UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2019: +0.38 deg. C

August 1st, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2019 was +0.38 deg. C, down from the June, 2019 value of +0.47 deg. C:

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
2018 02 +0.24 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.21 +0.35
2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 -0.14 +0.06 +1.02 +0.84
2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.14 -0.24
2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.11 +0.76 -0.41
2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49
2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.11 +0.37
2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.23 +0.27
2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.27 +0.45 -1.16 +0.68 +0.55
2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.25 +0.69 +1.20
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.35 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.53 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.98 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.90 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33 +0.87

The UAH LT global anomaly image for July, 2019 should be available in the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


794 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2019: +0.38 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Fritz Kraut says:

    Thank You.

  2. Stephen Richards says:

    Everywhere down except Australia

  3. curious skeptic says:

    Thanks Dr. Spencer. I am curious about the lower stratosphere data. I would be interested in your thoughts about the pre-1993 temperature anomaly spikes. Also, do the negative lower stratosphere temperature anomaly trends support CO2 induced AGW theories? Maybe there are alternate explanations or simply the data set is too short.

    • Craig T says:

      A spike in lower stratosphere temps usually means volcanic ash reached the upper atmosphere. There is a strong spike from Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 and another spike from El Chichon in 1982. You’ll see a corresponding drop in tropospheric temperatures because sunlight is partially reflected by the ash.

      • Midas says:

        Ash from which volcano?

        • bdgwx says:

          Usually it is large VEI 5 or any VEI 6 eruption. Pinatubo 1991 is one example.

          • Midas says:

            Sorry, I must have misinterpreted. I thought he was referencing something that was happening now.

            Also, it is not just any VEI5+ eruption. The eruption has to occur in close proximity to the equator to have a measurable effect on global temperatures. I assume things would be different if it was a VEI8, but not sure.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

    • bdgwx says:

      Yes. An increase in GHGs is consistent with a warming hydrosphere/troposphere and cooling stratosphere.

      • An Inquirer says:

        Yet, it is interesting that the stratosphere has virtually stopped cooling since the last low-latitude major volcanic eruption. (The type of eruptions that lead to cooling stratosphere.)

        • Bindidon says:

          An Inquirer

          Some data at hand concerning dates of eruption etc? I’m interested…
          Since 1993 (Pinatubo+2) LS cools at -0.1 C / decade.

          • An Inquirer says:

            I have not looked at the data for over a year, but in 1996 the average stratosphere temperature was -.3925, and in 2017 it was -.3903. Even a microscopic piece of warming!

          • Midas says:

            Now let’s turn those cherry picked years into actual climate data (long-term averages):
            1980s +0.37
            1990s +0.03
            2000s -0.31
            2010s -0.40

          • Midas says:

            By the way, 2017 was -0.443

          • An Inquirer says:

            Midas, your insight is well taken, but I believe that decadal numbers miss the dramatic change that has happened since the end of the low-latitude volcanic eruptions. From the 1990s to the 2000s there would be a dramatic drop because the 1990s contains several years before the drops induced by Pinatubo stops. Then the curve flattens out in the 2010’s. You can see this easily in a graph of long term stratospheric temperatures. Note: there has been a significant adjustment to the numbers in the 2010s #s recently. Earlier #s have not been revised to any great degree. Because of those adjustments, the 2010 #s are lower than the 2000 #s, but there the drop is no where as severe as in earlier decades.

            (BTW, atmospheric scientists tell that the trends in stratospheric temperatures are affected not only by CO2 and the volcanoes, but also by Ozone concentrations.)

          • Midas says:

            The fall has begun again. Here is the average data again at 5 year intervals, ending in June of 4 and 9 years (because the July 2019 data is not showing yet):
            5 year period ending June … :
            1984 0.68
            1989 0.09
            1994 0.38
            1999 -0.30
            2004 -0.22
            2009 -0.38
            2014 -0.34
            2019 -0.45

            The periods ending 1984 and 1994 are inflated due to El Chichon and Pinatubo. The average for the last 40 months is -0.52.

            Not sure how to interpret “the drops induced by Pinatubo stops”. What are ‘Pinatubo stops’?

            And it was mid 1993 when stratospheric temperatures fell below pre-Pinatubo levels, not 1996.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”An increase in GHGs is consistent with a warming hydrosphere/troposphere and cooling stratosphere”.

        Proof????

        Proof that is not based on climate model fantasies???

        • bdgwx says:

          One hypothesis of the GHE is that there is a tendency for the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. UAH (and many others) are testing this hypothesis and have thusfar been unsuccessful in falsifying it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “One hypothesis of the GHE . . .”

            What a crock! You cannot even describe the GHE! An hypothesis for something non-existent? Really?

            The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Make sure you include that in your description of the GHE, when you get round to writing it down.

            What a fool!

            Cheers.

      • bdgwx says:

        Inquirer…I’m not sure I’m understanding your point.

        Low latitude major volcanic eruptions, like Pinatubo and El Chichon, typically result in stratospheric warming.

        The 2000’s were a period in which there was a cooling hiatus in the stratosphere that somewhat overlaps the tropospheric warming hiatus. This period is marked by 15 VEI 4+ eruptions.

        The stratosphere is still cooling over the longterm. In fact, just a couple of months ago the UAH TLS trend increased to -0.30C/decade making for a TLT-TLS trend of +0.43C/decade.

        Can you clarify or expand on your point? Maybe I totally missed it?

        • An Inquirer says:

          The immediate impact of those volcanic eruptions is a temporary increase in stratospheric temperatures, but there is a dramatic drop in the several months thereafter (up to a few years). In the 1900s, there were several journal articles that explained the scientific basis for this phenomenon. If you look at a graph, you will see this fall following Agung, El Chichon, and Pinatubo. The plummet after Pinatubo lasted until 1996. In 1996 the average stratosphere temperature was -.3925, and in 2017 it was -.3903.

          Hey, I might need to retract those numbers. It had been over a year since I had calculated yearly averages, so I went to download the latest numbers, and I note that there have been significant changes to the stratospheric temperature numbers. A quick review of various articles and graphs continue to show the overall pattern: dramatic drops following the eruptions followed by relatively flat temperatures since 1996. However, I do not have the updated averages, and I probably am not going to take the time in the next few days to do them.

          • Midas says:

            See my reply to your previous comment.
            One has to wonder why you cherry picked 1996 as your start date.
            And 2017 was -0.443. Perhaps you shouldn’t have posted until you knew the averages.

          • An Inquirer says:

            Midas, I picked 1996 because that was the end of the drop following Pinatubo. I picked 2017 because it was the last year that I had for the average. Those were the #s before there was a revision. I noted in both postings that it had been over a year since I had updated the calculations.

            Perhaps it would be good to be less of a cynic to those who try to participate in good faith on this blog — there are plenty who do not.

      • Kristian says:

        bdgwx says, August 1, 2019 at 4:26 PM:

        An increase in GHGs is consistent with a warming hydrosphere/troposphere and cooling stratosphere.

        How does more CO2 in the troposphere make the troposphere warmer, bdgwx?

        More CO2 in the stratosphere would naturally cool the stratosphere, because it would increase its radiative emission. But why would more of it in the troposphere warm the troposphere?

        No, more CO2 in the stratosphere IS consistent with a cooling stratosphere, but more CO2 in the troposphere is NOT consistent with a warming troposphere …

        • Nate says:

          How does more CO2 in the troposphere make the troposphere warmer, bdgwx?

          Same way more insulation in my attic makes the attic cooler and living space warmer..

          • Kristian says:

            Really? By blocking convection !?

          • Nate says:

            Convection, no not much, the ceiling takes care of that.

            By insulating.

          • Kristian says:

            Nate says, August 3, 2019 at 12:21 PM:

            Convection, no not much, the ceiling takes care of that.

            Exactly. So NOT the “Same way more insulation in my attic makes the attic cooler and living space warmer..” after all.

            So I will have to ask again: How does more CO2 in the troposphere manage to make the troposphere warmer overall, all physical processes taking place at the same time considered?

          • Nate says:

            C’mon,

            It should have been self evident that it was not precisely the same mechanism, since one is a few inches of fiber glass insulation, and the other is many many km of gasses.

            But the same principle is involved. Heat transfer is reduced between the upper and lower volumes, by an insulating agent added between.

            This one involving a well established mechanism, the GHE. I know you know all about it.

          • bdgwx says:

            Kristian, CO2 acts as a thermal barrier. The side of the barrier in which energy is injected warms while the other side cools. It’s the same result with any thermal barrier whether it is a GHG or residental insulation. The exact mechanism by which these and various other thermal barriers operate is obviously different, but the end result is the same.

          • Kristian says:

            bdgwx says, August 4, 2019 at 2:21 PM:

            Kristian, CO2 acts as a thermal barrier.

            Hehe, no. That’s exactly it. CO2 does NOT act as a thermal barrier. It acts as a heat transporter and coolant. The atmospheric mass at large, 99% N2, O2 and Ar, is what makes up the thermal barrier. That’s what insulates the surface. CO2 in the troposphere, just like water vapour, rather enables the troposphere to adequately COOL. It simply gets rid of the heat (to space) constantly transferred to it from the surface and directly from the Sun.

            This is what CO2 warmists like yourself get wrong, in fact, completely backwards.

          • Kristian says:

            Nate says, August 4, 2019 at 5:53 AM:

            C’mon,

            Don’t c’mon me, Nate. You said CO2 in the troposphere works just like the insulation in your attic (while in the stratosphere, apparently, it works the opposite way). It evidently doesn’t. So explain how it REALLY works.

            How does more CO2 in the troposphere make the troposphere itself warmer?

            Heat transfer through the troposphere and out of the troposphere (to space) with CO2 in it is NOT reduced, that’s the whole point. The CO2, like the water vapour, enables the troposphere to COOL. The N2, O2 and Ar do NOT. They mainly enable the troposphere to WARM.

          • Nate says:

            “Heat transfer through the troposphere and out of the troposphere (to space) with CO2 in it is NOT reduced, thats the whole point.”

            FALSE. The GHE is a key component of our understanding of meterology, and numerical weather models.

            To deny it is to deny weather prediction models work.

            Furthermore, Earth without CO2 can be simulated, as Roy and many others do, and it ends up COOLER.

            “The CO2, like the water vapour, enables the troposphere to COOL.”

            Only in the same sense that the outermost layer of insulation on my house enables my house to cool. It is the last matter that the heat transfers to before exiting to the outside world.

            But like GHG, with the insulation present my house is warmer (in winter).

          • bdgwx says:

            Nevermind that the fundamental mechanism by which the GHE works also enables infrared radiometry like the ABI on the GOES-R satellites to function and to detect things like water vapor. The fact that CO2, H2O, etc. act as thermal barriers via their behavior in the infrared part of the spectrum is tested repeatedly on a planetary scale everyday.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

    • Bindidon says:

      curious skeptic

      Here is a comparison of UAH’s LT vs. LS anomalies (till Dec 2018):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view

  4. fonzie says:

    This could be it folks (nina’s on the way?!)

  5. E. Swanson says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I watched your presentation at the 13th ICCC and noted the latest graphs from John Christy, which are a somewhat different version of his previous presentations. As before, I would like to know exactly what your graphs represent. As you are aware, I have worked with the MSU/AMSU satellite data which you-all and RSS provide, but I don’t understand what you are actually presenting with these graphs.

    Those spaghetti curves on the graphs can’t be taken directly from the CMIP5 KNMI data without first applying an adjustment for the fact that the satellite data is a weighted average from the surface thru the atmosphere. At present, you-all haven’t described this adjustment in detail, which would require the application of some weighting function(s) to the KNMI data in order to simulate the satellite products. Some time ago, I saw a comment by John Christy in which he gave a list of theoretical weights vs. pressure height. That set of weights would appear to be a one-size-fits-all approach to simulate the LT (or the MT) series, which may produce an invalid comparison, as the atmosphere experiences both seasonal and latitudinal variation, which a single set of weights can not capture. Furthermore, how does this conversion process include the effects of land and ocean surface emissions from the monthly average KNMI data, including the effects of sea-ice and high elevations, both of which are known to influence the measurements of the MSU/AMSU passive microwave scanners?

    The polar regions are expected to exhibit the largest change in surface temperatures and the Arctic does show the largest warming, both in your results (0.25 K/dec) and those from RSS (0.46 K/dec). The other tropospheric product provided by RSS, known as the TTT, shows a rate of Arctic warming of 0.28 K/dec. As I understand it, sea-ice appears warmer than open water at microwave wavelengths, which is the basis for the passive microwave products tracking area and extent. As a result, the continuing decline in Arctic sea-ice cover may be masking the actual warming in the MSU/AMSU lower Troposphere products as more open ocean and melt ponds are captured by the instrument scans.

    Your reply to these issues would be most appreciated.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swannie…”I have worked with the MSU/AMSU satellite data which you-all and RSS provide, but I don’t understand what you are actually presenting with these graphs”.

      *********

      Based on debates with you, I think there’s a whole lot about physics you don’t understand and I don’t see where you get off questioning the expertise of Roy and John of UAH, especially feigning an innocent curiosity to cover your extremely alarmist views while providing your views of the Arctic.

      Why would the polar regions be expected to exhibit the largest changes in surface temperatures when they have little or no solar input for several months per year? During those periods, in the Arctic, the Arctic Ocean freezes to a depth of 10 feet, with air temperatures in the range of -40 to -50C.

      If you think a trace gas like CO2 is going to cause warming under such conditions, you bolster my opinion that you have a limited understanding of physics.

      • Dr Myki says:

        E.Swanson has raised some relevant issues.
        So, GR, please p.. off. Don’t start polluting this thread.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Begone, troll!

        • DMacKenzie says:

          Re the ES & GR comments regarding larger temp change at high latitudes…..The reason is simple, the high latitudes are colder so much less heat is radiated to outer space due to the T^4 Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. So a higher proportion of the warmth, if you can call it that, of the polar regions is transported there by atmospheric transport… winds, jet stream… So if global warming of say one degree occurs in temperate zones, raising the average temp say from 4 C to 5 C at some intermediate latitude, there might be an increase of twice as much near the poles, but maybe from -12 to -10 C average. All because the heat transported in, is a higher ratio than radiated out, as compared to temperate zones. At the equator hardly any temperature rise occurs due to global warming due to the same ratios.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, as usual, resorts to a personal attack to avoid the questions I asked. Of course, he then gives an appeal to authority, as if every PhD holder is a fount of absolute truth.

        Has Gordo taken the time to actually read the papers by Spencer and Christy, going back to the late 1980’s? I’ve spent years doing so and along the way have also written 2 published peer reviewed papers on the satellite data. What has Gordo done? We don’t know, since he has yet to provide ANY EVIDENCE about his professional background and experience that I am aware of.

        So, Gordo, tell us the reason for the first version of the TLT and the year it was published. Failing that, perhaps Gordo could describe the difference between the latest LT v6 and the previous LT v5, in mathematical terms.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Swanson, don’t forget your failed experiment, where you tried to prove the laws of thermo invalid.

          Gordon is right, again. You don’t come here to add clarity. You are here to promote pseudoscience.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swannie…”Gordo, as usual, resorts to a personal attack to avoid the questions….”

          Don’t care about your questions, I take exception to the way you try to set up Roy while trying to make it appear as if you are asking an innocent question.

          You are a supporter of Eli Rabbett, who hides behind a nym while taking shots at the UAH record and anything skeptical. In your experiments, you have tried to support the inane theories of Rabbett with his utterly stupid blue plate/green plate thought experiment.

          You have gone to great lengths to support his nonsense with an experiment, your conclusions from which obviously contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Even though Rabbett had it explained to him how the 2nd law works, by two scientists who work in the field, you continue to support the notion that heat can be transferred from a cooler plate, warmed by a hotter plate, so as to raise the temperature of the body that heated it.

          With that kind of pseudo-scientific mindset, I can only imagine the content of your published papers. Over at realclimate, you can be seen supporting the views of Gavin Schmidt in which he offers a title, “John Christy’s Misleading Graphs”.

          Schmidt runs realclimate with his alarmist buddy Michael Mann. Mann was caught in the thick of the Climategate chicanery where his buddy, Phil Jones, of Had-crut, was caught threatening to have skeptic papers withheld from IPCC reviews. One of those papers was submitted by John Christy.

          You have a nerve supporting the trash at realclimate and their pseudo-science then coming to Roy’s site and trying to bait him into responding to your stupidity.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo spouts nothing but more ad hominems, as is his habit. No need to reply to them. RealClimate did a good job of pointing out some of the problems with John Christy’s work, IMHO. As the author concluded,

            One of the most elementary parts of science is to know what the numbers really represent and how they should be interpreted.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”RealClimate did a good job of pointing out some of the problems with John Christys work….”

            **********

            realclimate is a hotbed of uber-alarmists lead by a mathematician. It is co-owned by Michael Mann, a geologist who was caught in the Climategate emails trying to interfere with the peer review system to block skeptics from publishing.

            He was revealed in the scandal to have invented ‘the trick’, a devious scheme to hide declining temperatures. Along the way, he managed to throw in sexist comments about Dr. Judith Curry simply because she had expressed skeptical views about AGW.

            With the hockey stick proxy data, when the data began showing cooling as the atmosphere was warming, Mann et al solved it by clipping off the offending data and splicing in real data. He thought that was kosher. Without his ‘trick’ there would be no blade on the stick, just a small nub, pointing down the way.

            That’s Mann’s trick. When the data does not behave as expected to support your theory, you change it till it does. It seems NOAA is now employing the trick, as does NASA GISS.

            With regard to the aforementioned, I am not about to listen to what a load of alarmists, who are not bona fide climate scientists, and who don’t understand science, have to say about John Christy, a degreed climate science with a high integrity and morality.

            The mathematician was taken to task by engineer Jeffrey Glassman over the mathematician’s definition of positive feedback. He could not explain PF yet PF is a vital part of climate models.

            Makes me wonder how many climate modelers understand that PF requires as amplifier and there is no amplifier in the atmosphere. Without PF, the models could not project the catastrophic warming from CO2 they claim.

            The explanations I have heard on PF by the likes of the mathematician make it sound like PF is an independent force that can cause amplification. It’s nothing of the kind. PF is one part of an amplified system wherein the PF is a SMALL sample of the output signal fed back in phase to the input signal. The two signals sum and the amplified sum increases exponentially over ensuing amplification cycles.

            At GISS, starting with James Hansen, they projected a tipping point that would lead to Earth’s atmosphere resembling the atmosphere of Venus. The tipping point is an obvious reference to the effect of positive feedback but neither Hansen, nor his protege Gavin Schmidt, the mathematician, have explained where the amplification comes from to cause that kind of PF.

            They seem to think positive feedback can act on its own. It can’t. Without amplification, all that is possible is negative feedback.

            There have been instances of natural amplification such as the disastrous Tacoma-Narrow Bridge, a suspension bridge that collapsed when wind caused it’s support cable to vibrate. The natural resonance in the bridge structure caused the bridge structure to vibrate sympathetically with the support cables, causing the bridge to collapse.

            That had nothing to do with positive feedback per se. The amplification came from a natural resonance between the support cables which had their resonant frequencies maintained by the wind. The resonance was passed on to other bridge structures till the bridge became one huge resonant mass.

            There is no such amplification or resonance in the atmosphere. PF related to CO2 has no existence yet the theory is a central construct in climate models.

            That’s the sort of nonsense perpetuated by alarmists like realclimate. And they have the nerve to criticize the work of a scientists who does great work with real data.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo does it again. Lots of verbiage about some denialist talking points, but nothing about what I wrote above or in my paper(s), as well as nothing about the comments on RealClimate about John Christy’s misleading graphs.

            In other words, no science content, as usual…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E Swanson, please stop trolling.

      • Nate says:

        ‘ I dont see where you get off questioning the expertise of Roy and John of UAH’

        C’mon Gordon, in science you are allowed and encouraged to question what others have done.

        And I see you constantly questioning other scientists’ work, so just stop.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swannie…here’s one of your published papers in which you conclude there are differences in the way UAH, RSS, NOAA, etc., analyze the data but you cannot explain why.

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1

      Let me help you there. NOAA retroactively fudged surface data to show a trend between 1998 – 2012 where the IPCC found no trend. UAH showed no trend. RSS used to show no trend but they seem to have formed an alliance with NOAA.

      The irony is that NOAA showed no trend between 1998 – 2012, they went back and amended the data to produce a trend.

      Why???

      NOAA has slashed their surface station coverage to less than 1500 stations and they fill in the slashed stations using a climate model where surface data is synthesized using real data from stations up to 1200 miles apart.

      In 2014, NOAA claimed it the hottest year ever based on a confidence level of 48% that they were telling the truth. GISS, using NOAA data, had a 38% confide4nce level with the same claim.

      Why???

      It’s obvious that NOAA is supporting the alarmist AGW hypothesis and that UAH is just presenting the data as found, with no political bias.

      In other words, your conclusion should be that UAH has integrity and the rest have none.

      You could have included all that in your paper but it would never have been published since the AMS also promotes the pseudo-science of AGW.

      Your paper never should have been published but it seems any paper these days supporting AGW, no matter how inane, gets published.

      • Dr Myki says:

        Somebody, anybody, give this guy something to cure him of train-of-thought diahorea.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          mickey…”Somebody, anybody, give this guy something to cure him of train-of-thought diahorea”.

          Too bad fact irritates you so much. Sign of a belief-bound mind, one that has rusted in place and fails to function.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, You’re such a funny guy. You see the reference to NOAA in my paper and immediately assume that this refers to the NOAA surface data analysis. Sorry, guy, you are wrong again.

        Oh, BTW, NOAA is the provider of the MSU/AMSU satellite data which Roy and John throw into their calculations each month. Furthermore, John’s latest work now includes reanalysis data instead of balloon data, that is to say, the output of models forced with actual measurements which “fill in” the areas between the measurements, such as that over the Arctic Ocean.

      • Nate says:

        ‘You could have included all that in your paper but it would never have been published since the AMS also promotes the pseudo-science of AGW.’

        Suddenly Gordon, with no expertise in the subject area, thinks he’d make a good editor of a science journal!

        He’s thinking of trying DIY heart surgery next.

    • bill hunter says:

      E. Swanson says:
      As I understand it, sea-ice appears warmer than open water at microwave wavelengths, which is the basis for the passive microwave products tracking area and extent.
      ————
      If you look around you should find some papers discussing how sea ice extent is being underestimated via the mistaking of melt ponds as open water.
      ———–
      ————-
      ———–
      E. Swanson says:
      As a result, the continuing decline in Arctic sea-ice cover may be masking the actual warming in the MSU/AMSU lower Troposphere products as more open ocean and melt ponds are captured by the instrument scans.
      ————

      There is little doubt the melt ponds being fresh are warmer than the ice. The only reason the seawater can be colder is its freezing temperature is below its melting temperature.

      So you are making a fundamental error when you say “more ocean and melt ponds” the two types of are only adding on the same side of the equation when the seawater is warmer than the ice like the melt ponds always are.

      Additionally, winter ice surfaces like winter land surfaces are far colder than the water and in summer its the opposite. That effect exists on every single shoreline in the world so it should not elude you while you nanny pick at Roy’s stuff.

      • E. Swanson says:

        B Hunter, I think you fail to understand what the MSU/AMSU instruments are actually providing. They don’t measure temperature, they measure microwave emissions in the total column from the surface to the instrument. The main difference in data between sea-ice vs. ocean/melt ponds, as well as that of land vs. ocean, is the result of the difference in surface emissivity between them, not just temperature.

        As for shorelines, I’m sure that you are aware that they aren’t changing, while the Arctic sea-ice cover is declining.

      • Nate says:

        ‘while you nanny pick at Roys stuff.’

        Puleez, he is simply critiquing/questioning another scientists methods. Standard.

        Thats what real skeptics SHOULD do.

  6. bill hunter says:

    Looks pretty much by the book with 7 months of El Nino rise corresponding to the current 7 months of elevated temperatures with a delay of a dozen weeks.

  7. Joel says:

    Open question to anyone who isn’t particularly concerned about global warming… whether you self describe as a realist or lukewarmist or whatever, this one’s for you.

    How long would the ~0.13 degree per decade trend have to continue before it would become a problem, in your opinion?

    • Dr Myki says:

      Surely you mean – “more of a problem”. Given we are now experiencing the many effects of a 1 degree rise.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        mickey…”Given we are now experiencing the many effects of a 1 degree rise”.

        Excluding the effect of the 2016 El Nino, there has been little more than 0.2C ‘true’ warming since 1979.

        • Dr Myki says:

          Wrong again. Can’t you read -“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade”. Over the past 40 years, that equates to +0.52 C.
          The term “true warming” is a figment of your imagination dolt.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mickey…”Wrong again. Cant you read -The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade. Over the past 40 years, that equates to +0.52 C.
            The term true warming is a figment of your imagination dolt”.

            I got the term ‘true warming’ from a UAH paper which I think was written by John Christy. John has a degree in climate science and is a man of high integrity yet you are insinuating he is a dolt.

            With regard to your statistical understanding you don’t have any. You are a number cruncher who fails to understand that statistical data represents physical contexts.

            UAH understand physical contexts, they have explained them along with their data. UAH is forced to use a static linear trend due to protocol, it’s the way data is presented in science. However, people who understand science have the onus to investigate the trend and to understand its meaning.

            You are the dolt. You accept a trend as meaning something it is not intended to mean.

