Home/BlogJuly 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global “reanalysis” datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures. [NOTE: It turns out that the WMO, which announced July 2019 as a near-record, relies upon the ERA5 reanalysis which apparently departs substantially from the CFSv2 reanalysis, making my proposed reliance on only reanalysis data for surface temperature monitoring also subject to considerable uncertainty].
We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.
One would think that the very best data would be used to make this assessment. After all, it comes from official government sources (such as NOAA, and the World Meteorological Organization [WMO]).
But current official pronouncements of global temperature records come from a fairly limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends. The global surface thermometer network has three major problems when it comes to getting global-average temperatures:
(1) The urban heat island (UHI) effect has caused a gradual warming of most land thermometer sites due to encroachment of buildings, parking lots, air conditioning units, vehicles, etc. These effects are localized, not indicative of most of the global land surface (which remains most rural), and not caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because UHI warming “looks like” global warming, it is difficult to remove from the data. In fact, NOAA’s efforts to make UHI-contaminated data look like rural data seems to have had the opposite effect. The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.
(2) Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)
(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?
There’s a better way.
A more complete picture: Global Reanalysis datasets
(If you want to ignore my explanation of why reanalysis estimates of monthly global temperatures should be trusted over official government pronouncements, skip to the next section.)
Various weather forecast centers around the world have experts who take a wide variety of data from many sources and figure out which ones have information about the weather and which ones don’t.
But, how can they know the difference? Because good data produce good weather forecasts; bad data don’t.
The data sources include surface thermometers, buoys, and ships (as do the “official” global temperature calculations), but they also add in weather balloons, commercial aircraft data, and a wide variety of satellite data sources.
Why would one use non-surface data to get better surface temperature measurements? Since surface weather affects weather conditions higher in the atmosphere (and vice versa), one can get a better estimate of global average surface temperature if you have satellite measurements of upper air temperatures on a global basis and in regions where no surface data exist. Knowing whether there is a warm or cold airmass there from satellite data is better than knowing nothing at all.
Furthermore, weather systems move. And this is the beauty of reanalysis datasets: Because all of the various data sources have been thoroughly researched to see what mixture of them provide the best weather forecasts
(including adjustments for possible instrumental biases and drifts over time), we know that the physical consistency of the various data inputs was also optimized.
Part of this process is making forecasts to get “data” where no data exists. Because weather systems continuously move around the world, the equations of motion, thermodynamics, and moisture can be used to estimate temperatures where no data exists by doing a “physics extrapolation” using data observed on one day in one area, then watching how those atmospheric characteristics are carried into an area with no data on the next day. This is how we knew there were going to be some exceeding hot days in France recently: a hot Saharan air layer was forecast to move from the Sahara desert into western Europe.
This kind of physics-based extrapolation (which is what weather forecasting is) is much more realistic than (for example) using land surface temperatures in July around the Arctic Ocean to simply guess temperatures out over the cold ocean water and ice where summer temperatures seldom rise much above freezing. This is actually one of the questionable techniques used (by NASA GISS) to get temperature estimates where no data exists.
If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect, once again I point out it is used for your daily weather forecast. We like to make fun of how poor some weather forecasts can be, but the objective evidence is that forecasts out 2-3 days are pretty accurate, and continue to improve over time.
The Reanalysis picture for July 2019
The only reanalysis data I am aware of that is available in near real time to the public is from WeatherBell.com, and comes from NOAA’s Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2).
The plot of surface temperature departures from the 1981-2010 mean for July 2019 shows a global average warmth of just over 0.3 C (0.5 deg. F) above normal:
Note from that figure how distorted the news reporting was concerning the temporary hot spells in France, which the media reports said contributed to global-average warmth. Yes, it was unusually warm in France in July. But look at the cold in Eastern Europe and western Russia. Where was the reporting on that? How about the fact that the U.S. was, on average, below normal?
The CFSv2 reanalysis dataset goes back to only 1979, and from it we find that July 2019 was actually cooler than three other Julys: 2016, 2002, and 2017, and so was 4th warmest in 41 years. And being only 0.5 deg. F above average is not terribly alarming.
Our UAH lower tropospheric temperature measurements had July 2019 as the third warmest, behind 1998 and 2016, at +0.38 C above normal.
Why don’t the people who track global temperatures use the reanalysis datasets?
The main limitation with the reanalysis datasets is that most only go back to 1979, and I believe at least one goes back to the 1950s. Since people who monitor global temperature trends want data as far back as possible (at least 1900 or before) they can legitimately say they want to construct their own datasets from the longest record of data: from surface thermometers.
But most warming has (arguably) occurred in the last 50 years, and if one is trying to tie global temperature to greenhouse gas emissions, the period since 1979 (the last 40+ years) seems sufficient since that is the period with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions and so when the most warming should be observed.
So, I suggest that the global reanalysis datasets be used to give a more accurate estimate of changes in global temperature for the purposes of monitoring warming trends over the last 40 years, and going forward in time. They are clearly the most physically-based datasets, having been optimized to produce the best weather forecasts, and are less prone to ad hoc fiddling with adjustments to get what the dataset provider thinks should be the answer, rather than letting the physics of the atmosphere decide.
Berkeley Earth found that the UHI is negligible:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Gee David, you still fall for their baloney. I had an experience of a HUGE UHI effect changes just two days ago.
I left the city (250,000 Metro) around 10:00 pm, going north for about 9 miles, the temperature dropped rapidly from 84 to 72 as I drove out of the city into the sparsely populated rural area, with negligible buildings and concrete.
Then after showing my two teen daughters the much darker sky for stars, double stars and such, drove home around 11:45 pm, the change in temperature was just as rapid going back up to 82 from 71.
I see the obvious UHI effect every time I drive, the range is usually around 2 degrees when I drive through the river delta.
The UHI is real and often significant. I tire of the lies Berkely and other groups promote/
You need to read the quote again. BEST said, yes, there is a UHI. And they determined it doesn’t affect global averages.
They’re doing science. You call them liars because you can’t find anything wrong with their science, or don’t even try, but want to dismiss them anyway. There’s a name for people who do that.
Maybe you don’t know, but BEST was formed by a noted skeptic who wanted specifically to analyze the temperature records for himself. The Koch Brothers funded part of their research. Their team included a Nobel Laureate in physics. They did a lot of good work that you don’t get to dismiss by calling them “liars.” In the end, they found the same results as the other groups that model surface temperatures. BEST’s leader wrote:
“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
“My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
– Richard Muller, New York Times, 7/28/12
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
The problem is no one knows best, the solutions is lets hype it, alarm it, and get ready to tax it, the poliournalists that covet this hype do it for one reason – Readers. Politicians each with their utterly biased poliournalists pedal this for political gain, they do it for one reason – Votes. Universities et el world wide appear to have unfettered access to vast amounts of money to study utterly ridiculous issues in an effort to reverse engineer so called global warming, they do this for one reason – Funds. These studies get vetted by a human centipede group of bureaucrats to advise governments and political news outlets. For all the reasons above you so called scientist sold your souls, the day this went political is the day science lost. And now it has gone into a religion all sense is lost, the proof Is this schools pedal some sort of religious link, primary school are turning out the modern equivalent to what Hitler did teaching them to count using weapons as symbols, kids fighting politics being abused by parents and schools to chain themselves up run in front of traffic and stop people going about their lawful business, All the Name of this new Relgion of Global Warming. At least religion stays true it doesnt start out saying ice age is coming, then carbon dioxide, then global warming, now climate change I.e. catholic, Protestant, Jew , Muslim merging etc.
When people realise this completely undabated religoscience has never been publicly debated for fear of being called a heretic much like the great scientists of old. YOU have collectively stuffed this so called religoscience up to the point it being an absolute joke. So lets call it ClimatoReligio you utter set of clowns.
Are you saying July isn’t, in fact, near or at a record?
DA,
I think he’s calling you an utter clown (being part of that set).
Oh well.
Cheers.
How the alt-Left media drives a story: Alleged, allegedly, may, conceivably, could, not conclusive, pattern, suspicion, suspicious, appear, apparent, impression, possible, likely, and finally…cannot YET prove. Just ask the current president of the U.S..
Steven,
my favorite is ‘x was slammed for y’,
on CNN it could be that it even was true, x was ‘slammed’ for y, but under a false pretence, so x didn’t y, and CNN knows it, and won’t say that to keep the fake news running.
The Jussie case was full of it. Yeah, Trump was ‘called out’, yes, ‘held accountable’, only that JS made it all up – and got away thanks corrupt prosecution.
David
The approach used by BEST was flawed. They looked at temperatures outside the city in all directions and compared the ‘rural’ temperatures with the urban temps. Dale Quatrocci has demonstrated that UHI affects temperature and precipitation for miles DOWNWIND of the city. Averaging that with the upwind temps raises the ‘rural’ average temps, thus decreasing the apparent UHI effect.
There is some question about just how much of a skeptic Muller was.
Muller was never a skeptic much less a “noted skeptic” so don’t BS us David.
Muller, afaik, was strongly biased, just let people think he was biased /the other way/ he really was.
They got to Mueller because of his investment in shale oil. Hit him in the pocketbook.
Robert, do yo have a reference for the Muller quote above?
Thanks.
Ok, let’s not dispute Best’s temperature findings. But how can Muller claim that “essentially all of this increase” is from “human emissions” ?
In all the considerable calculations he did (“the facts”) there is nothing to point to “essentially all” being human caused. His scientific work did not address the question of attribution.
Here, if you have five minutes to spare, global warming in a nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
where’s the science? its just muller spewing what a great job he did and what great people he worked with.
Here’s the science:
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
Actually Svante, besides the rat poor methodology of seeking a UHI signal, you are aware are you not that the US hardly is a world leader in population growth. So the science I am seeking is the science that supports Muller’s conclusions that the warming is manmade because UHI and other factors are not a factor. Any piece of evidence that one could say is relevant to that finding would be nice. . . .so make your case.
Read his references.
gotcha! You don’t know and don’t care. Ignorance is bliss.
I’m tired of looking everything up for you.
If you read up to page two you would have seen that others came to the same conclusion.
I think you will find a significant UHI effect in China.
Still, 70% of the globe is water, and that’s where you find 90% of the energy increase.
Svante says: – I’m tired of looking everything up for you.
—————
I was not asking you to look up the answer for mayself Svante. I was asking you to look it for yourself.
I gave you the answer of why the CO2 line does not continue to track the temperature line after 1870 and its because Muller is ignorant of any reason why it should. . . .even apparently ignorant of Henry’s Law. Its a paper full of conclusions and non-conclusion wholly dependent on its desired outcome.
Bill Hunter,
How do you mean it doesn’t track? Which years?
Why do you mention Henry’s Law? His curve is based on the atmospheric fraction. Of course he knows that a lot is taken up by the oceans.
Svante, it tracks before 1870 but not after.
Use your eyes!
The tracking error is shown in fig. 6.
At the top you can see that it matches the AMO.
The ten year moving average is +/- 0.2 C.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Svante says: – The tracking error is shown in fig. 6.
At the top you can see that it matches the AMO.
The ten year moving average is +/- 0.2 C.
—————
Good Lord! Graph 5 is manipulated to make CO2 look like a better explanation for the temperature fluctuation.
He then uses these manipulated results to dispute the effect of the AMO.
One can see the results are manipulated because once again like all things mainstream climate the warming and cooling subsequent to 1870 cannot be explained by CO2 and never has been. They just ignore it and try not to ever talk about it and you are so inculcated into the religion you can’t even see it.
What are you talking about?
He does not dispute the AMO, it is in fig. 6.
The long term temperature record matches the CO2 forcing.
Please describe this difference you see around 1870, and please be specific.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Richard,
You may not be so far from the truth as regards temperature as you are measuring from a low point in the Earth’s Temperature cycle, just after the worst of the Maunder Minimum to just after the end of the Grand Solar Maximum at the end of the C20th.
The Earth’s temperature cycle has a periodicity of 370 years approximately. Or at least this cycle does, there are others.
The cause is known to be the periodic nature of the solar magnetic field strength or the sun’s magnetic shields. One mechanism which causes the waxing and waning of temperature of the Earth is that the sun’s shields modulate Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux onto the inner solar system and thereby Earth’s received flux which modulates (via Svensmark et al) the cloud cover of the Earth and thereby the amount of sunlight on the Earth’s surface.
We are currently entering another cooling period which will last for decades.
The fact that CO2 does not cause warming was established after Arrhenius’s (1896) by Roentgen (1901) and Professor Wood (1909) by experiment (amongst others). In fact this doesn’t even matter as the method of measuring CO2 used by the warming crowd, the Ice Core Record as it is known, does not work according to it’s originator and devloper of 20 years. The atmospheric record in which CO2 content was measured direct from the atmospere goes back to 1756. This shows a multidecadal variation such that atmospheric CO2 content was higher than it is today in 1942 (peak) and about 1860 (about 460ppm).
Everything about AGW is made up to promote global population reduction as first used by Hitler in his well known Sustainable Development units in WW2. AGW has nothing to do with science and everything to do with Power.
X
Thank you for pointing out that journalist David Appell never ceases to promote baloney.
In this case, he knows that the UHI is a substantial challenge to claims that the Earth is warming. It is warming around many surface stations as urbanization creeps ever closer. That is why many alarmists prefer surface stations to satellite measurements. They have no problem using urbanization as “proof” of CO2 warming!
Here is one very recent paper that found enough of an Urban Heat Island effect in China to explain about half of the observed warming since the 1940s.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811930102X?via%3Dihub
As to direct observations of the UHI effect, I too see it every time I drive through the Portland, Oregon metro area passing close to the airport observing station. Temperatures there typically range from 2 to 5 degrees F warmer than at both ends of my drive in rural areas.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
BEST did a global analysis and found the UHI effect negligible.
What objections do you have about the science they did and the methods they employed?
The triviality of the UHI has been known for at least 30 years:
“Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land,” P. D. Jones et al, Nature volume 347, pages 169–172 (1990).
https://www.nature.com/articles/347169a0
From their abstract:
“The results show that the urbanization influence in two of the most widely used hemispheric data sets1,2,4 is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale.”
DA,
BEST refers to Steve Mosher as a scientist.
BEST published in a predatory journal owned by OMICS. Only fools, frauds or fakes would choose to give money to OMICS.
BEST is a joke. Worth a laugh, but possessing little other utility.
Cheers.
You keep repeating yourself Apple. Oh, that’s what propagandists do. “Utopianism substitutes glorious predictions and unachieveable promises for knowledge, science and reason while laying claim to them all.”
gordon…”Temperatures there typically range from 2 to 5 degrees F warmer than at both ends of my drive in rural areas”.
Just north of you, in Canada, the temperatures are measured at Vancouver International Airport, which is right on the water. I live nearby and our temperatures in winter can be 10C cooler than 50 miles away in the Fraser Valley. We can be 5C warmer than just across Vancouver, in the heights of Burnaby (600+ feet).
In summer, our temperatures are moderated by the ocean and the UHI. About 150 miles NE, around Lytton BC, the temperatures can be 20C to 25C warmer. The region is a desert area with sagebrush and cactii. During winter, the area is at least 20C cooler than us.
This is an example of extreme variation in both temperature and climate within 150 miles.
NOAA and GISS would miss this completely since they use data from stations 1200 miles apart. Then they extrapolate such data to fabricate temperatures for intermediate stations.
I agree with what Roy is saying regarding weather. Meteorologists have it down pretty well and have become adept at making short range predictions using re-analysis.
However, one meteorologist interviewed on TV said he is not beyond getting on the phone to confirm the local weather conditions at other stations. Another admitted they predict outcomes but it is based on decades of good data. He admitted they are still sometimes wrong.
sunsettommy says:
“I had an experience of a HUGE UHI effect changes just two days ago.”
The paper is about the anomaly trend, not the absolute values.
And, UHI is not static, but progressive with urban growth.
But for some reason, the measured effect on the trend was negative.
Perhaps people reduce their foot print when they move from a small town to a multi story house in Shanghai.
Perhaps higher buildings improve vertical air mixing.
Perhaps higher buildings shift solar warming up and produce more shadow at the ground level where temperatures are measured.
Perhaps modern buildings use glossier materials.
Perhaps modern building are more energy efficient.
Plus a thousand other reasons.
How do you know?
It was checked it here:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
Paper here, with AMO comparison etc.:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Svante says: Paper here, with AMO comparison etc.:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
————–
I got to say that Figure 5 is one of the strangest and poorly explained graphs I have ever seen. The red CO2 line before the industrial revolution tracks closely with temperature fluctuation and at the start of the industrial revolution it suddenly and inexplicably stops doing that. It implies anthropogenic emissions slow down when temperature goes up and the graph fails to track a sojourns to the north and south post 1870. Can you explain why?
Model world.
bill hunter says:
“The red CO2 line before the industrial revolution tracks closely with temperature fluctuation and at the start of the industrial revolution it suddenly and inexplicably stops doing that.”
First note that the error bars are larger on the left, and that the temperature is dominated by Laki, Tambora (VEI 7, preceeded by the mystery eruption), and Cosiguina.
The biggest departure is in 1770.
The curves are aligned after 1980.
“graph fails to track a sojourns to the north and south post 1870. Can you explain why?”
They extract the residual in fig. 6 and it matches the AMO.
They find a maximum natural variability of +/- 0.17 C.
Later research shows that the AMO is the result of other forcings, notably aerosol pollution in the 20th century.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
Svante says: – They extract the residual in fig. 6 and it matches the AMO.
They find a maximum natural variability of +/- 0.17 C.
————————
I am talking about Figure 5 Svante. There is nothing about the AMO in the construction of that graph.
————–
———–
Svante says: They find a maximum natural variability of +/- 0.17 C.
Later research shows that the AMO is the result of other forcings, notably aerosol pollution in the 20th century.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
————————
OK, subtract .17 from the current anomaly.
Then figure what the PDO contributes and how the overlap if they do. And subtract that from the current anomaly.
Then figure out what the imbalance still left over from the LIA and subtract that, then maybe the residual is CO2.
You question if their is any imbalance left over from the LIA? LOL! There is no question there is, the only question is how much.
which it certainly does beyond any reasonable doubt
The residual tracking error between ln(CO2) and global temperature is shown in fig. 6. Subtract the AMO and we’re talking hundreds of a degree on decadal averages, not much left for the PDO.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Residuals are also calculated here, see :
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
LIA recovery, yes. In physics, temperature has a reason. Explained without magic here, see diagram from 1500 to present:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
We were in a long term decline from the Holocene peak 8000 years ago.
The LIA would have continued down without GHG emissions, just like MIS19:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28419-5
It was our GHG emissions that broke the LIA.
This is begging the question, Svante.
Svante says: – The residual tracking error between ln(CO2) and global temperature is shown in fig. 6. Subtract the AMO and were talking hundreds of a degree on decadal averages, not much left for the PDO.
———
Indeed if you manipulate the numbers you can make anything disappear.
You still need to explain the manipulation in graph 5 and set it to some rational reasoning well established in science.
What you fail to observe is exactly what auditors are trained to observe. The classic tale of shaving mills off interest transactions made daily in calculating interest on savings accounts on hundreds of thousands of accounts. You can’t even see the signs of it.
—————–
—————–
Svante says: –
LIA recovery, yes. In physics, temperature has a reason. Explained without magic here, see diagram from 1500 to present:
———-
No explanation is provided by your student paper for the forcings from solar and volcanos Svante. Hopefully he didn’t submit that to his teacher. . . .if he has one.
In addition its not even a study of climate its a study of SSTs.
I have pointed out that the PDO is a climate temperature effect without necessarily being a “mean” ocean surface temperature effect.
Local climate is greatly modified by upwellings of cold water periodically along the coastline. But the effect is only noticed when the wind changes direction back to a prevailing direction.
The PDO’s correlation (that can apparently only be erased by loosey goosey attribution to other causes) with climate is there whether you want to attribute anything to it or not. Its better correlated than the AMO and its better correlated than CO2.
The PDO index is not a heat index thus all the one track mind scientists in the world instantly disregard it. But evaporation like your hot spoon of soup is affected greatly by air moving rapidly over the surface.
Switch the pool of hot water with the pool of cold water, different water may exist under different wind conditions and gee maybe affect water vapor? Nah no chance water can only be affected by CO2 right? LOL!
You folks like to narrow climate change down to one single variable. . . .CO2. Water vapor, the big dog in the game, is just a mule for CO2 in your narrow mind.
So you have a thousand and one excuses to ignore changes in UV, Cosmic rays, magnetism, and TSI all of which on their own have some degree of effect on the water cycle. IMPOSSIBLE YOU SAY! CO2 IS THE COMMAND BEAST OF THE EMPIRE!!!
So believing that CO2 and its entire parade of effects is levied over ocean temperatures when we already know that CO2 is a slave to Henry’s law and dozens of mitigating factors . . . heat magically disappearing into the oceans at a greater rate than we can measure, aerosols with multiple potential light blocking effects on both IR and solar are redesigned to fit an explanation, gases emitted by volcanos are speculated upon as to their volumes. And of course ocean oscillations being much shorter duration can’t possibly be an explanation of longterm warming so we ignore it on the 40 and 50 year scales in addition to long term scales.
And to cap it all off the LIA only began to end in 1870 because thats a convenient ending date and gee 1700 doesn’t work.
So gently manipulated graphs like Figure 5 and your blog apprentice each of these other variables are handwaved away in the biggest and stupidest assumption ever seen in the history of science that climate has one single control knob.
Or at least that was the original take. Today grudgingly natural variation is allowed in only to explain the discrepancies, but limited to only explaining past discrepancies that have already been resolved!
So what is the right scientific answer to that approach? Well its to wait and see what gets resolved no matter how long it will take.
Notice that you never see any constructions with cloud or water vapor variability. Thats because of one huge stupid assumption that CO2 controls all that in whatever manner the climate modelers decide. The little red CO2 forcing lines implicitly assume that. All that is going on Svante is curve fitting in the same manner as astrologists fit planet movements to climate changes on earth. And you believe the machinations you want to believe.
—————-
Svante says: – We were in a long term decline from the Holocene peak 8000 years ago.
The LIA would have continued down without GHG emissions, just like MIS19:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28419-5
It was our GHG emissions that broke the LIA.
——————
According to cherry picked proxies like how July was the warmest month on record?
You think it could be this or it could be that.
The fact is they contribute very little.
Do you have any quantitative evidence of a strong long term impact of the PDO on global temperatures?
Svante, the PDO is in beautiful time with the multi-decadal oscillation seen in the temperature record, its pretty hard to not believe there is a relationship. Plus there is good evidence of a relationship. El Ninos and La Ninas are a shorter term oscillation from which the temperature effect can be measured about 90 days later in the global temperature record.
PDO’s in the positive phase is correlated to a higher number of El Ninos than LaNinas and vice versa in its cold phase.
Assuming all this eventually works itself out (as described by Akasofu in his paper) they don’t have a long term effect. But they could very well be having a multi-decadal effect elevating the rate of warming for several decades.
Considering the timing seen recently if it holds up over the long haul the maximum warming effect should have ended about 2016 give or take an ENSO cycle.
I intentionally pushed that to 36 years of warming to be in sync with the orbits of other planets whereas the temperature record cycle is more like 33 years but still within an ENSO cycle. There is no certainty of a continuing oscillation, or if the planet orbits affect it. I ascribe no certainty to it.
The only thing I know is warming in accordance with the models is not occurring and that based upon inductive logic (which is essentially what estimated warming from CO2 and its feedbacks are based upon) suggests that as the next decade unfolds if there is a multi-decadal oscillation still occurring it will likely reduce warming even more.
I happen to live in a part of the world where this oscillation has has a relatively much higher effect over the decades. Being an outdoors person, I find some deja vu with how the climate has been shifting lately.
California wildfires are mostly attributable to wet years followed by dry years. We have been seeing that a bit more just very recently. The warm phase brought extended drought to California, it moved the salmon north probably more due to stream flows than anything else (though agriculture is the political fall guy for that and they certainly have the ability to exaggerate the effect with dams holding back runoff).
Now just recently we are having record wet years. 2 now in 3 years. We are also still having dry years. That pattern is what creates fire risk. Verdant growth during the wet year followed by a dry year makes for very dangerous brush conditions.
This pattern created a form of conventional wisdom in California many decades ago that El Nino portended rainfall and La Nina drought. But during recent decades post 1980 that wisdom didn’t hold up well. We will have to wait out 2 or 3 more ENSO cycles and see whats cooking and whats not cooking.
OK, you have no quantitative evidence for the PDO influence.
That’s because there is not much room for it, unless you think it is in sync with the AMO.
The ln(CO2) curve is actually like that. CH4 forcing is 50% of the CO2 forcing. As you read in the Berkeley results, adding it separately did not improve the fit because they have grown in tandem.
You don’t have to wait and see, and forget about models, we have enough history to see what’s what.
Please, read the following paper in full. It explains most of what people discuss here. You might even find a PDO signal in there.
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Svante says:
OK, you have no quantitative evidence for the PDO influence.
—————
Thats not true at all Svante. The PDO index is quantitative and the temperature index is quantitative, the only thing lacking is a quantification of the correlation. If you understood correlation you would know you don’t need to quantify a correlation that you can clearly visually see.
Its so well correlated its a waste of time going to all the trouble pin it down to multiple decimal points.
————-
—————
Svante says:
That’s because there is not much room for it, unless you think it is in sync with the AMO.
The ln(CO2) curve is actually like that. CH4 forcing is 50% of the CO2 forcing. As you read in the Berkeley results, adding it separately did not improve the fit because they have grown in tandem.
You don’t have to wait and see, and forget about models, we have enough history to see what’s what.
Please, read the following paper in full. It explains most of what people discuss here. You might even find a PDO signal in there.
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
——————–
I read the abstract and I am not interested in reading the entire article. It seems obvious to me you have little experience in this type of modeling.
I have done it not extensively but enough times to gain an understanding about proxy modeling. I have done it on ArcGIS and I have done it on custom models.
You have just been razzle dazzled into believing something is certain when it is clearly not. I am not even claiming that the PDO actually causes the warming though I can imagine ways it might. Correlation is not causation but correlation is being hawked everyday as causation in this business.
For instance CH4 growing in tandem with CO2 makes perfect sense, since warmer temperatures increase both oceans expelling CO2 and vegetation rotting in the jungle. That is not a claim that all the CO2 comes from natural warming but some of it almost certainly does. Quantified how much is going to be much more difficult than assuming anthropogenic is responsible for all the warming. Yet that is the same poppycock the NGO communities have been hawking like UFO hawkers forever all the way back to the Luddites where anti-progressives posed as progressives. The same thing is going on today.
bill hunter says:
I asked for the effect in degrees. If you have no correlation coefficient you have no science.
You don’t want to know. It’s not about me, it’s about science.
No, emissions are far ahead of Henry’s law, since oceans take up 30% of all emitted CO2.
It is quantified here: http://ocean.mit.edu/~stephd/Omtaetal_GBC_2011.pdf
“For instance, an increase in the global average temperature by 3C (which many models suggest with doubling of atmospheric pCO2 […] would lead to less carbon taken up by the oceans, eventually leading to around 10% higher atmospheric pCO2.”
Great science there Bill, proves physics is wrong.
Svante says: – I asked for the effect in degrees. If you have no correlation coefficient you have no science.
——–
Thats not true. In fact its ignorant. Science is observation. Quantifying that observation simply makes the science more useful.
I am just making an observation. Actually quantifying it as a correlation wouldn’t make it more convincing to you as you lack an open mind. So explain to me why I should spend a few hours of my time doing that? I’ve seen the correlation as has hundreds of scientists. The PDO at best is temporary climate change as what we know about it is its internal. In fact all the texts I am aware of peg it as an oscillation. If so it has no effect on the long term warming of the entire industrial age but only portions of it like one we are in currently and one that could be detected from the start of the industrial age ending in 1944.
I’m here to challenge my world view and learn.
You have an alternative world view and alternative facts.
I would like to check the facts but all you have is hand waving.
How many degrees do think the PDO impact is on the global scale? I think it’s less than +/- 0.1 C.
‘Thats not true. In fact its ignorant. Science is observation. Quantifying that observation simply makes the science more useful.’
More useful, yes. And when testing a hypothesis, essential.
In physical sciences hypotheses are quantitative. Testing them requires quantitative data. If not any hand waving can be called science.
Svante says: – Im here to challenge my world view and learn.
You have an alternative world view and alternative facts.
I would like to check the facts but all you have is hand waving.
How many degrees do think the PDO impact is on the global scale? I think its less than +/- 0.1 C.
Thats great Svante.
What I would say is attributable to ocean oscillations varies every year. The larger PDO’s effect requires probably a minimum of an 80 year temperature record to eliminate. So you can mostly eliminate it by looking at an 80 year record. However, that still doesn’t tell you how much it contributes to current anomalies without a clear picture of what state it is in right now on the longer term oscillation. I would say it is having very minimal effects right now that could be positive or negative but likely has most of its positive effects affecting the baseline for measuring the anomaly. In other words if we are now at the top of the PDO oscillation as it appears to be currently or near to crossing the line from a positive to a negative effect, which we may not know for sure for another decade or so sort of like solarcycle maximums getting picked a couple years after the maximum, ocean cycles may take considerably longer because of both its longer period and much larger variations within the oscillation, lasting a decade or more as opposed to variations in the solar record only lasting a couple of years or so.
So advancing the 80 year window should keep the ocean oscillation effect to a minimum to the extent it is a multi-decadal oscillation. After all we are only in the second complete cycle within the temperature record and at the beginning of that record it has far higher uncertainty.
I read one very interesting paper on ocean heat uptake that placed the surface ocean adjustment period around 10 years and did work on a deep ocean adjustment and concluded that we were about a 1000 years too short of a data series to estimate the rate of ocean heat uptake. Of course that doesn’t stop people from creating forcing models that projects what it is. But the gap between those points of view rests validation of the projections.
Thus you have folks estimating the effects of greenhouse gases, watching the planets circle the sun, watching the sun cycles, watching the weather, watching how fish in the ocean tend to move northward then southward again on a multi-decadal time scale and note the pattern almost perfectly matches changes in the temperature record over the past 150 years. One specie in particular, Pacific Bluefin tuna, have made 3 great appearances in US waters. First discovered in the 1880’s, disappeared by the end of the 19th century, then reappeared in the 1930’s, disappeared again date uncertain because of WWII, and reappeared in force once more in 2000, just now hitting a peak appearance.
So the oscillation is real. And you can verify it by matching a smoothed ENSO index to it, so the effects have a connection. And you can almost perfectly lay the oscillation over the temperature record with the alleged long term warming of which ever record you choose pulled out.
I worked as an auditor in an industry with a big record of feast or famine. The fortunes of the industry rose and fell with startling regularity. As an auditor when things started to go bad, industry would start noticing it and start to allow for losses from it. Coming in for the annual audit I learned to understand that they are recognizing losses and the losses are understated. Same thing on the upswing. They are recognizing profits and thus the profits are overstated. Notice how bias figures in. You search for something you want and you will believe you found more than what was real. Search for something you don’t want and you will fail to not see what is real.
Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatments. The doctors they weren’t dishonorable they were after all expected to find a cure and indeed they searched hard for it and early on found more cures than there were cures.
So you want me to quantify it for you. Hmmmm, thats a real crap shoot . You have 1) remainder imbalance from the LIA recovery (a certainty), you have 2) a solar grand maximum imbalance (a certainty with uncertainty whether the positive solar effects have sufficiently diminished – see also the centennial slowdown that appears regularly despite perhaps the grand events). All this might create a warming from TSI, 3)Magnetic changes, 4)solar wind effects on cosmic rays. You may have 5) a remainder imbalance in the surface ocean from the most recent PDO oscillation, I haven’t studied the AMO, but lets give it a 6) but I have no opinion on that other than to say it also likely affects global climate but its affects might be positive, negative, or neutral in terms of the current anomaly, you have 7) UHI both with its city faster warming and the enlargement of urban areas, you have 8) deforestation (most likely partly mixed into UHI affects do to an affinity of clearing lands next to cities more so than remote from cities), we have 9) large reclamation projects, reclaiming both precipitation runoff, storing the water behind dams, increasing water surface area exposed to evaporation. You have 10) irrigating deserts.
You have 11) temperature record manipulators of both the intentional and biased kind with a favoritism given to biases of the positive kind based upon the political environments that control those records. You have 12) what appears to be a centennial slow down in solar activity now just nearing a decade in. This one is difficult to pin down because perhaps the best alternative theory for global climate change is a change in the rate of evaporation of the oceans, thus such change could be a slave to strictly ocean temperature modification and thus not yet being felt in climate as it hasn’t been around enough to reverse historic surface ocean warming (but it is on the cusp perhaps of doing that). You have 13) acceleration of plant rotting processes from a warming atmosphere increasing methane. 14) you have melting ice on land releasing methane, 15) you have photoelectric effects creating nitric oxide naturally affecting ozone, 16) you have black carbon emissions, 17) you have other aerosols of an uncertain range of effects that could be positive or negative. And finally we have 18) anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
So you want me to distribute these 18 items to the various temperature records and their anomalies? Hmmm, why not start out with .01 as a decadal number for each? Then go look at how each might effect say satellite vs surface records and argue if the adjustment should be smaller or larger depending upon the methodologies used? Sort of like shooting in the dark with only a slight glimmer of star light.
This is what you say:
https://tinyurl.com/y6yaj777
Bill,
Sounds like you are saying there is way too much going on, and most of it is beyond my expertise anyway.
Yet you still are, somehow, able to form definite opinions that what climate scientists are doing is wrong.
‘Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatmeant’
Sorry not very convincing.
Svante says: This is what you say:
———————
Nonsense! Muller is speaking like a moron. First the range of possibilities expressed by computer models span 300%. My profession is as a truth teller and I can go into any circle of experts and extract the truth. My first rule of thumb is to understand the direction of bias. Rarely have to think about this much, just follow the money. My second rule of thumb is if the expert believes in a particular number of range of numbers; the correct answer is usually double the range away from the bias.
Such is the power of bias. Of course out and out fraud can multiply the results of bias. I am talking only about an honorable expert. In the professions bias is largely eliminated by introducing an anti-bias artifices called strict liability. Strict liability largely eliminates unintentional bias as it substitutes the interest of client onto to the professional.
But most business isn’t conducted by professionals.
Now Muller is doing nothing but projecting is bias. By no stretch of the imagination is the world doing what science thinks CO2 can do. The observations are in and their viewpoint is wrong. They can’t use excuses because their projections were onto a system they claim to understand. Are they liable for that? Well they certainly would under the standard of strict liability, because all you need to do to prove liability is convince a jury that the professional did not act in the best regard of its client. Thus all professional societies enact standards to deal with uncertainty. Standards relieve professionals of liability arising from uncertainty.
Climate science in that regard is a complete mess. Muller is doing nothing but expressing his bias. He can’t even hold up a numerical outcome that supports his viewpoint if for no other reason than the fact the range of outcomes is so astoundingly large. In that wide range of outcomes assuming the CO2 influence is correct are my list of 17 items not CO2 that they have no clue about. If you factor in that observations are a good 1 to 1.7 degrees off kilter (depending upon the temperature record you offer up) the real range of uncertainty should surround that range not the range selected by the Charney commission 4 decades ago.
——————
——————
——————
Nate says: –
Sounds like you are saying there is way too much going on, and most of it is beyond my expertise anyway.
Yet you still are, somehow, able to form definite opinions that what climate scientists are doing is wrong.
Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatmeant
Sorry not very convincing.
———————
You are merely projecting your own bias and refusing to accept any uncertainty. What medicine went through was a learning experience using their patients as guinea pigs. Today professional standards are the only thing that prevents that from continuing to happen. Even with professional standards treating your patients as guinea pigs isn’t completely eliminated just that it is mostly eliminated.
Climate science like all scientists wants to experiment with the world. We would be well advised to keep them in their place as an advisory body. Science advisory bodies are important, one merely has to open their ears and hear what every scientist agrees with and give due consideration to any scientist that doesn’t agree.
The main problem is that bias is not eliminated in any respect in climate science. Persons with dual loyalties are being funded by the government to conduct science. Yes they are qualified scientists but they don’t owe their loyalty to the people. And yes scientists have their opinions and its good to listen to all the scientists and not choose one group over the other understanding that science is not a popularity contest and is particularly not a popularity contest when people’s bias’ are toward an annual contract renewal for their employer or themselves.
‘You are merely projecting your own bias and refusing to accept any uncertainty.’
There is real uncertainty, then there is ignorance of known science. Two different things
I have biases, but they are not tattooed to my forehead as yours are.
Im not letting them REPLACE facts, when I don’t know the facts.
I have some basic medical knowledge, but not enough to diagnose or treat diseases.
I accept that I need to let people with much more training and expertise do that.
You?
Nate says: – There is real uncertainty, then there is ignorance of known science. Two different things
I have biases, but they are not tattooed to my forehead as yours are.
Im not letting them REPLACE facts, when I don’t know the facts.
I have some basic medical knowledge, but not enough to diagnose or treat diseases.
I accept that I need to let people with much more training and expertise do that.
You?
Well even doctors have differences of opinions Nate. My skepticism lays solidly and squarely on four foundations. One is experts like Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy, and even Dr. Roger Revelle (the grandfather of global warming).
The second foundation it rests on is some rather extensive engineering experience in dealing with the issue.
The third foundation is my background in detecting the truth as an auditor in understanding bias and how evidence is gathered. A college major in philosophy which is the search for knowledge.
The fourth foundation is 30 years experience in public policy making and using science as a tool in formulating policy.
So how many of those foundations can you lay claim to? I recognize the uncertainty existing in the first foundation. The fourth foundation informs me of the role of science and its limitations. The third foundation gives me information about observed handling of answers, data, internal controls, and bias.
The second foundation is something I am working on to integrate into larger scale science and I am getting close. . . .close enough to see that the concerns particularly of Dr. Richard Lindzen are extremely well-founded. You won’t find much discussion and debate about it because mainstream science is better off not bringing any attention to it.
So if you want to label me as a science denier please don’t start out with how you delegated your own thoughts to somebody else.
“One is experts like Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy, and even Dr. Roger Revelle (the grandfather of global warming).”
Lindzen’s prominent theory about low climate sensitivity has proven to not match reality. (Oh well, see Feynman)
Happer is not a climate science expert and is a political activist.
Fred Singer is political lobbyist and activist funded by fossil fuel industry, known for denying smoking health risks and funded by big tobacco.
These two should not be considered unbiased sources for science.
We dont know what Revelle would have thought about the obvious continued warming after 1991. His last graduate student said his views have been distorted by climate deniers.
Revelle’s daughter said this after his death in 1991:
“Contrary to George Will’s ‘Al Gore’s Green Guilt’ Roger Revelleour father and the ‘father’ of the greenhouse effectremained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against “drastic” action, he was using that adjective in its literal sensemeasures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate. […] Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage “look before you leap,” but he never said “sit on your hands.”[15]
“The second foundation it rests on is some rather extensive engineering experience in dealing with the issue.”
Such as?
“The third foundation is my background in detecting the truth as an auditor in understanding bias and how evidence is gathered. A college major in philosophy which is the search for knowledge.’
I appreciate philosophy majors are smart–my wife is one. But she was in no way prepared by her degree to understand, in depth, the scientific issues in climate science.
This is exactly what I’m talking about.
The lack of appreciation for the amount of expertise NEEDED to understand the issues in the vast literature in a scientific field.
I am trained in physics, and am familiar with the main climate science issues. Still I know it is nearly impossible for me to pick up a paper on ice core analysis or CERES top-of-the-atmosphere radiation (as I recently did), and determine that they have done it wrong.
And yet, you feel able to dismiss the findings of a whole bunch of unread papers.
This is bias and arrogance.
This recent book https://www.amazon.com/Know-All-Society-Arrogance-Political/dp/1631493612
discusses this infectious disease plaguing society today.
