Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2020 was +0.57 deg. C, up from from the August, 2020 value of +0.43 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com is +0.38 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.35 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.53 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.38 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.12 +0.65
2020 02 +0.75 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.47 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.39 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.97 +0.48 +0.92
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 2020 should be available within 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
so you are saying my bees will die in February or March . I have fed them 40LBs of sugar per hive so i am hopeful, but the last time we had a cold snap in March is it was very bad. :~(
Keep breaking records. A new 5 year record of 0.42 C. This is 0.25 C higher than any previous non-overlapping 5 y period.
Your bees wont have trouble from the expected 0.2 C global dip of La Nina.
But they should keep an eye on the arctic and the polar vortex.
dr. roy,
you use fake goverment numbers to draw your lame conclutions.
Why?
How dare you.
i agree.
climate change is all about the temperture of the oceans. right?
so what controls the temperture of the oceans? anser, the amount of sunlight geting to them, right. the ambent air temperture mostly does not heat the oceans. so the more junk in the atmustphear the less light/heat gets to the oceans. so in conclution one must assume that burning will cool the planet.
u dum fuk, b,s make huney to feed themsleves. u give them sugar and they will get acne and get so fat they cant fly.
i half to ask a question. how maney people have died from climate change in america? anser 0. how maney people will die in america if we stop using hydrocarbones? anser. 330 million.
Who is saying to stop using hydrocarbones?
We are saying to stop burning them.
I too have to ask a question.
Why’s your command of written English so poor?
Why we shouldnt drink and post.
3 things i learned about posting. 1. dont post whilst drunk, 2. it is no fun posting unless you are drunk, 3. either way it does not matter.
You just feed them on a sunny pre-spring Day when they fly out to empty their bowels. Make sure your bee families are large when they go into winter. The larger size means less energy expenditure thus healthier spring bees
The 13 month running average is once again above the 1998 peak. Last month was the second warmest September on record. 2020 running ahead of 1998, likely to be the second warmest year on record.
Planet continues to warm.
It is sitting at +0.52C right now; just a hair short of the record of +0.53C set in 2016 with raging El Nino.
It is certainly possible. But I suspect the La Nina might have something to say about that.
M,
La Nina is a description. It says nothing. You might be hearing imaginary voices.
People who can’t cope with abstraction, including personification, generally lie on the spectrum.
M,
Cryptic imaginary voices, too! No wonder you seem confused and lost at times.
Still trying to figure out where on the spectrum you lie.
That comment of yours was a god indicator, but I need more info – say something else idiotic.
M,
A *god indicator*? Do you really worship me?
Thanks for the encomium, although I make no claim to being a god. Feel free to keep finding god indicators in my words.
The idiocy of someone who pretends not to know what a typo was meant to be.
Thanks for satisfying my request – you have just pushed yourself to the extreme end of the spectrum.
I know an autistic guy. He is a software engineer. He quit working at my company and started his own software engineering company employing only autistic engineers. They are booming. What is your point?
The point is his lack of ability to interact socially in an appropriate way, whether or not he has that as an excuse.
This actually is supposed to be a science blog.
So unclear why Swenson/Flynn comes here, when he has no interest in science.
Maybe he is just here to tell us that he has no interest in science.
Ok, think we got it. Now he can go away.
Indeed.
So why are none of the alarmists able to produce that most basic item of science?
Why is a testable GHE hypothesis conspicuous by its absence?
And right there is the reason for the alarmists diversionary tactics. Anything to avoid actually accepting the scientific method! Cargo cult science, as Richard Feynman. Assertion after assertion. No testable hypothesis. No theory. Nothing.
Nate
It looks like he has given up pretending he is not Mike Flynn. He is not even trying any more to avoid using his phrases.
Yep, bad at science, bad at fraud.
Two deluded nutters, overlooking the obvious. Not as bad as Michael Mann believing he won a Nobe Prize, or Gavin Schmidt believing he was a scientist! But close.
The whole deluded group believe that CO2 somehow makes thermometers hotter, but hide their testable hypothesis because scientists might want to check it! Ho ho!
Carry on, nutters. Try another diversion.
Perhaps one day Mikey you’ll get some variety in your comments which will make it harder to determine that you are he and he is you.
Des, please stop trolling.
M,
Who is Mikey? One of your imaginary opponents? Is he like Warnie?
You a delusional, but you have to create a diversion to avoid the fact that you have no science, just a mindless strong of assertions. Nobody else cares about your fantasies. One non-existent person is as influential as another non-existent person, I suppose.
Others may prefer to notice that you cant even define the GHE in any useful way!
Carry on fantasising.
“Who is Mikey?”
Bad at accepting reality. Not sure what he is actually good at, other than trolling.
“Why is a testable GHE hypothesis conspicuous by its absence?”
As Im sure the cop told you when u ran thru the red light, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’
Ignorant of the easily accessible facts?? Not our problem, Mike.
An Australian would know Warnie – Mikey was Australian.
Is there any more reason to care if Swenson used to comment as Mike Flynn than there is to care that you used to comment as Bob, Des, Bond, and Bobdesbond? Mike Flynn isn’t banned, after all – the name posts OK. Seems like a bit of a pointless and hypocritical obsession, Des.
Nate,
There is no testable GHE hypothesis, is there? There isnt even a description of the GHE scientific enough to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. You are living in fantasy land!
No reason to care at all. The point is only that he chooses to deny it, out of some kind of shame.
Swenson says:
Funny, Mike Flynn asked that exact question 247 times.
Wikipedia says:
“The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Here’s the principle with some random numbers:
| N | Dwn | In_ | Up_ | Note
|——————————-
| 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | TOA
| 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | Mid
| 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | Surface
Notes:
1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
2) Each layer absorbs all incoming radiation.
3) Each layer emits what it receives, i.e. stable temperatures.
4) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
5) Without layer 2+3, layer 0 would emit 160 W/m^2 directly to space.
6) That corresponds to a lower temperature than that which emits 480 W/m^2.
So how are the temperatures of each layer fixed?
By the fact that each layer has equal input and output.
Remember that any surplus or deficit means temperature change.
It’s just that you said there is “heat flow up through each layer”, but also that the layers have “stable temperatures”. Heat flows down a thermal gradient, and acts to reduce that gradient to zero wherever possible (there are obvious exceptions where this is not possible). So I was wondering what stops the warmer lower layers from warming the layers above them? Especially as you say heat is flowing that way. Presumably there is no means by which the temperatures are actually fixed, as in “artificially maintained at the same amount”. So your conception of the GHE appears to suffer from a pretty fundamental contradiction.
It seems like you have an input of 160 W/m^2 turning itself into 480 W/m^2 by magic.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“So I was wondering what stops the warmer lower layers from warming the layers above them?”
All layers gain and lose the same amount, as you can see.
For example, layer 1 gets 480 from below, and 160 from above, total input 640 W. It radiates in all directions, 320 up and 320 down. Heat is net energy, so the heat loss is 160 W up, and heat gain is 160 W from below. Net zero means stable temperature.
“For example, layer 1 gets 480 from below, and 160 from above, total input 640 W.”
…and how is layer 0 producing 480, in order to provide layer 1 with 480 W!? Why, because it gets 320 from layer 1, and 160 from the sun.
(Svante won’t see the problem with that).
Yeah, the sfc gets 160 W/m^2 in other frequency bands.
Svante your model is a model of non-colliding separated layers. It has no reality in the atmosphere. One might be able to build such a device and either operate it in outerspace or pump all the gases out from between layers to manufacture high R value insulation, but that has zero relevance to our atmosphere because energy exchange from collision of molecules far exceeds energy exchange by radiation in a gas.
You see this is why Nate calls this the grade-school model but as a grade-school model is misinforming our kids. But that’s the goal right?
Svante didn’t see the problem. No surprises there.
