of a synchrotron the electrons are in a closed orbit so you can interact with them using magnetic fields, electric fields, photons, electrons, protons or whatever.
The magnet example shows that mass is variable. We also arranged for visible photons (energy ~2 eV) to interact with the 1 GeV (gamma = 2,000), a process known as Inverse Compton Scattering.
According to the GTR a head on collision will convert the photon into a gamma ray with an energy given by this equation:
e = e0.4ϒ^2 = 2*4*2,000*2,000 = 32 MeV
Where,
e = scattered photon energy
e0 = input photon energy…….2 eV in this example
ϒ = 1/(sqrt (1-v^2/c^2))…….2,000 in this example
This truly amazing prediction was also verified by observation. Here is a link to the Duke HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source):
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
A more important use of Einstein’s Special and General Theories of Relativity is in GPS systems. Absent relativistic corrections your GPS system would become useless within a matter of hours. Here are the two main corrections but there are smaller corrections that depend on velocity and acceleration of the GPS satellite relative to the GPS receiver:
1. Gravitation clock correction. Clocks run faster when subjected to a lower gravitational field. This GTR effect amounts to a constant frequency error of about 0.5 parts per billion or ~46 microseconds/day
2. Acceleration clock correction. Because the GPS satellite is in an orbit around the Earth it has a velocity of ~4 km per second which causes a constant frequency error = 0.1 parts per billion or ~0.7 microseconds per day.
cam…”In the accelerator situation one frame of reference is the laboratory. The electrons have another frame of reference that is moving relative to the laboratory frame”.
I can’t visualize an electron as being in a different reference frame. For that to be the case, the entire cyclotron would have to be moving relative to the laboratory. Either that, or you’d have to consider some kind of aether in which the electron is moving.
This is the crux of my objection to GTR in it’s extreme. As I said, GTR at terrestrial speeds is no different than what can be calculated using the Newtonian relativity.
I think many people get the impression that Einstein invented relativity. It was in place long before him. What he did was remove absolutes, which was based more on metaphysics than on experiment. There are many scientists who have questioned his claims, which have no experimental evidence to back them.
If you have a clock in the reference frame of Earth, the clock is synchronized to a time base in Greenwich, England. The Greenwich time base is synched to the rotation of the planet, therefore a second is a subdivision of the period of the Earth’s rotation.
Take that same clock and put it in another reference frame, say on Mars. GRT claims that clock will run at a different speed hence a different time. Einstein went so far as to claim that a clock at the Equator would run slower than a clock at the North Pole.
Come on, this is metaphysical garbage. There is not an iota of evidence to back it. What we are really measuring with time is change in distance. When we observe an object in motion and time it, we are actually measuring the physical difference it moves from one point to another.
Einstein claimed that an observer in one reference frame, with clock in hand, measuring motion on another reference frame moving relative to the first platform will see a change in dimensions and time.
Well, duh!!! Yes, the human mind is not capable of moving on one platform and assessing motion on another. It can’t even accurately estimate lengths at a distance when the objects are on an angle.
To me, that was Einstein’s crucial error. He presumed that what the observer sees is accurate. He went so far as to talk about stationary vision as opposed to kinematic vision. For example, a human observing a circle on another platform that is stopped relative to his platform will see a circle. When the other platform is in motion, the circle will become more oblate (kinematic vision). That is a distortion created by the human mind, not an actual change in the circle.
How could he allow himself to become so wrapped up in metaphysics that he could not figure that out? That’s my real disappointment. I had regarded Einstein as a champion of physics. With regard to the excesses of quantum theory, Einstein remained on the side of observation and reality. With the GRT, he allowed himself to stray into metaphysics, abandoning the scientific method for thought experiments.
As far as GPS systems go, I don’t disagree in the least that relativity is an issue. However, GPS sats move at terrestrial speeds and the SOL part of the GRT equation does not apply. You can work that out using Newtonian relativity.
It annoys me when people talk about time dilation in the atomic clocks of GPS systems. That is so much bs. As you claim, they may be affected by gravity but a rusty old alarm clock would be affected differently. Therefore time becomes depended on the machine that GENERATES it.
Atomic clocks are generally synched to Greenwich. GPS systems use different time systems than the ground stations so they have to synch the atomic clocks differently. Obviously they need some means of keeping them in sync with the ground station clocks but that can be done using equalizing pulse telemetry from the surface.
It takes time for those signals to travel from ground station to sats and the sats are constantly in motion. GRT is not required for that, it is serious overkill. I could work it out basically using first year relativity featuring translating axes.
With today’s technology we could measure motion and time on different platforms then compare them. I will bet dollars to donuts that neither time nor distance change relative to each other.
How much does an error of one microsecond matter to your GPS phone?
Grace Hopper explains much better that I can!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=JEpsKnWZrJ8
There you have it…….943 feet per microsecond.
@Gordon,
“I can’t visualize an electron as being in a different reference frame.”
Einstein’s GTR is really weird but it is simple compared to the QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) and the QFT (Quantum Field Theory) that apply at atomic scales. Let me have another crack at this.
Imagine that the electron in orbit inside a circular synchrotron tube is a spaceship and you are a passenger on that spaceship. Let’s assume you weigh 100 kg……according to the people in the laboratory your mass is 200 tonnes.
Meanwhile inside the spaceship everything is normal. Your weight still appears to be 100 kg so you can walk around as exactly as you could when the spaceship was at rest. Newton’s F = ma appears to work in the spaceship reference frame.
Back in the laboratory we can see you moving around without any problems except you are moving 2,000 times slower than we expect. Thus time has slowed down by a factor of 2,000 so that F = ma also seems to work in the laboratory reference frame.
I can’t intuitively comprehend this any better than you can but the equations predict things that keep getting confirmed by observations.
cam…”Back in the laboratory we can see you moving around without any problems except you are moving 2,000 times slower than we expect. Thus time has slowed down by a factor of 2,000 so that F = ma also seems to work in the laboratory reference frame”.
Don’t you see the issue, it’s the distortion of the human mind? The observers mind is faulty, but that particular observer is not aware of the problem. In Zen, that is called the Cosmic Joke and Einstein fell for it.
Einstein missed that and he created a mathematical situation that seems to work at terrestrial velocities but which leads to ridiculous conclusions about time and dimensions closer to the SOL.
Think this thing through. How can time slow down when it is based on the second which is derived from dividing down the period of the Earth’s rotation? For it to slow down, the planet’s angular velocity would have to slow down.
1 second is one Earth rotation divided by 86,400.
There is a better solution. Take time out of the observation and get into the actual forces involved. Take the observer out of it. Take the human mind out of it and try to visualize the situation as machines present in each frame would sense the data.
If you have machines measuring time and dimensions on another frame, and they send the data back to you in your frame, would time based on the rotation of the planet, or dimensions of a rod, change?
I don’t think so. Like I said, the Earth would have to change its angular velocity.
cam…another thought.
Newton was right, time is absolute. As long as the Earth’s angular velocity is relatively constant and time is derived from it, time will be relatively absolute.
It appears Einstein fell victim to thought experiments. When one dabbles with logic via the human mind, in thought experiments, one is subject to the illusions created by the human mind. We all talk about the Sun rising and setting, which are both illusions. It’s the horizon setting and rising respectively.
Unless we keep a check on such illusions through an on-going awareness, we can slip into assumptions that are invalid. Time is an illusion yet many eminent scientists speak of it as if it exists as an unexplained dimension.
When you involve time in a thought experiment, you have to be mighty careful, not to mention very aware. Time is a tool we invented to keep tract of change, especially changes in rates. If we entertain illusions that time is a real phenomenon like a force or a mass, we can get ourselves into trouble.
Einstein must have been aware of that to an extent. When asked if his theories suggested we could travel through time, he retorted that he did not say that. However, in his paper on GRT he claimed time is the hands on a clock.
I found that statement to be poorly thought out. He should have known that the second is based on the period of the Earth’s rotation, and that it is fixed.
@Gordon,
Zen and cosmic jokes are way above my pay grade!
My approach as a physicist and engineer is to find which equations appear to match observations and which do not.