Nate says: – “Lindzens prominent theory about low climate sensitivity has proven to not match reality. (Oh well, see Feynman)”
“Happer is not a climate science expert and is a political activist.”
Fred Singer is political lobbyist and activist funded by fossil fuel industry, known for denying smoking health risks and funded by big tobacco.
These two should not be considered unbiased sources for science.
We dont know what Revelle would have thought about the obvious continued warming after 1991. His last graduate student said his views have been distorted by climate deniers.
—————
Uh, Nate you are probably the biggest propaganda stooge who posts around here. All these people were actually so well qualified in atmosphere physics they actually had jobs before the big hiring program started by Al Gore. In fact, Gore fired Happer from his job because he would not bend over for Al Gore’s propaganda.
Its interesting and I have personally experienced being politically undermined myself. It makes you angry but it doesn’t cause you to seek revenge or retaliate in an inappropriate manner when you have marketable skills. You just take advantage of another opportunity for which you are qualified. It is only those not qualified that seek revenge and cross the line of what is socially acceptable because those folks are the only folks really being harmed.
My personal views match many of those of Happer. 1) CO2 is good and more CO2 is likely even better. 2) warming is good and a bit more warming is likely even better. 3) I actually hope my thoughts on CO2 prove wrong, as it would be great if mankind could hold off another glacial epoch. 4) I am adamantly opposed to post normal science as a political tool as it raises the wants and needs of an elite class above that of the common class. 5) The idea that scientists and economists are best judges of political policy is complete BS. Indeed these groups have a role in the political environment as an advisory function but science itself is not a popularity contest. Credible skepticism by qualified scientists is a legitimate concern no matter who they worked for in the past because anybody qualified is going to have worked for an institution that has a bias.
===========
Nate says: –
Such as?
———-
Practical applications of radiant heating and radiant barriers in architectural design and engineering.
============
Nate says: – I appreciate philosophy majors are smartmy wife is one. But she was in no way prepared by her degree to understand, in depth, the scientific issues in climate science.
———-
You obviously lack the grey matter to judge what your wife is capable of.
===========
Nate says: –
The lack of appreciation for the amount of expertise NEEDED to understand the issues in the vast literature in a scientific field.
I am trained in physics, and am familiar with the main climate science issues. Still I know it is nearly impossible for me to pick up a paper on ice core analysis or CERES top-of-the-atmosphere radiation (as I recently did), and determine that they have done it wrong.
—————-
that simply because all that stuff isn’t wrong. What is wrong is in the interpretations and extrapolations from it. There is a greenhouse effect. No question about that. The question isn’t measuring it the question is understanding how the effect was created and then and only then can one understand how it varies.
To put it in layman’s terms, climate science has jumped the shark.
As science stands today on that issue, they handwave away experimentation because they believe in an untouchable worldly force unique to planets and not existing anywhere else in our known universe to create the greenhouse effect.
May as well be a verse in the bible. Today all that is going on to verify it is a molasses slow effort to computationally imitate the greenhouse effect using super computers and comparing their predictions to actual climate. But the effort has become a “travesty” in the words of one of its must revered scientists. There have been great advances in our monitoring of the climate and as that has occurred more and more data fudging has become the order of the day.
I am working on a paper not to prove that but to layout a roadmap to either verify it or reject it. . . .which of course I strongly believe rejection will be in order at the end of the road.
So to summarize. Yes there is a greenhouse effect. Yes greenhouse gases are a piece of the puzzle. Where I think the experimental work will lead is, Yes the addition of greenhouse gases will probably lead to a small additional amount of warming, and Yes feedbacks will be mighty, possibly more than 3:1 also possibly less. No it will not “disprove” the conventional wisdom on the matter; but instead will relegate itself to its place of yet to see any signs of it being true. . . .pretty much the same status as flying saucers. And no it will not erase a single iota of known science established by experiment or legitimate statistical correlation with observed causes and effects.
The remaining difficulty will be that I believe climate variation is mostly related to changes in cloud density and as time wears on we will eventually figure out that its not much at all related to changes in greenhouse gases other than water vapor.
======================
Nate says: –
This is bias and arrogance.
This recent book https://www.amazon.com/Know-All-Society-Arrogance-Political/dp/1631493612
discusses this infectious disease plaguing society today.
—————-
So speaketh the know it all! I am not the one here talking a political narrative right down to dotting the same “i’s” and crossing the same “t’s” as you are as you have in this post and many other related the exact political narrative opposing skeptical scientists.
I have made my views known from my own experiences that for instance I have respect for James Hansen as he has proven himself as a man of integrity, even if he seems a bit confused. I despise the Phil Jones and the others caught colluding with one another to inject politics into science.
I see the same political narrative in your discourse, though I have you labeled as a stooge because I see no signs of you actually colluding to invent that discourse.
Myself? I am a maverick. I am widely educated in all the aspects of the climate narrative. I am not a specialist in any of it. I am a truth seeker and am not attached to any particular invented narrative. I am a trained investigator of complex topics and know how to dissect a position down to its roots. I believe there is a dominance of homogeneous thinking across climate models on the the exact point not yet established in science regarding pre-feedback sensitivity as a forcing that actually reaches the surface of the planet. I haven’t studied the position of Dr. Richard Lindzen yet but am reserving it for later. I have only heard about it. His views seem very close to mine. It may be a huge mistake for you and your handlers (which you obviously have) to view Lindzen’s position as essentially a low sensitivity. If pre-feedback sensitivity of CO2 proves to be almost nothing despite absorbing X additional watts somewhere in the atmosphere; then that has more to do with the theory of forcing you ascribe to assuming X percentage of those watts actually reach the surface and producing feedbacks. The air currents argument I have heard used by Lindzen suggest that air currents affect the primary current popular theory of greenhouse gas forcing right at its roots. If you actually have proof that Lindzen is wrong I suggest you post it as it would end a lot of skepticism.
If say for example something else caused water vapor to enter the sky, condense and close the atmosphere window there could be major impacts of that occurring. If fact that occurs almost daily right outside of my house!!! And I know its not CO2 variability doing it!!!! If its on a world-wide scale its going to affect the global mean temperature a great deal.
Its a product of a popular notion of CO2 being the control knob of climate. But the wide range of outcomes of the climate models and their lack of centrally bracketing observations rather pointedly lends itself to establishing the notion that what is wrong with climate models is in fact what they have in common and the fact they stay within a range of possibility on an exceptionally wide spread is in fact an anomaly built in part on biased observation adjustments and in part on the uncertainty surrounding feedbacks.
I have experience in both political and legal environments where experts have differences of opinions. Always one side does as you are attempting to do above to discredit the motives and expertise of the other sides experts. That’s just a political fact in human discourse. Essentially all of it actually is a projection of “what I myself want to do, whether I would or would not”.
You are fool and a stooge to believe any of it without evidence of actual wrong doing.
============
Bill,
‘political narrative opposing skeptical scientists.’
Most of what I post has to do with the science issues, and mostly not colored by political issues. The two can and should be separated.
I don’t see that separation at all with with Happer, and with Singer, and Spencer and Christy, and it seems, you. Political beliefs and advocacy for less govt regulation is all over their views of the climate science.
Same for Hansen, he has become a full time advocate. Therefore he is no longer a good source for unbiased science IMO.
For you, given that there are thousands of climate science experts out there, but you cherry pick those who are skeptics and advocates, for your information and opinions, that reflects a strong BIAS.
My wife is an excellent detector of BS. I showed her your quote about philosophy training qualifying you to judge climate science, and she laughed and immediately called BS on it.
‘your handlers (which you obviously have)’
Ha! And paranoia too?
Lindzen. This is his big idea:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf
and evidence against it:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
Nate says: – Most of what I post has to do with the science issues, and mostly not colored by political issues. The two can and should be separated.
I dont see that separation at all with with Happer, and with Singer, and Spencer and Christy, and it seems, you. Political beliefs and advocacy for less govt regulation is all over their views of the climate science.
Same for Hansen, he has become a full time advocate. Therefore he is no longer a good source for unbiased science IMO.
Well you are simply naive Nate. The only reason you participate here is political in nature and you are in complete denial of it. In fact every single person talking about the subject has a political viewpoint on it. Sure there are some authors you never see on a blog discussing the topic that are devoted purely to the science end but if folks weren’t carrying their water for them they would be complete non-players in the climate debate.
In fact even though a scientist doesn’t participate in a blog that doesn’t mean he is not politically motivated. Most people get involved in whatever they do either to serve their own objectives or the objectives of the people who hire them.
Nate says: – My wife is an excellent detector of BS. I showed her your quote about philosophy training qualifying you to judge climate science, and she laughed and immediately called BS on it.
Well actually your comment here suggests she is a terrible detector of BS. Why? Because obviously she can’t even read.
I believe I mentioned a broad education whereby philosophy was one aspect of it that qualifies me (and I didn’t say understand climate science) to comment on the entire “climate narrative.” FYI, “climate narrative” is not identical to “climate science”.
However, there is a element in philosophy very closely related to science that perhaps your wife missed a good education on, that was in fact my primary area of concentration and that is logic and semantics. Conclusions must logically follow from experiment or they are illogical. And a major key to avoiding illogic is to ensure your semantics are properly and consistently identified. . . .actually quite a big problem in climate science as “climate” is not identical to “surface”. Surface is only one aspect of “climate” and in all my observations the only thing that comes close to measuring surface are actually satellites but because of interference in the satellite detection abilities at this point in time measurements taken are a mix of surface and atmosphere. But surface stations are worse because they inconsistently measure the wrong thing. Sometimes they are measuring a meter and a half or more above the surface, sometimes they are measuring up to 15 meters below the surface. Perhaps you are ignorant of the difference?
Perhaps your wife’s native language isn’t English and maybe that gives here a legitimate excuse for essentially laughing at herself. On the other hand, perhaps in the name of marital bliss she is merely tootin’ your horn for you.
Nate says: – and evidence against it:
Hmmmmm, your handlers must have neglected sending you this paper published a little more than 4 years ago that breathes life back into the Lindzen Iris theory.
Sometimes you have to wait for a theory to build a record of success.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2414
Bill, if you think I must have ‘handlers’ whatever that means, I would say your ability to draw correct conclusions from available evidence is poor, and bordering on delusional.
Your statement that ‘Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatments.’
is showing that your understanding of what is known in this field and what is still uncertain is highly flawed and biased, likely comes from ‘blog science’.
You can have opinions, thats fine.
But they are not equivalent to knowledge and genuine understanding.
The paper you cited is not presenting observational evidence. It appears to be another hypothesis (theory).
Nate says: – Bill, if you think I must have handlers whatever that means, I would say your ability to draw correct conclusions from available evidence is poor, and bordering on delusional.
————-
Your selective choice of what to believe is being relayed to you somehow. Whoever that is is your handler.
=================
Nate says: – Your statement that Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatments. is showing that your understanding of what is known in this field and what is still uncertain is highly flawed and biased, likely comes from blog science.
————–
As far as I know I am the only one making that comparison. Why? Because its very similar today. Yes science has evolved, but scientists have not. Even back in the days of blood letting they imagined diseases in the blood stream. What better way to get rid of them? So they had some science on their side, namely observations. From those observations they drew conclusions but did not know how to experiment for the answer beyond experimenting on their patients and thats exactly what mainstream climate science is advocating, namely experimenting on my planet.
============
Nate says: – But they are not equivalent to knowledge and genuine understanding.
————-
Genuine understanding does not occur until you see the result of the experiment. Yes it can occur via computer models and longterm predictions of climate via the computer models, but actually increasing CO2 is not actually a very good candidate for running that test because of its slow and steady acceleration will require a very long period of time to learn about it as the natural variation we have seen forever continues to confound and dominate the signal. Truth be known that patients dying from the experimental cures was a scientific wakeup call. Just stay away from me until you have your theory better established. If you don’t believe that I have a bridge to sell you. It has over a 100,000 cars a day crossing the bridge paying tolls your investment will be returned in less than 6 months. Interested?
================
Nate says: The paper you cited is not presenting observational evidence. It appears to be another hypothesis (theory).
thats correct Nate. And the reason for that is our ability to estimate cloud density cannot distinguish a cloud change that could explain the entire industrial age warming so far. Thus verification of the GHE of CO2 rests entirely on untested models itself.
‘And the reason for that is our ability to estimate cloud density cannot distinguish a cloud change that could explain the entire industrial age warming so far. Thus verification of the GHE of CO2 rests entirely on untested models itself.’
This is more hope and prayer than reality.
If you think a single paper with a speculative hypothesis
“We propose that, if precipitating convective clouds are more likely to…..”
is likely to overturn a half century of observational evidence, theory, and modeling, ie the current paradigm, then your philosophy degree has not done much to help you understand how science advances.
Nate says:
This is more hope and prayer than reality.
If you think a single paper with a speculative hypothesis
“We propose that, if precipitating convective clouds are more likely to…..”
is likely to overturn a half century of observational evidence, theory, and modeling, ie the current paradigm, then your philosophy degree has not done much to help you understand how science advances.
And you remain totally clueless as to how enslaved you have become to post-normal science.
We do have post-normal President, but climate science, not so much.
Media hype and coverage of it, perhaps.
But the science itself, Ive seen no evidence to support the claim that it is operating much differently than other sciences.
That is simply the propaganda machine’s portrayal of it, that you have bought into, hook line and sinker.
Nate says: – But the science itself, Ive seen no evidence to support the claim that it is operating much differently than other sciences.
That is simply the propaganda machines portrayal of it, that you have bought into, hook line and sinker.
————–
LMAO!! No mate its no different that science ever was. Science has always been a messy place of outrageous claims and extrapolations. Just that for most of what they call the science revolution concepts like Feynman’s has held a lot of sway and many science societies carefully managed science in a cautious and conservative manner.
I don’t when the change started, I haven’t studied it, but it would be an interesting study. But I do know when I was much younger science was not legally-mandated in virtually everything we do. When it started to be then gradually it became more corrupt and started moving back to that model of single payer instead of more private institutions. Science itself has become an industry and like most industries if they get too much power and too monopolistic they will become more and more corrupt.
Post normal science is in fact a philosophical argument that society should be managed to the “best science available”. Its like Stalinist Russia or before it the Holy Roman Empire and Caliphates. Even the German’s got into it with the 3rd Reich. People died of starvation, got burned at the stake, got summarily executed, got gassed all in the name of State sponsored science.
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.
I am absolutely dedicated to science but it has to be science.
Like a Missourian – Show me! You can’t, you haven’t seen it, you think equations extrapolated into the unknown return facts. You are a fool!
More diatribe, but no evidence.
Not clear what you’re even talking about.
Nate says: – More diatribe, but no evidence. Not clear what youre even talking about.
Nate you are too dazzled by authority to think for yourself. You are like a religious nutcase citing political/official versions of physics books chapter and verse like a Bible thumper.
Gordon and JD are simply thinking for themselves. Lots of good stuff in physics books if you can get yourself deep enough into them and actually learn what is known vs what is speculated about. Simply because somebody would rather believe their own thoughts about stuff we really don’t know the answer to doesn’t make somebody a science denier because he isn’t fully in tune with the official Al Gore book on science. The rest of the post was about Al Gore and his genius science slaves setting the world back a couple thousand years to the days of chiefs and witchdoctors colluding together to keep folks like you in line. Two thousand years has not changed what people are no matter how much some people want to tell others what to be and believe.
bill hunter says:
“Gordon and JD are simply thinking for themselves.”
You’re in la la land again.
‘religious nutcase citing political/official versions of physics books chapter’
Bill, just like the other guys you want to relabel ordinary physics, pseudoscience, and think that means you can just replace it with made-up BS.
And you want us to take you seriously about what is ‘post-normal’ science?
Nate says: – Bill, just like the other guys you want to relabel ordinary physics, pseudoscience, and think that means you can just replace it with made-up BS.
—————-
Nobody is relabeling any ordinary physics Nate. Let me try one more time.
1) photons are a concept. Their existance has never proven. What has been proven that photons are a concept of are some of their ascribed effects.
2) because the photon model is used to describe this concept, some people who don’t fully understand the concept and its limits are very apt to ascribe other effects of photons not proven yet in science.
3) the argument here is the flow of heat and the flow of energy. Already I have heard a concession that the flow of heat is in one direction and the person doing the conceding continues to argue the flow of energy is in two directions. Gordon is saying thats not true. The flow of energy is in the same direction as the heat and that can be mathematically proven by using math to calculate the net flow of energy. “net flow” is really a redundant term because flow is a net. Its the net of something moving in one direction after overcoming all resistances.
4) but you insist and claiming a flow of energy in both directions and can’t fathom the idea that all you are doing is paraphrasing a “calculation” and the individual forces used to come up with a flow after all resistance is overcome.
Therefore, you are claiming the existance of a physical fact based upon the component of a calculation and calling it a “flow” when it very may well be either alternatively a “resistance” or an “attraction”.
Science has not yet broken down the individual calculations. The blackbody law prescribes an impossibility thus its incapable of proof with what science we have today. What it is is a useful concept for mathematically determining flow (or net flow if that redundancy makes you feel better). All I am suggesting is this second flow you are so fond of has absolutely no real effect in the world that anybody has yet identified.
Example, the math of energy exhange via radiation is an object will radiate at its greybody capability. Its ability to radiate at that greybody capability is identical to its ability to absorb radiation.
thus if you have an object that has a “blackbody” radiation capability of 400watts/m2 solely determined by its temperature, it might have an emissivity factor of .75 and only be radiating 300watts/m2.
Then if this radiating object is completely surrounded by something that has a “blackbody” temperature capability of 200watts/m2 and has the same emissivity as the warmer body.
Conclusion: The flow of energy is 150watts/m2 from the warmer object to the colder object.
Going on and on about the cooler object having a 150watts/m2 flow toward the warmer object and the warmer object having a 300watts/m2 flow toward the cooler object is purely a discussion of mathematics and thus has zero real world consequences. And thats all I hear Gordon trying to tell you. But you are so hung out to dry on the idea that cooler objects warm warmer objects you simply cannot open your ears or your brain to what a crock of shit that is.
Its like you sitting there counting Ah 2 photons from the warm object and 1 photon from the cold object. No proof of this exists because the only thing in the entire world that suggests it is if you use those numbers in a calculation you get the right result. But its totally irrelevant if its real or not, one would never be able to measure it with today’s technology if it were real so why be so insistent on your unproven belief?
bill, this is not very hard.
Heat is net energy.
Energy from hot to cold object:
ε * σ * Th^4 * Ah
Energy from cold to hot object:
ε * σ * Tc^4 * Ah
Heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
So you can reduce the heat flow by increasing Tc.
Questions?
And photons carry energy that will add thermal energy upon absor*ption.
That energy can be detected, see single photon detector here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting
And temperature is stable if net energy/heat is zero.
So you disturb the balance if you mess with the Tc of the atmosphere.
That means Gordon is wrong.
“Lots of good stuff in physics books if you can get yourself deep enough into them and actually learn what is known vs what is speculated about.”
good advice, you should try it Bill.
You will learn that there is lots of direct evidence that photons exist. Such as photon detectors, the Compton effect, fluctuations in intensity of starlight, etc. Just read Feynman Lectures.
Not sure why so many of you guys claim photons are not real…
Two -way energy flows. Well its difficult to understand many things if there were not a two way flow of energy and photons.
One is a far away planet or dwarf star emitted its radiation long ago, and we can detect it here with a detector pointed at it.
Even if that detector is warmer than the planet and emitting its own radiation toward the planet.
The Net flow would be from the detector to the planet.
You are claiming that flow from the planet is not real? Even though it was emitted perhaps hundreds of years ago?
Many problems with that, including causality.
Its much simpler to understand radiation heat transfer as a two way flow of energy. And that is how its described in most heat transfer courses.
Such as http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Svante says: –
bill, this is not very hard.
Heat is net energy.
Energy from hot to cold object:
ε * σ * Th^4 * Ah
Energy from cold to hot object:
ε * σ * Tc^4 * Ah
Heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
So you can reduce the heat flow by increasing Tc.
Questions?
You have the math right but the logic wrong. The correct way actually supported by science to say it is:
Heat can not exceed is net energy.
(the correction here recognizes that energy can be exchanged without a heat exchange e.g. latent heat)
Maximum potential of Grey body Energy from hot to cold object:
ε * σ * Th^4 * Ah
Maximum potential of Grey body Energy from cold to hot object:
ε * σ * Tc^4 * Ah
Energy Heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
Maximum potential of heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
So you can reduce the heat flow and the energy flow by increasing Tc.
(Note: Even the above is a bit overbearing as these processes involve molecules and molecules have other means of transferring energy but in the above we are artificially limiting it to exchange by radiation alone for the sake of simplicity)
===============
Its a bit difficult communicating without an edit function but my strikethrough html didn’t work above. So the word “is” should be removed from the first modified sentence. And the word “heat” should be removed from the 4th sentence to read “energy transfer” instead of “energy heat transfer”.
Svante says: – And photons carry energy that will add thermal energy upon absor*ption.
That energy can be detected, see single photon detector here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting
Indeed light quanta (pl) have been detectable for a long time. Its especially easy to detect when its from a relatively high energy source, it gets progressively more difficult to detect when its from a relatively low energy source. Sensitivity has been increasing over time. But so far all the single photon detectors I am aware of that can detect IR are cryogenically cooled.
Here is a sentence out of an abstract on that: We present our studies on the quantum efficiency (QE) and the noise equivalent power (NEP) of the latest-generation, nanostructured, superconducting, single-photon detectors (SSPDs) in the wavelength range from 0.5 to 5.6 /spl mu/m, operated at temperatures in the 2.0- to 4.2-K range.
Thus these are hot object photons/light quanta. But it may be possible to increase sensitivity and reduce the signal loss coming from the signal processing used to detect temperatures of cold objects down to a single photon/light quanta level but still it would be detecting an energy loss rather than an energy gain. In that previous sentence I am not sure how much signal loss would play into the game, but the concentration is on very expensive super cooled detectors and the huge advantage of the signal processing detectors is their cost is so much lower so it seems that signal loss would be a likely reason for the investment in far more expensive equipment.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1439702
Svante says: – And temperature is stable if net energy/heat is zero.
So you disturb the balance if you mess with the Tc of the atmosphere.
That means Gordon is wrong.
I don’t think so Svante. I mean the iconic graphic of the global warming hysteria is a CO2 molecule receiving x watts/m2 from the surface and dispersing that as .5x watts/m2 up and .5x watts/m2 down leaving no energy to disturb the atmosphere.
Even in a potentially more correct depiction of up energy from the surface being .5x watts/m2 up to the CO2 molecule and .5x watts/m2 comes up with the exact same result with nothing left to affect the atmosphere.
And its really not all that unusual such a take is seen by science. Because it is said it is impossible to actually warm an atmospheric gas molecule without having it collide with a warmer solid surface first. Certainly with the iconic graphic of global warming hysteria is completely consistent with that notion anyhow.
What isn’t consistent between the two models shown above is “claimed” surface warming from the .5x watt/m2 downwelling radiation.
So you may have to read that several times to ponder the conundrum.
There is actually one exception to the above that I am aware of about the impossibility of warming gas molecules in the atmosphere without a collision with a solid object. And that is the release of latent heat from super cooled water vapor. Though I have seen some argue vehemently against that as well, but I think they were in denial of effects of supercooling or perhaps, they weren’t clear, in denial of supercooling itself.
Another clue for you on the alleged “single photon detector” is the statement I provided above giving a hint of the technology employed to allegedly detect a photon.
It says: “superconducting, single-photon detectors” Superconductors huh? Its not detecting a photon its detecting the heat result down to the level of a quanta.
Nate says: ———- You will learn that there is lots of direct evidence that photons exist. Such as photon detectors, the Compton effect, fluctuations in intensity of starlight, etc. Just read Feynman Lectures.
Not sure why so many of you guys claim photons are not real
Two -way energy flows. Well its difficult to understand many things if there were not a two way flow of energy and photons.
One is a far away planet or dwarf star emitted its radiation long ago, and we can detect it here with a detector pointed at it.——-
Nate you are assuming a lot of stuff about what people believe which isn’t true.
I have not said photons are not real, I have said that we know very little about photons other than their warming effect and frequency of radiation.
However, all I have heard anybody claim about that is a photon from a cold object cannot warm a warm object. Thats a fact!
It doesn’t matter that the projected photon has energy, it doesn’t matter that a photon may be flowing toward a warm object, all that is known about the real world consequences of photons is the effect measured after an exchange of photons.
Thus if you assume photons only run from hot to cold you can still build a mathematical model that gets the right answer every single time. Its as simple as integrating two SB equations into one equation and producing the energy flow and the likely heat flow. And the answer is the hot object cools unless its heated to compensate, and the cool object warms unless its being cooled to compensate. . . .but zero heating or cooling is going the wrong way.
Bill, you produced another gish gallop.
Can we please do one step at a time?
You seem to think that heat is temperature?
In thermodynamics it is not, the unit is J in SI system.
Svante says: —– Bill, you produced another gish gallop.
Heat can not exceed [is] net energy.
(the correction here recognizes that energy can be exchanged without a heat exchange e.g. latent he
You seem to think that heat is temperature?
In thermodynamics it is not, the unit is J in SI system.——–
Have you lost your mind? Joules is a unit of energy in the SI system. Heat is the transfer of that energy due to a difference in temperature.
Phase changes (latent heat) don’t involve a transfer of energy or heat.
bill hunter says:
First you say: “Joules is a unit of energy”.
Then: “Heat is the transfer of that energy”.
Which unit do you propose for heat then?
“Latent heat is thermal energy released or absorbed”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
‘Bill, you produced another gish gallop.’
Yep thats exactly right, Svante.
Bill posts a lot of gobbledegook that doesnt really rebut what people have said, and it is hard to follow.
He should try to be more concise and get to the point.
‘1) photons are a concept. Their existance has never proven. What has been proven that photons are a concept of are some of their ascribed effects.
2) because the photon model is used to describe this concept, some people who dont fully understand the concept and its limits are very apt to ascribe other effects of photons not proven yet in science.’
‘I have not said photons are not real, I have said that we know very little about photons other than their warming effect and frequency of radiation’
Confusing.
Well, how do i know that you are not just part of the simulation?
Photons existence are as much proven as the Moon’s existence. We know an awful lot about their properties! What is it you don’t think we know?
‘4) but you insist and claiming a flow of energy in both directions and cant fathom the idea that all you are doing is paraphrasing a ‘calculation’ and the individual forces used to come up with a flow after all resistance is overcome.’
I gave you a rebuttal for this with the example of detecting a faraway emitter.
The existence of that far away emitter and the flow of energy from the emitter to the Earth over many years is as proven as the Moon’s existence is proven.
And you have not addressed this.
Svante says: —– Which unit do you propose for heat then?————–
You are getting pedantic here Svante and missing the important points. Not all energy transmitted by radiation from the surface and its emissivity ends up in the atmosphere with its emissivity. I suppose what doesn’t might end up on some asteroid somewhere as heat.
Nate says: ———–
4) but you insist and claiming a flow of energy in both directions and cant fathom the idea that all you are doing is paraphrasing a calculation and the individual forces used to come up with a flow after all resistance is overcome.
I gave you a rebuttal for this with the example of detecting a faraway emitter.
The existence of that far away emitter and the flow of energy from the emitter to the Earth over many years is as proven as the Moons existence is proven.
And you have not addressed this.————
You fail basic logic Nate. Your rebuttal of an attractor model only asks how could a surface reach out across light years of space to determine how much EMR to emit. Well science did puzzle on this for sometime thinking about “ether” being the medium. But your self-proclaimed proof is just a question not a proof and you don’t know the difference.
One cannot “prove” a negative only one too dim to penetrate their own ignorance to see its a question to be resolved rather than a proof thinks its a proof.
Fact is the only reason the attractor theory was abandoned is as I pointed out several times in this thread, it comes up with the exact same result as the photon model comes up with, thus there is no burning need to resolve the question.
And the only reason I bring up is to go after people that believe there would be a difference between the two models in results because they extrapolate something about photons that simply isn’t true.
In this case its your argument with Gordon and JD. They say backradiation doesn’t warm anything and you claim it does. The attractor model would not have a photon to warm anything, so the only reason you believe what you believe is because you are extrapolating a quality to a photon that you know absolutely nothing about or anybody else knows anything about. Gordon routinely deflects your arguments with several responses. The photon bounces off, the photon is rejected, the photon doesn’t result in heating. All true. I threw in on it and Gordon asked me to explain. I actually used the explanation of Svante above that backradiation photons slow cooling. Gordon never responded likely because he wasn’t going to pick that bone. He would rather take on the ignorant that think backradiation has some capability of heating something, with heating being the actual positive flow of joules of energy for one object to another. A photon generated from a surface returned to the surface has no such capability.
Poor Svante who has it largely right, though he has some weird inconsistent perspectives of the temperature of the atmosphere, actually thinks you know more than him. I am trying to tell him he is wrong about that.
‘You fail basic logic Nate. Your rebuttal of an attractor model only asks how could a surface reach out across light years of space to determine how much EMR to emit. Well science did puzzle on this for sometime thinking about ‘ether’ being the medium. But your self-proclaimed proof is just a question not a proof and you dont know the difference.
One cannot prove a negative only one too dim to penetrate their own ignorance to see its a question to be resolved rather than a proof thinks its a proof.’
Hilarious, IOW, you have no argument supporting your viewpoint, just insults and philosophical nonsense.
What is an ‘attractor’ in your view? And what is your evidence for it?
And what about causality, that you ignore in your ‘attractor’ view.
‘But your self-proclaimed proof’
I never claimed proof. I said this:
“Its much simpler to understand radiation heat transfer as a two way flow of energy. And that is how its described in most heat transfer courses.”
As you should know, nothing in science is ever proven.
‘I suppose you are also ignorant of the attraction of another form of electromagnetism, namely magnetism. Also there is the potential differential that electricity senses before it flows. Your point of view is not supported by either of the other two forms of electromagnetism which is supported because of a known pathway for it to occur. The idea of photons is built on ignorance of such a pathway, yet you want to extrapolate attributes to it despite knowing zip about it beyond the common attribute shared with the other models.’
Huh? Really messed up stuff there Bill, not connected to anything in real physics.
I think I’ll stick with regular optics and causality.
Nate says: —————What is an attractor in your view? And what is your evidence for it?
And what about causality, that you ignore in your attractor view.——————-
You have practically no imagination Nate. First you want me to provide evidence for my theory while you want to shove another theory down everybody’s throats without any evidence yourself.
I suppose you are also ignorant of the attraction of another form of electromagnetism, namely magnetism. Also there is the “potential differential” that electricity senses before it flows. Your point of view is not supported by either of the other two forms of electromagnetism which is supported because of a known pathway for it to occur. The idea of photons is built on ignorance of such a pathway, yet you want to extrapolate attributes to it despite knowing zip about it beyond the common attribute shared with the other models.
Nate says: ————-But your self-proclaimed proof I never claimed proof. I said this: Its much simpler to understand radiation heat transfer as a two way flow of energy. And that is how its described in most heat transfer courses. ————-
No proof huh. LMAO!!! Well join us skeptics then and start after the fools that think it has been proven.
Nate says: ————-As you should know, nothing in science is ever proven.——————–
This gets funnier by the minute!
sunset…”Gee David, you still fall for their baloney. I had an experience of a HUGE UHI effect changes just two days ago”.
Here’s another one. I was traveling on the Canadian prairies during sub-zero weather. I ran into one of the nightmares where blowing powder snow suddenly wells up around your vehicle and you can see nothing.
Quite scary. There’s nowhere to pull off the road and if you do you are likely to be hammered from the rear by an idiot speeding through the whiteout.
As I exited the white out, my accelerator cable froze open. It was a sheath type and the inner wire froze to the sheath. I managed to get the hood up and in place despite a considerable wind and the wind chill forced me to be out of the car no more than half a minute.
I managed to get the cable disconnected from the carb and I raised the idle to a point where I could slowly travel at idle speed to a major city, about 15 km away. When I got into the city, surrounded by heated buildings, I got out, able to bear the cold, and work on the frozen cable.
Lo and behold, the cable unfroze once in the city. It began moving easily through the sheath so I reconnected it and carried on.
The same wind was still blowing into the city but the buildings prevented it cooling so much and it was obviously warmer in the city by a good margin.
I know wind chill is not included in meteorological measurements but to me its similar to the UHI effect. It can make objects and humans cooler, like my accelerator pedal.
Thermometers in Stevenson boxes are not measuring the true effect of the cold.
The same can happen with windshield washer fluid.
It can freeze when you travel along, but if you stop the engine heat can reach the rubber hoses and unfreeze the fluid.
Engine heat output is less when you idle, but there is also less cooling. The net result is warming, just like the greenhouse effect.
The warmist response to your real world observation, GR: but of course, we expect more of this in a warming climate..:-)
I would point out that the difference between the hotest July and the 5th hotest July is also indistinguishable from zero …
Still this negligible difference is good for a huge banner “HOTEST” whatever. Vive la petite difference.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7445&fbclid=IwAR06X9kqUS6NWWaGRqvCQcMisTjI54eXun1BhyL3TdAmrOkMYWEHacZIrZs
NASA JPL clearly shows an large UHI contamination in the European heat wave.
Oh–Indeed!
Just wow.
Wow indeed! It would be a fun exercise to overlay a weather station map on this type of analysis. Certainly would beat the pants off Best methodology.
David the methodology of identifying urban and rural in the Berkeley analysis was very flawed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/04/berkeley-earth-very-rural-and-not/
read it for yourself.
by Willis Eschenbach? Are you serious??
Why do you fall for people like him??? It has to be that you want a certain result and you will look around until you get it. Not any reasoning based in science, but any reason whatsoever. That’s why you read WUWT.
What exactly is it you think Willis wrote that disproves BEST?
David Appell says: – by Willis Eschenbach? Are you serious??
———–
So what am I supposed to do David? Ignore the gridding pictures and how obviously stupid they are for determining urban vs rural?
You do have eyes in your head don’t you? Or are you a robot?
Apparently David Appell thinks you should trust non-scientist Steven Mosher over and above Willis Eschenbach, for reasons unspecified.
Mosher the English graduate likes to play a similar game. A few years ago he mocked Steven Wilde for only being a lawyer.
Deplorable and proud of it!
Do not confuse the absolute UHI effect with its effect on the anomaly trend.
The former is strong, the latter is weak.
The reason that BEST fails to find any significant UHI effect in their manufactured “global” land-temperature index is because that index is a but data sausage of chopped-up records. The bona fide low-frequency spectral content of station data is mangled by their aphysical “break-detection” algorithm and the aggregate regional trend is thereby “homogenized.”
I’ve read over 50 of the comments listed and I noticed a very interesting exclusion. It’s a item with about 330,000 times the mass of earth, that any ninny can observe daily. It’s called the sun. Now, I’m no fancy phD, just a common man. I find it bewildering that all of you with such regal educations can not construct a model which incorporates the sun. Bewildering. The work of Valentina Zharkova accurately predicts the solar minimum we are starting. Her work has been shown to be very accurate and predictive. There will be no denying the hogwash of climate change as we enter the solar minimum. Just wait another year or two and all bets will be settled as will the science. AGW is globalist machinations for power and control. Buy long johns, not Bermuda shorts fellas. 2023 is gonna freeze your ass off.
Berkeley Earth is wrong as it uses monthly averages.
1. Maximum UHI is much higher than averages over a year but occurs only during a fraction of time.
2. Maximum values occur on days without wind and certain other conditions (clouds..), when the additional heat generated in the UHI remains locked.
3. On other days that heat is still generated but dissipating.
4. It is then not attributed in total to its origin, but partly to surrounding rural stations.
5. The implications on climate records may be significant:
6. Example:
UHI area: 10% of total area
UHI max: 5 deg
UHI average 0.5 deg
On year average, of UHI generated heat gets transported to and measured at rural stations
Simply taking averages,overall warming would be estimated to have increased due to UHI by: 0.5*0.1 + 0.0*0.9 = 0.05 deg. (0.5 deg over 10% area + 0.0 deg over 90% area)
Taking into account, that heat moved out of the UHI cell and was partly measured elsewhere, UHI contribution would have been:
0.5*0.1 + *5/9*0.9 = 0.3 deg.
(0.5 deg over 10% area + of max UHI, spread over 9 times larger area deg, over 90% area)
Which is 6 times higher.
More Hogwash from Berkeley and Mr. Appell. First, you cant address UHI by Raising older temperatures. That just dirties the entire record. Second, the Adjustments done are no where near what are required to make the measurements consistent with good sited rural stations nearby. Third, the margin of error increases with each adjustment and needs to be shown in addition to the existing margin of error from the devices and techniques used. Simply put, if you remove the warmer night time lows reported and do not mess with the historical data, the warming is less than 1/2 of what is claimed. Anyone who says UHI has no effect on average global temperature measurements is a straight out liar.
As well as UHI also the 25 % decrease in wind speed over the last four decades (very good correlation with the amount of installed wind power capacity) must be considered as reduced wind speed will cause more warming from the sun, less surface cooling, less evaporation, less humidity, less clouds and increase in hours with sun. Temperature impact from less wind will be most significant in regions affected by ocean air.
Roy wrote:
We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.
Roy, you misrepresented two and a half of those three articles by leaving out their qualifiers.
CNN’s headline is “Record heat waves *MIGHT* have made July the hottest month ever recorded” (emphasis mine)
Reuters’ headline is “July *MAY* set global record as hottest in recorded history: United Nations” (emphasis mine)
The BBC’s headline isn’t accurate: “Climate change: July ‘marginally’ warmest month on record,” but their subhead says “A preliminary analysis of global temperature data for July suggests it *MAY* have “marginally” become the warmest month on record” (emphasis mine). They write that their tally is for the first 29 days of July, and later write “The July figures *ARE LIKELY* to be the highest recorded in the organisation’s 40-year dataset” (emphasis mine).
Dear David,
Those who promote climate hysteria perpetually use weasel words to avoid being proven dead wrong time and again. Claims that the Earth “could” “maybe” “might” cease to exist tomorrow (or in twelve years!) are hardly science. They are scare tactics used to promote political and economic programs.
Hence, we should ignore all such claims. They are no better than political propaganda, designed to encourage superstitions that have little to no scientific basis.
The facts we can state with certainty are that the monthly Global Temperature but NOT the Global Temperature Anomaly reached its THIRD highest value in the UAH analyzed satellite record this July. The record high Global Temperature was reached in July 1998 at +0.51 C above the 30 year average, which translates to an actual temperature of about -7.3 C for the lower troposphere. July 2016 came in with an anomaly of +0.39 C and July 2019 with an anomaly of +0.38 C.
Hence, July 1998 retains bragging rights for the hottest month in the satellite record. And it is conveniently located near the middle of the 40 year satellite record, frustrating continual alarmist attempts to claim that the Earth is getting dangerously hotter. It is in fact continuing to go through PDO or ENSO ocean cycles popularly called El Ninos.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
These were not “weasel words.” The articles recognized that the full dataset for July was not yet in, and said so. Roy misrepresented the articles by saying they said things they did not in fact say. But I can understand why Gordon would not care about misrepresentations — they’re his entire schtick.
Roy should issue a correction.
Dear David,
So you are now denying that alarmists use weasel words ALL THE TIME? Since words are your business as a journalist, I would have thought that you easily would recognize weasel words!
News organizations always like to get the jump on others by guessing that something “might” happen. If it is something that they find useful for their political outlook, they get to emphasize it twice, if it turns out to be true. Once before and once after it happens. And if turns out to be false, they can just ignore that they ever said it, because of the weasel word “might.”
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Qualifies are used to communicate the fact that measurements never have zero percent uncertainty.
Like the qualifier in the Scafetta paper you hawked.
David, please stop trolling.
DA…”These were not weasel words.