          • Dr Myki says:

            GR, you are making it up again.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Begone, troll!

        • bdgwx says:

          The 2016 El Nino happened. Why should it be excluded from warming trend calculations?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”The 2016 El Nino happened. Why should it be excluded from warming trend calculations?”

            I did not infer it should be excluded. I have noted it is near the end of the range and is affecting the trend due to that proximity.

            If you had measured the trend just after the 1998 EN, it would have been terrible skewed. However, 15 years down the road, including the spike, the trend was flat from 1998 – 2012.

            We have no idea where the trend is going from here. One thing we do know, EN’s have affected the global average far more than anything else.

          • Dr Myki says:

            “We have no idea ….”
            You mean, GR has no idea.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DM,

            You aren’t claiming you can foresee the future, surely?

            That is the sort of presumptuous foolishness that pseudoscientific GHE true believers practice!

            Fakers, frauds and fools. You support such bumbling fumblers, do you?

            Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DM,

        I don’t seem to be experiencing any effects of a 1 degree rise of something or other.

        Maybe you could specify the effects of this “rise”? Do you think it might be more pronounced in areas which produce a lot of heat – industrial or heavily populated urban areas, for example?

        Certainly nothing at all to do with additional CO2 between the Sun and thermometers, if that’s what you are implying.

        Cheers.

        • Dr Myki says:

          “I dont seem to be experiencing any effects..”
          LOL.
          Everybody but you can discern the deterioration.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DM,

            Did it take you much effort to achieve your present level of stupidity?

            The world wonders!

            Cheers.

          • Carbon500 says:

            ‘Discern the deterioration?’ – I’m 70 years old, I’ve lived in the UK for all of that time, and the climate hasn’t changed a jot. The notion that it has is laughable. We’ve had drier years, wetter years, hot summers, cool summers, and cold winters as well as milder winters. Year on year weather variations, but no change whatsoever in the climate.
            When will all the climate change (newspeak for ‘dangerous man-made CO2-induced global warming) garbage we are constantly being subjected to ad nauseum stop?

          • Midas says:

            C500
            So why are profitable vineyards feasible now but not 70 years ago?

          • Carbon500 says:

            Midas: you ask ‘So why are profitable vineyards feasible now but not 70 years ago?’
            70 years it was 1949, just four years post WWII. Food rationing was in place in the UK, and this didn’t end until 1954. Times were hard. The last thing anyone would have thought of doing was to try and establish a vineyard! Wine was not a popular drink in those days either, so it’s not likely anyone would even have thought of trying to establish a vineyard at that time. I daresay it would have been commercial suicide.
            Let’s play temperature games.
            In 1949, the Central England Temperature tells us that the average for that year was 10.64 degrees C.
            In 2018, it was 10.68.
            I suggest that the recent establishment of vineyards in the UK has more to do with sociology than climate.

          • Midas says:

            The “central England” temperature comes from just one temperature gauge – at Manley, Cheshire. And you are cherry picking two years from it (or it it months?) and claiming they are representative of the climate at the time.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

    • fonzie says:

      Depends on whether the trend continues to be upheld by
      large transient el nino events or not. Should the anomaly return to where it was 15+ years ago, the trend would still be there because of the recent el nino. Yet, there would have been no net warming over the same period of time. (if you want to talk about genuine warming, then that’s a different matter)…

      • Bindidon says:

        Jesses fonzie

        Why do people like you always remove the El Ninos only?
        What about doing the same with La Ninas and all major eruptions?

        A series like UAH out of which you extract all three is about 70% of the full data.

        Genuine warming? Hmmmmh.

      • Midas says:

        @fonzie
        How many “large transient El Nino events” have there been since the 97/98 El Nino ended? How many ‘large transient La Nina” events in that time?

        I’ll let you decide what is meant by ‘large’:
        (1) Excluding weak events
        or
        (2) Excluding weak and moderate events

        • fonzie says:

          How many large transient El Nino events have there been since the 97/98 El Nino ended?

          Just one. (and the effects of it might not be over in the record yet)

          How many large transient La Nina events in that time?

          i would say one (maybe) circa 2000, though it’s irrelevant anyhow because it falls in the middle of the record (as is the ’98 nino).

          i would be one to take out the entirety of the recent large el nino (exactly what entirety means at this point is unsure) and the anomalous pinatubo cooling early in the record. Then i think we’d get a good idea of how much warming we’ve really had. (a nice ball park figure)…

          • fonzie says:

            BTW, should we get a large nina event in near future, then i would take that out, too. Skeptics have to be cautious about reading too much into the events of the next few years. Wait until nina has come and gone. Then we’ll see where we land…

          • Midas says:

            If your interpretation was stronger than moderate, yes, one El Nino (2015-16).
            But FOUR La Ninas stronger than moderate (98-99, 99-00, 07-08, 10-11).

            And of course you would also take out the 1997-98 El Nino, right?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

    • JDHuffman says:

      The question avoids the fact that Earth has the capability to regulate its temperature.

    • richard verney says:

      Since we know that bio diversity is at its most in warm humid climes, and at its least in cold arid climes, and since we know that all the large land animals come from warm climes, and since we know that life on this planet florished at times when the planet was some 10 to 17 degrees warmer than today (with creatures growing to enormous size due to the bountiful conditions), also when the coeans were 10 or more degrees warmer, and since we as a species come from a natural habitat where the temperatures are a circa 40 degree climate (Sudan/Ethopia), I would suggest that it would be upwards of 800 years.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        richard…”I would suggest that it would be upwards of 800 years”.

        At least. ☺

      • Dr Myki says:

        It is well known that IQ increases away from the equator and with colder climes. Warming will lead to less intelligent people. As we can all see demonstrated here.

      • Joel says:

        Just to confirm, you think there is nothing to be concerned about until the globe is about 10 degrees hotter?

        Since we know that climates 10-17 degrees hotter meant no ice caps, and since we know the oceans would undergo thermal expansion, we know a transition period to 10 degree hotter climate would mean inundation of coastlines and cities, dramatically altering the world as we know it.

        Not a concern for you?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          J,

          Don’t forget the vastly increased fertile land made available – Canada, Russia, Antarctica, etc.

          Climate is just the average of weather. Good luck with reversing four and a half billion years of cooling. Why do you think this will reverse? Magic?

          As to coastlines, continents move – up, down, sideways. Marine fossils are found at altitudes greater than 6000 m. You are obviously ignorant, and possibly stupid as well.

          Do you really believe that pseudoscientific GHE true believers can look into the future any better than you or I?

          If it makes you feel better, feel free to worry twice as hard on my behalf. I can’t be bothered wasting any time at all, worrying about a GHE which nobody can even describe.

          Cheers,

      • Joel says:

        Or, more to the point of my original question:

        That’s not a problem, in your opinion?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Joel…”How long would the ~0.13 degree per decade trend have to continue before it would become a problem, in your opinion?”

      ***********

      The ~0.13C/decade trend is a statistical ‘number’ that belies the underlying physical contexts.

      For the first 18 years of the UAH record, the anomalies were largely in the negative region, indicating a recovery from cooling. For the next 20 years, even including the 1998 El Nino, the trend was flat. The IPCC admitted to 15 years of that flat trend.

      The tail end of the UAH record has been affected by the 2016 El Nino, the effects of which seem to be tailing off slowly and bolstered by El Nino’s in-between. If you look at the trend since 2016, it has been negative.

      True warming since 1998 has been a lot less than 0.13C/decade. In fact, UAH once put out a paper suggesting the decadal trend pre 1998 was closer to 0.09C/decade. That’s getting into the region of insignificant.

    • Dave says:

      In answer to your question, given that I am 53 and if I were to speak selfishly of just myself, then 0.13C per decade can persist for my lifetime without complaint from me.

      If I were to live for 1000 years, well that would be different. After a couple of centuries I am sure that 2.6C of warming would start to make a difference and that could become uncomfortable. I would want to stop that rise if I could.

      I dont think anyone though is suggesting that there is a straight line rising of temperature over time. Even the GW hypothesis must have a rough sort of limit. The earth’s temps must be pretty stable over time, if not we would have burned up or frozen up all ready.

      If you believe that a delta increase of 0.04% of our atmosphere can make a major and sustained difference to our global temperatures, you would have to concede that the increase in plant growth caused by the extra C02 and warmer temperatures would take huge amounts of CO2 back out of the atmosphere and put it back in the ground. Our earth keeps things in balance pretty much on its own.

      Bear in mind too that we are going to reduce using fossil fuels soon anyway, as there is a limit to what we can extract. I suspect that alternative sources of energy will come along soon enough and make oil and coal uneconomic even if those resources were limitless, which clearly they arent. A 0.13C per decade increase, even if you believe that is caused by CO2 increases, which I dont, wont continue much longer because we will run out of fossil fuels to burn or they will become uneconomic in the next few decades.

      • Midas says:

        “the increase in plant growth caused by the extra C02 and warmer temperatures would take huge amounts of CO2 back out of the atmosphere and put it back in the ground”

        Yet the CO2 concentration is still rising at a faster rate. Doesn’t that tell you there is something wrong with your logic?

        • Dave says:

          Midas,

          I dont see that it is flawed at all.

          What we would expect to see is an increased rate of bio activity as a result of extra CO2. That will pick up as the level of CO2 increases, but the CO2 extracted from the atmosphere by that process isnt going to match the volume emitted by man. I believe I read somewhere that increases in CO2 in our atmosphere are a lot less than we emit, so it must be going somewhere.

          Were manmade output of CO2 to stop suddenly, CO2 levels would fall gently. And as I argued above, given our limited amount of fossil fuels, that is going to happen and long before our planet burns to a crisp according to the CO2 global warming hypothesis is correct.

          I dont believe that theory, but it is irrelevant whether or not it is a correct theory imo. I understand that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic, i.e. the more CO2 there is proportionally less warming with each increase that is made. On that basis, even if 0.13C per decade is wholly caused by carbon emissions, the world isnt going to warm up much at all before we run out of fossil fuels.

          • Midas says:

            The tripling in the rate of CO2 rise over the past 50 years (8 ppm in the 1960s up to 24 ppm in the 2010s) has more than compensated for the logarithmic rise in forcing.

            Yes, only about 50% of emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. That comprises about 30% which goes into the ocean, and 20% which goes into the land, including vegetation. As the ocean saturates with CO2 it will be less able to take up more. This is likely to more than negate a slight rise due to increased vegetation.

            And you are forgetting that we are chopping down forests. The claim is only that vegetation is denser where it still exists, not that the entire planet is becoming greener.

            The Japanese are now exploring the possibility of harnessing methane clathrates for energy. If we were to burn all fossil fuels (assuming improved technology for doing so) and also use up all methane clathrates, we would reach CO2 levels approaching 2000 ppm, albeit a few centuries from now.

            CO2 emissions are not going to stop suddenly. But if they did, the decades long lag due to the high specific heat of the oceans (our current global temperatures are based on CO2 concentrations from 20 to 30 years ago), and the sudden loss of dimming aerosols from the atmosphere, would ensure that temperatures would continue to rise for at least a couple more decades.

          • Midas says:

            When I said “that comprises” I meant “the rest comprises”.

          • Simon Osborne says:

            Midas,

            I cant see a reply button below your latest post.

            Anyways, I like this link. It has a nice picture of the graph of oil production. Geologically the oil age will be but a pico-second.

            http://theoildrum.com/node/4704

            I would guess too that oil production will tail off much quicker than in the graph, because I am expecting a new technology like a good battery to change the world. We might still get oil out of the ground for plastics after that, but I doubt we will burn it. Of course if that happens, the Japanese wont be burning up the methane either. And if we dont find a replacement for oil, then we will have far worse problems that a 2C rise in atmospheric temperatures to have to deal with as our entire civilisation cannot function without it.

            As for the trees, in some countries like the US, there are more trees now than 100 years ago. I suspect that we make less difference to the total biomass than you are suggesting. Remember too, all that CO2 in the oceans will encourage plant life there as well, and we arent chopping down the plankton to any great extent.

            Further, with birth rates falling everywhere, it is likely the amount of green that we take away from the planet will shortly start falling across the planet one way or the other. If we dont find a proper replacement for fossil fuels as an energy source, I cant see how death rates wont rise precipitously either. That will be bad for mankind, but not much of a threat to the planet.

            No matter which way you look at it, I cant see how you can make a set of reasonable assumption based on what we know, where we can cause a climate catastrophy of our own making. We simply do not have the fossil fuels to do it even if we assume CO2 can really do all the terrible things we are told about this wonderful gas that gives our planet life.

          • Midas says:

            SO
            Oil will run out well before 2100. Coal will last until at least the middle of the next century. If we start burning methane clathrates, it will go on for another couple of centuries.

          • John Tillman says:

            Simon,

            Your link is over a decade out of date. Its graph has been shown false since 2008. Thanks largely to surging crude oil production in North America, that year was not peak petroleum, as forecast in the graph.

            https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-statitistics.html

            When oil will peak is anybody’s guess.

          • John Tillman says:

            PS: Peak oil has been predicted at least since 1909.

            https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/weve-been-incorrectly-predicting-peak-oil-for-over-a-ce-1668986354

            When I was in college, it was supposed to have occurred my freshman year, 1970.

          • Svante says:

            Oil will run out in just over ten years.
            That’s a firm estimate, it’s been like that for decades.
            Because it’s no point prospecting any further into the future.

      • barry says:

        If you believe that a delta increase of 0.04% of our atmosphere can make a major and sustained difference to our global temperatures, you would have to concede that the increase in plant growth caused by the extra C02 and warmer temperatures would take huge amounts of CO2 back out of the atmosphere and put it back in the ground.

        Why on Earth would anyone “have to concede” that increased growth would be significant enough to slow down CO2 increase?

        Is this just a rhetorical statement of yours, or do you have actual hard numbers that would make it seem so self-evident?

        • JDHuffman says:

          barry, don’t start denying photosynthesis. You’re already denying enough science.

          Your “plates” are full….

        • Dave says:

          “Why on Earth would anyone have to concede that increased growth would be significant enough to slow down CO2 increase?”

          That seems to me self evident. We know that our fossil fuels are originally from carbon extract by a previous era’s bio mass, and trapped under the ground. Those same processes must be happening today. If plants are able to grow at a faster rate because you increase the amount of one of the restrictions to growth, i.e. the lack of CO2, then that entire process must go quicker mustnt it?

          https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

          The extent to which it is happening I do not know. It clearly happens to be quite significant though if NASA can spot the difference. In geological terms it appears to be very fast indeed. Manmade output of CO2 appears to be outstripping the biomass effect of removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the moment, but that is temporary. As I pointed out, in a few decades time max, human output of CO2 in our atmosphere will stop for one reason or another. Temperatures will not have risen fast enough by then to make much difference to anything.

          • barry says:

            If ‘greening’ is supposed to offset emissions, why haven’t we seen this balance already?

            Atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily for decades. We don’t have to make guesses, we can look at the record.

            https://en.es-static.us/upl/2019/06/co2-chart-increase-mauna-loa-1960-2019.png

            With that front and centre, what the hell are you talking about?

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, it could be that you don’t understand. It could be that you are obsessed with AGW, and want to avoid reality.

            Remember, it was you that brought the “plates” here. With your lack of understanding, you believed that nonsense.

            We enjoy the humor you provide, but please don’t take yourself too seriously. Wackos tend to be a danger to themselves or others.

    • barry says:

      How long would the 0.13 degree per decade trend have to continue before it would become a problem

      Considering that a change of 5 to 6 degrees C accompanied ice age transitions with sea level changes of 100 meters over the last few ice age transitions, and all the continents are in basically the same arrangement, then conservatively I’d say things would get problematic in 200 years.

      Now:

      0.13 C/decade is tropospheric temps, not surface.

      Of the 2 lower trop data sets it is the lower.

      Of all the global temp data sets, surface and tropospheric, it is the lowest.

      Linear trends for the last 40 years are not predictive of what will happen in the next 40, 60, 100 or 160.

      So I would say things could become problematic a fair bit sooner than 200 years, or possibly even a little later.

      • Midas says:

        Hopefully we can get our act together long before that time expires.

      • JDHuffman says:

        How many bogus assumptions do clowns have to make in order to scare themselves?

        1) 0.13 over ~40 years means something.

        2) 0.13 will continue.

        3) CO2 warms the planet.

        4) We know temperatures from ice age transitions.

        5) All continents have always been in the same arrangement.

        That’s just a start….

        • Craig T says:

          “5) All continents have always been in the same arrangement.”

          Oh, really?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, you are unable to follow the discussion, as usual.

          • barry says:

            It’s ok, Craig. Huffman can’t follow a conversation either.

            “All continents have always been in the same arrangement”

            He thinks that’s what I said.

            “0.13 will continue”

            He thinks that’s what I said. When I said the opposite.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, you get to argue with yourself.

            “…and all the continents are in basically the same arrangement…”

            May the funniest clown win.

  8. Joel says:

    If you think there’s already a problem, my question isn’t for you.

    • fonzie says:

      (if you’re using a device, then you have to go to the desk top version to reply or else your comment ends up at the bottom of the comment page)

  9. Don says:

    A 1 degree rise…from what temperature to what temperature?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      don…”A 1 degree risefrom what temperature to what temperature?”

      From the -1C to -2C cooling of the Little Ice Age. That means we could have more warming coming till we’re back to normal.

  10. Midas says:

    Warmest “weak” El Nino in the UAH record.

  11. Ftop says:

    It is the myth of averages. If the average low goes up .85 and the average high goes up .15; you have a 1.0 difference but a smaller diurnal range.

    In other words, the planet becomes more hospitable which will surely be the end of us all.

    • Midas says:

      Surely you mean the average has gone up by 0.5, not 1.0.
      And it’s a big IF. In the US, the average low has gone up slightly more than the average high. In eastern Australia and in Great Britain it is the reverse. In neither case is the difference anywhere near your example. Globally I suspect there is little difference. Perhaps you have global data to suggest otherwise.

    • bdgwx says:

      If given only the low and high the mean temperature is typically computed as (L + H)/2 thus…

      dT = (L+0.85 + H+0.15)/2 – (L + H)/2

      dT = ((L – L + 0.85) – (H – H + 0.15)) / 2

      dT = (0.85 + 0.15) / 2

      dT = 0.5

      So unless I’ve misunderstood your point the difference should be 0.5. No?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”unless Ive misunderstood your point”

        Appears you did. He said “If the average low goes up .85 and the average high goes up .15…”.

        I think he’s suggesting the dynamic range has been squashed, like a compressor does to sound audio voltages.

    • bill hunter says:

      Ftop says: In other words, the planet becomes more hospitable which will surely be the end of us all.

      —————–

      While the others take you apart on messing up the average, I would like to recognize your keen observation there.

      A more hospitable planet probably will mean the end of us all as good weather will provide for having far too much extra time on our hands to find something to fret about.

      • captain droll says:

        Rather, nice weather will entice us all outdoors. Leaving behind the safety of our homes, we are destined to all meet cruel fates.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          droll…”nice weather will entice us all outdoors.”

          Unless you live in northern Manitoba, Canada where mosquitoes and black flies try to eat you alive.

          • captain droll says:

            Is that why you never go outdoors?
            I bet you never meet and talk to other human beings.
            I also bet you would rather pay more attention to the voices in your head.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Troll, begone!

  12. Scott R says:

    +0.33 In the arctic. Quite the drop. Wonder if it has legs.

  13. Gordon Robertson says:

    I am encouraged, I had expected the global average to rise. To have it drop by over 0.1C during an El Nino is encouraging.

    • Midas says:

      So you are rooting for an ice age?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        So you make pointless comments just for fun?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Midas…”So you are rooting for an ice age?”

        Not a fan of cold. I want to see the temps drop below the baseline again to rid us of the alarmists twaddle about a trace gas causing catastrophic warming.

        The trace gas could cause no more warming than its mass percent in the atmosphere, about 0.04%.

        • Midas says:

          I’d be interested to know – when you say “could cause no more warming than its mass percent in the atmosphere, about 0.04%”, what is that a percentage OF? Because “could cause no more warming than 0.04%” doesn’t seem to make any logical or semantic sense.

          • Midas says:

            It is noteworthy that despite making several comments in the last couple of hours, GR found this one too difficult to respond to. Perhaps the nonsensical nature of that sentence dawned on him.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Midas…”Id be interested to know when you say could cause no more warming than its mass percent in the atmosphere, about 0.04%, what is that a percentage OF?”

            I have explained it many times, guess you were absent. Did you bring a note from Mom?

            It has to do with the Ideal Gas Law.

            PV = nRT

            P = pressure, V = volume, n = mass (number of molecules), R = gas constant, and T = temperature.

            I am considering the atmosphere a relatively constant volume. I realize the volume changes slightly with solar heating but with subsequent contraction there should be a steady state that is constant.

            If you don’t like that, take it down to the stratified layers created by gravity. Keep decreasing the thickness till you get a volume you can consider relatively constant.

            Considering v constant, we lump all the constants, v, R and n as:

            P = (nR/V)T

            It becomes immediately obvious that P is directly proportional to T. That is the steady state related to gravitational pressure disregarding thermals from convected warmed surface air.

            Dalton’s portion of the IGL states that the sum of the partial pressures of a gas equals the total pressure of the gas. Pressure is proportional to the number of molecules and the force with which they strike the walls of a container. In the case of the atmosphere, pressure is the force exerted on air molecules by gravity.

            I know meteorologists will begin pulling out their hair, talking about high and low pressure centres. I am not talking about such dynamics, I am talking about the steady state conditions on a fair day with little or no convective currents.

            n = mass and the proportion of each gas represented by the n of each is the mass percent. However, I am using n as a constant but the sum of the n’s creates the pressure. Therefore the mass percent of each n is related to the partial pressure of each gas.

            Since T is proportional to P at constant volume, then the temperature contributed by each gas must be the sum of each partial temperature. I know, I know, to you purists hung up on the temperature definitions as the average kinetic energy of the molecules, this will sound like heresy.

            However, if temperature is the average kinetic energy of all molecules it must also be the sum of the KE’s contributed by each gas and in proportion to the partial pressures of each gas.

            That means the temperature contribution of each gas is proportional to its mass percent. The combined mass percent of N2/O2 is about 99% and that of CO2 about 0.04%. That means N2/O2 contributes almost all the heat and CO2 a tiny fraction of 1%.

        • professor P says:

          Nurse. Give GR a .04% dose of cyanide. He is convinced it will not affect him.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Begone, witless troll!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            pp…”Give GR a .04% dose of cyanide. He is convinced it will not affect him”.

            Stick to psychology. You obviously have no idea about the difference between 0.04% cyanide in the human body and 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

            They have absolutely nothing in common.

            I breath in 0.04% CO2 every few seconds and it does nothing in my body either. The same as it does nothing in the atmosphere. It doesn’t warm the air in my lungs nor does it raise my body temperature.

          • Midas says:

            The greenhouse effect does not involve warming the CO2, despite your straw man arguments that suggest the science claims otherwise.

            It involves creating a semi-transparent barrier between a source and a sink of radiative heat, whose transparency/opacity is dependent on both the concentration of CO2 AND the height of the air column that the radiation must penetrate (and the wavelength of the radiation). In your lungs you have neither the air column height nor the asymmetry between source and sink, and even if it did make a difference your body’s regulatory systems would return your temperature to normal.

            So that really was a nonsense argument, useful only for someone who intends to continue pretending that the greenhouse effect is something different to what the science tells us.

          • Midas says:

            That comment is for GR in case it is not obvious.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, your description of the GHE is actually a description of the “atmospheric effect”. The atmosphere is part of a control system that maintains Earth’s temperature around a set point.

            The atmosphere can NOT raise the temperature of the surface. The atmosphere regulates how fast energy is emitted to space–too warm, more emission, too cold, less emission.

          • Midas says:

            It is the greenhouse effect, chumps. Changing greenhouse gas concentrations changes the “set point” you refer to.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong Midas, Earth’s “set point” is “set”. It is set by the laws of thermodynamics. It can NOT be changed.

          • Midas says:

            Oh really?? So we have never had an ice age before?

          • Midas says:

            JDH
            Not able to answer this one I see.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

    • Scott R says:

      Gordon Robertson,

      I’m with you buddy. Hoping we go below baseline to silence the natural climate change critics. My opinion it would happen even without the GSM. With the GSM, they will look very silly within about 5-15 years depending on the length of the delay. Course the magnetic field is changing. Who knows what that will do.

      • barry says:

        What evidence would it take to convince you that CO2 is warming the surface?

        I’m betting that it would either be “none”, or it would be a set of conditions so unreasonable as to fully secure your opinion against nearly any happenstance.

        But make like a scientist and pout a hypothesis out there that would break your ‘model’.

        what would it take to make you strongly doubt your current opinion against CO2 warming?

        I bet you can’t commit to a reasonable metric.

        • JDHuffman says:

          barry, “heating the planet” is about physics, not tree rings or scare tactics.

          Your pseudoscience is easily busted, just like your “plates”.

          Learn some physics.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”What evidence would it take to convince you that CO2 is warming the surface?”.

          I can’t think of any because I don’t see how a trace gas can have such an effect. I have seen no scientific evidence to that effect that could meet the requirements of the scientific method. All of the evidence is conjecture based on climate model theory.

          Gavin Schmidt at realclimate claimed CO2 has a warming effect of 9% to 25% depending on the water content. He offered no scientific proof for those figures whatsoever.