In our earlier discussions I have quoted various equations that depend on “Beta” where:
β = v/c…….velocity expressed as a ratio to the speed of light
and “Gamma” where:
ϒ = 1/(sqrt (1-v^2/c^2))
I have cited various examples where equations involving these quantities are needed to make things work:
1. Relativistic synchrotrons
2. Machines based on Inverse Compton Scattering
3. GPS systems
The decay of π mesons (aka charged pions) provides another example. This meson has a life of 26 nanoseconds when at rest but its observed lifetime increases as velocity increases. The lifetime is directly proportional to Gamma according to example 1.11 that you can see here:
https://www.phas.ubc.ca/~mcmillan/rqpdfs/1_relativity.pdf
In this example β = 0.95 and that means that ϒ = 3.2026
Thus the particle lifetime should increase by a factor of more than three to one (from 26.0 to 83.3 nanoseconds). This relationship matches what is observed.
There are doubts about Einstein’s GRT. For example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury is not exactly what the GTR says it should be. Einstein himself was working on a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) and there are plenty of others following in his footsteps.
All this stuff is real science because it can be reproduced and the results compared to theory. When you apply this approach to “Climate Science” you find that very little of it can properly be called “Science”. Dr. Roy’s work excepted of course!
For those who pretend me to be a sophist (là, c'est vraiment l'Hôpital qui se moque de la Charité) I repeat.
If the graph below
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/c4-vs-h3.png
is ‘absolutely correct’ (an ‘observation’, wow), then the following graphs
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C57C00000578-4192182-image-a-90_1486249374130.jpg
or
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/compress:6/plot/uah6/compress:6
or even
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah5/compress:3/offset:-0.1/plot/uah6/compress:3/to:2017
– showing my nonsensical ‘observation’ that UAH6.0 would be ‘warmer’ than UAH5.6, oh dear! –
are ‘absolutely correct’ as well.
That is sheer nonsense. You can’t simply shift baselined data along the y axis as you want, as anomalies are created wrt the mean of a given reference period.
But I know: for so-called ‘skeptics’ anything can be done what fits to their egocentric narrative – regardless wether or not it is correct.
To use data correctly has NOTHING to do with any kind of sophistry.
—
Here is a perfect example of sophism:
“These curves are not fixed on the y-axis, you can move them as you wish. Offset, baseline, normal period, are purely arbitrary notions.”
—
Un sophisme est une argumentation à la logique fallacieuse. C'est un raisonnement qui cherche à paraître rigoureux mais qui n'est en réalité pas valide au sens de la logique (quand bien même sa conclusion serait pourtant la « vraie »).
i.e.
A sophism is an argument to fallacious logic. It is a reasoning that seeks to appear rigorous but that is actually not valid in the sense of logic (even if its conclusion would be the “true”).
*Facepalm*
Exactly as anticipated… thanks for intelligent confirmation.
binny…”If the graph below
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/c4-vs-h3.png
is absolutely correct (an observation, wow), then the following graphs….
“You cant simply shift baselined data along the y axis as you want, as anomalies are created wrt the mean of a given reference period”.
**********
I did not think it possible for you to be any more of an idiot than you were already.
Kristian is simply shifting graphs to compare them, not to assert anything about anomalies. He was asking why temperatures over land have increased at a much faster rate than temperatures over the ocean.
If you had taken the time to read his article, that would have become plain.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/why-there-is-no-reason-for-you-to-trust-the-official-global-temperature-records/#more-4600
Rather you shot your mouth off without having the slightest idea what was going on.
obtuse….annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
Barry you are in denial.
Here is what it comes down to Barry. If AGW is real let us see what it does in the face of natural climatic factors now pretty much transitioned into a cold mode as opposed to being in an all out warm mode for decades prior to year 2005.
Now moving forward will tell the story. It is a very clear cut situation.
If they continue up AGW is in, if they go down it is out.
Where this continuance is measured on time scales of at least a decade.
Exactly, Bob.
Barry you are in denial.
Of what?
That you are just trolling.
The only problem for them(AGW LOVERS) is the global temperature trend has turned lower (late year 2017) and it is going to continue lower as we move forward for several years.
As the magnetic fields weaken it should grow colder.
Let’ see what AGW is made of . Up to year 2005 all natural factors influencing the climate were in a warm mode for several decades(which is why the global temperatures went up). Then post 2005 the natural factors STARTED to transitioned to a colder mode with this transition just about complete (now).
So if AGW is real the global temperatures should continue to rise(in the face of natural factors in a cold mode), if it is not real global temperatures which have been falling will continue to fall moving forward and many of the items I listed below will not materialize.
SIGNS IT IS HAPPENING.
Global snow cover as of today above normal.
Overall oceanic sea surface temperatures lower then a year ago.
Global avg. temperatures trending lower last year or two.
Earthquakes magnitude 4.0 higher increasing dramatically up 30% over the last month.
Atmospheric circulation less zonal more meridional.
Polar vortex no longer contracting northward.
Global cloud coverage? I think it is increasing now.
AMO possible flip to cold mode. PDO no longer in strong warm mode.
(less el nino if PDO not in strong warm mode).
I have called for this in the face of AGW , I have called for this before it happened and I have called for this based on weakening magnetic fields.
The PDO has not been in a “strong warm mode” since 1998.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319850
Funny how Mikey doesn’t know the difference between Mercury and Venus. Apparently Mercury has a cloud cover … hahaha
Funny how you missed Mike Flynn’s acknowledgement of his mistake:
“Define senile. I choose stupidity – B wrote Mercury, I saw Venus.”
Hi Mikey!
Ridiculous. Especially when actual sock-puppets like Bindidon/La Pangolina pass under your radar without any complaint.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=snow+lab+rutgers&qs=HS&pq=snow+lab&sc=8-8&cvid=F74C289D208545E7ABD4098705CF9600&FORM=QBRE&sp=1
global snow cover
Do you mean this?
https://eldoradoweather.com/climate/world-maps/world-snow-ice-cover.html
No. it is rutgars snow lab website.
I know… You misunderstood my little bit of /sarc
binny…”I know You misunderstood my little bit of /sarc”
So, you and La Pag are one and the same. Thought so.
Hey, Svante, where are you? Bindidon/La Pangolina, sock puppets! You know, you falsely accused me of being a JD Huffman sock puppet earlier:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319006
Come on, Svante. Dont be a pathetic, obnoxious little troll your entire life. Come and give Bindidon/La Pangolina a hard time for ACTUALLY doing what you falsely accused me of.
Oh, Bindidon: never and ever would you be courageous enough to try such disgusting tactics on Climate etc, or WUWT, would you? You would be banned there within a day. Right? Right, Bindidon, you self-righteous, pompous, sophist trolling idiot?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319592
As usual, Robertson has it wrong. How could it be else?
You don’t ‘think so’, Robertson. You either guess or pretend.
It was at least the third time these weeks that I went into Rose’s browser instead of into mine.
And ooops! I appeared by default as La Pangolina.
I have no problem with whatever you might pretend, Robertson.
And Dr Roys Emergency Pseudomoderation Team, who begins to insult as if he was a clone or a gullible disciple of Robertson, has it wrong too.
I did never insult you. But if you now begin to insult me, you will be treated the same way as Robertson, who started to name Rose and me (and many other persons here) ‘idiot’s all the time whenever he thinks we ot they are wrong.
I would never insult anybody at WUWT or Judith Curry’s Climate Etc or Steve McIntyre’s Cimate Audit like Robertson (or Flynn) use to do here.
The pseudonym you have chosen moreover is exactly the opposite of what you are doing here. And it’s also an abuse of Roy Spencer’s name.
Never would Roy Spencer, whom I consider be an apparently consensual and harmonious person, allow an UAH employee, let alone one of his students, to insult commentators in his name.
Most amusing, Bindidon. Your cover story makes absolutely no sense, then you try to lecture me about your own invented idea of what I say and do.
You apparently expect people to believe that you commented by accident as La Pangolina, and then, three hours later, being completely able to see that you had posted as La Pangolina, chose to respond as Bindidon, with no thought to explain to anyone the mix up!