Another problem is that the division into three layers is arbitrary. You could divide the atmosphere up into a potentially near-infinite number of layers, and then by applying the same logic and the same initial 160 W input the surface layer ends up ridiculously high in temperature.
You both misunderstand.
It’s not a model of the atmosphere.
It shows how simple symmetric absorbs and emission creates a greenhouse effect.
NOTE: the atmosphere is not exactly like a greenhouse either.
I didn’t describe it as a model of anything, Svante. My criticisms still stand.
Yes, the division in three layers is arbitrary.
In reality it is different for different frequencies.
In reality the atmospheric window has zero layers.
The real atmosphere corresponds to less than one layer.
In fact it has no distinct layers at all.
You need a Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model to calculate it well.
Can you understand the principle I described?
Of course, that’s how I know it’s wrong.
For comparison, here is the situation without GHGs:
| N | Dwn | In | Up | Note
| 0 | 000 | 160 | 160 | Surface
As you understand, 160 W/m^2 corresponds to a lower temperature than the 480 W/m^2 (hypothetical) GHG example.
The numbers are random of course, I’m just illustrating the principle.
‘Presumably there is no means by which the temperatures are actually fixed, as in ‘artificially maintained at the same amount’. So your conception of the GHE appears to suffer from a pretty fundamental contradiction.’
Oh no, not that rot again!
There seems to be no hope that DREMT will ever comprehend heat transfer basics.
DREMT just cannot wrap his brain around this ordinary everyday occurrence, when a heated system reaches a steady-state with a steady heat flow and a steady gradient in temperature.
Svante, I already explained why you are wrong.
Sure you did, but as usual with the Dunning Kruger afflicted, you have way overestimated your understanding of the issue.
“but as a grade-school model is misinforming our kids.”
The problem here is adults who are misinformed and are acting like kids.
Nate says:
There seems to be no hope that DREMT will ever comprehend heat transfer basics.
DREMT just cannot wrap his brain around this ordinary everyday occurrence, when a heated system reaches a steady-state with a steady heat flow and a steady gradient in temperature.
=====================================
Nate there is no steady heat transfer gradient in the atmosphere. You are just imagining there is one.
Most of the heat in the atmosphere transfers by an unevenly distributed water in the atmosphere and it does so with the bulk of the heat in the atmosphere being delivered via the higher heat capacity of water combined with latent heat. Anybody trying to stress a steady gradient to that needs their head examined. Radiation is a minor player in that symphony.
You are just parroting the hypothesis you sent that duplicate historic climate.
bill hunter says:
“Radiation is a minor player in that symphony.”
It’s a major player as you get nearer the top.
If you understood my simple explanation, here’s more:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/joc.1803
Indeed Svante. And if you ever had the pleasure of flying propeller passenger aircraft to any extent you would quickly learn that near the top is the most turbulent zone in the atmosphere. Jets are much better as they fly mostly in the stratosphere.
Nate says:
but as a grade-school model is misinforming our kids.
The problem here is adults who are misinformed and are acting like kids.
Svante says:
You both misunderstand.
Its not a model of the atmosphere.
=====================================
Love the way you guys are scrambling like cockroaches when the light gets turned on.
OK this concept is as dead as a maggot-ridden corpse.
“Nate there is no steady heat transfer gradient in the atmosphere. You are just imagining there is one.”
For the 47th time, Bill claims I said something I didnt say.
He just cannot bring himself to honestly debate the things that people actually say.
I was claiming that steady state gradients are a common phenomenon. The atmosphere has gradients which vary over time with weather. Overall it has a rel steady average gradient.
You guys just cant appreciate the big picture, and you focus on the rust on the hub caps.
The point is that the simple models were never intended to capture every detail of the atmosphere, with its weather and overall general circulation.
They are only intended to explain one aspect, the basic mechanism of the GHE.
No point to complain that they fail to do what they were never intended to do.
Bill, note that what I actually said was:
"Heat flows down a thermal gradient, and acts to reduce that gradient to zero wherever possible (there are obvious exceptions where this is not possible)."
By acknowledging that there are "obvious exceptions where this is not possible", I clearly accept that there are everyday situations where you have steady temperature gradients and steady heat flow. Nate always deliberately misrepresents others, which is one of the reasons why I no longer bother responding to him.
Nate says:
October 5, 2020 at 8:34 AM
“Nate there is no steady heat transfer gradient in the atmosphere. You are just imagining there is one.”
For the 47th time, Bill claims I said something I didnt say.
He just cannot bring himself to honestly debate the things that people actually say.
I was claiming that steady state gradients are a common phenomenon. The atmosphere has gradients which vary over time with weather. Overall it has a rel steady average gradient.
You guys just cant appreciate the big picture, and you focus on the rust on the hub caps.
======================================
Well maybe Nate you should read the reference you sent to support your claim that the the greenhouse effect physics had been tested. And here it appears you are both denying you said it and claiming some kind of mean steady state at the very same time.
Typical warmist double speak!!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
By acknowledging that there are “obvious exceptions where this is not possible”, I clearly accept that there are everyday situations where you have steady temperature gradients and steady heat flow. Nate always deliberately misrepresents others, which is one of the reasons why I no longer bother responding to him.
====================
My take on the topic is that the paper submitted by Nate from the 1960’s by Manabe and Wetherald assumes a rigid lapse rate mean value of some sort in the troposphere as a whole in order for a hypothesized forcing at TOA to reach back to the surface.
My take on that is if true a boiling pot of water would merely steam rapidly rather than boil. Treating a gas or a liquid for that matter like rigid insulation is the controversy in the current viewpoint of the atmosphere acting like a blanket.
Thus simply positing that while it isn’t rigid it is rigid in the mean sense seems a bridge too far with the current state of science.
Certainly I would love to be illuminated on the topic further but Nate appears way too ignorant of the facts to accomplish that. I certainly don’t expect it come from another skeptic on the basis that its not possible to disprove or dispute a theory not clearly stated.
Nate says:
The point is that the simple models were never intended to capture every detail of the atmosphere, with its weather and overall general circulation.
They are only intended to explain one aspect, the basic mechanism of the GHE.
No point to complain that they fail to do what they were never intended to do.
===========================================
You are actually correct there Nate. But it raises the question why you believe it then. Even M&W in the study you sent in support specified that the steady lapse rate gradient was an ”assumption”.
Which of course leaves us without any proven theory of how CO2 controls the climate.
Yes, the GHE depends on the lapse rate, which is determined by convection mostly.
bill hunter says:
“if you ever had the pleasure of flying propeller passenger aircraft to any extent you would quickly learn that near the top is the most turbulent zone in the atmosphere.”
I flew gliders and the turbulence often disappeared a few hundred meters above the surface.
“Even M&W in the study you sent in support specified that the steady lapse rate gradient was an ‘assumption’.”
Yes sure. Which was an adequate model to understand why the lapse rate has the average value it does.
“Which of course leaves us without any proven theory of how CO2 controls the climate.”
No. Strawman. MW not intended to do all that. The global circulation models go way beyond MW and see AGW in action.
Nate i thought you were giving me the basic function study I asked for. no problemo simply supply the proof i asked for and stop stonewalling
Ask Gordon about the ideal gas law.
One thing for sure Svante you have no answers. Waiting on Nate but it appears he is as clueless as yourself.
Answers about the lapse rate feedback?
don’t feel too bad Svante. I am getting crickets from Tim Folkerts on the same issue. Swanson also jumped in, but what’s clear is nobody seems to know.
“Nate i thought you were giving me the basic function study I asked for. no problemo simply supply the proof i asked for and stop stonewalling”
Uhh, MW 1967 does exactly as I advertised, it shows that convection IS included in the models of the GHE from the getgo, which addressed your questions and coplaints.
Now you want to morph the question into something else, and whine that I didnt answer that…go play in traffic.
The internet is useful tool if you are not a lazy SOB. I gave you a good starting point if you truly want to learn.
Here: tinyurl.com/y*x*b*l*7
Remove the stars.