Everything out of CNN these days are weasel words. Have not heard such biased reporting for a long time.
If I ever have a weasel I’m gonna name him David.
From your link below:
“…we conclude that about 50% of the recorded warming of China since the 1940s could be due to uncorrected urbanization bias.”
“could be…” = weasel words.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811930102X?via%3Dihub
David, please stop trolling.
gordon…”Hence, July 1998 retains bragging rights for the hottest month in the satellite record.”
Over at climateaudit.com they have claimed a while back that 1934 still holds those bragging rights in the United States.
climateaudit is the home of Steve McIntyre who, with Ross McKittrick helped destroy the hockey stick propaganda.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
Reports of my death *MAY* have been greatly exaggerated.
There goes Mr. Appeal to Authority Apple !
Get on your boots !
.
.
US — January 2019 through July 2019:
Coolest January through July period for the US since 1895, based on average daily maximum temperatures of all USHCN stations.
(14th coolest if you only look at daily minimum temperatures)
This affects 330 million people, so it is important.
44 years of “global warming” (since 1975, and we in the US have the coolest January through July on record:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/08/us-january-2019-through-july-2019.html
.
.
.
Concerning UHI:
It is impossible to do a fair analysis.
You would need a lot of (always) rural weather stations with very long term continuous records to compare with nearby urban and suburban stations, to see if economic growth near those stations was having a warming effect.
But there are very few rural stations outside the uS with continuous long term data.
Therefore, a fair study is impossible.
Whatever the results of the study, with land being only 29% of out planet, the effect of changes in UHI on the global average temperature would have to be mall
.
.
.
My own analysis of the NASA-GISS questionable attempt to quantify UHI::
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/urbanization-bias-adjustments-are-tiny.html
David
And Rolling Stone unequivocally says, “July 2019 is now the hottest month in recorded history, the U.N. confirmed on Thursday.”
Clyde Spencer
“hottest month in recorded history” ???
The truth requires a lot more words, and thought.
Not that climate alarmists want the truth.
Truth is not a leftist value:
“July 2019 may have been the warmest month since 1880, based on haphazard, non global, ever changing from arbitrary revisions, surface temperatures.
These questionable data were all gathered DURING a warming trend, that started in roughly 1700.
During that warming trend, new “hot” records were EXPECTED,
and not a surprise, until the warming trend ends, and a cooling trend begins.
All past warming trends in Earth’s history have been followed
by cooling trends.
If the heat island effect does not exist could you explain why on the hotest day last week my drive from a small yorkshire city to my rural home resulted in a two degree drop in temperature.
Please reread Berkeley’s words. They say UHIs exist. The question is how much effect they have on the global mean surface temperature.
DA,
Who cares? It is well known that heat affects thermometers. More heat, higher temperatures!
Only pseudoscientific GHE true believers think that CO2 creates heat. A ragtag collection of fakers, fools, and frauds.
Cheers.
Flynn:
No one said CO2 “creates heat:
CO2 greens the planet.
CO2 slows cooling by an unknown amount, based on lab experiments.
That makes the planet warmer than it would otherwise be.
In the 78 years of adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere, since about 1940, there has been mild intermittent warming.
Some people blame that warming entirely on CO2, the IPCC says “over half” is man made, but the correct answer is “No one knows”.
The roughly +0.6 degrees C. warming claimed from 1940 through 1978 is equivalent to +0.77 degrees C. per century.
Climate alarmists have been claiming about +3 degrees C. warming in the next century, since the 1970s.
They have obviously been wrong for decades, and should be ignored.
While the precise effect of CO2 on the climate is unknown, it is just as wrong to claim CO2 has no effect on the climate.
richard…”CO2 slows cooling by an unknown amount, based on lab experiments”.
Do you understand how cooling happens at the quantum level? Electrons in atoms drop to lower energy levels and emit electromagnetic energy.
How does CO2 prevent that from happening, unless you cool the CO2 and/or surround the hot body with CO2 at a warmer temperature?
The rate of surface cooling is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. The atmospheric temperature affects direct conduction from surface to atmosphere and that’s what controls the rate at which electrons drop to lower energy levels.
0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on that temperature. The Ideal Gas Law reveals about a 0.04C warming contribution for CO2 for a 1C overall warming.
I originally typed:
“The roughly +0.6 degrees C. warming claimed from 1940 through 1978 is equivalent to +0.77 degrees C. per century.”
That should have said “1940 through 2018”, not “1940 through 1978”.
David “Appeal to Authority” Apple held a strong magnet over my comment and jumbled the numbers.
.
.
Mr. Robinson:
The effect of CO2 on infrared energy has been demonstrated in closed system water vapor free laboratory experiments.
The actual effect of CO2 in the NOT water vapor free atmosphere is unknown.
Glad to hear you have figured it out.
Please post a picture holding your Nobel Prize when you get one.
Richard Greene: you say: ‘CO2 slows cooling by an unknown amount, based on lab experiments.’
Can you supply references for this, please?
Mark Wapples says:
August 2, 2019 at 8:59 AM
If the heat island effect does not exist could you explain why on the hotest day last week my drive from a small yorkshire city to my rural home resulted in a two degree drop in temperature.
————————————-
of course uhi exists. towns will be warmer.
One other thing you need to take into account when comparing absolute temperatures (as your drive does) is the change in altitude of the 2 locations – higher usually is colder.
another is terrain – we are surrounded on 3 sides by 70 metre high hills. in winter these can make a difference of -5°C compared to a town 8 miles away
The real question is does the delta in uhi affected temperature track the rural temperature.
the reports referenced suggest a delta increase in temp for the uhi is the same as the delta increase in rural.
“The real question is does the delta in uhi affected temperature track the rural temperature. the reports referenced suggest a delta increase in temp for the uhi is the same as the delta increase in rural.”
No, that’s NOT the real question. The real question is “How has the global average temperature changed over time?”
If the UHI effect does track with the surrounding area in terms of delta, well, that’s nice… but only if the UHI has not changes in relation to the monitoring station.
If the UHI area has grown larger (as nearly all have) and is now affected a temperature monitoring station that it was not affecting before, then that station reports a higher temperature, relative to its own prior recording, than it did before, even if the actual temperature is exactly the same.
And if you check the actual status of the ground monitoring stations (at least in the US), a large majority of them have indeed become poorly sited over the last several decades.
Cities cover only 0.2% of the globe.
Here I did a little calculation that shows if the city areas are 5 K (9 F) warmer on average than the global average, the UHI only contributes about 0.01 K (=0.2%*5K) to the global mean surface temperature:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-large-is-urban-heat-island-effect.html
DA,
The following may be of interest –
“The old saying is that figures will not lie, but a new saying is liars will figure. It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish.”
You wouldn’t attempt to pervert the truth to push some fable about CO2 creating heat, would you?
Back to your pointless calculations, I suppose.
Why is the Earth’s surface no longer molten? Not enough CO2, do you think?
Cheers.
DA, I think the more relevant question would be …. what % of the globe do you find stations in UHI impacted areas vs. the % of stations in rural areas. Doing a straight weighted average here would be disingenuous.
David
But the warming effect extends downwind for tens of miles, potentially increasing the impact on global average temperatures, assuming it is even measured. Therefore, your estimate is a lower bound. Because thermometers in cities are much more common than in adjacent rural areas, the global average is systematically biased towards the UHI.
Additionally, NASA commonly reports average temperatures to three significant figures to the right of the decimal point, and often uses a few thousandths of a degree as justification for trumpeting a new ‘unprecedented’ record temperature.
clyde…”NASA commonly reports average temperatures to three significant figures to the right of the decimal point, and often uses a few thousandths of a degree as justification for trumpeting a new unprecedented record temperature.”
You also have to watch the fine print with GISS. When they declared 2014 the warmest year ever, they did so based on a 38% confidence level that they were telling the truth. NOAA bettered them by using a 48% CL.
It boggles my mind as to why a scientific organization would participate in such chicanery. Both are obviously political animals.
“Cities cover only 0.2% of the globe.”
Wrong again, as usual, Mr. Appeal to Authority Apple.
The issue here is temperature changes caused by changes to the environment near a weather station.
A rural station becoming less rural could have a greater non-CO2 warming effect than an urban station changing locations.
Economic growth and land use changes can affect any weather station, rural, suburban and urban.
A rural station that had been surrounded by green weeds could read warmer after the weeds were killed with chemicals, or dug up, leaving brown dirt surrounding the weather station.
Also, it is a well known fact that climate alarmists regularly drive their cars to “inspect” surface weather stations, and during the “inspections”, they face their cars away from the station to aim hot exhaust air at the temperature sensors. This accounts for 15.75913% of all “claimed” global warming.
Re: “But most warming has (arguably) occurred in the last 50 years, and if one is trying to tie global temperature to greenhouse gas emissions, the period since 1979 (the last 40+ years) seems sufficient since that is the period with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions and so when the most warming should be observed.”:
pre-industrial CO2 is generally believed to be ~280 PPMV
1979 global CO2 was ~336 PPMV
2018 global CO2 was ~408 PPMV
The direct radiation change effect of a change of CO2 is generally considered as proportional to the change of the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Using the numbers above, the log(10) of atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by .07918 from pre-industrial to 1979, and by .08432 from 1979 to 2018. This means 48% of the change of the radiation effect of atmospheric CO2 due to increase of CO2 from pre-industrial to 2018 happened by 1979.
The radiative formula for CO2 does not use log-base-10, it uses log-base-e, that is, ln.
No physicist would ever use log-base-10 for anything.
log_10 = log_e/log_e(10). It’s just a proportionality. And, decibels is a common scale used in physics. Try again.
David still lives in his parent’s basement and didn’t get the memo.
To be fair you get the same answer whether log-10 or log-e is used either way.
You do for the ratio, but not for the forcings.
I realize the preference to use base of e for physics and I used base 10 instead because it’s the “common one” that is the basis for decibels and I have a lot of audio electrical engineering experience and choice of log base does not change ratios. The IPCC figure in W/m^2 is 5.35*ln(CO2/CO2ref), which is equal to 5.35 * (ln(CO2(newer))-ln(CO2(older))), where ln is log base e. When the log is using a base other than e, the coefficient of 5.35 gets multiplied by the log base e of the base other than e.
As for direct W/m^2 change from CO2 change, I figure:
From pre-industrial to 1979: .975 W/m^2
From 1979 to 2018: 1.039 W/m^2
From pre-industrial to 2018: 2.014 W/m^2
Well, you can’t take the log or ln of a number with units (like your CO2 numbers, which have units of ppm). It’s proper to stick with the ratio, in which case the standard radiative forcing calculation uses the ln(), not the log10().
Why use log10 when there’s no need to?
DA,
“Why use log10 when theres no need to?”
If all he had a table of common logarithms, he might well need to. You can provide alternate answers to your stupid and irrelevant attempt to look clever, at your convenience.
Feel free to waste as much of your own time as you want.
Cheers.
donald…”I used base 10 instead because its the common one that is the basis for decibels and I have a lot of audio electrical engineering experience and choice of log base does not change ratios”.
I was just going to say that. My background is in electronics and I am used to db ratios with log10.
DA…”Why use log10 when theres no need to?”
You are so anal. Maybe Donald likes 10 better than the Napierian 2.781828182.
log(10) of 10 = 1
log(10) 0f 100 = 2
log(10) of 1000 = 3
Neat, eh???
ln of 2.781828182…. = 1
ln 10 = 2.3025
ln 100 = 4.6051
ln 1000 = 6.9077
Note they all increase in the same ratio as for log(10).
Sometimes when you have decimals and zeros it’s neater to use log(10).
With sound power ratios…power (db)= 10log(10).Pout/Pin
If Pout = 2 Pin the ratio is 2:1.
power in db = 10 log(10) of 2 = 10 log(10) x 0.301 = 3 db
We know in the sound industry that a doubling of power, or a halving of power is a ratio of 3 dB.
Does not work as well with natural logs.
donald…” This means 48% of the change of the radiation effect of atmospheric CO2 due to increase of CO2 from pre-industrial to 2018 happened by 1979″.
The math is tidy but it ignores other physical factors, like the little Ice Age. If global temperatures were indeed 1C to 2C below normal till 1850, a re-warming of 1C or more since the LIA makes more sense than logarithmic value related to a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Besides, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since the pre-Industrial Era is controversial and not proved. Kreutz, a German chemist, took over 60,000 CO2 readings in the 1930s and found CO2 concentrations of over 400 ppmv.
A global temperature is a statistical average – and not well defined at that. It is as real as an average family with 2.6 children.
2.6 children. I dont have a problem with that.
Anyway some of the regulars here have 0.6 of a brain.
A statistical average that could be calculated in 100 different ways.
An average temperature that no human actually lives in.
A statistical average of an ever changing number of weather stations, with far from global coverage, with a majority of surface grid cells REQUIRING some or all temperatures to be wild guessed by government bureaucrats with science degrees, who all want to see more global warming.
Government bureaucrats who have the nerve to claim record heat in parts of Africa that have no thermometers !
1200 stations in Africa:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/africa
Pick 20 random stations here to see the global trend:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/timeseries/
‘An average temperature that no human actually lives in.’
Duh, thats why its called an average, and you seem clueless why they are useful.
Nobody hits 0.35 of a baseball, but if your average is .350, you get paid a lot more than if your average is .250.
If you learn that you get paid $20,000 less than the average of other garbage collectors in your town, you may get angry.
‘REQUIRING some or all temperatures to be wild guessed by government bureaucrats with science degrees, who all want to see more global warming.’
Empty, weird claim, that you never back up. BS.
I would tend to think a garbage collector can see what a stupid analogy that is. . . .perhaps he deserves to get paid more than you?
Nate says: – An average temperature that no human actually lives in.
Duh, thats why its called an average, and you seem clueless why they are useful.
Nobody hits 0.35 of a baseball, but if your average is .350, you get paid a lot more than if your average is .250.
—————–
Well since it does not appear that individual thermometers aren’t showing new record temperatures one would have to conclude that a rising mean temperature means things are more normal, less extremes in temperature. Of course averaging lows and highs together shades the fact that temperatures are becoming more stable and considering the nature of the greenhouse effect I would expect low temperatures to be the ones affected.
I have noticed for example that many ground surface records are trending at about 150% than UAH. Then you look at the breakdown of the surface record trends comprising 2/3rds increase in the temperature minimums and a 1/3 increase in temperature maximums. But these temperature maximums are not showing up on individual thermometers at least via looking at US state record temperature databases.
Further one has to recognize that without greenhouse gases and as a result the clouds and ice that cools the surface, daytime temperatures would be higher on average by a large extent. Further greenhouse gases themselves besides absorbing ground emitted IR also absorb small amounts of solar emitted IR.
Thus the case for additional greenhouse gas warming, especially via water vapor, for hotter days and being the cause of heatwaves is incredibly weak.
Lots of vague speculation in there Bill..
Nate says: – Lots of vague speculation in there Bill..
——
Thats a rather limp wristed hand wave there Nate.
Just the news media hyping things to get clicks, and tying it in to heat waves where the media is located, as usual.
None of the surface data sets are out yet for July…
The articles Roy cited were careful to use qualifiers on any claims.
But here’s another one that’s relevant:
“July was Earths hottest month on record, beating or tying July 2016,” Andrew Freedman, WaPo 8/2/19
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/02/july-was-earths-hottest-month-record-beating-or-tying-july/
“July was Earths hottest month ever recorded, on a par with, and possibly marginally higher than the previous warmest month, which was July 2016, according to provisional data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service. This European climate agency will have a full report for all of July on Monday, but a spokesperson said enough data (through July 29) has already come in to make this declaration.”
DA…”July was Earths hottest month on record, beating or tying July 2016″
Certain media outlets should be banned, like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN. They no longer report news but propaganda based on personal bias.
The only good thing about the NYT is the crossword puzzle.
“Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)
The “etc.” being ‘Tom Karl.’
Roy’s group compares satellite readings of today to those of about 10 (is it? more) generations ago, by comparing readings at every transition to a new satellite. How is that any better?
DA,
On the other hand, how is it any worse?
Cheers.
gary…”The etc. being Tom Karl.”
Good point. Why Karl would go back, after the fact, and re-assess the SST with such a bias as to erase the flat trend from 1998 – 2012 has just been revealed to me.
Karl was connected to the IPCC ‘hide the decline’ shenanigans with the hockey stick fiasco. The IPCC knew the data had been fudged yet they rushed out the hockey stick. Karl was into it up to his ying-yang along with the IPCC, Mann, and Briffa.
That enhances my proof that NOAA is a political outfit, not scientific.
Of course there is an Urban Heat Island effect. Tarmac, bricks and concrete absorb IR radiation during the day and release it during the night. If anyone doesn’t believe me find a building with north and south facing sides and put the palm of your hand on each aspect of the bricks at sunset. Add in to that heat from people, cars buses etc. To make the inaccuracy even more striking, temperature stations are placed adjacent to airport runways heat island + heat from jet engines. All of course inferring that the climate is warming at the same speed as collective common sense is diminishing!
Tell that to the 776 inhabitants of Vrargues (46)Hrault, France)or the 3500 of Gallargues le Montueux… Or the inhabitants of Paris (France), where the record high jumped from 40.4 (1047) to 42.6 a few day ago… Some late UHI effect!
Andrew Mark Harding says:
Of course there is an Urban Heat Island effect
Nobody said there isn’t.
DA,
You wrote –
“Nobody said there isnt.”
And . . . ?
Cheers.
“If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect, once again I point out it is used for your daily weather forecast. We like to make fun of how poor some weather forecasts can be, but the objective evidence is that forecasts out 2-3 days are pretty accurate, and continue to improve over time.”
Not in the UK though.
The BBC/MeteoGroup weather forecasts change their 5 prediction every day, including the 5th “target” day.
Yes. That’s normal procedure. You update the prediction for the same target time as new information becomes available. That’s why forecasts for 1 day lead time are typically better than 2 day lead time and so on. Even the broader public and laypeople in general almost universally accept that forecasts with short lead times are better than forecasts with long lead times so I don’t see what the problem is here. Maybe I missed your point?
bdgwx says: Yes. Thats normal procedure.
———-
I agree. I have 3 analytical models on one site for my look at weather. Two of the models are global and one for North America.
One of the global models and the NA model both update every 6 hours. The other global model updates every 12 hours. And one I don’t have the UK model mentioned above also updates every 12 hours.
Its the best forecasting I have ever had access to. Still though there are a lot of microclimates no data is available for. In fact I live in one so I have to take the forecasts and make my own adjustments as the models are negatively influenced by another microclimate station much closer to me (2mi) than the station that best matches my climate (10mi). The reason is apparently that closer station sits back from edge of and on top of a bluff that chops the wind down.
Further the 3 models generally agree but don’t agree and sometimes the difference is quite large right up to the last forecast. The maps are cool allowing you to click hour by hour and look at 3 different models.
Our Canadian government is heading into an election in October. One of the major platforms is Climate Change with the statement the Canadian north has warmed 3 times as much as the global average.
Canada’s north is among the least populated areas on earth hence very few temperature monitoring locations at best.
On what basis are they able to make the temperature differential case?
Dennis, Ross McKitrick shows how weak is the case for excessive warming in his Financial Post article: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-hold-the-panic-canada-just-warmed-1-7-degrees-and-thrived
Friends of Science critiqued the Canadian Climate Report point by point. My synopsis is: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/climate-change-not-as-advertised/
Thank you. Much appreciated!
dennis…”Our Canadian government is heading into an election in October. One of the major platforms is Climate Change with the statement the Canadian north has warmed 3 times as much as the global average”.
The Liberal leader, Trudeau, has proved to be a consumate liar. On one hand he preaches the propaganda you relay and on the other he pushes a pipeline to enhance his votes in Alberta.
He’s the one who fired a female cabinet member in the Justice Department for challenging his government on protecting a Canadian company caught cheating. Trudeau and the boys wanted to let them off with a wrist slap but the female member persisted on charging them and Trudeau had her fired.
From the National Post…”They wanted her to arrange a type of plea-bargain for SNC-Lavalin, a giant Quebec-based engineering firm, on charges of corruption related to dealings in Libya”.
Roy,
I completely agree on more utilization of reanalysis datasets for tracking the global mean temperature at all levels. I really wish there were a convenient site that displays surface, satellite, and reanalysis into a single summary so that on each monthly update everyone can see at glance the state of affairs from as many perspectives and datasets as possible.
It would also be cool if they could all then be statistically aggregated into a single value as a best-guess computed from all available datasets which might result in tighter error margins and more confidence in the overall warming trend.
bdg…”I completely agree on more utilization of reanalysis datasets for tracking the global mean temperature at all levels”.
You have not explained what is wrong with real, raw data.
Reanalysis is fine for weather predictions but they have scads of experience doing that, and it doesn’t matter if they are wrong.
World governments, on the other hand, are creating policies based on the same kind of data processing and their is evidence that NOAA, the main data supplier, is fudging the data for a political end.
Meteorologists don’t face political pressure aimed at creating policy. However, NOAA has demonstrated a willingness to bend the truth in the aid of a political agenda.
You still have not explained why they would lie about 2014 being an all time record when it wasn’t even close. NOAA had to know that but they used statistical chicanery to suggest it MIGHT have been the hottest year if the confidence level was reduced to 48% that they were telling the truth.
What reputable scientists carry on like that?
Gordon Robertson says: – You have not explained what is wrong with real, raw data.
——————
There is plenty wrong with the real, raw data. I outlined a few reasons why in this thread when David Appell asked if there was poor data in the system.
Other than that I agree with you and I would add:
The most important thing, is using an analysis by a climate modeling group whose longterm prospects are directly connected to the results they obtain. This lack of independence opens the door to what I might call “reasonable chicanery” which one sees in expert witness testimony by witnesses paid by one side of the dispute. I once had a job dissecting some of that chicanery out of large financial models in a litigation environment.
Roy mentions some real reasons for using the reanalysis data in terms of methodologies for homogenizing the raw data into a more representative sample.
Roy suggests this would be a benefit to the analysis, and especially in comparison to stuff similar to cherry picking sacred trees in Siberia.
Nick Stokes worries about the consistency of the data sources. Which is a legitimate concern, but these reanalyses have a huge feedback mechanism to substantially control that.
After all they get a sanity check and feedback almost every day on the results. Obviously weather modeling would not advance without that. The feedback isn’t going to instantly be specifically identified so the progress with weather modeling is a slow process with constant adjustments and a huge amount of progress has been made because of the need to fix stuff to do a better job tomorrow
Whereas the feedback on the climate models is apparently perhaps somewhere in the next millennium. . . .as evidenced by the fact that the reaction to error is to change the past observations permanently without changing the models. Changes in weather models are done experimentally with daily feedback on whether the change was demonstrating a skill improvement.
A fundamentally different approach when independence is ruling the day (weather analyzers actually have jobs not dependent upon climate alarm). Further weather forecasting is judged on how well it does tomorrow unlike climate forecasting where its being judged on how well it did in the past.
bdgwx: “I really wish there were a convenient site that displays surface, satellite, and reanalysis into a single summary . . .”
Nick Stokes’ webpage has a graphical viewer that shows various data sets plotted on a common baseline here: https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
He also does his own reanalysis NCEP/NCAR-based dataset with daily resolution, but that’s not included on the active plotter.
I should add that Stokes’ NCEP/NCAR July 2019 anomaly was quite a bit lower than July 2016 and slightly lower than July 2017.
Correction, July 2019 lower than July 2016 only. I made the silly mistake of looking at a plot for August when posting the above.
But did he “misrepresent” them? A weasel word in a headline highlighting “hottest” (note: seldom “warmest”) reads, to me, like a fig leaf covering an attempt to anchor the reader’s expectations. The reader attaches more value to the alarmist word “hottest” than to the “we are, after all, supposed to be reporting the truth rather than furthering an agenda” word “might.”
And the rest of each article will have buried the lede (bit of a stretch, I admit, for me to assume that “this is one of the hottest, but not THE hottest, Julys in the last, not millennium, but 40-year period” is the **lede**), highlighting how hot it was in France rather than how nice it’s been in Houston. I’d venture (without evidence) that statements about either hotter Julys or problems with the data set occur in no less than the fourth para of any of these articles.
I’d be more inclined to take climate change articles at face value – that is, to believe that the agenda of the writer and sometimes even the researcher is to alert us to the negative consequences of climate change rather than to restructure the US or global economy to be more “central command” oriented – if anyone, anywhere, ever acknowledged even one potential **positive** effect of climate change.
What positive effect of anthropogenic climate change do you have in mind?
There are more people on this planet than at any time in human history. And on average they are healthier, better fed and longer lived than at any time in human history.
What negative effects of anthropogenic climate change did you have in mind?
There are more people on this planet than at any time in human history. And on average they are healthier, better fed and longer lived than at any time in human history.
How is manmade climate change responsible for those?
DA,
You were asked –
“What negative effects of anthropogenic climate change did you have in mind?”
Can’t answer? Won’t answer?
What are you scared of, David? It’s a pretty simple question – or do you only demand answers from others?
How is the description of the non-existent GHE going? Are you still rushing about producing “evidence” for something you can’t even describe?
That’s not very “scientific”, is it?
Cheers.
Greening of the planet, by at least 15%.
Thousands of studies prove extra CO2 in the air improves plant growth.
A summary, at the link below, required over 1,000 pages.
Why don’t you read it Apple, and get back with us in a year or two?
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CCR-II-Biological-Impacts-full-report.pdf
I’m sure you’ll find one study by some hack leftist “scientist” that disagrees.
I should add that I’m 100% certain that climate is changing, because it’s never been static. My angst arises from the assertion that so much of current climate change results from human industrial activity that human industrial activity must be radically changed or curtailed – when there is NO current energy alternative that wouldn’t plunge the world into medieval conditions. Not even nuclear energy, until we have a cheap, reliable, small, environmentally sound way to STORE nuclear and other non-hydrocarbon energy so that we can travel with it.
My preferred approach has been and continues to be, first, assume that climate is continually in flux and harden our systems so that an ice age doesn’t starve vulnerable populations all over the world. And second, keep working on batteries; they’re not good enough yet and their environmental cost is far too high. In the meantime, prioritize natural gas and nuclear (which is easy because they’re already cheap and reliable) and keep working on emissions and waste management technology. Oh, and ceramics and other materials engineering, since we’ll need an alternative to plastics if we’re going to wean ourselves off petrochemicals.
I just came across this article today:
“How have solar cells undercut coal?” Physics World, 7/29/18
https://physicsworld.com/a/how-have-solar-cells-undercut-coal/
Concluding sentence:
“…the economics now well and truly favour solar. I think well see fairly rapid phasing out of coal generation in Australia despite the wishes of our present bunch of politicians.”
David,
Your quote sounds like wishful thinking. Glaringly overlooked is the intermittency problem, and the costs for having and maintaining back-up sources.
Clyde Spencer says: – Your quote sounds like wishful thinking. Glaringly overlooked is the intermittency problem, and the costs for having and maintaining back-up sources.
_______________
Indeed! If the quote were true the government would not have to intervene.
Natural gas “undercut” coal, Apple.
Not intermittent, expensive, subsidized, low density solar energy.
“My angst arises from the assertion that so much of current climate change results from human industrial activity that human industrial activity must be radically changed or curtailed”
Your angst is caused by the wide acceptance of the erroneous IPCC assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused entirely by human emissions. See https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/stand-for-climate-truth/ for a discussion of science used to evaluate this point. This assumption fails scientific analysis so the whole house of alarmist cards falls down. Even if CO2 were capable of warming the planet dangerously we are not the cause and cannot fix it.
See
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-ed-berry-is-full-of-shit.html
Been there, seen that, agree with Mr Courtney. Berry’s model is valid because it describes flow of CO2 through the atmosphere without trying to analyze all the individual sources and sinks. His conclusion agrees with Harde 2019 which is mentioned in the referenced Berry article. Harde addresses several of the points raised at your site attempting to refute Berry. Bottom line is atmospheric CO2 is not responsive to human emissions (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/)so the data agree with Berry not the IPCC.
Berry’s model is valid because it describes flow of CO2 through the atmosphere without trying to analyze all the individual sources and sinks.
And that’s EXACTLY why Berry’s model is wrong: he assumes a bathtub model, which definitely does not describe all the carbon flows and feedbacks between the atmosphere, ocean and soil.
It’s also why Harde is wrong.
That’s why no real journal would publish Berry’s claims.
David, please stop trolling.
Yes, this is correct. It is very obvious that CO2 is the effect, and temperature is the cause.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.18/offset:0.144
It is a scientific fiasco of the first order.
Have a read about molten salt reactors. Big development in China
Thank you Roy, for sharing your knowledge.
Reblogged in Norwegian here:
https://www.klimarealistene.com/2019/08/02/global-temperatur-juli-2019/
Roy, I agree with your assessment that reanalyses are the way to go for analyzing weather and climate and for comparisons to climate model output as well.
For a couple of years now I’ve been downloading and tracking CDAS and more recently NCAR R1 current daily output. I post the summarized daily CDAS output here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
I also have monthly CDAS/CFSR stats and graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
From my Monthly Trends page:
“The CDAS preliminary monthly average global mean surface air temperature for July 2019 based on daily CDAS averages was 16.640C, which is the fourth highest July since 1979 and the highest since July 2017. The highest July since 1979 was in 2016 at 16.714C. The July 2019 global mean surface temperature anomaly (unadjusted) referenced to 1981-2010 was 0.298C compared to 0.299C for June 2019 and was the highest July since 0.304C in July 2017.”
Very cool. I’m an advocate of reanalysis as well. I bookmarked your site.
The NCEP/NCAR R1 daily output finally came in about 8 hours late today. I just compiled the July 2019 global average surface temperature for the Sigma 0.995 pressure level, which corresponds to roughly about 50 meters above ground level, and came out to 16.321C (compared to 2-meter above ground level CDAS at 16.640C). The global mean surface temperature anomaly referenced to 1981-2010 came out to +0.523C and compared to +0.497C in June.
The much older NCEP/NCAR R1 uses a 2.5 degree lat/long grid, compared to 0.5 degree grid for the CDAS/CFSR/CFSV2, but has been extended back to 1948 as graphed here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/global-daily-temperatures-since-1948/
It’s trite but true that the temperature of the air depends on where it comes from. It’s also true that most of the globe is inhospitably cold. The assumption that temperature at some previous time was somehow ideal is just that, an assumption. The warmest parts of the globe are also the most populated.
The air moves. Fundamentally, if one is interested in why surface temperature changes, one must look at changing surface atmospheric pressure.
But if you’re calculating global numbers, globally, the surface atmospheric pressure is constant.
DA,
So how much has global atmospheric pressure changed since 1910? Does it depend on global temperature?
Why?
Are you acting really stupid?
Why?
Cheers.
Erl…”temperature of the air depends on where it comes from. Its also true that most of the globe is inhospitably cold”.
When I read the nonsense about a warming Arctic (or Antarctic) it reminds me that it applies during about 1 month of summer. For several months of the year, there is little or no sunlight in both areas, and very cold stratospheric air descends.
As long as the Earth has a tilt we will always have very cold weather in the Arctic and Antarctic most of the year and that air will find its way to other parts of the globe.
Imagine the panic that may ensue when everyone realizes that plate tectonics is ongoing!
Roy wrote:
(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?
How does one compare a reading from a current satellite to one 10 or more generations ago? Isn’t that what UAH does?
One important finding is that “mid‐ and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated.”
“Global trends of measured surface air temperature,” Hansen & Lebedeff, JGR-Atmospheres, 20 November 1987. https://doi.org/10.1029/JD092iD11p13345
According to the BoM listed monthly mean sea levels, Sydney Harbour is lower than it was over a century ago.
That is arguably the best proxy for our missing long term thermometers.
That is arguably the best proxy for our missing long term thermometers.
Why?
DA,
Why not? He said “arguably”. Present your contrary argument, or just keep looking like a troll. Your choice, of course.
Cheers.
I seem to recall that SLs move in sync with temperatures.
Unlike CO2 which has a lag.
And if Ft Denison which is adjacent to the broadest part of the world’s oceans is showing a fall in SLs over more than a century there is a good chance that the true GAT isn’t doing any more than its natural variability.
So you think Ft Denison is representative of the entire globe?
DA,
You wrote –
“So you think Ft Denison is representative of the entire globe?”
Why would you possibly ask that (apart from a desire to appear trollish)?
Cheers.
Hmm, this says sea level at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour has been rising at 1.4 mm/yr.
https://www.ausmarinescience.com/marine-science-basics/sea-level-rise-1/
Try some factual measurements from a real SL gauge.
MSL May 1914 1.111m
MSL June 2019 1.058
53 mm lower than 105 years ago.
And bear in mind that a GPS chip is also showing some sinking as well, making any SLR recorded as even less likely:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
Here are the plots for those data:
https://is.gd/8PF1Bv
I don’t see that the mean level is decreasing. Or the min level.
I downloaded the data, and don’t find any of the trends since 1914 to be negative:
minimum: +1.3 mm/yr
maximum: +0.8 mm/yr
mean: +1.0 mm/yr
DA,
Who said anything about mean level increasing or decreasing?
Maybe you could stop trying to deny, divert and confuse – it just makes you look like the usual pseudoscientific GHE true believer, unable to accept fact.
Cheers.
When the MSL today is 53 mm lower [and possibly more considering the site is sinking slightly]than 105 years ago measured at one of the most stable sites in the world, that gives you some idea of how much the world has warmed during that time.
More positive than negative. Nothing that could be considered a crisis.
chungle: Again, where is the data showing 53 mm lower?
DA,
You wrote –
“chungle: Again, where is the data showing 53 mm lower?l
Trying for a gotcha, again, are you?
Are you attempting to appear more ignorant than stupid, or vice versa?
Cheers.
At that BoM link I gave you.
Their first MSL listing was 1.111m in 1914. Their last was 1.058 in June 2019. 53mm lower. Plus any sinking that occurred at that site over that 105 years. And it is sinking.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
DA,
You wrote –
“chungle: Again, where is the data showing 53 mm lower?”
Not trying for a gotcha, are you?
Cheers.
Chungle: And you think THAT’S how sea level trends are determined?
Please tell me that’s not what you think. Because it’s absurd.
C: By your logic, Sydney Harbor sea level has risen 108 mm since March of 2014.
That works out to 1.7 meters of sea level rise in the year 2100.
DA,
You wrote –
“C: By your logic, Sydney Harbor sea level has risen 108 mm since March of 2014.”
Unlike pseudoscientific GHE true believers, some people rely on measurements, rather than fanciful imaginings.
If you believe in the presumed magic of “trends”, you should rapidly accumulate a vast fortune on the stock markets. How hard could it be? Just invest after a trend has been upward for a while – that should work, shouldn’t it?
Cheers.
Yes you can cherry pick what ever numbers you like but when you take the first ever recording and the last recording then that is what has occurred with SLs over the longest period recorded.
Sea levels are no higher than when those records first started.
Just like Lempriere’s MSL mark at Port Arthur in 1841. He could plainly see the tide range stain on the rock face so he marked it half way up and guess what?
It’s still half way up 178 years later.
As knowledgeable scientists know, sea levels are not going anywhere, and if that is the case, GW is a non-problem and probably an asset.
“Chungle: And you think THAT’S how sea level trends are determined?”
Mean sea level has always been the standard benchmark for centuries.
Building regulations always stipulate minimum height above MSL for floor level of habitable rooms, roads and most seafront infrastructure but sea front councils choose that MSL datum from historic evidence.
Here’s a picture of Lemprieres MSL mark:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GL016813
Svante, please stop trolling.
It’s not a picture of Lemprieres MSL mark???
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
DA,
From your link –
“Both of these Australian determinations may include changes in the reference datum relative to the International Frame (IRF) due to the vertical movement of land.”
Precisely how was vertical movement of land established a century ago?
What difference does it make? Nature does whatever it wants – including trying to kill you, since the moment you are conceived. Eventually Nature prevails, whether you like it or not.
If you want to try to stop sea levels changing, I wish you luck. Let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
DA,
From your link –
“Error estimates are based in part on studies of how accurately the actual station distributions are able to reproduce temperature change in a global data set produced by a three‐dimensional general circulation model with realistic variability.”
Ooooh! Look! A model! With “realistic variability” plucked out of a fevered imagination!
Thermometers react to heat. CO2 produces no heat. Maybe you need to look around for a source of additional heat if your thermometer shows increased temperature, don’t you think?
Or you could just keep believing in magic – a GHE, for example.
Cheers.
Roy, I think there are two problems with using the reanalysis, perhaps you’ll comment on.
1. The reanalyses are typically not just spatial analysis of zero hour, but ‘spin-up’ to a stable state. That means during spin up, reanalyses use the very same non-physical parameterizations that the models use. I plotted CFS versus MERRA versus ERA and they seem to diverge, both from observation analyses and from one another. They also seem to ‘try’ to create a ‘Hot Spot’ whereas the observations don’t.
2. The reanalyses are ‘promiscuous’. That is, they take any and all data they can get, including very unreliable station data for stations that might have a few years early on and then cease. This puts poor data in the mix. In the same way that the sub-prime bundles hid crappy loans, reanalyses hide crappy obs.
Turbulent Eddie says:Roy, I think there are two problems with using the reanalysis, perhaps youll comment on.
—————
there is no question there is poor data in the system. . . .but how do you detect it? The current mode for correcting for poor data is some kind of blind homogenization process that is more likely to spread UHI error than eliminate it.
Then there is the matter of “well sited” stations. Yet the parameters for a well sited station are loosey goosey particularly regarding wind exposure that is heavily influenced by microclimates and can lead to wrong data. the fact that some 80 year old nerd volunteer might have run a station for a few years then died doesn’t mean the data is bad, it might be the best in the nation with the attention a system oriented elderly retired individual might manage the station by doting over the instrumentation. Actually I am thinking of my dad a retired aerospace engineer that got into volunteer work as a retiree including running a small weather station. there is no freaking way I could do as good of job as him no matter how hard I tried. He had extreme patience, high alertness, and a lot of time on his hands. Pretty much everything I don’t have.
Some guy somewhere sitting in an office in Colorado or New York has zero idea about the quality of the data or what it actually represents. the only thing you can guarantee is when he adjusts the data its going to move the direction the adjuster thinks it should go.
bill hunter says:
there is no question there is poor data in the system. . . .
What’s your evidence of this?
Just your say-so?
DA,
Feel free to believe that all data in the system is perfect, if you wish.
Some prefer to believe in human imperfections, particularly where data collection and recording is concerned. As you have stated, you can never ask too many questions – unless someone is questioning your fanatical in the non-existent GHE, of course.
Carry on believing.
Cheers.
Dr Myki says: – I bet that the first time the data indicates a temporary global cooling, you idiots will jump on it as 100% correct and proof that long-term global warming is not happening.
———
Don’t project your propensities on me!
I am pro-science. The best answer to this problem is coming from satellites. Most of the deficiencies of the surface temperature network doesn’t exist with satellites. Thus the best direction is toward validating satellite data by gathering good data on atmospheric markers that influence the analysis.
But there is the reality that warming has been proceeding along at about one tenth of a degree per decade for a long time including recent data. I remain unconvinced there has been any acceleration in that rate as my regular work deals with Pacific ocean temperature variation and the history of vast biological differences associated with ocean temperatures along the entire west coast is very rich. Even 3 degrees warming, which would clearly have some negative effects doesn’t seem certain to have net negative effects. Scientists using fancy tools but lacking real world experience tend to always over predict negative outcomes because that’s all they search for.
BH
Perhaps you’d care to explain how you know with such certainty that the method used by Spencer and Christy to convert upwelling microwave radiation into actual temperatures is accurate, especially given that they refuse to use ground-based data to calibrate their data. Make sure your answer involves science and is not just a reference to your belief in their integrity.