Bindidon, you have been caught using a sock puppet, and you lack the integrity to admit it. So you are in no position to lecture anybody.
binny…”It was at least the third time these weeks that I went into Rose’s browser instead of into mine”
The browser has nothing to do with it. As it stands on Roy’s blog you have to sign in each time you post. So you posted as La P then you replied as Bindidon.
Why are you playing this bizarre game?
To Robertson and the immoderate
You are both such ignorant boasters!
Never heard about an add-on called Autofill?
La Pangolidon, I personally have no problem believing that you use two different browsers for your two identities. That would help you to keep things separate. Sadly, it didnt keep you from making the mistake that you did.
Now, if you had responded here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320450
as La Pangolina, and said that you had gone into the Bindidon browser by mistake, your cover story might have made some sense. I still wouldnt have believed you, of course.
But a telephone call between stars requires a lot of patience.
So, where are they? could be they lack patience and/or have not invented faster than light communications.
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/
snow cover way above average!
I love weather!
Do you mean this?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536884491619/001.jpg
/sarc
Sal
I’m not seeing what you are:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=8
********
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2018&ui_month=8&ui_set=2
Snape it is right there. click the web-site I sent then click departure from normal
click daily then click departure
Ok. Thanks.
Cool website.
“Insulation may not be sexy, but it is important. Over the past years weve seen leaps and bounds towards creating cheaper, thinner, more breathable materials with higher R-values. There still isnt one insulation out there that has all the best characteristics, but Aerogel is one of the top contenders. This space-age material has the lowest bulk density of any known porous solid as well as some incredible insulating qualities, and recently two companies rolled out Aerogel sheets that make installations a breeze.”
https://inhabitat.com/exciting-advances-in-insulation-with-aerogel/
gbaikie…”Aerogel is one of the top contenders.”
I’ve looking for something to protect nearby components on circuit boards when I use a hot air gun to melt the solder on tiny IC chips.
The hot air puts out 200C – 500C.
Wiki:
“Aerogel is a synthetic porous ultralight material derived from a gel, in which the liquid component for the gel has been replaced with a gas.[4] The result is a solid with extremely low density[5] and low thermal conductivity. Nicknames include frozen smoke,[6] solid smoke, solid air, solid cloud, blue smoke owing to its translucent nature and the way light scatters in the material. It feels like fragile expanded polystyrene to the touch. Aerogels can be made from a variety of chemical compounds.
Aerogel was first created by Samuel Stephens Kistler in 1931, as a result of a bet[8] with Charles Learned over who could replace the liquid in “jellies” with gas without causing shrinkage.
Aerogels are produced by extracting the liquid component of a gel through supercritical drying. This allows the liquid to be slowly dried off without causing the solid matrix in the gel to collapse from capillary action, as would happen with conventional evaporation. The first aerogels were produced from silica gels. Kistler’s later work involved aerogels based on alumina, chromia and tin dioxide. Carbon aerogels were first developed in the late 1980s.
Aerogel is not a single material with a set chemical formula, instead the term is used to group all materials with a certain geometric structure.”
Gordon-
I thought it interesting that Aerogel is be sold, so quoted the ad. Also thought interesting because that product seems flexible, but I have not bought any and I can’t tell which products are best, and as wiki says, “Aerogel is not a single material…”
Also I think the thin layer of dust on lunar surface [or Mercury surface] is kind of like Aerogel. Or gives a clue of how well lunar dust insulates.
gbaikie….”Also I think the thin layer of dust on lunar surface [or Mercury surface] is kind of like Aerogel. Or gives a clue of how well lunar dust insulates”.
Amazing stuff out there in the universe, wish I could stick around till they get advanced enough to explore it.
I have been watching the planetary show this summer with Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. The skies have been overcast lately and I only catch glimpses of Mars through the clouds. It’s amazingly bright with the Sun shining on it from over the horizon.
Kind of miss them all when they are not visible.
gbaikie…”I thought it interesting that Aerogel is be sold, so quoted the ad. Also thought interesting because that product seems flexible….”
I enjoyed your blurb on aerogel, I was kidding about the insulation, although it’s an issue when using a hot air source to melt solder on chips that are 3mm x 3mm with 8 pins. Especially when the pins are folded under and barely show.
The trick in removing them is to us lots of flux around the pins, then heat with hot air. The whole chip begins to float in it and you can push it off its mounts or pick it up with tweezers. Putting a new one on is another matter.
The hot air devices have narrow attachable nozzles to direct the air.
When I worked on construction sites the welders used a material called fire blanket. It’s thin like a plastic tarp and it’s very resistant to fire. I have a small chunk I retrieved from a site.
That would be sad. I gave those as an example among many. Please compare QCU and QCA and check what averages you get. Ask yourself why does QCA have -99.99 on many measurements and not on others. I do agree Panama does not change the world but it is a good example what causes the bias. I am travelling today but I have prepared anomalies. I can post tomorrow if you are still listening.
This was in response to something far above. Must have clicked the wrong response link on the iPhone.
My response to this got added at the end of this thread.
Has anyone else noticed how Salvatore disappears when the global SST rises then returns again when it falls?
I am right here. I am glad your watching the data. We shall see.
wiki:
–Earth Effective Temperature
Main article: Earth’s energy budget
Let’s look at the Earth. The Earth has an albedo of about 0.306.
The emissivity is dependent on the type of surface and many climate models set the value of the Earth’s emissivity to 1. However, a more realistic value is 0.96. The Earth is a fairly fast rotator so the area ratio can be estimated as 1/4.
The other variables are constant. This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252 K (−21 °C). The average temperature of the Earth is 288 K (15 °C). One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Surface_temperature_of_a_planet
No doubt some will complain about using wiki as reference.
It’s Sunday morning in high desert and it’s quite cold- and probably be colder if the night was longer. But Earth’s average temperature has to do with Earth being a planet mostly covered with an ocean.
I would say having a ocean makes Earth similar to Ideal thermally conductive blackbody- in some ways. Of course an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody doesn’t evaporate water, but one can loosely imagine the evaporation of water helps Earth transport heat globally. And the magic of Ideal thermally conductive blackbody model is the ability to transport heat globally- instantaneously.
And rotating at 500 mph, also helps.
That an ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth distance would be about 5 C and the average temperature of ocean is about 3.5 C is an interesting coincidence.
Though during our icebox climate the ocean average varies 1 to 5 C, though roughly for most Earth history [not in an ice age/icebox climate] it’s about 10 C.
Of course models never provide answers, rather their purpose is to provide clues and related to this aspect that an ideal thermal conductive blackbody has any use.
I also think nutty ideas of model which indicates Earth could have average temperature of 252 K or 255 K could provide clues.
The Moon has about this average temperature, but it has uneven temperature, quite surface during day if close to equator and very cold nights.
Earth has uneven average temperatures- tropics about 26 C and Russia with average temperature of about -4 C [and Antarctica about -50 C].
Anyhow, were Earth to have average of 252 K, one should assume the temperature would not be uniform like the magical ideal thermal conductive blackbody model. And roughly it should be warmer at equator and colder at the poles.
Now, the Earth’s tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world and one could ask, what if Earth didn’t have this heat engine?
What if lacked an ocean which warmed to rest of the world.
It does make not topical region particularly cooler, rather it makes the rest of the world much colder.
Or Russia gets much lower average temperature than -4 C. And also makes Antarctica much colder.
The huge pile of ice on Antarctica, could be said to making Antarctica cold, but likewise one can say, it evidence that it was made warm- there is evidence of all that latent heat from all that condensation and forming of ice. It’s huge monument of vast amounts of heat of the past.
An interesting thing about weird idea of ice cap melting and raising sea levels by say 5 meters. That is sort of like imagining this 5 meters of ice covers the entire ocean. And that “huge monument of vast amounts of heat of the past” does not warm instead it makes the entire ocean get quite cold. We have global average ocean surface of 17 C which loses that war with 5 meters of ice.
But anyhow what does world colder than Earth has ever been, look like. One could merely say it’s impossible because Earth has atmosphere or you have to move Earth further from the Sun.
So let’s move Earth far enough from the sun so it’s has average temperature of 252 K.
Is Mars distance far enough?
MrZ
“My response to this got added at the end of this thread.”