Difficult link:
https://tinyurl.com/y6qfr73k
Search:
“4.2.1 Water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks” site:.be
It’s pretty obvious he doesn’t want to learn Nate.
Svante says:
Its pretty obvious he doesnt want to learn Nate.
===================================
audit time is expensive. I am not going to search for whats not there. Its up to the proponents of a theory to provide evidence of its truth. In the audit game you try to ask folks that either claim to know or should know. If they don’t have an answer its time to figure out how much more you are going to charge them to come up with a solution.
So if you guys want to pony up on that, the order desk is open.
but I figure the two of you are just frauds claiming to know and either too stupid due to the Dunning Kruger effect or you are running a con. Because if its not a con then you definitely would like to let me know. . . .basic human nature.
so I have moved on from you two morons and am waiting a response from the professor. So far crickets! Gotta wonder about him too maybe.
If you were interested in the answers you wouldn’t respond with Gish gallops.
“For example, layer 1 gets 480 from below, and 160 from above, total input 640 W.”
…and how is layer 0 producing 480, in order to provide layer 1 with 480 W!? Why, because it gets 320 from layer 1, and 160 from the sun.
This is perpetuum mobile, Svante.
Exactly out there in the world parroting grade school climate models as if the technology actually ever even once worked like that in a gas. You might even ask why anybody believes that for even one tenth of a second. And the answer is because the atmosphere has a lapse rate. It doesn’t have anything at all to do with forcing anything.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Please note that each layer produces net zero power.
Not a very good perpetuum mobile.
160 W/m^2 is transformed into 480 W/m^2! I think it’s pretty good. You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself.
Yeah, net zero everywhere.
Temperatures will fall if you take any energy out of the system.
Svante isn’t concerned by the physical impossibility of the concept he’s proposed. Good for him.
It’s a bit like a greenhouse isn’t it?
N.B. It is not exactly like a greenhouse in every respect.
No, it is nothing like a greenhouse.
Except a greenhouse gets warmer when you close the top windows.
Without adding more input energy.
Funny that.
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“Its up to the proponents of a theory to provide evidence of its truth.”
Bill is becoming a full time troll after training with Swenson.
The idea is to pretend no AGW model is out there.
The theory and its evidence are published for all to see.
Bill just participated in bashing a physics today review of it, without bothering to read it.
How bout this: find and read a review of the theory, and THEN tell us what specifically you think they have done wrong and why.
“and how is layer 0 producing 480, in order to provide layer 1 with 480 W!? Why, because it gets 320 from layer 1, and 160 from the sun.
This is perpetuum mobile, Svante.”
When it comes to heat transfer, DREMT contnues his clueless ways.
1LOT says for any layer simply sum all inputs and outputs to findvout if the layer is warming or cooling or steady.
Where is the 1lot violation here? Nowhere.
#2
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
And the heat flow is 160 W/m^2 from bottom to TOA,
i.e. warm to cold so that’s OK with 2LOT.
#3
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.”
Perpetuum ignarus.
which highlights the failure to make a convincing argument, or any physics based argument.
the single layer greenhouse doesn’t do anything so Nate is trying to ram the ”grade-school greenhouse climate model” up everybody’s rearend. if one layer doesn’t work maybe all you need are a 1000 layers.
Very profound arguments there from DREMT and his team mate.
#4
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“if one layer doesnt work maybe all you need are a 1000 layers.”
Bill, I thought you read MW. I guess not. You are regressing.
This is why no one wants to be your research assistant. Things are shown to you, explained to you, you seem to get it, then you revert back to gobbledegook.
Let me just congratulate Perpetuum Ignoramus in advance for ‘winning’ the last word game.
But still looking for a cogent argument from the TEAM.
#5
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
How old are you?
Old enough to know that the only way to deal with people like you is through endless repetition. You don’t respond to logic or reason. You are simply here to defend your religion.
Svante, your layer 1 has an input that comes from your layer 0. Where does the energy come from for this output from layer 0? Largely, from layer 1! Most people will be able to see through this, especially when I spell it out for them like that. I don’t need you to admit you are wrong, I know you never will. So, repetition is the best course of action.
You will respond with some other nonsense. I will go back to the numbered, repeated responses.
You are basically saying insulation can work.
Does it help you if I add a column for heat?
Please say which numbers you think each cell should have.
| N | Dwn | In | Up | Heat | Note |
| 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | 160 | TOA |
| 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | 160 | |
| 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | 160 | Surface |
Notes:
1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
2) Each layer N absorbs all incoming radiation.
3) Each layer emits what it receives, i.e. stable temperatures.
4) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
5) Without layer 2+3, layer 0 would emit 160 W/m^2 to space.
6) That corresponds to a lower temperature than that which emits 480 W/m^2.
7) No energy is destroyed (1LOT).
8) Heat moves from hot to cold (2LOT).
#6
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“Old enough to know that the only way to deal with people like you is through endless repetition. You dont respond to logic or reason.”
Where was that logic you speak of?
All I saw was a DECLARATION, that Svantes layers are perpetual motion machines, ie creating energy from nothing.
But this is completely unsupported. Where is your evidence of a first law violation?? All inputs and outputs obey laws of physics. They are from the solar input or from SB radiation.
Lacking logic or evidence, your claim is FALSE.
‘Endless repetition’ of a poor argument is still a poor argument.
You just look like a fool.
#7
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Which numbers you think each cell should have?
| N | Dwn | In | Up | Heat | Note |
| 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | 160 | TOA |
| 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | 160 | Mid |
| 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | 160 | Surface |
Notes:
1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
2) Each layer N absorbs all incoming radiation.
3) Each layer emits what it receives, i.e. stable temperatures.
4) Emission is in all directions, fifty-fifty up/down.
5) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
6) No energy is destroyed (1LOT).
7) Heat moves from hot to cold (2LOT).
#8
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Nate says:
October 8, 2020 at 7:29 AM
“if one layer doesnt work maybe all you need are a 1000 layers.”
Bill, I thought you read MW. I guess not. You are regressing.
This is why no one wants to be your research assistant. Things are shown to you, explained to you, you seem to get it, then you revert back to gobbledegook.
===============================
No problem Nate. I am in here to learn.
It is obvious to me that politics is playing far too big of a role at his point in time. It is being divisive rather than inclusive. The very concept of academic freedom is a license to be a weirdo. Its important in academic circles to NOT adopt the ‘party line’. I doubt that climate science currently further astray from that standard than anytime in US history anyway.
You are obviously incapable of even understanding what you have passed along as you avoid discussion of it like the plague. That’s fine I recognize your political obstinance, combative attitude, and lack of desire to discuss squishy issues.
So indeed don’t be my research assistant and also please don’t respond to my posts. I will try to avoid responding to yours as well.
bill,
The physics is more solid than ever, it’s the Republicans that have gone astray (except the Republican party in California, right?).
Climate science was not a political issue a couple of decades ago, and it’s only a major problem in the US, Australia, Brasil, Indonesia and Arabia.
thats just wishful political thinking on your part Svante. What you have in evidence is continued warming and a major 5 year ENSO event as an explanation for it.
However, thats been an injection of hope into the warmist community. But what has been happening as science advances has been a relentless increase in knowledge of natural variation that accounts for a goodly portion of the longer term warming.
Further in the category of convincing educated minds no significant inroads have been had on turning experts around on the matter. We can expect the numbers to remain highly in favor of the warmest point of view for really no other reason that its warmism that speaks to a bright future for people in the field, especially the younger ones. . . .and as a model for attracting new talent into the field. But those kinds of numbers mean absolutely nothing one way or the other. They vary based upon stuff that has nothing to do with the actual science surrounding climate change.
The vast majority of publishing climate scientists say you’re wrong.
And an increasing number of voters:
https://tinyurl.com/y3rfqens
PS Which ENSO index has been positive for 5 years???
Svante says:
PS Which ENSO index has been positive for 5 years???