          If you apply the Ideal Gas Law to atmospheric gases, under a near constant volume condition, Dalton’s partial pressure portion of the IGL suggests CO2 can contribute no more warming than its mass percent. That means about 0.04C based on 1C warming.

          You might argue that the atmosphere is not a constant volume but it is a constant mass held in stratified layers by gravity. Close enough.

          It’s equally obvious that nitrogen and oxygen, making up nearly 99 mass percent of the atmosphere contribute 99% of the warming.

          Where this notion came from that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere could warm both the atmosphere and the surface is not at all clear. It’s obvious that the notion has been extrapolated from the work of Tyndall in a lab, about 150 years ago.

          That sort of voodoo science does not cut it for me. If CO2 is warming the atmosphere then prove it using the scientific method.

        • Kristian says:

          barry says, August 2, 2019 at 8:33 AM:

          What evidence would it take to convince you that CO2 is warming the surface?

          Very simple:

          We need to observe, globally and systematically (gradually and consistently) over time, that 1) T_tropo (e.g. TLT) significantly increases relative to total all-sky OLR at ToA converted into T_e(up), AND, simultaneously and parallelly, that 2) T_tropo (TLT) significantly decreases relative to total all-sky DWLWIR to sfc converted into T_e(down), which is to say that the DWLWIR (at sfc) data should be seen to rise strongly and systematically over time relative to the OLR (at ToA) data. All according to the basic idea of the “enhanced GHE”:

          https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/held-soden-2000.png

          https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/greenhouse-mechanism.png

          Conversely, if there’s nothing out of the ordinary going on with the “GHE”, the means of T_tropo and T_e should be seen to track each other over time at both levels, as should the OLR at ToA (T_e(up)) and the DWLWIR at sfc (T_e(down)).

          And this is exactly what we observe …

          So, going by the available relevant data from the real Earth system, there’s no reason to believe or assume that CO2 plays or has played a discernible role as a positive driver of ‘global warming’ over the last decades.

          The REAL drivers are of course the Sun (an increased solar heat flux to the Earth, +ASR) + Earth’s own oceanic-tropospheric circulational variability (mainly through changing Earth’s global albedo, directly affecting how much of the incoming solar (TSI) is reflected back to space and thus not absorbed as heat by the Earth system (ASR)).

          • Kristian says:

            With the OLR given one month’s lead, to align the two a bit more closely in time:

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/olr-w-lead-vs.-dwlwir-2019.png

          • Nate says:

            ‘We need to observe, globally and systematically (gradually and consistently)’

            Why does it NEED to be gradually and consistently? Nothing else in the atmosphere is.

            “2) T_tropo (TLT) significantly decreases relative to total all-sky DWLWIR to sfc converted into T_e(down), which is to say that the DWLWIR (at sfc) data should be seen to rise strongly and systematically over time relative to the OLR (at ToA) data.”

            This one, again, has issues, which seem to be ignored. For one The DWLWIR svc is obtained via modeling, not direct measurement.

          • barry says:

            The REAL drivers are of course the Sun (an increased solar heat flux to the Earth…

            Has been flat or declining for 60 years.

            +ASR

            You seem to believe we have those numbers pinned down.

            + Earths own oceanic-tropospheric circulational variability (mainly through changing Earths global albedo, directly affecting how much of the incoming solar (TSI) is reflected back to space and thus not absorbed as heat by the Earth system (ASR)).

            Curious to see what anyone else working with CERES data was coming up with, I found this.

            https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm

          • Kristian says:

            Nate says, August 4, 2019 at 6:01 AM:

            Why does it NEED to be gradually and consistently? Nothing else in the atmosphere is.

            Because that’s how the CO2 effect **in isolation** is supposed to work its magic. Thus, if a rise progresses over time in fits and starts, it’s because of earth processes OTHER THAN the rise in atmospheric CO2. But we want to isolate the CO2 effect on global temps, and that is supposed to be gradual and systematic/consistent over time, simply tracking the rise in atmospheric CO2. Just look at the models – remove the noise and what you’re left with is the gradual and consistent “CO2 rise” …

            You should know this, Nate.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, August 4, 2019 at 7:19 PM:

            “The REAL drivers are of course the Sun (an increased solar heat flux to the Earth…”

            Has been flat or declining for 60 years.

            +ASR

            So show me how the ASR (not the TSI) has been declining over the last, say, 30-35 years (since the mid 80s).

            Do you know the difference between TSI and ASR, barry? It seems you don’t. I explained it above, though …

            You can also read about all this here:

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-supplementary-discussions/

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, August 4, 2019 at 7:19 PM:

            Curious to see what anyone else working with CERES data was coming up with, I found this.

            https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm

            You don’t have to go through papers, barry, to know what the CERES data says. You need only to look at the data itself. It’s freely available online for anyone who dares to take a look, after all:

            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php

            Changes in reflected SW at the ToA from 2000 to 2019 (CERES EBAF Ed4.1):

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_areaaveragetimeseries_deseasonalized_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_032000to022019.png

          • Svante says:

            barry says:

            Curious to see what anyone else working with CERES data was coming up with, I found this.

            https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm

            Looks like Krisian is right, ASR is going up, at least in polar regions, matching the falling sea ice extent.

          • barry says:

            Kristian, you pompous loon. I do know what ASR means. That’s why I mentioned it separate to direct solar heat flux in my post. Are you completely cretinous, or did you just not notice that distinction?

            I like reading work that has been reviewed by experts. If you were not so terminally wedded to your own view, you might have noticed that the paper has a slightly positive ASR from CERES data.

            But you didn’t bother reading it, did you?

            I did, and learned that the CERES data is problematic – something I already knew, but learning a bit more from a different angle.

            None of these kinds of caveats make it into your posts. You have found the data that suits your preformed beliefs and you don’t question it at all. But if other data contradicts your pre-formed beliefs, why you will smear it based only on the fact that it doesn’t conform to what you believe.

            You might even go as far as citing a paper that explains the problems with that data.

            But you will ignore any problems with the data you like.

            Because you are not interested in the truth, only peddling your pet thesis.

            You would also discover in that paper that OLR is well-matched with global warming, and ASR with fluctuations in global sea ice.

            And those results come with the caveats inherent in the data and the methods.

            Caveats that your work lacks, distinguishing it from real science.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Because thats how the CO2 effect *in isolation* is supposed to work its magic. ”

            Yes as usual you want CO2 to behave the way it cant possibly. And when it doesnt you can say look, it doesnt!

            IOW a big strawman.

            “Thus, if a rise progresses over time in fits and starts, its because of earth processes OTHER THAN the rise in atmospheric CO2.”

            Which is well understood. Eg ENSO, etc. No one modeling the atmosphere is assuming all else is constant.

            That would be dumb!

            “But we want to isolate the CO2 effect on global temps, and that is supposed to be gradual and systematic/consistent over time, simply tracking the rise in atmospheric CO2. ”

            Great, can’t easily do that on the Earth we have.

            You need to get real about proper testing of AGW.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        scott r…”Hoping we go below baseline to silence the natural climate change critics”.

        You know how that works, Scott. The alarmist poobahs will claim that was predicted by AGW and they will try to increase the effort. Or…they will claim the measures they have taken are working, all the more reason to increase carbon taxes.

        We really need a brief ice age (I hate the cold) to scare the average person so badly that alarmists will be forced to shut their yaps for fear of being punched out. In secret meetings at realclimate, skepticalscience, etc., they will still be holding meeting to discuss their views that AGW predicted the ice age.

  14. skeptikal says:

    +0.38C.. Ahh, just another day in paradise.

  15. Bindidon says:

    Where is our preferred Coolista Salvatore del Prete?

    He seems to be terribly frustrated by his prediction going wrong about UAH soon reaching anomalies below 0.0 C, what a pity for him.

    About 90 months in sequence with UAH anoms above zero: that can really depress you!

    Let’s all hope he is well. Japan’s Met predicts 10% La Nina for October, that sounds good for him again…

  16. Midas says:

    Here is the UAH average for the first seven months of El Nino years.

    Weak El Ninos
    1980 +0.01
    2005 +0.21
    2007 +0.21
    2015 +0.22
    2019 +0.39

    Moderate El Ninos
    1987 +0.03
    1995 +0.05
    2003 +0.17
    2010 +0.41

    Strong El Ninos
    1988 +0.09
    1992 -0.23 (Pinatubo-affected – probably down about 0.4 to 0.5)

    Very Strong El Ninos
    1983 0.00 (El Chichon-affected – probably down about 0.3 to 0.4)
    1998 +0.58
    2016 +0.60

    Also of interest: since the 97-98 El Nino, only one El Nino has rated greater than ‘moderate’. In the same period, four La Ninas have done the same.
    Alternatively, three El Ninos in that time have rated greater than ‘weak’ while five La Ninas have done the same.

  17. Afterthought says:

    Global Heating, as they now call it, is the manifestation of the religious apocalyptic impulse for folks who claim to be skeptical or even hostile to traditional religion.

    4 decades x .13 degree K per decade is .52 K, or a 0.2% increase in 40 years.

    If you consider the coefficient of variance, that would be considered UNCHANGED in any other school of science. But this isn’t science, it’s just more astonishing rubbish from the modern zealots.

    Imagine if a 288 lbs man came to you and said he was worried he was gaining weight, and you said, oh? how much weight have you gained? Half a pound in the last 40 years. You would be looking for the nearest exit!

    • Midas says:

      Who is “they”? I’ve never heard the term.

      Why are you comparing temperatures to absolute zero? Would that be a valid calculation to express the degree of your illness if your body temperature went up one degree?

    • Dr Myki says:

      Typical ignorant denialist.
      Talks about percentage increases in temperature!
      Tell us what the % increase is again, but this time use degrees Farenheit or Kelvin.

    • Bindidon says:

      Afterthought

      “Imagine if a 288 lbs man came to you and said he was worried he was gaining weight, and you said, oh? how much weight have you gained? Half a pound in the last 40 years. You would be looking for the nearest exit!”

      What a dumb, ignorant stuff.

      For soon ten billion people, Earth hardly could be habitable at 288 plus or minus 10 K.

      Simply because when the average temperature is 278 K i.e. 5 C or 298 K i.e. 25 C, a huge amount of the planet’s surfaces are simply useless with regard to such a population living in the actual high technology context.

      And then, 1.5 K per century become a quite different percentage number compared with 10 K.

      It is nothing horrible, but nothing negligible either.

      Alarmists are no useful people, but ‘modern zealot’ blah blah people are even worse.

    • barry says:

      Global Heating, as they now call it, is…

      …two things that you completely invented.

      “They” is a a fictitious, unnamed group that you won’t name after I call you on it.

      Like – I’m calling you on it right now – so ante up.

      No one is using “global heating” as some consistent phrasing.

      Yep – I’m calling you on that, too.

      Because drive-by BS artists are BS artists. And they need to be given the recognition they deserve.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      afterthought…”4 decades x .13 degree K per decade is .52 K, or a 0.2% increase in 40 years”.

      Interesting way of stating it.

      It’s akin to Figure 5 at this site where satellite temperatures are plotted against the +15C global average.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20090225192924/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html

      Where is Ian Schumacher these days. Still out there Ian?

      • barry says:

        For complete impact, scale to the ultimate range of temperatures in the universe, and you will see a completely flat line.

        Which is really informative if you’re, like, a galactic being.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        barry, please stop trolling.

  18. Obama says:

    I’m so frightened by the 0.13C/decade I hide under the covers at night. Sooo scary. I just dont understand why our government doesnt do more to regulate global meteorology. [sarc]

  19. barry says:

    Dunno why we do the ENSO updates. does it matter a damn to the long-term stuff we bicker about endlessly?

    So here are the results from the main monitoring institutes that provide easy access online.

    NOAA predict a return to ENSO neutral in the next few months, and a possible la Nina by the end of the year (maybe).

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

    By NOAA metrics we’ve been in a weak el Nino for quite a few months, about to fade away.

    The BoM forecasts ENSO neutral conditions to the end of the year, but their threshold is a little higher than NOAA.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks

    By BoM metrics we’ve been ENSO neutral throughout this year.

    JMA (Japanese Meteorological Association ) Have had us in an el Nino since late 2018, and expected to dissipate very shortly and remain neutral to the end of the year.

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html

    MEI (most comprehensive set of variables) has been ENSO neutral since mid last year, but has had values since then on the warmer side of neutral.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    I think it is probably a mistake to attach global temps to ENSO values when they are low in value. Corollary is much higher when ENSO values are extreme, otherwise it seems that other internal, interannual variables have as much effect as weak ENSO factors.

    Schmupdate.

    • Kristian says:

      barry says, August 2, 2019 at 9:02 AM:

      Dunno why we do the ENSO updates. does it matter a damn to the long-term stuff we bicker about endlessly?

      I’d say so, yes. Considering how the Pacific Ocean (its coupled oceanic-tropospheric circulation) + the Sun constitute the combined driving force behind observed ‘global warming’ (and still call all the shots) since the mid 70s (and surely prior to that as well) …

      Oh, but I keep forgetting, to you specifically, barry, what we actually observe to occur in nature doesn’t mean a thing, only statistics does. If you can write off an established climate regime (or phase) shift as a ‘mere statistical fluke’, you will and do.

      So, just letting the rest of the readers know …

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        kristian…”If you can write off an established climate regime (or phase) shift as a mere statistical fluke, you will and do”.

        That’s exactly what lead to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (aka The Great Pacific Climate Shift) in the 1990s.

        In 1977, there was a sudden 0.2C warming noted globally. Some scientists wanted to erase it as a mistake and Barry would have loved that. However, sanity prevailed, and the PDO was discovered shortly after and identified as having caused the warming.

        I think there was a similar shift circa 2001 – 2002 in the UAH record when global temps mysteriously jumped 0.2C following the 1998 EN. It could be this spate of EN’s since 1998 is related to something we don’t yet understand.

        Tsonis et al studied oscillations back a century and concluded that warming occurred when the oscillations were in phase and cooling when out of phase. Tsonis, himself, suggested we study the oscillations as a source of warming/cooling rather than wasting time on the anthropogenic theory.

      • barry says:

        Groan. Here come the “el Ninos cause all the warming” brigade.

        The great Pacific shift seems to happen with every Nino for these idjits.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Here come the el Ninos cause all the warming brigade”

          Are you going to argue that the sudden rise of 0.2C circa 2002, was not related to the 1998 EN? Why else would the average remain flat, above the baseline for 15 years, around 0.2C, if not related to the EN extreme?

          There is no reason to suspect the cause is not natural, something we don’t understand. There is every reason to suspect that a trace gas is the cause.

        • Kristian says:

          barry says, August 2, 2019 at 7:02 PM:

          Groan. Here come the “el Ninos cause all the warming” brigade.

          LOL! Yes, of course that would be the response. And that from the man who doesn’t believe an El Nino is an actual physical process with actual physical effects on Earth’s global climate system, but rather simply one data point fluctuation among many, basically just ‘statistical noise’.

          • Midas says:

            As climate is defined to be the 30 year average of weather, that is precisely what it is. The timescale of ENSO lies between the timescale of weather and the timescale of climate. You can redefine climate if you choose, but then climate scientists won’t be making predictions about what you call climate.

          • Kristian says:

            Midas,

            Who’s making predictions about climate based on ENSO? Not me. Seems like you’re attacking someone’s straw man of my actual argument here.

          • Midas says:

            I referred to climate scientists making predictions and you thought I was talking about you. Are you a climate scientist?

          • Kristian says:

            Midas says, August 3, 2019 at 4:40 AM:

            I referred to climate scientists making predictions and you thought I was talking about you.

            You’re addressing me as if I claimed that a single El Nino will drive global climate change over a 30-year period. Is that what I’m saying, Midas …? So why did you even respond to my comment?

            Are you a climate scientist?

            Sure. What’s your definition of a “climate scientist”?

          • Midas says:

            I said “you can redefine climate if you like”, the context clearly meaning you can redefine the timescale of climate to that of El Ninos. Somehow from that you get “you’re addressing me as if I claimed that a single El Nino will drive global climate change over a 30-year period”.

          • barry says:

            As usual, Kristian, you invent a position and attach it to me. That is as tiresome as your practised condescension, as well as the incoherence that comes from needing to have a jab.

            My view in way-too-brief: ENSO is a blend of physical processes (winds, currents, air pressure changes, etc), which, as they conspire to bring extreme SSTs to the region, can raise or lower the global average temperature, variously affect the hydrological cycle for a wider region, and can have a small influence on atmospheric CO2 fluctuations.

            Now, you don’t think el Ninos are the cause of warming. There were el Ninos before the so-called ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift’ and there were el Ninos after. No, you think it is an underlying, persistent pattern shift in ENSO. So you have a stupid jab when I say it’s not el Nino – because you have some weird tic with me – and you shoehorn a pretended disagreement on that into what you really think.

            And we’ve discussed that, and I remain just as unconvinced. Thanks for the same links I read the last couple of times. Trenberth doesn’t seem to think el Ninos provide much extra warmth, though you cite his work.

            PDO went cold from the late 1990s to the mid 2010s. Did temps dip down in line? Nope. And PDO has been oscillating for a long time, presumably, while temps have increased overall from the beginning of last century. So you are stuck with a longer term oscillation with a longer term rise of temps. Your model is not explaining the residual.

            When your ‘work’ has been submitted to a reputable science journal and published, your condescension may carry more bite. Until then, your arrogance is as compelling as your hypothesis.

          • Kristian says:

            Midas says, August 3, 2019 at 4:15 PM:

            I said “you can redefine climate if you like”

            But I haven’t redefined climate in any way, shape or form, Midas! So why did you make that comment at all!?

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, August 4, 2019 at 3:19 AM:

            As usual, Kristian, you invent a position and attach it to me.

            Just like you do to me, barry:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2019-0-38-deg-c/#comment-370706

            “Groan. Here come the “el Ninos cause all the warming” brigade.

            The great Pacific shift seems to happen with every Nino for these idjits.”

            Misrepresent my position, I misrepresent yours back. Live with it.

            However, you DO regard the obvious upward shifts in global temperature relative to NINO3.4 occurring in 1979, 1988 and 1998 as mere statistical flukes, as just noise on a gradually rising background trend, don’t you, barry? Even after it’s been shown in the data that there is no “gradually rising background trend”, just those steps. That what you see as a “gradually rising background trend” from 1970/71 to 2013/14 is rather a flight of steps – four flat (regime) plateaus separated by three upward (regime) shifts. The entire divergence that we observe from 1970/71 to 2013/14 between global temps and NINO3.4 is contained within those three steps. And even after it’s been explained and shown how (through what physical processes), where and when the ‘heat’ spread during those three steps, how something extraordinary happened in the Earth system at each instance, something we can see and track in the data; it’s there, described and studied in the peer-reviewed literature, even today.

            You still conveniently dismiss this as mere statistical noise.

            Or don’t you …?

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, August 4, 2019 at 3:19 AM:

            PDO went cold from the late 1990s to the mid 2010s. Did temps dip down in line? Nope.

            *Eyeroll*

            That’s because PDO does not control global temps (and no longer associate with them over time either), barry. If you’d actually read through the links I’ve given you during previous exchanges, you’d know this, and wouldn’t have to continue to make such inane comments:

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-ii-step-1/

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-iii-steps-2-3/

            But you don’t have to read, do you, barry? Because you already know.

            The “Great Pacific Climate Shift” of 1976/77 was associated with (not caused by, associated with) a phase shift in the PDO, yes. This is well established. That’s because the PDO is ONE (!) expression of the variable Pan-Pacific climate state (PDV, IPO). However, after 1988/89, when a following, but different regime shift occurred, PDO has no longer had a direct connection with the long-term evolution of global temps. And that’s because the PDO is not the only SSTa pattern (that’s all the PDO is, after all) that we see in the North Pacific. From 1988/89 it wasn’t even the dominant one any more. Moreover, as pointed out, PDO is but ONE (!) expression of the PDV/IPO; it’s not equal to it.

          • barry says:

            Your thesis is really that el Ninos inject heat into the system which is retained, and each el Nino injects another squirt of heat into the system in a series of steps?

            That’s what you are saying here.

            But that’s ludicrous, because el Ninos have been going on for centuries, and if every el Nino injected heat into the system, we would have been 10C cooler 1000 years ago.

            When you clarify why you (obviously) don’t agree with this, it will become clear yet again that you do not think el Ninos per se are responsible for temperature rise of the last few decades. It will be some underlying change which you haven’t yet articulated on this thread, but which you posit more coherently at your blog.

            Even after its been shown in the data

            If there is a linear trend punctuated by el Ninos – do you not realize it would look exactly like what we see?

            Roy Spencer even troubled to show us.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/

            And even after its been explained and shown how (through what physical processes..

            You haven’t described cause. You only articulated phenomena described in the literature. Trenberth’s residual is 0.06 C due to el Nino from 1950 to 1998. The warming that took place in that time was 0.35C, nearly 6 times as much (Had4 – the lowest surface trend for that period I could find).

            Did Midas correctly call you out when you parenthesised that GHG warming must necessarily be gradual and consistent?

            Because there is absolutely no reason why that should be so when interannual factos affecting global temps are in play – like ENSO.

            It’s PDO back then, it’s something else a bit later, it’s all these natural cycles conspiring to change the structure of el Ninos and warm the surface, huh?

            Sure, let’s just pick the bits of Trenberth we like, wave away the inconvenient stuff from the same paper and claim that our pastiche is the correct exposition, which has no uncertainty values or any of that other undermining stuff that real science has.

            Pick and choose your science, admit no uncertainty, and tie it up in a neat bow on a blog.

            Kristian, submit for publication. I dare you.

          • Midas says:

            Actually, El Ninos remove heat from the system. The heat that the warmer ocean surface gives up to the atmosphere in an El Nino is ultimately dissipated, leaving the ocean slightly cooler.

            Similarly, La Ninas cause heat to be added to the system. The cooler ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific take heat out of the atmosphere, leaving the oceans slightly warmer.

            There are the equilibrium-restoring processes that ensure we ultimately come out of these extreme states.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, Midas, please stop trolling.

    • Bindidon says:

      barry

      A little detail: I you write about JMA’s ENSO outlook, please use this:
      http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2

    • Bindidon says:

      Max

      Lingen ‘s bad siting isn’t the first, let alone the last one we will have to live with.

      36000 GHCN daily stations dealing with temperature since measurement begin, 1075 of them in Germany, starting with 1 in 1824, topping at 604 in 1991 to come back at 468 this year.

      That’s a lot.

      In Southern France they had a similar problem end of June.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”36000 GHCN daily stations dealing with temperature since measurement begin….”

        And out of those 36,000, NOAA has admitted to using less than 1500 stations globally. You are in deep denial about this.

        NOAA now does it’s work through statistical analysis of the 1500 stations. they use nearby stations, up to 1200 miles apart, then interpolate the data between those stations to synthesize data for intermediate stations.

        And when that does not show a pretty picture, they homogenize the data in a climate model to make everything look pretty and warmer than it should be.

        NOAA is currently working on building a reference station in the US to which they can compare all others. NOAA no longer does science, they are in the business of fabricating global temperatures to prop up the failing AGW theory.

        • Bindidon says:

          Robertson

          “And out of those 36,000, NOAA has admitted to using less than 1500 stations globally. You are in deep denial about this.”

          *
          No. The denialist of evidence, that’s you and you know that.

          You are permanently lying about this stupid 1500 number you picked on the Wayback machine some years ago.

          Here is the page:
          https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

          It appeared first on 2010, March 23, and was dropped of Wayback in 2016.

          *
          What you refer to is this:

          Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?

          The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

          However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.

          The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all to determine the global temperature record.

          What you woefully dissimulate all the time is the bold text:
          – 4500 old stations were eliminated because they would never be accessible in real time via electronic communication;
          – lots of station data was acquired worldwide:
          — old records which were digitised and added to the data set;
          — new stations with electronic access were added.

          *
          If NOAA had kept all these 4500 stations requiring communication by telex or fax,YOU would have been the VERY FIRST person claiming about NOAA kicking off huge amounts of money instead of modernising its infrastructure!

          *
          You are moreover inimaginably stupid, when believing like a little 5-year child that the data of 36000 stations could be generated out of 1500!

          If you were able to process these 36000 stations like I do since 2016, you would suddenly see, when generating sorts of e.g. US daily time series, temperatures bypassing the stations’ meaningful maxima or minima by a lot.

          The cause: sudden bumps, in a Celsius based record, from Celsius to Fahrenheit, probably happening when stations are rebooted upon power failure and restart in Fahrenheit modus.

          Many positions like these were detected and flagged, but lots of work still remains.

          And these anomalies are all different, Robertson! For each station where the problem appears, be it in Oregon, Oklahoma or in Alaska.

          How is it possible to be so dumb to think like you that somebody could generate such data automatically?

          *
          The rest of your comment: same kind of garbage!

          You are and remain an ignorant boaster, Robertson, who suffers from the pathological compulsion to discredit, denigrate, and lie.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”It appeared first on 2010, March 23, and was dropped of Wayback in 2016″.

            No, it was removed by the Obama administration because it proved an embarrassment. They also removed documents from the Department of Energy site that conveniently summarized the IPCC diagram in table form showing the level of ACO2 as being only 4% of natural CO2.

