Home/Blog“Reading, we have a problem.”
As a followup to my post about whether July 2019 was the warmest July on record (globally-averaged), I’ve been comparing reanalysis datasets since 1979. It appears that the ERA5 reanalysis upon which WMO record temperature pronouncements are made might have a problem, with spurious warmth in recent years.
Here’s a comparison of the global-average surface air temperature variations from three reanalysis datasets: ERA5 (ECMWF), CFSv2 (NOAA/NCEP), and MERRA (NASA/GSFC). Note that only CFSv2 covers the full period, January 1979 to July 2019:
ERA5 has a substantially warmer trend than the other two. By differencing ERA5 with the other datasets we can see that there are some systematic changes that occur in ERA5, especially around 2009-2010, as well as after 1998:
These kinds of changes suggest to me differences in how the satellite deep-layer air temperatures from MSU and AMSU are handled, which through the data assimilation process can affect surface temperatures.
Reanalysis datasets’ dependence upon various data sources is difficult to diagnose because a wide variety of data are included in them: surface thermometers, weather balloons, aircraft, ships, buoys, and a variety of satellites. Because the satellites are the only truly global source, they have the potential to significantly impact global-average quantities.
If the satellites turn out to be the main reason for these differences, this means how the satellites are adjusted as the orbits decay, intercalibrated with each other, and even whether certain problematic satellites are excluded from analysis, all become significant factors in the interpretation of global average temperatures from the reanalyses.
For example, the WMO’s pronouncement that July would be at or near record warmth (which is based upon the ERA5 reanalysis) would then depend on how they did their satellite data adjustments.
So, I am no longer standing by my previous statement that the current reanalysis datasets should be used for determining record warm months. At this point, it’s not even clear to me that reanalysis datasets are better for inferring record high (or low) surface temperatures than our (UAH) satellite dataset is, even though the satellite senses much more of the troposphere than it does of the surface.
This is all very preliminary, and I am open to other interpretations.
Thank you for the analysis.
Dr. Roy (or anyone else qualified to answer),
Slightly off topic, but what do you think about this story?
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-5g-satellite-deployment-undermine-noaa-weather-forecasting/
“The rhetoric heated up this spring as the FCC announced plans to auction off a band of the electromagnetic spectrum near the frequency that polar-orbiting satellites use to monitor water vapor.
In the months since, federal officials have negotiated behind the scenes to try to find common ground over what strength of 5G transmission signals would be allowed on that portion of the spectrum.”
I think that’s a good idea.
The “Re” in Re-Analysis, should be written in full so that everybody understands what it actually means.
“Rewriting of Historical & Current Data” Analysis.
ie not Real Data, not actual data, but what someone somewhere “thinks” it should be, probably based on some kind of model.
A C Osborn
“Rewriting of Historical & Current Data” Analysis.
ie not Real Data, not actual data, but what someone somewhere “thinks” it should be, probably based on some kind of model.
*
Maybe you tell that to Dr Ryan Maue, whose WeatherBELL data is based on reanalysis?
All data are based on models.
However some models have been verified by multiple experiments and observations, and some have not…ie not all models are created equal.
Of course all models aren’t equal.
But the data from your “experiments and observations” is data from models.
As Paul Edwards wrote, “Without models there are no data.”
“all models are wrong, some are useful”
-George Box
Models do not produce data.
Measurements produce data.
Observations produce evidence.
The scientific method uses data in controlled experiments to test a hypothesis.
Observations can’t prove anything — they can improve confidence in a hypothesis,
but can’t be used to test a hypothesis.
What comes out of a computer model is NOT real data — it is the opinion of whoever programmed the computer.
It is not a measurement.
It is not an observation.
It does not surprise me that you, Mr. Appeal to Authority Apple, do not know that.
Like most climate alarmists, and their beloved computer models, your basic understanding of science is very weak.
Piled High and deep, to be specific.
All measurements are done with a model. All of them.
DA…”All measurements are done with a model. All of them”.
Go soak your head.
Richard Greene
“What comes out of a computer model is NOT real data — it is the opinion of whoever programmed the computer.”
This is the perfect way to admit that Dr Ryan Maue’s WeatherBELL temperature series aren’t much more than “the opinion of whoever programmed the computer” he uses.
But, Richard Greene: I had to learn that while models predicting warmth all are wrong, models computing a posteriori cooling mostly are good!
Not the models are good or bad: only the ideology of those who interpret the models’ output according to their own narrative is good or bad.
DA misses the point. The “model” of a particular thermometer (and others) may be proven reliable by multiple experiments. Re analysis is more subjective and uncertain, climate models even more subjective and uncertain. To simply say “well, all data is based on models” may be technically true as DA defines it, but not particularly useful in this case.
Therefore when i originally stated:
“However some models have been verified by multiple experiments and observations, and some have not…ie not all models are created equal.”, DA seems to have missed the relevance.
I never all models are equal. And, of course, George Box was right.
You write:
The model of a particular thermometer (and others) may be proven reliable by multiple experiments.
What do you mean by “reliable?” Compared to what? All experimental measurements are done via models. I’m sure you can’t name one that isn’t.
DA-“what do you mean by reliable”…models that work(ie correctly predict results) in multiple reproducible experiments are more reliable than those that do not, by my definition.
DA-“all measurements are done with a model”…all measurements are done with some device (no measurements are done with a model unless you mean Christie Brinkley or Elle Macpherson). Models then use these measurements to predict the results of other measurements by other devices.
No measurements are done with a model…none of them.
I know of one: 36-24-36
DA,
How so?
That’s a really stupid thing to say, isn’t it?
Cheers.
“All [sic] data are based on models.”
I just counted the number of motor-cars in my drive. There are two. I do not think I used much of a model to produce this datum.
Of course, I used the assumptions of common sense, and also my basic knowledge (what a motor-car is, what a count is, etc.); and ‘everything in my head’ is a sort of ‘model of everything’* – but is that not a rather banal point?
* a coding, at least.
“I do not think I used much of a model to produce this datum.”
You used a ‘paradigm’ for your investigation. For some reason, the word ‘model’ has become confused with the word ‘paradigm.’
Perhaps we should restrict abstract use of the word ‘model’ to, ‘explanation by analogy to something simpler or more easily understood.’ And concrete use to, ‘actual embodiment of a theory in a mechanism.’ Whether computer runs count as embodiment, is an interesting question!
Barry, your eyes constitute a model. Others, with poorer eyes, might not be able to count how many cars are in your driveway. Blind people can’t count them at all. No one could count them in the dark.
Yours is a trivial example, but counting still requires a model — in this case your eyes. Others far away might need a telescope, for example.
Nigel, no, I don’t mean a paradigm. In his book Paul N Edwards wrote “without models there are no data,” and that’s what I mean, literally.
You can’t measure the length of something without a model. Or measure temperature. Or measure mass or weight.
All measurements require a model. Period.
DA-“all measurements are done with a model”…all measurements are done with some device (no measurements are done with a model unless you mean Christie Brinkley or Elle Macpherson). Models then use these measurements to predict the results of other measurements by other devices.
DA,
You’re such a dingbat. The longer you yap about something the dumber you appear. Why don’t you go back writing children’s books or something?
David Appell writes: “All data are based on models.”
He is using the word ‘model’ under his own personal definition, so wide that he regards himself as irrefutable on this point.
His use of the word is rather arbitrary or even idiosyncratic, derived though it may be from the opinion of Paul Edwards. Einstein held that “the theory decides what can be observed”, which may give some colour to David’s proposition.
Measurements are sometimes said to be of two kinds, those by effect and those by comparison. Global average temperature measurements are perhaps beyond such a simple classification, and perhaps cannot be regarded as measurements or even as data at all.
Eventually, the reported numbers are made by persons. Regrettably, for the present matter, it comes down to whom do we trust. The guys on David’s side in this matter have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
Christopher Game says:
“…the word ‘model’…definition…”
My Dictionary has nineteen separate meanings. We are ‘overburdening a symbol’?
Apropos of one possible meaning, though, I read the following in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Another kind of representational models are so-called ‘models of data’. A model of data is a corrected, rectified, regimented, and in many instances idealized version of the data we gain from immediate observation, the so-called raw data…[I]t is the model of data and not the raw data that we compare to theoretical prediction.”
That is rather like the adjectival use of ‘model’ in ‘model prisoner’ and ‘model answer,’ and the point that data is usually sanitized, is reasonable enough, although arguably trite. However, the reification implicit in the substantive phrase ‘model of data,’ is not helpful to anybody.
The model (that word again!) for this procedure, of making things more presentable for Judgement, is in the Common Law of England, and its Rules of Evidence. Science has long quarried for gold in that mountain of pragmatism. Francis Bacon was Lord Chancellor of England, after all!
DA,
You clearly have no idea what a model is…
A C Osborn said: August 6 at 12:51 PM
The “Re” in Re-Analysis, should be written in full so that everybody understands what it actually means.
“Rewriting of Historical & Current Data” Analysis.
ie not Real Data, not actual data, but what someone somewhere “thinks” it should be, probably based on some kind of model.
Here’s a classic of that genre:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
The claims from the European satellite, the Copernicus Climate Change Service, is July was 0.04C hotter than last year’s. Nowhere can I find what the error margins are? Any input on the Doc?
Probably the same error margin as last year , and the years before. By the way, it was 0.04 hotter compared to 2016, not 2018 .
I don’t know about the Copernicus CCS, but GISTEMP has an uncertainty of 0.17 C for their monthly numbers:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q211
This reduces to 0.05 C for their annual average.
David, please stop trolling.
So seldom on the WEB does anyone say “maybe i was wrong”.
It is nice to see.But certainly
the climate science is NOT yet settled.
Indeed! Uncertainty not only in climate theory but the monitoring system to validate it.
So we are left with a rather reasonable outcome of not getting too excited about one month or even a year.
Interesting footnote. Only one of fifty US states has had a record high temperature in the 21st Century.
For the 50 states the state record high temperature was set in:
19th Century – 3 states
20th Century – 46 states
21st Century – 1 state
Hmmm, here we are almost a 1/5th of the way through the 21st century and only 1 state? Must be that all that warming we hear about is mostly statistical mean temperatures. Warming numbers not warming days.
How about state record minimum temperatures?
19th Century – 6 states
20th Century – 42 states
21st Century – 2 states
not cooling nights either apparently.
bill hunter says:
Interesting footnote. Only one of fifty US states has had a record high temperature in the 21st Century.
Are you sure of that?
I have a few monthly state spreadsheets, and 3 of the 4 I’ve looked at (so far) have their warmest month in the 21st century. They’re in July of
for OR: 2003
for AK: 2004
for CA: 2018
David, read my post again. I am not talking about statistics, I am talking about metrics.
What do you mean by a “metric” here? A daily number? Hourly? Monthly?
And where’s the proof of your claim?
David, I understand you might be challenged. I am referring to State record highest temperatures ever recorded by a weather station within a state.
You know a “metric” that has almost assuredly never been pored over and manipulated by statistician second guessers and homogenizers.
For example: California’s record is the 134F recorded in Death Valley on July 10, 1913.
For some reason the actual url would not post so I had to shorten it.
https://bit.ly/2YNzY9Q
and
https://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm
bill hunter says:
You know a metric that has almost assuredly never been pored over and manipulated by statistician second guessers and homogenizers.
You can’t compare a thermometer reading then to one today unless you account for station moves, changes in technology and possible time of observation changes. Did the author of your article, or you, do that?
But, yes, the 1930s were a very warm decade in the US. But as a decade it only ranks 4th highest. The highest are
1st 2010s (so far)
2nd 2000s
3rd 1990s
4th 1930s
The 1930s seem to be some large natural variability and the influence of land destruction that led to Dust Bowl.
David Appell says: –You cant compare a thermometer reading then to one today unless you account for station moves, changes in technology and possible time of observation changes. Did the author of your article, or you, do that?
https://bit.ly/2YNzY9Q
I didn’t post an article David, I posted a list of the highest thermometer readings for each state in the US compiled by a NOAA committee that keeps those records.
As I pointed out the 21st century is creating new state record high temperatures at a rate one seventh that of the 20th century. Thats not just one thermometer thats all the states thermometers competing to be the top thermometer.
Lets see the last 2 decades have produced one record high temperature in one state and produced a tie of a record high temperature in one other state.
In the 1930’s in one decade, 27 states had a record temperature and of those 27 states there were 8 occasions where the record was tied in the same decade.
1930’s Record high temperature (with 1930 ties in parens) were set in:
Arkansas
Delaware
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas (one tie also)
Kentucky
Lousiana
Mississippi
Nebraska (with 2 ties also)
New Jersey
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma (with 3 ties also)
Pennsylvannia (with 1 tie also)
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia (with 1 tie also)
Wisconsin
The most recent two decades states established a record high temperature in:
South Carolina
and in South Dakota it tied the 1936 record.
Bottom line is in the 1930’s state record temperature were being set or tied at 35 times the rate as the most recent two decades.
bill hunter…”For example: Californias record is the 134F recorded in Death Valley on July 10, 1913″.
The record for the entire US was set in 1934. The 1930s still hold the record, by a wide margin, for heat waves.
Gordon Robertson says:
bill hunter…”For example: Californias record is the 134F recorded in Death Valley on July 10, 1913″.
The record for the entire US was set in 1934. The 1930s still hold the record, by a wide margin, for heat waves.
————–
Yep all these warmists have their stupid hats on with a propeller on top when they say its getting hotter from CO2.
Funny how the deniers run and hide when you post something that shows things are not getting hotter.
Yes, the dust bowl years were hot in the central parts of North America. What else is new?
OK Svante – Hmmm, guess drought is caused by a lot of things. got some ideas as to what?
The record high temperature (daytime high) is for an individual day, anywhere within a state.
Only a pointy head PhD would not know that !
Come on Richard! No child should be left behind!
I am a pure laymen.
why are there multiple data sets to begin with? which one is ‘better’ than the other? how is the temperature averages calculated in a nutshell?
jeremy…”why are there multiple data sets to begin with? which one is better”
There were not satellite records till 1979.
The surface record is based on data from NOAA’s GHCN database. Data sets from NASA GISS and Had-crut, used by the IPCC, all come from the NOAA data base.
The NOAA data base is corrupted and disorganized. It has been fudged to retroactively decide what temperatures ‘should’ have been. It has also been fudged by cutting back real station data, up to 90% since 1990, and replacing the slashed data with temperatures derived synthetically in climate models.
UAH is the best because the scientist running UAH have integrity. Also, the sats cover 95% of the planet using high tech instruments that sample bazillions of data points per stationary scan, whereas the surface record is lucky if it covers 10% on a good day using two a day thermometer readings.
You can read about UAH on Wikipedia. It explains the satellites and pretty well takes an unwarranted dump on Christy and Spencer. Nerds have to nerd out on each other, but I’m at the end of the day I’m glad they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
WikiPedia is micro-managed by active liberals who make sure it says what liberals want said.
Only a ding bat would use WikiPedia as a reference, except maybe to look up the cast of the old Leave it to Beaver show.
In every category, the majority rules, and the majority of users, by far, are liberal.
Excuse me, but is there any evidence backing the assertion that “wikipedia is micro-managed by active liberals who make sure it says what liberals wand said.?
Jeremy, Wikipedia is somewhat undependable because it can be edited by virtually anyone. Some folks have been banned for engaging in edit wars. But as I am sure you know for an edit war to break out it takes 2 sides. Like in 2 to tango.
Wikipedia is an excellent source for a lot of stuff, but its best when it has excellent references to claims that are asserted. Of course having a reference doesn’t make it correct either. But it can provide a good pathway to learn more about the topic.
I have made many revisions at Wikipedia to remove obvious leftist bias not backed by facts and data, only to find my changes deleted with no explanation within a day, usually within an hour or two.
That was over a decade ago.
I don’t waste my time making revisions there anymore.
Excuse me Jeremy Lee, but is there any evidence backing the assertion that you are here to add value with your comments?
Wikipedia is of interest only to those who are not serious or who are interested in social information.
Many schools do not allow Wikipedia as a reference because it is unreliable. Personally, I spend the $75 per year for access to Britannica.
Wikipedia cites all its sources, so you can check them for yourself. And anyone can edit it if they find something wrong.
“A 2005 study in the journal Nature found that the information provided on Wikipedia is almost as reliable as that of the benchmark, Encyclopedia Britannica.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-wikipedia-trustworthy-when-it-comes-to-science/2015/08/24/74c71904-4755-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html
In your weak “Appeal to Authority” mind, Apple, you believe having a “source” makes a conclusion true.
As a leftist, what is your “source” for supporting “open borders”?
Just provide one “source”, and we will all agree open borders are best for the USA !
This is clearly a joke. Wikipedia is biased leftist BS as anyone who bothers to read a Talk tab can tell. Go to Antifa US – read the article first, for a laugh, then the Talk tab and try and claim Wikipedia is “almost as reliable” as any useful encyclopedic benchmark.Lol. This guy is controlled opposition, peoples.
argus…”You can read about UAH on Wikipedia. It explains the satellites and pretty well takes an unwarranted dump on Christy and Spencer”.
Wikipedia is a Net version of the National Enquirer, a US rag that prints propaganda and garbage.
You should know that one of the editors riding shotgun on wiki re global warming/climate change, William Connolly, is an uber-alarmist who hangs out at the Mother of all Alarmists site, realclimate.
If anyone submits an article claiming something skeptical, he will amend it to a version suitable to alarmists.
Connolley has been known to slag skeptics like Fred Singer and it does not surprise me that they slag Roy and John.
realclimate is a pathetic centre for pseudo-science being run by the head of NASA GISS, and his partner Michael Mann, who thinks nothing of throwing out sexually-based insults at eminent scientist like Judith Curry.
Mann was caught in the Climategate email scandal trying to interfere with peer review and he is the author of ‘the trick’, a deceitful method for hiding declining temperatures.
Those are Connolley’s friends at realclimate and he is an editor on the wiki.
I added Dr Spencer’s comments about the matter from his blog in April. Makes the wiki entry better. Let’s see if it lasts.
As a possible check procedure, why not compare the U.S. portion of ERA-5 reanalysis to the USCRN results. With the USCRN being state of the art data it should provide an excellent comparison for the last 15 years.
It seems the more globalized the data source the more prone it is to bias. And I get that. It is as simple as countries with less resources seek a global economic adjustment and equilibration for their benefit.
What concerns me is at this point I am not even sure humanity can measure global temperature. I would like to think the mean of all relevant data would represent humanities best guess, but that assumes no bias. I believe there is bias because in similar evaluations the global warming models lack any scenarios representative of a strong solar forcing and IMHO miss the low case CO2 sensitivity scenarios and thus bias the mean global temperature predictions up (regardless if solar ends up a strong climate forcing or not, there is enough evidence to include it in some GCM iterations). So as I see it there is potential for bias in processing complex satellite and more complex thermometer data. I also feel adding more and more data sets to the mix through time is doing a similar bias to global temperature data- what was the last correction down (except UAH) in any global temperature data? Why do they always go up through time? How it that statistically plausible? So who knows what is the best version at this point in time.
As a geologist I am starting to consider only global sea level has any actual meaning because we can track it with coral reef elevations through time and also with stable O isotopes in ice cores as a proxy. Problem is it is relatively course because we wont see anything less than a meter or so of sea level increase. But that says something about the natural system and how variable it is. Is humanity even capable of getting an unbiased high resolution measurement of global temperature?
What “strong solar forcing” do you see?
Climate models don’t assume a CO2 sensitivity, they calculate it.
The claimed global warming rate from 1940 through 2018 is roughly 1/4 of the computer game predicted (on average) global warming rate in the future, excluding the Russian model that has been near reality.
Climate models are falsified by observations.
They are the “political weapons” of smarmy climate alarmists — their beloved wild guess, always wrong, predictions of 100% bad news global warming in the FUTURE … predictions that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the actual mild, intermittent, harmless global warming from 1940 through 2018.
Climate models are for losers, liars and liberals (I repeat myself).
Measurements and observations are for honest climate scientists.
“The claimed global warming rate from 1940 through 2018 is roughly 1/4 of the computer game predicted (on average) global warming rate ”
how can you validate this claim?
1940 through 2018:
Roughly +0.6 degrees C. warming in 78 years.
Equivalent to +0.77 degrees warming per century.
Computer games average prediction is roughly +3 degrees C. per century, in the future, (excluding the one Russian model that simply predicts future warming will be like past warming).
The average predictions are for a FUTURE warming rate per century roughly 4x the actual warming rate per century from 1940 through 1978.
This is not a “claim” it is a fact.
Case closed.
Computer games are falsified.
Only fools and leftists believe computer games (I repeat myself).
The claimed global warming rate from 1940 through 2018 is roughly 1/4 of the computer game predicted (on average) global warming rate in the future, excluding the Russian model that has been near reality.
Says who?
Some models were overstated roughly 2005 – 2015, but with the spike of the last few years, they don’t look so out of line any more. Dr Spencer did some blogging on those. Dost the short-term trend continue, however?
So many “adjusted” data sets that waste everyone’s time.
Satellites and balloons rool!
Because satellite data never gets adjusted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
The satellite data set is all adjustment. They don’t even measure temperature.
Neither does a mercury thermometer, it measures the thermal coefficient of expansion of mercury.
Which is known accurately.
M,
You wrote –
“Which is known accurately.”
What a pointless comment. Try measuring the temperature of air using a tonne of mercury.
Or any amount you like. Calling you stupid and ignorant might offend stupid and ignorant people. You might have to work hard to become that intelligent.
Cheers.
Which is known accurately.
That depends. You might need more accuracy than a mercury thermometer can provide, in which case you need a method of measurement, viz a different model. You might want to measure temperature outside the range where the coefficient of expansion is known “accurately.” A mercury thermometer wouldn’t work on the Moon — the mercury would boil off.
In any case, you’re still using a model.
David, please stop trolling.
“Satellites and balloons rool!”
Are you kidding? The largest differences around are between satellites and radiosondes, especially in the recent 20 years. Reanalyses are intermediate since they reconciles all available data ( and surpress odd men out that doesn’t make sense in the weather model)
The evidence in the plots I showed suggest satellites are controlling long-term trends in ERA5. In the southern hemisphere, basically you only have Australia and NZ for radiosondes, so how does one reconcile a few data points from raobs with near complete coverage from satellites? I don’t know what their procedures are for this, but the above difference plots look like periods of known satellite issues are to blame.
Roy W. Spencer
Thanks Roy for your insightful diagnostic comparisons.
Suggest marking any satellite additions and/or software changes in that time period that might give clues as to possible breakpoints.
Adjustments correct for biases in the raw data. If you don’t do the adjustments, you have biased data. I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.
Worth reading:
“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, please stop trolling.
cam…”Satellites and balloons rool!”
Well stated, cam.
“ERA5 has a substantially warmer trend than the other two.”
It’s worth noting that of the three reanalysis datasets, ERA5 trend at 0.18 C/decade is closer to the various global surface datasets, e.g. GISSloti @ 0.186.
“By differencing ERA5 with the other datasets we can see that there are some systematic changes that occur in ERA5, especially around 2009-2010, as well as after 1998:”
From differencing, one can’t tell whether there is a systematic change in ERA5 rather than the dataset from which it is differenced, nor which, if either is the better approximation of reality.
It is worth considering whether in high latitudes it is better to focus on the temperature of water vapor rather than oxygen. The presence of ozone may interfere with satellite measurements.
Interesting tweet from Robert Rohde @BerkeleyEarth:
On July 31st, the highest point on Greenland’s ice sheet experienced melting for only the ninth time in 2000 years. Here are all the years that has happened, including twice in the last decade.
Directly observed
2019
2012
Seen in ice cores
1889
1192
1094
992
758
753
244
That’s right – the ice in the centre of Greenland is growing. This has always been known, and does not go close to matching the ice loss elsewhere.
But thanks for showing that despite averaging less than one melt per century, we have now had two in the past 8 years.
Oops – I didn’t look at who I was responding to. Sorry if you picked up a tone.
Midas says: – Oops – I didn’t look at who I was responding to. Sorry if you picked up a tone.
————-
yep gotta keep that group think comraderie intact since so little science holds it all together.
Hard to know what you are talking about. My comment stands without change.
Group think. . . . group think? “Group think” whats that?
In science its when the Pope gets all his scientists mulling over a celestial machine model with multiple cams and gears mumbling yep thats how it works!
Oh I see – like the way AGW deniers quote the same unthinking objections from the same websites.
Midas says: = Oh I see – like the way AGW deniers quote the same unthinking objections from the same websites.
——————
Anybody running around and looking and teaming up on the exact same ideas without validating the belief is a group thinker.
Skepticism isn’t just joining another group.
Skepticism is self-humility, having the ability to admit you simply don’t know. Only then is your mind open to learning and invention.
And of course if there is a real confidence of knowledge in a group, its incredibly easy to explain it to others and one does not need to get in silly battles detailing who is on your side and who is not all you have to do is draw up the blueprint.
I repeat – the content of my comment is the same regardless of who it is directed to. I was only worried about the tone.
And there is no such thing as a true skeptic on the denier side. Their “knowledge” comes before their “education”.
Midas says: – I repeat – the content of my comment is the same regardless of who it is directed to. I was only worried about the tone.
——————-
I was just suggesting that perhaps you should worry about tone regardless of who you are replying to. Looks a lot less like group think when you do.
—————-
—————-
Midas says: –
And there is no such thing as a true skeptic on the denier side. Their “knowledge” comes before their “education”.
——————-
You are wrong. There is a denier side. But skeptics are not on the so-called denier side. Being a so-called denier is being certain the AGW alarmism is wrong headed. Of course the folks on the AGW alarmism side if they are certain they are deniers also. They are deniers of the fact that heat transfer is not that well understood in gaseous atmospheres. We have some basic concepts but applying those concepts to an amorphous substance like a gas is quite poorly understood. Mainstream science simply builds a model of it and then spews out answers. But the answers keep coming out wrong failing to demonstrate that anything about the basic structural whole of model is right. We have a tendency to call anything about what is wrong with the structure as being temporary and explainable by some unforeseen event but we are just guessing at that. Anybody that believes otherwise has lost all skepticism and is certain about something that is all but certain.
Being a skeptic is simply believing that AGW alarmism is overrated in its probability. It includes a lot of folks still working to prove the theory. Thank goodness thats the case so that science can truly advance.
That skeptic group which spans the the two “certain” groups is much different than either certain group who has lost skepticism and thus is full on in non-learning mode.
The skeptic group would include thousands of scientists of various specialties including the physics of atmospheres. Many are actually working on proving the theory and withhold comment for personal political reasons of wanting to keep their job.
The verbal ones are only the ones who see that any personal losses they may incur are out-weighed by a perception of the costs of not speaking up.
So I would call the skeptics the smart guys whether they speak up or not. The certain guys are the dumb ones especially when they think one has to be a denier to be a skeptic, thats because these folks have given up thinking entirely.
Now thats not to impune anybody arguing for a position. Folks can have their own personal theories and argue vehemently for them. Its only when you reach out to impune somebody else as being a denier that you really reveal how stupid you are.
the smart guys are the ones working their butts off to try to find the correct answer. In my experience I have seen publicly held assumptions find themselves into politics masked as science on numerous occasions. Most often its an assumption build on an extrapolated premise. Much horror occurs to those being regulated to prevent the harm. (DDT a great example where science killed millions, Lamarckian evolution another). Those are broadly seen public examples. There are literally thousands of small less publicly known examples. I have seen graduate students on more than one occasion suddenly come upon a method of proof that evaded all the experts that has turned around science on a particular topic. Since my experience is pretty limited in scope (though far beyond the average man) I suspect that is happening almost every day somewhere over some politicized scientific untruth.
Bill Hunter wrote:
I have seen graduate students on more than one occasion suddenly come upon a method of proof that evaded all the experts that has turned around science on a particular topic.
Examples?
David Appell says: – Examples?
———
My gawd David, don’t tell me you are such a science virgin you have never seen it!
The literature is full of good graduate theses. Actually after getting a degree you either become a graduate student or you become a graduate pontificator or you simply don’t do anything.
Examples? You claimed you saw these personally. So what have you actually seen?
Bill, you’re not a “skeptic.” Skeptics engage in scientific arguments and give evidence and data for their points and counterpoints.
You’re a “denier” because you offer no evidence or science and resort to insults to try to cover that up. You come to this blog to get reassured via the “group think” here.
David Appell says: – Examples? You claimed you saw these personally. So what have you actually seen?
I have actually seen some in climate science but at the moment can’t recall as I am not as engaged in climate science. However, in fisheries science I will give you one example. Bycatch is an important consideration in fisheries. Putting back into the water fish that have been inadvertently caught and are prohibited from landing is one of the biggest issues surrounding bycatch. Is the fish going to survive. In California we have a Sebastes group of fish that live in deepwater and are subject to barotrauma effects when pulled up the water column. Tossed overboard they can’t swim down and get eaten by birds and other scavengers. So a method of getting them down was developed but disregarded by scientist saying the fish can’t possibly survive their barotrama injuries. In fact their eyes would pop and inch or more out of their head from the decompression and even the fishermen though they were blind and could not survive. So some enterprising young female grad student put a plan together for a thesis and devised a way to give these fish eye exams and ended up proving they weren’t blind.
Its not at all uncommon. A lot of research vessel time is taken up by students pursuing thesis research and out of that come discoveries.
As I said you must be a virgin at science to not have observed that.
David Appell says: – Bill, youre not a skeptic. Skeptics engage in scientific arguments and give evidence and data for their points and counterpoints.
Seems to me you are describing yourself.
Midas, didn’t greenland net gain ice the past 2 years?
No it did not. You must be reading conservative commentary instead of looking at the satellite data.
@ Midas, can you explain this then?
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-08-02041331.png
SMB (Surface Mass Balance) does not include calving and melting into the sea.
Melting action by the sea on ice shelves that is.
So net of the SMB and calving and melting, what’s greenland ice done this yr and past 2 yrs?
The trend is in figure 3H in
“Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018”.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/19/9239/F3.large.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/y67up6ey
News report, you have to wait for scientific papers:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/greenland-lost-record-breaking-125-billion-tons-ice-single-day-180972808/
Svante, please stop trolling.
So, ice that formed 2000 years ago is still there…..and you claim Greenland is melting? What a joke. Think about what you are saying. So a bit of ice melted and refroze and you think this is proof of??????
Greenland has been losing ice for many years — about 4 trillion tons since 2002:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879
There is no scientific expectation that this will stop.