============================================
The index doesn’t need to remain positive for the entire 5 years and I don’t think it ever has. But NWS talks about such phases where El Nino dominates. And the domination of El Ninos is known to be associated with the warm phase of the PDO.
Look at 1982-1987 for example. Similar to what we are going through now.
Also the 1930’s and 40’s were likely an extended El Nino dominate period. . . .with more evidence of that provided by climate models not otherwise being able to duplicate that. You have to know what causes it to duplicate it.
Further that period casts doubt on most of the recent warming as it could be just another reoccurance of that either in whole or major part.
You guys basically reject that by belonging to a religious sect that doesn’t recognize itself as being one. If so time will tell.
Here’s the trend in natural variability:
https://tinyurl.com/y7c37cyh
V – Volcano
SO – Southern Ocean.
LN – La Niña
Fig. 6.
https://tinyurl.com/y2u6b9b3
Yep, most of the modern warming could be ENSO related.
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fncomms1297/MediaObjects/41467_2011_Article_BFncomms1297_Fig2_HTML.jpg?as=webp
Bill, you guys blaming the scientific facts and conclusions on politics is a copout.
It is an admission that you cannot judge the science on its merits, because you do not have the chops to do so.
So you take the easy way out. It’s wrong because of politics.
To see the evidence against this, look no further than the classic papers and reports on the GHE and AGW from before it became politicized.
Arrhenius 1896
Callendar 1938.
Suess and Revelle 1959
Manabe and Wetherald 1967
Keeling, 1976
Charney Report 1979
Hansen 1981
These papers establish the theory behind AGW, and make the predictions of future warming, that indeed happened.
You can learn a lot from these papers, with out fear that they have been politicized.
All any of those papers do Nate is state a theory based upon assumptions about how the climate works. Revelle in particular emphasized that it was premature to conclude anything. He held the theory but as a respectable scientist he knew his theory needed confirmation.
The Charney report, FYI, was headed by Charney, who was chiefly responsible for developing numerical weather prediction. The report’s predictions have held up well.
Nice ENSO image there bill.
So global temperature levelled off in 1980, and then went down?
“Revelle in particular emphasized that it was premature to conclude anything.”
Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
The same article you are referring to stated: “there is every expectation that scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade”
And that did happen. The predicted warming and other fingerprints of AGW indeed appeared, and continued to develop over the decade, and two more decades after his death.
So nice try, but another big red herring.
Do you guys have anything that’s not a strawman or a red herring?
Nate says:
Revelle in particular emphasized that it was premature to conclude anything.
Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
The same article you are referring to stated: there is every expectation that scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade
===============================
Thats a refreshing viewpoint compared to the claims he had been conned. Just that I notice nothing on your list above is dated later than 1981 and even the IPCC concludes that observations have not tracked the the path of the model mean by 50%.
========================
========================
Nate says:
And that did happen. The predicted warming and other fingerprints of AGW indeed appeared, and continued to develop over the decade, and two more decades after his death.
=====================================
What actually happened is the Santer fingerprint study tracked a 17 year period of warming acceleration that died almost on the day he published.
An update would be spinning on its head and quashing a whole lot of political propaganda in favor of immediate action. . . .so it hasn’t been updated. Not to talk about the backlash that would unleash and how that would harm the democrat science constituency in its never ending quest for more fuel to power their progress.
And Lonnie Thompson hasn’t updated is prediction about Qori Kalis either from the day that glacier stopped melting. Before that we were regaled with annual updates.
Mark Serreze hasn’t updated his predictions about the arctic.
James Hansen hasn’t been doing anything but walking back his prediction about the West side highway being submerged about this time.
Arrhenius is long dead.
Revelle never made a prediction,
Keeling only talked about CO2 increasing in the atmosphere,
The Charney Commission morphed into the IPCC (report above),
Callendar is long dead and made a lowend of the range prediction below the action window,
and carbon credit investors are screaming for relief.
======================
======================
Nate says:
So nice try, but another big red herring.
Do you guys have anything thats not a strawman or a red herring?
=========================================
So what does the above leave? Oh yes a 1967 paper on essentially system feedbacks.
My professional opinion on that is likely the high bidders were either pessimists or felt a great need to clearly separate themselves from what climate has been seen to do in recent global history naturally without a need for emissions.
And politicians whose constituencies are screaming for moola, aren’t apt to do a better job sending that by conceding even to the level estimated by M&W, or even lower to get to Callendar, or even lower than that to embrace actual observations.
Well Bill,
My response with the list of earlier works was responding to you blaming politics for AGW science.
Now right on que, you will move the goal posts, and claim many of these people are dead and yada yada.
Yes. That happens, people die. But their science lives on. And was proven prescient. Even if you deny it.
The Charney report was not connected to the IPCC.
Charney was a pioneer of weather and climate modeling. He and the other authors of the report knew what they were talking about. None of today’s politicization was involved.
Nate my only comment is you have not made a science case that the warming we have seen is caused by CO2. If the science was uncertain 1991 what happened to change that? The climate sort of warmed for 3 decades?
#9
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
” If the science was uncertain 1991 what happened to change that? ”
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.
So lets see, the 1981 Hansen paper predicted the warming would rise up out of the climate noise of the previous century
In 1990, the global temperature had slightly and briefly exceeded the climate noise of previous century as you can see in red curve.
Revelle would have been correctly cautious in interpreting this.
But you can see in the Green curve, by today, the upward trend was way out of the noise of the previous century. And Revelle would have been impressed by the accuracy of the predicted magnitude of the warming in eg the Hansen 1981 paper, and by the arctic amplification, sea ice decline, and W. Antarctica warming that were all predicted.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1990/mean:24/plot/gistemp/from:1989/to/mean:24
He would have said the models need to improve, but the AGW effect has largely agreed with predictions, because ultimately he was a scientist not a denier.
Nate says:
October 11, 2020 at 6:02 AM
If the science was uncertain 1991 what happened to change that?
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.
=============================
Even if that were true Nate, and you claim to be a scientist, statistical certainty doesn’t arise unless you can change the controlling variable and get a reaction from the system. An essentially linear or logarithmic rise in a variable compared to a similar but not exact rise in the result doesn’t increase certainty.
Dr. Richard Lindzen gets that but obviously everybody on a payroll surrounding the modeling exercise including all the extra dollars to analyze mitigation and avoidance strategies is definitely not going let that absorb into the their skull.
And some people are stupid to talk about in public. LMAO!
Once again correlation is not causation. Thats just another form of fallacy exactly like curve fitting. . . .call it straightline fitting rather than curve fitting.
The only reason nobody is listening to Lindzen is they don’t have another option. And politics isn’t going to let it die. The most important paradigm in politics is ”never waste a crisis”
“statistical certainty doesn’t arise unless you can change the controlling variable and get a reaction from the system. An essentially linear or logarithmic rise in a variable compared to a similar but not exact rise in the result doesn’t increase certainty.”
With that viewpoint, Bill, there can never be an adequate test of the theory, since we don’t have alternative Earths.
But that means all observational sciences, like Astronomy, or Geology, or Zoology are not science?
But clearly they are.
With Climate Science, we don’t have a control Earth. But we have models that can include all known natural forcings, and have added anthro carbon or don’t.
For the past century we can see that the natural forcings alone are not sufficient. We can test models against past history and make predictions, as Hansen’s 1981 model did, and then see how they performed.
This modeling, together with continued observation, is the best we can do. And we have to base our choices on that.
Just as if there were an asteroid headed our way in 25 y. What choice would we have other than to use known physics and computer models to predict what will happen, to make decisions about what to do.
Lindzen didn’t make any proper predictions.
This is based on what he has said.
https://tinyurl.com/y4jen75w
Nate says:
With that viewpoint, Bill, there can never be an adequate test of the theory, since we don’t have alternative Earths.
======================
LMAO! You have no vision Nate. Thats probably your whole problem in this topic!