            “However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown…”

            More lies from NOAA for desperate alarmists. They blatantly admit to slashing the global surface set THEY CURRENTLY USE from 6000 stations to less than 1500 station then they claim the record has actually increased.

            The truth is that NOAA has been infiltrated by climate alarmists who support the AGW theory. Why else would NOAA claim 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level that they were telling the truth? They were in fact lying, using statistical chicanery to make it appear 2014 was a record warming year.

            Why did Karl breach NOAA protocol re document release to rush a NOAA study out in support of Obama’s alarmist bs for the Paris climate talks then refuse to release documents for the Trump admin, that was a breach of law?

            NOAA is politically driven on the side of AGW and there’s no question about that. So is NASA GISS and Had-crut. Now RSS has joined them leaving only UAH to be trusted.

          • bdgwx says:

            GR, Karl did breach protocol, fraudulently manipulate data, or inappropriately rush any academic publications for political gain. Read the following formal report on the investigation and then we’ll discuss what really happened.

            https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report.pdf

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”Read the following formal report…”

            From cripes sake, it’s from NOAA. What do you expect them to find, internal corruption?

            It has just come to light that Karl was involved with the coverup of Mann and Briffa re the hockey stick. I am not claiming he was involved with any chicanery but he knew of the bs going on and did nothing to reveal it.

            Birds of a feather.

            https://climateaudit.org/2014/05/09/mann-misrepresents-the-epa-part-1/

            “Even more problematically and this goes right back to the 1999 Climategate correspondence the IPCC assessment had ceased to be independent of the underlying literature. At the time (fall 1999) when Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were discussing their worries that they might dilute the message or give fodder to the skeptics, the version of the Briffa reconstruction subsequently used in AR4 (and AR3) had not been published and, in the version sent to Mann in early October 1999, had not been truncated. The first truncation of the Briffa reconstruction in IPCC documents was in the AR3 First Order Draft (late October 1999). This truncated a version of the Briffa reconstruction that was not truncated in its archive (in connection with Jones et al 1998)”.

          • bdgwx says:

            GR said…”From cripes sake, its from NOAA. What do you expect them to find, internal corruption?”

            It was independent investigation. No investigator was employed by NOAA.

            I don’t mind discussing Karl’s work and allegations of misconduct, but I’m going to respectfully request that we do so based on facts; not fake news. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

      • François says:

        Sorry Sir, we did not have such a problem in Southern France, either in the end of June or in the end of July.

        • Bindidon says:

          François

          You are right / vous avez raison bien entendu.

          I meant in fact the communication bug of Meteo France concerning these 45.9 C in Gallargues-le-Montueux which, at a first glance, were not measured by a station. They said was interpolation data, I saw that on their web site at the end of June.

          But now, surprise:
          http://www.meteofrance.fr/actualites/74345599-c-est-officiel-on-a-atteint-les-46-c-en-france-en-juin

          Donc tout est bien qui finit bien!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”They said was interpolation data, I saw that on their web site at the end of June”.

            So, you have to be beaten over head with fact before you’ll accept that NOAA and other alarmists have taken to statistically manipulating raw data and fabricating superficial data using climate models.

          • barry says:

            No, Gordon, Bindidon was probably the first person to link to that French information on this website.

            And this is about the French temp record as kept by the French – NOAA had nothing to do with it.

            “These values come from the network of automatic stations operated by Météo-France in real time.”

            Bindidon brings well-sourced information here. You bring ignorance.

            You’re also totally oblivious to the fact that Bindidon is not an ‘alarmist’. Just because he calls out your stupidity, you think he is a greenie.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Bindidon brings well-sourced information here. You bring ignorance”.

            Both you and binny bring well sourced fudging and propaganda. My job is to reveal it with the truth.

            As Kristian pointed out, you ignore the reality and immerse yourself in bs statistics, just like binny.

          • Bindidon says:

            Robertson

            “So, you have to be beaten over head with fact before youll accept that NOAA and other alarmists have taken to statistically manipulating raw data and fabricating superficial data using climate models.”

            Here again, you show how ignorant and superficial you are.

            As barry wrote, the communication with commenter Francois had NOTHING to do with NOAA.

            But you are so deeply involved in your sick hatred of NOAA, Obama, etc. that you are ready for any lie.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Bindidon, please stop trolling.

  20. Gordon Robertson says:

    Nate….”How does more CO2 in the troposphere make the troposphere warmer, bdgwx?”

    “Same way more insulation in my attic makes the attic cooler and living space warmer..”

    *********

    Insulating 0.04% of the attic makes the living space warmer??? Covering yourself with 0.04% of a blanket (a few threads) keeps you warmer???

    Something unscientific about such claims.

    • Nate says:

      ‘Insulating 0.04% of the attic makes the living space warmer??? Covering yourself with 0.04% of a blanket (a few threads) keeps you warmer???’

      Brilliant strawmen.

      Make .04% of a swimming pool’s water black dye. Will light be able to get thru?

      Put .01 % of iron-titanium into aluminum-oxide and it becomes a sapphire, and is only transparent to blue light.

  21. Gordon Robertson says:

    from above…

    swannie…”RealClimate did a good job of pointing out some of the problems with John Christys work….”

    **********

    realclimate is a hotbed of uber-alarmists lead by a mathematician. It is co-owned by Michael Mann, a geologist who was caught in the Climategate emails trying to interfere with the peer review system to block skeptics from publishing.

    He was revealed in the scandal to have invented ‘the trick’, a devious scheme to hide declining temperatures. Along the way, he managed to throw in sexist comments about Dr. Judith Curry simply because she had expressed skeptical views about AGW.

    With the hockey stick proxy data, when the data began showing cooling as the atmosphere was warming, Mann et al solved it by clipping off the offending data and splicing in real data. He thought that was kosher. Without his ‘trick’ there would be no blade on the stick, just a small nub, pointing down the way.

    That’s Mann’s trick. When the data does not behave as expected to support your theory, you change it till it does. It seems NOAA is now employing the trick, as does NASA GISS.

    With regard to the aforementioned, I am not about to listen to what a load of alarmists, who are not bona fide climate scientists, and who don’t understand science, have to say about John Christy, a degreed climate science with a high integrity and morality.

    The mathematician was taken to task by engineer Jeffrey Glassman over the mathematician’s definition of positive feedback. He could not explain PF yet PF is a vital part of climate models.

    Makes me wonder how many climate modelers understand that PF requires as amplifier and there is no amplifier in the atmosphere. Without PF, the models could not project the catastrophic warming from CO2 they claim.

    The explanations I have heard on PF by the likes of the mathematician make it sound like PF is an independent force that can cause amplification. It’s nothing of the kind. PF is one part of an amplified system wherein the PF is a SMALL sample of the output signal fed back in phase to the input signal. The two signals sum and the amplified sum increases exponentially over ensuing amplification cycles.

    At GISS, starting with James Hansen, they projected a tipping point that would lead to Earth’s atmosphere resembling the atmosphere of Venus. The tipping point is an obvious reference to the effect of positive feedback but neither Hansen, nor his protege Gavin Schmidt, the mathematician, have explained where the amplification comes from to cause that kind of PF.

    They seem to think positive feedback can act on its own. It can’t. Without amplification, all that is possible is negative feedback.

    There have been instances of natural amplification such as the disastrous Tacoma-Narrow Bridge, a suspension bridge that collapsed when wind caused it’s support cable to vibrate. The natural resonance in the bridge structure caused the bridge structure to vibrate sympathetically with the support cables, causing the bridge to collapse.

    That had nothing to do with positive feedback per se. The amplification came from a natural resonance between the support cables which had their resonant frequencies maintained by the wind. The resonance was passed on to other bridge structures till the bridge became one huge resonant mass.

    There is no such amplification or resonance in the atmosphere. PF related to CO2 has no existence yet the theory is a central construct in climate models.

    That’s the sort of nonsense perpetuated by alarmists like realclimate. And they have the nerve to criticize the work of a scientists who does great work with real data.

    • barry says:

      He [Michael Mann] was revealed in the scandal to have invented ‘the trick’, a devious scheme to hide declining temperatures

      No, for the thousandth time. Mann’s ‘trick’ was to add instrumental temperature data to the end of the proxy series. The ‘trick’ you are referring to is Keith Briffa’s or Phil Jones, if anyone’s.

      “I’ve just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline”

      That’s the actual quote, with typos and all.

      Briffa’s data set diverged from the instrumental record, as it was based on tree-ring proxies which included a subset that deviated from instrumental temps (went cold when real temps warmed).

      Mann’s proxy series was based on numerous different proxies, not just tree-rings, and did not have a big downturn near the end. So there was no “decline” to hide in his own proxy series.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Manns trick was to add instrumental temperature data to the end of the proxy series”.

        Wave your arms all you like Barry, Briffa, Mann, and Jones were all involved in it as well as the IPCC. They all tried to do a coverup and Mann got credit for “the trick’, which was aimed at the same end, hiding the decline.

        It’s all here, neatly explained:

        https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

        https://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

        • Svante says:

          And they hid this information where Gordon would never find it, in places like this:
          https://www.nature.com/articles/35596

          During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”And they hid this information where Gordon would never find it, in places like this:”

            Having trouble following your point.

            My point is that Briffa as well as Mann et al were aware of the decline in tree proxy temperatures BEFORE the IPCC published the hockey stick in AR3. All of them discussed it and the ramifications, yet the IPCC still published the hockey stick graph in blazing colours.

            They knew the decline had been covered up and that real temperatures had been substituted.

            The graph completely omitted the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, even though the IPCC had already acknowledged both in 1990.

            Am I claiming the IPCC misrepresented the truth? Yes… I am. They mislead the world as to the extent of warming over the past 1000 years and Al Gore had a field day spreading the alarmist view.

            You are still doing it.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:

            Having trouble following your point.

            They published papers on the divergence problem, so it wasn’t a very good cover up, was it?

        • barry says:

          Your second link explains that Briffa deleted the divergent data, and Mann did not.

          The reason you speak of “Mike’s Nature trick [….] to hide the decline”, is that conservative outlets elided the original quote, just where I put the elipses, completely omitting Keith Briffa from it.

          You’ve been suckered. Own it. And then refine your position.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Svante, barry, please stop trolling.

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Oh, BTW, NOAA is the provider of the MSU/AMSU satellite data which Roy and John throw into their calculations each month”.

    ************

    Nice of you to make NOAA look like the benevolent benefactor while Roy and John are merely scribes who interpret the great work.

    The truth is that NOAA was not using the data circa 1978 and John Christy approached them to see if UAH could have it. NOAA agreed.

    Since 1978, UAH has developed systems for analyzing the data, not NOAA. In fact, in my cynicism I have questioned whether NOAA is now intercepting the data and running it through a warming algorithm before handing it over to UAH.

    I’d like to hear Roy’s story. I know he was an AMSU expert at NASA before joining the UAH team but I am not clear on the details. He was a warded a medal for excellence from the AMS for his work with satellite AMSU units.

    When you start throwing around your expertise on this matter, try to remember respectfully that Roy and John have been doing this stuff at a high level for decades. They have been more than cooperative with anyone who has tried to point out errors in their system.

    Schmidt at realclimate does not cooperatively try to work with UAH to amend what he regards as errors, his sole interest is in discrediting UAh work because it reveals Schmidt’s models as being unreliable toys.

    Gavin Schmidt at realclimate is an amateur compared to them. Your support of Schmidt makes you an amateur too. It’s obvious to me that your role here is as a messenger from realclimate, representing alarmists.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo wrote:

      he truth is that NOAA was not using the data circa 1978 and John Christy approached them to see if UAH could have it. NOAA agreed.

      Since 1978, UAH has developed systems for analyzing the data, not NOAA. In fact, in my cynicism I have questioned whether NOAA is now intercepting the data and running it through a warming algorithm before handing it over to UAH.

      I think you need to check your facts. The first MSU instrument launch was 1978, but Spencer and Christy’s first papers didn’t appear until around 1990. Others worked with the data, including Norman Grody (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985) before that date. The revised temperature analysis recently known as the TLT was first published in 1992, when they admitted that their earlier approach would not work.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”The first MSU instrument launch was 1978, but Spencer and Christys first papers didnt appear until around 1990. Others worked with the data, including Norman Grody (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985) before that date”.

        My memory is suspect since the AMSU units on satellite came out in 1979 and John Christy did not graduate with a Ph.D in atmospheric science till 1987.

        I do recall John mentioning that NOAA was not using the AMSU data and that he asked for it. That must have occurred between 1987 and 1990.

        Grody is an electrical engineer and his work on the AMSU unit and sats in general is impressive. However, it appears he did not study the data formally per se till 1998, after Spencer and Christy’s system was well established.

        What I don’t like is Grody’s reason. The initial work of Spencer and Christy found no significant trend while the surface trend was significant. That is evident in the UAH record since the first 18 years shows little or no ‘true’ warming. The anomalies are mainly below the baseline and that represents cooler temperatures than the average.

        It strikes me then that Grody is supporting the AGW alarmist view that the UAH interpretation of the NOAA AMSU data must be wrong. I think this sort of negative science has to go.

        Attacking scientists like Spencer and Christy because you have a contradictory POV is plain wrong. Scientists need to work constructively to find answers.

        IMHO, Roy and John are right, and the rest are wrong. The science backs both even though Roy sometimes shoots himself in the foot by denying the science that supports his data.

        Just kidding, Roy. ☺ ☺ ☺

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swannie..reading further on Grody

          “The motivation for doing a re-analysis of the MSU data was based on the need for an independent evaluation of the global climate trend, which in fact was recommended in a 1998 report by the National Research Council (NRC). At that time, a panel of NRC members, including Dr. Grody, suggested that more independent studies was needed to validate the MSU analysis provided by Drs. Spencer and Christy. Their results showed no significant global temperature trend in the troposphere, which were inconsistent with surface temperature records and the GFDL climate model simulations…”

          https://www.academia.edu/32518453/Norman_Grody_CV

          It appears that Grody and the National research Council were wrong. Prior to the 1998 El Nino, the UAH record showed little or no true warming. Grody’s CV seems to indicate UAH had claimed no warming, which is wrong. They claimed ‘little or no warming’, which is right.

          Furthermore, the flat trend from 1998 – 2012 has vindicated UAH. Little or no warming cannot be better expressed than with a 15 year flat trend.

          It seems the reach of NOAA has extended further back than I had realized. They launched satellites that showed little or no warming and presumed the sats must be wrong because they showed far less warming than surface stations or models.

          The fact that NOAA did not invest more resources in studying their own satellite data is a testament to their bias toward a positive surface trend and AGW.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, You might want to read Grody’s CV again:

            Based on knowledge gained from these early sensors, Dr. Grody helped design the first operational instrument, the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU), which was first launched in 1978 aboard the NOAA series of polar orbiting satellites. His next major achievement involved the design of the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU), which was first launched in 1998 aboard the next generation of polar orbiting satellites.

            1990: Spencer, R., J. Christy and N. Grody: Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements: Method and results 1979-1984, Jour. of Climate, 3, 1111-1128

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…I gave Grody credit for designing the MSU unit and it’s interesting that Roy worked with him. I see nothing in your article that claims Grody attempted data analysis till he was urged to do so in 1998.

            Grody came up with a higher trend than Spencer/Christy and I think he was under pressure by alarmists to do so. That’s where my respect for him diminished.

            I pointed out in another post that Karl of NOAA was involved with Mann, Briffa et al related to hiding the decline in the pre-1998 hockey stick study. I am not claiming he was complicit but he was aware of the discrepancy and did nothing about it.

            I think NOAA has been an alarmist outfit since at least the 1990s. Why else would they try so hard to discredit the data from their own satellites when it contradicted their fudged surface record?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Sorry Roy, I gave credit to John for asking NOAA for the sat data. Apparently it was you who proposed using the data while you were still at NASA in 1979.

          Well worth the read…

          https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Christy-Spencer%20Glob%20Temp%201978-2003.pdf

  23. Gordon Robertson says:

    moving down here so I can make a comment on lapse rate.

    Midas…”Id be interested to know when you say could cause no more warming than its mass percent in the atmosphere, about 0.04%, what is that a percentage OF?”

    I have explained it many times, guess you were absent. Did you bring a note from Mom?

    It has to do with the Ideal Gas Law.

    PV = nRT

    P = pressure, V = volume, n = mass (number of molecules), R = gas constant, and T = temperature.

    I am considering the atmosphere a relatively constant volume. I realize the volume changes slightly with solar heating but with subsequent contraction there should be a steady state that is constant.

    If you don’t like that, take it down to the stratified layers created by gravity. Keep decreasing the thickness till you get a volume you can consider relatively constant.

    Considering v constant, we lump all the constants, v, R and n as:

    P = (nR/V)T

    It becomes immediately obvious that P is directly proportional to T. That is the steady state related to gravitational pressure disregarding thermals from convected warmed surface air.

    Dalton’s portion of the IGL states that the sum of the partial pressures of a gas equals the total pressure of the gas. Pressure is proportional to the number of molecules and the force with which they strike the walls of a container. In the case of the atmosphere, pressure is the force exerted on air molecules by gravity.

    I know meteorologists will begin pulling out their hair, talking about high and low pressure centres. I am not talking about such dynamics, I am talking about the steady state conditions on a fair day with little or no convective currents.

    n = mass and the proportion of each gas represented by the n of each is the mass percent. However, I am using n as a constant but the sum of the n’s creates the pressure. Therefore the mass percent of each n is related to the partial pressure of each gas.

    Since T is proportional to P at constant volume, then the temperature contributed by each gas must be the sum of each partial temperature. I know, I know, to you purists hung up on the temperature definitions as the average kinetic energy of the molecules, this will sound like heresy.

    However, if temperature is the average kinetic energy of all molecules it must also be the sum of the KE’s contributed by each gas and in proportion to the partial pressures of each gas.

    That means the temperature contribution of each gas is proportional to its mass percent. The combined mass percent of N2/O2 is about 99% and that of CO2 about 0.04%. That means N2/O2 contributes almost all the heat and CO2 a tiny fraction of 1%.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Changed my mind on lapse rate comments.

    • Midas says:

      Now that you’ve wasted time talking about the heat content of each gas, perhaps you could now switch to talking about what the greenhouse effect is actually about.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”you could now switch to talking about what the greenhouse effect is actually about”.

        I am not talking about the GHE or AGW. I am talking about the warming effect of 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, which is essentially none.

        If you want to know what the GHE is about, it’s a very bad model trying to explain why the Earth is 33C warmer with oceans and an atmosphere than without either.

        The GHE tries to model a real greenhouse in which the GHE theorists presume infrared radiation is trapped by the glass. However, they are wrong. The glass traps heated molecules of air and the greenhouse warms because the heated molecules cannot escape.

        They have tried to transfer that action to the atmosphere but they don’t seem to get it that the atmospheric gases cannot trap heat as molecules.

        With regard to ‘trapping’ surface IR with GHGs representing 0.3% of the atmosphere overall, that’s somewhat pathetic, if not downright silly. The amount of IR generated by every atom/molecule on the surface far exceeds the ability of GHGs to absorb more than 5% of it.

        That’s a guess and likely well over-stated. In other words, GHGs in the atmosphere could not possibly trap enough IR to make any difference to the rate of dissipation of heat at the surface. The rate is determined by the temperature of the entire atmospheric interface at the surface which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.

        • Midas says:

          The analogy to a greenhouse is not supposed to be an accurate one. It is for people whose science skills are limited. Perhaps you’d care to research the actual science to prove that you don’t belong in that category.

          You might care to show your calculations, accounting for how often on average a surface molecule emits a photon of energy in the band which CO2 will absorb, and matching it against the average time which a CO2 holds onto a packet of energy before emitting it again in the form of a new photon. A claim like yours without a calculation to back it up is not worth considering.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Midas…”You might care to show your calculations, accounting for how often on average a surface molecule emits a photon of energy in the band which CO2 will absorb”

            Midas put on your thinking cap and set aside your belief system.

            Do you understand density? It is the amount of mass in a unit volume. Consider the density of the Earth’s surface and even the oceans. Compared to that density, the density of the atmosphere is almost negligible.

            The density of air is rated at 1.225 kg/m^3. That means the density of CO2 is roughly 0.04 x 1.225 = 0.05 kg/m^3

            -The density of water is 997 kg/m^3.
            -The density of sand is 1442 kg/m^3.
            -The density of granite is 2600 kg/m^2

            Getting the picture? The higher the density the more atoms/molecules you have radiating EM.

            Compare that to the number of CO2 molecules available to absorb all that EM…..0.05 kg/m^3 = 50 grams/m^3.

            Water has 997/0.05 = 19,400 more EM emission power than CO2 has absorp-tion power.

            That’s a ballpark because different atoms/molecules have different numbers of electrons available for emission. However, there has to be 20,000 fold more EM emissions for the surface (including oceans, rivers, lakes, etc.) than what CO2 has to absorb those emissions.

            I would like to see an actual calculation to help set aside this nonsense that a trace gas can absorb a significant amount of surface radiation.

            Remember, the 0.04% is for all CO2 of which 96% comes from natural sources. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 4% of that value or about 0.0016% of the atmospheric gases.

            There is just no way CO2 can absorb enough surface radiation to have an effect on warming.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”The analogy to a greenhouse is not supposed to be an accurate one”.

            That’s my point, there is no analogy for the GHE.

            Another analogy is heat trapping, which is sheer nonsense. Heat cannot be trapped by molecules in air since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.

            There’s the analogy that CO2 can affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface by slowing it down. More nonsense. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation makes it clear that the only exterior element capable of slowing heat dissipation is the temperature of the immediately surrounding environment.

            In the case of the planet’s surface, that would be the atmosphere immediately in contact with the surface. That surface is 99% oxygen and nitrogen and 0.04% CO2. The O2/N2 gas combo sets that temperature.

            There is no way absorp-tion of surface IR by GHGs can slow down the rate of surface heat dissipation.

            Another myth is that back-radiation from GHGs can raise surface temperature. That is more AGW, which is referred to as the extended GHE.

            The atmospheric temperature in contact with the surface is the same temperature as the surface. That temperature decreases with altitude. The 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.

            Heat can never be transferred at thermal equilibrium. The only way heat could be transferred from atmosphere to the surface is if the atmosphere somehow got warmer than the surface.

          • Midas says:

            Radiation which carries the energy that becomes heat on interaction with matter CAN be trapped.

            Anthropogenic CO2 is the difference between today’s 410 ppm and the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm. That makes it 32% not 4%.
            A bag contains 100 nuts. Until this year, each day ten nuts fell into the bag from a tree and ten nuts were eaten by squirrels, so the bag continued to hold 100 nuts. Starting this year, a man added an extra nut each day, so that after 100 days the bag holds 200 nuts. You would claim the anthropogenic contribution is 10%. But after 100 days the number of nuts has grown by 100%.

            Again, you are assuming that each CO2 molecule can absorb only one photon. If a CO2 molecule takes 0.1 seconds to absorb a photon then re-emit a new one, it has the ability to ‘process’ 10 photons per second. Perhaps you would care to research the relaxation time for a CO2 molecule.

            Again … you need to know the rate at which each molecule of the earth’s surface emits radiation at the right wavelength. And the concept of mass density is not relevant to radiation from the earth’s SURFACE. Direct emission into the atmosphere only happens from the skin. You need to know the areal density, not the volume density.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            M,

            CO2 without a heat source drops to absolute zero. It can be heated and allowed to cool like all matter in the universe.

            Not only does the surface cool at night, it has cooled over the last four and a half billion years – it is no longer molten. No GHE, it seems.

            Only pseudoscientific GHE true believers spout nonsense about a GHE which they can’t even describe. Maybe you could usefully describe the GHE? You will no doubt have to say something really stupid, before realising why nobody has managed to do it.

            Off you go now. Try your hardest. You can always adopt another pseudonym when you discover you can’t even express the non-existent GHE in any way that makes sense.

            Cheers.

          • Midas says:

            I just caught whiff of a strong stench.

          • Svante says:

            It was the smell of Molten Mike.

            Gordon, please include units when you do your Ideal Gas Law math, and verify that the result has Watts in it.

            Use any other power or heat flow unit if you prefer, but make sure there is a conversion factor:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Power_or_heat_flow_rate

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, you spend a lot of time talking about CO2 increasing in the atmosphere, and absorbing photons, etc. But, you seem to overlook a key point. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. It can NOT raise surface temperatures. It can NOT raise system temperatures.

            PS The relaxation time for a CO2 molecule absorbing a 15 μ photon is about 10 μsec, IIRC. But that tidbit of info has nothing to do with “heating the planet”.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Gordon, please include units when you do your Ideal Gas Law math, and verify that the result has Watts in it.”

            Try not being so effing obtuse. Yours is the Mother of all Strawman arguments.

            Why do I care about watts, anyway, when heat, as in temperature, is measured in calories?

            When I write PV = nRT, all but the biggest twit understands that the equation has been applied countless times and all without units. If I was including values, I would include units.

            In engineering we learned to do that to ensure the units canceled. If they did not, it was a clue that something was amiss.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”Radiation which carries the energy that becomes heat on interaction with matter CAN be trapped”.

            Did you read nothing of what I wrote on density? How much of that surface radiation is trapped by the trace gas CO2? And for how long? I showed there was AT LEAST 20,000 times more EM from the surface than what CO2 could possibly absorb.

            If the CO2 molecule absorbs IR and it is surrounded by 2500 atoms of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc., does it warm, and for how long?