You’re not alone. I used to be able to post comments wherever I wanted, now I’m stuck down here. 😥
I’ve done a few test posts, and they all went where I posted them.
Thanks, I thought it was me or worse the iPhone. 👍
MrZ…”Thanks, I thought it was me or worse the iPhone. ”
Egad!! iPhones use a toy operating system.
I bought myself a Samsung equivalent and after a few days of playing with it I realized it was a bad computer system covering for a phone. The Samsung was using the Android OS, which in my educated opinion, is fairly useless. Most of the Smartphone OSes are geared to playing games, operating calendars, running mini keyboards, touch-screen, etc.
With an OS like Windows, or Linus, you have access to lower level functions via programming. I could not see the equivalent on the Android OS and realized all I had was an overly bulky computer running a phone as an accessory. So I returned it and fired up by old flip top.
I also prefer the real thing for two reasons.
I can type more accurately and I can see my spellos. On a mobile device I fail on both.
Try the Android SDK Gordon:
https://developer.android.com/studio/
Des
I can post where I want if I use an iPad or laptop. It’s my iPhone that’s the problem.
Nothing changed on my end, and yet one day my phone started posting at the bottom.
It happened to me a couple of weeks ago on my laptop. On each occasion, I had started typing before realising I was replying to the wrong comment. So I hit cancel, and then replied to the correct comment, but my reply was thrown to the bottom of the thread. I wonder if your phone could be confusing it in a similar way?
It is also annoying that our details are still not being retained from post to post. Perhaps it is time for Mr Spencer to look for a different blog site.
I wish we could edit our post once they were sent. WUWT site has that feature.
Then again Dr. Spencer unlike many other site allows us to express our thoughts more.
Do you think it is good that he allows people like “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team” to ‘express their thoughts’?
Most definitely!
☺
Former commenter Bob and former commenter Des and former commenter Bond and current commenter Bobdesbond, its no surprise you dont like being called out for your trolling. Tough.
Yeah, nice try Mikey/JDHuffman/g.e.r.a.n/DREMT. Not sure why you feel the need to mention all my names, as though I have somehow not made it obvious that all belong to me, and not already explained my reason for using them.
DREMT, you have been caught using a sock puppet, and you lack the integrity to admit it. So you are in no position to lecture anybody.
bob…”Do you think it is good that he allows people like Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team to express their thoughts?”
Comic relief is a good deal on a blog. Problem is, all your stuff is comic relief and you are serious about it.
Ahhh … the conservaturd’s idea of ‘comedy’.
Where was I caught using a sock puppet, former commenter Bob and former commenter Des and former commenter Bond, and current commenter Bobdesbond?
Every time you post, former commenter g.e.r.a.n and current commenter JDHuffman and current commenter Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team.
So…in your imagination then.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Former commenter Bob and former commenter Des and former commenter Bond and current commenter Bobdesbond, remind me: what was that explanation for the different names again? Didnt you use more than one of them within the same thread one time?
Indeed I did … that was the time I explained why I had changed my names. As you’ve already seen that thread, you already know the reason.
Sock puppeteers always have their excuses. I cant remember yours, but Im sure it was a hoot.
A sock puppeteer is someone who uses different names without admitting to it for the purpose of ganging up on someone, and typically have them talking to each other. Like yourself.
I have never had my names talking to each other, have been completely candid about my use of more than one name, have explained precisely why I changed names, have only overlapped them in the particular thread where I explained why I changed them, and have in fact chosen a name which is designed to show all of my previous names. Unlike yourself.
The problem for your argument is that I am not JD Huffman or Mike Flynn. I am amused by the constant false accusations to that effect, whilst you ignore true sock-poppetry in others that you choose not to attack, and try to justify your own odd behaviour.
Are you claiming that when you first appeared on this site, you decided “I will call myself ‘Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team’ and tell everyone to ‘stop trolling’ “, without making ANY contribution to the scientific discussion?
THAT sounds like odd behaviour.
“whilst you ignore true sock-poppetry in others that you choose not to attack”
While YOU ignore trolling in others, such as Mike Flynn and JDHuffman that you choose not to attack. Why is that?
Thats it, former commenter Bob and former commenter Des and former commenter Bond and current commenter Bobdesbond: when the going gets tough, just change the subject.
You mean – When the going get’s tough, ignore the difficult questions. We both know why you had to do that.
Bobdesbonddesbobdesbobdesbond, I feel absolutely no obligation to justify anything that I do here. There are plenty more people besides Gordon, Mike and JD that I dont ask to stop trolling. You are just obsessed with certain people. That isnt my problem. Im perfectly happy with who I am and what I do here. Perhaps one day you will be the same. Fingers crossed.
That’s funny – I didn’t mention Gordon.
That only regular who is not a denier that I have not seen you troll with your hypocritical ‘stop trolling’ comment is Barry. You seem to be trying to claim that there is no denier/non-denier bias in your choice of who you troll.
Of course you are ‘comfortable’, in the same way that Trump is comfortable being a self-obsessed, misogynistic, racist moron.
Its not really funny at all BDBDB. People have often whinged about Gordon.
I am not trying to claim what you say I am trying to claim.
Try to be less bitter. Not really sure what else there is to say to you. Why are you still talking to me?
Good – so you agree that you are presenting a bias in your choice of attackees. Glad that’s sorted.
Note that our entire discussion exists under MY post. Why are YOU still talking to ME ?
I am still talking to you because I find your oddly aggressive, petulant behaviour (not to mention your tendency to jump to conclusions) most entertaining.
That’s odd – that’s the precise reason I am still talking to you.
So, I guess that means you finally agree that its good that I am allowed to express my thoughts, after all. I knew you would come round if you just prised open that mind of yours a tiny bit.
One has to wonder what comprehensional defect would cause you to believe that I think it’s good that you are allowed to express your thoughts. Let’s face it – it’s either an issue with your comprehension, or it is a case of more trolling by you. Take your pick.
So when you said that was the precise reason you were still talking to me, after I had said that I found your comments entertaining, you were lying? You dont find my comments entertaining? Or, are you saying that you dont think entertaining comments should be expressed? Or, was it simply that you didnt have any decent comeback to my comment, so you just wrote a comment that was really nothing more than saying, same back to you! Like a child.
Doesnt really matter. The main thing is that you have again confirmed you are pro-censorship.
Myself, I would never want anyone banned. I believe in freedom of speech. I simply ask that people stop trolling, but its entirely up to them whether they choose to do so or not.
It was clear I was referring to “your oddly aggressive, petulant behaviour (not to mention your tendency to jump to conclusions)”.
Your (deliberate?) comprehension defect is on display yet again.
Without finding that behaviour entertaining, saying it is a reason to continue talking to someone makes no sense.
So you are pro-censorship, and illogical. Well, I suppose the two go hand in hand.
So the only reason for continuing to talk to someone is if you find them interesting?? And it makes no sense to talk to them otherwise?? You certainly are a spin doctor.
Your (deliberate?) comprehension defect is on display yet again.
Salvatore will be happy to know that at this early stage (up to Sep 14) we seem to be on track for another fall in UAH. At the moment I have it at around +0.13, and probably going lower.
We have a long way to go, before I am going to say the data supports that I am correct.
Oceanic sea surface temperatures have warmed of late ,have to see where they go. That is the key.
And your North Atlantic cold spot has dissipated.
Again we will have to see how it goes.
I had a lengthy discussion with Bindidon above. He gave up on me based on some silly misunderstanding from his side.
Anyway, for those interested here is the result how the QCA (Adjusted) differ from QCU (unadjusted) in the GHCNM v3 TAVG data set. http://cfys.nu/graphs/QCA_QCU_Anomaly_Comparison.png
My claim is that QCU shows a warming trend of 0.54 degree C per century.
QCA shows a warming trend of 0.82 degree C. (This is for January months 1900 to 2017)
I have done this before like many others but I have not seen it reported this detailed.
Please feel free to debunk it. I decided to stay with one month to make debunking easier.
Bindidon you are of course also welcome.
I would also like to know if it would be worth the effort to put this in a report. Then of course covering the whole year.