Of course we have ways of testing the theory. You don’t need duplicates of the earth to do it.
I sense there is a lab experiment that can do it. Not a cheap one though more like the Cern experiment. But I don’t think you have to build a whole Cern site. I imagine with a little ingenuity it could be done in an artificial environment.
But thats certainly not the only option. We have a few planets in our solar system. I would start there. hmmm, I think some folks have already been going off in those directions.
======================
=====================
Nate says:
But that means all observational sciences, like Astronomy, or Geology, or Zoology are not science?
==========================
This is just your one track mind deceiving you yet again. There are lots of objects of all kinds in the universe, no shortage of statistic sampling except maybe to disprove the existence of a single creator which by definition would like proving CO2 drives climate because its correlated to the beautiful design of the world.
=========================
=========================
Nate says:
But clearly they are.
With Climate Science, we don’t have a control Earth. But we have models that can include all known natural forcings, and have added anthro carbon or don’t.
==========================
That all depends on the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam
======================
======================
Nate says:
Just as if there were an asteroid headed our way in 25 y. What choice would we have other than to use known physics and computer models to predict what will happen, to make decisions about what to do.
=======================
Hmmm, I think we have tested all those theories Nate in the lab. Computers are used then to quickly do the calculations we already know how to do.
I know how it works because I work in an environment with uncertain variables but some clearly known facts. Each new project is the first try. Action is taken and usually within a few years we know if we have a correlatable response. Its like actually stopping or slowing the emissions to see the effect.
So in essence we are running an experiment. It gets pretty controversial though when you want to run an experiment on the entirety of humanity. Kind of sounds like a lamarckian Soviet five year plan or a German-wide experiment in Francis Galton eugenics. Hmmm, Francis Galton may have been one of the world’s first climate scientists.
bill hunter says: “Its like actually stopping or slowing the emissions to see the effect.”.
It happens every year with the seasons. Feldman et. al measured the varying back radiation. The idea that it’s not thermalized at the surface is simply preposterous.
Svante says:
bill hunter says: “Its like actually stopping or slowing the emissions to see the effect.”.
It happens every year with the seasons. Feldman et. al measured the varying back radiation. The idea that it’s not thermalized at the surface is simply preposterous.
======================================
Thats just an emotional outburst Svante. Doesn’t even approach being scientific evidence that it does.
Further the seasonal test isn’t one of emissions. Its a test of orbital variation and a change in primary hemisphere exposed to the sun. Thats one of the reason even seasonal weather is disqualified from being called climate.
“I sense there is a lab experiment that can do it. Not a cheap one though more like the Cern experiment.”
Yes, good idea, but those have been already done starting 150 y ago with IR properties of CO2. And then in the atmosphere, as discussed in Arrhenius 1896.
“But thats certainly not the only option. We have a few planets in our solar system. I would start there. ”
Yep another good idea that’s been done, as described by eg Hansen who started with Venus and Mars.
You are full of good ways of testing things in the lab, but other people had these ideas long ago too, and even done them!
As far as better quantifying feedbacks in the Earth system, computer modeling and testing with observations is the way to go.
But getting a better understanding of the feedbacks is not going to make AGW go away.
Even Lindzen knows that.
Well with especially the stuff that Svante has been posting today about AGW backdating to God knows when, who would want to get rid of AGW?
Don’t be shy about actually making a case for the idea that CO2 is the responsible party for the greenhouse effect.
A nice study of a multiple planet correlation would certainly help convince folks. If such a beast exists I would like to read it.
A computer model one could run on a PC that one could drop real parameters in like how to turn the moon into a motorized indy car site in a farm belt, with the resultant CO2 emissions feeding farm plants in the infield could be inspiring for a whole new generation of space explorers. Heck they could kill several birds with one stone. race their butts off, feed plants, plants produce oxygen, oxygen and the fruits of the plants support more race car drivers. . . .the only limits are ones imagination. . . .and just think doing that would divert fossil fuels to the moon, raise the price of the fossil fuels, reduce use on earth and everybody would be happy without having to dream up some way to punish people.
With all the billions we pour into this one would like to think that something positive would result.
Artificially created greenhouse effects on the various planets would be so cool! Gee it would open the window maybe to imagining turning the red planet into a giant farm and converting it to the green planet. Heck would even be a kick and great training vehicle for kids that want to grow up and become arctic farmers.
Nate says:
”Yes, good idea, but those have been already done starting 150 y ago with IR properties of CO2. And then in the atmosphere, as discussed in Arrhenius 1896.”
No I wasn’t talking about a one planet mathematical model. I was talking about a scale model planet artificially created ala the Cern project that shows that cosmic rays may play an important role in climate.
Seems from a raw progress point of view the cosmic ray theory is out in front having actually produced evidence of the desired effect in an artificial environment.
The CO2 folks need to get their behinds in gear and catch up. Perhaps the model project is too challenging but there is always the space program as described above.
“No I wasn’t talking about a one planet mathematical model. I was talking about a scale model planet artificially created ala the Cern project that shows that cosmic rays may play an important role in climate.”
Well you were doing well with lab testing of IR properties of gases, etc, but now you have gone seriously off the rails.
You think a ‘scale model planet’ would be useful in understanding cloud feedbacks, albedo feedbacks, changes to circulation patterns, ocean dynamics on the real Earth?
Better than a computer models??
OK.
You believe size doesnt matter? You may want to quiz some lady friends about that.
Just one example may put this idea to rest. A few decades ago, computer models were finally able to reproduce the actual general circulation pattern of the Earth using first principles, with the various latitude bands and air flow patterns.
The Coriolis effect is just one effect for which ‘size matters’ a great deal. Eg contrary to popular belief, it doesnt happen in a toilet.
So no ‘scale model’ of the Earth will be able to reproduce the general circulation pattern, cloud or albedo feedbacks, etc anytime soon.
“N:’Just as if there were an asteroid headed our way in 25 y. What choice would we have other than to use known physics and computer models to predict what will happen, to make decisions about what to do.’
=======================
B: Hmmm, I think we have tested all those theories Nate in the lab. Computers are used then to quickly do the calculations we already know how to do.”
Nope. We have not.
Im talking about if asteroids of 500 m, 1 km, 2 km, 5 km, hit the Earth, what will be the destructive effect on the Earth, and climate?
Will there be a catastrophic effect, like a nuclear winter that kills off most food production for decades?
Only computer modeling can tell us.
Well you were doing well with lab testing of IR properties of gases, etc, but now you have gone seriously off the rails.
You think a ‘scale model planet’ would be useful in understanding cloud feedbacks, albedo feedbacks, changes to circulation patterns, ocean dynamics on the real Earth?
=====================================
Seriously? Come on Nate you must be pretty ignorant about the role of modeling. When someone wants to do a model of gravity one doesn’t need a whole world to do it to model everything effected by gravity on the face of the earth.
I am talking about a greenhouse gas model that produces a hotter than source greenhouse effect using the first principles used in the climate models. You don’t need clouds and oceans or circulation patterns to do that. I am certainly not talking about producing a climate/weather model out of a modeling exercise just suggesting it might be a good idea to understand clearly the mechanics of a greenhouse gas effect.
We used to have scientists that actually did experiments. Did all those imaginative people just die off and science has turned into a virtual reality study where we can arm the cartoon participants with ray guns?
Hey, you could inject chlorine to cure Covid-19!
“I am talking about a greenhouse gas model that produces a hotter than source greenhouse effect using the first principles used in the climate models.”
The first principles, atmospheric physics, IR physics, have been well tested in the lab and in the atmosphere with balloons etc. The lapse rate has been measured and compared with models, like MW. We’ve told you several times about tests detecting the GHE in spectroscopy and in the W/^2 forcing directly in the atmosphere.
It seems like youve decided to ignore all that.
Your issues have previously been with the feedbacks, which as I said cannot be tested in a lab model.