Midas says: – BH
Perhaps youd care to explain how you know with such certainty that the method used by Spencer and Christy to convert upwelling microwave radiation into actual temperatures is accurate, especially given that they refuse to use ground-based data to calibrate their data. Make sure your answer involves science and is not just a reference to your belief in their integrity.
—————
Strawman!!!!!!!
First, well clearly their independence is certainly less in question than folks pealing the alarm bell for the benefit of their industry.
But you obviously already knew that from the form of your question.
Second, I don’t recall saying I know anything about UAH methodology, nor have I expressed any opinion of it. So I have no idea why you asking that question.
I have only said I think satellites are the way to go for the long term as they avoid a long list of problems with surface stations that I listed in this comment section but I did not say I prefer one satellite system over another.
I have said in previous comments to other posts that we should be looking at all the global records as a range of possibilities, recognizing that there should even be some error bars around that range both because of potential error and the probability some unknown amount of natural influences are in the data and not being observed. That makes for a rather large range expressing a deep uncertainty about our knowledge of climate.
I am particularly attached to one of those uncertainty issues, that of the PDO. Years ago I noted a stunning correlation with the PDO index and estimated global mean temperatures. It may take a while but it suggests a lot of the warming since 1979 might be connected in some way with the PDO. I know California is definitely affected by it first hand. I know nothing of 45% of the ocean and we are distrustful of what we know about the other 55% to a significant degree.
So my message is one of uncertainty not certainty. Are you also almost completely uncertain? If not, then you should be the one explaining.
BH
Are you aware that the PDO was in a predominantly negative phase from 1998 to 2014? Since 1979 it has spent roughly equal time in positive and negative phases. Wouldn’t you expect the net result after all those years to be zero, if there was no other cause?
Midas says: – BH
Are you aware that the PDO was in a predominantly negative phase from 1998 to 2014? Since 1979 it has spent roughly equal time in positive and negative phases. Wouldn’t you expect the net result after all those years to be zero, if there was no other cause?
—————-
Well probably?
I think people need to step away from getting locked into the idea of a single influence on climate. Ocean oscillations are only one factor. Even before Dr Akasofu’s paper in 2009 I was well aware of 1) ocean oscillations as a major ocean variable in the work I do. A warming influence between 1976 and 1998. 2) the Little Ice Age and its recovery, I have read about all my life. And the most recent knowledge I obtained from my relatively recent interest in climate, 3) climate feed back that may take a millennium or more to play out. Since my area of work is in oceans I picked up on that instantly.
and finally 3) a recent solar maximum period that lasted and equivalent time as the Maunder Minimum that marked the depth of the LIA. Even cycle 23 was above average for the solar period from the Maunder Minimum to 2009.
So what is the state of the 3 items now?
1) For the 17 years you mention 1998-2014 the monthly index ranged from +2.51 to -2.33 and averaged -.235 so the index was only very weakly negative during that period of time. Of course the time is cherry picked also between two massive El Ninos.
ENSO has a similar range of values and depending on what nation you are anything less than .8 or .5 anomaly in either direction is considered neutral. So in that vein the index was neutral during your cherry picked most negative period of 17 years you could possible find.
2) The little Ice Age likely requiried a minimum of 400 years negative influence to get it to fall. the influence here whatever it is may take 400 years or more for feedbacks to play out, assuming nothing has switched of its rise. See 3 below.
3) The solar maximum may be dead. But I expect its primary effect to take the time estimated for relatively quick feedback of warming the surface ocean popularly believed to take 10 to 17 years. Which would place its primary effect playing out sometime between now and 2026.
So how does the temperature record fit with that. Rather beautifully I would say. If solar activity remains low in cycle 25 and the PDO goes solidly negative I would lean toward expecting some slight cooling in the next decade. Keeping in mind all that would still be battling the LIA recovery.
Until these things actually get quantified, including CO2 influence, its not really possible to predict what might happen.
In my view its much more satisfying to have a broad interest in art rather than all that faddish Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones pop art.
David Appell says: there is no question there is poor data in the system. . . .
Whats your evidence of this?
—————–
1) over representation of towns, cities, airports.
2) under representation of oceans
3) different types of equipment
4) poor siting of the equipment
5) different configurations of equipment set up
6) multiple national standards and complete lack of standardization in some nations.
7) under representation of mountain tops, tree tops, ice fields, sea ice, and polar lands.
8) no systematic methodology for identifying microclimates
9) no consistent standard of maintenance of equipment if a standard exists at all
10) blind homogenization techniques (subject of this post by Roy)
11) no analysis of any significant kind to determine sample representation or random distribution of sampling stations, a key consideration in doing any kind of survey work.
no doubt there is more.
Thats just an off the top list of things to consider in establishing global climate sites that an intern should be aware of. How come you aren’t? Next week will you remember?
I bet that the first time the data indicates a temporary global cooling, you idiots will jump on it as 100% correct and proof that long-term global warming is not happening.
Denialism at its worst !
Hypocrisy !
Pathetic!
Begone, troll!
Given that the ocean temperature data comprises 70% of the ‘Land and Ocean’ data, what exactly is your claim that the oceans are under represented based on?
Midas says: – Given that the ocean temperature data comprises 70% of the Land and Ocean data, what exactly is your claim that the oceans are under represented based on?
—————–
Not having a fair share of the thermometers. You are talking about manufactured data. The ocean has more than its share of manufactured data.
Bill, I have to be honest. I don’t think there is any evidence that would convince you because when that evidence is inconvenient or contrary to your viewpoint you not only reject it, but you invoke the typical conspiracy line that it must be manufactured.
BH
Please describe the process by which they “manufacture” data.
bdgwx says: – Bill, I have to be honest. I dont think there is any evidence that would convince you because when that evidence is inconvenient or contrary to your viewpoint you not only reject it, but you invoke the typical conspiracy line that it must be manufactured.
——————-
Convince me of what Bdgwx? 3 degrees of warming over the next century?
I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting thats the case as no temperature record I have seen supports it.
I have my opinions and could be convinced if there were evidence. But you need to state what evidence I am rejecting.
I think I am on the record in this thread of saying take all the temperature records, graph them and consider all of them all of having some likelihood of being correct, and that we don’t have the data to go any further than that. We obviously don’t have a clue which is the most correct.
there might be some minimal UHI adjustments we could make at this point. I am not sure.
But I don’t think we have near enough science to conclude we know what the effects of anthropogenic land use changes are. That would take a really serious effort to measure. Not something you can do from a basement, no matter how much Hollywood has suggested you can.
You need to look in the mirror and determine what it is about you that makes you want to accuse others of being a denier. Maybe the denier is you.
Midas says: =
BH
Please describe the process by which they “manufacture” data.
==============
You don’t know? Thats surprising. Its not exactly a secret. The manufacture data to plug into climate models by extrapolating temperatures from a single station out on radius up to 1500km.
bill…”Not having a fair share of the thermometers. You are talking about manufactured data. The ocean has more than its share of manufactured data”.
I have been trying to tell the alarmist twits here that NOAA synthesizes a good deal of its data, especially in the oceans.
One reason I prefer UAH data is that Roy and John have principles that are nor related to lining their pockets or receiving grants. The AMSU units on the sats scan the microwave radiation from bazillions of O2 molecules per stationary scan. The sat coverage of the oceans and surface is 95% whereas I doubt if surface/ocean thermometers capture more than 5% of the actual temperatures per locale on the planet.
I nearly gagged when Midas suggested calibrating sat data with surface data. The GHCN record is known to be disorganized and NOAA is known to fudge temperatures and play games with the data and stations. I put it down to their political affiliations related to AGW.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
Why the heck would anyone want to calibrate a state of the art electronics system to a system of thermometers with horrible coverage?
midas…”Please describe the process by which they manufacture data”.
It’s well documented here.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
Basically, as Bill stated, they interpolate two stations up to 1200 miles apart to manufacture data for an intermediate station. When all the interpolations are in they homogenize the works to make it smooth.
NOAA uses only 1 station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic and they have 3 stations in California, all close to the warm ocean.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“I think there are two problems with using the reanalysis”
As I commented below, I think the main problem over long periods is homogeneity. It isn’t so much that they are promiscuous at a point in time, but the mix of instrument types and data sources keeps changing. This isn’t a problem for the forecast period, but it is over years and decades. Since they aren’t intended for such comparisons, no effort is putting into homogenising.
Turbulent Eddie
The proper answer to the “promiscuous” data problem is the rule of thumb of retaining no more significant figures in a calculation than the least number of significant figures in any of the multiplicands. Abiding by that rule provides an incentive to weed out less precise data. I suppose one could assign weighting to the contribution of measurement precision if one is desperate to retain all data. However, even that would result in a decrease in the precision if low quality data is used.
Hi David Appell! I have a question! Are you a socialist?
Hi Petwap! Are you a deplorable?
You have to wonder at the mindset of people who conflate science with socialism.
Hmmmm, is David Appell a product of gmo science?
Midas,
It is called social engineering.
Stephen P Anderson says: – Midas, It is called social engineering.
————
You mean David is the Manchurian Candidate?. . . .oH nevermind, I see you weren’t directing that at me. 🙂
For ten years I lived in London and worked at Heathrow Airport (home to numerous recent “records”). Every day driving out the temperature dropped two degrees or more into the Green Belt then climbed back up at the airport. In the winter, it was often marked by a change from water to ice and back again.
Or you could look at weather forecasts in the winter – snow all around London, rain in London.
“The only reanalysis data I am aware of that is available in near real time to the public”
I download NCEP/NCAR V1 daily, with about 2 days delay, and post the daily figures for global surface averge here, along with monthly totals, maps etc. In that index July was second warmest since 1994 (after 2016). Earlier years are patchy. This index is a long-standing one, and has lower resolution, but that doesn’t matter for calculating a global average.
The plus point for reanalysis that it is used for forecast only works for near current years. Pre 1994, say, it has been back-calculated from whatever data is available.
“If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect”
I don’t but some here will, because it is effectively to a GCM (or NWP equivalent) which ingests current data. I think that is fine, but there is one problem, which is homogeneity. Data sources change over the years, and the mix drifts. This isn’t a problem for forecasting, but is a problem for comparing results years apart. I don’t use reanalysis to calculate records, because I don’t think even 2016 and 2019 are really comparable. But it is great for tracking daily progress during a month. Much beyond that, I would always go back to an index calculated with known, if imperfect, instruments, rather than an unknown mix.
I must say that I think the accounts of “hottest month ever” are regrettable. They rely on superimposing the anomalies on the seasonal cycle, and given the preponderance of land in the NH, NH summer is always going to be the hottest on that measure. Anomalies are there for a purpose and are meaningful; this is not. July is nowhere near the highest anomaly.
Crap.
You would be one of the first to hail the data if it indicated ” the coolest month ever”.
FYI: It will never happen.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
You do understand that Nick is not an AGW denier, right? He is not your enemy.
All three of you are projecting your own bias.
How exactly am I doing that?
Begone, witless troll!
Midas says: – How exactly am I doing that?
————————
By clearly stating you are on a side! Science isn’t group think thus for you its political.
Dr Myki
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/
You remind me of a cartoon hero from my childhood: Lucky Luke, “the man who shoots faster than his shadow”.
Never is a long time.
Mr. Myki, the horse podiatrist:
Your comments are getting shorter, but are more tedious than ever.
Hopefully, the “shorter” trend will continue until they disappear.
The “coolest month” is irrelevant during a multi-hundred year warming trend.
We have been in a warming trend since roughly 1700.
All temperature compilations are DURING that warming trend.
Getting to the “coolest month” would require a new cooling trend that reverses the warming since 1700 (probably roughly +2 degrees C.), and only then would a “coolest month on record” be possible.
RG -As a horse podiatrist I know horse s… when I come across it. And your comments amount to an enormous pile.
Especially – “..the warming since 1700 (probably roughly +2 degrees C.”
Ian, please stop trolling.
La Nina sneaks quietly.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
ren…La Nina sneaks quietly.
How’s it goin’ ren? Good to see you posting again.
Thanks. Greetings.
The measurements indicate a deep minimum of the solar cycle.
http://oi65.tinypic.com/2jcwtp5.jpg
If you take a line with a little positive slope through time and add a sin curve then the composite curve will have peaks that break the record value over and over. This is what seems to fuel media to produce dramatic narratives and all they are describing in reality is moderate warming through time with ENSO events.
Is it as hot now as the last peak interglacial 120kyr bp? No. Look at sea level as a simple proxy. So we are not even outside the range of recorded natural climate change during the recent past until we exceed 6m sea level rise.
I do think data show man made warming in the signal, but it seems less catastrophic than the alternative (less global energy supply and growing demand), and humans have no plan to combat the warming until an energy storage breakthrough occurs or society accepts nuclear. So until then this media hysteria is irrational. It’s currently like a alternative belief system and climate crisis has become a tool to fight capitalism with.
Why not just fund nuclear awareness and new battery research and plan for a moderate climate shift by building large habbitat corridors latitudinally? At least those are realistic plans.
It is also worth building underground water reservoirs in California before La Nina arrives.
Filling them with what water?
Water from Sierra Nevada.
ren…”It is also worth building underground water reservoirs in California before La Nina arrives”.
It would also help if they stopped wasting water in swimming pools, car washes, waterslides, etc.
Aaron S
You said, “If you take a line with a little positive slope through time and add a sin curve then the composite curve will have peaks that break the record value over and over.”
And that is why any claim about climate variability, or record temperatures, should be obtained from a de-trended data set. Crowing about record temps when there is a positive trend is just making scary noises.
How long does sea level take to fully respond to a change in global average temperature?
Nobody knows. The ocean responds mostly to evaporation and freezing of ice both injecting salt residuals into the ocean the net of which keeps the oceans much colder than the surface. So look for changes in precipitation and refreezing of sea ice metrics and try to figure out how much of that gets to the bottom of the ocean.
Of course they know. It would take tens of thousands of years for the ice to fully respond to a rise of a couple of degrees.
the only study I am aware of estimated surface warming adjustment time and stated there wasn’t nearly enough data to estimate how long the deep ocean to adjust and merely left it at over a thousand years based upon I think water sample dating.
And even at the thousand years we have no idea what the influence is of it popping to the surface beyond it having large impacts on local climates.
Here is a 1000 year reconstruction of the PDO. Its been predominantly positive for the past half millennium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation#/media/File:PDO1000yr.svg
Oh now I see. I didn’t notice you had changed from asking about ocean response to a temperature change to a full feedback including the ice. Well yeah maybe a 100,000 years, nobody knows all we know is its a really long time.
Bill Hunter, how can the PDO have much of a global impact when it has a cold and warm pole at all times?
Svante says: – Bill Hunter, how can the PDO have much of a global impact when it has a cold and warm pole at all times?
—————–
Well for a start its NOT the “PDO Index” that creates the correlation of the index to global temperatures.
The index merely quantifies a “state” of the ocean unrelated to temperature. That state is created by ocean currents and however they may be periodically influenced.
Other than a rather tight correlation with long term climate oscillations, I would think it would be tied in someway to evaporation variation in the north pacific ocean as the jet streams cross that area. In the northern hemisphere the north pacific is the largest of water crossings for the circulation of storms around the world.
It may be a misnomer to call the phases warm and cold other than the fact the warm phase may called that because it was discovered on the US west coast when the warmer water was in the northeast pacific next to the west coast.
So you have some huge processes at work likely accelerating and decelerating the exit of heat out of the ocean with wind patterns over waters of different temperatures likely has at least a northern hemisphere-wide impact.
Why does it demonstrate a multi-decadal pattern? Good question. Not sure if the multi-decadal pattern noted in arctic ice is associated but for sure science is polluted with ice hockey sticks just like its polluted with climate hockey sticks.
All the desire for political action is a pollutant on science.
I guess you have no evidence of correlation?
Berkeley earth extracted the AMO residual, and what is left after that is negligible.
BH
Why are you addressing everything except what my comment was about. Please read the comment I was responding to to put mine in context.
sealevel has been rising for 12,000 years most of that time faster than it is rising now.
It was stable for the last 6000 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Svante says: It was stable for the last 6000 years:
—————-
Stable relative to what? The resolution of those dots on the chart in the relatively stable period vary by what looks like 5 meters.
Thats about 1,500 years of sea level rise at the present rate or 2,000 years at the rate in the 1990’s which may be the long term rate even now.
Yes, local values with errors.
Errors reduced by the black line least squares average.
Where is your evidence they are erroneous Svante. If they were erroneous they should not be in the record.
What we have today is a minimal acceleration in sea level rise, far far below historic, completely within precedence, and you want to call a few years with accelerated sea level rise as a portent of massive flooding.
bill hunter says:
Because the show different levels at the same time?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Sea level was within decimeters of today for two thousand years.
The 20th century added 0.2 m.
The current rate is 3.3 m per millennium and it is increasing every decade.
Svante says: “Sea level was within decimeters of today for two thousand years. The 20th century added 0.2 m.
The current rate is 3.3 m per millennium and it is increasing every decade.”
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
I thought the argument was that the anthropocene interrupted a long term cooling. Where is the decreasing sea level signal in your charts?
One cannot make a claim of decimeters rise in 2 thousand years by drawing a straight line through a handful of tidal gauges demonstrating a + or – variation of 2 meters. This sort of nonsense is ubiquitous in climate science.
“I thought the argument was that the anthropocene interrupted a long term cooling. Where is the decreasing sea level signal in your charts?”
Good point. Ice sheets have a lot of inertia, so I guess cooling was needed to compensate for their residual decline.
We should see what the latest science says. Is it your turn to look it up, or mine?
Then we have Marcott et al 2013 where the industrial revolution interrupted 3000 years of cooling that doesn’t show up on your sea level chart. The BS never ends and everybody looks around at each other and wonders why the public isn’t buying this shit.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment is around 0.5 mm/year.
Download PDF here and see table 1.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201908.0018/v1
Interestingly, there are still GIA effects from earlier ice ages.
-0.5 mm/year.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Is warming threatens us?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
Currently, millions of square kilometers of Siberian taiga are burning.
Currently, 3 million square kilometers of forest are burning.
I’m very sorry. It’s about 3 million hectares of forest.
ren…”Currently, 3 million square kilometers of forest are burning”.
Usually caused by lightning, not much can be done.
ren
It’s too dry there since years. And… it is not only there!
Detrending and removing a partially chaotic signal is a tricky business. Even with quasi periodic like ENSO where there is a clear lag relationship between the ropical Pacific state and global lower trop temperature data, it is a challenge because the relationship is not 1 to 1. How do u defend?
Aaron S
“Detrending and removing a partially chaotic signal is a tricky business. ”
Yes, for us lay(wo)men it is.
But some people have learned how to do by using complex tools within e.g. MATLAB, which help them for example to extract ENSO and the like out of temperature or precipitation time series.
So let them do their work, or learn how they do and try to contradict them!
Clyde, Detrending and removing a partially chaotic signal is a tricky business. Even with quasi periodic like ENSO where there is a clear lag relationship between the ropical Pacific state and global lower trop temperature data, it is a challenge because the relationship is not 1 to 1. How do u defend?
Aaron S
You asked how I would defend. I think you have it backwards. I’m saying that to statistically characterize the chaotic and short-term periodic components, it is necessary to subtract what appears to be a linear trend (which might be periodic if examined with a longer time scale.) The residuals represent the non-linear behavior. The problem of lags are more an issue of assigning cause and effect rather than statistically characterizing the system behavior.
Three years ago I did a comparison of NOAA temps for US cities vs the rest of the climate division that the city belongs to. I found that, averaged over the entire US, cities had warmed by only 0.1 C more than their climate division in 50 years.
Day 150.
One hundred and fifty days of denial that the “Green Plate Effect” is debunked. Crazy.
tl;dr The average temperature isn’t even changing – when expressed honestly in Kelvin.
Does that logic apply when your body temperature rises by one degree? When you complain of a fever will you be happy to be told you’re faking it?
M,
Do you have a book of stupid and irrelevant gotchas?
Are you a fake, a fraud, or a fool?
Can you bring a corpse back to life by providing it with several overcoats?
Was Michael Mann more stupid than fraudulent when he claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in court documents, or just suffering from delusional psychosis?
The world wonders!
Over to you.
Cheers.
afterthought…The average temperature isnt even changing when expressed honestly in Kelvin”.
When plotted on an absolute scale with the vertical axis up to 15C, warming from the past century looks like a flat line trend.
Feels like it too.
The very low density of the solar radio stream indicates the lack of sunspots.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00986/ma7hyhb5j0t1.png
In medicine, it is usual to make policy decisions after as much data has been analyzed. They use https://www.cochrane.org that analyses all science available to come to a view.
It would appear the in the climate world ‘data reanalysis is similar and a good idea.
Always use as much data as possible.
omg… no wonder …. everyone is smarter than everyone else… ladies and gentlemen we are in the weeds.
paulagraham
“… we are in the weeds.”
Some of them look ugly but are quite a bit healthy…
Global Warming Provides A Marvelous Excuse For Global Socialism. – Margaret Thatcher
And that is ALL this is about.
Do not defy reality, climate change is ongoing and it is caused by humans, period.
nabil…”Do not defy reality, climate change is ongoing and it is caused by humans, period”.
Are you a philosopher, or a zealot? I see nothing scientific in your statement.
Click on my name and read recently published and more to come. I was not like that before, now I am convinced.
Nabil…from your site…”Life on earth changes climates and surface geology. Presently, deforestation is the climate knob. It adds climate heat to the surface of the earth. The balance is heat of fossil fuels required to power this civilization and population growth following farming of the deforested land”.
Your an engineer, prove what you claim. You might start by explaining ‘climate heat’. Climate is the average of weather, are you saying climate is now a source of heat.?
If so, I think you are philosophizing. Heat is produced by electrons moving to higher energy levels in atoms and atoms acquiring energy from hotter sources.
As an engineer, you should know that.
I know that and the proof is provided under the publications tab. Please go back and read……….
chungle
“According to the BoM listed monthly mean sea levels, Sydney Harbour is lower than it was over a century ago.”
It is amazing to see that people really think they can simply, arbitrarily choose a tide gauge station, and decide that from it’s trend over a century they can say something like
“That is arguably the best proxy for our missing long term thermometers.”
What a strage idea.
Commenter chungle seems to ignore how thoroughly different sea level values are measured all around the world.
If we look at the PMSL data (over 1500 tide gauges):
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
the trends for their data does range (if we drop some excessive outliers) from e.g.
Churchill, Canada: -10.03 mm/yr
via
Sydney (Forft Denison 2), Australia: 1.06 mm/yr
up to
Manila, Philippines: +9.93 mm/yr
*
What do you do, chungle, when you want to know Australia’s average temperature: do you takre that of Sidney and that’s it? Certainly not.
You try to build a valuable average out of all available Aussie stations, don’t you?
Yeah.
And for tide gauges, you’ll have to do the same… and then, you know if and how sea levels correlate with temperatures.
B,
What are you trying to say?
You seem to be contradicting yourself, but your meaning is unclear.
Cheers.
Flynn
Could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff eeverywhere?
Bindidon, could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff eeverywhere?
Huffman
In a few hours, Robertson will appear on this stage with his fat feet, and willingly come to the aid of his friends-in-denial…
Magnifique! Je m'en réjouis dès maintenant.
Buona notte
And then will you put on your dress?
Or will you deny Gordon is the one that caught cross-dressing?
B,
Maybe if you could quote some of the “stuff” you are complaining about, then I would be able to provide good reasons for not complying with your request.
As it is, I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about, so I’ll just refuse to do as you ask.
You can’t do anything about my refusal to bend to your will, so I wonder why you bother trying!
Do you suffer from an inability to learn from history?
Cheers.
Mike…binny…”Could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff eeverywhere”?
Now Binny is talking to himself. The end has to be nigh.
Sea level rise is virtually impossible to nail down, because the land is always shifting. The thing that gives me pause is the length of day (LOD):
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod_elfil.gif
Long term, LOD should be increasing with the tidal interaction of the Moon. Rising sea level should accelerate the increase, as more liquid mass is free to distribute itself equatorially, increasing spin inertia and decreasing the spin rate. Yet, as seen in the plot, LOD has been trending down for the past 30 years.
Regardless of the cause of warming, everyone is pretty much in agreement that the world has been warming, which should be increasing ice melt and increasing the sea level. So, this decrease in LOD is puzzling to me.
bart…”as seen in the plot, LOD has been trending down for the past 30 years”.
Good point Bart.
Maybe that will lead to time dilation. ☺
Not sure if you have attempted to do any calculations. But you would need to factor in the fact that the average density of the earth is about 5.5 times the density of water. And the inner core has a density 13 times that of water. I suspect 10 cm of sea level rise in 30 years would make little difference.
It is difficult to imagine how the inner core could redistribute its mass so as to change the MOI. Heavier components would have to migrate inward while ligher ones migrated outwards to reduce it. Moreover, inertia goes as radius squared of the elemental masses, and so is much more sensitive to changes in the mass distribution at the surface.
Roy Spencer writes in his head post (replicated at WUWT):
The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.
*
To be honest, I find this permanent UHI discussion a bit boring.
Anthony Watts never stopped to pretend since around 2011 that only a small subset of the USHCN stations would show a good siting, where the usual UHI problems are much less present than elsewhere.
This was acknowledged by NOAA in 2012: they published the list of 71 well-sited USHCN stations selected by surfacestations.org.
But USHCN has been given up, there was a switch to ClimDiv, and then Anthony restricted ‘good’ stations anew, which now have to belong to the Climate Reference Record, USCRN.
Indeed, the currently 114 CRN stations are the crème de la crème, as we love to say in my native tongue.
But all CRN stations (over 200 in the sum) are also present within the much greater GHCN daily data set, within which there are about 18000 CONUS stations (only this blog’s most ignorant boaster thinks and pretends these 18000 stations would not exist, and are synthesied by NOAA out of a few real ones, good grief).
Thus there was a possiblility for me to compare the CRN stations with all other CONUS stations within their common period (2004-now), without having the bias problem caused by a comparison of homogenised CRN data with what I generate out of (really) raw GHCN daily station data.
Here is a graph comparing 130 CRN and 6500 of the 18000 GHCN daily stations having all sufficient baseline data for the period 2009-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zg9M-GZwNoIBln404Ay0voAL8V4PmSdK/view
The very best is that the 130 CRN stations show even a higher trend then the 6500 CONUS stations alltogether (0.35 C / decade for 2004-2019, compared with 0.28 for the complete CONUS set).
*
No doubt: UHI is a really existing problem.
But I begin to think that it only manifests itself when you solely compare individual nearby stations with each other.
*
People like Goddard aka Heller were never tired in listing ‘crazy’ stations showing trends considered too high; but they never and never talk about stations all around the world showing a negative trend in their data. And there are thousands of them!
Not sure what you mean Bindi. They talk about the stations showing a negative trend often.
Stephen P Anderson
“They talk about the stations showing a negative trend often.”
Stephen, I don’t speak about ‘they’. I speak about people like Goddard aka Heller.
Show me a post fairly talking about stations with negative trend in their data, instaed of all the time insisting on the UHI syndrome, and I’ll believe you.
*
I very well recall Heller’s ‘investigations’ on GHCN adjusted vs. unadjusted data, where he pretended that adjusted data was all the time higher in trend.
1. The guy only chose those stations fitting to his narrative.
2. Many of his examples were utterly wrong (I could see that with an own analysis in 2015).
No, he has talked about stations with negative trends before. Why wouldn’t he? It is an important point. Many historical rural negative trends would be strong evidence to argue against the UHI wouldn’t it? I know I’ve seen him discuss it.
Sorry to be boring, but…
“Show me a post fairly talking about stations with negative trend in their data, instead of all the time insisting on the UHI syndrome, and Ill believe you.”
And it is interesting to see you insisting on the little, insignificant hint on Goddard, instead of trying to argue on
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zg9M-GZwNoIBln404Ay0voAL8V4PmSdK/view
It’s now 2:20 AM at UTC+2, time to go to bed…
Bindidon, could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff everywhere?
binny…”(only this blogs most ignorant boaster thinks and pretends these 18000 stations would not exist, and are synthesied by NOAA out of a few real ones, good grief)”.
Never said they don’t exist, at least most of them, I merely claimed NOAA uses less than 1500 of them for their time series and they freely admit it.
That means they have to fabricate data for other stations, which they store at GHCN, and have the temerity to claim their database has increased.
Then again, what would the most idiotic poster, a Frenchman living in Germany, know about my state of mind. He (it??) never reads what I write because his comprehension seems to be compromised.
Robertson
“Never said they don’t exist…”
Of course you said that! You pretend that nearly all station data is synthesised. Forgotten? By me certainly not.
And you and nobody else are the person stupid enough to pretend that there would be only one station in the Arctic. Nobody else on Earth would be dumb enough to believe you.
*
“… I merely claimed NOAA uses less than 1500 of them for their time series and they freely admit it.”
And here again your stupid lie! And you name me “the most idiotic poster” !
Nobodey here, Robertson, is stupid enough to replicate dumb nonsense about this ridiculous 1500 number you were corrected so often about.
NOAA never ‘admitted’ that, Robertson! You are cowardly pretending this nonsense behind your fake name, that’s all.
Your phenomenal hatred at the work done by others tells us very much about your very poor career and about your very poor scientific education, Robertson.
You are nothing but a poor retired failure.
And the one who writes that is near 70…
Bindidon- well said! Quite a few posters have diagnosed GR’s problems over time. I don’t think anybody reads his comments anymore. He is like a stuck record.
binny…”Of course you said that! You pretend that nearly all station data is synthesised”.
I have never stated that nearly all station data is synthesized. I realize GHCN has a large number of stations but NOAA is using less than 1500 of them globally for the surface record.
Furthermore, the have added synthesized station data to their GHCN record and have claimed that data as having come from a real station. Therefore, NOAA claims, their record is larger even though they slashed the global surface station record from 6000 stations to less than 1500.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“Alright Already, what is this Bolivia Effect?
Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live. Its the patch of yellow / whitish mountains near the top in this picture:
One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
Easy. GIStemp makes it up from nearby thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle”.
************
If you half the integrity and the intelligence of the guy who runs chiefio you might be of some use to people. As it stands, you are no blody use at all.
MF, you are still confused.
The maps are of anomalies. Not absolute temperatures. Get it through your thick skull that the anomalies are not directly affected by the location of the thermometer.
Thus, to talk about Bolivia being hot because the nearest thermometers are near beaches or in the jungle is just plain rubbish.
BTW, what does this garbled mess mean?
“If you half the integrity and the intelligence of the guy who runs chiefio you might be of some use to people. As it stands, you are no blody use at all.”
If you halve the integrity..?
If you had half the integrity..?
Chiefio ??? Any guesses anyone?
.. no blody use..? = no body use? or no bloody nose?? or no bloody use?
Ian, please stop trolling.
Average global water vapor (WV or TPW for Total Precipitable Water) has been accurately measured by satellite and reported publicly by NASA/RSS since 1988. The numerical data for June, 2019 are at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201906.time_series.txt (last six digits are year-month). This is graphed as Figure 3 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Calculated in Section 8 there, water vapor increased about twice as much as calculated from average global temperature trend increase 1988-2003. WV increase correlates with crop irrigation increase with both trends increasing substantially in about 1960. WV increase is self-limiting and might have already stopped.
The planet atmosphere is still impoverished for CO2. https://twitter.com/DanPangburn/status/1105523403685941248/photo/1
CO2, in spite of being a ghg, does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate. Average global temperature tracks water vapor, not CO2.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAbq6CaVUAAPdos?format=jpg&name=small
Definitely agree about the impoverishment for CO2. We need more CO2. I think as long as the time integral trend of temperature continues up then CO2 will continue up.
SPA,
No cause for concern. Burning hydrocarbons results in CO2 and H2O at a minimum. Humans are merely restoring to the atmosphere what Nature tucked away for us in the past.
Unfortunately, Nature keeps removing the CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere, as in the past. The solution is to keep burning as much fossil fuel as possible. If that’s insufficient for human needs, there is plenty of fissionable stuff available. By the time that runs out, no doubt fusion or something similar will be available.
As a last resort, we can move to somewhere nice and warm, and sit in the Sun.
Easy peasy.
Cheers.
MF,
Fossil fuels only account for about 4% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we got all the nations to quadruple their hydrocarbon output it would only raise atmospheric CO2 to about 475ppm.
SPA,
At least 475 ppm is a start. As far as I know, energy production has gone up from 10,000 TWh in 1900 to around 140,000 TWh in 2017. Most of that was from burning stuff. I suppose it has to reach a plateau sometime, but you never know.
My care factor remains roughly zero. I remain confident that the universe is unfolding as it should, and I don’t want to waste a good worry just yet.
Cheers.
So how do you account for the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial, which was almost constant for the previous 8000 years, up to 410 ppm today?
midas…”So how do you account for the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial, which was almost constant for the previous 8000 years, up to 410 ppm today?”
Don’t have to, no one ever measured such a CO2 concentration in the pre-Industrial era. It’s conjecture based on cherry-picking proxy data from Antarctic ice cores.
M,
You wrote –
“So how do you account for the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial, which was almost constant for the previous 8000 years, up to 410 ppm today?”
The pre-industrial figure is a fantasy, a product of a pseudoscientific GHE true believer imagination.
In any case, it is irrelevant, isn’t it? Unless you happen to be one of the loonies who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Even you aren’t that silly, are you?
Let me know.
Cheers.
As opposed to people who take old data from the centre of industrial areas and believe they can compare it to modern day data from Mauna Loa.
‘It’s conjecture based on cherry-picking proxy data from Antarctic ice cores.’
Uhh, NO, just stop denying facts.
A measurement is not ‘conjecture’.
All the data is analyzed, so no ‘cherry picking’ involved.
‘Proxy’, well technically, but is a direct measurement of atm CO2 trapped in the ice, and lots of understanding of the trapping process.
Stephen: FFs are responsible for 46% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere (410/280-1 = 0.46)
Gordon Robertson says:
Dont have to, no one ever measured such a CO2 concentration in the pre-Industrial era. Its conjecture based on cherry-picking proxy data from Antarctic ice cores.
What evidence do you have that the data were “cherry-picked?”
David Appell says:
“FFs are responsible for 46% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere (410/280-1 = 0.46)”
1 – 280/410 = 1 – 0.68 = 0.32.
Deforestation and cement production are also significant.
Humans might have added about 30 ppm before the industrial revolution (fig 3B):
“Late Holocene climate: Natural or anthropogenic?”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000503
Svante, your math is wrong.
The amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuels is 410-280 = 130 ppmv.
As a percentage of the original amount, 280 ppmv, this is 130/280 = 0.46 = 46%.
I see what you mean, it’s a 46% increase.
I stumbled on your “46% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere”.
Midas, David, Svante, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Trolling Team says:
“Svante, please stop trolling.”
Yeah, David is very busy bringing scientific sense here, I shouldn’t be so nit-picky.
Never speak again.
Thank you, you were getting a bit repetitive.
Sorry, but those that defend the MegaTroll, David Appell, have forfeited their right to freedom of speech.
I’m still here.
I’m sorry that you can’t take (or perhaps understand) a joke.
I don’t know that I accept the hypothesis that irrigation has a significant impact, but your charts match up the temperature change with TPW, and that is something that CO2 does NOT do.
Quite right, the effect is logarithmic:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
S,
I suppose there are some people silly enough to take notice of Berkeley Earth. Do you really believe that anybody knows what the Earth’s average land temperature was in 1750?
This is a fantasy of pseudoscientific GHE true believers. Complete fabricated rubbish.
Cheers
Flynn alias Begonia
If there is anybody fabricating rubbish – and that behind a faked pseudoreal name ! – then that’s you, Flynn.
Hombre sin cojones!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
That chart is ridiculous.
Why?
Because it is a splice between instrumental and dubious proxy data, and the superficial match over the instrumental period is over low information, low bandwidth components. It is a case study in how to fool oneself.
It is nothing like the match between the rate of change of CO2 and temperature anomaly, which matches every nook and cranny. One cannot have temperature driving CO2 in this fashion, and CO2 driving temperature, as that would represent an unstabilizable, positive feedback loop.
BTW, Svante – to first order in a Taylor series
log(x) := log(x0) + (x/x0-1)
Taking the log doesn’t make much difference for the application at hand.
The atmosphere (lower troposphere, in essence) can only hold so much water vapor; the amount is a function of temperature. (See the Clausius-Claperyon equation.) That amount can’t increase unless the temperature first increases. CO2 and other manmade GHGs are what’s doing that initial warming. Then water vapor is a positive feedback.
This is what is known as rationalization after the fact. The fact is, temperatures do not track CO2.
No, it’s physics. Anyone interested in climate change should understand the basics of water vapor in the atmosphere.
No one thinks CO2 causes every wiggle in temperature. Natural variations (noise) still exist in a CO2 world. You should already know this.
David Appell says: – No, it’s physics. Anyone interested in climate change should understand the basics of water vapor in the atmosphere.
—————–
Nothing quite like a narrow minded physicist, like one of Pope Urban VIII’s where only one effect is considered, that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west. What else do you need to know?
Hmmmmm, water vapor also creates huge negative feedbacks from clouds, cools the surface by being twice as efficient as common air taking heat into the sky, provides the vast majority of 200watts of radiation from the atmosphere to space, and coats the land with snow and ice.
Actually Bill, what I see is that the cloud feedback is thought by most to be positive:
Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.
Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.
Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.
Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earths energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.
David Appell says: Actually Bill, what I see is that the cloud feedback is thought by most to be positive:
—————-
Gee, David it probably seems that way after you have buried 104 watts or so of negative feedback into Albedo.
What they are really expressing is that past feedback is believed by the truly devout believers to not be an indicator of future feedback.
I reviewed one of Dessler’s papers in that era. It was very poorly done. He basically drew a scatter plot and fit a line to it, judging that a positive slope meant positive feedback. But, the slope of a line on a phase plot only indicates the relative phase for the dominant frequency components, and can be positive or negative regardless of the sign of long term feedback. Analysis of the longer term components shows that the feedback is decidedly negative.
DA: ‘C500, I never said the Earth will experience runaway warming.’
Quite so – however, you made the observation in reply to another post that ‘What I see is that the cloud feedback is thought by most to be positive’, along with references in support of your comment.
My point which stems from this is that a never ending positive feedback can’t be operating. Other factors have to be at work, and the comments from NOAA which I posted to back up my view support this.
Note that they say ‘The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a positive feedback loop. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.’
Yet the media tirelessly plug the doomsday scenario regarding CO2.
DA: as water warms, it hold less CO2. CO2 is considered to be a greenhouse gas, and water vapour the major greenhouse gas. It’s easy to postulate a continuous positive feedback. Yet, despite the countless millenia of Earth’s history, runaway heating of the atmosphere has never occurred – which would surely be expected, even without CO2 generated due to human activities. Clearly there must be other regulatory factors involved. Here’s what NOAA says on its website:
Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.
Cloud tops absorb some solar input in day time and warm the atmosphere.
Clouds at night keep the surface from cooling radiatively.
The NET result is not obviously negative.
Venus, the warmest planet has loads of clouds.
C500, I never said the Earth will experience runaway warming.
The Earth is too far from the Sun to experience runaway greenhouse warming, by a few million km. But as the Sun is slowly getting more radiant — about +1% every 110 Myrs — we’ll experience runaway warming in about 1-1.5 Gyrs.
David, please stop trolling.
Come on, even Roy Spencer laughs at you:
“Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengtening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface
He even calls out for deniers to stop questioning the GHE because it makes them look like idiots….hilarious:
“Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
RF,
The GRE is obvious to anyone like me who understands engineering heat transfer analysis. It is essentially all caused by water vapor and is what made the planet warm enough for life to evolve.