I have put many details in here: http://cfys.nu/graphs/GHCNMStationHistoryRev2.xls
-The “Manual Validation” TAB shows one random grid cell in full detail.
-The “Gridded Results” TAB. Shows a QCA/QCU Baseline Comparison. This has also implication on the QCA/QCU trends. I have yet to come up with the best way to substantiate that.
If you want the processed data files let me know.
I’ll park this here waiting for your feedback. Because this thread is so long I will repeat this next time the subject comes up.
No MrZ, I ‘did not give up’ on you.
I decided to keep away from a fruitless discussion about adjustments performed on stations like ‘David’ or ‘Los Naranjos’ in Panama having had a life time of 10 (!) years.
I had discussions like that 3 years ago, an do not want to restart them. Non merci!
But nevertheless I see your actual results wich are really wondering me.
*
First question: why do you restrict your analysis on January months?
Second question: how is it possible to obtain your trend values?
When compared with GISS land or NOAA land time series, GHCN V3 is much rawer, and always shows linear estimates way higher than the former two due to the lack of homogenisation.
Moreover, the difference between GHCN unadj and adj is sometimes amazingly high (in both directions) at the level of single stations, but has always been very small when comparing the average of all stations.
Trend in C / decade for 1880-2018
GISS land: 0.104
NOAA land: 0.105
GHCN V3 unadj: 0.220
GHCN V3 adj: 0.236
GHCN V3 unadj for all Januaries: 0.305
*
P.S. I suppose we at least agree on this, your distribution seems to be quite similar:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1537223325802/001.jpg
When compared with GISS land or NOAA land time series, GHCN V3 is much rawer, and always shows linear estimates way higher than the former two due to the lack of homogenisation.
Certainly not.
The trend is apparently sensitive to the method used for aggregation! If you compare stations actually active in the middle and at the end of the 20th century, you will find that the GHCN adjustments produce without surprise an increase of the trend of the order of 0.06 ° C per decade. This is perfectly consistent with known regional cases.
phi,
“The trend is apparently sensitive to the method used for aggregation! ”
Spot on!
I have done these calculations several times but always in a hasty manner. This time I wanted to do it in well documented repeatable steps.
Would you have time and energy to review what is in the StationHistory link above?
I would appreciate it a lot, especially if you find any gaps in my method.
I did not consult your document but I have two remarks.
The first is that given the relatively small number of stations usable with the anomaly method, it seems to me that 100 km cells are too small to effectively improve the spatial representativeness.
The second is more general. Although the techniques may vary, the general principle of index construction is to neglect the values of the temperatures in favor of the short-term trends of homogeneous segments (between discontinuities). This in fact means averaging the dT/dt of the homogeneous segments and integrating the result to obtain anomalies.
BEST does not make adjustments as such but obtains comparable results because they use the same basic principle.
The adjustments made by GHCN are only part of the process, the other takes place at the aggregation stage.
It follows from this that the bias estimation should take into account the two stages adjustments and aggregation. In principle, this forces us to use only long series for the comparison.
And do not forget this:
[GHCNM README]
phi,
Excellent points.
I shall try with larger cells as well once I have the method confirmed.
BTW I use a different method for gridding than normal. I first calculate stations x/y distances from lat/long 0,0. I then group stations into cells based on the x/y. That way I can get perfect square equal sized cell. The normal way is to use lat/long and then a weight factor that I can avoid.
In your second point I think you touch something I have in mind but have not been able to sustansiate yet. If I state it in a clumsy way maybe you can still understand if you think the same…
I have problems with the base line temperature approach.
A cell that was equipped say 1900-1950 will (most probably) have a lower base than one equipped 1950-2000. If you want to report in relation to a 1951-1980 base as NOAA, you must “extrapolate” the first cell. You do this with data from what is active 1951-1980.
If that period was registered as warmer the reason could be a mix of real warming and artifacts caused by changes in station placement/coverage. The LATTER will create a bias.
If you raise the baseline temperature the anomaly for the 1900-1950 period will appear as colder than measured.
If you actually had the same station set 1900-1950 the same anomaly would instead have registered as warmer. This not a problem within cells but when averaging across them.
Can you follow that line of thought?
MrZ,
I did not quite understand how you calculated anomalies inside the cells. Do you use a single period, how long? accepting stations with missing data?
Hi phi,
First I have now moved to 250x250km. It gives similar cellcounts as 2.5×2.5deg
So merging stations within a cell. I have tried three variants.
1. Just plain averaging of the stations measurements. As far as I know this is the norm. Problem is you get very skewed results if data is missing from one cell and the other is in a very different altitude. This problem is the largest if you have only two stations in the cell.
2. Averaging of stations individual anomalies. Here the baseline temp will be the whole active period separate for each station. This produce a better result than above but is affected by same issue as I mention in the last section below.
3. Chaining of average delta changes. You basically align stations at the first common timestamp and then you average the delta changes from that point and onwards. Problem here is that station drifts apart, caused by UHI, station moves and/or equipment changes.
In any of these cases I can pick any baseline period while the cell is active. It will however prove difficult to find a common baseline as cells are randomly stopped as other are started. So if my “perfectly” merged cell is stopped 1950 and the common baseline period is 1951-1980 I have to extrapolate what the baseline temperature should be. I will do that with data from stations installed later than my cell. If those later stations has a higher baseline temperature the extrapolation will also increase the older cells’ baseline. This is ok if the world got warmer but is NOT ok if the higher baseline temperature is caused by changed average station coverage or placement. In this case the extrapolation will cool the past when infact it would have been warmer than measured had we had the same station set.
This is also a problem in p2 above.
Hope you can follow.
MrZ,
Thank you for that clarification. I thought you were using a fixed period for calculating anomalies.
From what I understand of the construction of the temperature indices, we can group them in three general schemes (forgive me if it repeats to a large extent what you have written):
1. Average temperatures (your point 1). It is not used for global indices because the results do not generally make sense if the series are not complete over the whole period (problem of site and altitude).
2. The method of anomalies. It requires that the series used be complete over the reference period. This is a good method but it is still very restrictive. A large part of the data can be unusable.
3. The method of differences. This is clearly the simplest and most universal because it allows to integrate virtually all available data. It is the interannual differences that are averaged. The anomaly curve is then reconstructed by summation. Global index calculations follow this logic even though it is not necessarily applied in this form.
To evaluate the bias in the construction of the indices, I see no alternative to using only the long series because they are the only ones to contain information on long-term trends. Short series and adjusted series only contain information on short-term trends.
The difference between the two types of trends is important since it is about 0.05 C per decade and therefore of the same order of magnitude as the announced warming.
In my opinion, the most interesting lies in the interpretation of this bias.
I think our point 3s are the same but your English is better than mine.
Short- vs. long lived requires a multi-phased approach where the long lived stations forms a comparison base for the short lived.
It should also be regionalized so we always compare between as close as possible neighbors.
Let’s see…
MrZ,
The three points are identical. I just took them back to emphasize their very general character.
You can quite simply get an idea of the adjustments by comparing pairs of years for example 50 years apart.
For each couple, you only retain the stations present in both QCU and QCA over the two years. you will have a little over 1000 stations. You calculate the QCU difference and the QCA difference, and then the difference between the two results. Insofar as you admit that QCU corresponds to the reading of the thermometers, you have an evaluation of the overall adjustment over these 50 years.
Otherwise, it seems to me useless to try to build an index based on the complete QCU data base. The relevant information is simply missing in the short series. You will not know what proportion of adjustments you have managed to capture.
I will try that. Might need one more interaction to check if I did the right thing.
I have already isolated the long lived cells (but including both short and long lived stations within the cells using p2). The bias is dramatic.
I will now select three years, one before 1950 and one after 1994 and a year in the middle. As I am sure you know there was a big station swap during this period and there is in my mind no reason why that should impact long lived stations in QCA (but it does).
Please look back here tomorrow and I’ll share where I am at.
P.S
I have also studied QCU and the dropouts does not look random at all… But as you state I have to start with assuming QCU can act as fixed reference point for the comparison.
An evaluation : http://oi65.tinypic.com/34s0xs5.jpg
Note the similarity with USHCN:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Figure5.png
phi,
Here is my “3 point snapshot” as inspired by you. http://cfys.nu/graphs/phiSnapshots.png
Compared with your graph we have a different zero point. The ranges looks very similar though.