            In the rest of your diatribe you pull out the old exponential growth theory. There is absolutely no physical proof that pre-Industrial concentrations of CO2 were 280 ppmv. That number was pulled from a hat by the IPCC from Antarctic ice core samples where nearby concentrations were as high as 2000 ppmv (Jaworowski).

            Jaworowski also explained that in ice under the pressure from which the cores were retrieved, the CO2 bubbles are converted to a solid called a clathrate. When that ice is drilled out, the solids must convert back to a gas and they are diluted by melt water from the drill. Who knows how they are redistributed as the pressure increases.

            The Mann hockey stick study was discredited by NAS for it’s tree ring proxies. NAS told them they could not use pine tree bristlecone for the 20th century which effectively killed their study. For the 13th century they used proxy data for one tree to cover the entire century.

            As it turned out, by the 1960’s their proxt data was showing cooling when the atmopshere was actually warming. That’s why they cheated and snipped off the offending data while splicing in real data. Jones of Had-crut bragged about doing the same thing.

            And you sole argument is based on proxy data of unknown validity?

            You are on the wrong side pal. You are siding with sidemen and outright cheaters. Does that make you feel good?

          • Midas says:

            If you really want to argue against a straw man who apparently claims that CO2 is a heat source, please be my guest. But if you don’t mind, I would like to continue talking about the actual greenhouse effect. When you get bored with your straw men, perhaps we can talk.

          • Midas says:

            That comment was for JDH

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”Anthropogenic CO2 is the difference between todays 410 ppm and the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm”.

            There is proof from reputed scientist that atmospheric levels of CO2 were in excess of 400 ppmv in the 1930s. Jaworowski estimates that the 280 ppmv value should be 30% to 50% higher, meaning between 364 ppmv and 420 ppmv. The latter value was verified by Kreutz, with a degree in chemistry, in Germany, in the 1930s.

          • Midas says:

            So one data source that happens to agree with your rhetoric outweighs all the other data sources that don’t?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, the only strawman is the one you’re constructing. CO2 is NOT a heat source. That’s not a straw man, that’s FACT.

            You are espousing the GHE: “Radiation which carries the energy that becomes heat on interaction with matter CAN be trapped.”

            That’s WRONG. The energy CO2 absorbs eventually gets emitted to space. It is NOT “trapped”. It can NOT raise surface temperatures.

            You continue supporting the GHE: “…I would like to continue talking about the actual greenhouse effect.”

            That’s WRONG. There is no “actual” GHE. There is only the “atmospheric effect”, where the surface warms the atmosphere, which helps to moderate temperature changes, as energy moves to space. The atmosphere cannot raise surface temperatures.

          • Midas says:

            Water pours into a bucket which has a hole in the bottom, allowing water to escape at the same rate as it enters.
            I increase the rate of flow into the bucket. Every one of those water molecules will ultimately escape the bucket. Yet the water level rises!

          • Midas says:

            And how obvious do I have to make it. CO2 is not a heat source – agreed. Who claims that it is?

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:

            Why do I care about watts, anyway, when heat, as in temperature, is measured in calories?

            The effect on temperature depends on the power, i.e. energy per time unit.

            Calories is energy, it tells you nothing without the rate.
            One calorie per year has less effect than one per micro second.

            You can use calories per second.

            When I write PV = nRT, all but the biggest twit understands that the equation has been applied countless times and all without units. If I was including values, I would include units.

            That’s right.

            In engineering we learned to do that to ensure the units canceled. If they did not, it was a clue that something was amiss.

            They don’t cancel, but they should yield the right units.

            To determine the effect on temperature your answer must be a measure of power.

            Now how does the ideal gas law give you one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Power_or_heat_flow_rate

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, to correct your bucket analogy, the bucket would have more holes up the side so that as the water level rises, more water leaks out.

            That is, if you want a correct analogy….

          • Midas says:

            And yet – the water level rises. Thanks for the admission!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes, that’s how a “set point” works. You could design the bucket to maintain a certain level, just by adding sufficient openings up the side.

            Very basic control theory.

          • Midas says:

            “Basic control theory” tells you that a negative feedback never prevents change, merely mitigates it. You have to have change for the feedback to begin operating.

          • JDHuffman says:

            You’re getting it.

            Very good.

          • Midas says:

            I’m glad you agree that the temperature must first rise in order to set off the negative feedbacks which ultimately cause it to reach a higher equilibrium level. At least it would reach a higher equilibrium level were it not for the fact we continue to add CO2. That is the same as slowly restricting those holes in the bucket.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Now you’re not getting it.

          • Midas says:

            So does the water rise or doesn’t it? You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

          • “Why do I care about watts, anyway, when heat, as in temperature, is measured in calories?”

            The scientific unit of energy, including heat, is actually the Joule. Watts denote power, which is an energy per unit time. You should care about Watts, therefore, as they denote the loss or gain of energy, including heat, and therefore need to be known to evaluate temperature change.

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    reposting…well worth the read to set aside all the bs being spread by alarmists about UAH….

    Sorry Roy, I gave credit to John for asking NOAA for the sat data. Apparently it was you who proposed using the data while you were still at NASA in 1989.

    https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Christy-Spencer%20Glob%20Temp%201978-2003.pdf

  25. SAMURAI says:

    The current weak El Nino was one of the weakest in 40 years and will be officially over by October 2019.

    We should have about a year of ENSO neutral conditions followed by a strong La Nina cycle starting at the end of 2020, which will drop UAH6.0 down to -0.2C at its peak.

    Moreover, the PDO, AMO, NAO, and AOO will all soon be entering their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles, and a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum event already started this year, which will all contribute to causing a 30-year global cooling trend.

    The CMIP5 5 climate model ensemble predicts the global temp anomaly will be +1.2C by 2020, with a global warming trend of 0.2C/decade, when reality will be a -0.2C global temp anomaly and a warming trend of around 0.1C/decade.

    CAGW is dead.

    • Bindidon says:

      SAMURAI

      Nothing again some little cooling, if it is not too harsh.

      No need for any LIA revival: only Coolistas like you are dreaming of such a nonsense.

      Btw: what you write here you wrote 2 years and one year ago, but with cooling coming correspondingly earlier…

      And what now concerns your GSM: I trust more in Leif Svalgaard, in Javier and in Bob Weber than in your Zharkovian ‘predictions’.

    • Midas says:

      Given that meteorologists can predict ENSO at most 6 months ahead, perhaps you would care to share the knowledge that allows to to predict ENSO two years and more into the future.

      • SAMURAI says:

        Midas-san:

        This is what the death of an El Nino cycle looks like:

        https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2019/anomnight.8.1.2019.gif

        The current weak El Nio cycle is dead. NINO 3.4 SST is below .5C and will continue to fall given the above equatorial SST anomaly map….

        Cheers.

        • Midas says:

          Interesting. Now how about answering my question.
          Do all AGW deniers sign off with “cheers”, or only one of you?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            M,

            You can’t even explain what “AGW deniers” are, can you? How stupid and ignorant is that?

            What a fool.

            Cheers.

          • SAMURAI says:

            Midas-san:

            The physics show higher levels of CO2 will generate some beneficial global warming recovery of around 0.6C~1.2C per doubling and will be much healthier for all life on earth.

            CAGW was a hilarious hoax which has already been disconfirmed given the gigantic disparity between its laughable hypothetical projections vs. actual empirical evidence…

            Cheers!

          • Midas says:

            I’d love to know which branch of physics deals with the ‘health of life on earth.’

            Given that UAH shows 0.5 degrees warming since 1979 while CO2 concentrations have risen 22%, I’d also love to know where you see this ‘gigantic disparity’.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

    • barry says:

      Samurai-san,

      Another cooling prediction. Haven’t you made many of these in the past?

      But at least you commit. So:

      a strong La Nina cycle starting at the end of 2020, which will drop UAH6.0 down to -0.2C at its peak.

      At the latest – we should see a monthly UAH anomaly of -0.2 some time before the end of 2021.

      And:

      by 2020… reality will be a -0.2C global temp anomaly and a warming trend of around 0.1C/decade.

      I assume you mean the trend for the complete UAH record from 1979.

      I have bookmarked this reply for the future. Feel free to clarify anything if I misunderstood.

    • Samurai-chan, perhaps you should look into the record of the late and unlamented “mpainter”. Last time I saw him, he was making similar predictions based on a self-serving expectation that the 2016/17 el Niño spike would automatically be followed by a reversal which would reverse the warming trend.

      He was, needless to say, wrong. (But you’d know that already if you’d ever met him.) ENSO events just add the steps to the Escalator.

  26. Go Gish says:

    This is one of my all time favorite replies on this board. There are a few with whom I would align, who see pseudo science for what it is:

    It seems Richard has abandoned the quest to feed hungry subversives that vomit up anything that resembles reality!

    Richard Greene
    May 14, 2019
    The theory of the coming global warming crisis requires these beliefs:

    Natural causes of climate change for 4.5 billion years

    Aerosols controlled the climate from 1940 to 1975, with no visible CO2 warming.

    All the aerosols fell out of the air in 1975 (they didnt but you MUST believe), and then CO2 controlled the climate
    from 1975 to 1997.

    From 1998 to the end of 2018, El Ninos controlled the climate there was a flat trend without the huge 1998 and late 2015 / early 2016 ENSO heat peaks pretty close to a flat trend WITH those heat peaks.

    So the climate controller keeps changing, like a mafia don getting bumped off, and someone else taking over.

    Except the smarmy global warmunists cant explain why, or how, 4.5 billion years of natural climate change would have stopped, and only man made climate change remained after 1940.

    They cant explain because there is no logical explanation.

    So they dont try.

    • Bindidon says:

      Go [FG]ish

      “Except the smarmy global warmunists cant explain why, or how, 4.5 billion years of natural climate change would have stopped, and only man made climate change remained after 1940.”

      What a dumb comment (especially its boldfaced part), so far from reality.

      Warmistas aren’t good people, but their counterpart is even far worse.

    • bdgwx says:

      Go Gish said…”They cant explain because there is no logical explanation.”

      Strawman. No reputable climate scientist is claiming that naturally modulated physical processes that act on the climate system have stopped.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Wrong bdgwx. The claim is that CO2 “warming”, which is bogus, will override natural cooling systems, effectively “stopping” them. That’s where the “tipping point” nonsense comes from.

        You need to better learn your own pseudoscience, since you’re not going to learn any physics.

        • bdgwx says:

          Aside from the fact that CO2 can both be classified as natural or anthroprogenic depending upon which process is modulating its concentration in the atmosphere/hydrosphere it does not turn off other physical processes like solar radiation, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic aerosols, continental drift, etc.

          • JDHuffman says:

            And that’s one of the reasons CO2 can NOT raise system temperature.

          • Midas says:

            “I can die from cancer, from heart attack, from being shot, etc.
            And thats one of the reasons I can NOT die from being hit by a bus.”

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well, “being shot” is not really natural. You might want to change to “being stupid”, as in, “You can die from cancer, from heart attack, from being stupid, etc.”

          • Midas says:

            Your avoidance tells me you understood the point.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes Midas, I’m pretty good at understanding, and avoiding, irrelevant distractions.

          • Midas says:

            Then it’s good to see you are not avoiding my comments.

          • bdgwx says:

            JD, I’d respond myself but I think Midas’ comment already hit the nail on the head.

          • JDHuffman says:

            So bdgwx, you’re not, not responding to tell me you’re not responding?

            Hint: Next time you are not going to respond, you don’t need to tell me you’re not going to respond.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”No reputable climate scientist is claiming that naturally modulated physical processes that act on the climate system have stopped”.

        Maybe not, but Trenberth claimed the opposite secretly to his cronies in the Climategate email scandal. He claimed no anthropogenic signal could be found in the present data.

        That was confirmed by the IPCC in 2012 when their AR5 review concluded there has been no warming over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012.

        The only warming of note we’ve had since 2012 was the 2016 EN. It has been slowly cooling since, with two intervening ENs propping up the average.

        • barry says:

          Trenberth claimed the opposite secretly to his cronies in the Climategate email scandal. He claimed no anthropogenic signal could be found in the present data.

          No he didn’t. You are confused.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          barry, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gg…”The theory of the coming global warming crisis requires these beliefs:”

      I might add the belief that the Little Ice Age did not exist and had lowered global temps 1C to 2C below average. By eliminating the cooling of the LIA, the warmunists were able to impose a feeble theory that a trace gas caused the planet to warm by 1C whereas that same trace gas had been unable to do so for centuries before.

      During the creating of the fabricated hockey stick study, one of them, maybe Mann, wished the LIA and Medieval Warm Period would go away.

      In fact, that’s exactly what they did to make the shaft of the hockey stick flat.

  27. Gordon Robertson says:

    Midas…”How would a temperature rise be caused by an El Nino 4 years earlier? Especially given the three years of La Nina in between, two of which were rated ‘strong’”.

    I did not imply the rise was ’caused’ by the EN I claimed it seemed ‘related’. One thing I know is that the rise was not caused by the trace gas CO2, since it cannot act that quickly if it can act at all.

    I referred to the Tsonis et al study which did a study of the major ocean oscillations over a century and their ‘relationship’ to each other. Tsonis concluded that warming resulted when the oscillations acted in phase and cooling when they acted out of phase.

    Maybe the 1998 EN acted in phase with another oscillation to produce a shift of some kind.

    I am also basing my thoughts on the actions of a transient in an electronic amplifier. If you give it a shot (impulse, transient) like the warming shot of the 1998 EN, and the amplifier is not adjusted to counter such impulses, the amplifier can oscillate. An oscillation can produce ‘ringing’, an after-shock, so to speak.

    In a coupled system like the Earth’s I don’t see why long term after-effects cannot occur due to a sudden, seemingly unprecedented spike in temperatures as introduced by the 1998 EL Nina.

    Of course, I have no proof for this but maybe an expert like Roy might. It just seemed unusual to me that after an extreme event like the 1998 EN, anomalies dipped below the baseline afterward then recovered to be 0.2C above the baseline, at which time the trend became flat for more than 10 years.

    It should be noted that for the 18 years before the EN, anomalies had been largely below the baseline. That could be blamed on volcanic aerosols but not over 18 years.

    When I say flat, I am not implying a straight line, although it was pretty straight till 2008. I am talking about an average of zero warming, even with a smaller but significant EN in 2010. The 2008 La Nina helped even things out.

    There is no apparent CO2 warming signal in all of this and that was admitted by Trenberth in the Climategate email scandal.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      correction…

      “as introduced by the 1998 EL Nina”.

      is obviously…

      “as introduced by the 1998 La Nino”

      oops…sorry….

      “as introduced by the 1998 El Nino”.

    • Midas says:

      “It should be noted that for the 18 years before the EN, anomalies had been largely below the baseline.”

      In what sense do you use the term ‘baseline’? Do you mean trend line? Do you mean the arbitrary zero point chosen for this data?

      Trenberth made no such ‘admission’. Please leave your politics out of this and stick to science.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”In what sense do you use the term baseline? Do you mean trend line? Do you mean the arbitrary zero point chosen for this data?”

        No…I mean as defined on the UAH graph on this site. The baseline is the 1981 – 2010 global average.

        Have you ever looked at the graph in detail?

        • Midas says:

          There have been 40 negative months since the 97/98 El Nino. 38 of them have been in times of La Nina. The majority of those have been in strong La Ninas. Why would you find that in any way surprising or unexpected? We will almost certainly go negative again when we next have a strong La Nina, perhaps even a moderate one. I would say that is still possible for another ten to fifteen years. Unless of course Spencer and Christy change their baseline at the end of 2020 to give you guys renewed but baseless hope.

        • barry says:

          I agree. It is quite possible we will get some negative anomalies, even if the world continues to warm at – say – 0.2 C/decade. The variability in the data is large enough that this easily expected from random fluctuations.

          But I’m willing to bet that, barring some massive super volcano or calamitous meteor strike sending aerosols into the skies for years, we will see continued warming in the long term. Under these conditions, the trend since 1998 will always be positive for the next century or so.

          Any takers?

          No? Thought not.

          • Midas says:

            Waiting for an AGW denier who will insist that a trend is the difference between two cherry picked moments in time, the closer the better, without consideration of the intervening temperatures.

          • JDHuffman says:

            barry, the AGW hoax is finished, kaput, dead. And you know it. That’s why you are preparing for the upcoming drop in UAH anomalies.

            UAH global will likely fall below the running average (0.13) some time within the next 3-4 years. And some future La Niña could even drop UAH below zero. When that happens, all hope is gone for Warmists, unless you can find some excuse like the volcano you mentioned. And, in your pseudoscience, ANY volcano will do, even a small one.

            CO2 can NOT warm the planet. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can NOT warm the planet. And even it it could, Earth’s cooling systems could easily handle any excess energy. It’s all been a hoax from the start, just like your “plates”.

          • Midas says:

            Given that the globe has warmed, the climate system must already have acquired excess energy and not fully “handled” it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well, that’s another issue, Midas. How much data torture is needed to believe the “globe has warmed”? And is any perceived warming out of natural range? And why are new cold records being continually set?

            Even for those that don’t understand the relevant physics, the data do not support anything close to worrisome.

          • Midas says:

            Based on your previous comment you seem to be saying that Spencer and Christy are guilty of “data torture”.

          • JDHuffman says:

            When pseudoscience clowns get overwhelmed by facts and logic, they resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.

            Nothing new.

          • barry says:

            No takers. As I said.

          • steve case says:

            Barry says … at 4:11 AM
            But Im willing to bet…

            Im willing to bet that NASA’s GISSTEMP will continue month after month to rewrite the historic data in their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI)
            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
            in such a manner as to increase the rate of warming and they will do this, if not stopped by legislative oversight, for decades into the future. So far they have increased the rate from 0.75to 1.0C per century over the 1950-1997 time series. Here’s what that looks like:
            https://i.postimg.cc/sD1ZKVF3/image.png
            So far in 2019 GISS has averaged over 700 changes each month.

            Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
            843 370 481 633 1359 566

            All of the changes (annual averages) to the 2001-2019 timeline were increased.
            This is a steady drone that goes on every month.

          • Midas says:

            JDH
            It is simple logic. You imply that “data torture” is required to get warming right after you admit that the data of Spencer and Christy shows warming.

          • barry says:

            Steve, I’ll take any reasonable bet that it will get warmer, using UAH TLT product as a metric.

            You think it’s going to get colder, stay the same, or what?

          • steve case says:

            barry says:
            August 4, 2019 at 6:49 PM
            Steve, Ill take any reasonable bet that it will get warmer, using UAH TLT product as a metric.

            You think its going to get colder, stay the same, or what?

            If I have to choose and “I don’t know.” isn’t acceptable then past history says it will get warmer for a while.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, maybe you missed the rest of my comment:

            “Even for those that don’t understand the relevant physics, the data do not support anything close to worrisome.”

          • Nate says:

            ‘barry, the AGW hoax is finished, kaput, dead. And you know it.’

            Because of evidence that JD plans to get in 3-4 years.

  28. Mike Flynn says:

    bdgwx wrote –

    “No reputable climate scientist is claiming . . .”

    Climate is the average of weather, no more no less. bdgwx cannot name one scientist (who is not a fool, a faker, or a fraud) who claims otherwise. He can’t even say what it is these supposed reputable climate scientist claim!

    He is as foolish as the pseudoscientific GHE true believers that he worships.

    Cheers.

  29. Gordon Robertson says:

    bdg…”It was independent investigation. No investigator was employed by NOAA”.

    ********

    The investigation smacks as much of being a kangaroo court as the Jones inquiry post Climategate.

    For one, who is Mitre? They are supposed to be independent but the people with whom they loaded the investigation panel are all related to climate change alarm. Several are oceanographers and one is even from the CIA. All of them to a person believe in the anthropogenic theory.

    Here’s a good one, one at least was funded by NOAA in the past.

    Why were there no skeptics employed, like John Christy, Roy Spencer, or Richard Lindzen?

    Re https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report-Supplement.pdf

    The panel determined NOAA did not fudge any ‘climate’ data using an email search?

    Doh!!!

    Why did they not look at the data and how it has been adjusted?

    As on….

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/

    This site is awash with carefully and detailed corruption by NOAA and GISS.

    In the investigation, they had the temerity to let NOAA off because their data corresponded with that of NASA GISS.

    HOW STUPID CAN A PANEL BE?????

    GISS gets it data directly from NOAA then fudges it more.

    Come on man, can you cut the naivete, just a bit?

    • barry says:

      The conspiracy is bottomless and wider than the eye can see.

      Because of this, I know that it is all a hoax. I do not need to know much more.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”The conspiracy is bottomless and wider than the eye can see”.

        You’re a wannabee number-cruncher but you have failed to explain why NOAA used a 48% confidence level to bs people into believing 2014 was the hottest year ever. Now, according to Roy, they have done it again by claiming June 2019 as the hottest month ever.

        Scientists with integrity would not publish claims with a 52% probability that they are telling a lie. GISS outdid NOAA by using a 38% confidence level.

        A wannabee statistician like you should be outraged but you accept it as part of doing business.

        What business? The business of perpetuating a hoax using any means available.

        But why would anyone want to do that? Because they are politically-correct believers who need to get a life.

        • Midas says:

          If you are going to throw around statistical terms, at least make sure you first know what they mean. If you’ve ever actually learned about confidence intervals, you’ve certainly now forgotten what they are.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Midas, please stop trolling.

      • barry says:

        You’re a wannabee number-cruncher but you have failed to explain why NOAA used a 48% confidence level

        I explained that it wasn’t a confidence level (if you even know what that means). That value is a probability estimate.

        But your brain didn’t even latch onto that. It’s not that you argued that it wasn’t a probability estimate. It’s that you didn’t even see the comment, or understand the difference.

        You kept right on trucking with the 48% representing a confidence level. It isn’t.

        The next highest probability estimate for the hottest year (as it was when 2014 was the latest year), was about 22% probability of it being the warmest year.

        So the year 2014 (at the time) was selected as the warmest year because it had the highest probability of it being so.

        This was explained the first 5 times you brought it up, with documentation from NOAA corroborating.

        No one can help you with your comprehension disability. That’s entirely on you.

      • Nate says:

        ‘Scientists with integrity would not publish claims with a 52% probability that they are telling a lie. GISS outdid NOAA by using a 38% confidence level.’

        Gordon,

        All data has statistical error bars on it. NOAA is telling us what it is.

        You call that lying?

        Can you get any more ignorant?

    • bdgwx says:

      I think you missed the interesting parts the story here. First, the claim that Karl fraudulently manipulated data was actually fake news by the Daily Mail which had already issued a retraction. Second, Karl’s 2015 publication actually took longer than average to proceed through the peer review process. And third, any breach of protocol that Bates tried to pin on Karl were actually done under Bates’ authority.

      And besides, the NOAA dataset 1) isn’t substantially different than the other surface datasets and 2) the overall warming trend from the late 1800’s is actually LESS because the necessary adjustments as compared to the raw data so if there is an agenda/conspiracy to show more warming than actually occurred then they were astonishingly incompetent at seeing it through.

  30. Gordon Robertson says:

    midas…”The analogy to a greenhouse is not supposed to be an accurate one. It is for people whose science skills are limited”.

    And for you who claim to be skilled, why don’t you explain the GHE using a hypothesis, as asked repeatedly by Mike Flynn, that can be tested?

    Mike has been asking that question for a long time and thus far no one has supplied an adequate, testable hypothesis.

    • Midas says:

      You don’t honestly believe I’m going to respond to his emetic vitriol, do you.

      There are countless good explanations of the GHE out there. Why not seek out the experts?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        M,

        You wrote –

        “And how obvious do I have to make it. CO2 is not a heat source agreed.”

        I hope you also agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.

        Some people do claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter. You might be aware of a fake scientist at NASA named Gavin Schmidt, who claims that CO2 acts as a thermostat controlling Earth’s temperature by magic . He is of course deluded, and has never managed to actually describe this GHE. Here is one of NASA’s attempts –

        “The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to the surface of the Earth by greenhouse gases””.

        This explanation fails to account for the fact that the Earth has cooled down over the last four and a half billion years or so. The surface is no longer molten, of course, and liquid water and ice now exist. No heat trapping at all, is there?

        You cannot provide a useful explanation of the mythical GHE. All you can do is to wriggle, twist, and evade. If you could actually locate one of these “countless good explanations” you would no doubt throw it in my face. Maybe it is hidden with Mann’s non-existent Nobel Prize, do you think?

        Unless you can actually describe this supposed GHE, you demonstrate that you are either a fake, a fraud, or a fool. I don’t blame you for hiding behind a fake name. Are you really worried about being ridiculed, or is it just a lack of self esteem generally?

        Carry on with the never ending appeals to spurious authority. As Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.” You provide no reason for me to prefer stupidity and ignorance over wisdom and knowledge.

        Cheers.

      • Midas says:

        The stench is back.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Midas…”You dont honestly believe Im going to respond to his emetic vitriol, do you.”

        Typical response from an alarmist GHE believer who cannot explain the science.

  31. Mike Flynn says:

    Midas wrote –

    “As climate is defined to be the 30 year average of weather, that is precisely what it is.”

    Obviously, it is only the stupid and ignorant who claim that climate affects weather. Impossible by definition.

    Other stupid and ignorant people claim that investigating this average is “science”. Any fool can call himself a “climate scientist” and many do.

    Maybe Midas would be better off sticking to stupid gotchas and mindless evasions combined with witless appeals to stupidity.