Nate says:
Im talking about if asteroids of 500 m, 1 km, 2 km, 5 km, hit the Earth, what will be the destructive effect on the Earth, and climate?
Will there be a catastrophic effect, like a nuclear winter that kills off most food production for decades?
Only computer modeling can tell us.
================================
Boy are you ever naive. Have you ever had a real world job developing and testing computer models? Sure doesn’t sound like it. An asteroid? Yeah we probably have enough lab science to know what an asteroid up to X size will do as we have information on megaton bombs. A lot bigger than that and models aren’t going to help a hoot. One could pull out a bar napkin and lay out a straight up extrapolation if you understand the math for a tested bomb. If you want to lay it out geographically then obvious a GIS software package would be useful.
But what is the plan here for avoidance, map out all the impacts for every location on earth? What you need to know is how to stop the thing from hitting a vulnerable spot. Blow it up, change its path. No doubt a mission to do that would rely on computers. Plus every thing that goes into a model is known factual stuff that wasn’t learned by a computer but learned by people and translated into the computer.
Yes you can learn from computer modeling. Maybe after a few devastating asteroid hits we might actually be able to use a computer to figure out how to change our strategy.
Nate do you actually have a job as a physicist? Are you retired? Did you retire before the computer modeling age began?
“Yeah we probably have enough lab science to know what an asteroid up to X size will do as we have information on megaton bombs. ”
THats the whole point!
It should be obvious that the asteroid impacts we have to worry about are the ones much bigger than any bomb we have tested in the atmosphere!
” A lot bigger than that and models arent going to help a hoot.”
Well sorry but thats all we’ve got when it comes to asteroids that produce possibly global effects.
They can ONLY be modeled on a computer.
Thankfully we’ve learned from climate modeling and some data from past asteroid events.
Nate says:
The first principles, atmospheric physics, IR physics, have been well tested in the lab and in the atmosphere with balloons etc.
==============================
Maybe you should learn what they have learned Nate. You have it all wrong. Yes you can look up in the sky and measure a radiant field up there. But to understand what it is you actually have to work with it and do stuff with it and then measure the results. I am fairly convinced you don’t even understand how its currently believed to work and provide a forcing.
A hint is that yes the atmosphere MUST have an insulating value but it is not the kindergarten model.
You should perhaps take a hands on lab course in it to straighten out how you believe the greenhouse effect works.
================
===============
Nate says:
The lapse rate has been measured and compared with models, like MW. Weve told you several times about tests detecting the GHE in spectroscopy and in the W/^2 forcing directly in the atmosphere.
=============================
Get into a lab environment explore all that stuff and when you come out tell me what you found. Heck I am not even sure there is a lab course in it. . . .one sounds rather politically dangerous. Computer models need not apply. All computer models are are reflections of the ignorance of the programmer. Now computer models built on empirically verified effects are darned good. Computer models able to routinely fit a problem are good. Computer models of essentially linear warming in its first test run as are all the 1976 technology models keep failing and the operators keep denying why and figure it must be subregional cloud processes that are screwing them up. Listen carefully to the Sabine interview of Tim Palmer I believe Svante posted.
================
===============
Nate says:
It seems like youve decided to ignore all that.
===============================
Nope, I have said uncertainty still exists. Uncertainty that even the IPCC is not recognizing. Such is possible in worlds where all the funding decisions are made by the inculcated. Academic freedom is supposed to remedy that, but even academic freedom gets hijacked in the same manner general freedom does and for the exact same reasons. If that weren’t the case, I wouldn’t have a job quite frankly. My job for the last 33 years has been to investigate just that and tell my clients exactly what is going on and apprise them of what has solid support and where the soft spots are.
======================
======================
Nate says:
Your issues have previously been with the feedbacks, which as I said cannot be tested in a lab model.
=====================
It still is. Fact is politically speaking all anybody wants to recognize are positive feedbacks. Putting on the racehorse blinders and racing to the big prize at the end of the rainbow entails not getting dallied by blind alleys. People who go down blind alleys get mugged, delayed, and seldom finish first.
but I am a weird bird. I don’t care about fame and fortune. Alleys are my place of doing business and it actually is a far more interesting place than joining the rat race.
So yes it is about feedback. Here I am talking pre-surface thermalization feedback. Even incoming solar has to deal with it, its strange though how many morons believe IR doesn’t.
I will admit to a strong appeal to the idea but it seems like one hardly anybody is looking at in detail. They just buy automatically into the traffic jam idea of heat leaving the atmosphere. I will even go and concede its possible but with quite a few years of dealing with heat energy, experimenting with it, and building solutions for it. . . .there is probably a better way to explain it. After all the amount of heat being radiated from the top of the troposphere by CO2 is a pittance.
And speaking of traffic jams, the kindergarten model leaves out the carpool lanes.
And why when it comes to assigning a percentage of uncertainty regarding a process you can only include the uncertainty you acknowledge.
” But to understand what it is you actually have to work with it and do stuff with it and then measure the results. I am fairly convinced you don’t even understand how its currently believed to work and provide a forcing.
A hint is that yes the atmosphere MUST have an insulating value but it is not the kindergarten model.”
More yada yada they dont understand, you dont understand…
Lets be honest here. You dont understand the science well enough to critique it.
But you keep declaring that science doesnt understand, never mind me.
But this is total nonsense, since you have know idea what is understood and what is not. You only know what YOU don’t understand.
You don’t analyze, as we have asked you to do many times, the real papers, to tell us what they have done wrong.
You just exude ignorance, and this allows you to sling BS that is not based on the science, but instead based on your politcs and ideology.
This is clear from how often you insert politics as a substitute for answering our science questions.
Can you be honest about that?
And I had missed this, but right on cue you substitute politics for science answers.
“Your issues have previously been with the feedbacks, which as I said cannot be tested in a lab model.
=====================
It still is. Fact is politically speaking all anybody wants to recognize are positive feedbacks. ”
Might as well get a tattoo for your forehead,
“Science is Leftist, therefore it must be wrong”!
Nate says:
” But to understand what it is you actually have to work with it and do stuff with it and then measure the results. I am fairly convinced you don’t even understand how its currently believed to work and provide a forcing.
A hint is that yes the atmosphere MUST have an insulating value but it is not the kindergarten model.”
More yada yada they dont understand, you dont understand…
Lets be honest here. You dont understand the science well enough to critique it.
==================================================
Thats just a cover up for your inability to defend it. In fact, all of science isn’t defending it per se.
I agree it’s a thorny issue and let me tell you I have untangled a lot of thorny issues. Unable to produce forcing in a lab it’s assumed to suddenly arise at TOA not because of forcing but because of a lack of emission capability of CO2.
Now thats an instantaneous moment when the pea gets dropped under a different shell. The argument has been made and at the last second it turned on its head. I agree it’s puzzling. But at TOA there are already hardly any CO2 emissions to further block. The kindergarten model explains why.
But the kindergarten model as far as CO2 is concerned is near saturation, it’s a dead horse that for time immemorial hasn’t won a race. . . .always losing by a 100 lengths to a horse named Convection.
so a new argument just HAS to be formulated to explain climate change. Enter the multiple layer argument where the kindergarten model actually starts influencing the temperature of atmosphere layers when it is completely incapable of doing anywhere in the stratosphere. So it just has to be happening in the troposphere. Ignore its impotence and lets pretend it is going to create an extension of the height of the troposphere lapse rate which it must do to do its dirty work. Yet that is what the tropopause is it’s a place where troposphere height varies on a diurnal basis.
What you are seeing is a depiction of the mean troposphere height as it varies through various insolation and weather conditions. So imagining CO2 extending the troposphere seems to be something right out of the ‘Twilight Zone’. An atmosphere a place of amazing apparitions, where the imaginations of the Rod Serlings of the world can think up things to control the world.
And of course the answer given to that problem is the models have figured it out. So now you are in my bailiwick not yours. I can tell you just as Drs. Lindzen, Happer, Curry, Akasofu, Cristy, Spencer, and many others that just isn’t so.