David, please stop trolling.
“twice in the last decade” You mean like 753 and 758 in your post? Nothing unprecedented here. Imagine if it melted 3 times in one decade in the middle of summer though. That would be scary and so convincing of AGW. Let me know when the farming starts up again on Greenland, that would be …. oh wait, that’s not unusual or unprecedented either. It is truly amazing what people choose to ignore.
Almost 4 trillion tons of Greenland ice lost since 2002:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879
This one is better;
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239
Yes; thanks.
Directly observed
2019
2012
Seen in ice cores
1889
1192
1094
992
758
753
244
Wow check out that LIA Gap!!! almost 700 years! And a mini one between the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warming Period of 509 years.
The MWP has 5 events covering 448 years, our teensy little modern warming only has 130 years and 3 events and we are looking a whole lot more closely today than back then.
Neither the MWP or LIA were global.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
That is not true. DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) has rejected the measurements as being “inaccurate”. There were no (I repeat no) temperatures above 0 deg. C at Summit this year.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/dmi-afviser-varmerekord-i-gronland?fbclid=IwAR0y5Bs-bwDowmjeeXzcgfQA7qkBMDel7ThCizG6dEBbUeUuDT5X5nCsrP0
Likewise, the surface ice mass balance has been positive the last 2 years.
This is in the official annual DMI reports.
Oops! 🙂
SMB has actually always been positive. The lowest SMB gain was 2011/2012 with 38 Gt.
Here is a link go the report for 2017/2018
http://polarportal.dk/nyheder/saesonrapport-2018/
Recomended reading for anyone interested on the matter.
svante…”On July 31st, the highest point on Greenlands ice sheet experienced melting for only the ninth time in 2000 years”.
The commentor must be pretty old.
That’s one of your best comments!
Dr Spencer,
Please don’t misuse the mismatched CFSR/CFSv2 reanalyses. There is a cooling version break in 2011. Listen to a weather/reanalysis expert:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanmaue/status/1158767762413670402
Btw,
Why do you ignore/avoid the NCEP/NCAR, NCEP/DOE, ERA-interim, and JRA-55 reanyses?
Is it because they agree with ERA5?
And of course, ERA5 agrees with all global surface datasets.
You dont see the obvious discontinuity in CFSR/CFSv2 and MERRA around 2010??
Make difference charts between those two reanalyses and any other surface products (You may even try your own product UAH TLT), and I swear that they will suggest a discontinuity around 2010.
Tell me how the temperature is measured above 60 degrees parallel and what is the average tropopause height based on the following data.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2019.png
As the tropopause is the location of the minimum temperature in a vertical column stretching from the earth’s surface to the top of the stratosphere, the best one could say is it is the midpoint of the pale green region. That is, about 15 km for August. To do better, you would need a map with a better temperature resolution.
You’re wrong. The light green zone in the graphic starts well below 10 km, and in winter it is about 6 to 7 km.
Above 60 degrees latitude tropopause falls even lower in winter.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
The start of the light green is NOT the start of the tropopause.
The tropopause height does not gradually drop from low to high latitudes. Rather, it drops rapidly in the area of the subtropical and polar front jets (STJ and PFJ respectively in the Figure on the left), as shown in the Palmen-Newton model of the general circulation (Fig 12.16 or Fig on left). Especially when the jet is strong and the associated front at low levels intense, then the tropopause height drops suddenly across the jet stream. Sometimes the tropopause actually folds down to 500 hPa (5.5 km) and even lower, just behind a well-defined cold front. The subsided stratospheric air within such a tropopause fold (or in the less pronounced tropopause dip) is much warmer than the tropospheric air it replaces, at the same level, and this warm advection aloft (around 300 hPa) largely explains the movement of the frontal low (at the surface) into the cold airmass, a process called occlusion .
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/cell1.gif
Deep convection (thunderstorms) in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or over mid-latitude continents in summer, continuously push the tropopause upwards and as such deepen the troposphere. This is because thunderstorms mix the tropospheric air at a moist adiabatic lapse rate. In the upper troposphere, this lapse rate is essentially the same as the dry adiabatic rate of 10K/km. So a deepening by 1 km reduces the tropopause temperature by 10K. Therefore, in areas where (or at times when) the tropopause is exceptionally high, the tropopause temperature is also very low, sometimes below -80 C. Such low temperatures are not found anywhere else in the Earth’s atmosphere, at any level, except in the winter stratosphere over Antarctica.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html
ERA Interim and JRA-55 do not agree with ERA5, Olof:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/era5-vs.-jra-55.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/era5-vs.-erai.png
1. Learn how to make difference charts
2. JRA-55 is said to have a slightly cooling ocean surface bias, since it doesn’t account for the shift in ratio of ship/buoy SST measurements (the latter being about 0.12 C cooler).
3. ERA-interim has a known ocean surface/SST discontinuity in 2001-2002. Use the Copernicus version where this issue has been fixed
olof r…”1. Learn how to make difference charts”
Begone alarmist troll. Kristian has the background, what is yours?
The Data They Are a-Changin’
I kinda understand that models keep changing. But in climate science it’s also data that keep changing.
Data plasticity is the reason why climate science is so well suited/prone to political ends/biases.
jarves
That is a good point. There is also another big use of climate change going beyond political agendas.
It has to do with money. In my life I have seen this done with other items. While I was growing up bacon and eggs were a normal breakfast item and considered healthy. Some “researchers” came up with the idea eggs and bacon were death foods. When something is well established the only way to undermine it is to make it “evil” and bad so that the market opens to other items.
There is some warming going on which seems to be fairly well established. How much is so much speculation, how bad is complete speculation. There is no hard or scientific data with any of the extreme conclusions of climate science (terrible heat waves, floods, tornadoes, droughts, fires, blizzards etc) but it is the way you manipulate the thought process of people with good writers and “experts” in the field to make fossil fuel use “evil” like they did with eggs (now not so evil). Now the new industries can develop to fill a created market. I just got back from a vacation in Oregon. Iowa is not the only state with lots of wind turbines. Both Wyoming, Oregon and Washington have several hundreds of these machines. This is a huge amount of income for some people. Income that exists because of fear generated in the Public based upon speculation of some experts in the field who we must trust because they are so much smarter than anyone else. It does not matter that several hundred of these machines were not spinning at all because of lack of wind and the gas turbines in Oregon were running to supply energy to the market, it only matters that the need was created and people wanting income were able to provide.
Now I think it is wise to have multiple means of producing electricity for an advanced civilized Nation like the USA, but it would not have to be by making fossil fuel industry evil. But that is how things are done.
“It has to do with money. In my life I have seen this done with other items. While I was growing up bacon and eggs were a normal breakfast item and considered healthy. Some ‘researchers’ came up with the idea eggs and bacon were death foods.”
You’re right – it does have to do with money.
http://www.americantable.org/2012/07/how-bacon-and-eggs-became-the-american-breakfast/
Craig T
Thanks. I have already read his book. Bernays was a very smart person and aware of larger group manipulations.
http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html
norman…”Some researchers came up with the idea eggs and bacon were death foods”.
Eggs are generally an excellent source of protein, however, when fried in bacon grease they can promote cancer.
I am from Scotland, and the traditional Scottish fare for breakfast has been incredibly greasy mixes of eggs deep fried in bacon grease with bread and tomatoes fried in it too.
I am turning green thinking of it.
Scotland has a high incidence of stomach cancer.
Bacon is cured with nitrates and when that fried crap hits your stomach acid it produces nitrosamines, a carcinogen.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages
There is also the issue of free radical damage. Whenever foods are cooked with high heat, they can be heated to the point where dangerous chemicals are released as the product becomes oxidized. Burned eggs, meat, bacon, bread, etc., are potential risks for free radical damage.
Of course, just walking in the sun each day produces free radical damage, it is apparent as we age with aging skin. If you put a plastic milk junk out in the sun, it loses its pliability and becomes so brittle you can crack it.
Free radicals mix with healthy cells and convert them into potentially dangerous cells. Anti-oxidants such as vitamin C, vitamin E, etc., help neutralize free radicals, but not in the amounts found in the diet. Supplementation is required to the level of several grams of C a day and 400 IU of E.
Three grams of C is 3000 mg. There is 75 mg of C in an orange. You would need 40 oranges a day to reach that level of C.
“Taking too much vitamin C can cause diarrhea, nausea, and stomach cramps.”
The upper limit for adults is 2000 mg.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-Consumer/
All sciences have some “data plasticity.” After decades astronomers are still trying to zero in on the Hubble constant and getting conflicting results. There is no exact counting of the number of genes in the human genome; estimates vary. Neutrinos were once thought to be massless; now it’s known they do have mass.
UAH’s temperature numbers can and sometimes do change from one month to another, even for months decades ago. Their transition to v6 saw some *huge* regional changes, a few over 1 C.
David, please stop trolling.
Olof R says, August 7, 2019 at 3:44 AM:
Hehe, no. There’s a huge hump of excess warming PRIOR to 2011. You see this both in the CFS and in MERRA. In 2009-2011 they simply revert back to the more correct trajectory they were on before the hump:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/reanalysis.png
Excuse my ignorance but 0.04 Kelvin appears to be very tiny. Also how are the satellite sensors calibrated to increase the signal to noise ratio, to ensure thermal noise is minimalised?
john…”Also how are the satellite sensors calibrated to increase the signal to noise ratio, to ensure thermal noise is minimalised?”
That’s a fundamental problem with all electronic amplifiers, especially at high frequency. I hardly think NOAA would launch an instrument with such issues.
The guy who designed the satelite MSU units was an electrical engineer.
It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, but disputing the actual rate of global warming. I think the next stage is agreement on the rate, but arguing against any action because of cost.
cd,
You wrote –
“It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, . . . ”
Name one person who denies that the climate has continuously changed over the past four and a half billion years. Only a pseudoscientific GHE true believer would make such a completely witless statement!
Try denying that you are a stupid and ignorant twit. See how you get on. Good luck.
Cheers.
What a strange rant. I suspect you do not understand that the current rate of warming due to EGG is unprecedented. I know it might hurt, but that is reality. Get used to it.
Strange only in comparison to the way normal people speak. Normal for this guy.
M,
You wrote –
“Strange only in comparison to the way normal people speak. Normal for this guy.”
You can’t bring yourself to disagree with anything I wrote, can you?
Just more information free trolling, based on nothing more than appeals to your own anonymous and dubious authority.
Do you have anything useful to contribute – maybe a useful description of the non-existent GHE, perhaps?
Cheers.
cd,
You wrote –
“I suspect you do not understand that the current rate of warming due to EGG is unprecedented.”
What the heck is EGG? Is this yet another pseudoscientific GHE true believer redefinition of something else? Have you inadvertently wound up with EGG on your face, so to speak?
But seriously, maybe you could bring yourself to actually quote something I said, and provide some cogent reason for disagreement. Or maybe not.
Up to you. If you can’t or won’t, you might just look like a stupid and ignorant twit.
Cheers.
droll…”I suspect you do not understand that the current rate of warming due to EGG is unprecedented”.
Begone droll troll…on behalf of mike and dremt.
Unprecedented??? Are you still using that trash propaganda from the hockey stick?
captain droll says:
I think the next stage is agreement on the rate, but arguing against any action because of cost.
And the final stage will be, “You didn’t warn us about this in strong enough terms!”
David “Appeal to Authority” Apple is now promoted to a climate astrologer:
“And the final stage will be, You didnt warn us about this in strong enough terms!
.
.
.
REALITY:
+0.6 degrees C. warming from 1940 through 2018 = ho hum
Satellite data showing warming after 1979 mainly in higher latitudes, mainly in the six coldest months of the year and mainly at night = ho hum
” … the whole aim of practical (leftist) politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of (climate) hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
From H. L. Menckens In Defense of Women (1918).
H. L. Menckens
In Defense of Women
RG
Would you please link me to this UAH night time data.
M,
You wrote –
“RG
Would you please link me to this UAH night time data.”
What’s the matter? Have you made any effort at all to find out for yourself, or are you just trying to waste other people’s time?
Sounds like you are trolling, but feel free to demonstrate that you are serious.
Cheers.
Midas says: – Would you please link me to this UAH night time data.
————-
I don’t know about UAH, but night time data is available from some of the “hot” surface records and they are showing about 2/3rds of the warming being a result of warmer nights.
Roy has a post here with regards to an analysis to satellite data showing 80% of the warming at night.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/nasa-airs-80-of-u-s-warming-has-been-at-night/
BH
That is only for the US. It agrees with the NOAA data.
For Australia and the UK it is the reverse – daytime temps have risen more than night temps. Makes you wonder why he chose to only analyze the US.
Midas says: – For Australia and the UK it is the reverse daytime temps have risen more than night temps.
————————
Lets not be hoarding your source Midas.
So you are incapable of downloading the BOM and Met Office data?
As you are too bone lazy to do that, you will now launch into an attack on BOM and the Met Office.
Midas says: – As you are too bone lazy to do that, you will now launch into an attack on BOM and the Met Office.
—————
I don’t have time to process data, if its not already processed and charted how do you know what it says? You made a point I asked for support of it and you demurred.
And don’t project your weaknesses on me. I have nothing against BOM or the Met and in fact have said repeatedly around here their work should be regarded as part of the range of observations allowing for what exists in between being very uncertain as to where the actual results lie. I am not trying to make a case UAH is better than any of the temperature records. I would only make the case that both UAH and RSS should be more accurate because of superior sampling.
But saying they should be doesn’t get me anywhere to a point where I would be ruling the others out. This is not a game like football where somebody beats somebody else with a single point.
Often the better team doesn’t win. If you get to that point in deciding whether political action should be taken why not just use dice?
Your prickly comment demanded a prickly response.
Midas, please stop trolling.
midas…”So you are incapable of downloading the BOM and Met Office data?”
No student of science would read that corrupted trash.
” … the whole aim of practical (fascist) politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of (attacks on migrants, the press, science, teachers, the judiciary, young people, doctors, workers, etc. etc.) hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
From H. L. Menckens In Defense of Women (1918).
DM,
Are you attempting to deny, divert, and confuse by implying that the writer said things he didn’t.
Standard fare for pseudoscientific GHE true believers, I suppose.
You might win more converts to your cause if you could provide a useful description of the GHE. That might be difficult, of course, if the GHE is a fantasm.
Carry on rewriting history if you prefer. For a bit of fun, try portraying Gavin Schmidt as a world famous climate scientist, or Michael Mann as a Nobel Laureate. You never know, some of the more mentally deficient members of the public might believe such nonsensical assertions.
Cheers.
Richard GreenNewDeal says:
+0.6 degrees C. warming from 1940 through 2018 = ho hum
Wrong.
It’s 0.4 C since 1999.
It’s 0.8 C since 1975.
0.9 C since 1940.
UAH global satellite measurements indicate warming of lower atmosphere of about 0.5 degrees since 1979, ie over 40 years. This is as good a record of an accurate GLOBAL average surface Temperature TREND as any other, and I would argue the best. You say it is closer to .8 C. I do not know you are wrong, but neither do you know you are correct. But stating this as a fact is not reasonable. Stating as a FACT that the global surface temp has risen by .4 C in the last 20 years is more like ludicrous.
Incidentally, the 0.5 C over the last 40 years converts to 1.75C/2xCO2 as a quasi TSR BASE value, ASSUMING no other natural or anthropogenic forcings. But the ECS (due to mix layer and deep ocean thermal capacitance) would be about 1.37*1.75=2.4C/2xCO2…which is in the “plausible” range for both you(DA) and the IPCC. If the CO2 levels were to increase at the average constant rate of the last 40 years from here onward, this converts to about 2.1C/2xCO2 from here onward, where a doubling occurs in 200 years. Therefore we would see a 1.05C increase over the next 100 years at that given fixed rate of CO2 increase as a BASE estimate given the above assumptions. These assumptions may be wrong, but they are just as reasonable as any other, and hardly alarming, even if we wish to boost the rate of CO2 increase, as is likely.
Further, the sea level is rising at a fairly constant (and slow) rate within observed natural variations over the last 100 years. In short the climate for humanity (and the natural world) is currently great (the best in a thousand years) and is likely to to be just fine over the coming century. And if the climate does take an alarming turn, humanity will make a mid course adjustment as needed. The only thing unpleasant will be the cries of the alarmists forever warning of Apocalypse “just around the corner”.
My data are for the surface; UAH is for the lower troposphere.
You wrote:
Stating as a FACT that the global surface temp has risen by .4 C in the last 20 years is more like ludicrous.
I downloaded the global data from N.O.A.A. and did the calculation. 0.4 C warming since 2000.
Let me know what your calculation gets.
Incidentally, the 0.5 C over the last 40 years converts to 1.75C/2xCO2 as a quasi TSR BASE value, ASSUMING no other natural or anthropogenic forcings.
But there *ARE* other anthropogenic forcings going on, one of the biggest of which is anthropogenic aerosols that cool the planet. So your calculation is no good.
David, please stop trolling.
my reply to know it all Appeal to Authority Apple:
Only liars, losers and leftists use surface temperature data (guesses) when UAH satellite data are available.
The surface numbers change so much, decades after the original measurements, that the original claim of -0.3 degrees C. global cooling from roughly 1940 to 1975, which allowed some publicity hound scientists to get attention by claiming a coming global cooling crisis in the mid-1970s, has been revised, and re-revised, until the last time I looked there was almost no cooling from 1940 to 1975 !
Surface coverage is far from global, requires massive infilling, and measures economic growth and land use changes not caused by CO2.
UAH is at least close to global, with far less infilling and may not measure temperature directly, but at least measures in a stable environment.
That’s why surface data are for liars, losers and leftists, when the more likely to be global and accurate (without a lot of infilling) UAH data are available.
I estimated the 1979 through 2018 UAH warming to be +0.5 degrees C. and then arbitrarily added +0.1 degrees C. to be conservative. (you can look up “conservative” in a dictionary, I’ll wait here)
My estimate of +0.6 degrees warming since 1940 consists of UAH data from 1979 and NASA-GISS data from 1940 through 1979.
NASA-GISS shows virtually the same global average temperature for 1940 and 1979, just three one hundredths of a degree C. different (that’s as of today — it probably will be revised by tomorrow!).
According to NASA-GISS the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 has magically disappeared.
The average climate model, excluding the very different Russian model, is predicting about +3 degrees warming in the next century.
The actual warming rate from 1940 through 2018, using the best available global temperature average, is a warming rate per century roughly 1/4 of the warming rate predicted for the next century.
So, when “predicting” the future climate, does one base the prediction on the past 78 years of actual experience with rising CO2 and intermittent warming (being very conservative by blaming all past warming on CO2 when the actual percentage is unknown) … or does one WILD GUESS a FUTURE global warming rate roughly four times faster than actual experience?
You know which prediction I accept as being within reason.
You $#@&% climate alarmists want to scare people, so a warming rate of +0.77 degrees C. per century, as in 1940 through 2018, is not fast enough for YOUR non-scienrtific purpose.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Hey Mr. Apple, do you, or do you not, support the GREEN NEW DEAL ?
Your “fan club” here wants to know, and requests a simple answer: “Yes” or “No”.
Richard GreeneWithEnvy says:
Only liars, losers and leftists use surface temperature data (guesses) when UAH satellite data are available.
1) They aren’t measuring the same thing.
2) UAH has to calibrate data over a string of about a dozen different satellites, some with time gaps between that (viz they don’t overlap in time).
3) Even the head RSS guy thinks surface measurements are more reliable:
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets….”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0
Richard GreeneIsGood wrote:
According to NASA-GISS the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 has magically disappeared.
False:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
#2
David, please stop trolling.
droll…”It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, but disputing the actual rate of global warming”.
You’re hallucinating.
I have seen no outright denial of warming from any skeptic here. Several of us deny that CO2 has anything to do with the warming for the simple reason it is a trace gas and has never been proved related to warming in the atmosphere.
droll…”It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, but disputing the actual rate of global warming”.
You’re ha.ll.uc.in.at.ing.
I have seen no outright denial of warming from any skeptic here. Several of us deny that CO2 has anything to do with the warming for the simple reason it is a trace gas and has never been proved related to warming in the atmosphere.
Land Surface Air Temperature Data Are Considerably Different Among BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level.
Owing to different model performances against observations and the lack of independence among models, there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.
https://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-018-0355-y/MediaObjects/41558_2018_355_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0355-y
The data models agree at the global level, within about 0.2 C (between JMA, GISS, N-O-A-A, Had-CRUT, and BEST).
The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6C for the Southern Hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middle‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists………..
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355
That paper is about regional scales, not the global scale. On the global scale — the amount of global warming — they are in close agreement.
David Appell, genius.
I’ve heard modelers say plenty of times that models do not do an good job of projecting regional climate.
Hence the invention of downscaling.
You keep amazing me, genius
I’m happy to dazzle you.
David, please stop trolling.
Olof R (August 7, 2019 at 6:44 AM) said:
QUOTE
“Satellites and balloons rool!”
Are you kidding? The largest differences around are between satellites and radiosondes, especially in the recent 20 years.
UNQUOTE
Dr. Christy made a presentation to Congress in September, 2012:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/john-christy-testimony-to-congress.pdf
Figure 2. in his presentation shows four balloon data sets and two satellite data sets.
On a rifle range one should always be impressed by “Grouping”. If all the shots fall inside a small radius one has more respect for the shooter.
UAH, RSS and the balloon guys seem to be far better shooters than 102 CMIP model runs.
I go with the observations and say BS to the models.
Good to see you support the RSS data which has a trend higher than NOAA’s.
Tell me – do “the balloon guys” have a global data set?
M,
You wrote –
“Tell me do the balloon guys have a global data set?”
What are “balloon guys”? Why would they need a data set? Why do you ask? Are you really as stupid and ignorant as you portray yourself?
Ah, questions, questions! The world wonders!
Cheers.
What purpose is served by saying:
“Are you really as stupid and ignorant as you portray yourself?”
Why don’t you read John Christy’s testimony? I found it persuasive.
You may be an authority in your own mind but to persuade the rest of us you will need to present facts and reasons to support your case.
When you offer personal abuse instead of reason and facts you are admitting that you lost the argument.
gc,
I assume you are disagreeing with something I wrote, but you cunningly refuse to say what it is.
You wrote –
“What purpose is served by saying: . . . “.
Why do you ask? Can’t you form an opinion for yourself?
You mention John Christy’s testimony, and say you found it “persuasive” – which could mean anything at all. Maybe you found the following quote, relating to the scientific method – “In the method, a claim or hypothesis is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility.”. Persuasive? Science is not about consensus or persuasion (except if you are seeking finding), but about experimental verification.
As Feynman said –
“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.”
As John Christy pointed out, no claim or hypothesis related to the GHE has been “stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility.”
How about trying to describe the GHE in such a way that a testable hypothesis may be proposed? How hard can it be? If you don’t like what I write – tough. If you choose to be offended – go your hardest. If you think I feel the need to persuade you and your invisible crowd, I don’t.
As to persuasion, maybe you could persuade the inconvenient laws of physics to vanish. Or you could persuade yourself that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, rather than an undistinguished mathematician?
I best go, before laughter induces typographical errors.
Cheers.
“As John Christy pointed out, no claim or hypothesis related to the GHE has been ‘stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility.'”
Christy says just the opposite:
“When the ‘scientific method’ is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), I demonstrate that the consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin.”
Craig T, please stop trolling.
gallopingcamel,
I wrote about the recent two decades.
Here’a a compilation of all current reanalysis, radiosonde, and satellite datasets I’m aware of (trends 1998-2018)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AS7mxUSYUpEW7dOjyvT6BiRsYdkvMEJm
UAH v6 is the coolest cherry around. UAH 5.6 (not included, discontinued in July 2017) agrees with the other satellite products.
Since UAH 5.6 only used AMSU satellites with little or no drift (that don’t need diurnal drift correction), it is a veritable reference dataset.
The fact that UAH v6 has significantly cooler AMSU-trend than v.5.6 is not a good sign. It actually invalidates the novel AMSU drift correction introduced in version 6.
p s STAR TLT and TTT can not be found directly at NOAA/STAR. They are computed using the UAH TLT and RSS TTT formulas
Very interesting! Are you suggesting that our revered host and John Christy are trying to cook the books by discontinuing UAH5.6?
It wouldn’t be the first time.
See their saga of the minus sign from the mid-90s to early ’00s.
David, please stop trolling.
David A.
Again fair question. The literature of paleo climate is full of solar periodicity. From ~11, to ~22 to ~90 yr cycles as well as a few other intermediaries before you get to orbital parameters. They dominate natural climate systems in many lake varves or tree ring records as well as other high resolution records like speleothems. The magnetic cycles (like Hale cycle) dominate most monsoon records and is common in other paleo proxy but is ignored in GCM. It’s hard to eliminate it as a factor for 20th century climate change given the very high solar activity from ~1950 to 2000. Agreed, GCM calculate CO2 sensitivity, but if you use a model that is missing a variable (like solar forcing from UV spectrum or magnetics) then that calculation is prone to error. Hence, the need for an equal sign in an equation. If u solve for CO2 sensitivity and are missing other forcing opposite side of the equals sign then what is the meaning of that answer?
Aaron,
Thanks. For sure, the Sun varies. The question is, how much does that variance change the climate. Many scientific papers say, not very much.
The variance of total solar irradiance (TSI) over a solar cycle is 1-2 W/m2. Solar sensitivity is thought to be about 0.1 C per W/m2. So we’re looking at 0.2 C or less temperature change over a solar cycle.
That’s not much, when GHGs cause that amount of warming in a decade.
DA,
You wrote –
“Thats not much, when GHGs cause that amount of warming in a decade.”
What a load of rot! No one has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of GHGs between the thermometer and the heat source.
Surrounding a thermometer with GHGs may slow the rate of cooling very slightly, but the thermometer does not get hotter.
The GHE is a fantasy, a religious belief held by crackpot pseudoscientific GHE true believers. Are you one?
Cheers.
Temperature variations can’t be explained in terms of TSI which has hardly varied at all.
During the last solar cycle TSI varied by 0.13% (peak to peak). The corresponding “Delta T” is 0.1 degrees Centigrade.
The solar effects that seem to affect climate correlate are sunspots and cosmic rays. There are dozens of papers by Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby (CLOUD experiment) and Nicola Scafetta (ACRIM satellite). Even though Wikipedia is biased it is still provides a convenient way to find publications by these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Kirkby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta
Just in case you can’t be bothered to check out the above websites at least click on this one from Svensmark:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Paleo-cosmic_flux.svg/800px-Paleo-cosmic_flux.svg.png
The variations are 5 Kelvin (peak to peak)!
Re: CLOUD
“A significant fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”
“Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements,” Eimear M. Dunne et al, Science (27 Oct 2016).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/26/science.aaf2649
David, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, August 7, 2019 at 8:58 PM:
You said:
“You mention John Christys testimony, and say you found it persuasive which could mean anything at all.”
My apologies for not making my meaning clearer. Figure 2 in John Christy’s presentation shows 102 CMIP model runs diverging from reality as measured by two satellite and four balloon data sets.
I found that juxtaposition impressive. If you don’t agree, please explain. Here is the link to John Christy’s presentation:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/john-christy-testimony-to-congress.pdf
gc,
Thanks for the clarification.
I understand what John Christy was saying, but it wasn’t necessary. If 102 model runs produce different outcomes, then at least 101 are wrong (maybe all of them – who could know?).
Averaging 101 known incorrect results is a pointless waste of time, without some experimentally verifiable reason.
Even the IPCC admits that future climate states are not predictable. However, nobody has managed to describe the GHE in any way which allows experimental testing. The only “claim” seems to be that the average of 101 incorrect models can predict the future, which cannot be rigorously tested.
I don’t blame John Christy for treading softly, given the environment at the time.
He does not appear either stupid or ignorant to me, based on available fact. In any case, I cannot see why anyone should care what I think. Do you? Why not seek out such facts as you can, and form your own opinion?
Oh, well.
Cheers.
gallopingcamel says:
Figure 2 in John Christys presentation shows 102 CMIP model runs diverging from reality as measured by two satellite and four balloon data sets.
Have you ever wondered why that graph has never appeared in a peer reviewed journal paper?
You should.
Enlighten us then, don’t hold back. No, seriously.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/
David, please stop trolling.
Dave,
As mentioned above by others, the total solar contributions likely exceed TSI. U know the Svensmark model. Clearly solar magnetics have influenced paleoclimate even if the role in 20th century climate is unknown because industrialisation has super saturated the atmosphere with charged ions for cloud seeds compared to pristine climates, and this may have reduced sensitivity to magnetics now compared to the past. I’m not sure the role but it is plausible enough based on paleorecords that it should be in some models.
What I know about the Svensmark model is that it’s still a hypothesis that hasn’t been proven.
Nor have I ever seen a trend in cosmic rays that would cause warming. Is there one?
And even IF the Svensmark hypothesis is correct, it only means we might face MORE warming in the future, from both it and from greenhouse gases.
David, please stop trolling.
The obvious warming bias in the ERA5 dataset more than likely stems from the outspoken “AGW” philosophy on the part of the people behind it (the ECMWF/the Copernicus Programme (EU’s Climate Change Service)). Their own product betrays their agenda. Note how their data crunching model simply assumes observed warming is caused by a “strengthened GHE” (steadily less ‘net LW’ escaping the Sfc at equal temp) rather than an increased heat input from the Sun (more ‘net SW’ absorbed by the Sfc), the exact opposite of the REAL situation:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sfc-net-lw-era5-vs.-ceres-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sfc-net-sw-era5-vs.-ceres-1.png
You see how the data fluctuations here correlate quite well, but how at the same time, the direction of the overall trend in the ERA5 data is reversed relative to the CERES data, so as to make it comply with (and apparently ‘confirm’) the “AGW” narrative.
CERES has no temperature dataset. The surface radiation is not measured directly, it is computed/modelled based on a lot of assumptons (that hopefully don’t drift).
Basically you can do a transformation of this radiation data to temp, but due to the non-linear relationship one must do it with hourly and spatially detailed data to catch diurnal cycles, and further assume that there isn’t a drift in assumptions about surface emissivity, cloudiness, etc.
Kristian says:
…rather than an increased heat input from the Sun
Your graphs are poorly labeled with no context provided. Who knows what they mean.
Submit your claims to peer review and get them published in a decent journal. That’s the first step to getting your work noticed by anyone who matters.
David, please stop trolling.