    Cheers.

    • Midas says:

      Still trying to place that horrid smell.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      I see the GHEDT have had to dream up yet another new avatar. Like they don’t have enough of a stranglehold on this blog already…

      …oh, and it’s Day 150.

      150 days of denial that the Green Plate Effect is debunked. Unbelievable, really.

      • bobdroege says:

        Debunked by bald-faced assertion doesn’t count.

        You have to provide evidence, do an experiment, do some calculations, prove you know what you are talking about.

        not done yet

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        OK, Eli.

        • bobdroege says:

          150 days and counting and I haven’t seen any debunking of the green plate effect.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Course you haven’t, Eli. Course you haven’t.

          • bobdroege says:

            Maybe you can try again, without falling afoul of several laws of physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh, you’re probably referring to alternative solutions that you’ve wasted hours and hours of your life lying about and misrepresenting. No, the validity of alternative solutions has no bearing on the debunk of your solution, Eli, from 150+ days ago. You remember it, if you were to be honest, for a change, don’t you?

            Why don’t you repeat it for us, you lying little failure?

          • bobdroege says:

            No, DREMPTY

            I am talking about your solution which I have proven through rigorous logical proof violates several laws of physics.

            Your debunking has been proven false, any other solution have no bearing on that fact.

            It sucks to not know what the hell you are doing, doesn’t it?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “I am talking about your solution”

            Yes, Eli, that’s what I thought. You’re lying about my solution, but in any case the validity of alternative solutions has no bearing on the debunking of your solution, from 150+ days ago. You remember it, if you were to be honest, for a change, don’t you?

            Why don’t you repeat it for us, you lying little failure?

          • Nate says:

            Here we go again, the corrupt troll cop, baiting and trolling, again.

            Apparently his desperate need to taunt people, causes sensory overload and endless brain farts and delusions.

            He only remembers his arguments, and never recalls the thorough shredding of these by other people.

            Somehow this soothes his fragile ego.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            You want me to repeat my debunking, sorry you can find as easily as you can find all your other garbage posts you like to link to,

            and I don’t chew my cabbage twice

            my solution good, your solution bad.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, the validity of alternative solutions has no bearing on the debunk of your solution, Eli, from 150+ days ago. You remember it, if you were to be honest, for a change, don’t you?

            Why don’t you repeat it for us, you lying little failure?

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            There you go chewing your cabbage twice.

            You are correct, the validity of my solution, has no impact on how your debunking was proven false, using logic and math and science skills that you don’t have.

            It wasn’t me that did the shredding of your debunking, it was the laws of physics wot done her in.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            No, the validity of alternative solutions has no bearing on the debunk of your solution, Eli, from 150+ days ago. You remember it, if you were to be honest, for a change, don’t you?

            Why don’t you repeat it for us, you lying little failure?

          • bobdroege says:

            Humpty Drempty,

            Nope,

            I debunked your solution, you failed to debunk mine or Eli’s.

            I would think you calling me Eli, you think you are insulting me, but I take it as one mistaken identity, and second I would like to be identified with someone with his physical chemistry chops.

            Though truth being, he is only a PhD level physicist.

            With a Chemistry Chair.

            You gotta chair?

            Something you can sit on?

            And by the way, I am 6 foot five and 272 pounds, so I am not a lying little failure.

            But you continue to lie, saying you have debunked anything.

            I don’t know how little you are, but I guess you are pretty BUFF.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh sure you’re not Eli, Eli. That’s why you’re still defending this “plates” stuff.

            #3

            No, the validity of alternative solutions has no bearing on the debunk of your solution, Eli, from 150+ days ago. You remember it, if you were to be honest, for a change, don’t you?

            Why don’t you repeat it for us, you lying little failure?

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            If you could read, you can see I am not defending anymore.

            I am just reminding you that the defense has rested and that your debunking has previously been debunked, not by me or by Eli, but by the laws of physics, which you seem to have a bit of problem understanding.

            Just a reminder, you did not debunk Eli’s solution to the two plate problem, your solution to the three plate problem has been debunked, and the concensus solution to the three plate problem arrived at independently by several poster here has not been debunked.

            Sorry Charlie no tuna for you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            From some things you’ve said before, and the way you appeal to your own authority, and your general child-like personality (coupled with your relentless defence of the “plates”), I would have said you were Eli. But if you’re not going to own it, I guess I’ll just call you B-Li.

            B-Li, what’s with all the fibs?

            I’ll remind everyone. You had this deal with two plates that was already funny, because when they were pushed together, both plates were at 244 K…then when you separated them by even a millimeter, one decided to increase in temperature to 262 K, and the other just fancied dropping in temperature to 220 K. So that was already ridiculous.

            Then JD had some fun at your expense by adding a third plate, and making the energy source an electrical supply to the middle plate. So you then declared that when pushed together, they would all be 244 K. Then separate them by a millimeter, the central plate decides to shoot up to 290 K, whilst the surrounding two don’t even change! They just stay at 244 K.

            Now, most rational people would have laughed at the two plates. But the three plates was ridiculous. And you people actually defended it! To the death, it seems…

            …only on a climate blog.

          • Nate says:

            Yup that about sums up the ‘debunking’. It consists of DREMT and JDs feeling that it just doesnt make sense, to them.

            But when people ask for facts to back up these feelings, none can be found.

            No, matter, feelings count more than facts with this crowd.

            When facts are shown that prove their feelings to be erroneous, they are ignored, and, la la la, never heard.

            And this is how ‘debunking’ is achieved.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Crickets…

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            Usually when you debunk something you actually do more that just declare it ridiculous.

            Normally equation, mathematics and physics are involved.

            Unfortunately you dropped all your textbooks in the deep fat fryer.

            Now can I have some fries with that?

            “one decided to increase in temperature to 262 K”

            Nope, plates don’t decide to do anything, it’s all energy in and energy out first law and stephan-boltzmann.

            So you finally admit to the essence of your debunking.

            “So that was already ridiculous.”

            “But the three plates was ridiculous.”

            That’s how you debunk a PhD level physicist’s thermodynamic homework problem.

            Good for you.

            You are as dumb as they come.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I hadn’t got to the debunking, as the honest would admit. I’m still waiting for you to repeat it for us.

            Just setting the scene, and what a funny one it is.

            Three identical plates, everything about them the same. Pull them apart, and up shoots the temperature of just the middle one. Amazing!

            It’s funny that you ever even defended it, really. But the lengths that some of you went to!

            And when the “three plates” first came out, you were all tripping over each other, not knowing what was what…one of you inadvertently declared that the middle plate going up to 290 K was a violation of 1LoT…not even realizing it was what they were supposed to defend!

            Oh well…we can laugh about it now.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            I would like some science and math with your debunking, if I can’t have that then the fries please.

            Debunking by ridicule doesn’t get you a passing grade.

            There is a fallacy for that.

            I wonder what it’s called.

            And Tim, was it who made a mistake and you can’t let it go.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I hadn’t got to the debunking, as the honest would admit. I’m still waiting for you to repeat it for us.

            Off you go, B-li. Over to you.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            So if I get this correctly, you are waiting for my debunking of your debunking?

            This was your debunking

            “So that was already ridiculous.”

            “But the three plates was ridiculous.”

            So if that’s it, it hardly qualifies as a debunking so you might as well try again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I hadn’t got to the debunking, as the honest would admit. I’m still waiting for you to repeat it for us. I know you remember it.

            Off you go, B-Li. Over to you.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMTPTY DREMPTY,

            There, you admit it

            “I hadn’t got to the debunking, as the honest would admit.”

            So the 150 day counting was just lies, where are my fries?

            You never debunked it, whatever it is, now you honestly admit it.

            However 244, 244, 244 violates the zeroth law of thermodynamics as does the 244, 244 solution to the two plate problem.

            So, do you need a more in depth explanation or can you just refer to my previous posts?

          • Nate says:

            ‘Crickets’

            Exactly, that, or poor attempts at distraction, or straight up lies were all we got whenever we asked for facts to back up your made-up physics assertions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More wildly dishonest nonsense from B-Li.

            1) I haven’t got to the debunking yet. I have not described nor explained that yet. As I said, everything I’ve written so far is just setting the scene. And it’s a very funny scene. Ridiculous, really.
            2) I don’t intend to repeat, for the hundredth time, the details of said debunking.
            3) I am asking you, to make your first ever honest comment, and describe and explain in detail the debunking of your solution.
            4) The validity of alternative solutions has no bearing on the debunk of your solution.

            This will be repeated until you either stop responding, or do as requested.

            I await your first ever honest comment.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            How and why should I do this?

            “3) I am asking you, to make your first ever honest comment, and describe and explain in detail the debunking of your solution.”

            That would mean, for one, that my solution was incorrect. But I would not submit an incorrect solution, so there is nothing to debunk.

            The 244, 290, 244 solution to the three plate problem follow the 4 laws of thermodynamics and the stephan-boltzmann law and you haven’t addressed this solution nor have you debunked it.

            1) I havent got to the debunking yet. I have not described nor explained that yet. As I said, everything Ive written so far is just setting the scene. And its a very funny scene. Ridiculous, really.
            2) I dont intend to repeat, for the hundredth time, the details of said debunking.

            WTF, how can you repeat, for the hundredth time, a debunking that you haven’t described yet?

            The zero law debunks your 244, 244, 244 solution, making that solution not valid. As well as the 244, 244 two plate solution, that is also debunked by the zero law.

            But you never respond to these debunkings, do you?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “WTF, how can you repeat, for the hundredth time, a debunking that you haven’t described yet?”

            I’m never sure whether you are deliberately, and deceitfully, trying to wriggle your way out of things, or if you are just genuinely as dumb as you come across sometimes…or perhaps it’s a bit of both?

            The debunking of your solution has been discussed many, many times before, under different articles, during different discussions. It was first brought up 150+ days ago.

            All I’m saying is that I haven’t described it yet here, on this particular sub-thread, under this particular article.

            I am asking you to describe and explain it now, this time. Just to see if you can be honest about it.

            “The 244, 290, 244 solution to the three plate problem follow the 4 laws of thermodynamics and the stephan-boltzmann law and you haven’t addressed this solution nor have you debunked it.”

            This is just a ridiculously blatant falsehood. For you to sit there and act like your solution has not even been addressed before, let alone debunked…do you not feel any shame when you say such things?

            B-Li, I still await your first ever honest comment. Certainly your first ever honest comment on this subject. Perhaps you are capable of honesty on other subjects, but this…or the GHE generally…not so much. Not that I have ever witnessed.

            That you people would even try to defend such a ridiculous idea as this “plates” nonsense is beyond me.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY

            The debunking of your solution has been discussed many, many times before, under different articles, during different discussions. It was first brought up 150+ days ago.

            Yes it has been discussed, but never successfully debunked.

            It appears your main debunking weapon is a fallacious argument from incredulity.

            see here

            https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

            Here is an example

            Ill remind everyone. You had this deal with two plates that was already funny, because when they were pushed together, both plates were at 244 Kthen when you separated them by even a millimeter, one decided to increase in temperature to 262 K, and the other just fancied dropping in temperature to 220 K. So that was already ridiculous.

            here is another

            Three identical plates, everything about them the same. Pull them apart, and up shoots the temperature of just the middle one. Amazing!

            Here is one in bold

            Now, most rational people would have laughed at the two plates. But the three plates was ridiculous. And you people actually defended it! To the death, it seems

            That’s a three peat

            And finally

            That you people would even try to defend such a ridiculous idea as this plates nonsense is beyond me.

            I defend it because I have experimental evidence that the physical processes described in the Green Plate Effect problem are real and verifiable.

            Like Swanson, I have done the experiment and replicated the results, you and your team, not so much.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why do you keep repeating quotes from what I have already explained isn’t the debunking, as if it were?

            Are you too stupid to understand what I’ve written, or just too dishonest to do as I requested, or both?

          • bobdroege says:

            Dear HUMPTY DREMPTY

            Here’s a lollipop!

            I was pointing out those quotes were fallacious because they looked liked you were trying to debunk something.

            If that wasn’t your debunking, then I don’t know what your debunking was, because you haven’t debunked anything.

            I don’t know how you debunked the green plate effect and you don’t either, because you haven’t debunked it, although it’s true you have claimed for nearly 6 months that you have debunked it.

            As for this

            “Are you too stupid to understand what Ive written, or just too dishonest to do as I requested, or both?”

            I have understood what you have written and I am smart enough to recognize that all your arguments that you claim debunk the green plate effect are either fallacious or use incorrect interpretations of the laws of physics.

            You apparently are too stupid to recognize that heat transfer needs either a temperature difference or a phase change.

            So go ahead and bring you debunking to life again, I predict it is fallacious and uses incorrect physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’ll go with “both”.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            Actually this is your best debunking.

            “Ill remind everyone. You had this deal with two plates that was already funny, because when they were pushed together, both plates were at 244 K then when you separated them by even a millimeter, one decided to increase in temperature to 262 K, and the other just fancied dropping in temperature to 220 K. So that was already ridiculous.”

            You don’t have a better one because you haven’t debunked anything.

            So what is it, 150 days of lies about a debunking that you never did?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You can’t even be honest enough to bring up one argument that anyone has made against your solution.

            Unbelievable.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            You got one, let’s have it.

            I don’t recall any brought forth by you, sorry.

            Betty Pound was doing better that you.

            Otherwise I want my fries, now, hop to it.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            The question is can you do better than Betty.

            Obviously the answer to Betty is the blue plate at 262 is warming the green plate at 220.

            So I’ll play the Rabett for you.

            What wrong with my solution?

            Can you french fry some carrots?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We already have debunked the Green Plate Effect. We’re just waiting for you to admit it.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY

            No, you have not debunked the Green Plate effect.

            And I see you are using you Moonie tactics.

            Looks like you will have to wait til hell freezes over or the heat death of the universe for me to agree you have debunked anything.

            Since you don’t seem inclined to share your debunking, I’ll just have to say as usual, you are all hat and no cattle.

          • Nate says:

            “This is just a ridiculously blatant falsehood. For you to sit there and act like your solution has not even been addressed before, let alone debunkeddo you not feel any shame when you say such things?”

            I think it is a ridiculously blatant falsehood, for you to pretend, over and over again, that your ‘debunking’ claims have not been rebutted, thoroughly and repeatedly.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            JD’s debunk (after raising the “3 plate” scenario):

            Going from 244 K…244 K…244 K, with the plates pressed together, to 244 K…290 K…244 K, separated, increases enthalpy and decreases entropy, without adding new energy.

            Why weren’t you able to bring that one up? Something wrong with your memory?

          • Nate says:

            And you cant even be honest enough to bring up one rebuttal anyone has made against your so-called debunking.

          • Nate says:

            ‘increases enthalpy and decreases entropy, without adding new energy.’

            OMG, both arguments thoroughly shredded.

            New energy is added to the system at a rate of 400 J/s. A brief reduction in the amount leaving the system, due to the plate rearrangement, is all that is required to increase enthalpy, as has been explained 47 times.

            Why werent you able to bring that one up? Something wrong with your memory?

            JD stupidly ignores entropy emitted in the 400 W of heat flow from the plates. He completely misunderstands entropy and 2LOT.

            And you blindly accept his ignorant claims.

            Why werent you able to bring that one up? Something wrong with your memory?

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            Basically what Nate said,

            And when temperature goes up, entropy goes up, unless work is done on the system, no work done in this case.

            Beware of using others work without a good inspection of same.

            Remember when you totally approved Gbaikie’s work without vetting it?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …but my personal favorite was more recent. What made me laugh about it was realizing how simple it all was.

            I realized that your argument actually just boils down to this:

            1) We agree that at 244 K…244 K…244 K, 400 W is flowing through the system.
            2) But you’re wrong, because it needs to be 244 K…290 K…244 K for 400 W to flow through the system.

            Or, to put it another way:

            1) We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.
            2) But, you’re wrong, because you need x for 400 W to flow through the system.

            Where x = “a temperature difference”.

            I think what I liked about it is that absolutely anyone, no matter their background or understanding of physics, can immediately see your obvious, glaring, error of logic.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            No wait,

            We did not all agree that

            “1) We agree that at 244 K244 K244 K, 400 W is flowing through the system.”

            Now you are telling tall tales.

            I did not agree to that, check the threads if you must.

            Basically what I have been saying, this is the zero law problem, if you will, you need a temperature difference for heat flow, or a phase change, so your complaint is busted.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sorry Eli…at 244 K…244 K…244 K, the two green plates surrounding the central blue are each emitting 200 W to space. That equals an output from the system of 400 W. There is an electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate…so…400 W has to be flowing through the system, if 400 W is leaving.

            Which is what you claim cannot happen without a temperature difference (244 K…290 K…244 K).

          • Nate says:

            ‘1) We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.’

            Nobody should accept a FALSE PREMISE as logical. If you have to cheat to win, you are not winning.

            ‘thus flowing thru’

            No one agreed to that, bald-faced liar.

            Why would we?

            Its a solution that doesnt work because 400 W are NOT flowing thru.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            Zero Law, look it up

            “Sorry Eliat 244 K244 K244 K, the two green plates surrounding the central blue are each emitting 200 W to space. That equals an output from the system of 400 W. There is an electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plateso400 W has to be flowing through the system, if 400 W is leaving.”

            There has to be a temperature, or a phase change to drive the heat flow through the system.

            Look it up.

            Maybe I need a cherry coke and a hamburger with my fries.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What heat flow? We’re talking about energy flow.

            How can you have 400 W input to the system, and 400 W output, at 244 K…244 K…244 K, without there being 400 W flowing through the system?

            That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Sorry Eliat 244 K244 K244 K, the two green plates surrounding the central blue are each emitting 200 W to space. That equals an output from the system of 400 W. There is an electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plateso400 W has to be flowing through the system, if 400 W is leaving.”

            By this brilliant logic, the middle plate temperature can be ANYTHING.

            244K, 0K, 244K works as well!

            How bout 244 K, Bazillion K, 244 K ? Works too!

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY

            “What heat flow? Were talking about energy flow.

            How can you have 400 W input to the system, and 400 W output, at 244 K244 K244 K, without there being 400 W flowing through the system?

            That was a rhetorical question, by the way.”

            Because dear boy,

            You need heat flow, or energy flow through each part of the system, or each subsystem, if you will.

            If the blue plate and the green plate are at the same temperature, how can there be any heat or energy flow?

            Again, zero law.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Eli…you have 400 W entering the system. Not 0 watts, or infinity watts. 400.

            You have 400 W leaving at 244 K…244 K…244 K. Not 0 watts, or infinity watts. 400.

            If there weren’t 400 W flowing through the system, you couldn’t have 400 W leaving.

            🍟

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTY DREMPTY,

            You are missing something Big,

            there has to be heat transfer between each plate

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Eli, you’re missing something big:

            1) We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.
            2) But, you’re wrong, because you need x for 400 W to flow through the system.

            Where x = “a temperature difference”.

            Why don’t you at least try your: “it won’t stay at 244 K…244 K…244 K for long, because the green plates will decrease in temperature” gambit. I’ve been waiting for that one.

            🍔

          • Nate says:

            244K, 0K, 244K has 400 W entering and 400 W leaving, and must have 400 W thru!

            Since heat/energy flow has no concern about T differences.

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTHY DREMPTHY,

            Remember, I have never agreed to this

            “1) We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.”

            The 400 watts leaving the system is dependent on a temperature difference between the blue plate and the green plate.

            The first law requirement for energy in equal to energy out is dependent on there being the right energy flows through each step of the system.

          • Nate says:

            Each time DREMT brings this up, he seems to get more desperate…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Eli. Like I said:

            1) We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.
            2) But, you’re wrong, because you need x for 400 W to flow through the system.

            Where x = “a temperature difference”.

            How does this work? The last person to repeat themselves wins? I’m not sure how it works in conversations where the loser of the argument won’t admit he’s wrong. You must have some experience with G & T though, after you blatantly misrepresented their arguments and they blasted you in response. You could never admit that defeat either, resorting to blogs to try to keep things going. Now it’s so bad that you’re commenting to some anonymous stranger on somebody else’s blog, and still refusing to ever say die. What happened? Don’t you have more important things to be spending your time on?

            🥤

          • bobdroege says:

            HUMPTHY DREMPTHY,

            For one, this is Bob, not Josh.

            Have you actually read the Gin and Tonic paper?

            You ask

            “How does this work?”

            You need a temperature difference for heat flow.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If it’s so important to you, “bob”, “Eli”, or whoever you wish to claim to be, you can repeat yourself for the last time if you wish.

          • bobdroege says:

            Sorry HUMPTHY DREMPTHY,

            I repeat myself because it seems you don’t understand what I am saying.

            Like you don’t understand the zero law of thermodynamics or any of the other laws of thermodynamics.

          • Nate says:

            ‘1) We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.’

            Repeat of DREMTs discovery of his ability to lie repeatedly with no shame whatsoever.

            When I called him out on it is when he decided to stop responding to me. Oh happy day.

          • Nate says:

            ‘ You could never admit that defeat either’

            says the poster-child of projection syndrome.

            No DREMT never admits defeat.

            He simply retreats when he has no answers to the shredding of his arguments, and when people catch on to his lies and distractions.

            Only to return again to start all over, having forgotten all previous shreddings, just as he has done here.

    • Nate says:

      “Still trying to place that horrid smell.”

      Its the smell of very old, rotten herrings….. red herrings.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Here is your complete order, B-Li:

      🍟🍔🥤

      Have a nice day.

  32. Mike Flynn says:

    Midas wrote –

    “Given that the globe has warmed, the climate system must already have acquired excess energy and not fully handled it.””

    Midas is deluding himself. The globe has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. Midas should agree that one needs to avoid allegations of cherry picking, by taking the longest period available. Not molten is cooler than molten.

    His nonsensical remarks about a magical “climate system” and “excess energy” will bring a smile to the lips of any rational person. Just more sciency sounding rubbish from pseudoscientific GHE true believers!

    The Earth has cooled, as any large blob of molten rock suspended in space would. Midas cannot provide any physical reason why four and a half billion years of cooling should magically reverse itself. He can’t even describe the supposed GHE in any way that makes sense!

    Thermometers are designed to react to heat, so it is entirely appropriate that they do so. Seven billion humans are doing their utmost to generate as much heat as possible, but fools like Midas cannot accept that heat measuring devices respond to heat as intended.

    Midas is a good example of the delusional pseudoscientific cultist, who believes that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometers makes the thermometer hotter! How stupid would anybody be, to believe something as ridiculous as that?

    Oh well, to people like Midas, fantasy is obviously superior to fact.

    Cheers.

  33. Mike Flynn says:

    Barry wrote –

    “You think its going to get colder, stay the same, or what?”

    Yes.

    Cheers.

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    midas…”So one data source that happens to agree with your rhetoric outweighs all the other data sources that don’t?”

    No…there’s a whole slew of them, I just picked one from a scientist with a degree in chemistry who painstakingly measured CO2 in the atmosphere…60,000 times.

    Here’s the full compilation and don’t go shooting the messenger as most alarmists do. The author only compiled the research of eminent scientists.

    https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

    Look up Kreutz in the study.

    “More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      further reading for diehard alarmists caught hopelessly in their belief system…

      http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski%20CO2%20EIR%202007.pdf

    • Midas says:

      I know I’m reading the works of an AGW denier when they don’t know the difference between “lose” and “loose”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”I know Im reading the works of an AGW denier when they dont know the difference between lose and loose”.

        I reveals your intelligence level when you get hung up on a spelling error, as if you have never made one, and fail to respond to the gist of a post.

        You are long on diversion and exceedingly short on physics.

        • Midas says:

          “… and fail to respond to the gist of a post”

          So you’re going to pretend I didn’t do that in my very next comment? This comment was there only as bait to see if you’d use it as an opportunity to avoid the issues I raised in the following comment. You swallowed it. Perhaps you’d care to respond to my response.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Midas, please stop trolling.

    • Midas says:

      It’s funny how AGW deniers complain about Mauna Loa being near a source of CO2 emissions. The nearest tiny population centre is 30 km away, and there is practically no heavy industry on the island of Hawaii. The island of Oahu where all the industry is is 200 miles away. Yet the same people are prepared to accept readings taken in the heart of industrial areas. Readings in these areas regularly exceed 500 ppm and sometimes 550 ppm today. All rigor is abandoned and blinkers donned when you get data that appears to support your case.

    • barry says:

      Beck.

      Whose conclusions were that CO2 was up and and down all over the place.

      Then came background measurements from Mauna Loa, the Antarctic and a bunch of other places corroborating each other that CO2 rise was fairly steady.

      Beck’s city readings were all over the shop. But this is good enough for uncritical critics, who don’t seem to be able to explain why the CO2 record should suddenly become stable from 1956 onwards.

      The urban heat island effect is a thing for ‘skeptics’, but the urban CO2 effect is ignored completely.

      The BS is so obvious.

      • JDHuffman says:

        There’s a chance CO2 will level off after we get to 700-800 ppm. It’s going to be hard to get it much higher.

        But, who knows. Maybe with several thousand more coal/gas power plants and another 100 million gasoline automobiles?

        We can try….

        • Eben says:

          Optimum CO2 is around 800 ppm, could be higher like 1200 but the positive effect starts to diminish

          • Midas says:

            How is this number calculated, and optimum for what and where?