Nate says:
Might as well get a tattoo for your forehead,
Science is Leftist, therefore it must be wrong!
===============================================
LMAO! ‘Science’ is as political as any other large group of people and their left or right leanings are for the same reasons as other groups of people.
Indeed there is leftist science and there is rightist science, or at least it’s claimed to be science. It’s more than highly questionable that that either of those sciences is really science when real science as once said of by Will Happer is something very easy to explain to an eager classroom of bright students.
The only thing political going on in this thread is your underhanded and false suggestion that science is of one mind on this topic.
And we know that scientists being mostly funded by government and we know government workers are one of the most politically-oriented groups in America. that has to do with a lot of reasons, not the least of which is being funded by tax dollars.
So left leaning science is a reality. It’s right in front of your face but you are a denier of that real science.
more on that later.
“And we know that scientists being mostly funded by government and we know government workers are one of the most politically-oriented groups in America. that has to”
This is you being ignorant about science and its funding, and substituting your political ideology, and conspiratorial thinking for facts and evidence..
Funding from the govt for science is apolitical. After all, the govt is us, not a party.
I recieved several govt grants to do science. The only requirements i
are that it be high quality, relevant and useful, and meet the standards of science. And a track record of accomplishment in the field of study is essential.
There you go denying science right off the top Nate.
Lots of good studies on the topic here is the first one that comes up in a google search. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/08/did-you-know-democrats-dominate-professorships/
I mean they could have been independents right?
I am not talking about blatant bias but the bias is exacted at every level including what you can get a grant for. I live in a world of grants much of my work has been supported by grants. As a grant applier it was well known for at least a decade that if you didn’t have global warming or climate change in your grant you weren’t likely to get funded. Just the terms themselves are politically charged and have nothing to do with relevant science issues that might or might not conclude global warming or climate change was occurring. Those are words invented by activists for the specific objective of moving the political needle. They operate on the assumption that climate is changing rather than varying as it always has. And you sit there red faced and claim otherwise. Shame on you.
Given that one party is the deny science party, which party are scientists likely to be members of?
German scientists were also less likely to be in the Nazi party, who decided that 20th century physics was ‘Jewish physics’.
Notice the similarity to todays Trumpists who think science is ‘leftist’.
Sorry, science is science, there is no ‘leftist’ science, at least not in the physical sciences.
And yet temperature is trending up along the bold black ln(CO2) line predicted by physics long ago:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
Are medical and biological sciences ‘leftist’?
I guess they must be since they tend to accept evolution, AIDS is caused by a virus, and hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.
ARE Physics and Astronomy leftist? I dont know what leftist physics is, so you tell me?
Chemistry?
Geology?
Archaeology?
Engineering?
Pls tell what you think is ‘leftist’ in these fields of science.
Nate says:
Are medical and biological sciences leftist?
======================
Sure they can. Are they often, yes. Is endemic? No.
What about the science of when a fetus become a human being? Do we have any science about that? Seems like a topic for biological sciences. And we see a lot of politics in biological sciences. Extinction of polar bears is one that comes to mind.
Uh impacts of climate change on wild populations of animals another.
These fields are absolutely ridden with politics where science really ceases being science and becomes advocacy where you put your preferred PhD up on the court dias; in a seat in Congress to testify; and in public dialogue.
You must have your head drilled deep deep deep in the sand to not have noticed that.
Nate says:
I guess they must be since they tend to accept evolution, AIDS is caused by a virus, and hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.
=========================
Is there any politics going on about evolution? I know there was back almost a century ago.
Is aids a virus? I have no idea I haven’t paid any attention to the topic. Haven’t seen any need to. been monogamous for uh 40 years.
hydroxychloroquine we know is not a cure for covid so I don’t know what you mean about effective against covid. What we do know about hydroxychloroquine is that it acts similar to a nutritional supplement and strengthens our bodies to be better prepared for Covid. It works for a rather wide range of ailments and even thousands of doctors swear by it as a way of building resistance to the disease even after contracting it. I took it in in 1965 as preparation for an assignment to Vietnam.
Looking around at 74 year old men who have taken it. . . .can’t find any reason to believe it doesn’t help.
==========================
===========================
Nate says:
ARE Physics and Astronomy leftist? I dont know what leftist physics is, so you tell me?
Chemistry?
Geology?
Archaeology?
Engineering?
Pls tell what you think is leftist in these fields of science.
======================
Well not sure but it does appear that if you were a middling scientist in one of those fields you might have rushed for opportunities in climate science that was experiencing an exponential increase in funding for quite a few years. If you were really good in your field you probably stayed put.
I know DREMT!
Bill please stop trolling! LMAO!
Yep, Bill, thanks for confirming that indeed you think science is often ‘leftist’ and that is how you judge it to be in error.
“What about the science of when a fetus become a human being? Do we have any science about that? Seems like a topic for biological sciences.”
If you think science can decide if an x weeks old fetus is not a ‘human’ but x+ 1 weeks fetus is a ‘human’, you must be really naive.
That is all about religion and belief, not science.
And really, evolution? In biology and medicine, evolution is long since proven science and essential to those fields.
Evolution has only ever been politicized by people from the religious right.
Nate I seriously doubt anybody would want to take any advice from you because you at the drop of the hat instantly conclude ”that indeed you think science is often ‘leftist’ and that is how you judge it to be in error.”
LOL! Don’t project on me how you think Nate. You say the models prove global warming. That is like saying because the models produce some warming it must be that CO2 is the cause.
Thats the kind of thinking I am rejecting Nate.
“You say the models prove global warming. That is like saying because the models produce some warming it must be that CO2 is the cause.”
I said Models made predictions. Then the observations over the next 4 decades agreed with predictions.
Quite different from your BS version of what I said.
Yet another strawman from our strawman specialist.
“Looking around at 74 year old men who have taken it. . . .cant find any reason to believe it doesnt help.”
Uhhh, not what was reported, he had several other treatments that had demostrable benefits.
IOW, he finally listened to the experts for a change. Should have been a good lesson for your ilk.
Nate says:
You say the models prove global warming. That is like saying because the models produce some warming it must be that CO2 is the cause.
I said Models made predictions. Then the observations over the next 4 decades agreed with predictions.
Quite different from your BS version of what I said.
===================================
Now you are lying. Since no breakthroughs in science has occurred since what was it 1971, you agreed that it was uncertain then but that certainty had arisen from the models since.
Thats always the deal with liars the truth eventually leaks out.
========================
=======================
Nate says:
Uhhh, not what was reported, he had several other treatments that had demostrable benefits.
============================
So does everybody else. Thousands of doctors are still prescribing the whole range of preventatives and therapies. As a result the death rate is deescalating quite a bit. Now even WHO admits the lockdowns had negative impacts.
The democrats were just focused on harming the economy, now thats a huge health impact, which of course leads to endless pictures of people suffering that might lose their health care if we stop charging the middle class for the cost of it.
“The democrats were just focused on”
We were talking about the facts of what the medical treatments were for DT. You were wrong about that.
And what he get from Bill is instant politicization, and its the Ds fault.
“I said Models made predictions. Then the observations over the next 4 decades agreed with predictions.
Quite different from your BS version of what I said.
===================================
Now you are lying. Since no breakthroughs in science has occurred since what was it 1971, you agreed that it was uncertain then but that certainty had arisen from the models since.”
False. You are nuts.
Im lying? Quote me directly and point out the part where:
“You say the models prove global warming. ”
You, as usual, are simply unable to honestly debate what I actually said, and cannot help but twist and misrepresent what I say, into something you can trash.
That is called a strawman argument. And your MO.
Nate says:
The democrats were just focused on harming the economy
We were talking about the facts of what the medical treatments were for DT. You were wrong about that.
=====================================
More Nate Lying- You said:
hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.