Kristian’s work includes no error bars, no estimate of uncertainties and no caveats. Plenty of political commentary, though.
This is sales, not scholarship.
barry, please stop trolling.
Dr Spencer praise the NCEP/CFSR reanalysis surface data (with it’s known cooling version break 2010-2011) and thinks it is “gold standard” due to its (biased) low trend
If he sees that TLT-weighted CFSR data has a trend of 0.24 C/decade, almost twice that of UAH v6, will he still be happy?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBbbplWWkAIPjEM?format=png&name=small
The NCEP/CFSR reanalysis also produce magnificent hotspots in the tropics, well on par with the models.
Well, My advice (like Ryan Maue’s) is to stick with the most renowned and bias-free reanalyses, JRA-55 and ERA-5
“If he sees that TLT-weighted CFSR data has a trend of 0.24 C/decade, almost twice that of UAH v6, will he still be happy?”
Yes, the CFSR has a “Hot Spot” for the satellite era, while the actual observation (sonde and MSU) data do not.
This is kinda interesting. Reanalyses are spin-ups.
That means they include the very same parameterizations that the GCMs do.
Can the reanalyses be more accurate than the observations?
Probably not, and the difference is probably in the non-physical parameterizations.
The reanalyses are typically run in separate 5 or 10 year streams, each preceded by a one-year spin-up. If the streams don’t fit in the seams, it’s a sign of some emergent stuff, that shouldn’t be there in a properly working reanalysis. Back to the drawing board..
fact: the earth is 61 degrees and change.
fact: that isnt hot.
fact: most people put their a/c on 60 in the summer.
and the alarminati wonder why nobody cares. Lol.
fact: most people in the world live without air conditioning, many not by choice.
David, please stop trolling.
Here is an article quoted from the Financial Post in 2009, evidence of micro managment by liberals. Connolley was banned for doing this from Wikipedia:
William Connolley, arguably the worlds most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him again unanimously from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
TWIT,
The article (you say) is 10 years old.
If Wikipedia rid itself of Connolley back then it should, by now, reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
It does not. It provides an excellent article on climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Your interpretation therefore sounds crazy.
Interestingly, Wikipedia also notes:
“ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the International Policy Network.[34][35][36] Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.”
It is now being reported that:
“The Oil Giants Might Finally Pay for Pulling the Biggest Hoax of All”
“New York State is alleging ExxonMobil knew the risks of climate change and defrauded its investors by misrepresenting them.”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28636123/exxonmobil-lawsuit-climage-change-new-york/
DM,
And your point is? You don’t actually have one?
Why am I not surprised?
Cheers.
Dr Myki says: “Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.
Boy that just a drop in the bucket compared to the $150 billion economy the government has created in support of natural variability denial since the Kyoto Protocol. Thats a funding ratio disparity of 7,500 to 1.
We are just seeing the start of justice that will apply to organizations such as Exxon.
That $20 million may have bought them some time, but the amount will pale into insignificance once the penalties begin.
DM,
I don’t believe you can see into the future. You are deluded if you believe you can.
Are you stupid, ignorant, or both?
Cheers.
Bill, I’ve asked, and you don’t have any evidence that natural variability is causing modern warming.
So knock it off.
And if he doesnt, what then?
You could try blubbing like a baby – do you think that might work?
What a fool you are!
David Appell says: – Bill, Ive asked, and you dont have any evidence that natural variability is causing modern warming.
So knock it off.
————
Here David goes all in on supporting the philosophy that the deplorable public should bear the burden of proof that what the government does is wrong.
And of course David wants me to knock it off as he covets a slice of the pie that the subordinates of despots earn.
Yes Bill, the burden is on YOU to provide the science that supports your claims.
Clearly a burden you can’t lift.
David, please stop trolling.
DM,
You wrote –
“If Wikipedia rid itself of Connolley back then it should, by now, reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
It does not. It provides an excellent article on climate change.”
You jest, surely!
The latest editing of the article to which you linked, was performed by an editor who is researching emergent constraints. She states –
“Emergent constraints are emergent relationships that appear when you have a group of different climate models (an ensemble) in which a mostly linear relationship appears between a variable of past climate and a variable of future climate. Using measurements of the first allows us to exploit this relationship and get a better estimate of our future climate.”
Unfortunately, comparing the past to something that hasn’t happened yet is just presumptuous idiocy, to put it mildly.
Even the IPCC admits that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
The Wikipedia article is a poorly disguised propaganda piece, pushing the IPCC nonsense. It cannot even manage to describe the GHE, nor admit that the Earth has managed to cool substantially over the last four and a half billion years or so. Full of the usual pseudoscientific GHE true believer rubbish, hoping that faith will overcome fact. A worthy successor to the foolish Connolly.
Your definition of “an excellent article on climate change.” therefore seems, and is, crazy.
Cheers.
MF, you must therefore agree that Wikipedia does not reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
My point exactly.
Thank you.
DM,
You wrote –
“MF, you must therefore agree that Wikipedia does not reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
My point exactly.
Thank you.”
Are you completely stupid, or just pretending?
The “denialists/cranks/retards” (along with a motley collection of fools, frauds and fakers) who subscribe to the pseudoscientific and mythical GHE are well reflected by the Wikipedia article you linked to.
Are you going to try and pretend they aren’t? You are as deranged as the rest of the people who believe the IPCC propaganda.
I welcome your thanks, but telling me what I must agree with is just as silly as it is pointless. Do you have any reason to think that others might agree with your obviously stupid and ignorant statement?
CO2 heats nothing. Anyone stupid enough to believe otherwise is welcome to try to demonstrate that particular piece of magical thinking by reproducible experiment. Good luck.
Cheers.
MF, I take it then that you think Wikipedia does reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
So you disagree with TWIT.
Why didn’t you say so?
DM,
You wrote –
“MF, I take it then that you think Wikipedia does reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
So you disagree with TWIT.”
You may take anything you like, although you might decide to vary your medication to your advantage.
Continuing to tell me what I think is likely to make you appear delusionally psychotic, as the perceived ability to direct the thoughts of others is usually a sign of delusional mental derangement, at least.
Carry on imagining. Don’t let facts or reality intrude into your GHE fantasy – you might become frightened and irrational.
I wish you all the best. You cannot help being what you are.
Cheers.
Flynn,
That was classic. Carry on.
Dr. Myki, horse podiatrist:
Your comments here exhibit the loss of one IQ point per week, per rigorous double blind testing, and you did not start off that high.
You ought to stay sober wile posting comments here.
Your liver will thank you.
I’ll go now, a horse is waiting for an exam.
William Connolley protected Wikipedia by insisting that entries there were based on good science with citations to peer reviewed journal papers.
Deniers don’t have any of that, and so scientists like Connolley upset them. Instead of offering countering science, they devolve into personal attacks, just like the one in the comment above.
Try Conservapedia. They have the lack of standards you’re looking for.
David, please stop trolling.
William Connolley, arguably the worlds most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore…
Haha. What a load of old cobblers.
Connolley is a libertarian who argues against too much govt interference in addressing c/c. He’s hardly an activist.
He’s become a sensation in the semi-popular blogosphere for having his moderator privileges revoked by wikipedia for reverting changes made to climate change and other articles on wikipedia. The skeptics believe he was caught propagandizing AGW. Others say he was an expert setting the record straight when ‘skeptics’ were posting nonsense, and wikipedia has no way to adjudicate expertise.
Here is an article quoted from the Financial Post in 2009, evidence of micro managment by liberals. Connolley was banned..
He’s not a liberal. He’s right-wing (libertarian).
barry says:
August 12, 2019 at 4:03 AM
Here is an article quoted from the Financial Post in 2009, evidence of micro managment by liberals. Connolley was banned..
He’s not a liberal. He’s right-wing (libertarian).
Connolley served as a parish councillor in the village of Coton (near Cambridge, England) until May 2007.[3] He stood as a Green Party candidate for either South Cambridgeshire District Council or Cambridgeshire County Council every year from 2001 to 2005.[4]
https://greenpolitics.fandom.com/wiki/William_Connolley
____________________________________________
A search on Connolley libertarian doesn’t find anything to support Barry’s claim. Here’s his blog:
https://scienceblogs.com/author/stoat
A search on Connolley libertarian doesnt find anything to support Barrys claim.
I’ve found searches to be rather limited. Here you go.
“It’s interesting because this self-professed libertarian trips over this issue all the time. Personally, I’m relatively conservative in my social views.”
https://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/02/14/should-libertarians-take-stron
His hero is Hayek (whose work inspired Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan), and he takes potshots at the left nearly as often as he withers uncritical ‘skeptics’. He pissed his regulars off consistently.
He was always an interesting read, because his views were very much his own, and rested on a lot of knowledge. He is impossible to stereotype. Those that do are only projecting their own views.
?????????????
I’m trying to link purepedantry & William M Connolley and I’m not finding it. If you want to explain, that’d be great, or not, It’s not all that important.
Dang it. That’s not Connolley, though it is directly linked at stoat (hence my error). He makes his ideas better known in the inline comments. Eg,
“[Bloody Hayek talking sense again. if only people would read him, rather than reading other people misrepresenting him 🙂 -W]”
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/12/21/hayek-and-climate
And inline comments here:
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/07/15/is-it-time-to-start-dismissing-economics-deniers
And this particular inline commentary:
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/03/20/the-great-persuasion-reinventing-free-markets-since-the-depression#comment-1788991
“It is probably impossible to find a situation where ‘free trade’ or ‘fair trade’ actually exists. We could artificially create one, but finding one that has arisen through natural events is unlikely.
[It seems like a fine idea to aim for. So getting governments to stop being roadblocks in the way would be an excellent start -W]”
barry says:
August 13, 2019 at 3:34 AM
Dang it …
Thanks. He likes Hayek so that makes him libertarin. OK, I’ll take your word for it.
He also likes governments stopping being roadblocks to free trade. That’s a libertarian viewpoint, and Hayek was a proponent of libertarian economics.
“By 1947, Hayek was an organiser of the Mont Pelerin Society, a group of classical liberals [= individual freedom under rule of law emphasising economic freedom] who sought to oppose socialism. Hayek was also instrumental in the founding of the Institute of Economic Affairs, the right-wing libertarian and free-market think tank that inspired Thatcherism. He was in addition a member of the conservative and libertarian Philadelphia Society.”
That’s not to say that Connolley thinks there should be no taxes or government, same as Hayek.
Midas said to Bill Hunter (totality of comment) –
“So you are incapable of downloading the BOM and Met Office data?”
Which is reason enough to say to the eminently meaningless Midas –
“Begone, troll!”
Message for David A. This ESRL SURFRAD data analysis of monthly means from 1996-2018 shows the modelled / measured data is rubbish because it was modelled? Or rubbish because it was measured? Or rubbish because it was both measured and modelled? Or acceptable?
Linear plots R2 trends of measured parameter differences vs CO2 % differences between 1996-2018 (or 1999, 2001, 2004) as the various stations have different starting points for full year data
Parameter R2
DWIR 0.7855
Total Net Radiation 0.2829
Albedo 0.2158
Specific humidity 0.1314
PAR 0.1314
Net IR 0.0871
Direct normal solar 0.0766
Relative humidity 0.051
DW Global Solar 0.0119
Wind 0.0035
CO2 0.002
Net Solar 3.0E-5
I have always said you should never put data in the hands of amateurs.
Scientists here can tell this stuff is rubbish simply by noting the fact that the author is quoting values to 4 significant figures – as if that made them more believable ! LOL
Begone, troll!
Does this make you feel better Professor P:
DWIR 0.7
Total Net Radiation 0.3
Albedo 0.2
Specific humidity 0.1
PAR 0.1
Net IR 0.0871
Direct normal solar 0.0766
Relative humidity 0.1
DW Global Solar 0.0
Wind 0.0
CO2 0.0
Net Solar 0
CO2 change has zero relationship with temperature change at these sites. Take Hawaii air temperatures vs MuanaLoa CO2 readings 1958-2017: linear correlation R2 is 0.02. UAH vs ML CO2 1979-07/2019 R2 is 0.4.
And what has the ESRL crew learnt (what they have reported could be different to what they have learnt in total). Clouds is the big surface DWIR driver which we all know anyway. And DW net solar driving the dimming and brightening.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/theme2.html
And CERES/ERA TOA LWR Clear vs all sky trend differences supporting this.
And yes David, I know these measurements come from models which is why I asked you. So are these ERA/CERES and ESRL surface radiation measuremnents / models robust enough to support my conclusions about CO2 and ESRLs conclusions as stated at above web site. All the papers post 2011, related to these SURFRAD measurements, (as far back as I trolled), confirm the overall SW dimming and brightening driven by clouds.
eg Augustine etals 2013 paper “Increasing downwelling longwave
(LW‐down) of +1.5 Wm−2 per decade and decreasing upwelling LW (LW‐up) of −0.9 Wm−2 per decade produce a +2.3 Wm−2 per decade increase in surface net‐LW, which dwarfs the expected contribution to LW‐down from the 30 ppm increase of CO2 during the analysis period.”
My R2 analysis just confirms what they are saying. Does that answer your question Craig?
What does “CO2 0.0” mean?
CO2 change has zero relationship with temperature change at these sites. Take Hawaii air temperatures vs MuanaLoa CO2 readings 1958-2017: linear correlation R2 is 0.02.
Scientists can do those calculations too. Don’t you wonder why they have all concluded CO2 has an effect on temperature despite them? Aren’t you curious about that?
politics!
Bill: What efforts have you made to learn why the climate science community has concluded all of modern warming is due to man?
What books have you read?
Scientific papers?
He did read some of this:
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Bill hunter says:
“I read the abstract and I am not interested in reading the entire article.”
Too political I guess.
David Appell says: Bill: What efforts have you made to learn why the climate science community has concluded all of modern warming is due to man? What books have you read?
Scientific papers?
—————–
100’s David. And even then I have a better understanding of them than you do as has been proven several times over in these threads.
You gobble up the nonsense 100% on a political basis. My stance spans the political spectrum. I don’t just gobble up the politically correct stuff and spew it back at everybody like you do without exception David.
————-
————-
Svante says: He did read some of this:
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Bill hunter says: “I read the abstract and I am not interested in reading the entire article.” Too political I guess.
Ummm, possibly. Either that or ignorance. I just have no interest in proxies that assume they already know the greenhouse effect from CO2, aerosol, and ash volcanic activity. Those proxies love to use “the best science available” in kind of a bizarre circle jerk that some folks just love to jump in on and gobble up its output.
Its like tree ring proxies where the assumption is that since the tree lies near the tree line changing temperature is going to be the controlling life or death force. But any hobbyist gardener understands that temperature can be important but also sunlight, fertilizer, and water play critical roles and so the cloistered academic perhaps never gardened in their lifetime assumes the mainstream conventional wisdom that all moisture in the air is controlled by CO2 and thus cloud changes and precipitation are unlikely to change it must be a temperature signal. And any tree that doesn’t comply is basically discarded because some farmer must have came and fertilized it, watered it, or drove a tractor near it.
Sorry but one seldom finds any new nuggets of information in these kinds of “group think” studies. I may as well spend my time randomly reading nursery rhimes.
Now if you have proclaimed Svante having found some golden nugget in the tome, and expressed your belief in that nugget then I would have been motivated to read it. But no!
You suggested I read it to search for a PDO signal inside a paper written on the AMO signal, and I know enough that reading about the AMO signal was only going to give me another reason to be uncertain about CO2 forcing no matter how much they were willing to disregard it in the paper. Because really the only way to disregard is assume you now everything about everything else.
If I were looking for more reasons to be uncertain I would have read it.
Lauchlan what do you think these R2 values show?
Lauchlan Duff: All measurements come from models.
And I agree with Professor P.
Craig T, David, please stop trolling.
Is the absence of hurricanes in the Atlantic a sign of warming?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/mdrssta.png
La Nina is just waiting for an increase in solar activity and latitudinal jetstream.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
No La Nina in sight.
Nothing unusual.
That’s right, nothing unusual, just run of the mill ENSO neutral conditions with no sign of tipping in either direction.
It is already tilting.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The SOI index is growing strongly.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
By ‘growing’ you mean returning to neutral.
ENSO 1+2 fluctuates wildly in both directions. It is the least useful of the four ENSO regions for judging what is happening. And it’s not even centered on the equator.
I wrote that you have to wait for the magnetic activity of the Sun to increase, which is now very low.
The SOI index has increased a lot in recent days.
Daily variations in the SOI mean little. That is just weather.
Midas, please stop trolling.
The height and the average temperature of the tropopause at different latitudes.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00986/o3hp7gdpg835.png
The boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, where an abrupt change in lapse rate usually occurs. It is defined as the lowest level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2 C/km or less, provided that the average lapse rate between this level and all higher levels within 2 km does not exceed 2 C/km.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_height_of_the_Tropopause
So at a latitude of 60 degrees it is at 29000 feet or 8.8 km.
So it is only in the summer.
Below you can see the current tropopause height over North America below the 60th parallel.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
The tropopause occurs at approximately 20,000 feet (6,096 m) over the poles and at approximately 60,000 feet (18,288 m) above the equator.
Your graph was for 60 degrees north. And I still don’t know the relevance.
Graphics refer to an average temperature between 60 and 90 degrees latitude.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2019.png
The next graphic concerns the average temperature between 10 degrees north latitude and 10 degrees south latitude.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2019.png
Especially when the jet is strong and the associated front at low levels intense, then the tropopause height drops suddenly across the jet stream. Sometimes the tropopause actually folds down to 500 hPa (5.5 km) and even lower, just behind a well-defined cold front. The subsided stratospheric air within such a tropopause fold (or in the less pronounced tropopause dip) is much warmer than the tropospheric air it replaces, at the same level, and this warm advection aloft (around 300 hPa) largely explains the movement of the frontal low (at the surface) into the cold airmass, a process called occlusion .
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
I still don’t understand the relevance to climate. I compared your chart to their first one in 1979, and there seemed to be little difference.
There is a Natgeo letter that may be relevant. According to Robinson and Catling the tropopause is going to happen at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.2 bars. As Dr. Roy’s bot choked on the URL here are some clues:
Google “Catling, tropopause”
One of the responses will contain “Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause”
Maybe that will explain at least part of the difference between tropopause altitude (poles vs. equator).
Mike Flynn:
You said:
“Averaging 101 known incorrect results is a pointless waste of time, without some experimentally verifiable reason.”
Averaging data sets makes no scientific sense and I am sure John Christy would be the first to agree with you. My take is he was trying to make the point that the models diverge from observations.
In the graph you’re referring to Christy averaged 4 balloon datasets, 3 satellite datasets and 3 reanalysis.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
We are having conniptions over a few tenths of a degree. The danger in this is that we don’t see the big picture.
This is a link to a long video that I found entertaining but near the end has a really scary slide. Life sequesters carbon so over the last 500 million years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has trended downwards. We live in an Ice Age with dangerously low CO2 levels. Ergo, we need more CO2 and higher temperatures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4
While significant fraction of earth is pretty cold, There are lots of places on earth where temperatures are already pretty high and raising them may be a bad idea. Such as some of the warmer areas of teh tropics are at the 29-31*C already. The 35*C to 37*C is a practical upper limit for most mammals as that is what core temperature of most mammals is, meaning that those places in tropics are only as far as 4 to 8 *C away from becoming uninhabitable for mammals. Now, 4 to 8*C may or may not seem like alot, but that’s what warmmongerers are expecting. Anyways, just anna point that raising temperatures indiscriminately may not be the best idea in the world.
@coturnix: If ever the Earth warms to the point where the equator is uninhabitable [continuous air conditioning failure?], communities simply will relocate toward the poles. I suspect the opposite migration will occur when (not if) the next glaciation occurs.
An excellent idea. I trust that 1.2 billion Africans are welcome in the UK and 422 million South Americans are welcome in the United States.
As it is, millions of South Americans forced by climate change to migrate North are being refused entry to the US.
Wrong E-man, South Americans will migrate to the tropical paradise of Antarctica.
So Antarctica will warm by 50 degrees? Looks like you’ve jumped ship, leapfrogging the real science to go to the Guy McPherson camp.
Wrong again, Midas.
I just enjoy throwing the pseudoscience back in clowns’ faces.
gallopingcamel says:
Life sequesters carbon so over the last 500 million years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has trended downwards.
But with significant evidence of hyperthermal warming along the way. Like the one we’re in now.
We live in an Ice Age with dangerously low CO2 levels.
Bollocks. Life has adjusted to the pre-industrial climate, with plenty of plant life present. We change that at our peril, requiring all species to adapt or die.
Unable to understand even the basic physics, DA goes full extremist:
“But with significant evidence of hyperthermal warming along the way. Like the one we’re in now.”
“We change that at our peril, requiring all species to adapt or die.”
DA shows what can happen to an out-of-work clown, after years of avoiding reality.
DA,
Adaptation is part of the evolutionary process, according to Charles Darwin. The Darwinian theory of evolution has not been shown to be wrong by experiment to date, so maybe it is correct, and adaptation is a natural process.
Regardless of which evolutionary theory (or other theory explaining our existence) you subscribe to, refusing to accept the fact that all plants depending on photosynthesis die if deprived of CO2 does not change the fact. No plants, we all die!
The physics of the atmosphere appear to involve chaos. This is why the IPCC states that future climate states are not predictable. The impacts of humanity on the atmosphere are likewise unpredictable. You may believe you know better. Good for you!
The universe will no doubt unfold as it should. A reasonable strategy might be to hope for the best, and prepare for the worst – based on one’s best assumptions, based on personal knowledge.
Cheers.
To understand the climate you need geologists like Robert A. Rhode at Berkeley Earth. Here is his temperature plot covering the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (aka the PETM).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
At the height of the PETM polar seas averaged 12 Kelvin above today’s temperatures. This suggests that equatorial temperatures were ~4 K above today thanks to “Polar Amplification”. These high temperatures were very favorable to mammals:
Mammals evolved a greater variety of forms in the first few million years after the dinosaurs went extinct than in the previous 160 million years of mammal evolution under the rule of dinosaurs.” Anjali Goswami (UCL Genetics).
This Mammal Explosion occurred during the PETM. Warmer is better, at least for mammals
And that leaves us to wonder who will benefit by the current warming, and who will suffer.
Our warming is 1000 times faster than the PETM’s.
David, please stop trolling.
“Life sequesters carbon so over the last 500 million years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has trended downwards.”
And you have to admit life was simpler before the Cambrian era.
Dead on Craig. While the Cambrian “Fixed” huge amounts of carbon the big players are the marine creatures that create the carbonaceous rocks. Here is the current carbon inventory:
In atmosphere…………………….1 Giga-tonne
In oceans……………………….37 Giga-tonnes
In soils……………………..1,500 Giga-tonnes
Fossil fuels………. ………..7,500 Giga-tonnes
Carbonaceous rocks……….100,000,000 Giga-tonnes
The scary fact is that 21,000 years ago the [CO2] in the atmosphere was 180 ppm. When [CO2] reaches 150 ppm trees start to die, especially at high altitudes. Once the level falls below 100 ppm most plant die and hence most animals. At the present rate, land based life has at most 2 million years before extinction. Sea creatures may last a little longer.
I got this information from a presentation by Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4
u forgot 000 after the first two numbers, it should be: atmosphere – 1000 GtC (actually still a bit less, around 600 GtC about now), oceans – around 37000 GtC.
from Patrick Moore:
“Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.”
“….nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”
— Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
This was after he was bought out by the nuclear power industry but before he was bought out by the fossil fuel industry. At around this same time, he was observed making a financial transaction with a man who had curved conical protuberances growing out of his head.
Unfortunately, the protuberance growing out of your forehead isn’t a horn.
I see you’ve noticed my halo. That explains your frequent hissing fits.
Erm…OK, Midas.
https://www.academia.edu/26876019/KEPLERS_MOON
Craig T, before you sidetrack the topic, does a racehorse rotate on its axis?
A racehorse in orbit or one running a track?
Jonathan Swift couldn’t write a better satire of science denial and anti-intellectualism than the Moon argument. The story probably ends with quasi-government overlords convincing us the Moon rotates as a way to enslave us.
I’m just playing Marty Feldman, saying “Frau Blucher” to frighten the (race)horse.
Unable to answer the simple question, Craig T prefers trolling over science.
Nothing new.
Good to see the teacher praising the student.
JDH, stop flogging your dead horse.
Witless trolls, begone!
Slightly O/T but possibly of interest to some:
The UK National Electricity Grid has just given the country a major, wide-spread, blackout; at a time of low demand, but with fresh, fluky winds supplying 27% of that demand. Instability due to reliance upon renewables is the obvious suspect. At any rate, the incident conforms to definite, public warnings by some electrical engineers.
Perhaps the thunderstorms and heavy rain are partly to blame.
Em,
The UK met Office employs around 2000 people.
A couple of years ago, the CEO of the Met Office said –
“We used to pride ourselves on being the best weather and climate service in the world. Now we think of ourselves as the best in the galaxy, says Varley, pointing out that for decades the Met Office has been consistently voted No 1 out of all the national weather services in the world.”
It seems odd that the best forecasters “in the galaxy” (British Met Office modesty at its best) were unable to forecast thunderstorms and heavy rain in the UK.
No wonder the BBC dumped the Met Office on the grounds of charging too much, and delivering too little.
Just as a matter of interest, the wind forecasts (short and long term) paid for and used by wind farm operators are generally based on naive persistence forecasts – no need for models, computers, or knowledge of atmospheric physics or radiative transfer equations! Just faith that someone else knows what they are doing, better than you.
Ah, well – all part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Betting that the weather tomorrow will be the same as today will send you broke in a hurry.
cd,
As far as I know, no two days have ever had precisely the same weather. Good luck with finding someone to bet otherwise.
Maybe you are talking (in ignorance) about persistence forecasting generally, in which case the following quote from the University of Illinois might help to enlighten you –
“This makes persistence a “hard to beat” method for forecasting longer time periods.”
Are you making pointless and irrelevant comments for some reason, or are you just trolling?
Feel free to bet with me – you’ll lose.
Cheers.
I bet that in one year’s time you will still be posting the same rubbish as you did one year ago.
Ian, please stop trolling.
Similar events are common in South Australia for the same reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q
Tried watching and noticed that the audience seemed to comprise balding, bespectacled, old men perving on the presenter.
Begone, troll!
MF, don’t tell me you watched it !!
At your age !!
Disgusting!
cd, please stop drolling.
Early reports are that 2 power generators, a major one (gas-powered), and a wind-powered generator both disconnected from the grid within minutes of each other, the gas generator going first.
The event wasn’t because of low winds, but supposedly because of a technical failure that cut the links to the grid.
barry, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn
As Feynman said
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
Climate change denial does not agree with experiment.
Why do you persist in your denial in the face of Feynman’s wisdom?
Em,
You have spoken like true pseudoscientific GHE true believer!
You can’t even name one “climate change denier”, can you? If you do not believe that the climate (being the average of weather – no more no less) has not been changing since the first atmosphere appeared, then you are indeed in a state of deep denial.
Tossing out random Feynman quotes, attempting to appear intelligent, is pointless, unless you actually understand what you are talking about.
In this instance, what is this “theory” you ascribe to me by implication? What imaginary “experiment” have you devised to demonstrate that a non-existent “theory” is invalid? I do not possess any mind reading abilities, so I’ll just ask you directly – are you more stupid than ignorant, or vice versa?
In your particular fantasy, what is it that you believe I am “denying”?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
“Tossing out random Feynman quotes, attempting to appear intelligent, is pointless, unless you actually understand what you are talking about.”
You really should listen to Mike on that one.
CT,
You wrote –
“You really should listen to Mike on that one.”
Thank you for the encomium. Ill treasure it forever (or maybe not?).
Cheers.
Em,
Claims that CO2 drives climate are false. The IPCC created this fraudulent idea using the correlation between [CO2] and temperature from 1850 to 1998.
This correlation is mere coincidence. [CO2] seldom correlates with temperature and when it does (as in the EPICA and Vostok ice cores) [CO2] lags temperature.
Even in the topsy-turvy world of “Climate Change” cause precedes effect.
Study the PETM. Like today, CO2 emissions caused global warming.
PS: When are you going to find that missing 150 W/m2?
DA,
You wrote –
“Study the PETM. Like today, CO2 emissions caused global warming.”
Complete nonsense, of course. The Earth has cooled since its initial molten state. Nothing has prevented this cooling. A large blob of molten rock in space has no choice but to cool.
Only pseudoscientific GHE true believers are deluded enough to ascribe magical heating properties to CO2. Additional magic is needed to turn the heating on and off as required.
Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by using CO2, and nobody ever will, without using magic.
Neither you nor anybody else has actually managed to usefully describe the GHE, have they? How inconvenient for cultists such as yourself! Maybe you could try appealing to the non-authority of the non-scientist Gavin Schmidt, or the non-Nobel Laureate Michael Mann?
Have fun.
Cheers.
Just wrong. The theory came before the data.
M,
What a pity you cannot actually find this GHE “theory”! You can’t even find a description of the GHE which would allow the formulation of a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?
Fools of a feather flock together. A collective triumph of faith over fact – based on the rich fantasy world inhabited by pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
Keep preaching. I’m sure there must be people even more stupid and ignorant than you, who might believe your bizarre assertions. Good luck.
Cheers.
Mike, you are ranting and drooling again. Time for your medications.
Begone, psychobabbling troll!
Galloping camel
The Earth is radiating less energy to space than it receives. The imbalance matches the rate and pattern of energy accumulation in the system and the rate of warming.
The spectrum of the OLR and DWLR and the way they change over time indicates the mechanism by which the increasing temperature is due to increasing CO2 and water vapour.
Some simple physics confirms that increasing CO2 is the cause and water vapour is an amplifying feedback.
–Entropic man says:
August 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM
Galloping camel
The Earth is radiating less energy to space than it receives. The imbalance matches the rate and pattern of energy accumulation in the system and the rate of warming.–
The earth could radiate less energy than receives, and largely this warming ocean which average temperature of about 3.5 C
In addition to warming the frigid ocean, energy could used to melt ice [or melt water as it’s colder than average temperature of ocean].
We are in ice age, have been for millions of years and this not going to change anytime, soon.
Re: the ice age
from Ganopolski et al:
“…moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years.”
– Nature Letter, Jan 2016, doi:10.1038/nature16494
Humans have already emitted about 620 GtC through 2018, and are now emitting about 40 Gt CO2 (11 GtC) a year. Assuming this doesnt increase with time, the lower limit of 1000 GtC will be reached in about 35 years, the upper limit in about 80 years.