That average global temperature tracks water vapor and not CO2 is obvious in https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAbq6CaVUAAPdos?format=jpg&name=small
A possible explanation for the insensitivity of average global temperature to CO2 is presented in http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com (2nd paragraph after Figure 1): ,,Well above the tropopause, radiation to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you ignore the increase in water vapor near the surface (big mistake), WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase in absorbers at ground level since 1900 is then about 10,410/10,295 = ~ 1%. WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv; up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km, 0.012 atm), and accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure, is (410 + 32)/(295 + 32) * 0.012 = ~ 1.4%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming (except at the poles) and might even cause cooling. The exception at the poles is because its cold there at ground level so WV is already low.,,
We’ve been through this before, but you don’t want to learn. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is an (exponential) function of temperature. What causes the initial warming that allows more water vapor in the air?
(CO2,etc)
Nope.
Great explanation.
It increases at an increasing rate, but it is not exponential.
Midas, see the Clausius-Claperyon equation, and integrate.
I’m sorry, it’s the fractional increase in saturation pressure that’s exponential:
“If one substitutes temperatures representative of near‐surface air in the present climate, the fractional increase in saturation vapor pressure with temperature is about 67% K−1; that is, the saturation vapor pressure increases 6%7% if the temperature increases 1 K [e.g.,Boer, 1993;Wentz and Schabel, 2000;Held and Soden, 2000;Trenberth et al., 2003]. In Earths atmosphere in the past decades, precipitable water (column‐integrated specific humidity) has varied with surface temperature at a rate of 79% K−1, averaged over the tropics or over all oceans [Wentz and Schabel, 2000;Trenberth et al., 2005]”
WATER VAPOR AND THE DYNAMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGES, Tapio Schneider et al, Rev Geophysics, 2010.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009RG000302
David Appell says: Weve been through this before, but you dont want to learn. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is an (exponential) function of temperature. What causes the initial warming that allows more water vapor in the air?
(CO2,etc)
——————–
Heat causes more water vapor to be in the atmosphere, maybe CO2 too.
But everyplace I have been in the world with more water vapor in the atmosphere there has been more clouds too reflecting heat to space.
DA,
Yes, we have been through this before and you still do not appear to understand. The Clapeyron equation (AKA Clausius-Clapeyron equation) relates “between the volume change and the enthalpy change when a liquid changes into a vapor.” It only applies at saturation such as in clouds. All clear-sky is below saturation.
The fractional increase in saturation vapor pressure is merely the local slope of the vapor pressure vs temperature curve. It is calculated in the temperature range of interest and graphed at Figure 1.7 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com In the temperature range of interest it maxes out at 6.55% at 17 K and ranges down at both higher and lower temperatures to about 5.5 %. It is appalling that all those folks you referenced got such a simple thing significantly wrong.
The claim that WV has increased 7 to 9% / K is completely compatible with my finding that increasing WV from increasing temperature is augmented by increased WV from other sources, mostly irrigation. So, thanks for the link to that 9 year old paper. Apparently they have known that WV has increased faster than calculated from temperature increase of the liquid water for more than 9 years but failed to recognize the significance and clung to their agenda instead.
dan…”It is essentially all caused by water vapor and is what made the planet warm enough for life to evolve”.
Like the water vapour above the Arctic Ocean ice in winter when it’s -50C? Or the water vapour from the monsoon that freezes on Mount Everest, forming glaciers?
Let me tell you something about water vapour warming from experience. I have worked night shifts outside in the Edmonton, Canada area when it was -25C and dry. That’s cold, but if you dress well you can keep out the cold between breaks.
The coldest I have ever been on a night shift was at the Vancouver International Airport on a damp winter evening. The temperature was barely on the +ve side of 0C but the airport is right next to the Fraser River where it meets the ocean. The dampness went straight through me.
I was wearing multi-layer clothing, like in Edmonton, a heavy jackets and work boots. On top of that I was wearing waterproof gear. I was still cold.
Believe me, Dan, WV does not warm anything, if anything, it cools.
GR, everyone knows there is little water vapor around the poles. That’s were CO2 especially dominates.
GR,
You present a classic example of someone lacking engineering/science skill relating to heat transfer misinterpreting an observation. WV is a ghg. More of it increases the surface temperature of the planet. Of course if it condenses into a cloud it locally makes nights warmer by slowing radiation loss to space and days cooler by reflecting sunshine. But you got it right about CO2 not having a significant effect on climate.
WV is a ghg. More of it increases the surface temperature of the planet.
Of course.
But you can’t just ADD water vapor to the atmosphere — it will soon rain or snow out. You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere if you *first* increase the atmo’s temperature.
Remind me never to hire you for any of my engineering needs.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says:
But you cant just ADD water vapor to the atmosphere it will soon rain or snow out. You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere if you *first* increase the atmos temperature.
Remind me never to hire you for any of my engineering needs.
—————–
Saturated air has a relative humidity of 100%. There are many variables affecting humidity besides temperature, the primary one is wind speed. One potential variable for global climate change is changes in high frequency emissions by the sun.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3816.1
“Surface RH has relatively small spatial and interannual variations, with a mean value of 75%80% over most oceans in all seasons and 70%80% over most land areas except for deserts and high terrain, where RH is 30%60%. Nighttime mean RH is 2%15% higher than daytime RH over most land areas because of large diurnal temperature variations. The leading EOFs in both q and RH depict long-term trends, while the second EOF of q is related to the El NioSouthern Oscillation (ENSO). During 19762004, global changes in surface RH are small (within 0.6% for absolute values), although decreasing trends of −0.11% ∼ −0.22% decade−1 for global oceans are statistically significant.”
So there you go surface warming over the oceans accompanied with reductions (not increases as claimed by David as the only variable) in relative humidity.
Rogers…”Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space”.
************
I support Roy with most of his claims but this is one with which I disagree.
The rate at which heat dissipates from the surface is governed only by the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation governs this. The base equation from Stefan is j = fi.T^4, which is the amount of radiation given off by a body of temperature T.
There is another equation based on S-B related to heat dissipation, j = e.fi.A.(T1^4 – T2^4)
e = emissivity
fi = constant
A = the surface area of radiation
T1 – temp of radiating body
T2 = surrounding temperature.
This governs the net radiation loss rate.
There is nothing in this equation about CO2, wv, or anything else. It refers to the temperature of the atmosphere immediately in contact with the surface.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
That atmosphere is made up 99% of nitrogen and oxygen, 0.04% CO2, and over the entire atmosphere, all GHGs are about 0.3%.
Its obvious that N2/O2 controls the temperature of the atmosphere hence the rate of IR radiation.
ps. when NOAA satellites measure atmospheric temperatures they measure microwave radiation from oxygen molecules.
Yes, which means UAH & RSS *model* their temperature numbers, they don’t measure them directly.
PS: All measurements come from models in any case.
David, please stop trolling.
GR wrote:
The rate at which heat dissipates from the surface is governed only by the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation governs this. The base equation from Stefan is j = fi.T^4, which is the amount of radiation given off by a body of temperature T.
There is no term in the SB equation that shows a dependence on the temperature of what’s in contact with the radiating surface.
PS: You just admitted radiation is “heat.”
GR wrote:
There is another equation based on S-B related to heat dissipation, j = e.fi.A.(T1^4 T2^4)
This equation is about net energy flow.
The surface emits j1 up, and the atmosphere emits j2 down.
Both come from the SB law. The SB law has no dependence on whatever a body is in contact with; it’s simply proportional to T^4, where T is the temperature of the emitting body.
CO2 is a different process — radiative *transfer*.
DA…”This equation is about net energy flow.
The surface emits j1 up, and the atmosphere emits j2 down”.
Pseudo-science!!!
The atmosphere is in contact with the surface, at the surface. At that point, the atmosphere is warmed to the same temperature as the surface and the heated air rises. Cooler air from aloft replaces it and the cycle repeats. There is no downward radiation at the surface that can transfer heat.
As altitude increases, the atmosphere, including GHGs, gets COLDER. The 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. No thermal energy, or any other energy, is transferred from atmosphere to surface.
The form of the S-B equation with two T terms is related to quantum theory. It’s simple. If two bodies of the same temperature are in contact, no heat can be transferred. If one body is hotter than the other, heat is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body.
With the surface/atmosphere interface heat is transferred by conduction, then convection, from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Like any other heat transfer, the greater the gradient between temperatures the greater the rate of dissipation from the warmer body.
S-B….j = fi.T^4 tells us the degree of radiation is related only to the temperature of the radiating body. It says nothing about IR being trapped by trace gases. If you want to slow down the rate of radiation you have to drop the temperature of the radiating body or place the radiating body in an environment with a lower temperature.
j = e.fi.A(T1^4 – T2^4) tells us j = 0 when T1 = T2.
It tells us radiation from the hotter body T1 is possible only when T1 > T2. If T2 > T1, the heat transfer is reversed.
GR says:
The 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Wrong.
Why don’t you simply READ any statement of the 2nd law before telling us what it means. Quote it and I will show you are you are wrong.
You’re also wrong about the SB Law. It simply says the EM emissions from a blackbody are j=sigma*T^4. It says nothing about what is near that body.
You are hopelessly confusing the SB Law with energy flows. The surface emits j1 up, and the atmosphere emits j2 down. So the net radiation flow from surface to atmosphere is j1-j2, and the net flow from the atmosphere to surface is j2-j1.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: Yes, which means UAH & RSS *model* their temperature numbers, they dont measure them directly.
PS: All measurements come from models in any case.
—————
Indeed! Some models have very few variables compared to others and some models actually have representative sampling too.
Bill, the Standard Model of physics has 19 free parameters. Yet it describes the nongravitational world as well as we can measure it.
Einstein’s theory of gravity has two free parameters (c and G), neither of which is adjustable. It’s never made a bad prediction.
The test of a model is how well it matches observations, not how many variables it has. Fewer are always better, but climate is enormously complex and will always take many variables.
Re: representative sampling: actually you only need about 120 temperature stations around the world to get a good-enough measure of global temperature. See the papers referenced in this post:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/08/18/you-only-need-about-60-surface-stations/
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: Re: representative sampling: actually you only need about 120 temperature stations around the world to get a good-enough measure of global temperature. See the papers referenced in this post:
———–
That would be true if and only if environments in the world were homogeneous.
The analysis you show is on a 120 year scale with more stations creating less warming. The actual slope shows in the larger number of stations:
1) Less than one degree warming per century (.85deg)
2) about the same amount in the last 2 decades.
3) a pattern during the long term of short term acceleration and deceleration of warming suggesting the 4 decade view includes this spurious warming view consistent with what was pointed out by Dr. Akasofu.
Further the lesser number of randomly selected stations in comparison to the larger number shows.
1) considerably less warming in the past couple of decades going so far as appearing to be cooling.
2) Has more warming over the 2 decades prior to the 2 latest.
3) and shows more warming over the longrun.
So if you want to wait a hundred and twenty years to declare the “raw” data correct I am all for it. I will even allow you to drop it to 80 years and will register no concerns about short term natural phenomena messing with the calculations, though I would point out that the warming was in place for the long term data well back 120 years ago and seems unresponsive to increasing CO2. . . .don’t you think?
And of course this view does not compare any biases introduced in the homogenization process from of course the perfectly satisfactory sample you claim of raw data from 65 randomly selected stations that show cooling in the last 2 decades. Got where you are coming from perfectly David.
The Peruvian Current is very cold.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_samer_1.png
ren
The Peruvian fishers will appreciate!
Yep the upwelling in that current ships vast amounts of nutrients to the surface spurring biological production. Its analogous to a huge field being naturally-fertilized.
OK, I think the issue is settled now. Dr Spencer was wrong.
July had the warmest surface temperatures on record in ERA5 and JRA-55, the two most renowned reanalyses.
CFSv2 through Weatherbell is not reliable. It has a cooling version break in 2011 that haven’t been fixed.
Regarding the upper air, the first renanalysis to report through ESRL/WRIT, show that the lower troposphere was the warmest on record. Here illustrated by the 500 mbar geopotential height:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBHxSvTX4AAsZYH?format=jpg&name=medium
Generally, July 2019 and 2016 are close to each other, so it may be correct to call it a tie.
However, July 1998 on top (like in UAHv6) is way off, and suggests significant errors in this product..
Thanks Olof for your sound, polemic-free comments.
Thanks, Bindi
RSS TLT just reported and July 2019 was the warmest on record.
Likewise with JRA-55, July 2019 had the highest 500 mbar geopotential on record (=warmest lower troposphere)
binny…”Thanks Olof for your sound, polemic-free comments”.
Binny kisses up to an anti-UAH comment from a nobody.
olof…”OK, I think the issue is settled now. Dr Spencer was wrong”.
If you want to post stupid, ignorant comments, go to realclimate or skepticalscience. they would welcome you there.
Roy is an expert in this field and you are…who????
As he is an expert in the field then of course you agree with him that the greenhouse effect is real. Or is that where his expertise ends?
Midas, nice — I have exactly the same question for GR.
There is no question there is a greenhouse “effect”.
There is also very little question that greenhouse gases play a critical role in it. The questions are precisely if greenhouse gases alone are both necessary and sufficient for a greenhouse effect, and exactly how the greenhouse effect varies. In the later regard certain assumptions are made that may not be factual.
bill…”There is no question there is a greenhouse effect”.
We are awaiting an explanation of how it works, one that does not delve into pseudo-science like ‘net energy flows’ in which EM is treated as heat.
Gordon Robertson says: –
We are awaiting an explanation of how it works, one that does not delve into pseudo-science like ‘net energy flows’ in which EM is treated as heat.
—————–
In a nutshell Gordon, you are right. Your antenna has detected a fallacy that one heckuva lot of warmists ascribe to. However, it really isn’t what most of the folks actually designing models and running radiation transfer equations believe. . . .its just a bunch of group think scientists that ascribe to idea of injecting heat from back radiation. I have heard scientists say Trenberth should not be pushing the backradiation model because it is confounding.
I think he leave it in there because thats how you alarm people by making them believe they are going to boil away. We even have moron’s in this forum suggesting that.
But if you carefully consider that IR radiation physics is merely a convenient model to fit what we understand about energy transfer based upon the heat of objects and the heat of the absorbing objects, you can substitute the “radiation in all directions” model in quite a nifty way by assuming a magnetic like attractor model where IR only flows between poles at rates determined by their differential. You get the same result. The only reason its not popular is nobody can figure out how an emitter could reach out across space to determine how much IR to send. So we are stuck with the cartoon version of backradiation that does nothing but muckup thinking about it all.
ghg’s don’t warm anything in the most common sense of the word. What they do is slow cooling (low attraction), which doesn’t add one iota of any of the vibrational energy you talk about that would physically cause say the surface to rise one degree in temperature. Instead they aid in preserving heat that is already in the surface.
Its beyond question they do that, but the fact they do that falls short of explaining the complete set conditions necessary as greenhouse gases as cold as outer space doesn’t stop anything.
I see that as a crucial question regarding variability.
In support of greenhouse gases, if the atmosphere is warm and
for example, if the low temperature is 1 and the high temperature is 9, the mean is 5.
If the ghg slows cooling (which the atmosphere must be warm to do so) the low temperature only drops to 3 then you have a mean temperature of 6 which was one degree higher than before.
That’s likely why when examining temperature records low temperatures are rising much higher than high temperatures. Low temps can have negative feedbacks like condensation of dew reducing the ghe by spilling water vapor out of the atmosphere.
Now once lower temperatures are raised it raises the possibility
of slightly raising high temperatures as well because it takes less solar energy to raise the temperature from 3 to 9 instead of 1 but not enough extra normal solar energy to take it to 11.
However, raising the high temperature has even more ways negative feedback, from more convection to more cloud formation, and more precipitation.
And one also needs to consider all the lower latitude surfaces would be far hotter each day without any greenhouse gases and feedbacks like clouds that clearly reduce solar radiation from hitting the surface. So for high temperatures I don’t think there is any question that negative feedback dominates. In fact, everybody who argues for positive feedback highlights the nighttime greenhouse effect.
Temperature directly under the sun could be above boiling like on the moon. So almost all that additional high temperature stuff is likely restricted to higher latitudes where there is very little water vapor, where they could use more of it.
Lindzen favors negative feedback and so do I. I think climate science loaded the dice by increasing the greenhouse effect by not considering albedo. That albedo is one heckuva lot of negative feedback from water vapor.
Happer seems to agree recently saying the greenhouse effect is only about 10 degrees not 33.
The climate modelers manage all this uncertainty by not allowing convection or condensation and clouds to increase but they allow their primary creator water vapor to increase. They simply just believe greenhouse gases do it all.
So at the end of the day they use a fallacious argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) regarding natural variation to keep their train on the tracks.
Bill Hunter wrote:
So we are stuck with the cartoon version of backradiation that does nothing but muckup thinking about it all.
Bill, are you aware that downwelling IR has been MEASURED at the surface? Many many times.
That we receive twice as much heat from downwelling IR as we do from sunlight at the surface?
Bill Hunter wrote:
The climate modelers manage all this uncertainty by not allowing convection or condensation and clouds to increase but they allow their primary creator water vapor to increase.
That’s a lie, and one easily disproven.
Here’s a model description:
“Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN464+STR, June 2004.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
The word “convection” appears in it 49 times. Esp Ch 4.
On “condensation:”
“Treatment of cloud condensed water using a prognostic treatment (section 4.5): The original formulation is introduced in Rasch and Kristjansson [1998]. Revisions to the parameterization to deal more realistically with the treatment of the condensation and evaporation under forcing by large scale processes and changing cloud fraction are described in Zhang
et al. [2003].The parameterization has two components: 1) a macroscale component that describes the exchange of water substance between the condensate and the vapor phase and the associated temperature change arising from that phase change [Zhang et al., 2003]; and 2) a bulk microphysical component that controls the conversion from condensate to precipitate [Rasch and Kristjansson, 1998].”
“Cloud” appears 324 times, “clouds” 55 times.
GR, EM is heat. Retake physics 101.
David the fact they talk about clouds and convection doesn’t mean they allow them to increase.
This is simply a logic disconnect where its assumed that CO2 controls convective cooling of the surface and then doesn’t allow it to do what it has done for all of history.
This is Dr. Lindzen’s objection and his Iris theory. That if CO2 assumes a superior influencing role it is largely dismissed via the resulting effect it creates.
The basic unspoken tenant of the greenhouse theory is it restricts this cooling and thus clogs up the cooling apparatus all the way back to the surface. Such linear forcings simply do not compute for me simply too much water and water vapor flying around almost chaotically. You only see such linear forcings in solids.
Sort of makes me think of some guy trying to stuff a suitcase full of compressed air. Or if you imagination is too dull to imagine that how about stuffing a bunch of balloons in a suitcase. Sure thing David I can write you a computer model that will do it beautifully.
bill hunter says:
David the fact they talk about clouds and convection doesnt mean they allow them to increase.
Give me the page number in the model description document, or in their code, where they say they hold clouds and convection constant.
Lindzen’s iris effect hypothesis is still an hypothesis — unproven. And it would not do away with GHG warming by radiative transfer.
Gordon Robertson says:
We are awaiting an explanation of how it works, one that does not delve into pseudo-science like net energy flows in which EM is treated as heat.
In other words you want an explanation without the science.
Funny.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: –Bill, are you aware that downwelling IR has been MEASURED at the surface? Many many times.
I am not going far down this road David. You obviously are not aware of the advances in electronic circuit wizardry in detectors that have enabled the reading the temperatures of cooler bodies without expensive cryogenics to cool the detector using essentially an electronic mirror that recognizes whether the sensor is gaining energy or losing it and often at what frequencies.
A big advance in electronics and materials that fills the brains of the uninformed with nonsense.
You need to distinguish between reality and the visual teaching tools to describe processes not fully understood.
The backradiation teaching tool accurately records the results if your mind remains disciplined on the matter, but an attractor theory provides the exact same results. Thus there is no need to go down that road. I am merely pointing out a theoretical cartoon model that correctly suggests all that is known, including ignorance of a means of attraction; that the worst attribute of is misunderstanding the nature of slowing of cooling being some kind of actual heating.
In window technology, they don’t use backradiation because it makes for cleaner computations and there is no concern about the existence of an attractor. Instead values are assigned as resistances instead of contraflows of energy.
Einstein went to his grave hoping to solve that issue and was quoted thusly just a few years before his death: “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.”
David Appell says: – Lindzens iris effect hypothesis is still an hypothesis unproven. And it would not do away with GHG warming by radiative transfer.
———
David everything is still a hypothesis. I go with Lindzen because it actually describes a logical process for a response to the greenhouse effect that is consistent with heat transfer equations and is consistent with all the other known factors in the atmosphere that further is actually standardized in both US and European manufacturing standards (for multiple plate insulation technologies) with full sets of equations that blow away any greenhouse effect arising from conceptual multiple layers in an atmosphere devoid of rigid plates.
It is actually the IPCC filtered version of the greenhouse effect that needs additional yet to be proven hypothesis like a restriction on convection to imitate multiple plates in the atmosphere. And of course its probably fairly easy to speculate about a resistance to convection defined as moving whole packets of air and ignoring the fact that before the packets of air start moving in unison diffusion is attempting to make water vapor a uniform gas in the atmosphere at a much faster rate than it does for CO2 making any speculation of resistance a very difficult proposition and explains fully why the Dr R Woods experiment back at the turn of the previous century falsified Arrhenius’ hypothesis.
And as Lindzen would probably say, the seeking of the reason for climate change leads to many hair-brained overly simplified theories. Actually rather prophetically the paper that led to US manufacturing standards expressed the same sentiment.
Excellent question! If I may butt in, this is as good a segue as any. Who the hell are YOU? You are a merchant of doubt, wasting your time with round-and-around arguments, your dubious background of knowledge stretched thinner and thinner with every post. Not that it stops you.
Like a baby chick myopically peering about for its mother, Gordon recognizes certain scientists as the be-all, end-all of authority, and his mind won’t change. He’s been imprinted. And watching him suck up is pretty sickening…
According to the BBC website July was the hottest on record according to satellite data.
“he assessment was carried out by researchers at the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S).”
“Globally, July 2019 was marginally warmer – by 0.04 degrees Celsius (0.072 Fahrenheit) – than the previous hottest month on record, July 2016.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49238745
Please go to the original source, BBC seems as unable to reproduce the original message as Dr. Spencer in terms of the CNN report;
https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-bulletins
“Global average temperatures for July 2019 were on par with, and possibly marginally higher than, those for July 2016, the warmest previous July and warmest of all months on record.”
If the argument is over 0.04 degC, it has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.
john…”According to the BBC website July was the hottest on record according to satellite data”.
The BBC and CBC Canada have been pushing alarmist bs for years now. When I approached CBC about it I got a smart-assed answer claiming they only go with ‘official sources’, presumably the IPCC.
CBC science used to be run by uber-alarmist David Suzuki. It is now run by an equally idiotic alarmist called Bob McDonald. If CBC dares to print anything skeptical, Suzuki goes after them immediately, and they seem terrified of the idiot.
Ad hominem attacks based on no evidence.
What about the July temperatures do you dispute on scientific grounds?
David Appell says: – What about the July temperatures do you dispute on scientific grounds?
——————
Quite simply, which temperature records do you cherry pick?
I doubt anybody can deny there has been a trend of warming so would anybody actually expect anything different? The fact is natural variability can as easily explain the record occurring this July as anything else can.
The observation that the ocean surface is roiling explains the natural variability. Its effective s.d. is about 0.09 K. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ir1w3OrR4U
bill hunter says:
Quite simply, which temperature records do you cherry pick?
Which temperature records do you think are cherry picked, and which do you think were ignored.
bill hunter says:
The fact is natural variability can as easily explain the record occurring this July as anything else can
So go ahead and do this explaining.
David Appell says: – Which temperature records do you think are cherry picked, and which do you think were ignored.
—————-
Obviously you are English challenged David. Perhaps you should get somebody to interpret Roy’s post for you.
—————–
—————–
David Appell says: The fact is natural variability can as easily explain the record occurring this July as anything else can.
So go ahead and do this explaining.
—————-
Sure thing continued ocean warming, expected to be in place for over a thousand years combined with usual oscillations of ocean currents creating a pattern of acceleration of that ocean warming and a deceleration of it in a physical process very similar to that of ENSO and in fact marked by a dominance of one phase ENSO over the other phase of ENSO over multi-decadal periods of time.
I don’t see CO2 explaining that. Meaning of course that ignorance in climate science continues to rule the day and a very large puzzle has some very difficult pieces to yet put in place.
So for whatever reason even the gentle warming we have seen recently would make a July record month rather routine especially coming right on the heel of an El Nino.
Bill Hunter wrote:
Sure thing continued ocean warming, expected to be in place for over a thousand years combined with usual oscillations of ocean currents creating a pattern of acceleration of that ocean warming and a deceleration of it in a physical process very similar to that of ENSO and in fact marked by a dominance of one phase ENSO over the other phase of ENSO over multi-decadal periods of time.
No, I don’t want your opinion, I want you to cite science to support your assertions.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: – No, I dont want your opinion, I want you to cite science to support your assertions.
Sure thing David. Just take the temperature record of your choice, the PDO Index, and the ENSO Index and plot them on a graph using the software of your choice. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
DA…”What about the July temperatures do you dispute on scientific grounds?”
I repeat Bart’s comment: “If the argument is over 0.04 degC, it has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime”.
The instrumentation and analysis is not good enough to claim July was the hottest month of all time. For one, we don’t know that. For another, the surface record upon which the claim is based is fudged and political.
Roy gave the correct answer:
“July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global reanalysis datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures. [NOTE: It turns out that the WMO, which announced July 2019 as a near-record, relies upon the ERA5 reanalysis which apparently departs substantially from the CFSv2 reanalysis, making my proposed reliance on only reanalysis data for surface temperature monitoring also subject to considerable uncertainty]”.
That’s scientific enough for me.
GR wrote:
For another, the surface record upon which the claim is based is fudged and political.
This is your grand lie — never proven, repeated endlessly. Why haven’t you show any evidence by now?
David, please stop trolling.
Dr. Spencer: I can’t get my responses to comments through. The first one seems OK, but then that’s it, no more come on screen. Can you help?
Carbon500, certain words or letter combination are banned. For example, and “d” directly followed by a “c” will not work. The word absorp.tion must have something between the “p” and the “t”.
Some links won’t work.
The trick is to post parts of your comment to see which part has the problem.
Thanks JDH – much appreciated, a good suggestion.
A helpful answer from JDHuffman!
The sequence “g” “e” “r” “a” “n” was also banned, with and without interspersed “*”.
“nc” too?
Too many links does not work.
I also think there is a time block if you have too many failures, I had the same text go through the next day once.
Thanks for the extra information, Svante.
Cool in central Europe. The NAO index is falling strongly again.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
Also RSS TLT seems to have july – 19 as the warmest.
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
It will soon cool down in medium latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Expect early waves of Arctic air.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_NH_2019.png
All of this data manipulation to get temperatures higher is going to catch up with them. Pretty soon, they will have reported temperatures several degrees above actuals!
As the denialist frog said in the beaker of water – just before it boiled to death.
Yup, more imagination instead of reality.
Nothing new.
Thanks Froggy.
Ian, please stop trolling.
DM,
You wrote –
“As the denialist frog said in the beaker of water just before it boiled to death.”
Is this another attempt to deny, divert and confuse? Maybe you think that spouting nonsense will divert people from the fact that you cannot even describe this GHE which you claim exists.
No GHE. No CO2 heating effect. Just more pseudoscientific rubbish. The Earth is cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. The temperature has dropped. You don’t have to believe it – Nature doesn’t care what you think.
Cheers
Poor MF, everything he reads seems destined to deny, divert and confuse him. Then he repeats the same nonsense for the umpteenth time.
DM,
Maybe if you could let people know what it is you are disagreeing with, by quoting me, you might convince others that you are not just having a pointless whine.
I’ll try to help you out.
Here’s a statement –
Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers would disagree with that statement on religious grounds, without being able to say why.
How about you?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are quite wrong on your false and misleading statement.
YOU: “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers would disagree with that statement on religious grounds, without being able to say why.”
I have told you “why” already. You are too dense and unwilling to accept a reality that does not fit your unscientific delusions.
CO2 does not absorb much of the solar input but it does absorb considerable upwelling IR from the Earth’s surface emission.
I have linked you to numerous graphs of measured values showing this. You are an unscientific person and will always be one along with a few others that make stuff up with zero evidence and no backing of any of their outrageous claims.
This blog is polluted with a few pretenders that know zero science (though they tell people to study it but they will not do so themselves).
I dislike you dishonest posting more than your ignorance. You have been told “why” so please do not blatantly lie about this point. It really makes you look quite the dishonest liar. Do you want to portray this image of yourself?
Norman still believes pounding on his keyboard is better than learning physics.
Nothing new.
Moe
It is funny that as dumb as you really are you give advice like “learn physics”. Most posters here know several times more physics than you are able to process.
You know how to troll other posters. That is all you have ever been able to do. With your extreme ignorance of actual physics you spend your time here trolling other posters and annoying them.
You are too stupid to grasp this point. I will make it anyway so you can troll it and feel important (since you are not, most posters think you are an idiotic troll).
Yes a racehorse rotates on its AXIS as it runs around the track. You are far too stupid to be able to process two events happening at the same time. Rather than go on a track use yourself and walk in a parking lot. If you do not ROTATE on your axis you will continue going straight ahead. If you rotate clockwise while walking (I know the thought process is most difficult for and arrogant idiot like yourself, but you might be able to troll this comment) you will make a circle to the right. If you rotate the other way you will make a circle to the left. The rate you rotate ON YOUR AXIS (a concept you can’t understand even when several posters attempted to help you, it was in vain) will determine the size of the circle you make. If you rotate at a fast rate as you walk forward you will make a small circle. If you rotate at a much slower rate as you walk forward you will make a much larger circle.
You are too dumb and illogical to follow the logic. To a simple mind like yours you will only see “rambling” or typing lessons.
Anyway you are too stupid to learn, too irrational and illogical to understand science. But you have a useless skill of trolling and annoying posters.
Well we will have to see the stupid troll post you put in response to this post. You do not have the discipline or self-control needed to ignore what I posted and you are compelled by your stupid dense mental structure to vomit out a worthless post that no one is interested in.
And, as usual, Norman believes pounding on his keyboard is better than learning physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Thanks. I predicted in my post you could not control your impulse to troll and you did demonstrate my understanding of troll behavior is spot on.
It is obvious logic, science and reason are not things you like. It is obvious trolling is your passion.
It is obvious you cannot control you addiction to it. Even though you repeat the same posts over and over they must still give you a Dopamine high or something.
You will troll over and over with the same troll comments (almost like you just copy and paste them). Nothing new. I would expect nothing more from you.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Poor Norman is still pounding on his keyboard, fruitlessly.
He labors under the illusion that if he types long enough, something intelligent will emerge. Yet, he never advances above being just another uneducated, immature typist. It must be so frustrating for him.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I knew you could not resist trolling my posts. You have an addiction.
Like your goofy buddy Curly he seems to have an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. He should consider therapy for this condition. This goofy DREMT waits until a thread is running out of steam and then posts several times “Please stop trolling” on many comments. This behavior certainly seems to be OCD.
Your behavior is certainly an addiction to trolling. You love getting some reaction from posters. That is why you troll with very stupid unscientific points like a racehorse can run in a circle yet not rotate in doing so. This is bad science but certainly good trolling tactics as intelligent people think they can correct your faulty thought process. They can’t change a troll.
Also have either you or DREMT been able to walk in a circle without rotating your feet? When you are able to accomplish this let me know, maybe make a video of this amazing feat(feet).
Poor Norman is still pounding on his keyboard, fruitlessly.
He still only appears uneducated and immature.
Maybe if he types out even longer comments?
“This behavior certainly seems to be OCD.”
Or maybe that’s just what I want you to think…
Now Norman, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman says: – All of this data manipulation to get temperatures higher is going to catch up with them. Pretty soon, they will have reported temperatures several degrees above actuals!
—————-
No question the models drive the adjustments. One of the first things an auditor learns is if somebody is going to the trouble to fix something they had a reason to do it.
Proof?
Here is GISTEMP’s code. Show us where in it it is driven by models:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
If you don’t have any proof, stop making outlandish claims until you do.
DA, for you to understand the issues here, you must have an understanding of the relevant physics. Please show us where you have ever indicated such an understanding.
David, the proof is in human nature, not physics. Its a natural process carried out every single day.
People without passion don’t drive any work, they may follow the orders of those with passion. Dr. Will Happer has talked of that recently being an expert first hand observer:
“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.”
This is no different than throughout human history.
The burden of proof is on those who wish to convince others and instead of rational argument insulting words are used, a sure sign that both the rent seeking profiteers and the enslaved can’t answer the critical questions.
And the rent seekers in frustration have invented post-normal science a process whereby the world takes a step backwards and throws onto the people the burden of proof that the rulers are wrong in what they do. Indeed, a horrible set of affairs that could set back individual freedoms thousands of years and its absolutely amazing how true Pushkin’s little soliloquy is in folks flocking to the task, most looking for their little cut of the big payoff.
Tropical storm develops in the Caribbean Sea.
“Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS). The volume was about 47% less than the 1979-2018 average!”
https://twitter.com/p_hannam
Dr Myki
You should always compare PIOMAS
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt
with DMI’s ice volume data (daily, you have to average it)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
In Mkm^3:
1. July 2019
PIOMAS: 8.893
DMI: 9.216
2. 2003-2018 average (DMI’s start date)
PIOMAS: 15.509
DMI: 16.497
“The volume was about 47% less…”
But about 500% above “ice-free”.
DM,
You quoted –
“Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS). The volume was about 47% less than the 1979-2018 average!”
Presumably you were trying to make a point. What is it? Or do you just quote random statistics in an effort to appear smarter than you are?
What has your quote to do with weather?
Cheers.
MF
“Presumably you were trying to make a point. What is it? ”
Can you really be that dumb?
“Or do you just quote random statistics in an effort to appear smarter than you are?”
Certainly smarter than you.
“What has your quote to do with weather?”
Nothing.
What have your comments to do with climate?
DM,
You haven’t said what point you are trying to make, have you?
Whether you think you are smarter than me doesn’t provide a reason for your possibly random comment, does it?
Climate is the average of weather – no more no less. The IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states (no surprise there).
You obviously have no relevant reasons for your comments. Others may form their own opinion, based on facts.
Cheers.
mickey…”Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS). The volume was about 47% less than the 1979-2018 average!”
In a few months it will be back to its average 10 foot thickness.
You see, mickey, when there’s little or no Sun for 5 to 6 months of the Arctic year, ice tends to form in the Arctic Ocean and all over the Arctic.
Did your mom not tell you that?
I don’t believe it – “numb-skull” still does’t understand what an anomaly is.
Gordon Robertson says:
In a few months it will be back to its average 10 foot thickness.
Sure, sure.
Actually the average thickness of Arctic sea ice is 1.5 meters, down from 3 m in 1979.
Gordon Robertson says:
In a few months it will be back to its average 10 foot thickness.
This past 12 months Arctic sea ice thickness peaked at 2.0 m, in May. That was the second lowest, afer 2017’s 1.8 m
2.0 m = 6.6 ft
DA…”This past 12 months Arctic sea ice thickness peaked at 2.0 m, in May. That was the second lowest, afer 2017s 1.8 m”
Propaganda. I wish you go check it mid-winter near the North Pole. There’s a decent chance you wouldn’t make it back.
You wrote “average.” I gave you the average, which is not what you claimed.
David, please stop trolling.
Reality: A readers letter in the Sunday Telegraph, page 23 on Tuesday October 1st 2013-from Captain Derek Blacker RN (retd), Director of Naval Oceanography and Meteorology 1982-84 noted the following:
SIR I was a meteorologist during the Seventies when glaciers in Europe and other continents in Europe had been growing for the previous ten years, and pack ice had been increasing during winters to cover almost all of the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. Scientists were then warning that the Earth could be entering another ice age.
The current deliberations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have conveniently overlooked this. Before insisting that humans have been the main cause of global warming an explanation of this apparent anomaly should be promulgated.
In connection with this letter, a look at information supplied by the Icelandic Meteorological Office is interesting. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, heavy sea ice was quite common along the coasts of Iceland, but in the 1920s a drastic change occurred. Sea ice along the coasts of Iceland became an uncommon characteristic and almost a forgotten phenomenon around the middle of the century. An abrupt change occurred in the mid-1960s. Heavy sea ice distribution occurred almost each year following, but since 1980 widespread and long-lasting sea ice off Iceland took place (sic) at rather irregular intervals.
The 1970s?? I doubt the IPCC has ignored this, though naturally it’s more interested in the decades since.
DA, missing the points made in the letter is necessary for you to avoid reality.
Good job. You’ve done it again.
David Appell says: – The 1970s?? I doubt the IPCC has ignored this, though naturally its more interested in the decades since.
——-
Yes just as I stated above, in the 70’s and prior to that there was zero money in CAWG hysteria.
RSS lower tropospheric temperature measurements has July 2019 as the warmest July. June 2019 was their warmest June.
David, please stop trolling.
Stephen: your number should be 47%.
David, please stop trolling.
The Bolivia Effect for Binny.
On the Gistemp graph, Bolivia is rated red, as in hot, yet Bolivia is in the Andes where temps are cool. Reason…there is no data in the Gistemp record since 1990. They have been synthesizing Bolivia temps using nearly hotter stations.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“Alright Already, what is this Bolivia Effect?
Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live. Its the patch of yellow / whitish mountains near the top in this picture:
One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
Easy. GIStemp makes it up from nearby thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle”.
************
If Binny had half the integrity and the intelligence of the guy who runs chiefio he might be of some use to people. As it stands, he is no bloody use at all.
Cam should remember that rugby song.
correction…”Reasonthere is no data in the Gistemp record since 1990″.
Should read…”Reasonthere is no data in the Gistemp record for Bolivia since 1990″.
Gordon Robertson says:
On the Gistemp graph, Bolivia is rated red, as in hot, yet Bolivia is in the Andes where temps are cool.
The graph is of *anomalies*, not absolute temperatures.
Sheesh.
DA…”The graph is of *anomalies*, not absolute temperatures.”
I have officially added you to the idiot list along with binny.
This shows many stations in Bolivia:
https://www.n_c_d_c.n_o_a_a.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gclimat?lang=en&mode=1&state=Boli&ind=&ord=REV&verb=no&year=2018&mes=04&months=
David, please stop trolling.
mickey…”The maps are of anomalies. Not absolute temperatures. Get it through your thick skull that the anomalies are not directly affected by the location of the thermometer.
Thus, to talk about Bolivia being hot because the nearest thermometers are near beaches or in the jungle is just plain rubbish”.
You are as much an idiot as binny.
Where did they get the temperatures so they could convert them to anomalies for a baseline?
What do you think anomalies represent, you space cadet?
Read and weep…
remove the hyphens in URl from from n-c-d-c to get link….if that’s not beyond your intelligence level.
https://www.n-c-d-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
“Numb-skull” – do you not understand that a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of 20degC is the same as a a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of -20 degC?
The baseline is irrelevant when looking at trends.
Sigh!!!
mickey…”do you not understand that a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of 20degC is the same as a a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of -20 degC?”
Are you a masochist who gets off on looking stupid?
If the UAH 1981 – 2010 global average is 12C, and they show an anomaly of +0.1C, that anomaly represents a temperature of 12.1C.
Look at the UAH graph on this site. Along the vertical axis it states: T departure from ’81 = ’10 avg (deg. C)
T = temperature and the anomalies are temperatures in degrees C. Now all you need is the 1981 – 2010 average and you can add/subtract each anomaly from that baseline as NOAA advises.
UAH gives anomalies, never absolute temperatures.
Gordon Robertson says:
Where did they get the temperatures so they could convert them to anomalies for a baseline?
Read and learn:
What are temperature anomalies (and why prefer them to absolute temperatures)?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q101
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
David, please stop trolling.