“Does par report á 1901” maybe mean in relation to 1901? That would explain the different zero point.
Now I will use process 3 to merge all daily data station by station. I will do separate merges for all 12 months individually. First year/month with 20 or more OK measurements will be the base year and the base temp will be the average of that month. This way I should avoid starting with an outlier. From the base and on I will register the delta. (compare anomalies but with first active month as baseline)
As I stated above when merging into cells I will have problems with stations drifting apart, but thinking it through that drift is actually interesting in it self. I’ll calculate standard deviation and min/max for later analyzes.
Thanks for good comments and feedback
Hi Bindidon!
The point with Panama was to show an example why just average temperature should not be used to merge stations within a cell. It actually works in the wrong direction for me.
Q1. I decided to stick to one month during validation. It is much easier to poke wholes in my calculations than if I also do yearly averages.
Q2. Look at the “Manual Validation” TAB. I did one random cell manually there to compare the automated results. It should be easy for you to follow how I calculated stuff. You have the trends on line 3 in green. These are the trends per cell.
Plotted in the the graph are the ANOMALIES for the active cells for every year, see X and S columns. You can also see the plotted trend calculated in “Gridded Results” TAB columns F and K.
I did find a bug in the baseline temperature that I corrected 15 minutes ago so you might want to download again. Sorry about that.
If you want to check another cell. They are all listed in the “All Grid Cells” TAB. Stations in column O. Trends in E/F and H/I should be the same as for the cell you check.
When all cells are combined to calculate a global average, does this ‘merging’ lead to a bias, one way or the other, in the long-term trend?
Bobdesbond,
I can only give you my laymen interpretation from what I read in the numbers.
Biases within cells
Anomalies helps making station data comparable but there are two remaining problems.
1. Station trends are not linear as people state. A station with baseline temp -20 will have larger fluctuations than a station withe baseline temps +25. Think of -20 to -5 vs +25 to +40. I put extra high numbers only to make the picture clear.
2. Stations within a cell drifts apart over time. This is caused by UHI and other land changes.
Biases across cells
I have used anomalies here as well to minimize. This is why you see <1C century trends in my result and 3C in Bindedons (I think). Remaining biases are.
1. Station coverage. If you have many more cells in parts of the world than others those will dominate the trend.
2. Changed station coverage. If you add stations and later delete them you will get a biased results
3. Station placement in terms of latitude and altitude.
And in which direction is this bias … towards a higher warming trend or a lower one? And why?
I did respond but it did not get through. Checking and waiting a little before trying again…
Tried again. Problems posting links to the graph I think.
Let’s hope I am consistent should my two responses reappear here.
The answer is there is a bias towards higher warming both in terms of corrections and station count/placement.
I asked you to explain WHY
MrZ could, like I did,
– compute the linear trend for each GHCN V3 station during its lifetime using the unadjusted and the adjusted record respectively
– build the differences between the two
– sort them in descending order, and
– eliminate all differences above and below 2.5 C / decade.
If he doesn’t obtain a chart like this
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1537310074348/001.jpg
either I am wrong or he is.
Of the 7280 stations, 4285 for example show a trend difference ‘adjusted minus unadjusted’ lying between +0.01 C / decade and -0.01 C / decade.
This computation is done on the base of the absolute temperatures found in the GHCN V3 dataset, and hence has nothing to do with anomalies.
“Of the 7280 stations, 4285 for example show a trend difference ‘adjusted minus unadjusted’ lying between +0.01 C / decade and -0.01 C / decade.”
Pardon / sorry. I wanted to write
Of the 7280 stations, 4285 for example show a trend difference ‘adjusted minus unadjusted’ lying between +0.1 C / decade and -0.1 C / decade.
Hi Bindidon,
Is the horizontal axis a time axis? If so, does it really begin in 1701? I am struggling to interpret the graph.
Yes it does, even if it looks like a joke.
But it is due to one station only, the Grand Elder of all stations (Berlin-Tempelhof), which started activity in 1701, and still active today.
Sorry Bindidon,
I misunderstood your graph earlier. Now I understand you just plot the values in descending order. Then we can eyeball the curve and see what the differences weighs. This is clever.
So Bobdesbond X-Axis is just index of the sorted list. 1701 confused me as well.
Problem is the scale here. Take away the outliers and add a trend line. I did BETWEEN -0.05 and 0.05 and for years 1900-2018. The trend line should ideally cross in the middle. It should also cross at same values left and right otherwise you have spotted a bias. Try it!
To enhance you graph further you should also weight how long the stations were active. Easiest is probably to draw parallel curves with station lifetime <10, <20, <30 years, and so on.
“Problem is the scale here. Take away the outliers and add a trend line. I did BETWEEN -0.05 and 0.05 and for years 1900-2018. The trend line should ideally cross in the middle. It should also cross at same values left and right otherwise you have spotted a bias. Try it!”
Clarification
0.05 is the YEARLY trend
“It should also cross at same values left and right” means
It should also cross at same values on plus side and minus side
Still waiting for you to answer the question … WHY.
Bobdesbond,
I don’t understand the question, WHY.
I have shown the reason (provided my methods are OK). There is a warming bias between QCU and QCA because there are more adjustments upwards than downwards. There is an additional bias caused by average changing station placement and count. Like I said I still need to prove that.
Do you want me to speculate why NOAA did this???
If its just to catch me wrong then it is better to spell it out.
I am asking why these factors that you highlighted:
2. Changed station coverage. If you add stations and later delete them you will get a biased results
3. Station placement in terms of latitude and altitude.
would cause a bias towards warming.
In the case of:
1. Station coverage. If you have many more cells in parts of the world than others those will dominate the trend.
that is just plain wrong.
The ‘cells’ are area-weighted before averaging.
Bobdesbond,
Thanks for clarifying.
On the last in your list first, 1:
My understanding is that the area weighting is to cover for the different sized cells you get when you use lat/long degrees to grid. My point is that CONUS will have a higher % of its cells equipped than for example Africa. I thought they used cell bleeding i.e. averaging of progressively larger clusters of cells until every cell has a value. I stand to be corrected though and your explanation will be greatly appreciated.
The other 2 follows logically from above. If I am wrong above I am most probably wrong here as well.
I have an additional though related to baseline temperatures but I am still working with the best way to explain that one. (Even for myself)
Robertson (CRUTEM4 vs. HadSST3)
Again you were insulting me for the one and only reason that you did not understand anything of what I explained concerning Okulaer’s ‘observation’ when comparing land and sea surface temperature measurements.
As opposed to me who very well took the time to carefully read Okulaer’s blog post, you did not read my comments: as always, you just quickly scanned them for anything that would fit to your compulsively contradicting narrative.
I continue now where I was interrupted by phi’s sophism objection.
{ But before I restart to explain, it is interesting for me to see that while you insult Rose when she (correctly) displaces NOAA plots to adjust them to UAH’s reference period, you have no problem at all when Okulaer use the same kind of displacement (although in the opposite direction) }.
You attack only those people who are no ‘skeptic’s… So what! Rose and I we pretty good live with that.
Let me now show you that while Okulaer presents a CRUTEM4 trend being twice as high than that of HadSST3 for 1970 till today, he carefully omits to tell us that the CRUTEM trend for 1856 till today was nearly twice as high as that of HadSST as well.
The reason for that you can’t see in his WFT graph
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/c4-vs-h3.png
but you see it very well in the mine
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/compress:6/offset:-0.46/plot/crutem4vgl/trend/offset:-0.46/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1970/trend/offset:-0.46/plot/hadsst3gl/compress:6/offset:-0.21/plot/hadsst3gl/trend/offset:-0.21/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1970/trend/offset:-0.21
Because in my chart you immediately see that in the past, CRU’s land temperatures were way lower than those of the sea surface as recorded by Hadley Centre.
But that you only can see when the two time series’ plots are drawn using the same reference period (e.g. here: UAH’s 1981-2010).