The next ice age is toast.
David Appell says: – The next ice age is toast.
———–
Lets hope so! But I think you probably meant the next glacial epoch in the current ice age known as the Quaternary. You really should study up on this more before commenting.
“Ice age” is a common colloquialism for a glacial maximum.
David Appell says: Ice age is a common colloquialism for a glacial maximum.
Yep it is for the ignorant and some of us old geezers that use the correct words so seldomly we forget what they were.
Lol
Another frog!
Begone, meaningless troll!
DA wrote (total comment) –
“All measurements are done with a model. All of them.”
Meaningless nonsense. Just more pseudoscientific GHE true believer diversion. Just more irrelevant trolling.
Who cares, David?
Cheers.
Calm down Mike – or I will get Dr Schmidt to deal with you. Or, even worse, Dr Mann!
Begone, delusional troll!
Time to prime the electrodes.
10 amps should do it.
“Change the poles from plus to minus and from minus to plus”
Where should I attach them?
Well there’s no point attaching one to each ear. Current won’t flow through a vacuum.
OK, Midas.
“A new paper published by researchers form the University of Turku in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant.”
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
“Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature.”
And:
“Thus, in order to come to the results matching the actual climate change the IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, Kauppinen and Malmi claim that their paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
Not sure if I agree. Or I don’t think low cloud cover control global temperature.
So, two hundred years, it was cooler. And presumably it had more low cloud cover, then later we got less low cloud cover, and it warmed to present warmer global temperatures.
And if we get more low cloud cover in future it will cool. Or if get less low cloud cover, it will warm.
Or I always wondered what caused cooling effect of LIA, and the “answer provided” is more low cloud cover.
On topic of clouds, Iris hypothesis. Wiki:
“The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Richard Lindzen et al. in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere.”
[less high clouds, more cooling] And:
“The consensus view is that increased sea surface temperature would result in increased cirrus clouds and reduced infrared radiation leakage and therefore a positive feedback.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
Does more low cloud cover result in less cirrus clouds, as part of Iris effect? And then have additional mechanism [related to solar min} which causes more low clouds and it further reduces cirrus clouds?
OR is having more or less low cloud cover, unconnected to the amount of cirrus clouds.
What do low clouds [about 2000 meter or lower] do to ocean surface temperatures in the tropics. If lower surface temperature then Lindzen says increase cirrus clouds, and consensus view says it decreases cirrus clouds.
And tend to think low clouds have little effect upon average ocean surface temperature, though tend to think less water would evaporate from ocean surface- but there different kinds of low clouds [or low cloud rapidly growing into high cloud, is not my idea of a low cloud]
Physics and astronomy – so no education in meteorological processes then.
link was from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Not sure what the source of the link has to do with anything. I am talking about the people who wrote this paper.
I forgot to include where got the article from. It was from instapundit.com
{it has nothing to do with what you posted}
As far as your comment goes. I am not interested much in astronomy
nor was article anything about astronomy.
The blog is written by Roy W. Spencer, who is meteorologist and I would be interested in any comments that Roy has about the article.
I am also interested any comment by the posters.
It seems to me that in terms of basic model of global climate, clouds are as important as greenhouse gases [or “other greenhouse gases” as clouds are considered to be a greenhouse gas].
But for a science which is “settled” the understanding clouds related to global climate, seems limited.
“Climate science is settled *enough*” Raymond Pierrehumbert, Slate 10/1/14
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/the_wall_street_journal_and_steve_koonin_the_new_face_of_climate_change.html
Gbaikie
Observations show no large changes in cloud cover in recent decades, possibly small increases in both low and high cloud.
Since low cloud cools and high cloud warms that probably means that in the short term clouds are climate change neutral.
In the long term, nobody is sure.
Regarding Ice Ages If you look at the paleo data for the last 600 million years there seem to be four strange attractors:-
Snowball – Ice to the tropics. Very low sea level. Global average temperature 5C.
Ice Age glacial – Ice to 50N. Low sea level. 9C
Ice Age interglacial – 19th/20th century conditions. 14C
Hothouse – Eocene conditions. Little or no ice. High sea level. 19C
The last 2 million years have been 90% glacial, 10% interglacial on a roughly 100,000 year cycle.
One concern of the climate scientists is that AGW will be enough to tip us from interglacial to hothouse.
–Entropic man says:
August 11, 2019 at 11:57 AM
Gbaikie
Observations show no large changes in cloud cover in recent decades, possibly small increases in both low and high cloud.
Since low cloud cools and high cloud warms that probably means that in the short term clouds are climate change neutral.–
Perhaps.
–Regarding Ice Ages If you look at the paleo data for the last 600 million years there seem to be four strange attractors:-
Snowball Ice to the tropics. Very low sea level. Global average temperature 5C.–
As I noted, old sea floors [or supercontinent] causes low sea level.
Also in our present Ice age, the average temperature of entire has gone as low as to 1 C.
What average temperature of ocean do you think Snowball earth goes to?
And are sure it doesn’t raise sea levels rather than lower them?
Pierre Humbert is nothing but a sleazy politician quite simply too stupid to even know how ignorant he is. How could anybody believe a word he says? Answer? They shouldn’t! They should demand proof! If Pierrehumbert is also too stupid to figure out how to prove what he believes so earnestly; then that just doubles down on the proof of how stupid he is.
You go straight for insults, without even trying to examine RP’s work. Shameful.
What specifically do you find wrong in his work?
Whats wrong with it? Its full of insults. there is no work in that paper at all just insults.
BH: That’s a ridiculous lie.
Can you even understand RP’s papers? Can you read scientific journals? Have you *ever* read a scientific paper?
Because I have yet to see even a glimmer of science in any of your replies.
bill hunter says:
“Pierre Humbert [sic] is nothing but a sleazy politician”.
He is a professor of physics, check out his publications on the right here:
https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/pierrehumbert
David Appell says: – BH: Thats a ridiculous lie.
Can you even understand RPs papers? Can you read scientific journals? Have you *ever* read a scientific paper?
Because I have yet to see even a glimmer of science in any of your replies.
There wasn’t a glimmer of science in my reply on Pierrehumbert because there wasn’t a glimmer of science in Pierrehumbert’s article that was linked to above.
If you think there was please write about it. And if you can’t see the insults I will help you read the article.
Bill, clearly you didn’t read the entire article, because Pierrehumbert cites the IPCC — itself full of thousands of citations — sea level data from UC Boulder, the journals WIREs Climate Change, Climate Dynamics, and Science and the National Academy Press.
David Appell says: – Bill, clearly you didnt read the entire article, because Pierrehumbert cites the IPCC itself full of thousands of citations sea level data from UC Boulder, the journals WIREs Climate Change, Climate Dynamics, and Science and the National Academy Press.
LOL! Pierrehumbert lead author on the worst of the worst IPCC reports defending his work via insults and quoting the documents he relied upon like an appeal to authority has anything to do with science and the points being made by the many good people he was insulting.
gbalkie, the Kauppinen and Malmi is the purest kind of junk. For example, they claim CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.24 C, by…citing themselves! They don’t say where their cloud data comes from.
This paper will never come close to passing peer review and it will never be published in a decent journal. But it’s just the kind of thing deniers jump on, ignoring the thousand other papers that have already established AGW. It’s a sorry spectacle. Again.
Re: Kauppinen and Malmi
“Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming,” Climate Feedback, 7/12/19.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
“Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.”
Maybe because increase in relative humidity could cause more low level clouds {if in solar min}.
Currently we spending a lot time in Solar Mins.
Not that agree with idea- as I have said I think we still recovering from the Little Ice Age- roughly, related to changes ocean circulation.
“gbalkie, the Kauppinen and Malmi is the purest kind of junk. For example, they claim CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.24 C, byciting themselves! They dont say where their cloud data comes from.”
Of course IPCC said CO2 caused at least 1/2 of the .4 C recent warming. And .24 C is at least 1/2.
I believe doubling of CO2 will cause .5 C or less of warming.
Other think it’s about 1 C or more.
gbaikie says:
Currently we spending a lot time in Solar Mins.
And yet land and ocean temperatures are higher than ever.
I believe doubling of CO2 will cause .5 C or less of warming.
Based on what calculation?
Have you noticed that we’re already had 1.0 C of warming when CO2 hasn’t even increased by half yet?
David Appell says:
gbaikie says:
Currently we spending a lot time in Solar Mins.
And yet land and ocean temperatures are higher than ever.
I believe doubling of CO2 will cause .5 C or less of warming.
Based on what calculation?
Have you noticed that were already had 1.0 C of warming when CO2 hasnt even increased by half yet?
—————
gbaike’s .5 or less is where I am at also. Lost count of the various reasonableness tests I have applied, some of which may rest on shaky physics grounds, but the whole science is shaky in the absence of clear blueprint of how the system works.
With the models from a warming bias selection point of view (which always occurs in the public funding sector whether its MIC stuff or its any process that has been instituted via a lobbying process from any special interest sector of the society – which you would know if you weren’t such a virgin at all this) still have an astronomical range of individual results.
As many skeptics point out its absolutely appalling that with billions and billions of dollars poured into this boondoggle the range has not narrowed at all. If anything its getting wider as the non-special interest funded portion of the public slowly achieves funding despite the war being waged against them.
Its really quite simple David. If this were pure science the uncertainties are so great that science would be welcoming with open arms new ideas to improve our knowledge of climate.
But instead its a political war partly over special interests, partly over knowledge that this has been overhyped and total funding could shrink with a widening of ideas, meaning less to go around. If real progress were being made then funding could be maintained from that perspective and perhaps even expanded as it would begin to relieve the doubt we have the capability of understanding climate.
In fact in my experience as progress is made all political sides begin to work together asking for science to provide more information. The very fact that is not happening speaks to how ill founded the whole project is. And of course those on the side of the folks currently most funded, see it as some grand right wing conspiracy. But its not, its simply a projection of conspiracy theorists who lack any progress to point toward.
All of the criticisms of the paper are the same criticisms of the mainstream science.
No, that paper made certain claims that aren’t supportable.
Such as the authors not giving the source of their cloud data.
Shouldnt a proper paper cite its data sources, Bill?
What about the assumption that CO2s climate sensitivity is 0.24 C? For that they cited another only their own work one never published, the other two published in junk journals.
Citing ones own claims is scientific masturbation.
David Appell says: – No, that paper made certain claims that arent supportable.
Such as the authors not giving the source of their cloud data.
Shouldnt a proper paper cite its data sources, Bill?
————–
Granted! Since the paper is pre-published it should be corrected before finalized. I doubt he made the data up.
———–
———–
David Appell says: –
What about the assumption that CO2s climate sensitivity is 0.24 C? For that they cited another only their own work one never published, the other two published in junk journals.
————-
Junk journal? Sounds like sour grapes David. Looks like they have a highly qualified editorial board.
David Appell says: – Citing ones own claims is scientific masturbation.
————-
I kind of doubt that you would want to hang with that one as all the IPCC reports have lead authors quoting their own work. But I might just agree with that! Smiley!
That paper won’t be published anywhere — it’s absurd.
Authors do sometimes cite their own PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL papers.
And, yes, the two journals they do cite are well known as places that publish junk science.
David Appell says:-
That paper wont be published anywhere its absurd.
Authors do sometimes cite their own PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL papers.
And, yes, the two journals they do cite are well known as places that publish junk science.
You are such a political hack David, why should I believe any of that? The guys are citing peer reviewed journals so you come up with any unsupported nonsense you can dream up to suggest that’s not the case.
Blah, blah . . .
That’s all well and good, but what I really think we should be talking about is this:
Suppose we make a permanent lunar base on the moon. Humans being what they are, sooner or later a baby is born on the moon who experiences a roughly 28 “earth day” cycle of solar rotation in the sky. In the moon elementary school books, do we explain that the Sun rotates around the moon?
Just wondering if anybody has an opinion . . .
Are you troll?
Do you not understand frames of reference or anything known since Newton?
I would assume that anybody actually able to type coherent words on the internet would know the answer to this.
MM
You come here with your first comment, having no idea what has been discussed and what this is in relation to, and needlessly attack him.
@Midas
It is not true that I have “no idea what has been discussed”.
What has been discussed is exactly why I chose to post.
MM
If you were raised on the moon before Copernicus, then you would learn that earth does not rotate around the moon but the sun rotates around the moon every 28 days or so.
Newton ended all this debate (away from relativistic scales), so if you are confused, you are either ignorant or making a semantic rather than physical argument.
Milo:
Are you the troll and don’t know that on this site, it is high priority to argue about such things? I think you are a troll, just trying to stir up the pot.
Isn’t Jeffry Jffs the troll here? I just be calling him out for the stupid idea he states.
The troll is the person who comes up with a different name, but doesn’t have the imagination to change the initials from MM.
Midas, please stop trolling.
Can we just give this all a rest?
The Sun and Moon revolve around the Earth, the rest is fake news. Get over it.
MAGA!
Georgie
Here we have a typical anti-science Trump supporter. And the AGW deniers will tacitly support this anti-science nonsense by refusing to attack it.
Here we have Midas being pranked, but unable to realize it because he believes he is too smart to be tricked.
Nothing new.
Here we have JDH inventing excuses for himself.
Midas another leftist laying claim to all knowledge and wisdom.
Not at all. I have no knowledge of why the right has abandoned knowledge.
Midas admits: “I have no knowledge…”
Midas, you could have stopped there.
But then you would have been right, for a change….
That’s easy Midas, like Plato’s Philosopher Kings only Leftists are able to know “the good.”
JDH
That’s the best you could come up with? That has the sophistication of a 10-year-old.
Midas, please stop trolling.
M,
You wrote –
“I suppose these aren’t snarky:”
Your supposition appears correct. Why are you bothering to point out the obvious?
For example, you also wrote –
“Here we have a typical anti-science Trump supporter. And the AGW deniers will tacitly support this anti-science nonsense by refusing to attack it.”
Some might claim this was “snarky”, but it is obvious that you are merely delusional, making assertions unsupported by fact (apparently based on the belief that you can read minds), and using meaningless terms like “AGW deniers”. What in blue blazes is an “AGW denier”? Is it a pseudoscientific GHE true believer synonym for that other witless term “climate denier”?
I might point out that Nature doesn’t care what you think, be it delusional or not. Nor does Nature pay any attention to the opinions of the other seven billion or so people in the world.
Carry on believing that your opinion is important, if it makes you feel better. It is just as important (or unimportant) as anyone else’s, I suppose. Do you have any particular reason for thinking your opinion is more important than mine, for example? Should I be worried that you will smite me with some secret super power?
In the meantime, feel free to carry on as you wish. If you choose to feel offended, insulted, or annoyed, that is your choice. Nobody can control your feelings, can they?
Cheers.
It seems you believe that “nature” is a proper noun.
M,
So do others.
“Nature is actually a proper noun (Mother Nature) which is often used in its common, or uncapitalized, form: nature. There is only one Nature, and it is an abstract concept; therefore, we do not use an article with this word.” – from the Academic Success Centre, UNBC.
Do you have a point? Do I care?
Cheers.
Th academic success centre?? You had to dig deep to find that one. Why not refer to a dictionary, not of which refer to it as a proper noun. Let me guess … all dictionaries have been taken over by liberals, right?
M,
Do your have to practice being a fool, or does it come naturally.
You wrote –
“Why not refer to a dictionary, not of which refer to it as a proper noun.”
Why don’t you learn to write comprehensible English? I do as I wish.
From one dictionary –
“Mother Nature is sometimes used to refer to nature, especially when it is being considered as a force that affects human beings.”
Feel free to submit a paper to Nature, referring to Nature in the same sense as I did.
Don’t be surprised if Nature is printed in Nature as submitted.
Have fun. You will probably learn as you mature.
Cheers.
If you were raised on the moon before Copernicus, then you would learn that earth does not rotate around the moon but the sun rotates around the moon every 28 days or so.
Newton ended all this debate (away from relativistic scales), so if you are confused, you are either ignorant or making a semantic rather than physical argument.
Its semantic, mostly. You can tell because none of the nonrotators will define “rotation” or specify how to operationally determine if a celestial body rotates or not. They know doing so reveals the flaw in their thinking and claims.
Maybe they’re waiting for you to explain how the Moon’s rotation perfectly matches its orbit.
Maybe he is waiting for you to research tidal locking.
M,
Or maybe not. Who would know?
Cheers.
I already understand tidal locking.
Why is this blog suddenly chock full of See You Next Tuesdays?
Dear Pot,
Who are you callin’ black?
Regards,
Kettle
No you are!
Trump!
Politics!
Snide remarks!
You, Huffman, Flynn:
Attacks against scientists and posters.
Politics.
Snide remarks.
No you are!
Trump!
Politics!
Snide remarks!
M,
You wrote –
“You, Huffman, Flynn:
Attacks against scientists and posters.
Politics.
Snide remarks.”
This is the sort of irrational comment often made by pseudoscientific GHE true believers, of the delusional kind.
You make a series of unsupported assertions. You write one word sentences imparting no useful information. What is the sentence “Politics.” supposed to mean?
Maybe you think you are so important that you do not need to adhere to normal language conventions?
My opinion, based on your bizarre comment, is that you are not only a fool, but delusional to boot.
Cheers.
“This is the sort of irrational comment often made by … (insert description of DREMT here) …, of the delusional kind.”
“You write one word sentences imparting no useful information. What is the sentence “Politics” supposed to mean?”
As that was a direct copy of the post I was replying to and not my own words, thanks for joining with me in attacking the nonsense of DREMT. Good to have you on board! (Oh wait – it’s somehow different when he posts it, right?)
OK, Midas.
It seems only you three are permitted to swamp the blog with comments. If you want it to stop, cease this inane “please stop trolling” BS.
No you are!
Trump!
Politics!
Snide remarks!
You are only showing who the real dylsexic Cnut is.
Your aim is to kill any debate, and you’ve figured that repeating the same childish, unimaginative comment ad nauseam will do that for you.
Midas, you don’t have any “debate”. All you have are your snarky remarks attempting to pervert and corrupt reality.
Nothing new.
I’m sure you’re right.
I suppose these aren’t snarky:
“Fakers, frauds and fools. You support such bumbling fumblers”
“Did it take you much effort to achieve your present level of stupidity? The world wonders”
“dont start denying photosynthesis. Youre already denying enough science.”
“We enjoy the humor you provide, but please dont take yourself too seriously. Wackos tend to be a danger to themselves or others.”
“How many bogus assumptions do clowns have to make in order to scare themselves?”
“May the funniest clown win.”
“So you make pointless comments just for fun?”
“Begone, witless troll”
“Do you feel silly yet?”
“are you ignorant or dishonest”
“How stupid and ignorant is that? What a fool.”
No you are!
You have work to do to catch up to the trolling ability of your two friends. I suppose it feels safe for you to stick to the tried and tested.
OK, Midas.
Begone, foolish troll!
Midas, you are such a phony.
You avoided any quotes from Nate, bob, Norman, DA, fluffball, nurse, and the other clowns like “dr” myki and the child that usurps other’s names.
Clean up your act, before you attact others.
Why would I mimic others who have nothing to do with this thread and have provided me with nothing worth mimicking?
Begone, troll!
A one word message, followed by your one-word epithet.
#2
OK, Midas.
DREMT
You know you don’t have to reply to comments that are not directed at you and are of no concern to you, right?
#3
OK, Midas.
Isn’t it time you had a new thought?
#4
OK, Midas.
How about now?
#5
OK, Midas.
Troll, begone!
Still waiting …
#6
OK, Midas.
Footage of Thredbo Resort in New South Wales seeing over 80cm of snow (August 9, 2019)
https://youtu.be/kP99m3-Gboc
Some of you refer to David Appell as an idiot. He is better than that…..at the very least he is a “Useful Idiot” and sometimes I think of him as the “Magnificent Troll”. Check out this link he supplied and you will see what I mean:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
It is an article written by Patrick Moore for the Washington Post in 2006. Here are some quotes from that article together with my comments:
QUOTE 1
More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.
COMMENT 1
Patrick Moore is remarkable in many ways. For example, he is big enough to publicly admit when he is wrong. This is a very rare quality, especially among prominent people.
Thirteen years later, Patrick Moore showed that CO2 has a negligible effect on global temperature using compelling scientific evidence that you can find here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4
QUOTE 2
Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants.
COMMENT 2
Like the rest of us Moore did not predict the dramatic effect that fracking would have on global energy prices. As a consequence new gas plants are being built world wide and some old plants are being converted to use natural gas.
Given the kind of man Moore is I would be happy to wager $100 that he would publicly admit he was wrong about natural gas if asked.
QUOTE 3
Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour…..
COMMENT 3
I don’t know where Moore got his information back in 2006 but I am gratified that I reached a similar conclusion seven years later after spending a week at the Oconee station in South Carolina. My estimate for the LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Energy) for this “Old Nuke” was $22/MWh which converts to $0.022/kVAh.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/electric-power-in-florida/
Once online I showed Patrick Moore’s quote to him. His ridiculous, unbelievable answer was that the editor put words in his mouth.
Patrick Moore had a rea$on for that WaPo article — he was working for the nuclear indu$try. Who$e he denying for now?
A YouTube video is not science. Where has Patrick Moore published in the scientific literature? Anywhere?
PS: The 150 W/m2?
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/patrick-moore-editor-put-words-in-my.html
Many people here will be persuaded by Patrick Moore and the data he has assembled. For the most part he cites “Peer Reviewed” sources.
Your problem is intolerance for people who don’t agree with you. You can’t match them in argument as facts and reason are on their side. All you have is name calling and personal attacks.
That said you do occasionally come up with useful stuff like that WaPo article. Thank you for that.
GC, name calling and personal attacks like this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-373916
Patrick Moore even misled in testimony to Congress, telling them “an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today,'” as if, was his message, CO2 doesn’t affect Earth’s temperature.
He LEFT OUT that the Sun was 4% less radiant back then, a whopping 55 W/m2 at Earth’s orbit, which makes a huge difference
How can you possibly defend that?
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/dr-patrick-moore-just-misled-congress.html
David Appell says: – Patrick Moore even misled in testimony to Congress, telling them an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today,’ as if, was his message, CO2 doesnt affect Earths temperature.
He LEFT OUT that the Sun was 4% less radiant back then, a whopping 55 W/m2 at Earths orbit, which makes a huge difference
How can you possibly defend that?
How can you possibly ignore that CO2 has not tracked earth’s temperatures? Making a point that CO2 was 10 times higher is perfectly legitimate as a response to runaway warming.
Bill, you ignored the question.
How can you defend Moore’s testimony?
David Appell says: Bill, you ignored the question. How can you defend Moores testimony?
For a lot of reasons:
1) One you are a political hack and you took a statement out of context.
2) I am not sure what testimony you are referring to so I am not going to go search for half a sentence.
3) Because generally speaking, Patrick Moore is a dedicated conservationist that if in half a second he believed what is passing for climate science even sounds like science he would be behind it.
4) Because Patrick Moore is deeply involved in making the world a better place, always has been, likely always will be, he does have an extraordinary good view of what has happened to the environmental movements in the US where they have become partly industries in their own rights in search of problems to grow upon and in part because of an infiltration of the movement by political sectors dedicated to the dismantling of capitalism.
5) Because Patrick Moore has dedicated himself to learn more about climate change to ensure he is on the right side.
6) Because I am not going to nanny pick any single misstatement, assuming it was one, about science he may have made because nobody is perfect, nobody gets it all right, not even the top scientists.
Is that enough reasons?
Bill: Patrick Moore lied to Congress.</b
And you couldn't care less.
But I get it. You've lied here, so you support liars like Patrick Moore.
If you didn't support lying, you couldn't be a denier.
Unlike some people David, I don’t call somebody a liar for believing something different than what I believe. I am not so stupid to completely and totally not comprehend that our knowledge is highly based upon faith and personal experience. . . .and often simply because we don’t think for ourselves and we let other do the thinking for us.
It is certainly advisable to listen to the advice of those who have intensely studied a topic, but like medical doctors hawking cures on the web via unpatented herbs and tonics its quite advisable to seek other opinions. In seeking other opinions, especially in highly esoteric, highly extrapolative studies about what the world was like 450 million years ago I would venture one could not go into a court of law and get a verdict on the basis of a legitimate difference of opinion among experts.
I am extremely hesitant to call somebody a liar unless by their immediate actions they ignore the obvious evidence sitting right in front of their face, test say ice volume from 2012 to 2018 and decide to artificially start in a December and end in a July, bolster it with a list of record low ice volume years without quantifying the quantities right in front your face. With all that hanky panky and somebody who should know better who had all the numbers in their face, probably ran those numbers and rejected them and decided to instead present a rigged response to falsely present the data like he was auditioning for a position on the climategate team. Now if you can show that Patrick Moore went through all that sort of hanky panky then I would agree he is a liar. But you haven’t come close to doing that yet.
DA, how do you feed yourself?
You do not have a job. You are unemployable.
Are you living off others?
He eats you for dinner every time.
More perversion from Midas.
Nothing new.
In response to more unnecessary denigration from JDH.
Wrong again, Midas. It’s always necessary to cancel out DA.
It’s just part of the natural order–“Truth will out”.
Your are clearly one of those people who can dish it out but cries to mommy when he gets it back.
Begone, pointless troll!
I will indeed begone, oh pointless troll.
Midas, please stop trolling.
Is the ice in Greenland melts?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
That chart has nothing to do with ice melt.
M,
You wrote –
“That chart has nothing to do with ice melt.”
Do you havea point? If you cannot answer ren’s apparent question, just say so.
If you find his English usage confusing, maybe you could just ask him for clarification.
Your lack of common courtesy might lead others to assume you are merely a common or garden troll, of the stupid and ignorant variety. Of course you may have good reason to pretend you are such, but are keeping your reasons secret for some unknown reason.
Why the secrecy?
Cheers.
Where did I say anything about his use of the English language? His meaning was clear. Are you attempting to play the racist card?
Apparently stating a fact is now regarded as a “lack of common courtesy”, and calling people ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ is not.
M,
You wrote –
“Apparently stating a fact is now regarded as a lack of common courtesy, and calling people stupid and ignorant is not.”
If you say so, I find no reason to disagree.
Cheers.
No, YOU say so, and any rational person will disagree.
Any, I guess you’ve just given yourself another excuse to deny your rudeness … no facts come from you.
Begone, stupid troll!
Your stock response when you know you’ve lost.
Still waiting for your response re his use of the English language.
Begone, troll!
It’s pretty difficult to successfully play the racist card when you are a racist yourself, isn’t it Mike.
Midas, please stop trolling.
The high above Greenland is important for the temperature in Greenland.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_arc-lea_t2anom_10-day.png
Snow is still falling in New South Wales and Victoria.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00986/17toddqluu93.png
Where are the super hurricanes in the Atlantic?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid
We are in Ice Age.
And I see no compelling evidence that Earth has ever had a colder ice age.
During our ice age, the average temperature of ocean, stays in the range of 1 to 5 C.
One could say an ice age causes a cold ocean or you say if ocean is cold you are in ice age.
The average ocean temperature, currently is about 3.5 C. And as far as I know it’s been about this temperature for thousands of year, and likely remain around this temperature in coming thousands of years.
If ocean were increase by .5 C the ocean thermal expansion would cause a significant increase in sea levels. In last 100 years it’s though that about 2″ of the 7 inch rise in sea level is caused by ocean thermal expansion.
What causes our global temperature of about 15 C, is that 70% of the Earth surface is ocean, and average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C,
And the 30% of land surface has average temperature of about 10 C which total average global air surface temperature of about 15 C.
Because ocean surface is warmer, it keeps land surface warmer or what keeps land dweller warm is the relatively quite thin layer of warmer ocean surface water.
What warms the world is the tropical ocean surface, which has average temperature of about 26 C.
It’s said to be the world’s heat engine.
The tropical ocean is about 40% of the entire ocean, and average surface temperature of that majority of 60% of the rest of the ocean is about 11 C.
When the Earth is not in ice age, and average ocean temperature can be 10 C or warmer. This warmer water does not have much effect upon the surface temperature of the tropical ocean, but it has large effect on the surface temperature of remaining 60% of ocean surface- or polar regions are much warmer- there is no polar sea ice, even the winter.
It is thought that what is causing our ice age [or cold ocean] is due to geological processes- plate tectonic and arrangement land masses.
Here is a chart that supports what you say:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
This is the work of Robert A. Rhode, a geologist at Berkeley Earth. Note that for most of the last 65 million years there was no permanent ice at either pole. The Antarctic ice cap formed first because it is easier to build up ice on land than on an ocean. The the age of the Arctic ice cap is still being debated but you can be sure it started after the Antarctic re-glaciation (14 million years Before Present).
The “Ice Age” we live in only has one precedent in the last 300 million years as you can see in this chart by Scotese and Berner:
https://miro.medium.com/max/660/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif
And an increase in the rate of weathering.
There were likely at least two snowball Earth’s, where the entire surface was frozen, and possibly several more.
In any case it doesn’t matter, because the climate change we’re creating is happening in 200 years or less, as opposed to the millennial scale of the Pleistocene ice ages.
DA, you have no photographs of all those “snowball Earths”, do you? So, you have no proof. That means it’s all “pseudoscience”.
And, we’re NOT creating any climate change.
Learn some physics, and stay away from pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
I have no photographs of you. You do not exist.
E-man, that is obviously the same illogic you use to arrive at all of your other misconceptions.
IOW, in the memorable words of Gen. Honore, you’re “Stuck on stupid.”
Nothing new.
Well we don’t need tea leaves to tell that JDH exists.
As his illogic was mimicry of your illogic, it seems your quote should be applied to you. Even more so for not recognizing his mimicry.
Begone, witless troll!
Feel free to share your worthless opinions, Midas. Doing so won’t make up for your lack of facts, but maybe it will keep you busy so you won’t hurt yourself or others.
That’s always a concern with the depraved.
JDH
You certainly get frazzled when your illogic is pointed out.
Midas, please stop trolling.
So frazzled you needed to call in the one-sentence-wonder for assistance.
#2
Midas, please stop trolling.
Bill is still lying.
I never quoted an average Arctic SIV, but its linear trend since Dec 2012 is -272 km3/yr. Statistically significant, even though, as Nate says, Bill cherry picked his interval.
Over the entire span of the satellite data the trend is -305 km3/yr, for a change of -12,300 km3.
Since 1979, 48% of Arctic SIV has disappeared.