It is already autumn in the Central Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2019.png
I live in the foothills of the Dandenong ranges where the average block size is 1200 sq metres, as an old suburb the average house was a 100 sq meter, single car garage and a garden shed, the block was covered with trees, shrubs and grass.
Lately these houses have been redeveloped, the block has been bulldozed and 5 or 6 units constructed complete with a garage, shed and A/C unit, the rest of the block other than a half metre strip of garden is concrete driveway.
Don’t tell me there is no UHI effect.
I never claimed there was no UHI.
The claim is that it doesn’t influence the global mean surface temperature. That’s what BEST found, and what many before them have found.
David, please stop trolling.
Robertson’s stubborn comments about temperature time series
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-372390
*
I lack the time today for a detailed answer on this ridiculous chiefio blah blah.
The Bolivia effect! Jesus, how arrogant is one allowed to be?
*
Smith (that’s chiefio’s real name) posted this Bolivia stuff in 2009.
You don’t need to read his hundreds of boasting lines, a closer look at data is fully sufficient:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fqvcJ9ZKpCDofbm5Rr5Fhwrq_FtQ4WXk/view
You see the problem (it is really rare): the entire Bolivia country lacks data for a few years. Maybe that had political reasons, I don’t know.
*
Anyway, you have only two solutions to the problem:
– (1) all data you don’t have lead to a grey zone;
– (2) if AND ONLY if you analyse your temperature data on the base of a common reference period, you inspect sites around those having no data, and try to find some site(s) having similar anomaly behavior to those lacking data wrt this common reference period, and compute anomalies matching the two contexts as good as possible.
Analysing on the base of absolute data is a nonsensical blind-alley.
While CRUTEM (East Anglia, UK) and the Tokio Climate Center of Japan’s Met Agency prefer to leave grey zones in their grids, other institutions like GISS, NOAA, BEST choose the latter alternative.
You can best understand this choice when looking at the anomalies for two stations with completely different absolute data (one near sea, one in the mountain nearby): they are incredibly similar.
*
It is CERTAINLY NOT our job, let alone that of a blogger a la Smith and his ‘Musings form the Chiefio” (!!!) , to decide which solution is the more appropriate one.
We are lay(wo)men, not less, not more.
More about Bolivia when I have some idle time to do…
No gap here:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/bolivia
Svante
I’m afraid I wasn’explicit enough:
– I have shown RAW data, and not data processed by any homogenising interpolation algorithm, as is manifestly done by BEST;
– my use of the GHCN V3 raw data was to show the situation as it has been around 2009, as the ‘Chiefio’ wrote his simple-minded head post.
AFAIR, it was GHCN V2 in the history, but nearly all V2 stations were transferred to V3 at that time.
You must understand that BEST uses worldwide far over 30000 stations, compared with the 7280 of GHCN V2/V3.
Tomorrow, I’ll generate a plot out GHCN daily (it has 36000 stations worldwide).
binny…” my use of the GHCN V3 raw data was to show the situation as it has been around 2009, as the Chiefio wrote his simple-minded head pos”.
This is why you are an idiot. Chiefio was talking about Gistemp, not GHCN.
Robertson
There is, as usual, only one idiot here: namely Robertson who, instaead of accurately reading things, simply quickly scans them without understanding a bit.
If you had a bit of intelligence, you would have understood why I referred, in my reply to Svante, to raw GHCN V3, and not to data homogenised by GISS, NOAA, BEST etc.
Unluckily, mobody moreates this wonderful blog, so dumb people a la Robertson endlessly can put their clueless, useless rubbish in.
Don’t worry, I’m here.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
DREMT
Stop your own trolling: you are all but a moderator.
Look at Charles TM at WUWT, and learn.
Shhhh.
Bindidon says:
BEST has raw data too, but so palatable perhaps:
http://berkeleyearth.org/source-files/
Click on “data table” to get single station raw data file:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152749
binny…”The Bolivia effect! Jesus, how arrogant is one allowed to be?”
I told you, the guy who runs chiefio is miles ahead of you in intelligence and understanding of the problem. You’re nothing more than a loud-mouthed alarmist who is a legend in his own mind.
Robertson
One more time, you show what a gullible follower you are of people who can write anything they want, under the condition that it fits to your own narrative: you will eat it.
If chiefio was a careful, intelligent climate blogger like Nick Stokes or Clive Best, you would never accept what he writes, and discredit and denigrate him exactly as you discredit and denigrate Nick Stokes.
A little hint concerning Smith, “the guy who runs chiefio [being] miles ahead of you in intelligence and understanding of the problem”.
This, Robertson
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
is the most ridiculous head post I ever read concerning temperature series in general, and those of GHCN in particular.
Below the probably dumbest chart ever published on a climate blog, you see
“The Day The Thermometer Music Died. Thermometers by Year Crashes.”
Your chiefio, one of the greates specialists evah, completely misanalysed NOAA’s data, and thought really that all stations were given up.
The rest of his head post is of a quite similar vein.
Years later, due to a hint by a commenter, Smith admiited his phenomenal mistake, but… “mit reichlich spitzen Lippen”, as Germans love to say, i.e.
cntnd, wrong click
i.e. very tight-lipped.
But you, Robertson, are a gullible believer of people a la chiefio aka Smith.
Simply because you automatically believe in anybody criticising GISS, NOAA etc.
If John Christy and Roy Spencer hadn’t moved their system from the ‘warm’ UAH5.6 to the ‘cool’ UAH6.0, you would discredit them as well.
And if Mears and Wentz hadn’t moved their sytem from the ‘cool’ RSS3.3 to the ‘warm’ RSS4.0, you would wecome them, instead of denigrating their work everywhere you can!
So you are, Robertson!
No hope to see you changing.
binny…”But you, Robertson, are a gullible believer of people a la chiefio aka Smith”.
I repeat, chiefio is order of intelligence above you and her understands what he is talking about, as opposed to you.
For the record…I believer nothing. E.M. Smith has done stellar work researching GHCN, NOAA, GISS and Had-crut. All you do is sit around creating phony Excel graphs.
binny…”And if Mears and Wentz hadnt moved their sytem from the cool RSS3.3 to the warm RSS4.0…”
That change coincided with them getting cozy with the in-crowd, lead by NOAA. I no longer trust RSS as far as I could throw them.
I wrote to them once complaining about them using bright red on their graphs to represent warming. RSS has been on the verge of climate alarm since they began. They have simply gone all the way.
Norman,
You wrote –
“CO2 does not absorb much of the solar input but it does absorb considerable upwelling IR from the Earths surface emission.”
When CO2 or anything else absorbs energy of any wavelength at all, it gets hotter. If the amount of energy decreases, the temperature drops. This is noted in relation to the atmosphere as a whole. It warms during the day, cools at night. The Earth’s surface temperature has dropped over the last four and a half billion years. It is no longer molten. No heat trapping to be seen.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun (or other heat source) makes the thermometer hotter. Nobody has ever demonstrated this physical miracle, because it is pure nonsense.
CO2 heats nothing. No GHE at all. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Your GHE cult is comprised of fools, frauds, and fakes – along with an assortment of fumbling bumblers suffering from delusional psychosis and other mental impairment.
Keep thumping your keyboard if it makes you feel better.
Cheers.
mike…”Pseudoscientific GHE true believers believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun (or other heat source) makes the thermometer hotter”.
Certainly appears that way, Mike. The current paradigm seems to claim CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer slows down the IR radiation from the thermometer, causing it to warm.
I don’t get it, but like the other claim, that a positive net energy balance between a hotter and a cooler body overrules the 2nd law, that’s the way physics seems to be going. No one cares about established laws anymore, they just make up a pseudo counter-law to nullify it.
mickey…”Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS)”.
Why don’t you try sailing through the NW Passage in about October or November? They have been trying to do that since 1600 AD and no one has done it that time of year. Amundsen did in in August but they were so socked up in ice his crew were begging him to turn back.
When the St. Roch did it west to east 1940 – 1942, it was in June/July. They did not make it through till the following spring.
Amundsen tended to be a bit of a bs. artist anyway so no one really knows if he made it.
You alarmists seem to think the Arctic is a nice big ocean soon to be free of ice. Talk about numbskulls. The Arctic will NEVER be free of impenetrable ice most of the year because there is little or no Sun for half the year.
Gordon, whose claiming the Arctic will soon be ice free in winter?
(But it will be ice free eventually, all year around.)
DA…”Gordon, whose claiming the Arctic will soon be ice free in winter?”
Then why talk about it as if it’s true?
“(But it will be ice free eventually, all year around.)”
You dunce!!
How will it remain ice free when there is little or no sunlight half the year?
You alarmists have some serious awareness issues.
Here are the figures from the UK’s Met Office for this year to July:
2019 4.0 6.7 7.8 9.1 11.1 14.2 17.5
Subjectively, it’s been a typical English summer here, nothing remotely suggesting ‘climate change’, there’s nothing unusual about the July average temperature of 17.5 degrees Celsius, yet the barrage of alarming junk from the media has been relentless.
Carbon500
“Subjectively, its been a typical English summer here, nothing remotely suggesting climate change… ”
*
Why should anything suggest climate change in UK?
Binidon: ‘Why should anything suggest climate change in the UK?’ Exactly – where’s the dangerous man-made climate change?
Carbon500
1. Which this sudden switch from “nothing remotely suggesting climate change” to “the dangerous man-made climate change” ?
2. To appreciate this climate change, you must leave singular corners and move to a more global view.
For the moment, I can’t recall where to find a global gridded map with temperature trends for 1979 till present, like this one:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/december2018/Trend_to_201812.PNG
but… for surfaces.
Tropospheric trends of what happens at about 5 km above ground are very important for our understanding of climate affairs, but are nevertheless not representative of what we experience at ground itself.
Japan’s Met Agency publishes a monthly & annual surface temperature anomaly grid back to 1891
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
but they unfortunately don’t offer a trend information like does UAH above.
We have to compute it by ourselves out of
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/grid/gst_mon_1891_last.gz
(I did that for UAH some years ago, but JMA’s grid is completely different.)
An interesting view over what happens is to compare JMA’s year anomaly map for 1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp1998ane.png
with that for 2016
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp2016ane.png
Please keep in mind that the 1998 El Nino was by far stronger than the 2016 edition (index of 3.0 vs. 2.5).
It is just a little hint.
Dangerous? Man-made? No idea, Carbon!
Ooops!?
“1. Which” of course should have been “1. Why”.
C500: Your number for July is 1.4 C above the 20th century average, differing by +1.2 standard deviations.
Nothing unusual?
DA: ‘the figure for July is 1.4C above the 20th century average.’
So what?
It’s not an unusual value in the CET record.
In fact so far this century, the average temperature at your one spot is 0.8 C above the 20th century average.
Nothing unusual?
DA: the CET is not a measurement of ‘one spot’ as you (hopefully) know.
Why should 0.8C be of any concern whatsoever?
DA,
You wrote –
“Nothing unusual?”
No, not at all. What do you ask? Couldn’t you figure it out for yourself? Are you thick or just slow on the uptake?
Cheers.
I’m amused by “might.”
A headline that “The Atlanta Falcons Might Have Won The Superbowl” is accurate, but not news. Better is: “The Patriots Win The Superbowl.”
A headline that “Hilary Clinton Might Have Won The Presidential Election” is accurate, but not news. Better is “Trump Wins Election.”
A headline that “July Might Have Been The Hottest Month” is accurate, but not news. Neither is “July Not Hottest Month.”
So why print “might have been” headlines and articles instead of waiting for the facts?
To control the narrative.
If your goal is to inform, then provide facts.
If your goal is to entertain, or to provoke a reaction, then provide speculation that supports your desired response.
Clearly the news articles with qualifiers are not actually news, they are opinion pieces. So they should be relegated to the opinion pages. The fact that they are not is proof that too often the entire paper is now an opinion page.
Sigh.
“So why print “might have been” headlines and articles instead of waiting for the facts?”
Because “facts” have uncertainties.
No data point comes without error bars. So comparing one to another is always a question of probabilities: with what probability is the July temperature for 2019 greater than that for the maximum before 2019?
To control the narrative.
{eye roll}
DA wants uncertainties. He must have uncertainties so that he can obscure reality. If he can’t obscure reality, then he must face truth and DA can’t do that.
His whole purpose here is to pervert and corrupt reality.
Nothing new.
Well, I guess we no longer need to wait for facts?
The Washington Post today gets rid of any uncertainty with this headline:
“It was the hottest month ever. Literally.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hottest-month-ever-literally/2019/08/07/03bdf2a4-b86d-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html
I’m trying to find the uncertainty in that statement.
(It’s got to be in there somewhere, probably with the optimist’s pony).
Jim, just ask some simple questions. That will reveal the uncertainties.
Yep, the media are not good at telling us all the caveats that scientists know are there.
That is well understood.
The public, and many posters here, do not appreciate statistical error.
binny…”If you had a bit of intelligence, you would have understood why I referred, in my reply to Svante, to raw GHCN V3, and not to data homogenised by GISS, NOAA, BEST etc.”
This only indicates what an idiot you really are. I posted a comment from chiefio in which he claimed there is no temperature records in the “Gistemp” record from 1990 onward yet they show temperatures for Bolivia well above what they should be.
So…you look up the “GHCN” record and claim, there are records here for Bolivia, what is chiefio talking about?
He was talking about GISTEMP, dumbass!!!
Are you capable of any logical thought at all?
Just to dumb this down a bit in the hope you will get it, chiefio claims GISS artificially created temperatures for Bolivia using stations on the warmer coast and in the jungle. Then they interpolated the warmer stations to get a fabricated temperature for Bolivia, and guess what, they got a warmer temperature for Bolivia?
Go figure…the Bolivia effect. Reminds me of Mike’s trick. If the temperatures are not showing in the right range to back your theory, because they are declining…why…hide the decline, of course.
All this evidence right in front of you and all you dumbass alarmists can’t bring yourself to see such chicanery with your authority figures.
Robertson
“Soyou look up the GHCN record and claim, there are records here for Bolivia, what is chiefio talking about?
He was talking about GISTEMP, dumbass!!!”
***
As usual: the less people like you understand, the more they insult.
Recently I was a ‘blithering idiot’, today I am a ‘dumbass’.
So what.
One thing is sure: you NEVER AND NEVER would insult me on any other climate blog: they are moderated (and of course not by a thoroughly partial pseudomoderator a la DREMT).
*
Now to your ‘comment’
Not only you don’t understand what I wrote: you are even unable to recall what you wrote.
Don’t you remember? YOU QUOTED your idol upthread:
“One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia IN GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?”
It seems to me, Robertson, as if you still would be unaware that GISSTEMP uses GHCN as source for its temperature series since evah (they just switched from V3 to V4).
And what your chiefio idol was talking about was this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16qezvIj8BKiV3Oq-Kk-tNhzTrvmX-R3F/view
Do you see the holes, even in the absolute data I can generate as well as anomalies out of GISSTEMP’s source?
Of course your chiefio idol then wrote (still YOUR quote):
“Easy. GIStemp makes it up from nearby thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.”
All what you were able to retain were the words “beach” and “jungle”.
You of course did not understand that with ‘thermometers’, your chiefio idol referred to GHCN stations. To what else?
*
It was not much work to select, out of all Bolivia’s neighbour contries (Peru, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile), all GHCN stations located up to 500 km awy from Bolivial, to add these GHCN stations to those in Bolivia, and to generate a new absolute time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hUYShfIZfBxu1rHftmZYIMP0JXYpFO1r/view
Now the different gaps (beginning with the greatest one, that of 1900-1994) are filled with information.
Do you see, Robertson, how HOT ! HOTTER !! HOTTEST !!! the Bolivia average became through temperature data coming from this 500 km enclosure, including these HORRIBLE beach and jungle sources?
*
And this, Robertson, is far far away from what professional people do.
While I simply added about 20 stations around Bolivia and computed the average of Bolivia plus 500 km enclosure, professionals look station by station for stations within 250 or 1200 km with a best fit (trend, elevation, etc), what of course leads to a result better than that of my simple layman’s approach.
*
I know: you will discredit and denigrate this comment as all others I wrote until now. I don’t bother, Robertson.
Feel free to continue calling me an idiot, a dumbass, etc etc. No problem!
Apart from your 3 or 4 friends-in-denial, I can’t imagine anybody appreciating, over the long term, your reckless, respectless and scienceless posts on this blog.
Bindidon
You are spot on with Gordon Roberson. He is a real fraud! He pretends that he studied actual College level physics but he can’t do or understand even basic simple math. He thinks he is smarter than Einstein. He can’t understand what a molecular vibration is even when I have linked him to videos explaining in detail what it is. He thinks all EMR is generated by electronic transitions. He read some article on it and pretends to be a expert. He is a phony fraud and you are correct not to let him bother you. These phony deniers are all trolls. He is on as well as JDHuffman, DREMT and Mike Flynn. They repeat their idiot nonsense over and over and all think they are some sort of experts in physics. Just trolls all four of them. I wish they would not post here. I like your research and investigations. I would rather have intelligent rational skeptics (which are on this blog) rather than seeing the constant stupid posts of the 4 phony trolls.
Norman takes out his frustrations by banging on his keyboard.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Addicted to trolling and has to post. Nothing new. Keep trolling Moe. It is at least better than your idiot physics of non rotating moon and cartoon physics based upon your own ludicrous ideas.
Since you are a scientific idiot you need to keep trolling. Then some new posters won’t realize how dumb you really are.
Try plumbing Moe.
https://vimeo.com/12390592
Norman is fascinated by other performing clowns, because he is frustrated trying to understand physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Maybe you are right. You might not be a stooge.
I have found the correct video of you and your goofy buddy DREMT.
You can help me, which of the dudes is you and which is DREMT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4AmLcBLZWY
(Norman likes me to copy/paste my same comment.)
Norman is fascinated by other performing clowns, because he is frustrated trying to understand physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Sorry it is your own desire to copy and paste the same thing not mine.
I would prefer you never respond to any of my posts. This will not happen so I will learn to endure your stupid posts. Not much else I can do. You are addicted to trolling. It is not just me you troll you troll as many people as time permits. I think if there were more hours in a day you could troll hundreds of more posts. True addicted personality.
Oh well, not much anyone can do to help an addict. I wonder if someone will come up with “Trolls Anonymous” to help out addicts like yourself.
Norman, please stop trolling.
N,
You wrote –
“I wish they would not post here.”
There is an old saying “Wish in one hand, and p*** in the other. See which fills up first.”
If you had a few facts to add to your comments, you might not need to waste your time wishing that inconvenient facts and people would go away.
Of course, your time is yours to waste as you wish.
Have you managed to find a description of the mythical GHE yet?
Cheers.
Norman…bindidon…”You are spot on with Gordon Roberson. He is a real fraud! He pretends that he studied actual College level physics but he cant do or understand even basic simple math. He thinks he is smarter than Einstein. He cant understand what a molecular vibration is even when I have linked him to videos explaining in detail what it is”.
Norman is an idiot like his buddy binny but he is more, an idiotic ass.
If Norman understood even basic physics, he would not have to refer me to anyone, he could explain physics himself. However, Norman is the kind of idiot, like binny, who reads a few books, misinterpret them, then try to spread his incomplete nonsense.
Recently, binny tried to get into the debate about whether the Moon rotates about its axis. He cherry picked a few lines from Newton and that was all he had to offer. He cannot explain angular velocity/momentum, he cannot explain the basis of orbits, yet he appeals to the authority of Newton as he does NOAA.
Norman, keeps talking about molecules but he apparently has no idea that molecules are models for the electrons and nucleii in atoms. Norman doesn’t even begin to understand that molecules are aggregations of atomic nucleii and their associated electrons that bond the nuclei to each other as molecules.
Norman fails to grasp that any vibration in a molecule is the vibration produced by the interaction of atomic nucleii and the electrons that bond them.
Molecules have no source of vibrate besides the vibration of the electron-nucleii pair and associated dipole actions related to the charges of both. The more energy the electron acquires, the greater the vibration. Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.
Norman will never get that and he will continue to bray, like the ass (donkey) he is, tossing insults and ad homs in lieu of actual physics.
This is wrong Gordon:
“Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.”
There is a distinction between electron energy levels and molecular vibrational energy:
https://tinyurl.com/y56nsm9s
Norman is great at physics and Bindidon is great at temperature records.
“Norman is great at physics…”
Svante, please stop trolling.
Yes, Norman can tell you how the temperature of a powered object is influenced up or down by the surrounding temperature.
Like in the “Simplest Green Plate” effect:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
Thanks, that was the one where Eli threw you all under the bus:
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
You had all argued for months and months that via conduction (plates pressed together) the temperature of the plates would be equal, at 244 K. In that article, the originator of the Green Plate Effect disagrees. I have made that point before, and as usual, you people just lied about it, claiming that he only meant the blue plates temperature increase would be infinitesimal, if heat transfer was via conduction.
But that’s not what he says, it’s not what people reacting to his post in the comments obviously thought (and he doesn’t tell them otherwise), and his algebra is non-specific enough that clearly it is meant to apply to all heat transfer mechanisms, as his closing remarks that I quoted suggest.
The examples assume perfect conduction inside the plates.
With aluminum conducting 237 W per Kelvin and meter, one mm plates pressed together give a temp diff of about 0.001 C, so you can forget about that.
Eli’s plates are apart.
For conduction you have to insert another conducting material between them. Have your pick.
b’ > b means Tb’ > Tb (T for temperature).
“I have made that point before, and as usual, you people just lied about it…”
…and here we go again.
But yes, the first plate will warm as you press more aluminum plates on its back, even though the added plates are successively colder.
A thousand plates will give you 1 C if you press hard enough.
He goes through his math which comes down to describing that with one blue and one green plate, b’=2/3a and c=1/3a since he says a has to equal b’+c, where a is the energy input to the blue plate, and b’ is the output from the blue plate at equilibrium after the green plate (output denoted by c) has been added.
So if a is 400 watts, b’ = 267 watts and c = 133 watts. That is his solution for the 2-plate scenario, as anyone familiar with this topic will remember.
He then describes how this would change as more plates are added, and then, as I said:
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
So no matter how that 400 watts is received and transmitted between the plates, he’s saying the end result is the same, and will be as more plates are added. You people want to try to rewrite what he is saying to fit in with what you’ve already committed yourselves to, but it just doesn’t work.
Svante is attempting the old “bait and switch” trick, that Swanson attempted. He’s trying to jump back and forth between “perfect conductor” and “aluminum”. The can’t just face reality. They have to use all their tricks.
They do the same thing with the moon/rotation. First they claimed Moon was rotating on its axis because, if viewed from inertial space or “the stars”, it “appeared” to be doing that. But, “appear” is NOT science, as demonstrated by the blue jet that appears to be flying upside-down, as viewed from the stars but, in reality, is not flying upside-down.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
And for children, there is the kiddie version:
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
That’s right, the left plate will warm up unless you have perfect conduction (which he has inside the plates, but not around them).
Conduction and radiation have different physical formulas, so they produce very different results. For perfect conduction there is no temperature difference. Vacuum makes a big difference.
Svante starts with his usual cheery, “that’s right” as he then goes on to misrepresent everything that’s been said.
First comment under the article, from “Fernando Leanme”:
“Ebenezer Rabbet figured this out for the case for fur coats: The thicker the fur, the warmer the wearer…”
Did Eli jump in and say: well actually, for conduction or convection, the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a” and so on doesn’t apply, as that is actually just for radiative heat transfer…?
…of course not! What would have been the point of the article if the math were only meant to apply to radiation, when he’d already written an article on that the year before?
Show how the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a” fits in with your 0.001 C temperature difference.
…remembering that b’ and c are the output from the blue and green plates, and that whether pressed together or not, part of that output will be radiation to space…
No, you lose the symmetry if you have conduction between plates and radiation outside of them.
So with incoming heat of 400 W/m^2:
a=400 W/m^2
b=a/2=200 W/m^2
b’=2a/3=266.6 W/m^2
c=b’/2=133.3 W/m^2
For radiation, j* = εσT^4, Tb must be:
T^4 = 200 / (1 * 5.670373*10^-8) = 7054209661.33974
Tb = 244 K
So for b’:
266.6 / (1 * 5.670373*10^-8) = 4702806440.89316
Tb’ is 262 K.
Now to send 133.3 W/m^2 (b’-c) between aluminium plates of 1 mm and 237 W/K/m pressed together you need a delta T (dT) of:
j*=(k/s)*dT
dT=j*/(k/s)
dT=133 / (237 / 0.002) = 0.001 K
Sorry I didn’t do it with units, it got to messy.
Svante tries another trick. His physics is WRONG, but his arithmetic is right. He ends up with the wrong answer, but believes he is right.
A simple example is how fast can a human run?
Distance = speed * time
So, if a human runs 1000 miles in 1 hour, then a human can run 1000 mph.
The answer is not reality, even though the arithmetic is correct.
Clowns hate reality.
So if the plates only have a 0.001 K difference between them, then the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a” does not apply.
Thank you for proving my point.
Gordon Robertson
You are just plain wrong. That simple. You do not know what you talk about and just make mindless associations of words to try and pretend you studied some actual science (most know you are a fraud, pretending to be something you are not).
Here you try to criticize my approach. Again you show a complete lack of how science works. (If you had actually studied any you would know this…reality suggests you have read a few crackpot papers now and then and think you are this super genius expert).
YOU: “If Norman understood even basic physics, he would not have to refer me to anyone, he could explain physics himself.”
Read any science paper and you will see numerous references. I will use established science as my source unless I do my own experiments then I will explain the physics myself. You will just make up your silly ideas and pretend you know what you are saying.
Here is proof you are a phony fraud: YOU: “Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.”
Very stupid statement and it shows you know nothing of Chemistry or Physics. You can pretend all you want, the people that know the subject just roll their ideas at your pretending. One day you may be honest and tell the truth but I don’t see that happening soon. You are basically a liar and dishonest human.
https://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/cropped_article_image/public/blogs_2016/06/pinocchio-970×545.jpg?itok=tnKqT8Mt
So what does a stack of plates have to do with climate? The atmosphere is nothing like a stack of plates.
svante…This is wrong Gordon:
Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.
There is a distinction between electron energy levels and molecular vibrational energy:”
********
There is no such thing as molecular vibrational energy. A molecule is a CONVENIENT WORD used to define two or more atoms bonded together by electron bonds, or by the charges produced by those bond.
THERE IS NOTHING THERE BUT ATOMIC NUCLEII AND ELECTRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
from your link…”There are three main processes by which a molecule can absorb radiation. and each of these routes involves an increase of energy that is proportional to the light absorbed”.
The author is offering a very simplistic illustration and he/she uses ‘light’ incorrectly. Light is the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. I’d say the author is an amateur, either that or he/she is intending the information for kids in kindergarten.
Only electrons can absorb radiation IN AN ATOM.
AGAIN…THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN A MOLECULE THAT CAN ABSORB RADIATION…..OR VIBRATE.
Here’s the CO2 molecule….
O=====C====O
The dashed lines represent electron orbitals bonding two oxygen nucleii to a carbon nucleii.
The only difference between carbon and oxygen as atoms is the number of electrons and protons they have. All atoms are nothing but electrons, protons, neutrons, and sub-atomic particles.
What do you see in the CO2 molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition? Nothing but electrons and the nucleii of carbon and oxygen.
Vibration is on the dashed lines between nucleii and it’s due to the electrons interacting with the protons in the nucleus.
If that linear molecule was struck and it began to rotate around its linear axis, what is there to change energy but the electrons in the bonds?
There are no secret mechanisms in molecules, the molecule is just a name to represent the electrons and protons of two or more atoms.
Bill –
“The atmosphere is nothing like a stack of plates.”
True.
Gordon –
“What do you see in the CO2 molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition?”
O=====C====O
O O
= =
= =
= =
= =
C
C
= =
= =
= =
= =
O O
O O
= =
= =
= =
= =
C
C
= =
= =
= =
= =
O O
My spaces disappeared. I was trying to illustrate the scissor mode seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration#/media/File:Scissoring.gif
“…the people that know the subject just roll their ideas…”
People roll their eyes at Norman’s inabiltiy to understand idioms.
“You are basically a liar and dishonest human.”
Always a bit of a worry when someone refers to others as “humans”.
As usual, DREMT tries to create faux controversies about who said what and when and who agreed and who didnt, while ignoring the reality that his facts are all wrong.
And ignoring that the conduction issue has been explained to him thoroughly and repeatedly, and he still refuses to acknowledge that it is negligible effect and a red herring.
Just Dumb babbles:
“They do the same thing with the moon/rotation. First they claimed Moon was rotating on its axis because, if viewed from inertial space or the stars, it appeared to be doing that. But, appear is NOT science, as demonstrated by the blue jet that appears to be flying upside-down, as viewed from the stars but, in reality, is not flying upside-down!”
This is Clownette logic. For example, a clown, like JD, is standing at the center of a spinning merry-go-round, with his feet firmly planted on its floor. Viewed from the inertial reference frame, the clown appears to be spinning on his own axis. But, no! From the local reference frame of the merry-go-round, he is not according to the Clownettes.
Now let’s say a portion of the floor at the center of the spinning merry-go-round can be removed, and the clown can step down onto the ground. Per JD, the clown is apparently standing still! Wait, but no, fool. Your eyes are deceiving you. The clown in reality is actually rotating on his own axis!!
Clownette logic in action.
And remember. Gordon firmly stated:
“If a body is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame it is not rotating about its axis in any reference frame.
Gordon. The person who proudly claimed: “I studied a year of astrophysics but I learned my orbital theory in engineering physics.”
And meanwhile, Dr Em T cannot figure out how to answer the clown merry-go-round problem.
HGS, you can go on and on about people stuck to the floor of a merry-go-round all you like. You can’t try to redefine pure rotation out of existence, I’m afraid.
You draw a chalk circle on the floor at the edge of the merry-go-round. The atoms of the floor inside that chalk circle are not rotating about an axis in the center of the circle, from any frame of reference. They are all rotating about an axis at the center of the merry-go-round, instead. They are all moving in concentric circles about that central point, and not moving in circles about a point in the center of the chalk circle. That’s just a fact, and it remains a fact from any reference frame.
So you want to go on about a person slap bang in the center. Maybe you want to ask a series of questions about how that person starts at the edge of the merry-go-round, is he rotating on his own axis, he starts walking towards the center, at what point is he rotating on his own axis, etc etc. Heard it all before. It won’t change the fact about that chalk circle on the floor at the edge. The moon is about 240,000 miles away from the Earth. Get a grip.
All analogies tend to break down at some point. If you want to confuse yourself about rotation you can go into all sorts of contorted logic and lose yourself in it indefinitely, if you like. Regarding the guy walking towards the center of the merry-go-round, I’ll go with the horse running the equatorial track, instead. It’s a more apt analogy for the moon situation, in this respect.
So you have an imaginary track running around the Earth’s equator. A horse is running along the track. You are viewing this from above the North Pole, looking down. You reduce the diameter of the Earth, steadily. You get the diameter down to about twenty feet. The horse is still not rotating on its own axis. Reduce the diameter to zero. The horse is still not rotating about an axis through its center of mass.
So now you can stop going on about clowns and clownettes with their feet glued to the floor, etc.
Child-Gone-Stupid, does your school bus travel upside-down?
Well, it does if viewed “from the stars”.
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
But does it REALLY travel upside-down? Of course not.
It’s just that simple, yet you still can’t figure it out.
Maybe when you grow up….
But does it REALLY travel upside-down? Of course not.
Yes, it does. You said it yourself:
Well, it does if viewed from the stars.
It is not enough to ask if something is “upside-down”. One must specify a reference frame relative to which it is upside-down or not upside-down. By specifying the reference frame as “the stars”, the description of “upside-down” becomes coherent and consistent.
Bart believes his school bus travels updide-down.
You can’t help stupid….
I suppose one cannot (sigh).
Dr Em T gets frustrated because he cannot answer the simple clown merry-go-round problem.
Now to Dr. Em T’s silly horse on the equator problem. For entertainment purposes, lets substitute the stooge Curly instead of the horse. When the track diameter is reduced to zero, Curly is on his side doing his infamous floor spinning routine, rotating on his own axis about his center of mass, because he was rotating on his own axis prior to that, one rotation per orbit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iZPRif2i4
Back to the merry-go-round. This particular merry-go-round has a wooden horse located at the center of rotation for the merry-go-round. His hooves are attached to the merry-go-round. A pole also goes through the horse’s center of gravity, firmly attached to the horse and merry-go-round, so the horse cannot rotate wrt the pole. The pole also extends into the ground, but has a frictionless connection with the ground so the pole can rotate wrt the ground. Now according to clown physics, when the merry-go-round spins, the horse is NOT rotating on its own axis because his hooves are firmly attached to the floor of the merry-go-round. Now let say this spinning merry-go-round suddenly disappears, but the horse is still attached to the pole. Per Newtons laws of motion, the horse will continue to rotate at the same angular velocity as the merry-go-round, but per Clown physics, the horse is not rotating on its own axis! No. Clown physics says the horse needs to stand still on the ground, then he’ll be rotating on its own axis. Clown physics in action.
“Curly is on his side doing his infamous floor spinning routine, rotating on his own axis about his center of mass”.
Wrong. You seem to lack the ability to visualize what is being explained to you. As the diameter of the Earth is reduced to zero, The axis “Curly” would be rotating around would be based at the underside of his feet, which he would be rotating around as though he were the single blade of a turbine, with his feet at the hub. “Curly” would not be rotating about an axis through his center of mass.
This does away with all your continued dribblings with regard to the merry-go-round.
I’m sorry for your argument loss.
P.S: stop declaring what you think are our arguments. If the person’s own axis aligned with the axis at the center of the merry-go-round, then yes, they would be rotating on their own axis.
So Curly is rotating on the axis about his feet? Big deal. It was a bad analogy you created, because race horses and cars do not drive on their sides.
But you still cannot answer the correct analogies regarding the clown and horse, because your clown physics is insane, based on two reference frames. But its entertaining to say the least.
Maybe Gordon will give it a real try, as soon as he finishes his baby seal clubbing activities.
“It was a bad analogy you created, because race horses and cars do not drive on their sides.”
Nobody is saying they do, and it’s not a “bad analogy”. It is actually a more apt analogy for the situation with the moon as in all our discussions, and in all our gifs and diagrams, we are invariably looking down at the Earth as though we were above the North Pole, when considering the moon’s orbit.
“But you still cannot answer the correct analogies regarding the clown and horse, because your clown physics is insane, based on two reference frames. But its entertaining to say the least.”
This “based on two reference frames” is just another straw man you have concocted.
‘Wrong. You seem to lack the ability to visualize what is being explained to you. As the diameter of the Earth is reduced to zero, The axis Curly would be rotating around would be based at the underside of his feet, which he would be rotating around as though he were the single blade of a turbine, with his feet at the hub. Curly would not be rotating about an axis through his center of mass.’
Hilarious. Curly orbits with his CM at some radius. You guys lack the imagination to continue reducing his radius to 0. His legs stop you.
Convenient for deluding oneself. But this analogy is still considered ‘apt’.
Meanwhile Curly walking upright to the center of a disk, nothing stops his radius from reaching 0. Yet this analogy is considered not ‘apt’.
Why?
As usual, such assumptions are made for the sole purpose of confirming one’s beliefs, and have no other justification.
P.S: just to finish explaining my analogy, HGS, if you were to go beyond the point of having the axis at the underside of “Curly’s” feet and kept trying to take it further, you might end up for instance removing his legs and having it so that he is just a torso rotating around that central point, in which case his center of mass is now somewhere in the middle of that torso, so he would still not be rotating about his own axis. So you could continue further, until he was just a head rotating about that central point, in which case his center of mass is now somewhere in the middle of his head, so he would still not be rotating about his own axis.
Ultimately, if you really want to push the analogy, you could end up with one single atom rotating about a central point, and still it would not be rotating on its own axis.
So, it makes the most sense just to stop at the underside of the feet.
Somehow Curly’s legs cannot cross over the Earth’s center, just cuz.
But the solid crust of the Earth doesnt stop Curly from being at the center.
Maybe, because its a thought experiment, dumbass!
P.P.S: try not to forget that the diameter of the Earth has been reduced to zero.
Carbon500
Do we really mean the same ‘CET’ ?
https://tinyurl.com/y5zrydyo
I would understand your comments above by far better if the red running mean in
https://tinyurl.com/y4swnjhu
looked like a flat line…
binny…”This, Robertson
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
is the most ridiculous head post I ever read concerning temperature series in general, and those of GHCN in particular”.
*********
Nothing ridiculous about chiefio’s analysis the problem is with your personal bias and your appeal to the authority figure NOAA. You just don’t get it that they are biased in favour of AGW hence they are now a political faction not a scientific organization.
From the link:
“Early on, I noticed that the history of the thermometer record had The Thermometers March South. Initially I assumed this was just an artifact of the spread of technology, and time, spreading from the north to the south. And perhaps some spread of wealth and thermometers in the Jet Age as airports spread to tropical vacation lands. Yet there was an odd discontinuity at the end. In the 1990s, the thermometer count plunged overall, and the percentage in the Northern Cold band was cut dramatically. This was the early investigation that lead to all the other links here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/
….”
“One early cut looked at the Northern Hemisphere in total. In retrospect, you can see the Day the Thermometer Music Died in the charts of winter months. Thermometers at the beach in Los Angeles dont get very cold in winter, those at Squaw Valley Ski Area do. In California, all our thermometers have left the mountains and are now on the beach with 3/4 of them near L.A. and San Diego. I didnt know that when this posting was made, but you can clearly see the effect of these changes in the Northern Hemisphere graphs:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/the-northern-hemisphere-what-warming/
I initially thought that the stability in the record seen in long lived thermometers must have been an artifact of modification flag changes with the changes of equipment (as many placed moved to automated temperature recording). Since then, Ive determined that there really were a bunch of thermometers deleted. 90+% in many major countries around the world. There is still a discontinuity at the end, and that lead to more detailed investigations”.
There you have it, 90% of thermometers deleted by GHCN in major countries.
You don’t understand GHCN at the depth of chiefio because he is a computer programmer with experience in data analysis and he can delve into the chicanery of NOAA. You are an Excel number cruncher with no idea what you are doing.
binny…”You of course did not understand that with thermometers, your chiefio idol referred to GHCN stations. To what else?”
You are now a blithering idiot.
For the second time, chiefio made it clear that he was referring to Gistemp data. Giss gets its data from NOAA via GHCN then they create their own data set with the stations they want.
Chiefio said there is no record in the “GISTEMP” data for Bolivia after 1990. The only person raving about the GHCN record is you.
binny…”I know: you will discredit and denigrate this comment as all others I wrote until now. I dont bother, Robertson”.
***********
You make it so easy.
Go down the page to Bolivian data and chiefio shows the Bolivian data on hand from Gistemp:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“This report shows the percentage of thermometers in any given altitude band (in meters). So we see that Bolivia began with 25% of its thermometers above 2000 meters (in the snow zone) and with 75% between 500 and 1000 meters in the decade ending in 1919. It ended with 100% of them at that 2000 meter+ altitude in the last reported year of 1990”.
Except he never was a skeptic and UHI is easy to prove almost everyday by watching daily weather forecasts and reported temps, seeing the difference between rural and urban locations.
Scott Mc
“UHI is easy to prove almost everyday by watching daily weather forecasts and reported temps, seeing the difference between rural and urban locations.”
At a first glance, your assumption might look correct.
But… it isn’t.
1. Your forecasts show absolute temperatures. So in a town you mostly have a higher temperature than outside, nothing strange.
But UHI is something more complex. A site is affected by UHI if and only if it warms faster than those around it, and not simply if it is warmer.
I recently could show a nice example of that in a discussion at WUWT, about the pretended difference between pristine, rural CRN stations in the US when compared with stations located in a town.