          • barry says:

            “Beck’s city readings were all over the shop. But this is good enough for uncritical critics, who don’t seem to be able to explain why the CO2 record should suddenly become stable from 1956 onwards.

            The urban heat island effect is a thing for ‘skeptics’, but the urban CO2 effect is ignored completely.”

            I take Huffman and Eben agree with that, as they changed the subject in reply.

          • Midas says:

            Just as GR has avoided responding to the issue altogether. The problem has clearly sunk in but he refuses to acknowledge it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, Midas, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Becks city readings were all over the shop”.

        They’re is no excuse for being ignorant. Beck took no readings, he collated 90,000 papers from experts. You are so ignorant you have no awareness of what the man did.

        • Midas says:

          How many of these “experts” took their readings in the city?
          And what checking have you done to ascertain that they are experts, other than believing Beck?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, did you learn to throw out distracting questions from DA, or in troll school?

          • Midas says:

            Your distracting question has just been thrown out.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Good, then you got the point.

          • Midas says:

            Indeed. You are praising me on being able to toss your distracting questions onto the rubbish heap where they belong. Meanwhile, my pertinent question still awaits GR’s response. Move along now – the school bell has rung and you should be in class. I believe today’s lesson is on “Extracting yourself from an embarrassing situation after asking a question that you were too stupid to realize was ambiguous”. You can’t afford to miss that one.

          • JDHuffman says:

            After you “get the point”, it’s your job to remember it, and apply it.

            Otherwise, it just looks as if you can’t learn.

          • Midas says:

            You really should have attended that class instead of making an even greater fool of yourself.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

        • barry says:

          He didn’t collate 90,000 papers. He collated historical readings, most of which did not appear in any paper.

          Do you have any explanation as to why the CO2 record should suddenly become stable (with a rising trend) precisely from the time the Mauna Loa record began?

          If not, then it seems pretty obvious that Beck’s results are wrong.

          And you can read all about that here:

          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

    • Midas says:

      Reminds me of the way the theory of god was the only theory permitted to be taught for centuries, until science finally won the day.

      • JDHuffman says:

        “…until science finally won the day.”

        Midas doesn’t understand the difference between “science” and “pseudoscience”.

        Nothing new.

      • Midas says:

        As I made a distinction only between science the laughable theory of god, and didn’t focus on any one branch of science, one has to wonder which part of my comment permitted you to come to that conclusion.

        • JDHuffman says:

          You can certainly clarify your comment, if you want. As it stands now, you appear to believe the “theory” of evolution is science.

          • Reva says:

            Gee you don’t think evolution is real? How quaint! How does it feel to be 150 years+ behind the times?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Hi Reva. Are you demonstrating your intolerance of others, or sincerely confused by Institutionalized Pseudoscience?

          • Midas says:

            Thanks for clarifying your lack of a scientific background.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            reva…”Gee you dont think evolution is real? How quaint! How does it feel to be 150 years+ behind the times?”

            You’re the one behind the times, still stuck with Darwinian science. The modern study of DNA has proved Darwin wrong. Codes have been found in DNA that are required by RNA to build proteins. The odds that so-called natural selection could have fluked on the correct code to build the correct protein is billions and billions to one.

            Codes don’t happen by fluke, they require intelligence. Explain how the codes got there?

          • barry says:

            Oh ho! This is great. Our AGW critics are also evolution deniers. This is rich stuff!

            Oooh. Guys, do you think the moon landing was faked? Is the world round or flat? Is smoking a health risk or not? Is AIDS the advanced stage of HIV or not?

            What other claptrap do our friends believe?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, please stop trolling.

          • It’s hardly trolling. It’s a perfectly fair question. Deniers of climate science are almost always also deniers of evolution, Big Bang cosmology, Deep Time and many other aspects of modern knowledge, while being wedded to conspiracy-theoretical and anti-scientific reasoning. It is admittedly fallacious to appeal to the man in constructing an argument, but it’s not the first use of that fallacy on this thread.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Deniers of climate science are almost always also…”

            Elliott Bignell, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          midas…”As I made a distinction only between science the laughable theory of god….”

          Are you implying that Newton was laughable? Newton spent a lot of time communing with God. What do you know that Newton did not?

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”I explained that it wasn’t a confidence level (if you even know what that means). That value is a probability estimate”.

    I am used to the way you move goalposts when you are backed into a corner.

    Confidence level or probability estimate, NOAA is still misleading the public. They are the same thing. They are both saying we are such and such percent confident that we are telling the truth.

    Why don’t they just rank 2014 where it should have been ranked, well behind 1998, 2016, 2010 and the range of 2002 to 2007.

    There is nothing remarkable about 2014. It’s not the hottest anything and Roy rated it in 4th place, even though I can’t understand how he got that given his own graph.

    NOAA and GISS are damned alarmist who pushed 2014 to the front for political reasons.

    You lack the integrity to admit that. Instead you offer the old standby of semantics to draw attention from the obvious.

    • Midas says:

      “Why don’t they just rank 2014 where it should have been ranked, well behind 1998, 2016, 2010 and the range of 2002 to 2007.”

      It IS ranked below 2016.
      It is also ranked below 2015, 2017 and 2018.
      And the first 6 months of 2014 are ranked below the first 6 months of 2019, below the first 6 months of 2010, and equal to the first 6 months of 1998. But in the final 6 months of 1998 and 2010, the globe had this thing called a La Nina – perhaps you’ve heard of it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Midas…”It IS ranked below 2016″.

        You get more stupid with each reply.

        In 2014, NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year ever. There partners in crime, NASA GISS did so as well. ‘One had to read the fine print. NOAA had offered a confidence level of 48% that 2014 was the hottest year ever. GISS offered a more pathetic 38%.

        Don’t you alarmists know anything of the chicanery perpetuated by your poobahs?

        The moral to this sad story is that you cannot trust NOAA or GISS to tell the truth.

        • Midas says:

          I’d love to know what you believe is the link between the opening quote and the rubbish that follows.

        • barry says:

          “Why don’t they just rank 2014 where it should have been ranked, well behind 1998, 2016, 2010 and the range of 2002 to 2007.”

          It’s hard to see how they could have ranked 2014 behind 2016 when they were reporting in 2015.

          But there is a mix of verb tense in that question, so who knows what you’re saying.

          As Midas said, 2014 IS ranked behind 2016.

          Here Gordon is proposing that NOAA copy UAH. He’s wrong about 2007, though, which ranks behind 2014 in the UAH record (and 2003 is a statistical tie).

          Mind you, things look very different if you use the previous UAH version. The one before ‘they’ adjusted the data….

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Midas, barry, please stop trolling.

    • barry says:

      I am used to the way you move goalposts when you are backed into a corner.

      No goalposts have been moved. You call the 48% a confidence interval when it is not. It is a probability estimate.

      Do you know the difference between a confidence interval and a probability estimate?

      I don’t think you do. But you have previously vouched that they ‘lowered’ the confidence interval from 95% to 48%.

      No, Gordon. They did not lower the confidence interval. They kept it the same (95%).

      48% percent referred to the probability that 2014 was the then warmest year.

      That was a higher probability than for any other year in the record.

      No, you don’t know the difference between a confidence interval and a probability estimate. Only because you are ignorant of the distinction are you stupidly charging that I’ve “moved the goalposts.”

      I challenge you to quote NOAA saying the 48% value is a confidence interval.

      You won’t be able to, because it isn’t.

      This error is yours alone.

      I also challenge you to describe the difference between a confidence interval and a probability estimate. Seems you don’t get that they are quite different things.

  36. Svante says:

    Gordon Robertson says:

    Why do I care about watts, anyway, when heat, as in temperature, is measured in calories?

    Like your radiator at home, the effect on temperature depends on the power, i.e. energy per time unit.

    Calories is energy, it tells you nothing without the rate.
    One calorie per year has less effect than one per micro second.

    You can use calories per second.

    In engineering we learned to do that to ensure the units canceled. If they did not, it was a clue that something was amiss.

    To determine the effect on temperature your answer must be a measure of power.

    Now how does the ideal gas law give you one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Power_or_heat_flow_rate

    • JDHuffman says:

      Svante trying to explain physics is like a fish out of water–both funny and pathetic….

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      svante…”Like your radiator at home, the effect on temperature depends on the power, i.e. energy per time unit.

      Calories is energy, it tells you nothing without the rate”.

      ***********

      You have to pay attention, Svant, I explained this before, straight from Clausius, Joule, etc. His entire thesis was on the mechanical equivalent of heat.

      A watt is a measure of MECHANICAL energy. It is based on horsepower, as all subsequent measures of power are based. 1 HP power is required to raise 550 pounds through 1 foot in one second.

      A force through a distance…hmmmmm…that’s work isn’t it? Mechanical work. However it’s Pommie work (just kidding English people). The Europeans raised a fuss, they wanted their own terms, so they invented the joule, Then the watt was defined as the number of joules per second.

      Still no mention of heat. The formal relationship was found by another Englishman, Joule. He found that 0.239 gram-calories of thermal energy is equivalent to 1 joule of mechanical energy.

      There is nothing illegal in referring to a gram-calorie/second in lieu of 4.186 watts = 4.186 joules/sec.

      The point is, heat is measured in calories as the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water by 1C. That throws Bally’s idea out the window that heat is a measure of something and does not exist as energy.

      Due to equivalence, however, we have adopted the convention of converting heat from calories to watts as the mechanical equivalent of heat.

      • Midas says:

        A Watt is the rate of gain or loss of energy in ANY form.

        Even in America, scientists these days are taught in metric, at least at any worthwhile institution. But Americans don’t use the term “Pommie” so one has to wonder what your excuse is.

        • Midas says:

          I should say a Watt is a unit for the rate of gain or loss of energy in ANY form.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”I should say a Watt is a unit for the rate of gain or loss of energy in ANY form”.

            You were not listening. A watt is a joule/second and a joule is the European equivalent of horsepower. A watt is based on mechanical energy, as in work.

            I don’t care how it has evolved, I am telling you what it is.

            I use watts in the electronics/electrical field all the time, but it’s official name is ‘joule heating’. It’s related to the work done by a horse.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Midas, please stop trolling.

      • A Watt is a measure of power, or energy per unit time, and has dimensions of M.L^2.T^-3. That’s why your kettle is rated in Watts.

      • Svante says:

        Gordon Robertson says:

        A watt is a measure of MECHANICAL energy. It is based on horsepower, as all subsequent measures of power are based. 1 HP power is required to raise 550 pounds through 1 foot in one second.

        No, a Watt is not a measure of energy, it is energy per time.
        Watt can be used for any type of energy rate, for example light bulbs.
        Energy per time is called power in Physics.
        Watt is not based on Horsepower.
        Horsepower is another unit for the physical property power.

        Still no mention of heat. The formal relationship was found by another Englishman, Joule. He found that 0.239 gram-calories of thermal energy is equivalent to 1 joule of mechanical energy.

        Calories and Joules are units for the physical property energy. Any type of energy or work, including heat.

        Due to equivalence, however, we have adopted the convention of converting heat from calories to watts as the mechanical equivalent of heat.

        No, there is no conversion factor from Calories to Watts,
        because they are units for different physical properties.
        The former is energy, the latter is power.

        The point is, heat is measured in calories as the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water by 1C. That throws Ballys idea out the window that heat is a measure of something and does not exist as energy.

        In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer.
        The GHE depends on heat transfer rate, i.e. power.
        Now how do you get power out of the Ideal Gas Law?

    • Midas says:

      So GR believes heat and temperature is the same thing? I’m not sure whether to laugh or shudder.

    • Midas says:

      So GR believes heat and temperature is the same thing? Im not sure whether to laugh or shudder.

  37. Eben says:

    As I have been saying – the trends are imaginary and stupid

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/06/why-you-shouldnt-draw-trend-lines-on-graphs/

    • Bindidon says:

      Eben

      People like Kip Hansen always think they reinven the world.
      It seems that this guy still did not discover that there are other trend mechanisms than the simple linear estimate:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aghir1DgptpfmXZSE9bcDQ4Dtu6ERPU5/view

      And believe me: this is really a weak example of how running means can explain so much better than linear trends.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”It seems that this guy still did not discover that there are other trend mechanisms than the simple linear estimate:”

        Like one of binny’s fudged trend lines from his fudging mechanism algorithm in his Excel app.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben…”As I have been saying the trends are imaginary and stupid”

      I agree with the author at your link. I have tried to explain to the alarmists here that the UAH trend over the range of the data is entirely misleading.

      I am not inferring that UAH has tried to mislead anyone, they have gone to great lengths to explain the physical context behind the trend. I think, however, that UAH has to abide by some protocol that requires an overall trend be given.

      Despite the 0.13C/decade UAH trend, they made it clear in their 33 year report that little or no true warming had occurred. And it hasn’t. Most of the anomalies pre 1998 were below the baseline and that is rewarming, not true warming.

      According to UAH, in reference to their data range, true warming did not begin till after the 1998 EN. Then the trend remained flat for 15 years. The IPCC has acknowledged that and so did NOAA, till they got political.

      The next noticeable trend was the rise to the 2016 EN then the present negative trend following it.

      That gives 4 different contexts in the UAH data and there should be 4 different trend lines stated. If you tried to publish a paper with 4 different trend lines the dimwits who peer review the paper would reject it.

    • barry says:

      Eben,

      When the trends showed little to no warming in the ‘pause’ period, were you criticising the use of linear regression in graphs then?

      Because I’ve got a hunch you were fully endorsing the use of linear trends when the message suited you.

      All that wasted bandwidth from skeptics relying on linear trends to promote the ‘pause’. Years of it. Dumped. Because it’s no longer easy to peddle the pause.

      • Eben says:

        You are too narrow minded and deluded to have a conversation with, so stop addressing your replies to me

      • Hit the nail right on the head! Nice one. We’ve seen this kind of switch quite a few times over the years as the evidential picture has become more complete. They also seemed quite enamoured of Muller until he inconveniently found the convincing evidence he’d stipulated.

        Basic time-series analysis includes multiple regression, whereby the regression line of best fit can be selected from a range of methods. A linear fit is often not “right”, and trained scientists know this. But it’s pretty useful.

        The idea of an analysis is to come up with a model which, when subtracted from the data, leaves only random variation behind. This model may include trend, seasonality, covariance and perhaps also unique events, like the Pinatubo eruption. It is a lasting irony of denialist culture that they persist in seeing the random, or short-term, changes over the trend for the whole dataset. In effect, they deny natural variation by seeing every instance of it as colouring the entire picture.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “It is a lasting irony of denialist culture that they…”

          Elliott Bigot, please stop trolling.

  38. Go Fish says:

    Midas, please explain how something, namely everything you see, came from nothing! When you and or pseudoscience can actually do that then we can talk. Otherwise, your fiery darts and jabs are no less inflammatory, than say the reign of terror in France or the Boshevik revolution and parrarell atrocities atheists have perpetrated throughout history. They are foolhearted misinterpretations of reality and as intolerant as some folks claim I am. No person can force you to see that but it has happened from both sides of the aisle throughout history; religion and oppressive godless gov’t are equally guilty. In my view, REAL science knows for certain that there is a God. This explanation is demonstrative of how much we do not know, otherwise we would be God himself. It sure as heck beats the idea that it all happened by “chance.” That is about as scientific as the extrapolation that the universe is 4.5 billion years old (Please do not point to tree rings, ice core samples, the fossil record or other questionable evidence)! As I said before the DNA evidence is the strongest evidence against all of those disciplines. Whether your interpretation agrees or not is why the debates occur on this board. Cheers to you and all the ATHEIST comrades on this board!

    • Midas says:

      There is no chance of me convincing a non-scientist. But thanks for admitting that your beliefs are all religious ones devoid of science.

      • Go Fish says:

        So you must be a scientist to understand how the universe came into being? That means you believe that science teachers cannot possibly be able to teach science, since they are not trained like you Scientists! Moreover, they must merely be indoctrinated mouth pieces that regurgitate exactly what they are taught and cannot think for themselves in a critical manner. So much for lofty science and religion that is devoid of it in your genius estimation!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”There is no chance of me convincing a non-scientist”.

        And there is no way of you convincing a scientist, from what I’ve seen of your posts. Looks like you’re out of luck.

    • bobdroege says:

      You should know your enemies positions

      the universe is 13.77 Billion years old, it’s the earth that is 4.5 Billion.

      • Midas says:

        Christians can’t separate the earth from the universe. Apparently they were created in the same week. And apparently he made day and night before he made the sun and the earth – and this guy calls that ‘science’.

        • bobdroege says:

          Yeah and the DNA evidence proves we are all related to pond scum or Archaea.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…”Yeah and the DNA evidence proves we are all related to pond scum or Archaea”.

            Doesn’t prove anything. DNA evidence is a presumption with odds claimed at being irrefutable. No one knows if the presumption is correct.

            When it is claimed no two snowflakes are alike, how the heck do they know?

        • bobdroege says:

          Which christian creation myth was that, the first one or the second one, I get them mixed up sometimes.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          midas…”Christians cant separate the earth from the universe”.

          Apparently Newton did.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          midas…”Christians cant separate the earth from the universe. Apparently they were created in the same week. And apparently he made day and night before he made the sun and the earth and this guy calls that science.”

          Human beings wrote that, I don’t recall any evidence that God claimed it. Marcion, who lived from 85AD to 160AD claimed the God who sent Jesus to Earth was not the same deity described in the Jewish-based Old Testament.

          Marcion is typical of Christians who preached a Gospel that was banned by the more recent version proclaimed at Nicea circa 325AD. Iraneaus, upon whose vision the modern Christian Bible is based declared Marcion a heretic. From what I have read of Irenaeus, he was a narrow-minded, intolerant type who hardly demonstrated the Christian spirit preached by Jesus.

          We have no evidence of God, as you claim, other than the Jewish Bible. But why place your faith in a book written by ancients?

          The recently discovered Gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi, one of them the Gospel of Thomas, quoted Jesus as claiming we should look within. If your interest is science do you not consider psychology a legitimate science?

          Why don’t you look within and try to explain what goes on in you? It doesn’t work if you guide the search using opinion and analysis. You have to allow it to unfold, and unfold it will, if you allow your ego-based mind to get out of the way.

          That is also the basis of good science, even though you must retain certain forms of thought to reach explanations.

          • Midas says:

            I guess you have never heard christians proclaim the bible as “the word of god”.

            I do indeed regard properly applied psychology as a legitimate science. What did I say which would suggest otherwise. And what does the science of psychology have to do with a god?

            “… he was a narrow-minded, intolerant type who hardly demonstrated the Christian spirit preached by Jesus”
            I had to check again to make sure you weren’t talking about Trump and his followers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

      • Go Fish says:

        And you should know your enemies positions, but clearly it is not high on your intellectual priority list! Quite myopic and dogmatic for certain!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      go fish…”In my view, REAL science knows for certain that there is a God. This explanation is demonstrative of how much we do not know, otherwise we would be God himself. It sure as heck beats the idea that it all happened by chance.”

      Let’s put it this way. Modern DNA studies have an in-depth understanding how DNA operates in a cell. The DNA holds codes that are read by RNA to manufacture proteins essential to life.

      Codes must come from intelligence. I’ll stop short of the Intelligent Design proposed by certain religious factions but the codes definitely suggest some sort of intelligent mechanism that goes far beyond chance. It certainly has nothing to do with natural selection, whatever the heck that might be.

      If Midas wants to shut his mind off and pat himself on the back as a scientist, that’s his loss.

      • Midas says:

        Please prove to me that “codes must come from intelligence”.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          midas…”Please prove to me that codes must come from intelligence”

          Think it through.

          The ASCII code is the basis of computer languages. It’s a code that provides an alphabet and control codes so that humans can speak the language of computers, +5volts and 0 volts. Nowadays it’s more like 3.3 volts but that’s not the point, which is, that computers communicate in a binary language.

          You need codes for that. A capital A is hexadecimal 0x41 which is binary 0b01000001. With 8 binary bits you can produce 128 codes, With 16 binary bits you can produce 256 codes.

          Do you seriously think such codes could be produced by chance, without a guiding intelligence?

          With DNA, the codes are far more complex. First, the RNA has to unravel the DNA in the cell nucleus, which is a few microns across, find the appropriate code, read it, then take that information outside the cell where it is used to synthesize an essential protein.

          What are the chances that all happened by chance? It has been calculated by mathematicians and the odds against are billions and billions to one against.

          You need codes to understand your chance of winning a lottery. The 6/49 type of lottery, where 6 numbers are selected without replacement from 49 random numbers has 13,983,816 different combinations. That’s lightweight for the number of possible combinations of DNA codes.

          However, understanding the DNA codes does not explain how life got started from the alleged chance combinations of 5 non-organic elements. Biologist, Rupert Sheldrake, once compared it to dropping off the construction material for a highrise at the site and expecting the building to build itself.

          If you are not willing to concede, that just possibly, there is an unknown intelligence involved, I feel badly for you.

          Some people believe that intelligence is God. Isaac Newton seemed to think so. I don’t know what to think but I am not shutting my mind off to the possibilities available.

          The universe is far more complex than our minds are capable of understanding. We should not arrive at conclusions based on not knowing.

          • Midas says:

            The only chance involved is mutation. Natural selection and the other evolutionary processes are not based on chance.

          • Speaking as a software engineer, I need to advise you to think it through yourself for a bit longer. Software developers have for some time, especially in the field of artificial intelligence, been using evolutionary algorithms to search through a design-space and find solutions that could not be arrived at by design.

            The correspondence of letters to ASCII characters is merely convention. It was “designed” that way but it could have been designed in a vast range of others, with ASCII ‘A’ taken from any of 256 values. This is a design feature with no design purpose, other than consistency and convention. The correspondence of bases to amino acids is NOT arbitrary in this way. It is fixed by physics and chemistry, and is partly redundant. There is a great deal of waste in the “code” due to this redundancy, and that is only the beginning: There are subsitutions of triplets that do not change the amino acid, substitions of amino acids that do not change the properties of rhe protein, whole sections skipped in the middle of a protein-coding sequence… Much of the complexity flies in the face of any design rationale.

            The probabilistic argument is purely spurious. Human mutation rates are about 1 per 3 million base pairs per generation. Each of us has 100-200 unique mutations, most of which have no measurable effect whatsoever. Very obviously, the probability is never one in the entire range of values, as so many of the values are functionally indistinguishable. Moreover, the target space for a 200-base-pair sequence may have 4^200 possible states, but ALL the existing proteins with fewer than 200 amino acids are in that space. The target space is many trillions in 4^200, not one in 4^200.

            Finally, the whole probabilistic “argument” ignores the most important part of post-Darwin evolutionary theory: Natural selection. A sequence is never arrived at by a single random combination of base-pairs, but by countless generations of incremental change going back to earlier and far simpler forms.

      • barry says:

        Yep, that’s pure assertion.

        “I can’t explain it – therefore God.”

        I think there is a name for that fallacy….

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Midas, barry, please stop trolling.

      • Go Fish says:

        Gordon, agreed. There is plenty of evidence to the points you make. I cannot make anyone see them anymore than folks on this forum can make the alarmist see the opposing view. I appreciate your reply.

      • Go Fish says:

        Gordon, additionally, DNA evidence reveals that one species cannot become another. There can be mutations within a species but a mutation is never an improvement in the species. Thus if you adhere to the concepts of the Big Bang THEORY and the data showing the measurements of the universe’s expansion my understanding is that the DNA evidence noted should cause suspicion of the Big Bangs credibility and validity! This is not to say that the universe is not expanding.
        Finally, the end game of the Big Bang is that macro evolution occurred to give us what we now see. Forgive my redundancy, but that is what the DNA evidence disproves!
        How would blood flow without a heart to pump it? Did macro evolution produce them both simultaneously? If so, how did it know to do so? The questions are endless but few will dare to even ask them as noted by some posters.

        • Midas says:

          What kind of imbecile would believe that the Big Bang and evolution are somehow related.

          You know – you could try reading a book on evolution instead of asking moronic questions out of ignorance.

          • Go Fish says:

            Midas-The kind of imbecile that sees that there are problems with believing that something (namely everything you see around you) came from nothing! Or that the order you can observe all around you came from chaos, a chaos that was supposed to have produced order. What kind of scientist are you that you do not even consider asking the right questions and pursuing REAL answers to those questions? I have already pointed to historical, literary and archeological evidence (on this forum in the comments section of another post) as other considerations. But the conclusion is always the same from folks like you that I must be some kind of disabled moron to IMAGINE the idea that a superior being is behind all that we see, study and debate. Yet, no matter the evidence you shut it out as not even a possibility. Moronic and ignorant….hmmm those words do apply but nearly as much to me!

          • Go Fish says:

            NOT nearly as much to me!

          • Midas says:

            You seem to believe that I have an interest in debating you on this matter. As I said, try to read a few science books.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “You seem to believe that I have an interest in debating you…”

            No, nobody believes that.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          go fish…”my understanding is that the DNA evidence noted should cause suspicion of the Big Bangs credibility and validity!”

          You don’t need to go nearly that far to disprove the BB. The only evidence supporting it is a theoretical background radiation in the universe of 4K and the Doppler shifting of stars, indicating some are moving away from us.

          The problem with the latter is that no centre has been indicated for the universe. The problem with the former is that background radiation is not heat.

          The BB is nonsense.

          • Midas says:

            Says the greatest theoretical physicist of all time.

          • So where’s this disproof? I was looking forward to seeing it.