Enough for Bill, or does he want even more?
Opps, I was wrong, I did quote an average Arctic SIV.
My apologies, Bill.
–David Appell says:
August 11, 2019 at 8:17 AM
There were likely at least two snowball Earths, where the entire surface was frozen, and possibly several more.–
Wiki:
“The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that during one or more of Earth’s icehouse climates, Earth’s surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical palaeolatitudes and other enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation and the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean and emphasize the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered questions remain, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a “slushball” with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.”
According wiki, proponents claim a snowball earth occurred earlier 650 million years ago.
I think there is a lot uncertainty regarding Earth, more than 300 million years ago and our ocean floor younger the 300 million years, or since 70% of earth surface ocean, a large portion of earth surface is younger than 300 million years.
Or all we got which is old enough is on land area.
And the theory of plate tectonics which allows us understand this past, is less than 100 year old.
Let’s look at example of uncertainty:
Large unconfirmed craters
The largest unconfirmed craters 200 km (120 mi) or more are significant not only for their size, but also for the possible coeval events associated with them. For example, the Wilkes Land crater has been connected to the massive PermianTriassic extinction event. The sortable table has been arranged by diameter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth
So got list huge impact craters and they can’t be confirmed vs old kooky idea that not even well defined.
Can anyone even answer, what is the greatest area of earth covered with ice, recently [within last 5 million years]. IE:
“Quantitative chronologies for the impressive glacial successions that occur throughout the Himalaya have, until recently, been almost totally lacking. Within the last decade two new techniques have promised to remedy this situation.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215614484_A_note_on_the_extent_of_glaciation_in_the_Himalaya_during_the_global_Last_Glacial_Maximum
Wiki: Last Glacial Maximum
“According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), permanent summer ice covered about 8% of Earth’s surface and 25% of the land area during the last glacial maximum. The USGS also states that sea level was about 125 meters (410 feet) lower than in present times (2012).”
So extent of summer ice in both South and Northern hemisphere on land was 8% of 148,300,000 sq km or about 11.8 million square km.
What is it now:
Presently, 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, including glaciers, ice caps, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Glacierized areas cover over 15 million square kilometers (5.8 million square miles).
But question how much ice in on the ocean, what is it presently:
“Arctic sea ice extent for January averaged 13.56 million square kilometers” And Antarctic sea ice is 18 million greatest extent
greatest arctic, March 2016, 14.52 million: 14 + 18 = 32 million plus 10% glacial= 47 million square km. Or great extent polar sea ice and glacial ice is currently less than 10% of earth surface.
And during last glacial maximum, wild guess same type total being around 25%.
So back question do know in last 5 million years whether instead about 25%, it was closer to 40%. Which does NOT mean at one time, but winter furthest extent of polar sea ice.
Or English channel frozen in winter during glacial periods, likely and assumed but frozen in summer, not likely, Or vast huge summer losses sea ice, given, what furthest extent by late winter/early spring AND every year or in terms decades of time there large variation
And point is we don’t know this, even if talking about within 5 million years, and snowball is more than 650 million year ago on very different land configuration then our current planet.
Which reminds of a point, show me drawing of the snowball planet- where the equator, what the tilt of equator, where is land the masses. Was there one super continent.
Btw, since there land bridge between America and Asia, and most the the time is glacial period, do we have super continent, currently. What is difference our current super continent to past super continent.
Ohh, the answer, apparently is a supercontinent has an old sea floor. But rather artistically opinion of what counts as one continent, one say young ocean floors and old ocean floors.
So we currently living in young ocean floor world.
Wiki, Supercontinent cycle:
…
“There is thus a relatively simple relationship between the supercontinent cycle and the mean age of the seafloor.
Supercontinent = lots of old seafloor = low sea level
Dispersed continents = lots of young seafloor = high sea level
There will also be a climatic effect of the supercontinent cycle that will amplify this further:
Supercontinent = continental climate dominant = continental glaciation likely = still lower sea level
Dispersed continents = maritime climate dominant = continental glaciation unlikely = sea level is not lowered by this mechanism”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
So, in old ocean sea floor world or Supercontinent world would gets the “continental climate dominant”
I would say most people living [in their minds] in that world currently. It’s cold so they do have excuse for being so delusional.
In my view, Land cools and ocean warms. And seems to me that in old sea floor world, global temperature should be higher, but land temperature could be quite cold.
Hmm, so we have an enormous amount of volcanic activity in the ocean and that’s related to why we have a young sea floor.
Where is most of world’s volcanic activity when you have old sea floors?
It seems it also has to be in the ocean floor. First there is simply more ocean {there is always more ocean area}.
Question if have old ocean floors, do you have more or less super volcanoes then we have currently. It seems one might have very large volcanic eruptions. Maybe less often but bigger. Or maybe a massive but constant flow, maybe building mountains that don”t even reach the surface of ocean. But anyhow, question if have Supercontinent what is it’s average elevation.
It’s our high mountains are new and being built [by plate tectonic activity]. So it seems when formed the Supercontinent could high mountains and high average elevation. And you get glaciers and they tear them down {in terms a fast erosion mechanism],
So, one has what it’s like for brief periods [during formation, and millions of years] and what like for longest/longer periods, tens of millions of years.
If lower elevation, it will get more rainfall and if higher elevation, it will be drier. Though tropical ocean is still the heat engine, but if no land masses at equator, it seems El Nino is quite different, than ours.
What is your point? Your question?
If you going to believe in snowball Earth, you should have a map of that world.
And if believe is multiple snowball Earths, have a map for each.
Why?
Here’s a map of the world 540 Myrs ago:
https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2018/05/08/news/interactive-map-shows-what-earth-looked-like-600-million-years-ago-1324606/
This page has an interactive map that goes back 600 Myrs:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5692167/Interactive-map-lets-travel-time-planet-600-million-years-history.html
“Heres a map of the world 540 Myrs ago:”
No, that Map goes to 750 Myrs and 600 Myrs
and also 540 Myrs ago
Wiki said:
“…sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago)”
I looked at 540 million year map; you think that could be
a map of your snowball Earth?
I doesn’t look like a type of Earth which would be a snowball.
I would guess more likely closer to hothouse climate, though seems there some mountains [a huge mountain range] which would allow good winter skiing opportunities.
Oh, also wiki, sort of agrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
[That Wiki ref seems indicate around 450 million could be much cooler]
Now not sure about colored map legend, but I looked 750 million Maps, and looks you could tropical glaciers.
You enter New York city, and put in middle big mountain range.
But doesn’t look like it would have any polar caps- though possible it has one.
But reading color may right, like huge amounts of huge mountain ranges and lot level regions.
David Appell says: Why? Heres a map of the world 540 Myrs ago:
Gee David you are all over this thread like a soup sandwich. Now you must be claiming The Irish News and the Daily Mail are science journals and failed to mention they didn’t reference their maps! LMAO!!!
Bill, both articles cite their source.
gbalkie: “Paleoclimates” by Thomas Cronin says there were at least two snowball/slushball Earths from 750-580 Myrs ago, and perhaps up to four.
David, please stop trolling.
Midas wrote the following as a comment-
“You, Huffman, Flynn:
Attacks against scientists and posters.
Politics.
Snide remarks.”
I pointed out a few flaws, and that he appeared to be not only a fool, but delusional to boot.
Midas responded –
“As that was a direct copy of the post I was replying to and not my own words, thanks for joining with me in attacking the nonsense of DREMT. Good to have you on board! (Oh wait – it’s somehow different when he posts it, right?)”
Midas attempted to weasel out of his plagiarism by playing fast and loose with the truth. A direct copy? He may not be conversant with the normal use of quotes to indicate that he has, indeed, copied someone else’s words verbatim!
He has discovered the pitfalls of pretending others’ words are his own. Taking credit without attribution is the hallmark of the fraud, the fake and the fool.
Midas then compounds his delusional foolishness by asserting that I was joining him in attacking someone else! What a Wally – this is the sort of lunacy by assertion that is the usual tactic of pseudoscientific GHE true believers. In other words, deny, divert, and confuse, and never let the facts intrude on delusional fantasy.
Midas may have even convinced himself that the Earth has not cooled over the last four and a half billion years, that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, that Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize, and that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
Oh well, all part of the rich tapestry of life. Maybe Midas thinks he can bend Nature to his will with the immense self nominated power of this intellect. Or maybe not.
Cheers.
Plagiarism …. hahaha. If I was going to plagiarize I would choose something intellectual. Try ‘mimicry’.
M,
You may be ignorant of the normal method of indicating that you have appropriated the words of another, or stupid enough to boast about having done it. Or maybe you now claim intellectual sloppiness as an excuse?
Here is a description of plagiarism –
“Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty . . . ”
If you are a pseudoscientific GHE true believer, you will promptly redefine plagiarism to your own benefit. No doubt others will form their own opinions.
If you can’t actually come up with a useful description of the non-existent GHE, you might as well come up with any number of diversions to cover your ignorance. That might be viewed as stupidity, I suppose.
Cheers.
“Academic dishonesty” … hahaha – you actually believe those words qualify as belonging to academia – hilarious! Oh no – now I will not be awarded my thesis!
M,
Keep wriggling. Deny, divert, confuse. Standard pseudoscientific GHE true believer tactics, eh?
Maybe you need to brush up your diversionary trolling skills.
That way, you can avoid having to face facts – CO2 heats nothing, and the GHE is a myth.
Have fun.
Cheers.
Are you offering coaching in diversionary trolling skills?
If you won’t share your expertise then I have no one else to turn to.
M,
You wrote –
“If you wont share your expertise then I have no one else to turn to.”
As is typical for pseudoscientific GHE true believers, you try to blame your lack of competence on me!
What a fool! Do your own work, don’t expect me to spoon feed you. Are you truly so stupid and ignorant that you cannot find anyone else to look up to? Although I thank you for your compliment, I do not value it as highly as I would if it came form someone wise and knowledgeable.
I can only suggest that you apply yourself more diligently, and try to make the best use of your limited intellectual resources. I have tried my best to help you to reduce your considerable ignorance, but of course your innate stupidity has negated my efforts to a degree.
I wish you well, in any case.
Cheers.
Obviously the electrodes did not work on MF. Maybe I should attach them to a different part of his anatomy.
Careful nurse. First work out where his brain is located. Could be hard to find.
Begone, psychobabbling trolls!
MF
“I have tried my best to help you”
Indeed, you have provided great examples of diversionary trolling for me to refer to. Unfortunately I don’t seem to have your creativity in this regard. I bow down to you o Lord of the Trolls.
M,
Thank you for your misguided admiration. Feel free to boast about your stupidity, ignorance and lack of ability if it makes you feel better.
I wish you well.
Cheers.
Always happy to admit to not having your trolling ability.
Midas, please stop trolling.
Widespread snow all over the East Coast of Australia – first time in decades
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/widespread-snow-all-over-the-east-coast-of-australia-first-time-in-decades/
I liked the sub-headline: Not what the climate models predicted
Yup, we could have told them that….
If only climate models had attempted to predict weather events.
And as you claimed there is snow all over the east COAST, perhaps you’d care to find a photo of snow cover with a beach in the background.
M,
You wrote –
“And as you claimed there is snow all over the east COAST, perhaps youd care to find a photo of snow cover with a beach in the background.”
Are you too lazy and incompetent to do your own research, or just trolling?
Why should anybody accede to your suggestions?
Are you perhaps vastly important (other than in your own mind)? Is your opinion superior to others for some reason?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
No need to do my own research. I live near the beach. No snow in sight. The snow is in the mountains, not on the coast. Apparently it is Joanne Nova who was too lazy to do proper research.
M,
You wrote –
“I live near the beach. No snow in sight. The snow is in the mountains, not on the coast.”
Why didn’t you just say so? Do you have some compulsion to keep information secret and hidden?
If you disagree with something, you could always say what it is, and then provide some logical or factual basis for your disagreement. This might go against the grain, if you are a pseudoscientific GHE true believer, more interested in scoring points, trolling, and making asinine attempts at gotchas and gratuitous insults.
Still no GHE description, is there? CO2 still heats nothing. You remain ignorant and stupid. Ah, well.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Glad to see you agree that Joanne Nova is a liar.
M,
You wrote –
“Glad to see you agree that Joanne Nova is a liar.”
You are just making stuff up again. That is why you cannot quote me saying any such thing. The typical attempt at misdirection employed by the pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
Others can see plainly that your preference for fantasy over fact indicates a delusional state of mind.
You have good company in that regard. The likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth, for example. Keep making stuff up if you wish – it doesn’t change reality, but the weak minded and gullible may be drawn into your fantasy. Who knows – there is probably more than one born every minute.
Cheers.
If Nova claimed there is snow on the coast when the only snow is in the mountains then she is a liar. You couldn’t challenge that beyond making an assertion and instead resorted to misdirection.
M,
You are a fool.
If you think Joanne Nova is a liar, that is your opinion. Asserting that I agree with your opinion is just nonsensical.
You didn’t ask me for my opinion. Your mind reading skills are obviously defective – you are deluded if you think you can either read my mind or force me to think as you wish.
Carry on displaying your delusional fixation.
Cheers.
Let me make this simple for you.
Nova claims A.
A is false.
Therefore Nova lied about A.
Surely you and your clan of baboons can follow that simple logic.
Midas, please stop trolling.
The whole global warming scam is based in the deception of showing only last 200 years of warming from the little ice age
as soon as you put it in the context of last 10000 years Holocene the claim turns into to a complete farce
https://i.postimg.cc/gcMv1HTm/Greenland-Ice-core-data-RB-Alley.png
That turns out not to be the case.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
Great post Entropic man!!!!!
This undeniably establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast left wing science conspiracy!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Here we have Real Climate, Researchers from Harvard and Oregon State and even manage to drag in the The Pages2k consortium of 80 scientists.
And of course we also have Josh Willis a decade ago caving into pressure to adjust the cooling signal he was receiving from the deep ocean on what? LOL! It all started with non-compliance with tidal gauges and how his results could not be accepted in the face of rising sea levels!
Here we have the self-proclaimed leading climate sciences regaling us with 3000 years of cooling with zero response from sea level research!!!!!
Looks like a job for the Pages 2.2K consortium!!!
Its all propaganda posing as science.
Bill, your graph is a great illustration of the problem we face. It shows about 125 m of sea level rise for a rise in the global average temperature of 5 C.
That’s 25 meters per degC.
That’s what we’re in for. That’s what will drown the world over the next couple of millennia.
David Appell says: – Thats what were in for. Thats what will drown the world over the next couple of millennia.
I am not worried in the least about it. With 3,000 years of cooling yet to show up on the sea level gauges you are actually talking about at least 5,000 years from now.
DA says: ” That’s what will drown the world over the next couple of millennia.”
DA, the oceans are much deeper than the land masses are higher. So, if all the land masses were spread out evenly, the ocean would be over a mile deep, over the entire surface of Earth. That’s why it has been said Earth is a “water planet”.
If you are concerned about the oceans filling up with sediment, you should be addressing that issue, which can be solved with engineering. But believing CO2 is a threat to sea level rise is pseudoscience.
Do you want reality, or pseudoscience?
bill hunter says:
With 3,000 years of cooling yet to show up on the sea level gauges you are actually talking about at least 5,000 years from now.
What science says 3000 yrs of cooling?
Marcott et al. does, and I take that to be the best we have on Holocene temperatures.
I expect it was a struggle between long term ice sheet adjustments lingering since the ice age, millennium term ocean expansion, and short term glacier growth.
Do you have any science on that David?
Marcott et al.:
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/marcott-et-al-2013-2.jpg
There is also the huge and slow isostatic adjustment after the ice age, which is still going on.
The modern temperature rise is of course outpacing it completely.
David, Svante, please stop trolling.
Bill wrote:
“With 3,000 years of cooling yet to show up on the sea level gauges you are actually talking about at least 5,000 years from now.”
That’s just a very poor understanding of physics.
Svante, Bill isn’t writing about IAs, he’s claiming past coolings somehow wait to lower sea level until Batman gives it the bat signal.
David Appell says: ———Thats just a very poor understanding of physics.———–
I’ll accept that. Better than no understanding.
David Appell says: ———Svante, Bill isnt writing about IAs, hes claiming past coolings somehow wait to lower sea level until Batman gives it the bat signal.————
Thats just one of your typical dead brain assumptions David. What I am getting at would be termed sealevel rise momentum that arises from the fact that the oceans lag rather dramatically in their rate of warming compared to an atmosphere claimed to be the source of heat for the warming. The longer term portion of that momentum in a science paper I read several years ago after extensive sampling of ocean heat uptake concluded that the surface ocean responded in about 10 years or so, but that there was not enough information to estimate how long the deep ocean would take to respond suggesting periods of a 1,000 years or longer.
Thus when you started cavalierly throwing around large numbers I made a facetious reply because I new it would confound you be really not more than a rote memory student of whatever you are told by whatever teacher tells you. Thats why you hand around on a blog of all places and pretend its a science paper project and everybody should footnote everything they say. For God’s sake David its a blog for casual discussion of the issues. You probably ought to disappear for a few years and write a paper on why blogs are not true science. There is a probably a healthy market out there for folks that don’t know that. Now if you could actually contribute something, like how atmospheric absorbed energy ends up at the surface rather in outerspace, bring some actual demonstrable evidence to that your contributions would probably at least match what you think they do.
climate shystering 101 – if you make a graph with highly smooth out and averaged past temperature data but use the final number as absolute value which hapens to be at higher point than average at this time , you create an incredibly deceptive hockey stick.despite the fact the past peaks were significantly higher than the present one, but the long time averiging just cuts them all off.
If you actually don’t know how these deceptive charts are made you are totally scientificaly retarded , if you know it and post it around anyway you are in on the con .
For the moment I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it and do it because you are 100% full of climate shyte.
climate shystering 101 – if you make a graph with highly smooth out and averaged past temperature data but use the final number as absolute value which happens to be at higher point than average at this time , you create an incredibly deceptive hockey stick.despite the fact the past peaks were significantly higher than the present one, but the long time averaging just cuts them all off.
If you actually don’t know how these deceptive charts are made you are totally scientifically retarded , if you know it and post it around anyway you are in on the con .
For the moment I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it and do it because you are 100% full of climate shyte.
Eben, you obviously think you are smart when it comes to graphs and charts. Tell us all what you think about this map of the latest sea surface temperature anomalies:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
DrM, summer is hot – so what?
As Bill Hunter said “Its all propaganda posing as science”
What happens with the charts like you show is that very tiny temperature difference is depicted in dark red color and opposite direction in blue ,
if temperatures were different in the past or will be in the future that change could not be fitted into this color chart because you cannot get any bluer or any redder ,
Another Climate shystering trick to create drama with optical illusion if you understand it.
And to be fair , Dr Roy chart is not right either , his chart has only 1.5C scale range to accommodate the short term variation and the last El Nino spike almost run off the chart. That chart should have the full range scale of known Holocene variation at the least which is 4C , to put it in the proper context
Eben: the purpose of a graph is to communicate the most amount of information possible in a succinct way.
Drawing axes to numbers were there are no data violates that and is a waste of time. We’re concerned about warming in the modern world, the one we have adapted to today, not the distant past where no one now lives.
Sheesh.
DA,
You wrote –
“Were concerned about warming in the modern world, the one we have adapted to today, not the distant past where no one now lives.’
True. Having presumably evolved to take advantage of available conditions, mankind manages to exist in a wide variety of habitats – temperatures from -50C to +50C using primitive technology, and in excess of that if modern technology is used.
Maybe you are unreasonably frightened of the unknown. Nature will do as she decrees. With any luck, mankind may survive as long as the cockroach – a long time.
Don’t worry too much – it won’t make any difference.
Cheers.
David Appell says: ———Eben: the purpose of a graph is to communicate the most amount of information possible in a succinct way.
Were concerned about warming in the modern world, the one we have adapted to today, not the distant past where no one now lives.—————-
I have to agree completely with David on this one.
The scale we should be using for a short period should include the entire range of diurnal and seasonal temperatures over the period the graph covers.
You do realize this is the temperature for Greenland up to about 1850. What do you think the graph looks like when you add in the warming at Greenland, which is at least 2x more than that of the global mean, up to the present?
Do you still trust Alley’s data?
bdgwx says:
“What do you think the graph looks like when you add in the warming at Greenland, which is at least 2x more than that of the global mean, up to the present?”
See graphs in this fact check:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
bdgwx, Svante, please stop trolling.
Eben, Bill Hunter
Speakings! of climate shyte, have you looked at your own graph.
The temperature values are from Alley, around -30C. The others have been put on with no indication of the temperature range or values they represent. Does the historical record really show temperatures around -30C around 690AD, thousands of miles from Greenland and a thousand years before centigrade thermometers were invented.
BP is “Before Present” and for paleo data the datum year is 1950AD, not the 2000AD claimed.
The graph comes nowhere near the present. The Alley data stops at 95BP, 1855AD, and there is no indication of the dates at which the other data ends.
Where are the error bars? The Marcott data has a time resolution averaging multiple readings over a moving average of 120 years and temperature confidence limits of +/- 0.2C.
Go back to Alley’ s original data and you find that he takes individual readings every 50 years with no indication of temperature confidence limits at all.
DrM, summer is hot – so what?
As Bill Hunter said “Its all propaganda posing as science”
Here is an interesting finding from the Cowton York University tool. If you zero the temp at 1979.7 and check the trend to 1998.99 ( peak of the el nino ) you get 0.159 c/ dec.
Then set the start date at 2000.1 ( zero again) and the end date at the highest el nino of 2016.95 you have a trend of 0.109 c/ dec. Or much lower than the earlier trend.
If you also extend the trend to the present day 2000.1 to 2019.8 you find 0.132 c/dec or about the same as the 40 year trend.
BTW I used UAH V 6 data for this and I may have made a mistake, but I hope someone will check. Heres the tool.
I hope Roy also has the time to look at this Cowton software data and check it out.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
BTW the York Uni tool also shows that RSS V4 is 1.57 times the trend of UAH V6, since DEC 1978. That’s 0.203c/ dec compared to 0.129 c/ dec. Why is it so? Just asking.
UAH and RSS make different choices when modeling the microwave emission data collected by satellites. Roy wrote about it here (among other places):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
Which is why the satellite data is not as accurate as many like to claim. The readings are accurate; converting the readings to temperatures involves a lot of guesswork.
And ground temperature measurements are not better.
A data-set that changes its linear trend from negative to positive or vice-versa “adjusting” it for “known underlying physics” such irrigation or UHI, is useless.
As an old professor of physics of mine used to say “thermometers
measure the temperature of themselves”. Nothing is more true than that,
Have a great day.
Massimo
Where are you quoting this “known underlying physics” from?
Hi Midas,
I was not quoting any physics indeed.
I was just using sarcasm to highlight how the world ground temperature database is corrected by this and that phenomenon (irrigation for cooling and UHI for warming, for example) and how those correction (more or less known to be valid) weight more than all the others players in computing the temperature trend since they change the trend in one direction or the other.
Have a great day.
Massimo
How about you refrain from sarcasm and write something which indicates an understanding of what the adjustments are and why they are made.
Hi Midas,
“How about you refrain from sarcasm and write something which indicates an understanding of what the adjustments are and why they are made.”
You were arguing about reliability of satellites temperature measurements because of their adjustments (which I agree with you), and I just highlighted that ground measurements are not better under that perspective because of adjustments which are dominant on the resulting trend. Since those adjustments are guessworks too, the raw measured temperatures adjusted by them are useless.
Have as great day.
Massimo
Massimo wrote:
As an old professor of physics of mine used to say thermometers
measure the temperature of themselves. Nothing is more true than that
What did your professor say when thermometers die and new ones must be used — how do you calibrate the two? What if a thermometer is moved to a different location? What if over time it’s read at different times of the day? What if it breaks and isn’t replaced? What if new technology is used to measure temperature than was used for the first several decades?
Adjustments are the science of getting useful information from nonideal raw data.
BTW, the raw data has a higher warming trend than the adjusted data.
David Appell says: –
Adjustments are the science of getting useful information from nonideal raw data.
————–
Adjustments don’t provide information. All they are are expressions of the beliefs of the researcher. Adjustments are justified if you have a reliable benchmark to work with. But few exist for weather stations. When you have a lot of money to throw around you can get people to do anything you want. Even lowering the trend. Especially when you notice that lowering the trend is lowering the 160 year trend, you know the trend folks throw in your face every day as an indicator of underlying natural warming?
BH
If you believe adjustments are decided on the spur of the moment at the whim of the researcher then you have never read how they are done. (Or read but not understood.)
Hi David,
I fully agree with Bill.
Anyways, it seems to me that you neither catched the point, what my old professor where saying is that any thermometer reports the temperature its way measuring that temperature at its own detector interface with the outer world. For that thermometers having different shape, size and technology have different behaviors and report different temperature in some circumstances even after an accurate calibration with reference temperature sources.
For example: let’s consider a last generation radiometer to measure the temperature of air by LWIR (which is one of the most complicate setup for doing it, because air radiation in the LWIR isn’t its temperature in the particular point where we want to measure indeed). For doing it, we need a target for which we know the emissivity, and we need to let it stabilize its own temperature to the air surrounding to get the measurement. But even if we know with high confidence the emissivity of the target and its thermodynamic behavior, what is really the temperature in case of a no wind day and in case of a windy day?
In the no wind day, the target reports an average of the air temperature close to it, while in windy days it reports an average on a greater volume of air which depends day by day from the wind direction.
IMHO, it’s not so easy to use the temperature parameter for establish something changing with the precision, accuracy and resolution that climate science pretend to do using statistic.
In the case of the ground temperature data-set there is also the belief that “homogenizing” few points and then averaging the results of the thermal array one could get the ground averaged temperature, which is at least an ingenuous approach (doing that, in the best case you get the average of the few measured points).
As always said, I’m not a scientist but an electronic engineer, so it happens that in some cases I need to design devices where the thermal dissipation is a critical point. Thanks to the advent of the last generation of “moderate-cost” thermo-cameras, few years ago I bought one for identify hot spots in my designs. Well, few months ago on the WEB it has been available a Chinese very low cost thermo-camera which the advertising video was amazing to me, and considering the very low cost, I decided to buy one to see if it were true that that camera was doing what they advertised (I’m an irreducible skeptic, you know).
That camera does a 2D spatial “homogenization” to transform the very low spatial resolution of the 32 by 24 points detector to get the awesome images of the advertise.
I’m sure that now you are asking yourself: So, where is the point?
Indeed, For the moment, it seems that thanks to a magic algorithm, few spatial resoluted data can be massaged to get coherent higher resolution images, but that’s not the case.
In fact, after checking my hand temperature (such it was done into the advertising video) and wondering for the incredibly awesome result, I pointed it to a non thermally homogeneous target with some small hot spots (an hand is quiet homogeneous in temperature instead) and I seen the image shown by this video here (the camera it’s exactly that):
https://youtu.be/2u_SzInwvPc?t=1516
My 200 by 160 detectrors thermal-camera in the same place shown a very reliable thermal image instead.
As Bill wrote “Adjustments are justified if you have a reliable benchmark to work with.”, and computing adjacent points from the measured ones is not a good adjustment to get a more resolute image, even using the last best performing algorithm.
NOAA in its “REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR NWS CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS” On page 7 chapter 3.1 “Air Temperature Measurement”
https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf
wrote:
“An object will be considered an obstruction if the object is greater than ten degrees in horizontal width as measured from the instrument and within 200 feet of the instrument. The instrument should be no closer than four times the estimated height of any nearby building, tree, fence, or similar obstruction.”
This means that the temperature of objects further than that lengths can be considered no way correlated to the instrument measurements.
So, NOAA says that it suffices a relatively short distance from obstacles to avoid wrong temperature measurements, but pretends to compute 5km adjacent square grids from that same measurements to “homogenize” and average the temperature. This is a paradox for me.
Have a great day.
Massimo
bill hunter says:
Adjustments don’t provide information.
Adjustments correct for biases.
How would you prefer to correct for those biases?
PS: The long-term trend is precisely the one used to calculate total warming (now 1.0 C).
Massimo PORZIO says:
what my old professor where saying is that any thermometer reports the temperature its way measuring that temperature at its own detector interface with the outer world. For that thermometers having different shape, size and technology have different behaviors and report different temperature in some circumstances even after an accurate calibration with reference temperature sources.
Yes. And this is EXACTLY the problem.
To get long-term temperature records, you have to decide how to handle these “reports of different temperatures.” That’s what adjustments do. Climate science is an observational science, and you never get the perfect data you want, so you have to use the data you have.
So how are you going to do that? How do you propose to handle different thermomerters which can’t be calibrated?
By the way, UAH and RSS have to now join up something like 12 different satellite readings, some with gaps in between them, and decide how a microwave measurement today compares to one 40 years ago and 11 satellites ago. Magic algorithms?
Are these adjustments suspect too?
I’m sorry David,
I understand that when people like you that never really worked on the field can’t neither understand where the real problem laid and can’t be fixed at all for the supposed accuracy and precision with magic adjustments. Remain of your opinion if you are glad with that. Last year I changed my job and now I’m too busy to spend too much time repeating over and over the same concept.
Have a great day.
David Appell says: – bill hunter says:
Adjustments don’t provide information.
Adjustments correct for biases.
How would you prefer to correct for those biases?
PS: The long-term trend is precisely the one used to calculate total warming (now 1.0 C).
We agree David. Adjustments correct for bias.
1) They project the bias of the adjuster in the determination to do the work to find a bias.
2) When a possible bias is found the adjuster who was biased enought to spend the resources to search for a bias now substitutes his bias.
To the casual observer the bias correction will be correct if the bias of the observer matches the correction.
The job of an auditor is to cut through all this bias and to do that one needs a complete documentation on the nature of the search for biases (as if the search is biased correcting biases will introduce a new bias by only correcting half the bias).
In climate science temperature records are closely held and they even resist legal obligations to expose their work, thats a prima facie case of the holder of the record knowing of his bias.
For instance Phil Jones saying he would rather destroy the raw data than give it to Steve McIntyre then lost the data when the court ordered him to give it to him. Dirty business.
The truth has a tendency to come out no matter how hard folks try to suppress it.
David Appell says: – Yes. And this is EXACTLY the problem.
———————
Sometimes David you hit the nail right on top of the head!
—————–
—————–
David Appell says: –
To get long-term temperature records, you have to decide how to handle these reports of different temperatures. Thats what adjustments do. Climate science is an observational science, and you never get the perfect data you want, so you have to use the data you have.