The discussion was centred around Anthony Watts’ claim about a station in Anchorage (Alaska)
USW00026451 61.1689 -150.0278 36.6 AK ANCHORAGE INTL AP 70273
having shown – in his opinion – exceeding warmth.
But comparing the station’s anomalies with those of the rural CRN station in Kenai near Anchorage
USW00026563 60.7236 -150.4483 86.0 AK KENAI 29 ENE CRN 70342
during their common activity period, gave this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14aS2UEkD0_Uw2rC05ywbQNdIURBVW-GW/view
Kenai (left) is all the time at least 2 C cooler than Anchorage Intl AP, see their monthly absolute temperature averages e.g. for 2011:
2011 01 -10.11 | 2011 01 -7.35
2011 02 -10.67 | 2011 02 -8.25
2011 03 -6.69 | 2011 03 -3.87
2011 04 1.89 | 2011 04 3.10
2011 05 6.43 | 2011 05 8.93
2011 06 9.76 | 2011 06 12.37
2011 07 12.24 | 2011 07 14.43
2011 08 11.25 | 2011 08 13.05
2011 09 7.84 | 2011 09 9.81
2011 10 1.63 | 2011 10 3.16
2011 11 -13.04 | 2011 11 -9.54
2011 12 -6.76 | 2011 12 -4.61
but the departures from the mean are for both stations, as you can see on the graph above, amazingly similar.
Thus, looking at forecasts won’t help you in finding out where UHI really exists.
To detect UHI, you have to look at stations which are not only warmer than their immediate rural environment, but kin addition show more warming, by comparing their anomalies and these anomalies’ trends over a common observation period.
GHCN daily sources (links tinyURLd due to the ‘d c’ syndrome)
Anchorage Intl AP: https://tinyurl.com/yymaoge2
https://tinyurl.com/yymaoge2
Kenai 29 ENE:
https://tinyurl.com/y27y68u3
The issue is that, if through continued development, the UHI in a particular location is increasing with time, it will produce a spurious trend in anomaly. How do we know how many of the stations are thus affected? Unless you have time to delve into every record yourself, you have to take it on faith.
The fact that the anomalies we are looking at are so tiny to begin with means the calculation is potentially very sensitive to spurious inputs. Honestly, I do not see how you can take it for granted that the surface records are unaffected by this. I personally consider the surface records to be unreliable.
Bart
A typical Bart answer: guessing and doubting about the unknown instead of contradicting what I wrote with FACTS.
Why don’t you, like I do, download several surface temperature data sets and analyse them?
Moreover, I suspect you to be quite a bit dishonest when you write:
“I personally consider the surface records to be unreliable.”
Because I have good reasons to think that in fact, you consider only UAH‘s satellite measurement interpretations to be reliable.
Correct?
I consider it passing strange that you seem to think I should never doubt anything until I can prove my suspicions to a level that would convince you. This is like a religious person insisting I accept the existence of God unless I can prove to him that He doesn’t exist.
Look, there’s lots of reasons to suspect the surface data of being sub-par. That’s the whole reason 100’s of millions of dollars were invested in satellite systems to measure the Earth’s temperature. If the surface measurements were widely considered infallible, the conversation on spending those monies would have been very short. Why go to the effort and expense when we already have perfectly good ground measurements?
The surface measurements cover a small portion of the globe violating both spatial and temporal sampling theorems for exact reconstruction, they only measure daily max and min values, and they are subject to myriad influences from changes in local land use and measurement instrumentation. It is absurd of you to argue that they are beyond reproach.
binny…”A typical Bart answer: guessing and doubting about the unknown instead of contradicting what I wrote with FACTS”.
1)You did not write any facts.
2)I have found that Bart’s answers are normally well thought out, and based on fact.
Bart
I prefer to skip your philosophy, it is completely useless here.
Please allow for a little bit of sarcasm: while stations measurements by evidence can’t cope with satellites’ uniform and complete scans (at least in theory), your knowledge of temperature data sets is quite sup-par as well.
You write
“The surface measurements cover a small portion of the globe violating both spatial and temporal sampling theorems for exact reconstruction, they only measure daily max and min values, and they are subject to myriad influences from changes in local land use and measurement instrumentation.”
Let me say that you aren’t wrong – at least one again in theory. But in practice, things look a bit different.
Here is for example a comparison of three anomaly plots:
– GHCN daily stations (raw data with grid averaging to avoid spatial supremacy of station groups, especially in CONUS)
– GISS land (homogenised)
– UAH6.0 LT land
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gT1bWIH2JhpqMgisImxsQfyqMfx_-53P/view
Never and never did I argue anywhere that station data would be beyond reproach: you are the one who pretends that right here.
I hope you will agree with me that if the averages of GHCN daily raw station data, of homogenised station data based on GHCN V3, and of lower troposphere’s microwave emissions are so near to each other, station data can’t be so terribly wrong.
As you can see here, you are correct whan writing that Earth’s land surfaces are under-represented by GHCN daily, no doubt: only about 2200 cells of the 3000 in a 2.5 degree grid actually contain at least one station:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SJQKvqhfYseVOz1aJL0g0Unecmmo4vFf/view
But I’m sorry: like many people, you are idealising the accuracy of satellite readings.
If they were so accurate: why is their processing by different groups so different?
Only stubborn people lacking any real knowledge pretend that UAH’s satellite measurement processing are by definition better than those performed by RSS or by the NOAA STAR group.
Their goal is to propagate their own ideology solely based on the fact that currently, UAH6.0’s averaging is by far cooler than that provided by UAH5.6 until 2015.
Bart
I forgot to add this in the comment above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZgjmYUL43320EoLQ5bL0Hs3aYwas-gt/view
“Only stubborn people lacking any real knowledge pretend that UAHs satellite measurement processing are by definition better than those performed by RSS or by the NOAA STAR group.”
I do not pretend. I observe.
I’ve been watching this controversy for nearly two decades now. I saw that ALL the major data sets were pretty much in agreement in the first decade of the new century. Then, people began noticing that the rise in temperature anomaly had stalled. Subsequently and conveniently, the land-based sets began to be “adjusted”. Not horrifically or comically, but just enough to give the impression that there was no stall. One by one, they adopted a series of dubious modifications to erase the “pause”.
As a for-profit center, RSS was under tremendous pressure to buckle under and get with the program. Everyone knew it was just a matter of time. And then, rather anti-climactically, they “adjusted” their’s, too.
UAH is the only one which preserves the series upon which they all once agreed. Do not bother trying to tell me otherwise. I watched it happen. I know what I saw. It’s bullsh–.
Bindidon says: “But UHI is something more complex. A site is affected by UHI if and only if it warms faster than those around it, and not simply if it is warmer.”
You got that one mostly wrong. Yes there is a belief that a small part of the warming could be existing urban sites warming faster than rural. However, there are several questions:
1) how much has the extent of urban growth over the past century attributed to the approximate one degree warming seen in the past century.
All those things have massively expanded in the last 100 years with a far larger percentage of the population living in cities than ever before.
One simply cannot sit in a windowless office and answer that question. Its actually insulting to suggest someone could.
bill hunter
You seem to be confused. I got it nowhere wrong.
Here is a graph showing a separation of all GHCN V3 stations into
– rural with lowest nightlight (2269 of 7280 stations)
– all others.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uVUJ_zQWW1UTNGCsHJQaANLa-iHND8sM/view
As you can see, the urban station anomalies wrt 1981-2010 keep since the 1930’s over long periods below the rural context.
Since around 2000, the situation has been inverted:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gA6IPBR0ZAGgJCofiqDVARps2RFk2WJz/view
Thus to say “Yes! It’s UHI!” is a bit too simple.
That is the reason why Pseudoskeptics have moved their claims from UHI to “UHI is everywhere!”.
Bindidon says: – Here is a graph showing a separation of all GHCN V3 stations into rural with lowest nightlight (2269 of 7280 stations) all others.
I understand what you are trying to show. Namely that urban stations warmed only about .2 degrees faster over the last 34 years.
But what your chart is not showing is how many previous rural areas that may or may not have had a temperature station that became urbanized over the last 34 years and currently does have a temperature station. That effect is an absolute temperature effect that would be falsely included in the anomaly figures.
So if the absolute temperature difference between urban and rural is say 4 degrees C, each station in the rural category at the end of the measurement would incorporate any warming in it from its degree of urbanization it obtained over the time analyzed. Thus the anomaly for rural would show too much rise and would minimize the differences between the two. On the urban side there could be a similar effect increasing the urban classification by becoming more urbanized over time as well.
One cannot measure this from a windowless office. One needs to understand fully how urbanization changes the absolute temperature of a station. As I understand it there are measurements of absolute temperature differences between rural and urban, but thats even not enough information. One needs to fully understand how urbanization around temperature changes have changed and to what degree as for a temperature difference to exist between urban and rural it has to be incrementally linked to a degree of urbanization as it doesn’t happen the day you flick the switch on ten street lights and you cross the arbitrary line like one more straw breaking the camels back.
binny…”1. Your forecasts show absolute temperatures. So in a town you mostly have a higher temperature than outside, nothing strange”.
“But comparing the stations anomalies with those of the rural CRN station in Kenai near Anchorage…”
Why would you compare anomalies unless the anomalies are relative to the same absolute temperature average over a range?
And what’s this nonsense about UHI not being related to absolute temperatures?
Robertson
“Why would you compare anomalies unless the anomalies are relative to the same absolute temperature average over a range?”
*
Your lack of understanding, knowledge and experience perfectly fits to your permanent excess of agressivity.
*
Anomalies were introduced EXACTLY BECAUSE they relieve us of the need to solely compare values that are in the same range!
1. Here is a chart with the plots of two data series with thoroughly different absolute values:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SktSBLtlG5ayePmCXTTdAPEsaXihTJN5/view
2. The same data in absolute form, but each relative to its mean of all months within Jan 1981 – Dec 2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zyuow0CAQDLBfJyxXK5hDKcW40ASrtOW/view
(This is what we would obtain when using NOAA’s description of anomalies in the strict, trivial sense.)
3. The same data, now in useful anomaly form, with all monthly values relative to their monthly mean within 1981-2010, thus removing the annual cycle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10keTcFSsIMK3rON7mOsqeSm0H2mBsasu/view
*
“And whats this nonsense about UHI not being related to absolute temperatures?”
If you really would understand how UHI works, and how anomalies are exactly computed, then you would not have to ask such a simple question.
*
The best is imho to leave you alone with all your clueless certitudes.
binny…”Anomalies were introduced EXACTLY BECAUSE they relieve us of the need to solely compare values that are in the same range!
1. Here is a chart with the plots of two data series with thoroughly different absolute values:”
***********
Once again, what does it mean when you compare anomalies relative to two different baselines?
If I have an anomaly of +0.5C relative to a baseline from 1950 – 1990 and another anomaly of +5C relative to a baseline from 1981 – 2010, the anomalies have nothing in common.
You might argue that 0.5C is 0.5C but the effect those anomalies have on the different baselines is different. That 0.5C is one of many bits of data that forms the baseline average.
Anomalies are deviations from an average and they are related only to that average. Unless you normalize the average values between different baselines, you cannot compare deviations from them.
The question arises as to how you normalize the NOAA surface record with a baseline from 1950 – 1990 and the UAH baseline from 1981 – 2010? A determination also has to be made as to the accuracy of each set and to how much each has been fudged, as in the case of NOAA.
If you think you can simply transfer an anomaly from one set to another you are even worse off than I thought.
NOAA shows a trend line starting at the 1950 – 1990 baseline and increasing +vely from then on. UAH shows a trend line mainly below the baseline from 1980 – 1997 then mostly above the baseline from 1998 onward. A good 15 years of the latter trend is flat whereas the NOAA trend line is not.
You are claiming you can select corresponding anomalies from a common year and compare them directly. You can’t because adding the 0.5C anomaly to baselines derived from different data will give you different absolute temperatures. That’s because the baselines are based on different absolute temperatures.
The fudged NOAA data set and the UAH satellite-derived data set have nothing in common, except that the UAH data set has far more comprehensive coverage and is based on instrumentation that has bazillions more data points than two-a-day thermometer readings.
Robertson
“Once again, what does it mean when you compare anomalies relative to two different baselines?”
Once again, Robertson: I compared in the comment above
– two absolute data time series
and
– their anomalies wrt 1981-2010!
Are you really that dumb?
The anomaly data sets compared are here (in the column 3):
– https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo (UAH6.0 LT)
– https://tinyurl.com/y4ln5u9t (UAH6.0 LS)
The absolute data was generated using Roy Spencer’s climatologies
– https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
and
– https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/tlsmonacg_6.0
No one compares here any anomalies computed out of different reference periods! That nonsense exists in YOUR head only.
Jesus are you a boring person. You don’t understand anything.
I would say that if you do not use satellite data with the ocean covering 2/3 of the planet and even today you have 1 thermometer for an area larger than California its impossible to say. Look at Russia had record lows while Paris was hot. curremtly in the UK its pretty cool, but Im told it was hot a couple of weeks ago.. weather?
scott…”weather?”
Of course. Nothing to do with a trace gas.
norman…”Here is proof you are a phony fraud: YOU: Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.”
Norman, you are a twit. What else is there in a molecule but electrons and the protons in the nucleii? The electron is the only particle free to move and any time gas molecules collide, the electron orbitals are the first to contact.
Where are the secret devices in molecules to which you refer?
Gordon Robertson
The atoms within the molecule are free to move not just the electron.
You have lots of atoms and molecules moving as a whole bodies in the air. Do you know what an ion is? Do you know what a Mass Spectrometer is and what it does?
In a mass spectrometer an atoms and molecules of a substance are ionized and the whole ion bends in the magnetic field to be detected based upon its mass and charge. Not just the electron moves. The whole thing moves. In the molecule the oxygen and carbon nuclei are still distinct and separate entities. Only a few of the electrons are involved in bonding. The rest move as whole units.
I will attempt rational science with you and hope for the best.
Here will be some links for you to follow.
One is the kinetic energy of molecules at room temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
“At standard temperature (273.15 K), we get:
per mole: 3406 J
per molecule: 5.65 zJ = 35.2 meV.”
The unit mev is milli-electron volts.
Now for the energy of electronic transitions. Moving an electron against the positive gradient of the positive charged nucleus requires much more energy to achieve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
This link has electron volts of different EMR bands. If you look at the graph (scroll down a bit, it is on the right side of the page) you will see the energy of molecules at standard temperature is only in the mid and far IR bands. Not even close to the energy needed for electronic transitions. I do not think you understand the energy it requires to move electrons against the positive gradient. I am hoping the supply of good information can help you understand the energy needed for electronic transitions. I hope you can also understand that atoms and molecules with all their components can move as a complete unit. You seem to be unable to understand this.
I am not sure this attempt will aid you.
norman…”The atoms within the molecule are free to move not just the electron”.
There are no atoms within a molecule, the atoms ARE the molecule. There is no box marked ‘molecule’ in which you find atoms.
Get it out of your mind that a molecule is a separate entity from atoms, a molecule is nothing more than a name for an aggregations of electrons and their associated nucleii.
The word molecule is used to distinguish one set of electron/nucleii arrangements from another. All molecules are arrangements of electrons and their associated nucleii.
If your molecule is a solid body in a lattice, the nucleii are not free to move. Electrons can move in conductors and semiconductors.
Nucleii are bonded together by electrons. They can vibrate in place but to do so requires a stretching and contraction of the bonds, which are electrons.
There is nothing in the nucleii that can change energy levels. Maybe at a sub-atomic level that might be possible but that energy change would not be related to the molecule.
The electron is the only particle that can change energy levels by moving to a higher or lower state of energy.
That is the basis of quantum theory. QM is based on the properties of electrons as they orbit and interact with the charges on the protons in the nucleus.
Do you know what an ion is???? An ion is an atom with an electrical charge. Neutral atoms have an equal number of electrons and proton. If the atom acquires an electron, it has a negative charge and if it loses an electron it has a positive charge.
Therefore a moving ion is nothing more than an atom or molecule with a specific ratio of electrons to protons. If the ion is bent in a magnetic field it is due to the charge level of electrons.
There’s that electron again.
“Only a few of the electrons are involved in bonding. The rest move as whole units”.
Yes but those electrons are neutral wrt to ions, only valence electrons in the outer shell can create a charge. Even though most of the electrons are neutral, some of them can jump between energy levels and as they do, they produce different radiation lines. You can see the various energy levels for the lone electron in hydrogen here:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Book%3A_Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/05%3A_Electrons_in_Atoms/5.07%3A_Spectral_Lines_of_Hydrogen
Gordon Robertson
I did attempt to be logical and rational with you. You are fixated on your own stupid ideas regardless of the overwhelming evidence you are wrong.
Yes there are still atoms in a molecule. The primary nature of an atom is the composition of the nucleus. The electrons can be part of it or not. The protons and neutrons take considerable energy to change. The carbon nuclei and oxygen nuclei make up the those atoms in the carbon dioxide molecule. They are what vibrate and rotate with respect to each other. You have been shown this many times. Bart attempted reason with you. I guess nothing will change your incorrect views. Evidence, logic, science are not an effective tool to get you out of your delusional thought process.
I know the dumb and dumber posters won’t attempt a simple thing to show their lunacy but you can try. Walk in a circle (not shuffle) without rotating your feet. Your feet rotate and then your body rotates on its axis once the feet are planted on the ground. Yes your body rotates on its axis while you walk in a circle. Try to do it without rotating your feet. If you do the shuffle around the circle without rotating your feet you will find that the person standing in the middle of the circle will then see all sides of you. When you rotate as you walk they will see only one side of you. Really easy to do and you will see that you are on the wrong side of intelligence on that one to. Don’t worry about complicating it with frames of reference, just look at your own feet while you walk in a circle and see what they are doing. If you do not rotate your feet you will just keep walking straight ahead.
Norman, you are still confusing “turning” with “rotating on an axis”. They are TWO entirely different motions.
You are uneducable.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You need to open a dictionary. Turning and rotating are synonyms of each other. Why do you think they are different motions.
You say a racehorse does not rotate as it runs in a circular path. Why do you believe this to be a true statement? What is your evidence that it is not rotating on its axis as it advances forward.
Only you are uneducable. I can learn and understand things quite well. It seems you are the unscientific one that claims your unsupportable opinions are at all valid in any way.
If you actually did the three plate experiment you proposed you would find (in a vacuum) the outer plates would roughly reach the same temperature but heated middle plate would get hotter by abor-bing the IR from the outer plates. You are just wrong and will not even attempt to do any testing. I asked you to walk in a circle without rotating your feet. You rotate on your axis as you turn. It is exactly the same motion as you would achieve if you did not move forward but stood and circled around. I can’t help you any more. You are truly Dumb and your partner is Dumber.
Why not do a three plate test like E. Swanson did with two plates? What is stopping you?
JDHuffman
Here for you to see.
https://wikidiff.com/rotate/turn
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/rotating
Norman, basically, you regard any change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars as axial rotation. That’s where you are going wrong.
Orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars, but that change in orientation is not axial rotation.
Think of a ball on a rope swinging around. The rope prevents the ball from rotating on its own axis. For the ball to rotate on its own axis, the rope would have to be wrapping around the ball. This doesn’t happen as the ball swings around (orbits). But as the ball orbits, it is changing orientation. So the ball is changing orientation as it orbits, but not rotating on its own axis.
Still wrong, Norman. The issue is not about what is the definition of “turning” or “rotating”. You keep ignoring “on its axis”. There is a difference between “rotating” and “rotating on its axis”. There is a difference between “turning” and “turning on an axis”. You STILL can’t understand. You can’t learn.
A racehorse “turns”, or “rotates”, or “orbits”, or “revolves” around the track, but it does NOT rotate on its axis. You STILL can’t understand. You can’t learn.
It’s the same with everything anyone has tried to teach you. You can’t learn.
With the “plates”, you STILL don’t understand the violations of laws of thermodynamics. You can’t understand that there can NOT be an increase in enthalpy and a decrease in entropy with no accompanying increase in energy. You don’t understand thermodynamics. You’re stuck on stupid. You can’t learn.
Nothing new.
norman…”Yes there are still atoms in a molecule. The primary nature of an atom is the composition of the nucleus. The electrons can be part of it or not”.
**********
Rather than wasting your energy with such futility why don’t you get into more interesting questions like, why doesn’t the nucleus of lead with 82 protons, blow apart due to the repulsion of like positive charges? Hint: neutrons.
There are no atoms in a physical entity called a molecule. Molecules don’t exist as a physical entity, they are nothing more than names for different aggregations of electrons and protons.
Atoms are DEFINED basically by the number of protons, neutrons and electrons they have. The neutrons have nothing to do with bonding or the electrostatic charges possessed by the protons and electrons.
Hydrogen has 1 proton and 1 electron. In it’s stable state it has no neutrons.
Carbon has 6 protons and 6 electrons in its neutral state.
Hydrogen has an atomic number of 1 and carbon is 6.
Lead has an atomic number of 82 with 82 protons and 82 electrons.
Btw gold has an atomic number of 79 hence the interest in turning lead into gold. Get out your tweezers and remove 3 protons from the nucleus of lead and some flypaper to rip off 3 electrons and presto…gold.
That is the only difference between all the elements…the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
an example using the water molecule. The molecule has 1 oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms bonded together by their respective valence shell electrons.
That’s it!!! 3 atoms bonded together by electrons
The ammonia molecule has 4 atoms: one nitrogen and 4 hydrogen atoms in the shape of a pyramid. The nitrogen atom is bonded to the 4 hydrogen atoms on the pyramid base by valence shell electrons.
The only reason the word molecule is used is to differentiate between the different arrangements of electrons and nucleii.
If vibration is taking place, or rotation, or internal electron transitions, they are all related to to the electrons and nucleii mentioned. There is no other mysterious unit in a molecule that can vibrate or rotate.
There is no other compartment that emits and absorbs EM. That is done by the valence shell electrons, no matter what bonding arrangement they represent.
Electrons don’t stop transitioning between energy levels just because they are in a bond.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
YOU: “Norman, basically, you regard any change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars as axial rotation. Thats where you are going wrong.”
No that is not correct. If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.
If you walk around the merry-go-round you are rotating on your axis as you walk around it. Check out your feet as you walk.
I quite well know the difference. It seems you and Huffman are the confused ones.
Nothing will convince Huffman. Are you this dense as well? If you do not rotate on your axis as you walk your path is a straight line ahead. If you rotate your feet as you walk your path will be a circle. It is really easy and factual.
Rotating on an axis is independent of a reference. You may not be able to determine the rate of rotation without a fixed reference but the object will still be rotating on its axis if there is a fixed reference or not.
If you removed all objects in the Universe but the Earth would it quit rotating on its axis because there is not reference to compare the rotation to? Does it just stop?
Gordon Robertson
Reset and try again.
YOU: “Electrons dont stop transitioning between energy levels just because they are in a bond.”
Correct but they will not transition if they do not have enough energy to do so. I have already linked you to actual science that shows how much energy is required to accomplish an electron transition. Why don’t you look at it.
Now a futile attempt. Not sure why it has to be that way.
YOU: “If vibration is taking place, or rotation, or internal electron transitions, they are all related to to the electrons and nucleii mentioned. There is no other mysterious unit in a molecule that can vibrate or rotate.”
It is the nuclei that vibrate. When an Carbon Dioxide molecule absorbs the proper wavelength of IR EMR this energy will give the two oxygen nuclei enough energy to start moving away from the carbon nuclei (the nuclei of the atomic components of the molecule are what vibrate or rotate). As the oxygen nuclei start moving away the bond is stretched. The force of the bond increases tension as it stretches pulling back on the oxygen nuclei as they move outward (the common analogy for this is balls connected by springs…the bond is represented by springs the balls are the mass bearing nuclei). Now you get your vibration. The oxygen nuclei slow and stop as the bond stretches (if the EMR is of high enough energy like UV or X-Ray the bond can break and the oxygen atoms break away and are once again individual atoms) now the tension on the bond pulls the oxygen molecules back toward the carbon nuclei they accelerate toward the carbon and keep moving closer until the repelling force of the remaining electron shells push them away, they move closer and build tension that moves them back out again. A vibration within a molecule. The electrons are not transitioning at all. There is a slight charge differential that is rapidly changing in this vibration and this is what produces the emission of the IR energy.
Education for you Gordon. Linus Pauling was involved in the production. Maybe watch it if you have time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RqEIr8NtMI
Norm says:
“If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.
If you walk around the merry-go-round you are rotating on your axis as you walk around it. Check out your feet as you walk.”
I would disagree. Let’s say the merry-go-round is turning at 1 radian per second, and the guy is standing on the outside edge of the merry-go-round at some distance R from the center of orbit. So he is moving at some tangential velocity V wrt the ground. Now take a guy running in a circle at the same tangential velocity V at the same radius. It’s all the same motion. Same thing with a toy race car at the same V, at the same raduis R. Same movement. They all rotate once on their own axis per 1 orbit.
Now if the guy starts walking around the edge of the merry-go-round, his tangential velocity is merely increasing wrt the ground.
It does not matter if the guy is riding in a race car or being transported by the merry-go-round. Same motion.
HuffmanGoneStupid
You might be right. That is a tough one for me to logically figure out. I have not studied circular motion enough to know if the person on the merry-go-round is considered to be rotating on his own axis or just revolving around the center.
I am not going to disagree with you point. I am not sure I want to spend lots of time studying this physics.
The clear thing is the Moon is rotating on its axis. 3 people do not accept this. You have used some very good examples to demonstrate their errors. You have linked them to actual physics texts showing their error. Nothing seems to be working.
I understand you are skeptical of Climate Change and want to keep it a rational skepticism.
I like reading many of the skeptical debates. I like the ones that are using valid science. Some good points are made.
Phil J had a really good point about how our destruction of the ozone layer was allowing in more UV light. It was a lot more than I had thought and it would be enough to cause a significant amount of warming indicated by all the measured global temperature data sets.
“The clear thing is the Moon is rotating on its axis. 3 people do not accept this.”
In a previous discussion, we identified, I think, 8 commenters from this blog who have argued for the “Non-Spinner” perspective at one time or another. Plus at least 1 astronomer, Aleksandr Tomic, who has degrees in physics and astronomy, and a masters in astrophysics. Plus, of course, Nikola Tesla. And I think Bindidon identified at least one other astronomer, and another mathematician/physicist, plus he linked to a book somebody had written on the subject. So…you’re wrong about it being 3 people.
“No that is not correct. If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.”
Thank you for your concession. I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
Too good to waste…
Elliott…the IPCC are a load of political twits. They are a corrupt organization who has 2500 reviewers review papers then overrules them with the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.
Examples:
1)the iconic IPCC statement that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming did not come from the 2500 reviewers. The consensus was to wait and see. The IPCC, through the 50 lead authors who write the Summary for Policymakers, overruled the consensus and published the 90% figure.
2)the IPCC knew the Mann et al hockey stick was flawed, that it had been fudged, yet they published it anyway. In doing so, they backed the hockey stick claim that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period had not happened, even though the IPCC acknowledged them both in 1990.
3)the IPCC declared the pre Industrial CO2 concentration at 280 ppmv based on nothing more than ice cores samples. They completely ignored that the period was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age where global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. There is no mention whatsoever in the IPCC annals of rewarming from the LIA.
4)a former leader of the IPCC, Pachauri, was accused of sexual harassment by an employee. He has a degree in railway engineering yet he was portrayed as the world’s leading climate scientist.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11441697/Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri-the-clown-of-climate-change-has-gone.html
5)The Climategate email scandal revealed two Coordinating Lead Authors involved in shady dealings. Phil Jones, of Had-crut, from whom the IPCC got their temperature data sets, threatened to block skeptic’s papers from the IPCC. He offered to recruit his partner, Kevin Trenberth, in the act.
Jones also admitted to using Mann’s trick to hide declining temperatures and he refused to release Had-crut data for independent audit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
I could go on and on.
Gordon Robertson says: “I could go on and on.”
And you do.
svante…”And you do [go on and on].
Only because you and your alarmists friends at the IPCC make it so easy and required. I did not see you rebutting anything I said therefore you must agree.
It’s one of your points refuted a thousand times.
Actually, I think your last link is a fair criticism of Phil Jones.
svante…”Actually, I think your last link is a fair criticism of Phil Jones”.
Especially coming from The Guardian.
DA,
Up thread at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-373113 you wrote ,, But you cant just ADD water vapor to the atmosphere it will soon rain or snow out. You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere if you *first* increase the atmos temperature.,, I suppose you continue to make this statement because that is what the EPA used as a bogus excuse for not considering WV. It is profoundly wrong and could only be true if relative humidity was 100% all the time. Neither sweating or swamp coolers produce any cooling at 100% relative humidity.
If you had looked at my blog/analysis (click my name) you could have discovered that NASA/RSS have been measuring water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988 at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product. Fig 3 in my b/a is a graph of the NASA/RSS numerical data. When normalized by dividing by the mean, the NASA/RSS data are corroborated by NCEP R1 and NCEP R2.
Calculated in Section 8 of my b/a, water vapor increased about twice as much as calculated from average global temperature trend increase 1988-2003. What part of this do you refuse to believe?
WV increase correlates with crop irrigation increase, with both WV and irrigation trends increasing substantially around 1960. WV increase is self-limiting and might have already stopped. It is self-limiting primarily because irrigable area is limited.
Bottom line, humanities contribution to natural warming has resulted from increased irrigation. CO2 does not, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate.
Dan, there is a link between atmospheric water vapor and temperature. But, you seem to be confusing cause and effect. Try this thought experiment:
There is a closed box. The box is perfectly insulated and sealed. The box contains a sample of the atmosphere, at a pressure of 1 ATM, and temperature of “T”. The water vapor in the box amounts to 5%, by volume.
Now, add water vapor to the box that is also at a temperature “T”, so that there is no condensation. At the same time, allow some pressure release from the box so that the pressure remains at 1 ATM. Add the water vapor until its percentage doubles.
You have doubled the WV, yet the temperature remains at “T”, unless you want to deny the laws of thermodynamics. The added WV did not raise the temperature inside the box.
Water vapor can NOT raise the temperature of a system, neither can CO2.
svante…”So with incoming heat of 400 W/m^2:”
Don’t you ever pay attention?
Heat is not measured in w/m^2, it is measured in calories and not over an area. Radiation is measured in W/m^2 and it has nothing to do with heat.
Radiation can be converted to heat by electrons in atoms but radiation is not heat. If you are still on about that stupid Eli Rabbett debacle, the solution is simple. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means. Therefore no heat can be transferred from the green plate to the blue plate.
You caught me out, I was being sloppy.
Heat is measured in one of these units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Energy
Power or heat flow rate is measured in one of these units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Power_or_heat_flow_rate
Heat flux is measured in W/m^2, or any other units of power per area.
Yes.
Except you just said it can be converted to heat.
Yes it can, and that will influence temperature.
But radiation can, and when it does it will influence temperature.
Yes, but the green plate can influence the blue plate temperature, up/down with more/less radiation.
Svante understands heat transfer analysis.
Too bad he fails to understand how CO2, in spite of being a ghg, does not, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate because:
1. The huge population gradient for water vapor molecules from average about 10,000 ppmv at surface to 32 ppmv at and above the tropopause.
2. Significant radiation below ~wavenumber 600 can only be absorbed/emitted by WV molecules and at higher altitudes much of the outward directed emission goes directly to space. This is demonstrated by the hash in TOA flux vs wavenumber graphs.
3. Thermalization allows much of the energy absorbed by CO2 below the tropopause to be redirected to WV.
4. CO2 is ~410 ppmv all the way up and dominates absorb/emit above the tropopause, partially refilling the notch in TOA flux vs wavenumber.
5. The increase in water vapor, which is about twice that calculated from temperature increase of the liquid water, accounts for the part of the increase in warming attributable to humanity.
I think all your points are good, except 5).
They are just words though.
Get the numbers with the battle proved MODTRAN program:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Battle proved?????
Proved by what battle? Only thing proven in modtran are some of the calculations and how much CO2 is absorbed in the atmosphere. Everything else is post normal science (a science hypothesis that wins the favor and money of the elite ruling class) So the only battle it has won is the battle for science funding.
Our missiles and sensors would not work without it.
MODTRAN was developed and continues to be maintained through a longstanding collaboration between Spectral Sciences, Inc. (SSI) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The code is embedded in many operational and research sensor and data processing systems, particularly those involving the removal of atmospheric effects, commonly referred to as atmospheric correction, in remotely sensed multi- and hyperspectral imaging (MSI and HSI).
Radiative transfer theory took a great leap in a place called Los Alamos. The theory worked.
In the west, the ruling class that we voted for have been trying to protect us.
And try this search:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=MODTRAN+missile&btnG=
You may be correct Svante.
My view of Modtran was from the modtran calculator offered up by the University of Chicago that extrapolated all the light being absorbed by CO2 as a warming of the surface.
It used to be located here for years here: .http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html
But maybe they took it down because the adding of CO2 wasn’t keeping up with their extrapolations. . . .ya think? Maybe somebody should send the IPCC a memo. . . .ya think? The IPCC is hiding away from shortterm failure to perform perferring to hand their hat on some miracle comeback Hail Mary! LMAO!
The UofC guys must have ignored the memo they got from Trenberth notifying them they had found out what was wrong with the temperature records.
I see the new one they have up only calculates the upward heat flux and does not appear to project any change in ground temperature. I wasn’t aware they had recently reworked the model.
How long do you think the nonsense will go on? Bernie Madoff kept robbing Peter to pay Paul for a long time.
But this Modtran appears pretty irrelevant to your objection to Dan’s statement of affects on ground temperature. Maybe you missed the change in the model too.
It’s not a climate model, it gives you spectral energy.
Dan mentions many things that are true, for example the little known point 4).
It doesn’t mean much until you calculate the numbers.
The calculation must be repeated in layer after layer for each frequency, with all the correct physics.
You should spend some time on MODTRAN.
The energy is the integral of the spectrum.
It is best understood if you view the spectrum from space.
If CO2 makes a dent it means less energy out, earth gets an energy surplus and must warm until the output is what is was.
Svante says: —– Its not a climate model, it gives you spectral energy. Dan mentions many things that are true, for example the little known point 4). It doesnt mean much until you calculate the numbers. The calculation must be repeated in layer after layer for each frequency, with all the correct physics.
You should spend some time on MODTRAN.
The energy is the integral of the spectrum.
It is best understood if you view the spectrum from space.
If CO2 makes a dent it means less energy out, earth gets an energy surplus and must warm until the output is what is was. ———
You are avoiding talking about your complaint on #5 and how Modtran refutes it Svante. Have you conceded that argument?
I spent a lot of time on modtran years ago. Like I said it used to provide a resulting surface temperature thinking it was a simplified climate model. What I was saying about Modtran was that those results were not battle tested. So I take that back now that the Modtran version now on the net no longer does that. However, I am left wondering how “battle tested” modtran supports your attack on Dan’s #5. Care to explain?
svante…” GR… Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means.
Svante…But radiation can, and when it does it will influence temperature”.
Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler body to a hotter body. That would contravene the 2nd law. Clausius said that about radiative heat transfer.
You need to understand the mechanism of heat transfer via radiation. When electrons in the atoms of a hotter body drop to a lower energy level they radiate EM as
Ehigh – Elow = hf. The intensity of the emitted radiation depends on difference in potential between energy levels through which the electron falls.
When the electron emits the EM, it loses kinetic energy and the atom cools. It’s ridiculous to talk about one atom cooling but as a mass, the overall lost of KE causes a loss of heat and a drop in temperature.
The thing to note is that HEAT IS LOST in proportion to the EM emitted.
As that EM radiates through space, it might encounter a cooler body. In that case, the EM is absorbed by the electrons in the cooler body’s atoms and the electrons jump to a higher energy level. Over the entire mass, that increases the KE of the mass and the temperature rises, meaning heat has been added to the cooler body.
That process is not reversible. If electrons in the atoms of a cooler body radiate EM, the intensity and frequency of the EM is from electrons at a lower energy level than those in a hotter body. When that EM encounters a hotter body it cannot be absorbed because the criterion for absorp-tion is critical.
Please note that heat does not flow through space via radiation therefore there is no such thing as heat flux. Electromagnetic energy is not heat flux, it is a flux made up of an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. There is no heat in EM.
To put it another way, the EM from a cooler body lacks the intensity and the frequency to excite an electron in a hotter body to jump to a higher energy level.
To put it another way still, energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state. It’s akin to expecting water to flow uphill or for a boulder to raise itself up onto a cliff.
The expectation seems to be that two bodies of different temperature are trying to exchange energy. They are not, they are only radiating energy isotropically with no requirement that said energy be absorbed.
In fact, most of the EM from a hotter body misses the cooler body. The same is true in reverse, so only a fraction of the lower energy EM from the cooler body reaches the hotter body. It cannot be absorbed if the 2nd law is to be upheld.
Gordon Robertson,
“Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler body to a hotter body. That would contravene the 2nd law. Clausius said that about radiative heat transfer.”
Why do you keep saying that when no sensible person disagrees?
I think Nate and Norman disagree. They still think it does.
I assure you they do not, but if they do then I’m wrong.
They both know a lot more than me about this.
Ask Kristian if you want the answer from the other side of this issue, he is the only one there with decent physics.
The “2LOT violation” a’ la Gordon, JDHuffman and DREMT is completely bonkers.
See 2) in Roy’s list of arguments that make skeptics look bad:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Svante says: —– I assure you they do not, but if they do then Im wrong. They both know a lot more than me about this.———-
Your probably wrong about that. I had you pegged as better informed. And some of their posts are very clearly complaining about Gordon and JD saying that backradiation doesn’t warm surfaces.
We will have to see if they post more on this topic or have skedaddled.
I might be better at Economics, but not much else.
You should pay attention to Norman, he started off like you, ask him about it.
Back radiation does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense, but it makes it warmer by reducing heat loss.
Heat loss is driven by (T^4) temperature difference.
If you look up (in IR) and see more GHGs and less of space, then you have reduced heat loss.
Conversely, if you look down from space and see less warm surface, and more cold atmosphere, then you have reduced heat loss to space.
Reduced heat loss means energy surplus and higher temperature for any object that was in equilibrium.
Gordon: “Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler body to a hotter body. That would contravene the 2nd law. Clausius said that about radiative heat transfer.”
Svante: “Why do you keep saying that when no sensible person disagrees”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375422
bobdroege: “Nope, heat goes both ways”
That’s right, I knew Svante’s great-great-granddad B-Li wasn’t a sensible person.
‘I think Nate and Norman disagree. They still think it does.’
Bill proves again that he is not good at coming to correct conclusions from the available evidence.
Heres a quote from Nate:
“I think we can all agree that energy can flow both ways, as per the SB law.
But Net energy flow, universally defined as HEAT, is only flowing one way as per the RHTE and as REQUIRED by 2LOT.”
Svante says: ——— I might be better at Economics, but not much else.You should pay attention to Norman, he started off like you, ask him about it.———-
The theory is seductive. I started out like him and went the other way as I learned more.
==============
Svante says: ——— Back radiation does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense, but it makes it warmer by reducing heat loss.
Heat loss is driven by (T^4) temperature difference.
If you look up (in IR) and see more GHGs and less of space, then you have reduced heat loss.
Conversely, if you look down from space and see less warm surface, and more cold atmosphere, then you have reduced heat loss to space.
Reduced heat loss means energy surplus and higher temperature for any object that was in equilibrium.————-
I agree that ghg reduce heat loss, but that isn’t the only condition necessary. To reduce heat loss you have to both absorb heat in the atmosphere and raise the atmosphere temperature which entails a retention of heat.
Its an interesting statement of yours that when you look into this atmosphere from different perspectives its both getting warmer and getting colder depending upon your perspective.
You have conveniently drawn up speculative looks into the atmosphere that come out with different results like you are unsure if the atmosphere is warming. Oh its both warming and cooling!