            The CMBR has been mapped observationally, by the way. It happens to match the distribution expected based on quantum processes at the end of the inflationary period. Don’t forget to expain this in your disproof.

        • “Gordon, additionally, DNA evidence reveals that one species cannot become another. There can be mutations within a species but a mutation is never an improvement in the species.”

          Ho, hum. Where does one start? How about ring species: How can DNA evidence “reveal” this when species exist which grade insensibly from one to another, and when every step can be mapped in its DNA? Or how about Lensky’s pesky E. coli? How can the DNA taken periodically from his samples, as they evolved from E. coli (non-citrate-netabolising) to something else (citrate-netabolising) prove that what happened did not, in fact, happen?

          In fact, of course, the very existence of DNA means that paths from one species to another can be plotted out as a series of single-point substitutions, plus the odd chromosome doubling or crossover. There is ALWAYS a set of changes that can change one string of 4-state points to any other string of 4-state points.

          And how can a change NEVER be an improvement? If the same change alows a plant to grow a little further up a mountain then it is an improvement while the climate is warming, but a disimprovement whwn the climate is warming. The same change going in either direction can obviously be advantageous in one situation and disadvantageous in another.

          And since when does speciation have to be an “improvement”? One major cause of speciation is reproductive isolation. Islands and isolated valleys in mountains are highly prone to speciation, simply because populations remain isolated for long periods. They change sufficiently that they can no longer interbreed when brought together, but this is in no way an advantage to either population.

          Oenothera (evening primrose) has been seen to speciate by polyploidisation, generating a new species with twice the chromosomes. Neither form can reproduce with the other, yet both are structurally similar. This is the generation of a new species with no immediate advantage, observed in the wild. Copper-resistance in Mimulus (monkey flower) has been seen to evolve and the new form cannot reproduce with its parent species: That’s a straightforward speciation by incremental substiution AND it entails an advantage.

          The literature is full of such examples. I’d like to see how their DNA proves they don’t exist.

          • Erratum: “an improvement while the climate is warming, but a disimprovement whwn the climate is COOLING”

          • Go Fish says:

            Ho hum, your position postulates micro evolution far more than macro evolution! There is a HUGE difference between them. One is observable the other is not. It’s called a gross extrapolation…..yawn……

          • Drivel, of course. Micro-evolution entails changes in allele frequencies. Any mutation introduces an entirely new allele. And of course one step between two genes of, say, 200 base-pairs can be followed by another. For any two genes of comparable length, there are 200 substitutions that lead from one to the other. If you think that at some point along the line one of the steps is of a different nature, or represents an invalid extrapolation, then I’ll want the exact step number, along with your working. The same refers to any combination of gene deletion, duplication, change in length or arrangement on the chromosomes.

            Not forgetting, of course, that there are multiple examples recorded, sometimes down to a complete record of the intermediate genomes, of such changes taking place. Lenski’s coliforms and ring species serve as two salient examples.

          • Midas says:

            EB
            He won’t have a clue what you just said. But as he is most likely a Trump supporter, perhaps write it in Russian if you want to get the message across.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

          • Midas – Probably quite right!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Trump!

            Politics!

            Snide remarks!

  39. Go Fish says:

    Thank you for proving my point yet again. Lets keep picking numbers out of a hat and declaring with exhaustive knowledge without any data that the earth is XXX years old and the universe XXXXX years old. That is NOT science that is hypothesis, presupposition and conjecture with a mix of gross extrapolation! Please show me the 13.7 billion years of data to PROVE exhaustively your interpretation and conclusions! Thus, you cannot, so we are back to square one. You presuppose and then you declare! That is the extent of your pseudo science! While you are at it explain how the DNA evidence shows how one species can become another! Again, you cannot! Thus you are fake, phony frauds perpetrating a fake reality then declaring that anyone who does not embrace it is interpretively wrong!

    Again, I ask, how did nothing cause something, namely everything, to exist? You have no CONCLUSIVE answer!

    • Midas says:

      Nothing causing something to exist is the god hypothesis in a nutshell.

    • “Again, I ask, how did nothing cause something, namely everything, to exist?”

      You tell us. You’re the one who believes in gods.

      “You have no CONCLUSIVE answer!”

      Of course not. That is because it is a metaphysical question. It does not reason from any evidence, and is thus not empirical. Which is good in this case, because empirical conclusions are by definition provisional, so you’d just start crowing that one is not conclusive. Whether or not metaphysical questions can be answered conclusively depends on whether you include the analytical proofs of mathematics, but I don’t see you producing one of those so it doesn’t matter. But you might like to ponder…

      0 = -1 + 1

      Moreover, it gets you nowhere whatsoever, and that right fast, as your gods would be caught in the exact same bind: Were they always there? Then there was always something there and we might just call it the precondition for a Big Bang, an infinite series of Bangs or whatever, since at least we know the universe exists. Were they not there all the time and at some point came into being? Well, then, how can gods just come out of nothing?

      See? Not even a useful or interesting metaphysical puzzle. And certainly irrelevant to science.

  40. Midas says:

    Did you not understand my previous comment? I have no intention of debating a person who clearly believes the earth is flat in a forum that has nothing to do with this.

    • Midas says:

      That was for the angler.

    • Go Fish says:

      Your debate should not be with me it should be with the evidence. It takes more blind belief to believe what you believe than what I believe (see below). IF this forum has any merit with dealing with the realities of the natural world around us then you are wrong again! My premise is the datum point from which you launch your theories is faulty! If that is true then nearly everything you espouse is not only suspect but wrong.

      If this is what you and others believe that is your interpretation but it IS an interpretation not a fact. It may be accepted as fact but that does not make it science nor fact! Do you not understand my points? Or would you rather remain ignorant of more critical analysis?

      https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

      • Midas says:

        Tell you what – you first provide physical evidence that a god exists, and I’ll continue this fruitless debate. Deal?

        • Go Fish says:

          I suppose you miss it all day everyday as you are surrounded by it! Tell you what-explain how something, namely everything, came from nothing! This “fruitless” debate is no less fruitless than the debate that daily rages on this forum all day everyday with barbs and insults thrown at the opposing viewpoint endlessly with no agreeable consensus or final exhaustively conclusive determination. It is an endless fruitless exercise if I believe your words! Again, I state, the datum point from which you launch your theories is deficient! The pursuit of knowledge in and of itself is not bad but the distortion of it is!

          • Midas says:

            I see – your idea of ‘science’ is to look at something and say “that’s evidence for a god”. See what I mean by fruitless? No, I guess you don’t.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Midas, please stop trolling.

          • “Tell you what-explain how something, namely everything, came from nothing!”

            Interesting that the very first thing you offer after being asked for evidence is a metaphysical guessing-game based in no evidence at all. Nor, I might add, one having any bearing on the existence of a god, who would suffer from the exact same conundrum.

            Should we take it that this is typical of what I will generously call your thinking?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Kind of a stumper for both religion and science.

          • But at least science does not pretend to answer it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Only your obvious biases would make you think I’m defending religion.

          • Mind reader now, are we? Drop the presumption that you can think of what I am thinking and re-read. You will find it makes no difference to the relevance or meaning of the comment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK. Yes, science doesn’t pretend to have the answers to some of the most fundamental questions you could ask. Which is why people look for alternatives, and for some they find peace of mind.

          • If they stuck to seeking peace of mind there would not be a problem, It’s when they outright deny reality in the face of impending disaster that the problems arise.

          • By the way, is a question which has no answer, even in principle, really “fundamental”? A pragmatic approach might be that it is a waste of time or dead end.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “It’s when they outright deny reality in the face of impending disaster that the problems arise.”

            Who are we talking about now?

            “By the way, is a question which has no answer, even in principle, really “fundamental”?”

            There is no answer that we could currently comprehend. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

          • It follows by deduction that there isn’t one. Not currently having one that we comprehend is just the necessary consequence.

  41. Go Fish says:

    Midas, you have just clarified the difference between what a real scientist (Gordon) is and a pseudoscientist (midas…..muffler) who is stuck in the mud of intellectual inability to actually consider the evidence as opposed to regurgitating an ideology without a more critical analysis! Well done! Your colors shine bright as JD points out regularly.

    • Midas says:

      The only “evidence” you have suggested is that I should look around me. I give you the same advice to find evidence for evolution.

      • Go Fish says:

        Midas, this was already stated repeatedly:

        I could refer to other evidence that you would decry as invalid. In the end, both, you and I stand firmly upon presupposition, conjecture and hypothesis insofar as cosmology is concerned. Neither can PROVE our interpretation and or worldview scientifically or conclusively beyond any doubt. We can only point to evidence that must be interpreted (some of it presented in this correspondence by myself and others more scholarly than I). I think the evidence gives credibility to the idea of a infinite being that is not subject to the same limitations that we are! I have said this all along, namely, I do not possess the conclusive truth so that all men must agree with me. You have glossed over, chided or ignored much of it since Gordon already delineated the specific evidence I referred to which calls into question the very things you are adamant about as non negotiable facts or “beliefs” as JD stated. That is your choice. But you also have no “convincing” truth so that all men must agree with you! This has been a question that has plagued mankind since the dawn of existence. I remain steadfast in my own convictions!

    • Eben says:

      If Somebody could figure out who sent this mufflerboy in here

  42. JDHuffman says:

    What Elliott Bignell and Midas do not seem to understand is that belief in the Bible is a religion. A “belief” is NOT science.

    But, as they attack, they also seem to forget that belief in “evolution” is a religion. It is NOT science.

    A science does NOT violate the established laws of physics. A science is demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable. A science is NOT based on assumptions, estimates, imaginations, and interpretations.

    • Midas says:

      Go Fish claims belief in a god is science. Your definitions have killed off his claim.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Now Midas, is that really true?

        Or is it just another desperate attempt to misrepresent?

        • Midas says:

          God:

          Violates the established laws of physics … check.
          Not demonstrable … check.
          Not falsifiable … check.
          Based on imaginings … check.
          Based on interpretations … check.

          • Go Fish says:

            God:

            Established the laws of physics and is omnipotent over them……check

            Demonstrable………………The heavens declare the glory of God…..check

            Truer than fallen man recognizes…….”the fool said in his heart there is no God. He is Immutable, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Holy, Just and true……check

            Based upon natural revelation, specific written revelation including that found in history, archeology, science, metaphysics, etc….And most clearly and exhaustively by the (God)/man Jesus…..check.

            Based upon mans faulty datum point and self exaltation to the place of God……check.

          • Midas says:

            All assertions, devoid of evidence and logic.

    • “But, as they attack, they also seem to forget that belief in evolution is a religion. It is NOT science.”

      We remember. We just don’t care. We are not relying on belief, as evolution can be directly observed, and makes predictions allowing indirect observation. It is the Bible which rests entirely on belief, and for the very interesting reason that it includes a wealth of assertions which cannot be supported by observation, or which are outright overturned by observation.

      And why is a blog about climate once again overrun by creationists? Sadly, you don’t need to answer that.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Elliott believes: “We are not relying on belief, as evolution can be directly observed, and makes predictions allowing indirect observation.”

        Elliott, mutations are NOT “proof” of evolution. “Evolution” is just another false religion. It is built upon one layer of pseudoscience after another. Your fanatical devotion does NOT make it reality.

        • Who said anything about “proof”? Science does not do “proof”. It does observation, generalisation, extrapolation and prediction, tests of prediction, and so on. “Conjecture and refutation” is the most concise and widely-accepted characterisation. (Popper.) No-one who knows about science speaks of it doing “proof”.

          Evolution can locate Tiktaalik to a couple of millimetres of sediment, foresee the existence of a mechanism of heredity with variation (mutations), tell us where to look for telomeres in the middle of chimp chromosomes, date rocks by their fossils, tell us where to look for bones in the human embryo that were not apparent in the adult…

          Evolution by natural selection makes useful predictions because it is reality.

      • Nate says:

        OK, So JD is not just a climate denier. He’s also an astrophysics denier, a biology denier, a heat transfer denier, what else?

        He seems to pick and choose science he likes, all else is labeled pseudoscience.

  43. bdgwx says:

    July ’19 had the lowest monthly Arctic sea ice extent in the satellite record. It was almost 20% below the 1981-2010 average.

    • Midas says:

      Just clarifying – the lowest for July, not the lowest for all months.

    • barry says:

      A month’s variation says next to nothing, even if its a record.

      Consistently, one cannot use a single anomaly point against the record to imply something about change. And that’s what I think you’re trying to do here, bdgwx. I don’t think your remark is innocent of purpose.

      The long term trend is clear enough to make the point. Just because some people make hay out of short term deviations, doesn’t mean that emulating the practise will edify them.

      • Midas says:

        Indeed, the standard deviation of the September minimums is more than 6 times the downward trend. We might or might not get a record low this year, but it will almost certainly spring back next year.

        For some reason, “ice free” for the Arctic has been defined as an extent of less than 1 million square kilometers. It will take another 40 years for the trend to fall below that level. A once-in-20-years outlier might be enough to get an ice-free period in the late 2040s. A freak outlier equivalent to 2012 might see it happen by 2040. We certainly won’t be going ice-free in the next decade. And it won’t be ice-free every summer for at least half a century.

      • bdgwx says:

        I agree Midas. We likely won’t see a record minimum this year. And I’m not expecting the first occurrence of “ice-free” until around 2050 or so. Some of the more recent modeling even shows the annual means during the 2020’s increasing a bit relative to today’s figures before the decline begins in earnest again during the 2030’s. I don’t know…we’ll see how that turns out. Antarctic sea ice extents were modeled to continue to slightly increase until about 2030 before declining and we’ve seen some pretty dramatic declines in recent years so these coupled models that do sea ice clearly leave a lot to be desired.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Thanks for attempting to bring some reality to the discussion, barry.

      • JDHuffman says:

        It’s smart to make predictions far enough out that you can never be proved wrong. Here’s mine:

        By 2100, later generations will laugh at the AGW nonsense. The current crowd of doom-sayers will have been completely discredited. Institutionalized Pseudoscience will have been defunded. Government funding will be going to engineering to solve problems, not to false “-ologies” to imagine problems.

    • bdgwx says:

      This blog post is focused on the state of affairs for July ’19 so I thought it might be relevant to post July information in other areas of the climate system. But, yes, I sometimes forget that others might not know that the minimum extent usually occurs in September and that the July record is only for the month of July.

    • Yes, but the year-to-year variation almost swamps the trend. The smart money is still on an ice-free Arctic in the second half of the century, as the IPCC has projected for some time now.

      • Midas says:

        Not ice-free all year round. That won’t happen even by the end of next century.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

        • Midas says:

          You certainly invest a lot of time in coming up with your BS.

        • “Elliottthe 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.”

          So you can do name-calling. Very clever. Doesn’t change the correctnes of their predictions, though, does it? Not does it change that the likely deadline for an ice-free Arctic is during the second half of the century.

          Oh, by the way, anyone who knew anything about the IPCC would know that all those estimates and predictions are done by scientific teams working independent of the IPCC. All the IPCC does is collate and report on the science. And if you still seriously believe that you can overturn the “hockey stick” finding you are living in a fantasy world. It’s one of the best-replicated findings in science these days, based on a score of different lines of evidence.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Elliott, the IPCC is an agenda-driven cult.

            They deceive many, and many just deceive themselves.

            Learn some physics.

          • “the IPCC is an agenda-driven cult.”

            Ooh, more name-calling. How original.

            “Learn some physics.”

            That’s almost funny, coming from you lot. You might like to take note that the host of this site, Dr. Roy, an actual atmospheric physicist, does not dispute any of the basic physics of anthropogenic warming, also acknowledging its existence. He can ONLY maintain the position that its outcome has been exaggerated. This is quite sensible, of course, because even undergraduate physics suffices to leave no doubt that an anthropogenic greenhouse effect must exist, and that it has been known since the 19th Century.

            So a denier telling a scientific realist to learn some physics is a little like a creationist telling someone to learn some biology: Of comedic value only.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Elliott, appealing to Dr. Spencer won’t help you. Dr. Spencer has admitted that he does not understand the relevant physics. He leaves that to people that do. He contests AGW based on his knowledge of weather and climate, and his work with observations. He does exactly as a scientist should. He only deals with his area of expertise.

            The relevant physics indicates that the atmosphere can NOT raise the temperature of the surface. Believing otherwise is adherence to a false religion.

          • It doesn’t need too help me. Dr. Roy is the nearest you have left too a qualified expert. I was giving YOU the greatest available leeway.

            “The relevant physics indicates that the atmosphere can NOT raise the temperature of the surface.”

            No such physics exists, and even grade-school level observations show this not to be the case.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Elliott, I’m guessing English is not your native language. It’s either that or you have no relevant point to make.

          • Engish is not merely my language but my nationality. The fact that no such physics exists is a pretty clear point. Even if you only speak American.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Elliott claims Engish is his language, so he must just be uneducated:

            “It doesn’t need too help me. Dr. Roy is the nearest you have left too a qualified expert.”

            No wonder he believes in AGW.

          • Belief, as usual, does not come into it. Anthropogenic warming is reality, as real as evolution, time dilation or universal gravitation. Education entails knowing that, and being able to explain how they work and can be demonstrated. Raving about “belief” rules you out of that cohort, and simply demonstrates a refusal to grasp the empirical nature of science.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Spoken like a true cultist.

            Nothing new.

          • Spoken like any other instance of empty name-calling.

    • bdgwx says:

      Consistently “ice-free”? Yeah, second half of this century or even 2100. First occurrence? I’m thinking it could be as soon as 2050.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”Consistently “ice-free”? Yeah, second half of this century or even 2100. First occurrence? I’m thinking it could be as soon as 2050″.

        Tell, oh, great sage, how the Arctic can ever be ice free as long as there is little of no Sun for half the year?

        • Midas says:

          You are either unaware that he is referring to a brief period in summer, or pretending not to be aware to score points.

          And the Arctic HAS been ice free all year round, for example during the PETM. Even for the 6-month night.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Midas, have you ever considered the amount of estimates, assumptions, interpretations, beliefs, conjectures, and imagination is involved in the PETM?

            If you like your false religion (pseudoscience), you can keep your false religion. But, it’s NOT science.

          • Midas says:

            No, I’ve only considered the science. Have you ever considered doing the same?

          • JDHuffman says:

            My question was rhetorical, of course.

            That’s why I recommended: “If you like your false religion (pseudoscience), you can keep your false religion.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          midas…”You are either unaware that he is referring to a brief period in summer, or pretending not to be aware to score points”.

          I am merely trying to set the record straight. Alarmist pass off the propaganda about an ice-free Arctic while conveniently omitting the part about the brief period in summer.

          The more gullible start to fret that it must be getting seriously hot in the Arctic when it’s not.

        • “Tell, oh, great sage, how the Arctic can ever be ice free as long as there is little of no Sun for half the year?”

          Many prophets of your church are fond of telling us that there used to be crocodiles at the North Pole – while of course also rejecting as YECs the dating methods, geology, biogeograpy and almost everything else on which the conclusion rests. I suggest you ask them how there can be crocodiles in a region that is frozen.

  44. Rich Smith says:

    Where would this July temperature fit into NOAA’s 1901 – 2000 base period?

    • Midas says:

      The NOAA data comes out on Thursday.

    • barry says:

      If you want work it out, average NOAA global temp anomalies for the period 1981 – 2010. That is the UAH baseline period (ie, zero anomaly if averaged*).

      Then add that value to the UAH July anomaly and you would have what would be the UAH anomaly value per the NOAA baseline.

      It’s not a straight comparison, of course, for a bunch of reasons, such as: NOAA is measuring air temps at about 2 meters above the ground, and UAH is measuring a swathe of the lower troposphere from surface to lower stratosphere, weighted most strongly at about 3 kilometres altitude.

      (* Because all data sets have ongoing revisions to historical data, the average of the baseline period usually won’t be precisely zero – but it will be very close. This is so with UAH and the rest)

      • JDHuffman says:

        barry, when they finish torturing the data, then we get to laugh even more.

        The planet is not warming. You have been deceived, as you were with the “plates”.

        Nothing new.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”If you want work it out, average NOAA global temp anomalies for the period 1981 2010. That is the UAH baseline period (ie, zero anomaly if averaged*)”.

        Are you suggesting that the UAH satellite baseline is based on the NOAA 1981 – 2010 surface average?

        • Midas says:

          Did you not understand “it’s not a straight comparison” and what followed?

        • barry says:

          Are you suggesting that the UAH satellite baseline is based on the NOAA 1981 2010 surface average?

          Nope, I’m answering Rich’s question, which requires calculating the offset to match baselines.

    • Bindidon says:

      Rich Smith

      “Where would this July temperature fit into NOAAs 1901 2000 base period?”

      As far as I know, NOAA’s actual reference period for global anomalies is 1971-2000.

  45. Svante says:

    Hi barry,
    Bill is full of nonsense but he had a good question here:
    https://tinyurl.com/y2qtd25c

    Have you seen any science on that one?

  46. Gordon Robertson says:

    Elliott…”So you can do name-calling. Very clever. Doesnt change the correctnes of their predictions, though, does it? Not does it change that the likely deadline for an ice-free Arctic is during the second half of the century”.

    ********

    I gave examples of IPCC chicanery that can be easily verified. You summed it all up as name-calling without attempting to respond to my revelations.

    The IPCC no longer predicts. Expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out that unvalidated models cannot predict, so the IPCC changed ‘predict’ to ‘project’.

    With regard to an ice free Arctic, that is a trick claim to lure in the unsuspecting. There will NEVER be an ice free Arctic as long as the Earth remains in its present orbit with its present axial tilt.

    The IPCC are referring to an ice free Arctic during a brief window of the Arctic summer. At that, they are basing that on the nonsense of climate model theory, which is trash.

    Over the 170 years since the Little Ice Age ended glaciers and other ice have been melting. The extent of Arctic sea ice will depend on how long that recovery extends.

    • “I gave examples of IPCC chicanery that can be easily verified.”

      You gave a few examples of distortions and irrelevancies that easily fool the gullible. In tnis case meaning that you’ve got the wrong guy. Of course, if you can show how sexual harassment impacts on melt-rates of sea ice, ocean circulation or ice albedo then go right ahead.

      “There will NEVER be an ice free Arctic as long as the Earth remains in its present orbit with its present axial tilt.”

      As I mentioned above, you need to take this up with your co-religionists. They are perfectly happy to claim that all this is nothing to worry about because crocodiles and palm trees inhabit the Arctic periodically. And they are right, of course: Changes of that magnitude happen with only the most subtle fluctuations in insolation due to orbital changes, a fact which absolutely rules out that the theiry behind anthropogenic warming is false: The feedbacks required DO exist.

      But as I said, take it up with the rest of the faithful.

      “The IPCC are referring to an ice free Arctic during a brief window of the Arctic summer.”

      True but not under dispute. A year-round ice-free Arctic will occur later. Rather obviously, when you think about it. But there I suspect it’s me that has the wrong guy…

    • “At that, they are basing that on the nonsense of climate model theory, which is trash.”

      Interesting that there are still people around who are this ignorant, or believe that pretending to be this ignorant will win any votes for denialist employers. Ironically, one of the few genuinely alarmist predictions, the 2012+/- ice-free Summer, was made by an ice-scientist working out on the ice and not based on “models” (GCMs) at all.

      GCMs are only one part of projections, and a small part of the wider science. But, again ironically, they are actually more reliable than some hands-on scientists.

  47. JDHuffman says:

    Not only is Elliott uneducated in the English language (which he claims as his own):

    “It doesn’t need too help me. Dr. Roy is the nearest you have left too a qualified expert.”

    but he is also unable to understand logic:

    “Changes of that magnitude happen with only the most subtle fluctuations in insolation due to orbital changes, a fact which absolutely rules out that the theiry [sic] behind anthropogenic warming is false: The feedbacks required DO exist.”

    If you are able to interpret his illiterate sentence, he appears to be claiming natural variation (orbital changes) proves AGW!

    Ignorance and stupidity form the basis for belief in false religions.

    • Not only do I understand logic, I am a logician (software engineer) by profession, and was building theorem-provers and expression-parsers back in the 1980s. Example:

      “If you are able to interpret his illiterate sentence, he appears to be claiming”

      Which is a contradiction. If you claim to infer a meaning, you admit that the sentence is comprehensible.

      “he appears to be claiming natural variation (orbital changes) proves AGW!”

      Science does not “prove”. I have not failed to be clear on this, even at the level of an American-speaker. Now, observe:

      [Me] “The feedbacks required DO exist.”

      This sentence concerns the existence of feedbacks. It does not directly concern the existence of AW.

      Is that clear enough?

      [Me] “a fact which absolutely rules out that the theory [typo corrected] behind anthropogenic warming is false”

      This concerns the correctness of theory. It does not directly concern the success of a prediction of that theory. It does not even allude to “proof”.

      Is that clear enough for y’all, shucky darn and slop the chickens?

      “Ignorance and stupidity form the basis for belief in false religions.”

      Of course. Climate-deniers are almost without exception also creationists. The knowledge and intelligence required to analyse the flood of papers in “Nature”, “Science” and so on will always remain beyond your grasp.

  48. Sorry to wax bucolic-parodic, but there is nothing more annoying for a native English speaker than Americans presuming upon our linguistic heritage. Personally I think these people could do with a spell in Lahore, Kabul or Delhi, where they will encounter and wonder at impeccable received pronunciation.

Leave a Reply