And while the trends for 1970 till today indeed are (in C / decade)
– CRUTEM4: 0.271
– HadSST3: 0.135 (50 % of land)
so are these for 1856 till today:
– CRUTEM4: 0.081
– HadSST3: 0.046 (57 % of land, OMG what a huuuge difference).
Thus to say:
“The official estimated average temperature data PRE 1970 simply makes no physical sense”
simply is a somewhat pretentious quick shot due to an ill-born comparison of land vs. sea temperature measurements, using an anomaly shift to suggerate their artificial covariance in the past and thus intentionally
– hiding their real differences and
– making differences in more recent times become unique.
This land/ocean difference is by no means restricted to CRUTEM vs. HadSST; here is a chart integrating plots of the two time series together with those for NOAA land, NOAA ocean and GISS land (again using UAH’s reference period):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1537183468963.jpg
You could add e.g. Berkeley Earth data as well as that provided by the Japanese Meteorology Agency: that would not change much.
Very interesting as well is the comparison of CRUTEM and HadSST with the surface level of the data measured by the RATPAC B weather balloons:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1537211177760/001.jpg
You see that RATPAC B surface, with a trend of 0.170 C /decade for 1958-2018, fills pretty good the gap between CRUTEM (0.230 C) and HadSST (0.099 C).
Once more: no, nothing really unusual happened around 1970 when looking at anomalies. At a first glance, land temperatures roughly increase twice as fast than those of sea surfaces independently of wether you consider data since 1856 or even that collected during the satellite era.
*
If Okulaer had as much knowledge in math and stats as do have for example Grant Foster or Nick Stokes, he would very probably have used a more theoretical and more correct approach to show things invisible at the simple anomaly level, instead of presenting us such a tricky graph (the two others seem to be of the same vein).
So I say to Okulaer: “Keep *facepalm*ing!”
And to you I say: “Keep insulting!”
After all, that’s what you do best, right?
binny…”If Okulaer had as much knowledge in math and stats as do have for example Grant Foster or Nick Stokes, he would very probably have used a more theoretical and more correct approach to show things invisible at the simple anomaly level, instead of presenting us such a tricky graph (the two others seem to be of the same vein).”
***********
There was nothing tricky about it. Kristian admitted to compressing the data and superimposing it to show how the land and sea temperatures diverged.
It’s the same with UAH versus NOAA/Had-crut/GISS. All three of the latter show a positive trend in the positive anomaly region from 1980 onward whereas UAH does not. Yet some people overlap UAH with the other three to infer the same positive trend from 1980 onward.
UAH began in 1979 below the 1980 – 2010 average and did not exceed it till the late 1997 El Nino. That represents 18 years of negative anomalies (on average), yet those are inferred by alarmists to be part of a true positive warming trend related to CO2 warming.
Post 1998, the UAH trend flattened out for 15 years yet the same alarmists infer an on-going positive trend.
If you want to be technical and a number-cruncher there is a definite positive trend from 1980 till present. However, it does not represent CO2 warming. It is a combination of rewarming, a flat trend, and several ENSO events.
We have no idea at this point whether heating from the ENSO events are permanent or whether they will even out in the long term.
Robertson
I was sure you still would not (want to?) understand.
“All three of the latter show a positive trend in the positive anomaly region from 1980 onward whereas UAH does not.”
And I was also sure that you therefore would continue to write your usual rubbish.
Trend for UAH during the satellite era: 0.13 C /decade.
Trend for JMA, WeatherBELL: 0.14 C / decade.
Trend for NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT: 0.17 C /decade.
That, Robertson, does not tell us ANYTHING about CO2’s possible influence on climate.
It tells us that surfaces warm faster than the lower troposphere, that’s all. For the ones it warms quicker, for others slower.
bindidon…”And I was also sure that you therefore would continue to write your usual rubbish.
Trend for UAH during the satellite era: 0.13 C /decade.
Trend for JMA, WeatherBELL: 0.14 C / decade.
Trend for NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT: 0.17 C /decade.
***********
Surely you are not as stupid as I take you to be.
I just finished explaining to you in detail that the UAH record began its first 18 years below the 1980 – 2010 average. Then it had a flat trend from 1998 – 2015. Yet here you are blabbering about a number crunched trend that ignores all of the above and comparing it to other data sets that have far different contexts than UAH.
That’s why you cannot understand Kristian. You are nothing but a dumb number-cruncher who cannot read the visual implications in a data set by LOOKING at the plotted graph.
NOAA, Had-crut, and GISS all show positive anomalies from 1980 onward. They are cheaters and you are an idiot for failing to get that.
All three show far higher end temperatures than UAH. What does it matter how they got there if three of them are showing several tenths of a degree more warming than UAH?
Robertson
Stop your insulting nonsense, and have a look at the end of the file to which the tinyURL link shows:
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
There you see, for all 27 zonal and regional Globe subsets, a trend over the entire UAH era:
Trend 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.11 0.18 0.20 0.15 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.25 0.22 0.28 0.00 0.08 -0.03 0.18 0.18 0.18
The list begins with the Globe itself, and ends with Australia.
This is computed by the UAH team itself, Robertson.
What you endlessly want to see in UAH’s time series does not interest me.
When you write
“UAH began in 1979 below the 1980 – 2010 average and did not exceed it till the late 1997 El Nino. That represents 18 years of negative anomalies (on average), yet those are inferred by alarmists to be part of a true positive warming trend related to CO2 warming.”
one immediately understands that you still did not grasp the difference between “18 years of negative anomalies” and the trend over them.
The trend from december 1978 till november 1997 (last month of a long sequence with anomalis below 0.10 C before the big El Nino) is 0.090 C / decade, i.e. 69 % of the trend for 1979-2018.
And that despite of 20 years completely dominated by
– several La Ninas, and
– volcano eruptions of level 5 (St Helens, El Chichon) and level 6 (Pinatubo).
This negative influence by aerosols was so incredibly strong that it has let the 1982/83 El Nino completely vanish out of UAH’s temperature record, though this edition was nearly as strong as that of 1997/98, and stronger than that of 2015/16 (see the MEI index compared with UAH’s record, if you are able to accurately compare them).
I repeat: I am not at all interested in any discussion about CO2 ‘s possible influence on climate.
Thus keep your ridiculous meaning for yourself, Robertson.
“There was nothing tricky about it. Kristian admitted to compressing the data and superimposing it to show how the land and sea temperatures diverged.”
No, no and no. The land (CRUTEM4) and sea (HadSST3) temperatures did NOT diverge more between 1970 and today than they did between 1856 and today.
Is it so DIFFICULT to read a chart, Robertson?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1537211177760/001.jpg
binny…”Is it so DIFFICULT to read a chart, Robertson?”
Yes…when it comes from a rank alarmist amateur like you who specializes in fudging graphs.
I’ll take an analysis from Bob Tisdale or Kristian over you any day.
Admin,
It looks as if you have blocked adding links to my storage area cfys.nu.
Is it the content or should I just move it to an official iCloud service?
No, MrZ… I rather think that either your comment or the link itself contains the juxtaposed letter sequence ‘d’ and ‘c’, what automatically lets the comment be rejected.
Scary,
You even knew the name of the file I was linking 😉
http://cfys.nu/graphs/Trend_ComparisonByRange.png
Looks fine!
Gr8!
That means that my aggregation into cells should be OK. I will now stop spamming this thread and focus on progress.
I leave you with this http://cfys.nu/graphs/Trend_ComparisonByYears.png
Same graph but including sum of years for each trend range. I think we can agree corrected stations with many years has bigger impact than this with less years.
Thanks for feedback phi, Bindidon, Bobdesbond and barry
“I will now stop spamming this thread and focus on progress.”
You weren’t spamming this thread, MrZ.
The spammers are here indeed, and not only here, they appear in every thread.
*
What you in final owe us is to explain how you get QCU/QCA trends differing so much from what I expect, though having exactly the same trend distribution over all stations.
The linear trend of the average of the temperature time series of all stations for 1880-2018 I recently communicated was
– QCU: 0.220 C / decade
– QCA: 0.236 C / decade
Where are your numbers now?
With “spamming THIS thread” I meant I’ll be back when the subjects comes up again. In the interim I want to check and double check my calculations.