So how are you going to do that? How do you propose to handle different thermomerters which cant be calibrated?
———————-
Science used for policy in good policy making processes deal with this issue in the following manner:
The questionable observations are brought out on the table in a fully transparent and public process. Experts are invited. Panels are created using experts recommended by the public and all the stakeholders. The experts lead the discussion in meetings open to the public. The public is allowed to make comments usually in free form in line. Only when the audience includes disingenuous persons whose objective is to avoid the removal of bias who act in a disruptive manner is the public’s input regulated. Its unfortunate when that happens as anybody’s viewpoint is important. Some of the best ideas come from the non-expert audience because the interested public usually has some real hands on experience with the subject manner that is sometimes lacking in the expert panel
Ultimately the expert panel makes a decision. At a minimum this decision and the reasons behind it are fully understood. The process does not always work because of heavy influences in politics over which experts should be appointed. But if honest attempts are made to compose the panel with qualified parties recommended by the entire range of stakeholders usually the decision ends up being the correct one.
Basically the pattern of temperature corrections in climate science has been the exact opposite of this rather well proven process.
Bias is pervasive, you can see it on every blog whether its experts or amateurs. Making corrections in the closet is simply more a process of introducing bias. You show it in every thread you participate in David. People cannot read a single post of yours without knowing where your bias lays.
You probably even think this post of mine is biased. No science is not a popularity contest thus science panels should not represent the majority of any special interest group whether it be scientists or the public. Consideration of every viewpoint is worthy of consideration as long as its given in a genuine concern for finding the truth. Determining if that is the case is best judged by the words of the testimony, are they intended to inform or disrupt. Sometimes anger makes it difficult to listen but its still important to listen.
Hi Bill.
I’m Italian and one of my troubles writing here is my very bad English, that make me spend a lot of time checking if what I wrote is at least comprehensible.
Having read you last two posts, I fully agree with your argument.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says: I’m Italian . . . .
Thanks Massimo. Your english is fine. Sometimes my reading comprehension isn’t so fine and I mistook what you were saying.
Indeed we are in agreement that the fact CO2 radiates/absorbs in the atmosphere does not mean its going to affect the surface.
No, they were specific criticisms focused on the article.
Such as the authors not giving the source of their cloud data.
Shouldn’t a proper paper give that?
What about the assumption that CO2’s climate sensitivity is 0.24 C? For that they cited another only their own work — one never published, the other two published in junk journals.
Citing one’s own claims is scientific masturbation.
David, please stop trolling.
Since we are already “Off Topic” with this talk of Paleo climate going back 650 million years and “Snowball Earth” there is an interactive website that you may like:
https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/earthviewer
Just fire up the program and you can examine Earth all the way back to the Cambrian (750 million years BP) when Bogota and London were near the south pole.
Or you may like the end of the Carboniferous (300 million years ago) when temperatures were similar to today. Back then London, Chicago and Toronto were all on the equator which may explain where all that coal and fracking gas came from.
You can watch the polar ice caps form and then melt. Awesome!
I see it shows snowball earths.
But seems comical to me.
Though I don’t imagine that they see it as humor.
gc,
You wrote –
“Just fire up the program and you can examine Earth all the way back to the Cambrian (750 million years BP) when Bogota and London were near the south pole.”
Not really. Brightly coloured computer generated animations are no more real than The Lion King, or other cartoon animations.
The “Snowball Earth” hypothesis has no particular basis, in other words it is merely speculation based on wishful thinking.
From Nature –
“The hypothesis that Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during that period was much lower than previously thought, according to a team of researchers.”
Unfortunately, nobody has managed to provide any better reason for a large molten blob of rock (the Earth), would spontaneously become covered with ice, than proposing a magical “cooling event”.
Very speculative. Speculating on previous crust locations is about as reliable as speculating on the origins of individual vehicles in a carpark. Where did they come from? Who knows? Where was Mt Everest when the marine fossils found higher than 6000 m were created? Good luck with supporting your guess.
I prefer a little more basis for my guesses about the past, but it really makes no difference. The past is gone – it happened, and that was that. Guessing that the future will resemble the past is generally reasonable, with the benefit that anyone can do it, and it costs nothing to guess.
For me, snowball earth is unsupported speculation.
Cheers.
Perhaps you should research paleomagnetism.
Of course you will balk at the suggestion of doing research that will explain the science for you, and instead resort to childish name calling.
M,
You wrote –
“Perhaps you should research paleomagnetism.”
And perhaps I don’t need to. Perhaps I know more about paleomagnetism than you are ever likely to. Perhaps you could quote something with which you disagree, and support your disagreement with logic or fact.
Just throwing around sciencey words doesn’t make you look intelligent.
You might appear more impressive if you could explain the role of paleomagnetism in magical “cooling events”. You might well discover that you don’t know as much as you thought.
Cheers.
If you did actually have the slightest inkling about paleomagnetism, you would know that there is no claim that it played a part in cooling. Perhaps you should use your mastery of the science of paleomagnetism to figure out which part of your comment I was actually responding to.
M,
You wrote –
“Perhaps you should use your mastery of the science of paleomagnetism to figure out which part of your comment I was actually responding to.”
Ah, I see. Do you think your importance is such that it is up to others to try to figure out what you are blathering about?
Keep being mysterious. You never know, somebody even more stupid and ignorant than yourself might believe you have the secret description of the GHE, or know the location of Trenberth’s missing heat. Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Anyone who knew the science of paleomagnetism and had read your comment would know precisely what part I was replying to. No ‘figuring out’ would be necessary.
Midas, please stop trolling.
I’ll see how specific I can be.
You say “Where was Mt Everest when the marine fossils found higher than 6000 m were created? Good luck with supporting your guess.”
Why do you disagree with the paleomagnetic evidence of the movement of the Indian subcontinent that explains how the fossils on Mount Everest come from the sea floor between the Asian continent and the north bound subcontinent?
https://www.academia.edu/18401140/The_paleoposition_of_India
CT,
Maybe you should link to a paper which actually supports your position. Speculation and hypothesis do not constitute fact. And, of course, the abstract does not mention paleomagnetism at all.
You might do better quoting whatever it is that you think favours your unstated disagreement with something I wrote.
You wrote –
“Why do you disagree with the paleomagnetic evidence of the movement of the Indian subcontinent that explains how the fossils on Mount Everest come from the sea floor between the Asian continent and the north bound subcontinent?”
Why do you think I disagree? I doubt you can quote me saying that, and if so, you are just makingg stuff up. Be that as it may, postulating that Mt Everest must have been somewhere (presumably below sea level) is not terribly helpful.
I wish you better luck with supporting your next guess.
Cheers.
“Perhaps I know more about paleomagnetism than you are ever likely to.”
“Why do you think I disagree?”
“Keep being mysterious.”
“Ah, I see. Do you think your importance is such that it is up to others to try to figure out what you are blathering about?”
“And, of course, the abstract does not mention paleomagnetism at all.”
You should have at least read the paper’s introduction.
CT,
I assume you are trying to disagree with something I wrote.
You have provided random quotes, contradicted none of them, and then tell I should do something at your behest – for no good reason at all! Don’t be silly.
The link you provided appears to refer to some other paper than the one you now claim to be relevant. Your link seems to refer to “The_paleopositon_of_India”, but instead links to “The longest voyage: Tectonic, magmatic, and paleoclimatic evolution of the Indian plate during its northward flight from Gondwana to Asia”.
The introduction which you claim I should have read apparently comes form yet another paper “India’s Northward Drift from Gondwana to Asia During the Late Cretaceous-Eocene.”
In any case, phrases such as ” . . .a number of issues continue to be hotly debated, . . .”, and references to “plausible”, “most likely”, “suggested”, don’t inspire confidence, do they?
As I may have stated before, speculation, guesses, maybe even the chance of a worthwhile hypothesis.
Maybe you could let me know what you are disagreeing with? Quoting me might help.
Or you could just give up, and avoid looking like a stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific GHE true believer. Your choice, of course.
Cheers.
“The link you provided appears to refer to some other paper than the one you now claim to be relevant. … The introduction which you claim I should have read apparently comes form yet another paper ‘India’s Northward Drift from Gondwana to Asia During the Late Cretaceous-Eocene.'”
I only gave one link. I know I should give up expecting a straight answer on any topic from you.
@Craig T,
Take a look at India in Earthviewer around 75 Mya. It is heading due north at an amazing clip on its way to colliding with the rest of Asia.
Then the colossal impact………hence the Himalayas and marine fossils at 6,000 m. This is very recent in geologic terms so the Himalayas have not lost much height to erosion.
Actually your quote is from Science Daily. Even then you ignored that the article was questioning how the Earth warmed after glaciation. The paper doesn’t dispute the fact that the Earth went through a glaciation around 635 million years ago.
http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~cartigny/2011-Nature-Sansjofreetal.pdf
“The paper doesnt dispute the fact that the Earth went through a glaciation around 635 million years ago.”
A glaciation doesn’t mean much. Nor a does large glaciation in the tropics mean much.
We have tropical glaciers right now.
I think I know how to create a worldwide glaciation, in our present Ice box climate. But does not freeze the ocean, in fact describe as way to cause global warming- because my idea would warm the ocean.
I will describe it again:
The ocean’s average temperature is 3.5 C.
It’s said that 90% of the ocean is 3 C or colder.
This known- it’s not a matter of dispute.
The average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
The average land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
I will note that the average temperature of Antarctica is very cold BUT it’s does not effect the average global temperature numbers- much. But not saying Antarctica does not effect our global climate and temperature, rather I am talking averaging temperature and area of the Earth- or Antarctica is too small to have much effect in terms the average global air temperature. Though Antarctica does have a effect upon the average number of all land area of Earth being about 10 C {probably less effect than most people imagine- but obviously it does have effect because it’s larger portion of the smaller area of the total Earth land surface area [148,300,000 square km].
If divide ocean further:
The tropical ocean average temperature is about 26 C and about 40% of entire ocean average surface temperature, and 60% of the rest of the ocean is about 11 C.
And likewise well known, the Earth tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world [it warms the poles and everything else].
So the way to glaciate all the land area, would largely be by turning off the Earth’s heat engine.
So you do this by mixing the warm tropical surface with the cold tropical ocean water at depth.
Obviously the warm surface water is more buoyant then colder water, but energy [or vast amounts amounts of salt] can force the warmer water lower in order to mix it with the cold water.
Using salt is too expensive, as compared to low cost of energy needed to pump warm water lower.
Now, obviously if just lower tropical ocean temperature to 11 C, that lowers the average ocean temperature to 11 C.
Not sure if Earth has ever had an average ocean surface temperature of 11 C.
Obviously it would stop Europe from being warmed by the gulf stream. It said Europe is warmed by about 10 C from the Gulf stream. Europe average temperature is about 9 C, currently.
A bigger and more expensive project would mixing the entire ocean and causing the average ocean surface temperature to be 3.5 C
which would have more dramatic effects.
So this crashesg global average temperature as we are measuring it, but in terms of planet earth, it a warming effect.
The longer you mix the ocean, the greater the warming effect. Humans living on land would be cold [or a lot colder than they are now].
What many people don’t realize is that a computer program is just theory.
Models are theory.
Nothing more than a theory write on a book.
The bible is also theory written in a book.
So, what?
I don’t get your point.
Have a great day.
Massimo
No worries – I didn’t get your point.
Ok,
have a great day.
Massimo
M,
You wrote –
“The bible is also theory written in a book.”
This is also based on your hidden knowledge, is it?
Where may this “theory” be found – in your imaginary fantasy world?
Are you a fool masquerading as a dimwit, or vice versa? It’s very hard to tell from your rather odd comments.
Cheers.
Not MY imaginary fantasy world. The imaginary fantasy world of people who believe death is survivable.
M,
I asked –
“Where may this theory be found in your imaginary fantasy world?”
You have indicated it is not in your imaginary fantasy world. It doesn’t actually exist anywhere, does it? You fool, you don’t actually understand what a theory is – a scientific one, of course.
Keep trying to deflect and divert. Still no description of the GHE, is there? Wriggle away.
Cheers.
Who claimed that the theory expressed in the bible is a scientific one? Certainly not me. No rational person would label that nonsense as ‘science’. In a non-academic sense, ‘theory’ carries the meaning of ‘hypothesis’. And there is certainly nothing of academic value in the bible.
M,
You still haven’t managed to say where this “theory” of yours may be found, have you?
As is usual for pseudoscientific GHE true believers, you have redefined theory to mean hypothesis. However, you claimed that “The bible is also theory written in a book.”.
If you have now decided that you really meant to write “hypothesis” instead of “theory”, fine. Where may this seemingly non-existent “hypothesis” be found?
It certainly seems as though you are just making stuff up as you go along, or you are so confused and sloppy that you don’t actually know what you are talking about. When you wrote – “The bible is also theory written in a book.”, were you just stringing random words together, attempting to be deceptive, or just thought nobody would query your stupidity and ignorance?
How about trying to talk about religion generally – that might be a useful diversion, I suppose. I suggest you might define what “theory” or “hypothesis” you are claiming is expressed in the Bible. You claim there is nothing of “academic” value in the Bible, so presumably you are using the academic meaning of “theory”. I assume you are trying to appear smart, but you just look stupid. Which version of the Bible are you referring to? Do you claim that your “theory” is written in each individual version of the book?
You appear to be an ignorant and stupid fool, spouting nonsense. You aren’t even creating controversy, as your proposals border on incoherency. A few lessons in basic English expression might help you.
You don’t need to thank me. It’s my pleasure to assist those less capable than myself.
Cheers.
Midas practices his false religion: “And there is certainly nothing of academic value in the bible.”
Obviously Midas is unaware that the Bible has been used extensively in archeology. At least two biblical towns have been found, that had been lost to time. Much of the early history of that part of the world has been reconstructed, based on the information supplied in the Bible.
But Midas avoids reality.
Nothing new.
JDH
The Koran has similar facts about real things. Does that mean their version of religion is correct? Archaeology does not prove the existence of a supernatural entity.
Midas, you are just another repugnant troll. You throw out irresponsible comments, and when corrected, you just throw out more irresponsible comments. You have no interest in learning, or reality.
Nothing new.
When did the presentation of facts become irresponsible?
M,
You wrote –
“When did the presentation of facts become irresponsible?”
When you state “The bible is also theory written in a book.”, and then provide a stream irrelevant comments, trying to avoid having to support your original stupid and pointless assertion.
Cheers.
Good to see you are not challenging the fact that the post JDH was replying to was a presentation of facts.
M,
You don’t need to appear more stupid than you are. Just making more pointless and irrelevant comments based on your witless interpretation of something you cunningly avoid quoting does not make you appear smart – to me, at least.
Others of course may have their own high opinions of your mental acuity. I wish them luck. They might need it.
Cheers.
Still not challenging that I see.
M,
You wrote –
“Still not challenging that I see.”
Do you have some delusional idea that cryptic and bizarre pointless comments achieve anything of value?
Why should I challenge “that”? Why should I challenge anything?
Maybe you could threaten to poke yourself in the eye with a needle if I don’t?
Cheers.
In the prior post it is argued that reanalysis data should be used for short-term global temperature analysis, presumably because press reports of record-breaking monthly temperatures were (not appreciated? annoying? a priori incorrect?).
Having learned that the WMO relied on a reanalysis data set for their press release, it is now argued that the one they relied on is suspect because…. it is different to other ones. And now the argument is that they are all suspect.
How can the satellite data then be said to be superior, when the two main data sets also markedly diverge from each other?
Yes, I agree, more reflection is warranted.
Mike Flynn said:
The hypothesis that Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow.”
That Earthviewer App shows an ice free planet 635 million years ago.
That light blue in the maps represents shallow seas (aka “Continental Shelf”) rather than ice.
You need to lighten up and smell the roses. Earthviewer is an awesome achievement based on “Hard Science” from people like Scotese, Berner, Royer and Rhode. Dismissing the work of such scientists reflects more on you than on them.
If you don’t like the Paleo-climate stuff at least take the animation of continental drift seriously. That theory was derided when Wegener proposed it in 1912 but today it is widely accepted among scientists.
Hi gallopingcamel,
“That theory was derided when Wegener proposed it in 1912 but today it is widely accepted among scientists.”
Anyways, it’s still a theory and a computer animation doesn’t validate any “Hard Science”, it just replicates it.
If the “Hard Science” had a big mistake in it, the computer animation has the mistake embedded into its code.
In few word, a computer animation is just a way to avoid lazy people to read a theory in a book, but doesn’t prove anything.
Have a great day.
Massimo
@Massimo PORZIO
As an amateur climate scientist I appreciate anything that makes the work of professional scientists more accessible to the general public. That is why I appreciate Roy Spencer, Tyler Robinson, Scott Denning and other folks who take the time to engage with us “Little People”.
That is why Earthviewer impressed me so much. Thanks to “Craig T” we now know where the data came from.
Hi gallopingcamel,
I just warned you because many people don’t get the point that simulation are just the theory placed in a computer, nothing more.
If the theory has a failure in it, the simulation has.
BTW, I’m not a scientist, I’m just an electronic engineer and an amateur climate guy.
In the past I wrote many post here, but now for a question of time I can’t do it no more.
What puzzles me is the way some climate scientist are not aware of the very high precision, accuracy and also resolution that they pretend from methodology of measurement that don’t have them, just applying adjustment that influence the final result many times more than the raw (real) measurement done.
Have a great day.
Massimo
GC is overtaken by pseudoscience: “Earthviewer is an awesome achievement based on “Hard Science” from people like Scotese, Berner, Royer and Rhode.”
GC, would you mind sharing some of that “Hard Science” with us? Not links, just in your own words, how they determined conditions millions of years ago. If you choose to respond, you will likely discover the “Hard Science” was based on assumptions, estimates, imagination, interpretations, and such. “Hard Science” is demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, and does NOT violate the laws of physics.
@JDH,
Earthviewer is a teaching tool developed by HHMI, an organization created by Howard Hughes. Here is a link:
https://www.hhmi.org/
Yesterday, when I stumbled across the Earthviewer site my first thought was to take a look at their data sets. This information used to be available (Free) here:
http://www.hhmi.org/node/22466
Unfortunately the link gives a “Page Not Found” error. So I turn your question around. Can you tell me where to find the HHMI data? If I find it before you do I will let you know where to look.
Why all the rhetoric? Don’t you love pseudoscience as much as I do? Were it not for pseudoscience there would be much less de-bunking to do.
GC, consider just writing to HHMI and asking them. People there will probably be happy to see your interest.
I did write and to my surprise got an immediate response.
GC contends: “Were it not for pseudoscience there would be much less de-bunking to do.”
Well GC, when do you plan to start your “de-bunking”, instead of your acceptance and promoting of pseudoscience?
gc,
You wrote –
“You need to lighten up and smell the roses. Earthviewer is an awesome achievement based on Hard Science from people like Scotese, Berner, Royer and Rhode. Dismissing the work of such scientists reflects more on you than on them.”
No hard science. Speculation, as far as the distant past is concerned.
As an example, the Australian Plate is moving NE at around 70 mm/yr, or 7 m/100 yr. 70m per thousand, 70000 per million. After 600 million years, say 4000 km. Meaningless. Where was the Australian Plate 600 million years ago? Which direction was it moving? How fast? Did its direction or velocity change during this period? And so on.
Speculation, guess, and supposition. Interesting, but of very limited usefulness.
As to global glaciation, I have not seen a proposed mechanism which would enable such a thing. Descriptions range from “iceball” to “snowball” to “slushball” as different scientists realise the physical impossibilities of some views propounded.
Which do you prefer, and what speculation about total surface freezing do you prefer?
Wikipedia skirts the issue –
“The initiation of a snowball Earth event would involve some initial cooling mechanism, which would result in an increase in Earth’s coverage of snow and ice.” Hard science? Magic?
If nobody can suggest an “initial cooling mechanism”, I’ll just keep assuming there isn’t one.
Hopefully, you can provide a testable cooling mechanism hypothesis to set my mind at rest. Good luck. Speculation, guesses, and computer graphics are not fact.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The cooling is caused by rapid (by normal geological standards) weathering leading to a low CO2.
I can understand your dilemma. Since you deny the link between CO2 and temperature, you must also deny the existance of snowball Earths.
Unfortunately for your denial, there are multiple lines of evidence for their existance.
http://www.snowballearth.org/evidence.html
Em,
You wrote (about snowball earths) –
“Unfortunately for your denial, there are multiple lines of evidence for their existance.”
Pointless and irrelevant. You claim that cooling results from lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere thereby allowing more sunlight to reach the surface. This is ridiculous on the face of it, and has never been demonstrated to be true.
From the Smithsonian –
“It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as todays atmosphere. After about half a billion years, Earths surface cooled and solidified enough for water to collect on it.”
Other sources have the initial atmosphere of 99% CO2, at about 100 bar pressure. The Earth still cooled.
All fairly pointless and irrelevant, as nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer by surrounding it with CO2 – nobody. Ever.
Still no testable proposed cooling mechanism inducing “snowball Earth” not involving magic. The concept of a planet wide frozen surface is fantasy. One would have to believe that the impact of the equatorial Sun at the height of summer would have no effect on snow and ice exposed to more than 1000 W/m2 emitted by a 5800 K body. Expose some ice to the heat of the summer sun – see how you go. Even the summit of Mt Everest, which has less CO2 between it and the sun than other places on the surface, loses all its snow cover during the dry season. Sunlight, you see.
Keep on with the pseudoscientific GHE true believer nonsense. You can’t even describe the GHE without involving magic, can you? How hard can it be? Surely somebody, by now, would have described the GHE, and proposed a testable GHE hypothesis, if it were possible. Alas, no.
Just the usual collection of fools, frauds and fakes – denying, diverting and confusion. All very entertaining, but nothing to do with science.
Cheers.
The climate shysters openly admit to falsifying the charts they publish
https://i.postimg.cc/k5fMx8Qt/02112346423t.jpg
You do realize — but maybe not — that “Owain Glyndwr” is a fake name that gives no indication of being a scientist.
The real Owain Glyndwr lived many centuries ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owain_Glynd%C5%B5r
The “climate shyster” in this case is a Skeptic who retweets Nigel Farage.
https://twitter.com/o_glyndwr1404
Do you think Schmidt was lying about the sulfur dioxide levels in North America for the last 150 years? If so, why?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaC2gNLWkAAWTxY.jpg
“Do you think Schmidt was lying about”
That is the default position on Gavin Schmidt, always assume a lie from him unless proven otherwise.
forgot the link
https://principia-scientific.org/top-nasa-climate-data-fraudster-named-shamed/
Then you’re also calling the author of this blog a liar, since UAH has had much larger adjustments than has any other temperature group.
But really you’re just trying to dismiss someone by simply labeling them because you can’t disprove their science. That’s the most cowardly type of denial of all, and it convinces no one.
I’m glad you’re getting your info from “respected climate analyst, Tony Heller” instead of always believing people posting unproven stories on the Internet under a fake name.
It looks like your default position is to believe anything on the Internet that makes climate scientists look bad.
CT,
You wrote –
“It looks like your default position is to believe anything on the Internet that makes climate scientists look bad.”
What is your point, or are you just expressing an opinion for no particular reason, and of no particular value?
Just trolling, perhaps, because you are just another pseudoscientific GHE true believer, long on faith, but short on fact?
You don’t have to answer, of course.
Cheers.
Frost in Queensland
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00987/l3a7dmvi8n5i.png
Massimo PORZIO
“Theory”
This word is a good indicator of an individual’s scientific education.
A layman uses “theory to mean an untested idea. “Only a theory” is often used to belittle an idea someone dislikes or does not want you to accept.
For an untested idea ,scientists use the word “hypothesis”. This is not derogatory. The idea may or may not be correct, it has just not yet been tested, its predictions about reality checked by observation and experiment.
In science, a theory is is a hypothesis which has been tested and found to be substantially correct. Thus the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity or quantum theory.
Note that the science is never completely settled. Even a long established and widely accepted theory is repeatedly tested and subject to change. The overall structure usually remains unchanged while the details are in constant flux.
On climate change, the Tyndall gas effect (aka the greenhouse effect) has been recognised for 150 years, As we continue to investigate the behaviour of the climate, details change.
E-man, a “theory” that violates the laws of physics is no longer “science”. It becomes pseudoscience. And pseudoscience promoted for the sake of an agenda becomes a false religion.
The AGW/GHE is pseudoscience with an agenda, AKA a false religion.
Can you guess where that leaves the “theory” of evolution?
Out there alongside germ “theory”, atomic “theory”, the general and specific “theories” of relativity and quantum “theory”.
You don’t believe in all those Craig, yet you believe in the GHE?
Maybe when you learn some physics you will know better.
Sorry, forgot the sarcasm tag.
CT,
You wrote –
“Sorry, forgot the sarcasm tag.”
If you do it again, will it then just be another example of pseudoscientific GHE true believer sloppiness?
Why do you need to use sarcasm? No facts available?
Cheers.
Craig T,
Not hardly.
CT,
You could always try not appearing quite so foolish, if you wished.
You appear to be no brighter than the usual stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific GHE true believer. Comparing QED to evolution is delusional.
From Wikipedia –
“Quantum electrodynamics (QED), a relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics, is among the most stringently tested theories in physics and –
“This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.”
Unfortunately, the theory of evolution is actually a network of theories, none of which are capable of the being subject to the same sort of testing as QED, for example. The use of the scientific method involving hypotheses (guesses), reproducible experiment, and theory is anathema to pseudoscientists. You can’t even usefully describe the non-existent GHE, can you?
Therefore, no chance at all of a testable hypothesis – just more unsupported assertions, bizarre jargon, and the usual claims of imminent doom, if we don’t immediately turn over our destinies to the fanatical climate cultists!
You may take this course, if you wish. I won’t.
Cheers.
MF,
Leftists are fond of theories that can’t be proven or disproven. Especially if they fit their agenda.
SPA
What is my agenda?
M,
Oooooh! Look! A dimwitted attempt at a gotcha!
Tell me – what is your agenda? Are you claiming to be a leftist with a non-testable theory?
Does it fit your agenda? Why?
Try harder next time.
Cheers.
I repeat – for SPA to answer – what is my agenda?
M,
I repeat, for you to answer –
Oooooh! Look! A dimwitted attempt at a gotcha!
Tell me what is your agenda? Are you claiming to be a leftist with a non-testable theory?
Does it fit your agenda? Why?
Try harder next time.
Cheers.
Hey Stephen,
Mike believes you are incapable of answering my question so he is attempting to save you by burying it in his mindless drivel. I trust you have enough pride to try to prove him wrong.
Midas wants to know what his agenda is.
Based on the evidence, it appears he is trying to be the most repugnant troll on the blog.
Based on the evidence, while you and MF are here I will continue to fail badly in that endeavor.
I wonder what happened to bobdesbond?
Still waiting Stephen …
Still wondering what happened to bobdesbond.
Em,
You wrote –
“On climate change, the Tyndall gas effect (aka the greenhouse effect) has been recognised for 150 years, . . . ”
There is no “Tyndall gas effect”, and nobody can actually describe the greenhouse effect.
Tyndall pointed out by meticulous experiment that as CO2 (for example) prevented energy from reaching a temperature sensing device, the temperature fell.
No mystery, no GHE. Just physics. If you choose to actually read Tyndall’s accounts, I suggest the most recent edition (1905 printing, or thereabouts), as Tyndall apparently minimised resetting costs by providing corrections as footnotes, in many cases.
Still no GHE. You cannot even describe the mythical beast, can you? CO2 heats nothing, and the Earth has cooled form the molten state.
Cheers.
I still cannot locate MF’s brain. It still seems to be generating white noise though.
Begone, troll!
Hi Entropic man,
I agree with you about the formal definition of “theory” and “hypothesis”.
But since I was talking to GallopingCamel about his “That theory was derided when Wegener proposed it in 1912 but today it is widely accepted among scientists.”, I always prefer to communicate my point of view about something to my interlocutor using his own words and not giving importance to formal wording.
And (honestly), I’m sure that you get what I wanted to mean in my post indeed.
I don’t agree instead with your:
“On climate change, the Tyndall gas effect (aka the greenhouse effect) has been recognised for 150 years, As we continue to investigate the behaviour of the climate, details change.”
No, Tyndall demonstrated that gases can absorb and re-emit photons in a random direction and for this placing that gas into the path between a thermal source and a target the radiation is reduced or in case avoided to reach the target.
He never demonstrated the radiative GH effect (IMHO of course).
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says:
No, Tyndall demonstrated that gases can absorb and re-emit photons in a random direction and for this placing that gas into the path between a thermal source and a target the radiation is reduced or in case avoided to reach the target. He never demonstrated the radiative GH effect (IMHO of course).
So then sometimes the random direction of the photon is downward.
From there it’s a simple logical step to conclude that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere send heat towards what’s below them. That’s the greenhouse effect and what Arrhenius calculated.
Wrong DA. You’re still making the same mistakes.
Just because photons are emitted from the atmosphere does NOT mean they can warm the surface. You can’t understand the relevant physics.
Just now I measured a clear sky temperature of 25.6 F, directly overhead. The ground temperature was 83.7 F. 25.6 F is below freezing. You can NOT warm a surface at 83.7 F, with below freezing temperatures.
Learn some physics.
Hi JDHuffman,
“Just because photons are emitted from the atmosphere does NOT mean they can warm the surface.”
Exactly, the day one profs that, then I’ll change my point.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo,
Don’t worry, you won’t have to change your “point”.
“You can NOT warm a surface at 83.7 F, with below freezing temperatures.”
But you would have a cooler surface if not even the IR radiation equivalent of 25.6 F was returning.
Most physicists would expect most IR photon emitted downwards from the atmosphere and reaching the surface to be absorbed, the absorbed energy warming the surface.
Please explain how your pseudoscience stops this happening.
No Craig, even if the 26.5 F had been 46.5 F, the surface would have been the same temperature. The Sun warms the surface, and the surface warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere cannot warm the surface. A colder temperature cannot warm a hotter temperature.
No E-man, “cold” cannot warm “hot”. You need to learn the difference between “physics” and “pseudoscience”.
JDHuffmam
For some reason you reminded me of T S Elliot’s poem “The Hollow Men”.
Read this and recognise yourself.
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar.
Massimo PORZIO says: Hi JDHuffman, Just because photons are emitted from the atmosphere does NOT mean they can warm the surface.