Magic barriers exist to prevent the heat from just progressing up into the atmosphere and getting disposed of to space. Nice tight little theory except for the contradiction of your observations. . . .where it turns more into a soup sandwich.
I agree that closing the IR window would probably warm the atmosphere, but there is not much room for CO2 to close the window and almost daily locally that window is getting flung open and closed by drifting clouds. Clouds are the most likely culprit for climate change. Both what clouds are doing naturally and what clouds would do with any increased warming in the atmosphere are essentially completely unknown. Even Andy Dessler acknowledges that the works of Lindzen and Spencer are interesting, but he reminds us to keep in mind that these are short term observed local type responses, there is no observation to expand it globally and that of course becomes the basis of Dessler pooh poohing them. But one must acknowledge that Dessler’s theory lacks any observation. But since its the theory being paid for by the world’s elitists, its the favored theory.
==========================
Nate says: ——–I think Nate and Norman disagree. They still think it does.
Bill proves again that he is not good at coming to correct conclusions from the available evidence. Heres a quote from Nate:
I think we can all agree that energy can flow both ways, as per the SB law. But Net energy flow, universally defined as HEAT, is only flowing one way as per the RHTE and as REQUIRED by 2LOT.————–
Fine but then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface. This backradiation isn’t warming the surface. You sometimes say stuff that agrees with that then you go back to arguing with Gordon and JD reversing what you just said.
Indeed, if an only if you can establish that increased CO2 increases the radiant temperature of the atmosphere can you argue that this backradiation is warming the surface. Climate science has established greenhouse gases as a substance that first warms the surface then warms the atmosphere. Thats wrong. GHG must first warm the atmosphere before anything can happen to the surface. And climate science at least from a public compilation of literature and propaganda has completely ignored that.
You would agree would you not that a 3k atmosphere of CO2 would not warm the surface right? Well if true then the presence of ghg in the atmosphere must first be established as the cause of the temperature of the atmosphere before it can warm anything.
Svante tells me the atmosphere is both warming and cooling depending upon which angle he is looking from. But he said nothing about how that’s happening. Near as I can tell its something he read in the the Holy Book of Global Warming.
If you don’t fully inspect the logic of an argument you are susceptible to believing the argument without any proof whatsoever.
‘Fine but then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface’
OMG, of course I do.
Wait, you think back radiation cannot be absorbed?!!
‘Climate science has established greenhouse gases as a substance that first warms the surface then warms the atmosphere.’
Huh? Where do you get such an idea?
‘You would agree would you not that a 3k atmosphere of CO2 would not warm the surface right? Well if true then the presence of ghg in the atmosphere must first be established as the cause of the temperature of the atmosphere before it can warm anything.’
Why would you think the atmosphere is at 3K?
The atmosphere is warmed by multiple processes, including radiation from the surface.
Nate says: —————-‘Fine but then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface’
OMG, of course I do.
Wait, you think back radiation cannot be absorbed?!!———–
I don’t even have good reason to believe it exists much less going around ascribing characteristics to it never seen by human eyes.
Your problem is you cannot distinguish between the effect and the conceptual cartoon others drew for you to describe the effect. . . .thus you ascribe characteristics to the conceptual object that are completely unknown and never detected to even verify its existence.
Nate says: ——–Climate science has established greenhouse gases as a substance that first warms the surface then warms the atmosphere.
Huh? Where do you get such an idea?————
Are you having some difficulty adding 1/2 and 1/2? Whats left over to warm the atmosphere? Answer: Zero.
Nate says: ——–You would agree would you not that a 3k atmosphere of CO2 would not warm the surface right? Well if true then the presence of ghg in the atmosphere must first be established as the cause of the temperature of the atmosphere before it can warm anything.
Why would you think the atmosphere is at 3K?———–
It would be 3k, or less, if nothing was warming it.
Nate says: ——–The atmosphere is warmed by multiple processes, including radiation from the surface.———
Please provide the numbers and contribution from each process. I don’t know how many times I have heard it say that because the atmosphere does not absorb solar radiation the atmosphere is warmed by the surface. So this obviously is the key factor in the greenhouse theory. I am interested in hearing your take on how and how much CO2 warms the atmosphere. Obviously just waving your hand in the air doesn’t cause any warming nor explain any, nor make any kind of argument for it.
‘I dont even have good reason to believe it exists much less going around ascribing characteristics to it never seen by human eyes.’
But you think it is ‘rejected’ by a surface?
‘then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface.’
Not making much sense, Bill.
No, I admit I have never seen IR radiation with my eyes. But I have detected it with my IR temperature sensor.
Good enough for me.
JD thinks that a BB acts like a mirror to what we call ‘back radiation’, and therefore a surface emits according to SB law, Q = sigma*T^4, and the surrounding temperature, Tc, doesnt matter.
Most of us disagree with that, and think that the heat loss from a surface is given by the RHTE, Q ~ sigma (T^4 – Tc^4).
You?
Nate says: ——–
I dont even have good reason to believe it exists much less going around ascribing characteristics to it never seen by human eyes.
But you think it is rejected by a surface?
then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface.
Not making much sense, Bill.
No, I admit I have never seen IR radiation with my eyes. But I have detected it with my IR temperature sensor.
Good enough for me.
JD thinks that a BB acts like a mirror to what we call back radiation, and therefore a surface emits according to SB law, Q = sigma*T^4, and the surrounding temperature, Tc, doesnt matter.
Most of us disagree with that, and think that the heat loss from a surface is given by the RHTE, Q ~ sigma (T^4 Tc^4).
You?————-
I believe the equation you mention has scientific merit in the conditions outlined by Stefan-Boltzmann.
But its not clear to me those conditions are met in the atmosphere.
I would say it is true in the case to two perfectly insulated solid surfaces in a vacuum facing each other with a full field of view as is the relationship of the atmosphere and surface. But SB equations in heat loss situations don’t just look at the facing surfaces, it a chain of equations ending at the last surface of concern where it then goes off into an unchangeable environment (for all practical purposes unchangeable).
However, the SB equations do not envision either surface having any other losses and we know that the virtual atmosphere surface proposed by climate science as fitting that equation is losing heat on the backside of the virtual surface as fast as it is allegedly gaining in on the facing side.
Also its not staying put like a solid surface. So far limited experiments to demonstrate the effect like the RW Woods experiment fell flat on its face even using a solid surface.
Further there is extensive engineering heat loss calculations of skylights and windows that do not support your equation due to the presence of convection. In fact, for decades window and skylight heat loss calculations didn’t even bother putting in any radiation equations at all until they started adding coatings to reduce the emissivity of glass.
Now there may be some low emissivity existing in the atmosphere but danged if you can get a single answer on what it is and it might only matter at TOA because of convection.
Here is a question for you. We know the atmosphere is emitting 200 watts/m2 to space from satellite measurements. How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?
‘Please provide the numbers and contribution from each process. I dont know how many times I have heard it say that because the atmosphere does not absorb solar radiation the atmosphere is warmed by the surface.’
You are just not making much sense, Bill.
It is not true that the atmosphere is 3K, nor is true that CO2 must warm the surface first then the atmosphere.
The sun warms the surface. THEN heat from the surface warms the atmosphere, as I said by various processes.
That is just an empirical fact that should not be controversial. You can look up the numbers yourself, which vary from place to place, but I don’t see how having those numbers is going to help you with your problem.
A warm atmosphere reduces radiation from the surface to space @ 3 k.
Its unclear what your issue is, because you are all over the place.
‘Now there may be some low emissivity existing in the atmosphere but danged if you can get a single answer on what it is and it might only matter at TOA because of convection.
Here is a question for you. We know the atmosphere is emitting 200 watts/m2 to space from satellite measurements. How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?’
200 W/m^2
But the real GHE models include convection and latent heat as well as radiation. All are needed to explain the lapse rate that we observe.
You need to criticize the real models and tell us what’s wrong with them.
Nate says: ————-I think Ill stick with regular optics and causality.——————
Thats fine everybody is entitled to their own opinions.
Nate says: ———Its unclear what your issue is, because you are all over the place. The sun warms the surface. THEN heat from the surface warms the atmosphere, as I said by various processes.—————
Its only unclear to you because how the atmosphere gets warm and what the cause of the atmosphere getting warmer is something you haven’t thought much about.
You say “various processes” OK, if the atmosphere is warmed by various processes are they all caused by adding CO2? Because if they are not then CO2 is not the control knob. And if CO2 is not the control knob then what you have been told about what to expect from adding CO2 is wrong.
Which means you don’t really have a clue about what you have been talking about. . . .instead you are just a puppet of the elite establishment.
Nate says: ———-
How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?
200 W/m^2—————-
So there is no backradiation by the top layer???
======================
Nate says: ———-
But the real GHE models include convection and latent heat as well as radiation. All are needed to explain the lapse rate that we observe.
You need to criticize the real models and tell us whats wrong with them.————–
Oh really? When do you think they will make all their codes available to the public and which one should I look at? Have you looked or do you just accept as an article of religious faith?
“You say ‘various processes’ OK, if the atmosphere is warmed by various processes are they all caused by adding CO2? Because if they are not then CO2 is not the control knob. And if CO2 is not the control knob then what you have been told about what to expect from adding CO2 is wrong.”
You guys are predictable in that you all come up with similar straw men of this type.
The all or none fallacy. Didnt you learn logic in college?
CO2 must cause all warming of the atmosphere. Or else the whole theory is wrong!
CO2 does what it does, convection does what it does. latent heat does what it does, and water vapor does what it does.
Now simulations do show that if CO2 were all removed, then the Earth would cool a lot. Because water vapor would also be reduced a lot, and growth of ice would reflect a lot of sunlight. Feed-backs.
‘How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?
200 W/m^2-‘
Ok, 200 W/m^2 is the NET delivered from the lower layer to the top layer.
But actually some part of the 200 W to space has come all the way from the surface, so only part of the 200 W comes from the top layer.
But what are you getting at?
Nate says:———CO2 must cause all warming of the atmosphere. Or else the whole theory is wrong!
CO2 does what it does, convection does what it does. latent heat does what it does, and water vapor does what it does.———-
I never said the whole theory was wrong Nate. What I am saying is not only you can’t answer the question I asked but neither can I and neither can anybody else. So we are all entitled to believe what we believe as nobody really knows the answer.
An important example on the causation is the work by Lord Monckton who pointed out that sun would have to be responsible for its share of the water feedbacks. Since that share sits somewhere around 338watts/m2 and a doubling of CO2 is estimated by modtran to produce a bit more than 3 watts/m2. That suggests that maybe CO2 will be responsible for about .3 watts when it doubles(you might check Monckton’s math as I might be off a little bit).
Nate says:———
Now simulations do show that if CO2 were all removed, then the Earth would cool a lot. Because water vapor would also be reduced a lot, and growth of ice would reflect a lot of sunlight. Feed-backs.———
It would only cool a lot if CO2 is responsible for a lot of the greenhouse effect. Nobody knows how much. You don’t, I don’t, and nobody else does for sure either.
bill hunter says:
“Please provide the numbers and contribution from each process.”
Trenberth’s numbers expressed as heat using W/m^2:
Radiation: 17.8 W/m^2.
Thermals (net): 18.4 W/m^2.
Latent Heat (net): 86.4 W/m^2.
Surface straight to space 40.1 W/m^2.
Now you’re ready for a couple more clues.
It doesn’t matter how you get the heat to TOA (the point where radiation leaves for space, which depends on wavelength).
What matters is the TOA temperature. Because of the lapse rate (created mainly by convection), this temperature decreases with height.
Put plainly, everything radiates according to its temperature. To reduce heat loss, you just need to make the atmosphere more opaque (in IR), i.e. show the universe a higher/colder layer. For the universe, what you see is what you get.
CO2 just needs to reduce the IR optical depth (in its absorp*tion bands).
There’s one more piece of the puzzle when you got that.
‘ Nobody knows how much. You dont, I dont, and nobody else does for sure either.’
You clearly don’t know very much about it, but that doesnt mean knowledgeable people dont either.
And they can model it using physics based models that have correctly reproduced the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere, the general warming trend, and the general spatial pattern of warming, among other features.
Is there still some uncertainty about how much warming. Yes.
Svante says: ———–Trenberth’s numbers expressed as heat using W/m^2:
Radiation: 17.8 W/m^2.
Thermals (net): 18.4 W/m^2.
Latent Heat (net): 86.4 W/m^2.
Surface straight to space 40.1 W/m^2
Now you’re ready for a couple more clues.
It doesn’t matter how you get the heat to TOA (the point where radiation leaves for space, which depends on wavelength).
What matters is the TOA temperature. Because of the lapse rate (created mainly by convection), this temperature decreases with height.——–
Yeah well on the surface what you have in the budget you are looking at (not Trenberth’s but NASAs), is it shows is 340.3w/m2 backradiation to generate 398.2-239.9 = 158.3w/m2 greenhouse effect.
right off the back that says feedback sensitivity factor must be .46 not 3.0 per the IPCC. That would suggest around a 1/2 degree warming from doubling of CO2. Further it seems to me that it gets worse the deeper you dig. Why am I wrong?
Nate says: ———You clearly dont know very much about it, but that doesnt mean knowledgeable people dont either.——–
Knowledgeable people don’t agree Nate. And clearly you don’t know either. But you sure act like you do.
Nate says: ———
Is there still some uncertainty about how much warming. Yes.——–
Thats all I am saying Nate. Try the question why I am wrong above in my reply to Svante.
“NASAs), is it shows is 340.3w/m2 backradiation to generate 398.2-239.9 = 158.3w/m2 greenhouse effect.
right off the back that says feedback sensitivity factor must be .46 not 3.0 per the IPCC. ”
Not sure what youvare doing there. The 3 is a temperature rise per TOA forcing of 3.7 W/m2.
Nate says: ——–Not sure what youvare doing there. The 3 is a temperature rise per TOA forcing of 3.7 W/m2.———–
the reasonableness test has nothing directly to do with the 3.7w/m2, its only testing feedback sensitivity. You have many ways of looking at sensitivity. Feedback sensitivity is a multiplier of the initial effect. Pre-feedback sensitivity is the initial effect. And total sensitivity is the initial effect multiplied by the feedback sensitivity.
The 3.7w/m2 is pre-feedback sensitivity for doubling of CO2. Thats before feedback. A number larger than 1 for feedback sensitivity is positive feedback.
Thus the IPCC estimate I believe is approximately 3, though I may be confusing that with 3 degrees (its been years since I read that part). So 3.7 is supposed to be something like one degree. The three degrees comes from tripling it by the feedback sensitivity factor. (The actual numbers I think (memory blurry) is a feedback sensitivity of 2.7C and the prefeedback 1.1C)
However the reasonableness test comes up with .46 feedback factor which is negative feedback, suggesting the warming from doubling CO2 would be about .5C degrees.
bill hunter says:
That is what we call the direct effect, you can calculate it with MODTRAN.
No, a feed back of 1 will give you an explosion.
The formula is: Ga = A/(1-AB)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback#Basic
A negative feed back is the same with the sign reversed.
That would be the ECS, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, it is the temperature response from increased forcing and it is measured in K/(W/m^2).
0.46 looks like a bogus attempt to calculate GHG feed back from increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR), and it is not a negative feed back.
Bill,
You need more rigor in your posts.
Where does this idea of dividing GHE 158 W/m^2 by back radiation , 340 W/m^2, to find climate sensitivity come from?
First of all 340 W/m^2 is not the top of the atmosphere Forcing.
What we have is a 33K increase in surface temperature relative to TOA emission temperature, 288 K is ave surface temp, and 255 K is effective temp of Earth as viewed from space.
That 33 K must arise from GHG forcing and any feedbacks.
From MODTRAN, changing ONLY CO2 from 0 ppm to 400 ppm results in a decrease of TOA emission by ~ 31 W/m^2
So this could be an estimate for the total CO2 FORCING.
In contrast if we ONLY change the temperature of the surface from 255 K to 288 K, the estimated rise due to GHE, the surface emission increases by 150 W/m^2.
This is ~ 5 x the effect of JUST CO2. So ~ 120 W comes from other effects
This suggests strong positive feedbacks from WV, methane, and ice albedo etc are needed to get the additional needed reduction in TOA emission.
Svante says: ————No, a feed back of 1 will give you an explosion.
I swear to God schools are turning out robots!
Svante, sensitivity numbers are expressed in many different ways.
The number I am using is the multiplier derived from the IPCC equilibrium climate sensitivity (longterm).
The IPCC states equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C.
Since 3.7w/m2 is commonly expressed as 1C for the pre-feedback surface forcing effect of CO2 (not sure how that is calculated)
then, the climate sensitivity factors for the IPCC and their positive feedback estimates is in a range of 1.5 to 4.5. They indicated the most likely number was 3.
Since you have a big problem with this I will remind you its a simple factor that may have been derived from a feedback loop equation but is expressed by the IPCC as an end result not a feedback loop equation.
The feedback loop equation is only meaningful in the IPCC arriving at ECS. It is only useful for separating short term effects from long term effects. I am not concerning myself here with short term effects because about 70% of them occurred over a million years ago, the rest over the past 160 years of the industrial age. So it might be appropriate to appreciate that some of those effects have not yet appeared in the NASA budget numbers. But all is not lost. NASA is being very helpful here by showing us the estimated imbalance in the system of .6 watts which will eventually be modified by the ECS factor. I judge that as unimportant because its less than 1/2 of one percent of outgoing radiation.
My reasonable test is a test of the IPCC end result and as I point out it isn’t even close and it is based upon NASA’s own numbers or how many watts of greenhouse effect is generated by each watt of forcing.
Further I am doing the test in the most generous fashion allowing them to bury negative feedbacks into cloud and snow reflections by hiding it in albedo. If I reverse that out, sensitivity will be cut roughly in half. I come up with .27 rather than .46.
Current surface emissions 398.2
Surface emissions without ghe 239.9
Increase in surface radiation: 158.3
Watts forcing: (backradiation) 340.3
ECS surface emissions/watt forcing 0.465
All this is is a typical auditor reasonableness test to test if the clients results meet a sniff test.
Since it didn’t and it seems like it should have, next step is for the client to start explaining exactly why the reasonableness test does not display a longterm linear type result inline with what the client is now estimating for future results.
but I have no need, nor the information to calculate out the gain factor.
to know that to see what the end results have been over the entire history of global warming from the date the first CO2 molecule went into the sky.
What I am calculating is a backwards calculation from the end result and expressing it as a factor in relationship to each watt of direct IR cooling. I don’t need a feedback loop equation to do that.
Sensitivity expressed prior to the feedback loop is a completely different concept it implies you know every thermal feedback factor in the system from changes in ice, changes in clouds, changes in precipitation, changes in water vapor, changes apparently in methane release, it goes on and on. Feed all that junk into a feedback loop calculator and the output comes out with the number I am using which is how much you multiply initial gain by to get the final result.
You should be able to easily see that from the methodology I am calculating sensitivity from results not guesses. The only guesses involved in my methodology are the guesses in the radiation budget and the guess that greenhouse gas effects have not reached or nearing some kind of trigger point or limits or saturation due to some unforeseen limit or special sensitivity in the effects of CO2.
The
Opps, left some unerased notes at end of last post. Ignore any confusion that creates this is the complete final version below: (hate not having an edit function)
Svante, sensitivity numbers are expressed in many different ways.
The number I am using is the multiplier derived from the IPCC equilibrium climate sensitivity (longterm).
The IPCC states equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C.
Since 3.7w/m2 is commonly expressed as 1C for the pre-feedback surface forcing effect of CO2 (not sure how that is calculated)
then, the climate sensitivity factors for the IPCC and their positive feedback estimates is in a range of 1.5 to 4.5. They indicated the most likely number was 3.
Since you have a big problem with this I will remind you its a simple factor that may have been derived from a feedback loop equation but is expressed by the IPCC as an end result not a feedback loop equation.
The feedback loop equation is only meaningful in the IPCC arriving at ECS. It is only useful for separating short term effects from long term effects. I am not concerning myself here with short term effects because about 70% of them occurred over a million years ago, the rest over the past 160 years of the industrial age. So it might be appropriate to appreciate that some of those effects have not yet appeared in the NASA budget numbers. But all is not lost. NASA is being very helpful here by showing us the estimated imbalance in the system of .6 watts which will eventually be modified by the ECS factor. I judge that as unimportant because its less than 1/2 of one percent of outgoing radiation.
My reasonable test is a test of the IPCC end result and as I point out it isnt even close and it is based upon NASAs own numbers or how many watts of greenhouse effect is generated by each watt of forcing.
Further I am doing the test in the most generous fashion allowing them to bury negative feedbacks into cloud and snow reflections by hiding it in albedo. If I reverse that out, sensitivity will be cut roughly in half. I come up with .27 rather than .46.
Current surface emissions 398.2
Surface emissions without ghe 239.9
Increase in surface radiation: 158.3
Watts forcing: (backradiation) 340.3
ECS surface emissions/watt forcing 0.465
All this is is a typical auditor reasonableness test to test if the clients results meet a sniff test.
Since it didnt and it seems like it should have, next step is for the client to start explaining exactly why the reasonableness test does not display a longterm linear type result inline with what the client is now estimating for future results.
Bill, a resonableness test sounds reasonable, if the assumptions made in it are correct.
‘Current surface emissions 398.2
Surface emissions without ghe 239.9
Increase in surface radiation: 158.3
Watts forcing: (backradiation) 340.3″
We agree on the increase in surface emissions.
Your backradiation of 340 W is consistent with Svantes NET upward radiation of 40 + 18 = 58, because that = 398- 340.
But the back radiation, 340 W, is NOT THE FORCING.
False assumption.
First of all the Forcing is defined to be at TOA, not at the surface.
As I explained above, The CO2 Forcing at the TOA is only about 31 W/m^2.
Feedbacks and other effects account for the other 120 W/m^2 to achieve the total GHE we see.
The 0.6 W imbalance is just a measure of the lag, it is not the forcing. Earth has been trying to close the gap for two hundred years but we keep moving the goal post.
Use MODTRAN to try some examples. To see the effect of a doubling, put in 280 ppm and “Save this run to background”. Then put in 560 ppm and tab out.
‘All this is is a typical auditor reasonableness test to test if the clients results meet a sniff test.
Since it didnt and it seems like it should have, next step is for the client to start explaining exactly why the reasonableness test does not display a longterm linear type result inline with what the client is now estimating for future results.”
Pretty funny.
This discussion illustrates that auditor expertise is not sufficient to audit science!
What is a reasonanble reasonableness test requires a good understanding of the science.
Nate says:———-Bill, You need more rigor in your posts. Where does this idea of dividing GHE 158 W/m^2 by back radiation , 340 W/m^2, to find climate sensitivity come from?
First of all 340 W/m^2 is not the top of the atmosphere Forcing.————
Rigor? You have no clue whats going on here Nate. I produce a rock solid estimate of climate sensitivity to surface forcing pulled straight from NASA numbers. There is no question its correct, if NASA numbers are correct. Its an easy error free computation.
Every reas test should start with the claimed effect and produce a rock solid result. From there its question time.
Now you are going on about 3.7 watts being uh TOA forcing. The sensitivity test said absolutely nothing about TOA forcing so why do you think it did? The entire exercise is centered around surface effects. Its the job of the folks worried about TOA temperatures to explain their worries for us ground bound folks. If you don’t want to do that well you can always start talking about effects on the birds, planes, and missiles.
Ultimately all I did with it was state what amount of pre-feedback surface warming that doubling of CO2 was claimed to be responsible for in degreesC. Thats been widely bandied about everywhere of 1 to 1.2 degreesC pre-feedback. But that adds nothing either as that hasn’t been explained in terms of surface forcing and how that is derived from TOA forcing.
All you need to do is provide enough watts to make that happen. So since you are so convinced why not answer your own questions?
I have said repeatedly the step after a reasonableness test built upon a solid foundation is to go out and find out all the rest of the processes that explain a claimed effect.
Your blabbering about TOA forcing doesn’t explain anything important. The only thing important is surface forcing. So not only is my reas test rock solid its rock solid on the most important numbers!!!
As it stands your 31w/m2 TOA forcing needs to justify 340.3 w/m2 of surface forcing meaning you need 11 watts of surface forcing for every watt of TOA CO2 forcing. So have at it!
I can give you another model that assumes NASA made a mistake in not recognizing albedo as negative feedback from water vapor creating, ice, snow and clouds.
In this other one you only need to justify 7.7watts of surface forcing for every watt of TOA CO2 forcing to fully explain the model. Should be a much easier job. And actually the number correspond much more closely to CO2 absorbing approximately 1/8th up upwelling IR of the .9 of all IR is absorbed (~360 of ~400). Seems more likely than 1/11th.
So I do want to thank you for that 31w/m2 TOA number it allowed me to fill in a few blanks in the overall model. Modtran seems to be a reliable source so I will insert it. If you can continue to help flesh this puppy out maybe we can get somewhere.
Svante says: —————-The 0.6 W imbalance is just a measure of the lag, it is not the forcing. Earth has been trying to close the gap for two hundred years but we keep moving the goal post. Use MODTRAN to try some examples. To see the effect of a doubling, put in 280 ppm and Save this run to background. Then put in 560 ppm and tab out.————–
You are as bad as Nate, not having a clue on what an audit does. I have no interest in “auditing” the top of the atmosphere. I am fine with Modtran providing the numbers. I incorporated all of Nate’s modtran number in my model. So really unless something is going up there besides modtran absor*ption of outgoing LWR, there is nothing more to do.
However, its important to note forcing at TOA only forces the surface if you have a logical way of translating numbers from TOA to the surface. I can suggest a way that could be a subject of another reas test, like 400w/m2 emitted from the ground and 200w/m2 emitted from TOA to outer space. (can’t believe I actually have to help you guys along), haven’t you thought at all about forcing gets the surface where it counts?
Nate says:—————-This discussion illustrates that auditor expertise is not sufficient to audit science!What is a reasonanble reasonableness test requires a good understanding of the science.————–
You are one naive SOB Nate. No auditors are not the experts in what they audit. They need a basic understanding of the things they audit thats all. What they do is document all the methods, obtain evidence of the results of tests of the methods, and document everything so one can explain A to Z how stuff works.
The experts provide the information in these audits Nate. The reas test recognizes that the most important element is the downwelling IR in forcing the surface to warm. NASA puts that number at 340.3 w/m2 to explain today’s temperature which is the sum of solar forcing plus IR forcing, those are the only two forces listed by NASA and other budgets. I have no bone to pick with the solar forcing. I am unconvinced if the downwelling IR is 340.3 watts per NASA or if its actually 239.8 watts per the result of properly recognizing albedo as negative feedback or if its some number in between those two numbers.
I figure the best way to determine that is to pursue either reas test and fill in the blanks. I noted that in the original reas test I presented that agrees with NASA 100% requires every watt of TOA forcing to equate to 11watts forcing at the surface. The other reas test that I have not posted would move that down to every watt of CO2 TOA forcing must provide 7.7watts of forcing at the surface. Real simple stuff the objective is to get the experts to fill in the science that transmits the forcing at TOA to the surface.
If you can’t provide those answers then please just step aside and stop obfuscating the exercise and allow somebody that has a clue about what they are talking about respond.
Look Bill,
A feed back is an enhancement of the initial effect.
When you start with solar input you are going for the solar feedback, not CO2.
The CO2 radiative forcing at the surface is
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
where Co is the reference concentration. It is usually calculated for a doubling (since pre-industrial):
dF = 5.35 ln(560/280) = 3.7 W/m^-2.
You get a similar result in MODTRAN for altitude 0 km, ‘Looking up’ and the ‘1976 US Standard Atmosphere’.
Now you can multiply with the equilibrium climate sensitivity in K/(W/m^2).
IPCC says the result is likely to be 1.5-4.5 C for a doubling.
This paper says it’s likely 2.23.4 C based on historical data:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
Bill,
There is nothing reasonable about using the wrong equation to calculate something, and then declare: Look it gives the wrong answer!
Thats’s just plain ignorant and dishonest.
Climate sensitivity calculated one way, is predicted to be 3.
Observed climate sensitivity calculated your made-up wrong way gives an observed value of 0.46.
To claim you’ve done something reasonable with this straw man test of the prediction is straight-up BS.
And I have explained why the back-radiation is not the Forcing.
There are many parameters in climate science. You can’t just swap them out as you please.
You have to understand what you are doing.
‘ The reas test recognizes that the most important element is the downwelling IR in forcing the surface to warm. NASA puts that number at 340.3 w/m2 to explain today’s temperature which is the sum of solar forcing plus IR forcing, those are the only two forces listed by NASA and other budgets. I have no bone to pick with the solar forcing. I am unconvinced if the downwelling IR is 340.3 watts per NASA or if its actually 239.8 watts per the result of properly recognizing albedo as negative feedback or if its some number in between those two numbers.’
The point you are missing, I think, is that adding GHG to the atmosphere causes many complicated changes. You should not over simplify it.
Prior to GHG, we have 240 W input to surface, all solar, and 240 W output from surface all IR direct to space.
After GHG, the atmosphere now becomes a layover for heat, and changes of heat transfer vehicles occur:
1.80 W of input solar is absorbed in atmosphere and cloud tops, leaving 160 W going to surface.
2.Roughly 100 W are now transferred from surface to atmosphere by convection and latent heat.
3. Out of now 398 W emitted from the surface, 358W are now absorbed by the atmosphere, and 40 W still goes to space.
4. The lower atmosphere, now warm and glowing sends 340 W IR to surface.
5. The upper atmosphere now glowing but cooler than the lower, sends 200 W IR to space.
As you can see all the fluxes have changed, but the result is because of the now insulating effect of the atmosphere, the surface is warmer.
A reasonableness test would be:
Are all these flows consistent with the laws of physics, and what we know about the atmosphere and meteorology? Yes.
Do all these changes add to 0 change in TOA output? Ie is 1LOT satisfied? Yes.
Svante, please stop trolling.
True trolling yes, or did you see any falsehood at all?
Svante, please stop trolling.
bart…”Gordon
What do you see in the CO2 molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition?”
Bart…you missed my point. I am arguing that a molecule is nothing more than a name for an aggregation of electrons and their associated nucleii. There is nothing in a molecule but the aforementioned and there is no other mechanism in a molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition.
Atomic nucleii in a solid lattice can vibrate but they act as springs with the electron bond as the spring. The vibration is increased or decreased by adding/subtracting heat with the heat affecting the electron bond.
In a gas, linear molecules like CO2 can rotate but what is doing the rotating? It is again, the electron/nucleii aggregation.
Though it is described as “linear”, the bonds are not infinitely stiff, and modes of vibration arise, as depicted in the graphs Norman has shared with you.
bart…”But does it REALLY travel upside-down? Of course not.
Yes, it does. You said it yourself:
Well, it does if viewed from the stars”.
As JD’s plane orbits the Earth, down is in the direction of gravity and has nothing to do with the perspective of the stars. The plane is in a powered orbit due to the effect of local gravity. Whereas the Moon stays in orbit due to its linear momentum the plane requires wings and motors.
If you viewed the plane from the perspective of the stars it would not appear to be upside down.
The problem with the Moon rotating about it’s axis cannot be defined from a different reference frame. It’s either rotating on its axis or not. If it’s not it won’t appear to be rotating ABOUT ITS AXIS in any reference frame.
Bart, and the other Spinners, get trapped in their own illogic. They want to claim that the racehorse is ACTUALLY rotating on its axis because it APPEARS to be, if viewed from outside the track. Yet they want to claim the school bus, or jet plane, is only APPEARING to be upside-down, because of how it is viewed.
In one case “reference frame” matters, in the other case “reference frame” doesn’t matter!
They can’t process facts and logic. That’s why they can’t learn.
Nothing new.
No, it is ACTUALLY upside down in relation to the reference frame of the stars. You said so yourself.
“Its either rotating on its axis or not.”
No, Gordon. Rotation is always relative. You always have to provide a reference frame with respect to which the rotation is occurring.
Right now, I am not rotating with respect to my local North-West-Vertical reference frame, but I am rotating with respect to a reference frame fixed to the distant stars.
“Nothing new”.
Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team disagrees with “The Simplest Green Plate Effect” here:
https://tinyurl.com/y3lyq3v4
He argues that plates pressed together should be similar to plates with a minimal vacuum gap.
This is wrong since conduction and radiation have different physical formulas. Radiation gives 18 K, and conduction 0.001 K for 1 mm of aluminum (the original example had perfect conduction so that’s 0 K):
https://tinyurl.com/y2sevccm
Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team responded:
That’s right, the symmetry is lost if you don’t have conduction all around (and if you don’t have perfect conduction inside the plates). So, put 1 mm aluminum plates all around, and electrical heating in the first plate. The surrounding temperature can be 0 K like in the original.
One plate surrounded by 1mm aluminum plates:
Conduction: dt=sQ/k
s=0.001 m (plate thickness).
k=237 W/K/m
Q=heat (W/m^2)
a=400 W/m^2
b=200 W/m^2
a-b=200 W/m^2
dt=0.001*200/237=0.00084388185654
Single plate temperature: 0.0008 K.
Two plates, with three 1mm aluminum plates:
b’=2a/3=266 W/m^2
c=b’/2=133.3 W/m^2
b’-c=133.3 W/m^2 (heat heading rightward).
For the plate on the right:
dt=0.001*133.3/237=0.000562447257384 K
The same is true between the plates, since c=b’-c.
Does that send 266 W/m^2 to the left?
dt=0.001*266.6/237=0.001124894514768 K
The colder plate on the right warms left plate by 33%.
400 W/m^2 is conducted away and everything adds up.
“He argues that plates pressed together should be similar to plates with a minimal vacuum gap.”
No, my argument was that this is what Eli’s article implies.
“That’s right, the symmetry is lost if you don’t have conduction all around (and if you don’t have perfect conduction inside the plates)”
That’s you conceding the point. You can’t change the basic setup of his Green Plate Effect, which is essentially plates surrounded by vacuum. Since they are surrounded by vacuum, whether the plates are pressed together or separated, part of their output is always going to be via radiation.
In which case, the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a’ does not apply when the plates are pressed together.
You have two options:
1) Eli wrote an article which was essentially worthless, as it adds nothing to his original Green Plate Effect article.
2) Eli wrote an article which tried to imply his Green Plate Effect principle was universal (applies to conduction/convection also), but your own calculations show it does not.
Neither way is a good outcome for the GHEDT. Take your pick.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If you stipulate conduction you can’t have vacuum.
Conduction does not work through vacuum.
The symmetry is gone if you have conduction in the middle and vacuum around, but you still have b’ > b, so your misconstrued 2LOT violation is still busted.
“Conduction does not work through vacuum.”
Not saying it does.
“The symmetry is gone if you have conduction in the middle and vacuum around.”
Oh, the fabled “symmetry”. Well, “vacuum around” is part of the GPE, so you just have to accept it.
“Single plate temperature: 0.0008 K.”
Can I just check…are you saying that a plate, receiving 400 W via an electrical supply, and surrounded by two touching 1mm aluminium plates…would have a temperature of 0.0008 K?
Yes you can, if they are in contact with a 0 K medium on the outside. Skip the symmetry if you like, use your own numbers and show me that b = b’.
“Yes you can”
Yes I can what?
Can I just check…are you saying that a plate, receiving 400 W via an electrical supply, and surrounded by two touching 1mm aluminium plates…would have a temperature of 0.0008 K?
Svante, continues with his “bait and switch” trickery. He has changed the plates from black bodies to aluminum. Now he is trying to change the surrounding vacuum to “if they are in contact with a 0 K medium on the outside.”
Svante is soooooo desperate.
Yes, if their outside is cooled to 0 K.
Is it time for your endless semantic loop now, or will you show me the math that gives you b=b’?
Oh, I’ll stop responding to you soon, and you can declare victory if you want.
In the meantime, I’m just trying to understand what you’re actually saying.
“Yes, if their outside is cooled to 0 K.”
Presumably you mean the outside of the two surrounding aluminium plates. So what are the temperatures of the two surrounding aluminium plates then?
When you said “two plates, with three 1mm aluminium plates”, presumably you mean you basically have five 1mm aluminium plates next to each other. It’s just the second from the left you are calling the “blue plate” (this has the electrical supply), and the second from the right is the “green plate”. Right?
What are the temperatures of all five plates?
I used aluminum because you seemed to have a have problem with perfect conduction, and with Swanson’s experiment.
They are still black bodies. Use any emissivity or conductivity you like and show us that b=b’.
Last response to you, in the hope of actually getting some answers. If you don’t provide them, feel free to have the last word.
In the case of your “one plate surrounded by 1mm aluminium plates”, what are the temperatures of the two surrounding plates?
In the case of your “two plates, with three 1mm aluminium plates”, what are the temperatures of all five plates?
Svante, are you still not able to understand the simple diagram?
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
DREMT, my previous answer was for your granddad.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Their average temperature is half the gradient.
No, just three. I said the symmetry is lost if you dont have perfect conduction inside the original plates.
The blue plate is 0.001124894514768 K.
The green plate is 0.000562447257384 K
The three aluminum plates average temperature is half their gradient, because conduction is linear.
Good one JD, 200 W heat flow between plates of the same temperature : – )
I’d love to see the physical formulas, math and numbers that gives you b=b’.
Wrong again, Svante.
The diagram does NOT indicate “200 W heat flow between plates of the same temperature”
And Svante, the only applicable equation would be from the S/B Law.
S = σT^4
T = (200/σ)^0.25
T = 244 K
Learn some physics.
JD, your green plates send a 200 W heat flow to space.
They must have 200 W heat flow in for steady temperature.
“JD, your green plates send a 200 W heat flow to space.”
Wrong Svante.
Both green plates emit 200 Watts/m^2 to space. Both green plates absorb 200 Watts/m^2 from the blue plate. That’s why they have a steady temperature.
Forget using the term “heat flow”. That may be one of the many things confusing you.
The simple truth is JDHuffman is wrong and does not know the first thing about science or physics.
Svante is correct. He took the time to learn the truth. Something JDHuffman will not do.
Also JDHuffman will not attempt an experiment on the topic because it would expose his ignorance. As long as he does no science and pretends he can convince himself he is correct. The first time he did an actual experiment with 3 identical plates (in a vacuum), with the middle one heated by some external power supply. He would find what all science people already know to be true. When together all the plates will reach the same temperature. When the two outer plates are separated the middle plate will reach a higher temperature. This is physics. This is the reality JDHuffman, Gordon Robertson, and DREMT will never find out as they will never test their goofy ideas by actual scientific methods. Science is not wrong opinions. It is testing to see what is the truth.
E. Swanson proved that two plates will follow Eli Rabbet’s understanding. If the clowns would do actual physics their bogus made up ideas would evaporate like gasoline on hot pavement.
They will refuse to do any science but will pretend they understand it. This has been going on a long time. It seems it will go on considerably longer.
Norman returns with another session of keyboard abuse. (There ought to be a law!)
As usual, he can’t understand the physics, and can’t learn. So all he has are his baseless opinions, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Sorry Norman, you’re still wrong: “If you walk around the merry-go-round you are rotating on your axis as you walk around it.”
No, you are “changing direction”, not “rotating on your axis”.
JDHuffman
Incorrect.
YOU: “No, you are changing direction, not rotating on your axis.
No you are rotating on your axis as you walk forward. I doubt you know what rotating on axis means.
Look at your feet as you walk in a circle.
Because you can’t understand this mode I use a square table. Now you do not walk and rotate at the same time but it is the same thing as if you walked in a circle.
If you walk along a square table, no rotation. When you reach one edge, YOU HAVE to ROTATE on your AXIS to continue walking around the table. If you do not rotate you keep walking straight ahead.
You have to ROTATE on your axis to change direction.
JDHuffman
You are out in the woods with your good bud DREMT. He stops and you walk ahead. Now you want to get back to him. You have to rotate on your axis to get back to him.
There is one who correctly understands you. You call him