On your question we are actually pretty close when comparing temperature trends
Look at “Gridded Results” tab in here http://cfys.nu/graphs/GHCNMStationHistoryRev2.xls
I update that file every day…
I have a temperature comparison graph in there. Look at that and the graph above it. You will see there are two step jumps in baseline temperatures. I believe this is what make temperature trends deviate from the anomaly trends.
Bindidon, if there is any specific validation test(s) you want me to perform I will gladly do that. If I am using wrong assumptions or have bugs I really want to find and correct those.
I am using a combination of PHP and SQL for my reports so I can easily share any variant of computed data I generate, if you want.
BTW
Since last I have tested with different grid sizes and they do have impact. You get very similar profiles when comparing your 2.5deg gridding with my 250x250km so I will change my primary to that and also include 2.5deg for comparison.
Oh no, now I am spamming again 😉
I could not resist this picture http://cfys.nu/graphs/Trend_Adjustment_Scatter.png
I have set the pixel size so that cells does not overlap but large enough so that they can be seen. Because of this land coverage appears better than it actually is.
Nice pic, but it completely distorts the reality as shown in
http://cfys.nu/graphs/Trend_ComparisonByYears.png
Such graphs are exactly what pseudoskeptics expect from MrZ…
A correct world representation of the trend differences would use all different shades of blue and red available: the darker the cell, the higher the average trend difference.
I agree.
But its a bit cumbersome to do in Excel though. I will however do that in my report.
Likewise you could have made your graph less deceptive doing something like this.
http://cfys.nu/graphs/Bindidon_TrendGraph_Enhanced.png
We now have four ways to present the same data and of course we both are going to prefer the one the best represents our own opinion. That is only human.
Personally I have to admit I do like your graph (with the right scale as in the link) because you can read a lot from it.
Good evening / morning MrZ…
“But its a bit cumbersome to do in Excel though.”
Why? Nobody expects a perfect 3D simulation! Something simple like what I recently did for GHCn daily
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1537741561668/001.jpg
looks a bit flatearthy, but would do the job. I’ll manage to produce something similar for this QCU/QCA story, on the base of the same 2.5 degree grid.
Your proposal
“http://cfys.nu/graphs/Bindidon_TrendGraph_Enhanced.png”
sounds very good. My graph was merely a quick shot made some years ago.
“A correct world representation of the trend differences would use all different shades of blue and red available: the darker the cell, the higher the average trend difference”
This is what is a bit difficult in Excel. Try shading the blue in your map based on cells active years.
When it comes to projection both our variants looks ugly but mine is 100% accurate in terms of cell weight.
Bendidon, this thread is getting too old. Let’s continue the discussion when the subject is up again in a new thread.
Exactly. There are anyway more interesting matters than a shaded distribution of trends.
Years ago, I tested my UAH trend grid using Nick Stokes’ Globe:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/maps/webgl/grid.html
He does amazing things.
Hello MrZ
“Bindidon, this thread is getting too old. Lets continue the discussion when the subject is up again in a new thread.”
Why not! We could resume our little discussion on Roy Spencer’s presentation of UAH’s september anomaly.
More and more I get the impression that you restrict a bit too much your QCU/QCA view on single station data, especially their local linear trend.
When we compute them all, we both see that QCA is above QCU, what leads you to the assumption that there is a QCA warming bias.
But when I compute the two’s time series anomalies wrt a common reference period (here: 1981-2010), and compare them in a graph, I see this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14DyMCCkDd1HLGQ4zsQxd27XhwjSJ7hOx/view
(Lots of stations were lost (1615 of 7280), due to their lack of data within the reference period.)
Interestingly, the linear estimate difference QCA minus QCU still is at 0.03 C / decade!
But the graph shows you that the higher QCA trend is due to QCA being cooler than QCU in the past, and not to any kind of QCA warming bias.
What of course led all pseudoskeptics think that NOAA, GISS & co. ‘cooled the past to make the present warmer’.
Great.
Hi Bindidon,
Your interpretation is the same as mine, QCA cools the past. This results in a steeper warming trend. I call it a bias because the wast majority of the adjustments is in that direction.
You touch on something interesting when mentioning a common baseline period. You filter stations out but NOAA and others extrapolate to calculate values for stations missing data. That method, in my mind, adds to the bias.
I am currently coding a process that handles that issue. Look at the discussion I had with phi above. Its P3. I also put a link to graphics for the filtered variant there. Look at how MIN and MAX are adjusted.
I am currently extending the house and got material this week so I will have less time but I should still have something with P3 mid next week.
Talk then.
He does indeed!
I learnt a lot how the process works from his R-code. In fact I have implemented the same process in PHP and validated against it.
Wow! That I would never do, it’s too far away from what I understand under my ‘hobby line’.
Like you a few days ago, I couldn’t resist to do some completely useless work, we all need that sometimes:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1537793993449/001.jpg
Btw: did you have a look at the splendid work done by Clive Best?
Have a look at e.g.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7820
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8014
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8119
Thanks for the links.
Now I also have to produce that useless map. Damn you 😉
“Now I also have to produce that useless map.”
No of course you don’t! What should that be useful for?
Anyway, we differ in the approach: while you restrict your V3 scans by beginning with 1900 and follow NOAA’s own requirement to have at least 10 valid months per year, I keep as near to the original datasets as possible.
Thus I have averaged the linear trends computed for each of the 7280 V3 stations, and collected all data which was not marked invalid.
The 2.5 degree grid averaging gave 2114 cells, i.e. covering roughly 70 % of land surface.
The average QCU trend over the cells wass 0.164 C /decade, and that for the QCA record 0.193 C. This is computed out of GHCN’s absolute data, and hence has nothing to do with any kind of anomaly computation wrt whichever reference period.
“Useless” was a joke in response to “I couldnt resist to do some completely useless work, we all need that sometime”
I understand what you do.
You also get a decent result comparing the averages 0.193-0.164 = 0.029 or 0.3C per century. This looks tiny in comparison to your 1.93C per century QCA trend.
But, compared with NOAAs stated 0.7-0.9C per century 0.3C is actually a lot. This is why I continue on the more complex calculation route. I want to show the anomaly trends close to NOAAs with the same 0.3C QCU/QCA bias.
My guesstimate for September UAH (up to Sep 21) is +0.04.
Up to Sep 22 – unchanged.
Sep 23 – unchanged … +0.04
At the other extreme – sea surface temperatures are the highest in more than 6 months.
I guess you will soon experience Slavatore’s reply with for example
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
Now the highest since I started recording the data last November.
I say wait and see how it all plays out.
This could be a reversal, a counter trend within the down trend, to soon to know.
I am surprised they have risen this much.
Why could the satellite data not be the “counter trend within the up trend”? … to use your non-scientific terminology …
Salvatore, I think I have to comfort you a bit: last night, Nuremberg experienced its coldest september night temperature evah, with horrrrible -4.5 C ! Tremendous.
Time will tell.
As you’ve been saying for at least 8 years on this site.
What else is there to say since the climate is essentially stuck in neutral.
I thought you said it was cooling.
It is.
Its going to be a long brutal winter in the centre of NA, where it has already begun snowing…
PhilJ
It is cooling where you live: in Northern America. I think you wanted to write ‘ND’, right?
In Alberta/CA, snow started some days ago.
*
I live in Germany, and will probably experience for the second time in sequence a very mild winter:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?ireq=true&pid=p_wotexte_feature&src=wotexte/vermarktung/xml2html/dailytopics/2018/09/dailytopicsImage_20180926_wv_02_400x225.png
Last year, NOAA’s CFS winter forecast for Europe was perfect, and I see no reason to doubt about this one.
I enjoy, as in the past an extremely warm summer like our 2018 edition mostly was followed by a harsh winter.
Bodesbond,
My numbers up to September 27 also show +0.04 C. Could we get 0 C or even a negative anomaly?
It’s a distinct possibility and if it occurs then Salvatore may be finally vindicated. In this case it will also prove the old adage that a broken clock is correct at least twice a day.
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I
provide credit and sources back to your webpage? My blog site is
in the very same area of interest as yours and my users would truly benefit from some of
the information you present here. Please let me know if this okay with you.
Appreciate it!