Exactly, the day one profs that, then Ill change my point.
—————
What you need to understand is that backradiation doesn’t “heat” anything. The only warming that occurs can is statistical in nature. Slowing of cooling ends up with warming of a different nature than what heating does.
This is certain because its the only claim supported by climate science in that it “slows cooling”.
I posted a list of highest temperatures in recorded by the 50 states that shows 27 states had 35 instances of a record high temperature or a tie in the 1930’s almost a century ago.
Only 1 state has a new record and one other a tie so far in the last 2 decades. This demonstrates for the US where temperature records are probably the best in the world the world is not getting sensibly hotter. The likely outcome of increased CO2 is a bit of warming on cloud clear nights but even that might not be certain as it depends upon the current state of the atmosphere and the actual physics going on in the atmosphere. I have seen indication that the “multiple plate” argument for CO2 effects was invented because of the remaining inadequacy of the “single plate” which I think the atmosphere represents doesn’t have enough wiggle room to get the job done that was the worst possible scenario James Hansen could come up with. . . .keeping in mind I believe James Hansen has integrity but probably is a bit loony.
Climate science would like you to believe the atmosphere acts like a stack of solid plates or like a multi-pane insulating window. Because that’s the only way the restriction on cooling can reach the surface from the top of the atmosphere.
But I ascribe to the viewpoint of one of the nation’s best climate physicists that the atmosphere is far to prone to mixing air currents for that forcing to substantially reach the surface.
If it does reach the surface to the extent it reaches the surface then it can create moisture feedbacks.
This is one of my biggest bones to pick with the 1 degree pre-feedback sensitivity of the surface. Yes, CO2 absorbs additional radiation in the atmosphere sufficient to do that if and only if it gets back to the surface.
the way climate science sees that happening is by installing another virtual solid plate at the top of the atmosphere, pure theory, no verification.
In my view for that to happen just as in the stack of plates or window panes it must first warm the plate directly below it, which in turn would warm the next plate down.
I don’t see that happening because what you see in the atmosphere is a gas law created lapse rate. Destablization of that lapse rate is represented by cooling of upper layers by greenhouse gases expelling heat to space. If it starts to warm anything up there its going to forestall condensation of water vapor that will simply continue to rise in the atmosphere eventually spilling its load of latent heat. The entire dilemma is created by a lack of an understanding how the greenhouse effect is actually created and modified. Climate science is guessing at the answer and they openly argue for it by invoking ignorance of an alternative.
I believe its effect is modified by closing the atmospheric window to the extent its able to be closed. I can see the logic in the climate science argument but I see their plate technology as coming up short such that any additional restriction in the upper atmosphere will be like an army attacking in the direction of the surface but becoming beat up, scattered, and killed to some unknown extent in the quest by other atmospheric processes. Perhaps some of the army will reach the surface maybe none of the army.
Cloud variation has a far better opportunity to do that as it doesn’t need to warm intermediate plates in the atmosphere as clouds are what closes and opens the atmospheric window with the atmospheric window being the widest open on the clearest day and completely closed on those full on stratus cloud days.
The physics of heat transfer through and around window panes completely disregards any intermediate plates existing in the air. Climate science of course knows this and has invented the stack of plates forcing on the basis of the possibility of slight problems with window technology due to the scale of the atmosphere.
I am still waiting for the proof of that. Its unproven science. It may be true but I don’t think the quantification of it can actually be accurately determined and observations are supporting that viewpoint. It seems to me that at least the partial untruth of that plate theory is the main tenet of Dr. Richard Lindzen’s Iris effect.
Everyone should make an effort to better understand the technical issues as opposed to closing their minds and picking sides. What we see instead are thousands and thousands of bunny trails over temperature record adjustments were they justified or not and innumerable other issues that are just sideshows, mostly about observations and the continued persistence of the climate to not do the expected.
Yes E-man, stick with poems.
Trying to understand physics will only frustrate you.
“But I ascribe to the viewpoint of one of the nation’s best climate physicists that the atmosphere is far to prone to mixing air currents for that forcing to substantially reach the surface.”
So Bill, who are we talking about?
Entropic man says: Most physicists would expect most IR photon emitted downwards from the atmosphere and reaching the surface to be absorbed, the absorbed energy warming the surface.
Please explain how your pseudoscience stops this happening.
This is an unsupported extrapolation. You need to first prove there are photons. Photons are a construct to explain physical phenomena but they are not the only construct that does that.
For instance one could substitute an “attractor” where energy only flows at the rate of the differential between two objects of different temperatures. Here photons only flow from hot to cold and flow at the “net” rate proposed by the photon theory. The attractor theory at one time was popular but it was abandoned because of the lack of being able to identify how a warm object could reach out across space to determine a target and a rate of radiation for that target.
but this effect could explain the wave like nature of radiation.
Einstein went to his grave trying to find this answer. He is quoted as saying a few years before he passed: “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
So you can’t ask how photons that might not exist could not be absorbed and you can’t show anything inconsistent with the attractor theory and only can point out the invisibility of a medium to allow the emitter feel the difference.
Thus the photon theory dominated out of simplicity, but they obviously weren’t thinking about all the confusion that would arise from having to apply the SB equations twice as often.
bill hunter
I do like your thoughtful posts. I would disagree with your logical thought flow on the “attractor” idea of EMR energy.
In order to have a valid theory it must support ALL the observed data and not just some. The “attractor” idea could be used to explain radiant heat transfer but it could not explain at all the other observed behaviors. Einstein’s honesty about trying to understand what a photon is has no bearing on what properties can be observed and mathematically worked out. The “attractor” theory could not at all explain the photo-electric effect. I cannot see how the “attractor” idea could explain reflection or transmission of EMR. It is not rejected because there is no mechanism to explain how a hot attractor and cold attractor could communicate to send so much one-way heat flow, it is also rejected because it fails to explain all the other observed phenomena when dealing with EMR.
Norman says: – I do like your thoughtful posts. I would disagree with your logical thought flow on the “attractor” idea of EMR energy.
I am certainly no Einstein that is going to come up with something that explains all the behaviors either. But in looking at Einstein’s quote made in 1954 he seemingly tellingly said “light quanta” instead of “photon”. I have thought of reflection and I suppose its possible light can see the target in the reflection as well. Philosophically its kind of like the puzzle of if a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?
https://blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum/
But I am not seriously arguing for an attractor theory, I am merely trying to get folks to organize their thoughts in a way so their view of photons is consistent with an attractor theory and keep their eye on the “netting” of SB equations that is mandated.
The attractor theory would look like the two SB equations integrated into one equation that clearly shows the energy going in one direction.
“No, Tyndall demonstrated that gases can absorb and re-emit photons in a random direction and for this placing that gas into the path between a thermal source and a target the radiation is reduced or in case avoided to reach the target.”
Massimo, Let’s start with this:
Very little longwave radiation reaches the Earth from the Sun but the Earth’s surface gives off longwave radiation. The thermal source is the surface and the target is space. Why don’t the gasses (water vapor, CO2, methane) reduce the longwave radiation released into space?
What are the problems you have with that statement?
CT,
You wrote –
“Very little longwave radiation reaches the Earth from the Sun but the Earths surface gives off longwave radiation. The thermal source is the surface and the target is space. Why dont the gasses (water vapor, CO2, methane) reduce the longwave radiation released into space?
What are the problems you have with that statement?”
It’s mainly non-specific nonsense for a start.
From Wikipedia –
“In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).”
Start by using clearer language. Define “longwave radiation.” Ultraviolet is “longwave radiation” compared to shorter wavelengths. You sound like pseudoscientific GHE true believer – using sciencey words without really understanding what you are talking about.
Sort your first sentence out, and I’ll tell what’s wrong about the rest. Fair enough?
Cheers.
I have to find the banned word in my answer
Shart answer is 3 to 100 3.0 and 100 µm
I still hope to talk with Massimo but it’s a reasonable question.
From Wikipedia
“Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) is electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths between 3.0 and 100 µm emitted from Earth and its atmosphere out to space in the form of thermal radiation.”
Your Wikipedia page quote ends in the footnote “Calculated from data in ‘Reference Solar Spectral Irradiance: Air Mass 1.5’. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Archived” It gives a link to a spreadsheet of solar data. (the link offends the banned word gods.)
The full solar radiation in the spreadsheet adds up to 1,356 W/m^2. Sunlight in the range of 3.0 µm or longer has a total of 3.1 W/m^2. The blackbody radiation from the surface at 14C is 385 W/m^2 with all wavelengths 3.0 µm or longer.
Hi Craig T,
first of all, excuse me for the delay in reply you, but I’m Italian and I probably have some time lag respect to your location.
I know what you wrote and in the past I’ve been discussing that in this very same blog. Repeating this more and more times is one of the reasons that in last year I’ve not that much active here (but I still read this blog, which in my opinion is surely the best place for doing science the right way: that is comparing and discussing opinions).
My reply to your question is as always the same. That is: we always measured and still measure the TOA regular transmittance not the diffused one.
Here is the proof:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f62f/804fd888cebfbfce8a08720f6fe07107b01e.pdf
Always the same proof, if the satellites looked the whole Earth dish instead of the tiny angle on their nadir, the result will be different, maybe very different. That because the so called “limb” emission from the TOA (see graphic on top right angle of page 5027) is almost the inverse of the spectrum at nadir that we currently measure.
And yes, an altitude of 34km it’s not really the TOA, but the down-welling residual radiation (the graph below the previous one) demonstrates that under a radiative perspective practically that graph is representative of the radiation at the TOA (at least for a qualitative discussion).
I’m not arguing that the atmospheric radiation can’t heat a little the ground, I’m just arguing that still nobody have demonstrated it under the formalism of the scientific method.
Please note that I wrote “atmospheric radiation” not “back-radiation”, because once established how much the atmospheric radiation heats the ground, we should still be able to differentiate how much radiation come from the emissivity of the IR active gasses due to their own localized temperature up there and how much come from the (supposed) back radiation.
I write “supposed” because once the photon is absorbed at lower altitudes, where the gasses density is high, the energy is quickly shared with the surrounding molecules and thermalized, in a time far lesser than the photon residence time in the molecule.
Note also that this low altitude high density radiative “shield” works for the LWIR radiation coming from the higher altitude above it.
Hope I’ve been exhaustive for your question, excuse me for my bad English too.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo,
Your postings here are fine – and I like the way you argue while you stay calm and polite (in contrast to many other bloggers here…)
I fully understand what you write. Perhaps you want to take a look at this blog by Clive Best. He holds a Phd in physics and has been looking into adjustment of temperature readings, device accuracy etc.
http://clivebest.com/blog/
He kept the blog since at least 2012, and judging by the content, he converted slowly by convincing himself that something is rotten in the kingdom of climate science.
Hi Ulrike,
thank you for your appreciation.
I was writing more in the past, but last year I changed my job and this one keep me very busy (even if it is much more interesting to me).
“…I like the way you argue while you stay calm and polite (in contrast to many other bloggers here…)”
I know what you mean, and it’s the other reason (but not the least) I write less here.
I’m not a professional in climate science, but an electronic engineer, for that I fully comprehend that it’s easier to me stay calm talking about climate physics because it is not my primary field, while for professionals could be hurting reading other opinions that sometimes are ridiculous (also mine, I always aware of my possible ignorance of some details in this field).
Thank you for the link too.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“Always the same proof, if the satellites looked the whole Earth dish instead of the tiny angle on their nadir, the result will be different, maybe very different. That because the so called “limb” emission from the TOA (see graphic on top right angle of page 5027) is almost the inverse of the spectrum at nadir that we currently measure.”
You are correct that 34km is not TOA. There is a thin atmosphere around and above. The longwave radiation measured by the”limb” comes from the atmosphere at that level not above or below.
Figure 6 shows the spectrum of the light from below (nadir). Any dip in that graph shows energy that remained in the atmosphere below and never made it to 34km. In figure 3 the spike from the limb view are photons that did manage to make it to that altitude but were absorbed and re-emitted before they made it into space. Instead of continuing upwards they are going in all directions including parallel to the ground. That is why in graph 3 at any wavenumber the energy level never goes above the energy level for the same wavelength in figure 6.
The sensor pointed in the “limb” direction does not measure light traveling upward or downward. Only parallel to the surface. Figure 6 is “inverse” to figure 3 only in the region of 600 to 800 cm^-1 because CO2 is still absorbing and re-emitting at that wavelength at that altitude. The rest of the longwave radiation shown in figure 6 passes through the mesosphere with no chance of returning to Earth.
The only way the Earth as a whole can cool is by photons carrying energy back into space. Most of the photons that make it to 34km will eventually leave the atmosphere. But don’t confuse figure 3 with showing a way for photons to leave the Earth without being measured in the data shown in figure 6.
Hi Craig T,
I tried to reply, but it seems that after more then one year the word checking algorithm strike again.
Let me try splitting the message.
“The sensor pointed in the limb direction does not measure light traveling upward or downward. Only parallel to the surface.”
Yes, but I don’t agree with this your conclusion that for this it must be ignored for the outgoing radiation, for two reasons:
1st) the Earth is almost spherical and that “limb” radiation is in part outgoing the atmosphere indeed. IMHO you should (more or less) subtract the still down-welling radiation of the lower graph from the limb radiation to get the real outgoing radiation.
2nd) there must be a lot of different spectra from the nadir one an the limb one that carry out energy upward in that place.
2nd part:
The nadir spectrum is the one which highlights more the CO2 absorp_tion. That because that’s the direction the radiation would exit more from the globe in absence of GHGs, so you see a great “pit” on the spectra.
3rd part:
But all the other radiation from angles different from the nadir probably have spectra that should change little by little, as the angle goes from the nadir to the limbs ones, to reach the shape of the limb spectrum.
Do you get my point?
Please, again, I’m not arguing that I know for sure that GHGs don’t retain any radiation at all. I’m just arguing that looking at the nadir, the possible (still not demonstrated) entrapment could be highly overstated.
I hope I explained my point. Thank for your interest.
Have a great day.
Massimo
P.s. It seems that the “big brother” didn’t like “absorp_tion”
🙁
Try the Internet Archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170308211153/https://www.hhmi.org/node/22466
The site is a good teaching tool for the current state of the science.
That comment is supposed to be under Gallopingcamel
“Yesterday, when I stumbled across the Earthviewer site my first thought was to take a look at their data sets. This information used to be available (Free) here:
http://www.hhmi.org/node/22466“
@Craig T,
Thanks! Why did I not think of that?
JDHuffman
If ” A colder temperature cannot warm a hotter temperature”, how can the heat pumps at work warm the gallery by moving heat from the colder air outside?
E-man, are you THAT ignorant of thermodynamics?
Try running the heat pumps without an external power supply.
JDHuffmam
“Try running the heat pumps without an external power supply.”
So it IS possible for a colder temperature to warm a hotter temperature!
So you are indeed THAT ignorant of thermodynamics.
No wonder you believe in the GHE….
JDHuffmam
“you believe in the GHE.”
Why not? Like the heat pumps I mentioned the GHE uses an external power supply to move energy from a colder temperature to a hotter temperature.
Not one shred of understanding of thermodynamics–
You really are “entropic”, but just don’t know it.
JDHuffmam
“You really are entropic
I think you mean “negative entropic”. I am, after all, a living organism.
You are also showing signs of an increase in information content.
You now admit that it is possible to transfer heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.
Em,
You wrote –
“You now admit that it is possible to transfer heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.”
What a load of rubbish. Putting words in peoples’ mouths doesn’t turn fantasy into fact.
Take as much ice as you like, and try to transfer the heat to a teaspoon of water. Try and make the water hotter by transferring “heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.”.
You are no doubt aware that ice can emit 300 W/m2, so you can’t complain that there is not enough heat available.
Off you go now, and admit you cannot make water hotter with ice. You won’t admit it? Back into your fantasy with you. You must be a pseudoscientific GHE true believer.
Cheers.
It’s interesting that clowns like E-man can never get the physics right. Instead, they resort to tactics, as he does here, of misrepresenting others.
Nothing new.
entropic…”You now admit that it is possible to transfer heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature”.
I have never seen JD, Mike, Drempt,or any skeptic claim that. We all know about fridges, heat pumps, and air conditioners. What we have all claimed is that under normal conditions, with no external compensation supplied, heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred cold to hot.
We have also claimed that water cannot, by its own means, flow uphill. Neither, can a boulder, by its own means, raise itself onto a cliff.
Energy does not spontaneously move from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy. That’s a universal law in physics.
A body at a lower temperature (colder) represents a lower energy potential than a body at a higher temperature. Heat does not spontaneously transfer cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson
“Energy does not spontaneously move from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy. Thats a universal law in physics.
A body at a lower temperature (colder) represents a lower energy potential than a body at a higher temperature. Heat does not spontaneously transfer cold to hot.”
For once we are in agreement.
The key word is “spontaneously”.JDHuffman and Mike Flynn do not qualify their statements as you did.
Here’s Mike Flynn “Take as much ice as you like, and try to transfer the heat to a teaspoon of water. Try and make the water hotter by transferring heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.
Here’s JDHuffman “A colder temperature cannot warm a hotter temperature.”
No qualifiers, nothing except the bald statements that the heat transfer is impossible.
Nothing about fridges, heat pumps, air conditioners or the greenhouse effect. All of these use an external power source to transfer heat from a place with a lower temperature to a place with a higher temperature.
Em,
Maybe you could bring yourself to disagree with something I said, instead of something I didn’t.
Some pseudoscientific GHE true believers are deluded enough to believe that, for example, a colder atmosphere can heat a warmer surface, by some form of CO2 magic. This is nonsensical.
About as nonsensical as using ice to heat water!
There is no greenhouse effect. You can’t even describe such a nonsensical thing, can you?
As I said previously –
“Take as much ice as you like, and try to transfer the heat to a teaspoon of water. Try and make the water hotter by transferring heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.”
Cannot do it, can you? Why do I need qualifiers? If you believe there is a cosmic magical hidden heat pump heating up the earth using the cold from outer space, good for you! You might have a rich and fertile imagination, but a tenuous grip on reality.
The earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, as it does every night, winter, and so on. Maybe your cosmic heat pump is a product of the fantastic imaginings of fools, frauds and fakers like Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth, perhaps?
Cheers.
E-man, your comment did not rhyme.
So you bring neither physics, nor poetry.
There are quite a few people who are convinced that photons must be absorbed by matter, no matter what.
Look out the window. You will notice that the photons of all colours emitted by the outside environment pass through the solid glass of the window – it is transparent. You might complain that the colours are actually reflected by the tress, grass etc. Indeed. Not absorbed at all. Not absorbed by the grass, not absorbed by the glass.
Now take some ice – say just below freezing, emitting 300 W/m2. Put it next to a glass of water, so that the photons from the ice travel towards the water. Does the water get hotter? No. Does the ice get hotter and melt? Yes. Look at the ice in your beverage, and ask why you put it there. To make the beverage hotter? I doubt it.
As to IR, in case you think I’m being tricky, point a thermal imaging camera at a person – you will see an image representing the IR emitted by the person, generally converted to temperatures. Now pop a black plastic trash bag over the person. The image is almost unchanged! The IR photons pass through the visually opaque black plastic trash bag as though it wasn’t there. Heat rays penetrating matter! Not absorbed!
Some matter interacts with some photons. Some doesn’t. For example “Germanium is a chemical element with the symbol Ge and atomic number 32. It is a lustrous, hard-brittle, grayish-white metalloid”.
An opaque metalloid. For infrared light beyond 2 um however, –
“Germanium has the highest refractive index of commonly available IR-transmitters and has low optical dispersion. This makes it desirable in aspects of lens design where its refractive index allows otherwise impossible specifications to be built. AR coating is recommended.”
No wonder nobody can describe the GHE without involving magic. The pseudoscientific GHE true believers simply refuse to accept that they are deluded and gullible. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of the GHE, or even absorbing vast amounts of energy from the Sun over this period. No heat trapping or accumulation to be seen.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I suppose.
Cheers.
No problem, Mikey. As I demonstrated in my Ice Plate Demo, different plastics have different transmission properties, some will absorb the thermal IR EM while others will allow it to pass thru. Even ice can operate as a thermal radiation shield, which I also demonstrated.
Of course, my little experiment blows away your repeated claims about what happens to the thermal emissions from ice because the experimental setup did not allow the ice to melt while the heated metal plate was being insulated due to the ice, i.e., the plate was “warmed” by the ice…
swannie from your concusions…”These results represent the equilibrium temperatures of the different configurations under nearly identical operation conditions, not some new source of energy supplied to the device, thus these results do not violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics”.
Swannie…you are daft.
The 2nd law stated in words by Clausius is that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. Yet you are claiming the opposite, that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body so as to warm the hotter body.
To make things worse, you claim your contravention of the 2nd law does not contravene the 2nd law,
Completely and utterly daft.
ES,
Presumably you are trying to disagree with something I said, but having difficulty expressing yourself.
Maybe you could bring yourself to quote me, but I doubt it. Feel free to “blow away” anything you like, in your imagination.
As I pointed out, though, you cannot heat water using ice. You say in your quite pointless and irrelevant ‘experiment” –
“These results show that the heated plate is warmed by the addition of covers made from various IR active materials.” Sounds sciencey, but absolutely wrong and misleading. Deceptive, even. It is warmed by your heater.
You seem to be claiming that you have discovered that ice can be used as an insulator. This is why glacial ice is warmer at the bottom than the top. Nothing new.
I’ll stick with stating you cannot use the radiation from ice to raise the temperature of water. No GHE, CO2 heats nothing, and teh Earth is cooler now than when the surface was molten. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
No, Mikey, I was just trying to point out the well known fact that some materials which absorb IR can act like radiation shields. Your reference to the IR transmission thru a plastic bag is similar to my use of food wrap in the demo I pointed to, the food wrap transmits IR well, thus it had little effect on the metal plate as compared with no cover at all. And I found that ice, having an emissivity around 0.5, also caused the metal plate to warm, though not as much as did the aluminum foil.
You, Gordo and others around here comment repeatedly about requiring experiments and evidence for support of a hypothesis, but choose to ignore evidence which counters your arguments. That’s not science, it’s just more intentional obfuscation and disinformation.
Mike…”You might complain that the colours are actually reflected by the tress, grass etc. Indeed. Not absorbed at all. Not absorbed by the grass, not absorbed by the glass”.
Good points in your post.
However, there are no colours out there since colour is added by the eye when it is stimulated by electromagnetic energy of a specific frequency. Therefore different objects that appear as different colours are absorbing different EM frequencies and reflecting the frequencies that our eyes convert to colours.
It’s an interesting question you have raised as to what happens to photons in the visible EM frequency range. However, you’re probably like me and tend to generalize about photons over the entire EM range. I think everyone here has done that at one time or another.
We have been talking about the 2nd law and photons related to heat but it has nothing to do with the visible frequency range. The photons in question are related to infrared energy which, as you know, is below the visible range. In fact, the IR range is a narrow range of frequencies in the overall EM spectrum.
That’s why it’s kind of ridiculous trying to apply black body theory and the S-B equation to this narrow range and making ludicrous claims that heat can flow both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
As Gerlich and Tscheuschner tried to point out, treating molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere, with the relatively tremendous spaces between them per unit volume, as a black body, is absurd. It’s equally absurd to claim that back-radiation from this trace gas can in any way raise the temperature of the surface the CO2 in the first place.
Getting back to your point, there is no fact to the theory, according to quantum theory, that IR from a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter body. Straight pseudo-science and a contravention of the 2nd law.
“…this trace gas can in any way raise the temperature of the surface the CO2 in the first place”.
Should read…
“…this trace gas can in any way raise the temperature of the surface that heated the CO2 in the first place”.
Gordo, as usual, your reply ignores reality. You wrote:
In the first place, the body (the Earth) is constantly being supplied energy from sunlight, energy which eventually exits the Earth to deep space. The temperature of the surface (and the lower atmosphere) are the result of the several energy flow processes. Change one of those processes and the result will be a change in that balance point temperature. That’s analogous to measuring a voltage, relative to some reference, at some point in a network of resistances and then changing the value of one resistance. The result will be a change in the voltage measured at the previous point. Surely you, as one who claims to have worked with electrical circuits, must agree with that.
Secondly, we know from many decades of observations that a change in the concentration of a trace gas called “water vapor” will change the temperature balance point at the surface of the Earth. When there’s lots of water vapor in the air, the atmosphere cools more slowly at night when there’s no sunlight to add energy. With dry air, the night time rate of cooling is much greater. For CO2, which exhibits absorp_tion in a different section of the IR EM spectrum, increasing the concentration will only add to the observed effects well known from spectroscopic analysis and real world measurements, which results in a warmer Earth.
This does not “contravene the 2nd law”, as your reference to G & T simply asserts without proof.
Swanson, you go through quite a long ramble about sunlight, voltage, resistance, water vapor, dry air, and then you end up with “which results in a warmer Earth”.
A long ramble is NOT a scientific proof. CO2 can not raise the temperature of a system.
See how easy that was? Only 9 words. No rambling.
You should try it.
@JDH,
Thanks to “Craig T” the source data for “Earthviewer” has been revealed.
As I surmised the sources include Dana Royer and Robert Berner. I could find no mention of Scotese but there was this:
Hansen, et al., (2010). Reviews of Geophysics, 48(4), RG4004.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
So what is your judgement? Hard Science or Pseudoscience?
Has Earth had the same amount of water for billions of years.
Or has Earth had the same amount of surface water for billions of years. And will define “surface water” as not ground water, so ocean, lakes, and glacier ice.
And also has Earth had the same amount ground water for billion of years- and ground water is not surface water and not water deeper than say 25 km.
It seems we had, perhaps pseudoscience, ideas of Earth, Venus and Mars having more water in the past. And have lost a lot to space over long time periods like billions of years.
So don’t believe in snowball earths or Mars having thicker atmosphere or that Venus having a ocean.
I don’t believe Earth has had time when all land has been submerged under the ocean, but seems more plausible, that all land was under the ocean waves as compared to Earth being completely covered by ice. One could call it the Altantian Age.
But I have interested in a model where Earth only has a ocean surface. More recently I have interested in Earth with 1/2 as much ocean as has now.
It seems there should large difference between a 1/2 ocean and a ocean the completely cover all land.
And seems it would be a good test, of whether someone could model Earth with any skill.
gc,
From your link –
“The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4) is an estimate of global surface temperature change.”
Hard science? Any sort of science? 12 year old standard arithmetic, perhaps. Followed by a guess (estimate, if you want to sound important, I suppose).
From the site RealClimate (where at least one person, Gavin Schmidt, is apparently a self proclaimed scientist), a GHE true believer, Baron Paul Levenson, wrote –
“BPL: Okay, here are the facts. 1) Global warming is real. 2) Human technology causes it, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. 3) It’s the worst crisis human civilization has ever faced outside of nuclear war.”
His first two points seem factual and logical. Reversing the order, burning fossil fuels creates heat. This heat is detected around the globe by thermometers. His third point might be disputed by anybody using electric lighting, keeping warm, heating food, depending on freight services and so on.
No GHE needed. If you burn stuff, stay alive, rub your hands together, transform energy from one form to another, heat is created. Lots and lots. It even exists at night, in the absence of sunlight.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just Nature proceeding as usual.
Cheers.
@Mike Flynn,
BPL rolled you.
1) Global warming is real.
Yes, until 1998. Why did it stop in 1998 forcing the CAGW crowd to re-brand their product as “Climate Change”? “Global Warming ceased to be real in 1998.
2) Human technology causes it, mainly the burning of fossil fuels.
Human technology does cause [CO2] to rise but there is no correlation between [CO2] and hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes or temperature (other than the coincidental correlation from 1850 to 1998).
[CO2] correlates with higher crop yields, longer life expectancy and rising population. It also correlates with the Industrial Revolution that started around 1740.
Efforts to “Mitigate CO2” are misguided and harmful because they imply reversing the technological progress that brought unprecedented prosperity. The “Green New Deal” claims that only 10 million jobs will be lost while ignoring the > 4 billion lives that would be lost by banning fossil fuels.
3) It’s the worst crisis human civilization has ever faced outside of nuclear war.
The exact opposite is true. The Green New Deal” implemented worldwide would be more deadly than nuclear war.
“Man up” by facing your duty to green the planet. CO2 is plant food! Be nice to plants and they will make you more prosperous. All they ask from you is more CO2 and more poop. Buy a bigger SUV or emulate Al Gore by buying three more houses than you actually need.
gc,
You wrote –
“@Mike Flynn,
BPL rolled you.”
Is this “rolled” a pseudoscientific GHE true believer redefinition of an ordinary English word?
Or did you make a typographical error? I don’t understand what you are saying. Would you mind explaining? BPL was responding to someone challenging “Global Warming Alarmism”. I am not sure what BPL would “roll” someone of whom he was totally.
Oh well, if someone set out to “roll” me, I’ll never know how it was supposed to affect me, so no harm done.
Cheers.
Pretending that you don’t understand “rolling” is not worthy of you. Something like Bill Clinton saying what do you mean by the word “is”?
Face reality and admit that the “Green New Deal” would destroy our industrial civilization.
gc,
You wrote –
“Pretending that you don’t understand “rolling” is not worthy of you. Something like Bill Clinton saying what do you mean by the word “is”?”
If you say so. Obviously a pseudoscientific GHE true believer idiom. Keep it a secret if you must.
Cheers.
GC asks: “So what is your judgement? Hard Science or Pseudoscience?”
Since your questions are ambiguous, and the two links are mostly unrelated, it must be “Hard Pseudoscience”.
Naughty JDH! Fence straddling doth not become you.
Are you resorting to “naughty” false accusations now, GC?
Why not learn the relevant physics? That will allow you to recognize and refute pseudoscience. Then you won’t get bullied by phonies like DA.
Oh my big Dave Appell said the sun was 4% less radiant 450mya. Ooooh! Sounds like Dave is admitting that natural variability plays a big part! ho ho ho!
Admitting?? Who claims that over those sorts of time scales it doesn’t?
Begone, troll!
I guess, in the illogic used by clowns, “natural variability” worked in the distant past but no longer is a factor?
They keep changing the rules. No wonder they can’t arrive at a definiton of AGW/GHE that holds up.
JDHuffman
“natural variability worked in the distant past but no longer is a factor?”
You are correct. Natural variability is producing a slow cooling effect on the climate, about -0.05C/decade. Yet even a sceptic like Dr Spencer observes warming of 0.13C/decade.
Artificial warming is now the dominant factor influencing climate, having a much larger influence than natural variation.
That’s another good one, E-man.
Can you turn that nonsense into a poem?
DA…”My data are for the surface; UAH is for the lower troposphere”.
You mean they poke a hole in the surface and stick a thermometer in it? And here I though thermometers were in housings in the lower troposphere.
Here’s Dr. Spencer’s graphic showing how UAH TLT is weighted.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AIRS-global-trend-profile-with-RSS-and-UAH-LT-wfs-550×660.jpg
bill hunter…”You need to first prove there are photons”.
That’s the point that is easily missed. For decades, I worked with electronic communications, where EM is the medium, and not once did I see a reference to photons. All EM was treated as waves.
In antenna theory, EM is referenced in wavelengths. An antenna must match the wavelength of an EM wave it is receiving. In other words, the received wave must resonate with the tuned frequency of the antenna.
I have been using the concept of a photon wrt to a single electron. However, the quantum of energy emitted or absorbed by an electron is not clearly defined.
How can you assign a frequency to a photon, or a wavelength? If a mass of electrons are emitting in unison, there must be a mechanism by which individual quanta add to form a wave.
I daresay the opposite situation is similar and maybe that’s where the answer lies as to why EM from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body. EM leaving a colder body, as quanta en masse, must form a wavefront. When it reaches a warmer mass, the collective electrons in the mass likely have a way of absorbing or ignoring the mass.
With regard to the problem of EM from a colder body being absorbed by a warmer body, I regard the absorbing/emitting electron as an antenna or a filter. A receiving electron has an angular velocity related to its orbital energy level. Of course, angular velocity can be stated as a frequency.
If a receiving electron has a frequency, it requires energy of the same frequency, or higher, in order to absorb it. If the energy matches minimally, the electron jumps to the next energy level. If the received energy is greater or excessive, the electron jumps several energy levels, or right out of the atom.
If the energy is lower, like the energy from a colder body, it is ignored. I have no idea what happens to it but having the energy ignored satisfies the 2nd law.
“If the energy is lower, like the energy from a colder body, it is ignored. I have no idea what happens to it ..”
Therein lies your problem.
You apparently cannot accept the fact that a cool body emits EM radiation across a range of wavelengths.
A warm body therefore cannot tell if radiation at a given wavelength comes from a cooler or warmer source. The radiation carries zero information about the temperature of its source.
studentb, much of the flux from a colder body will be reflected by a hotter body.
But in addition, the spectrum from the colder body will have a lower “peak energy” than the hotter body. That means the flux energy from the colder body will always be less than the flux energy emitted by the hotter body. The hotter body will be losing energy faster than the colder body can supply.
Put it all together, and it means the colder body will not be able to raise the temperature of the hotter body. And that fits with the 2LoT, as it must.
s,
Off you go, then. Heat up some water with block of ice. Put the ice in the water, if you like – intimate contact should work better, shouldn’t it?
According to you, the water doesn’t know where the photons have come from. It still won’t get hotter! Maybe you need to talk nicely to it – impress it with your logic and intellectual prowess.
Maybe you don’t realise you are talking nonsense, but you are.
Cheers.
studentb says: – If the energy is lower, like the energy from a colder body, it is ignored. I have no idea what happens to it ..
Therein lies your problem.
————
Actually studentb its a problem with anyone proposing a theory. Gordon is simply expressing skepticism.
Calling “it” an “it” is the first problem as if it had some substance. Yet we know energy is quantified like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave. Check out noise cancellation technology in headsets.
So its only a problem for Gordon once its established as being a problem for Gordon. Gordon is in the ideal role he should be in.
This is why the elite class is pushing so hard on post normal science. They desire to reverse the burden of proof so they can rule as they please and take their jet setting junkets while everybody else rides a bicycle.
Therefore skeptics are attacked rather than informed as should be the case. However, the statement “the science is settled” is simply a command to move right along there is nothing to see here.
Post normal science is merely a scheme to control others using essentially the Baron’s treasure chest. As quoted by Dr. Will Happer.
The astonishing recent claim by NOAA, that there never was a hiatus, reminds me of the Barons soliloquy about the power of his treasure chests in Pushkins little tragedy, The Miserly Knight, of 1830 (AKA The Covetous Knight). I have tried to reproduce the solemn, iambic pentameter of Pushkins verse in my translation:
And muses will to me their tribute bring,
Free genius will enslave itself to me,
And virtue, yes, and, sleepless labor too
With humble mien will wait for my reward.
Ive but to whistle, and obedient, timid,
Blood-spattered villainy will crawl to me
And lick my hand, and gaze into my eyes,
To read in them the sign of my desire.
The world has lots of political and financial Barons who profit in one way or another from hysteria over climate change. And, alas, there are muses in the mass media willing to bring tribute, as well as genius-scientists willing to enslave themselves.
So if you value your freedom you would probably be best advised to take the stance of Gordon and a few others around here and demand actual proof of what they claim is a need to relieve you of inexpensive energy, etc. And pay no attention to the doomsday rhetoric, if they understood this themselves adequately they could demonstrate it and explain it, but they can’t so the doomsday rhetoric is simply a lie to try to appeal to people’s fears.
What data does Happer present to show there was a hiatus?
R U Blind?
“How can you assign a frequency to a photon, or a wavelength?”
Frequency is the wavelength times the speed of light. The frequency of a photon is it’s energy divided by the plank constant.
The average temperature in Greenland and western Canada will now fall below the 1979-2000 average.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_arc-lea_t2anom_10-day.png
For the next 12 months?
Midas, please do not make fun of the afflicted. We must be respectful to the disabled (including the 3 stooges).
Dr Myki
Thomas Paine once said: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead”.
Sometimes I wonder why we bother!
“Sometimes I wonder why we bother!”
For sadistic amusement – like shooting ducks/fish in a barrel.
Em,
Feynman wrote –
“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 appropriate for the pseudoscientific GHE true believers, I know.
Those dimwits don’t even have a useful GHE description, let alone a theory!
Cheers.
“For sadistic amusement – like shooting ducks/fish in a barrel.”
Yes, a good example of the sort of people I was referring to earlier:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-373859
This blog seems to be getting full of them. Just here for “sadistic amusement”. And proud of it!
Hey ! Look !
Two ducks !
OK, Ian.
Honestly, it’s like watching special needs children fighting. It’s just fundamentally ineffectual and rather nauseating. You’re all very special.
What a grotesque thing to say.
It appears Midas, “Dr” Myki, and E-man want to argue with the weather.
They hate reality.
JDHuffmam
I do hate reality. I would be much happier in your fantasy world.
Unfortunately I had evidence-based reasoning based reasoning beaten into me with a big stick during my education as a scientist and am unable to ignore the evidence for AGW and climate change.
E-man, here’s some more reality for you to hate: You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics, as evidenced by your false belief that a heat pump “proves” “cold” can warm “hot”, and that then “proves” your AGW.
Your “education” was actually only “indoctrination”. Stick with poetry. You are a failure at science.
Quack !
OK, Ian.
I came here a number of years ago, hoping that the website of a respected scientist would be a source of reliable evidence critical of AGW. I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.
It has been a great disappointment.
Yes, it’s been ruined by people seeking “sadistic amusement”, otherwise known as “trolling”. You may not be aware of this, but I’ve politely asked once or twice for these people to stop, but alas, to no avail.
E-man claims: ” I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.”
Well E-man, if you’ve been paying attention, you know that AGW is a hoax. Now, you just have to have the courage to accept reality and leave that cult.
Entropic man says: – I came here a number of years ago, hoping that the website of a respected scientist would be a source of reliable evidence critical of AGW. I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.
It has been a great disappointment.
Hmmmm, thats funnier than shit! What is this masochism confession day? Did you really come here to see somebody prove a negative?
“I came here a number of years ago, hoping that the website of a respected scientist would be a source of reliable evidence critical of AGW. I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.
It has been a great disappointment.”
Everybody here knows you are a communist plant , so Stop playing dumb games , nobody here is falling for it
Here’s some more reality for E-man to hate, and Norman to deny:
Clear skies, directly overhead –> 18.1 F
Ground –> 80.2 F
For clowns unable to convert to Celsius:
Overhead –> -7.7 C
Ground –> 26.8 C
The surface warms the atmosphere, as usual. Excess energy moves to space. There are no violations of laws of physics.
See why clowns hate reality?
Where is this “overhead” temperature?
Is it near the top of the troposphere where temperature is about -60C
or top of the stratosphere where the temperature is about 0C
or top of the mesosphere where the temperature is about -80C
or top of the thermosphere where the temperature is about +80C ?
You see, simply quoting temperature differences does not tell you much about energy flows, let alone net energy flows.
studentb, don’t waste your time – its like talking to a duck.
JD is pointing an IR thermometer sensitive to 8-14 um radiation at the sky. His reading of -7.7C probably corresponds to roughly 210 W/m^2 of DWIR assuming a clear sky emissivity of 0.75.
Very good, bdgwx.
You’ve been studying.
studentb says: “You see, simply quoting temperature differences does not tell you much about energy flows, let alone net energy flows.”
Actually that is not correct, studentb. The IR thermometer is measuring the flux from directly overhead. The temperature provided is calculated from that flux. So you get a good indication of energy flows.
But, that is flux. If you want to compare conduction and convection, look at the lapse rate.
Of course, that invalidates the bogus GHE, which is why clowns hate facts and logic.
Nothing new.
“that invalidates the bogus GHE”
Right JD, and that validates the actual GHE.
Someone pressed the “on” button on the Ball4 machine, and it has rolled in for more of its own “sadistic amusement”.
fluffball likes to play games with semantics. That way he can avoid facts and logic.
But, mostly he just gets himself tangled up in his own fluff.
Nothing new.
But, how does the surface know about the temperature of the radiation source? Think about it, the surface does not perform a calculation based on the radiation and some unknown emissivity value. That 210 Wm-2 could just as easily come from the sun. A blackbody absorbs it from any source because is non-discriminatory by definition.
studentb, you’re confused on two points:
1) The target surface doesn’t know the temperature of the source, but it knows the wavelength of the arriving photon.
2) Earth’s surface is NOT a black body.
s,
You now see the idiocy of measuring temperature in terms of W/m2.
If you try to heat your beverage by utilising the 300 W/m2 from ice, you will be sorely disappointed. Maybe the beverage knows the difference between 300 W/m2 from ice (below freezing), and 300 W/m2 from the Sun (around 5800 K).
Maybe you can explain why your beverage gets cooler, rather than hotter, when you place ice in it.
You cant even describe the GHE in any useful scientific way, so reality is unlikely to convince you that cunning debating tactics or logic cannot turn fantasy into fact.
Some photons interact with matter by raising its temperature. Some don’t. Fact of life.
Cheers.
The lapse rate is caused by the greenhouse effect.
Mainly caused by convection I thought, although GHGs help cool the upper atmosphere.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-if-there-were-no-greenhouse-effect.html
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0674.1
Great granddad and great grandson are at loggerheads…
Higher magnetic activity of the sun is correlated with parallel circulation. Therefore, no hurricane in the Atlantic can form at this time.
You have proof here.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
How nice!. How sweet!
Take these coloured crayons and draw me another pretty picture.
Dr Myki – cut the snark!
Ren-
Your link is a graph of the NAO indes. Can you link to something that shows either hurricanes in the Atlantic or solar magnetic activity corresponds to the NAO index?
The NOA index shows the pressure distribution in the Atlantic. High pressure over Iceland and low pressure over the Azores. This shows that the jet stream is falling south in the eastern Atlantic.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif
The NAO index has been negative since the end of April. Solar activity was minimal during this period (minimum of the solar cycle).
The surface temperature of the Eastern Atlantic must not rise above average.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
Day 160.
160 days of denial from the GHE Defense Team on the debunking of the Green Plate Effect. With the GPE debunked, and the trivially obvious fact there’s no GHE now wildly apparent to anyone open-minded, rational and intelligent enough to have thought it through, that makes most climate blogs redundant. But, the show must go on, I suppose.
160 days, and likely most of them do not know what “enthalpy” is. And even fewer understand “entropy”.
So there’s no way they could understand “Enthalpy can not increase and entropy decrease without an increase in energy”.
Nothing new.
entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
enthalpy: a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of the system plus the product of pressure and volume.
Maybe that will help you JD.
Probably not
weasel knows how to copy/paste.
And, he knows how to weasel out of an agreement.
And also how to appear like magic as soon as “the plates” are mentioned.
Yeah, my idiot detector is working flawlessly.
Response.
“… the trivially obvious fact there’s no GHE now wildly apparent to anyone open-minded, rational and intelligent enough to have thought it through…”
How you insult Dr. Spencer for being a Skeptic that still pays attention to data that all scientists agree on and agrees that there is a greenhouse effect. I think you should change your name to Dr. Roy’s Flagellation Team.
Are you kidding!? I’ve read this blog for many years, before commenting. This has always been one of the few places where the GHE can be frankly discussed.
You can believe it’s by accident if you want.
“This has always been one of the few places where the GHE can be frankly discussed.”
It’s become a place where most posts are pointless insults devoid of facts.
It’s also always been a place where people post pointless insults. Especially against those who are arguing against the GHE. That’s certainly the most demonized group of people in the climate debate.
Craig, are you aware that, even though Dr. Spencer tries to be scientific, he is still hated? Are you aware that his UAH building has been shot at? Do you close your eyes to all the venom hurled at Skeptics here?
Cults are fanatical and dangerous.
Open your eyes.
Entropic man wrote –
“Unfortunately I had evidence-based reasoning based reasoning beaten into me with a big stick during my education as a scientist and am unable to ignore the evidence for AGW and climate change.”
You might have benefited from having been taught the scientific method.
Your “evidence based reasoning” is the sort of jargon used by pseudoscientific GHE true believers trying to sound authoritative. Here is one definition – ” . . .evidence-based reasoning is the process of thinking about something in a logical way and supporting your thinking with proof to show that your thoughts are, indeed, logical.”
Unfortunately, you need to specify what it is you are thinking about. This is difficult if you claim you are “thinking” about how the GHE operates, because this would require that you are able to usefully describe the GHE, which nobody has actually managed to do!
What is it that you do not understand? What temperature is? How thermometers operate? Where heat comes from?
If you cannot explain any observations using current physical knowledge, you might need to describe where and when these observations may be reproduced and quantified, and what makes them novel, or currently inexplicable.
It’s called science, and starts with observation of something unusual, a guess as to why, experimentation, a theory, and more reproducible experiments. If you say increased temperature is due to something other than obvious heat sources, you might be laughed at.
Maybe you could try telling people why a GHE is necessary, describe it, and produce a testable GHE hypothesis. Or you could just appeal to your own authority. That might work.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn says:
August 14, 2019 at 5:25 AM
s,
Off you go, then. Heat up some water with block of ice. ”
I just did. I went out to my garage and painted some water onto the pipes coming outt the back of my freezer.
The heat extracted from the ice promptly evaporated the water.
Now what?
For some reason E-man likes to reveal his ignorance of thermodynamics.
Who knows, maybe he believes his comment rhymes?
Em,
You haven’t heated water with ice. You have heated it using electricity. Maybe you need to understand how refrigeration works.
I don’t know why you go out of your way to boast how ignorant and stupid you are. It seems bit odd to me.
However, I suppose a pseudoscientific GHE true believer could convince himself that heating water using electricity is really heating water using ice. You mentioned “evidence based reasoning” before. Turn off the electricity to your freezer. Wait until those pipes have cooled to ambient. Now notice that the pipes have lost their power to heat your water above ambient. You might come to the conclusion that the electric power was providing the heating you noticed. Or maybe not, depending how thick you are.
Still no GHE. No magical CO2 heating ability. No heating water using the radiation from ice.
Cheers.
As an astronaut floating in space, not exposed to the sun, would I like to cuddle up to a chunk of ice at 0C or nothing at all (-273C)?
I would prefer the “warm” ice.
pp…”As an astronaut floating in space, not exposed to the sun, would I like to cuddle up to a chunk of ice at 0C or nothing at all (-273C)?
I would prefer the warm ice”.
The warm ice would do nothing for a body needing to be at 37C.
Without a space suit heater you’d be in deep doo doo. And at -273C batteries don’t work to well for long.
pP,
What a witless evasion. Astronauts’ Extra Vehicular Mobility suits require cooling, not warming up. Are you stupid, or just pretending?
Try warming some water with some ice. You can’t do it, can you? It doesn’t really matter, because you can’t even usefully describe the GHE. All that pseudoscientific GHE believers can do is to fly off at maximum speed along the nearest tangent.
What a bumbling pack of fools!
Try some science. A foolish hope, but I remain optimistic, in spite of all available evidence that delusional psychotics are not curable in the usual sense of the word. For example, Gavin Schmidt probably sincerely believes he is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was delusional enough to claim he was a Nobel Laureate – in court documents to boot!
You cannot warm water with the radiation from ice – even if the ice is emitting 300 W/m2.
Keep dreaming.
Cheers.
entropic…” The heat extracted from the ice promptly evaporated the water.
Now what?”
Learn the 2nd law and what it means.
Get the book by Clausius and read it from the beginning…carefully. He explains in great detail everything you need to know and why heat cannot be transferred spontaneously from cold to hot.
His theory takes you through heat engine theory and if you pay attention, you can see why heat won’t transfer cold to hot, by its own means.
His findings were critical to science at the time. He disproved a claim by Carnot regarding heat loss and set the tone for deeper investigation. The work of Clausius has never been challenged re the 2nd law. Only the stubborn like Swannie and Norman think they have found a way to bypass the 2nd law but they have not proved Clausius wrong.
Swannie has simply misinterpreted the results of his experiments.
Says the dude who didn’t prove that all points of the moon have the same linear velocity which he promised to do.
Didn’t do it.
Couldn’t do it.
Claims he did it.
Hoosier daddy.
bob d…”Says the dude who didnt prove that all points of the moon have the same linear velocity which he promised to do”.
JD and I have already discussed that. The Moon as a body has an instantaneous linear velocity. In essence, the Moon is trying to move in a straight line. However, the action of gravity on the Moon produces a resultant path, the orbit. Therefore, you have to look at the Moon’s velocity with two hats.
With the Moon hat on, you consider only the Moon. It’s velocity vector is tangential to the gravity vector, whichever one you use. As such, the Moon’s tangential velocity is its linear velocity.
Off with the Moon hat and on with the orbital hat. Now you have to consider the Moon in rotation about the Earth’s axis. That is done with a radial line from the Earth’s axis through the Moon’s COG. Now we are considering the angular velocity of the Moon in Earth orbit, which is the angular rate of change of the radial line.
In either case, the angular velocity can be converted to a linear velocity as I explained to stupid. Briefly, degrees per second can be converted to radians per second which can be converted to metres/second in the orbit.
In either case again, any point on the Moon at any instant is traveling at the angular velocity of the Moon about the Earth. With a rigid body, the velocity is regarded as the velocity of the centre of gravity, not the individual particles.
Gordon shrieks:
“In either case again, any point on the Moon at any instant is traveling at the angular velocity of the Moon about the Earth. With a rigid body, the velocity is regarded as the velocity of the centre of gravity, not the individual particles.”
Gordon. The velocity of the moon’s center of gravity is slower than the velocity of a point on outer edge of the far side of the moon. That is a plain FACT. No, Gordon, the velocity of a rigid body is not regarded as the velocity of the center of gravity.
JD was wrong and YOU are embarrassingly wrong. All points on the moon do not move with the same linear velocity.
That stupid statement is right up there with your moronic statement that, “Rotation requires movement along a CONTINUOUS curve.” That was a howler.
All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity. That’s why the same side always faces the interior of the orbit. Otherwise, Moon would be spinning on its axis.
That’s true for all orbiting objects. It is believed that Gamymede (Jupiter’s largest moon) also always faces the interior of its orbit. That means it is not rotating on its axis.
It’s the same basic motion as a racehorse running an oval track. Or, a blue jet circumnavigating Earth:
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
What velocity equation are you using? Show your work.
(This ought to be entertaining)
But what about the trotters?
And the green jets?
Crickets. . . . .
JD screams:
“All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity. Thats why the same side always faces the interior of the orbit!”
Your pronouncement is in direct conflict with Tesla’s Figure 5, where the balls are not locked. Tesla stated:
“The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity.”
So, before he locks the balls, all particles of the object have the same velocity.
It is only AFTER he locks the balls, that the same side always faces the center of orbit, just like the moon. So the velocities of all points of the balls cannot be the same, when the balls are locked.
Poor JD, always on the losing end. Doesn’t that get tiring, always being wrong, and looking like a fool???? Apparently not. He’s only happy to look like an idiot.
“It is only AFTER he locks the balls, that the same side always faces the center of orbit, just like the moon. “
…and, once locked, they are physically incapable of rotating on their own axes.
Now, let’s see…is it called “tidal locking”, or is it called “tidal freedom of movement”.
It’s a puzzler.
Gordon drools:
“In either case, the angular velocity can be converted to a linear velocity as I explained to stupid.”
Gordon favorite pastime is making up his own physics definitions to suit his distorted views. For example, he makes up his own definition of curvilinear translation, which is totally contrary to the standard one you would find in any kinematics textbook.
Now he does the same with angular velocity. Gordon, please refer to the following university class lecture notes:
http://people.wku.edu/david.neal/117/Unit2/AngVel.pdf
The above reference states the following:
“We always use radians as the unit of measure when working with angular velocity”.
I wonder if Gordon will now redefine the term “always”?
Gordon blubbers:
“With a rigid body, the velocity is regarded as the velocity of the centre of gravity, not the individual particles.”
Please refer to the following kinematic lecture notes:
http://ww2.odu.edu/~jdudek/Phys111N_materials/7_rotational_motion.pdf
On page 8, please refer to the segment entitled, “Motion of Points in a Rigid Body,”
It states the following:
“Consider the motion of a couple of points within the rigid body. The blue point at a large radius travels further in the same time than the red point, so although the angular speed is the same, the linear speed is different.”
That was a slam dunk. This IS like shooting fish in a barrel.
Grrdon moans:
“However, the action of gravity on the Moon produces a resultant path, the orbit. Therefore, you have to look at the Moons velocity with two hats.”
Yes. And the second hat is made of tin. Wow! What an amazing amount of BS.
Trouble is brewing under the Yellowstone-sized supervolcano of HGS’s fury…
Massimo PORZIO
You said:
“BTW, I’m not a scientist, I’m just an electronic engineer and an amateur climate guy.”
I resemble that! My first degree was in physics and the second one in electrical engineering:
https://www.bdidatalynk.com/instructor/peter-morcombe
Since retiring for the third time in 2017 I have more time for endless discussions about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The residents here seem unusually petty this week so I plan to dial back my comments for a while to give them a chance to calm down.
As an electronic engineer you must be familiar with PSPICE. Tim Channon (at Tallbloke) used it to model the temperature of the Moon with good accuracy:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
Dr. Roy has a spreadsheet that is almost as good.
“The residents here seem unusually petty this week …”
Yes, I have noticed that too. Happens near the time of a full moon.
Begone, troll!
Quack!
OK, Ian.
cam …when I was setting up a fibre cable for installation, I’d strip them, cleave them, polish them, very quickly, then tape them together with electrical tape and point the bundle at an ordinary incandescent light bulb.
Then off to the other end to view them with a 100X lens. If I got a full moon that filled 3/4 of the dark area, I proceeded terminating that end.
On one job, I got less than half a Moon and could not figure it out. Ended up borrowing a TDR which indicated an issue about 15 feet from the far end. The fibre had already been run through a final conduit and it was not easy to get at the 15 foot mark.
As you know, you don’t want to be tearing a fibre cable apart a bit at a time, in case the problem is elsewhere. However, there was little option and that’s what I had to do. The 15 foot mark was inside the conduit and splicing was out of the question.
Finally, about 15 feet in I found the problem. The glass of the fibres was twisted together as tight as the copper conductors in a CAT5 cable.
When I untwisted them, each fibre looked like a little sine wave.
GR,
That is an amazing story! Given the tools you had it is remarkable that you managed any kind of repair. What method did you use to cleave the fiber?
While I don’t teach fiber optics any more my classes have been taken over by much younger people who can show you how to splice fiber optic cables to meet Telco specifications (~0.1 dB per splice).
I have seen cable faults like the one you describe but they are rare if you buy cable from a reputable supplier. Such faults can be located within a few millimeters using OFDRs or 3 meters using OTDRs.
OFDRs are still pricey so most people use OTDRs which can cost less than $2,000.
Hi gallopingcamel,
Note: since I have a lot of problem making this message pass the automatic moderation tool I split it in more parts.
just curious, why that alias? 🙂
Yes, I know SPICE and the simulator that I use to help me designing faster uses a SPICE core too (let me say that it’s the “father” of almost all EE simulators), the one I use it’s just a little friendly in the schematic entry IMHO.
Continue…
Nothing to do…
I’m not able to send you the message i would.
This is incredible, but I can’t.
I would tell you about a heat transfer simulator that I found a couple of years ago, but the moderation tool doesn’t allow it.
If you like it you could ask Dr. Spencer directly to give you my e-mail and I’ll reply directly.
have a great day.
Massimo
The intent is not to hide my identity which can easily be discovered as many of my posts have my real name as well as the gallopingcamel moniker.
Experience suggests that “Gallopingcamel” is easier to remember than my real name.
In Rugby football a “Wing Three-quarter” plays both sides of the ball so on defense you are a “Corner Back” and on offense you are a “Wide Receiver”. The main requirement for the job is to be able to run faster than anyone else on the other team.
Fifty plus years ago I played wing three-quarter for the Coventry RUFC.
http://www.coventryrugby.co.uk/
It would have pleased me if my team mates has called me “The Gazelle” in recognition of my graceful running style but sadly they were mean spirited (cf David Appell) and called me the “Galloping Camel”.
You can email me at info(at)gallopingcamel.info
Hi gallopingcamel,
Thanks for the explanation, I was really curious about that funny alias. It just a guess, maybe that they would call you “The Gazelle” because you were too heavy to be compared to that?
; – )
I send you in private the message.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“1) The target surface doesnt know the temperature of the source, but it knows the wavelength of the arriving photon.”
Agreed.
2) Earths surface is NOT a black body.
Disagree. The surface is well approximated as a black body which means that is welcoming to photons of all wavelengths. That is why the SB Law describes the total emission from the surface for a given temperature. The absorp_tivity/emiss-ivity for water, for example, is about 0.95.
Therefore, a photon arrives at the surface and what happens next? Without “border security” the photon must be absorbed – irrespective of the surface temperature. Of course, the surface is still emitting according to SB. Think about it. The net effect will be cooling if the surface is relatively warm, and warming if it is relatively cool. No violation of any laws and no problem with having to explain where the photon goes otherwise.
studentb…”Therefore, a photon arrives at the surface and what happens next? Without border security the photon must be absorbed irrespective of the surface temperature”.
Suggest you read Bohr and Schrodinger till you understand what I going on.
s,
You wrote –
“Without ‘border security’ the photon must be absorbed irrespective of the surface temperature.”
Why do you make such stupid statements? What would “absorb” such a photon? Why? Do you believe photons cannot be reflected from a surface? How about transparent material or translucent materials?
You might notice that the more dimwitted pseudoscientific GHE true believers insist that IR photons cannot be absorbed by many things – oxygen and nitrogen amongst them.
You could always learn some QED theory, if you had the time. Otherwise, just keep rambling. Still no GHE, and no CO2 heating.
Cheers.
All you need to know is that a blackbody is “a perfect absorber and radiator of energy, with no reflecting power.” The the surface is neither reflective nor transluscent to IR. It absorbs almost 100%
s,
I assume you are trying to disagree with something I wrote, but you can’t find anything in particular.
All you need to to alleviate your ignorance is pretty well everything. I can give no assistance as to how to minimise your stupidity.
Reflectance varies with wavelength, surface, angle of incidence, and a few other things.
The Earth might be a black body in your pseudoscientific GHE true believer fantasy, but not in reality, alas.
I won’t ask you to try harder. You are trying enough as it is.
Cheers.
students, the surface is NOT well approximated as a black body. If it were a black body, it would appear black. No visible light would be returned to your eyes.
In pseudoscience, they want you to believe that “all photons are always absorbed”, but that just is not true. Photons are easily reflected.
So your statement:“…the photon must be absorbed– irrespective of the surface temperature” is completely false.
Photons MUST have a compatible wavelength to be absorbed. The surface temperature matters.
sb…”2) Earths surface is NOT a black body.
…Disagree. The surface is well approximated as a black body which means that is welcoming to photons of all wavelengths. That is why the SB Law describes the total emission from the surface for a given temperature”.
**********
The S-B law is based on a platinum wire heated electrically between about 700C and 1500C. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply at terrestrial temperatures, it needs to be adjusted. In fact, the constant must be adjusted based on the temperature of the body in question.
I know people tend to throw S-B around as if it is a universal equation of radiation, but they are wrong. It makes little since to compare Earth to a blackbody, which is defined as a body that will absorb all EM frequencies.
The Sun and other stars can be compared to a BB due to their high temperatures. I hardly think the Sun absorbs all EM frequencies incident upon it.
BB theory was proposed by Kircheoff long before the quantum theory of Bohr and Schrodinger was developed. Kircheoff proposed the theory for bodies in thermal equilibrium, not for bodies of different temperatures radiating in proximity to each other.
We now know that the electrons in atoms that absorb and emit EM absorb it only under specific conditions.
I think BB theory should be put to bed and that we should find out what is really going on.
We’d probably do well to include convection and conduction into the mix.
stephen…”Wed probably do well to include convection and conduction into the mix”.
That’s what is wrong with AGE and the GHE, they are based on radiation only.
R.W. Wood, an expert on the emissions of CO2 and other gases, claimed CO2 radiation in the atmosphere could not warm it as claimed re the GHE. He thought the warming credited to the GHE is likely due to the atmosphere absorbing heat from the surface via conduction and convection. Since gases are poor radiators they tend to hold the heat.
That makes far more sense to me than claiming a trace gas is causing the warming.
Sorry, SB is simply an expression of the integral of the Planck function – it is not an empirical law. Unless you would like to dispute the Planck function – in which case we will never agree.
s,
You wrote –
“Sorry, SB is simply an expression of the integral of the Planck function it is not an empirical law.”
Some apparently disagree –
From Wikipedia
“The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.”, but maybe you prefer Britannica –
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”
Are you a scofflaw, perhaps?
Cheers.
Sorr