I said: that it was part of DT preparation and treatment for Covid. So what do you think you are? Some kind of magician? I said thousands of doctors continue to use hydroxychloroquine and DT got Covid and was symptomatic free in what like 3 or 4 days?
and he is in at least 2 vulnerable groups, overweight and over 70.
Democrats keep harping ”hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.” amd that taking hydroxychloroquine is not safe.
Why do they actually think they are doctors and they want to limit people’s choices and they would prefer people to die just in order to prevent DT from getting reelected?
We even have Svante chiming in: ”Hey, you could inject chlorine to cure Covid-19!”
============================
============================
Nate says:
Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.
===============================
You do realize that warming could be related to something else don’t you. Check with an expert Nate. Dr. Akasofu would be a good start. Check with a democrat and it can’t be anything but what they want it to be.
Nate says
”And what he get from Bill is instant politicization, and its the Ds fault.”
=========================
Well you have that right. Indeed it sure appears it was the democrats that turned you into a talking parrot.
Dr. Akasofu says:
“The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing.”
Warming is back on track and Akasofu is 89 years old, so it’s time to look elsewhere for a better answer.
“Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.”
Exactly. The observations, the data are what came after. They agreed with the prior predictions. The magnitude of the rise and the spatial pattern. Generally in science that is considered good evidence.
Not the last word.
So you still posted a dumbass strawmen.
Bill, take whatever patent medicine you want.
Hydroxy is good for your heart, take lots of it.
Funny that DT has stopped mentioning it now that he had covid and was not treated by experts with it.
I realize Svante and the warmists are ecstatic about the resumption of warming. But as your side reminded our side for 10 years plus weather anomalies can last 10 years or more. In fact what did Ben Santer say? A couple of decades? See ya in 2035! 2025 at a minimum.
No need to wait, we have 150 years of it:
https://tinyurl.com/y4ml8269
Svante says:
No need to wait, we have 150 years of it:
===================================
Yep! We took 500 years to plumb the depths of the LIA, we should take maybe as long to climb out of it.
Some hope that though it might not take as long if you look at ice core records recoveries from glacial periods take a lot less time than the plunge into the glacial takes. It would be good to have a hypothesis that produces that pattern, but alas we don’t.
The LIA is history, we are past the MWP:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Ice age hypothesis:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337
Probably not!
First we have no idea what the range of natural variability is.
Second, proxy data varies quite a bit, one can cherry pick a resource and come up with one number and cherry pick another and come up with another.
Ice core noise suggests that 3 degrees isn’t out of range.
Its been a good deal less than 3 degrees in the current climb out of the LIA.
A lot of uncertainty in all this. If one wants a vote to decide, we should the people should be the ones voting.
You can not rely on single proxy data locations, or even a single proxy.
Use all of them to get the best estimate, as in the link I provided.
Let the scientists vote, it will be a 97% land slide.
Svante says:
You can not rely on single proxy data locations, or even a single proxy.
Use all of them to get the best estimate, as in the link I provided.
Let the scientists vote, it will be a 97% land slide.
==============================
Svante you are such a science illiterate its not even funny. Took me about 2 minutes to figure out what you said above is false.
This data base maybe as you say it is up to sometime between 500ad and 1500ad, showing the MWP as cooler than the holocene maximum. I haven’t seen much disagreement on that proposition.
Where the controversy jumps into this study is then the 500-1500 mean was matched to Michael Mann’s hockey stick in the 2kpages recreation of it with Mann as an author.
Here is the defining statement in the methods section:
”The composites were registered to the temperature scale (left-side x-axis) by aligning the 500 to 1500 CE mean of the composite with the mean of the global temperature reconstruction from the same interval in the PAGES 2k Consortium571 multi-method median reconstruction. The variance of the Holocene temperature composites (all based on records in units of °C) were not scaled.”
Check out Figure 8 how they spliced this to the temperature record. The bulk of the proxies end about a thousand years ago. The one proxy comprising 43 records extends to about 250 years ago and shows the LIA to be hotter than the MWP. Then Michael Mann takes over from there and we all already know about that.
Fooled again eh Svante? All it amounts to is a samo samo Michael Mann hockey stick and of the numbers you they tossing around doesn’t even touch much less change a hair of that.
Where are you quoting from?
#10
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Too late, he already answered below.
#11
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked.”
Seems like Ive heard this somewhere before. Deja vu all over again?
But I still can’t for the life of me see where it was debunked and what was debunked. Seems nobody does.
But it does seem clear that DREMPTY has won the last word game…10 times or so! Cujos to him.
#12
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first. ”
Nope. So if I post a random made up number, I could demand that you chase down the real one??
The wet dreams of a troll..and nice try at evasion.
#13
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Nate says:
Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first.
Nope. So if I post a random made up number, I could demand that you chase down the real one??
The wet dreams of a troll..and nice try at evasion.
====================================
No evasion at all I told you straight up it was a source that I didn’t have verification of. It may well be in the documentation of Had-crut 3 or it was in the ruminifications by James Hansen, who happens to be a scientist I do like because he is straight up and open about what he is sure of and what he isn’t.
Actually a humble man even though he strongly believes in the Arrhenius theory.
So fine you don’t know. And I don’t feel any need to educate you further.
Fact is the only thing that matters about that inaccuracy is UHI and other anthropogenic changes and not how much there is of it in the record, which is quite considerable, but what matters is how much its changing. Obviously mountain terrain isn’t changing much and oceans despite predictions aren’t washing over New York highways.
“The big dog in surface database errors is UHI”
As usual, Bill, you were proven to be making up your own numbers.
What to do? Pretend you were talking about something else. IOW move the goal posts.
Nate so much with your obfuscating. UHI has been discussed at length for decades with no resolution. It is one of the most important reasons to move to satellites as the surface weather stations were never sited or designed for the purpose of measuring mean global climate.
Of course you probably have had your head buried so deep on that for so long I suppose you are completely unaware of it right?
“UHI has been discussed at length for decades with no resolution.”
Yes it has been discussed here as nauseum. But in the scientific literature, studies of it (see Berkeley Earth) show that that the current data sets change negligibly as a result of it.
Your dreams for it to add uncertainty are just that, dreams.
Nate says:
Yes it has been discussed here as nauseum. But in the scientific literature, studies of it (see Berkeley Earth) show that that the current data sets change negligibly as a result of it.
Your dreams for it to add uncertainty are just that, dreams.
==================================
Yeah if you want to call that study good, that’s your personal choice. I thought the sampling examples left a lot to be desired. I truly am not worried about UHI but I am interested in the science.
I once lived in a house with a big open patio on the west side. Had no air conditioning and only kitchen windows on that side of the house to let the westerly afternoon breezes blow through the house. That patio made it almost unbearable in the summer. So I took some of the concrete out, planted trees and some greenery and it improved the situation. This was back in the late 70’s so it wasn’t a climate experiment.
#14
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Quite right, the UHI meme has been debunked.
Svante please stop trolling
#15
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
From the underlying documentation – 12k stuff – all nicely linked just look for it.
Here is some help:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3
bill hunter says:
Can we please stick to one point at a time, and narrow it down until we’re done with each point?
If you read the fig. 8 text it says:
“No instrumental data are shown.”
It’s from PAGES2k: https://tinyurl.com/y442z4qe
PAGES2k has “692 records from 648 locations” and “Nearly half of the proxy time series are significantly correlated with HadCRUT4.2 surface temperature over the period 1850-2014”.
Michael Mann is not among the fifty or so authors in the two papers.
Svante says:
Can we please stick to one point at a time, and narrow it down until we’re done with each point?
================================
Points? You started out with conclusions Svante.
====================
=====================
======================
Svante says:
Michael Mann is not among the fifty or so authors in the two papers.
===========================
Svante he is the main author, yes he is being treated here as a ‘shadow’ author, but all you need to do is dig down into the underlying proxies and there you will find him all over the place.
You can just read the first page you always need to verify the authenticity of the underlying assumptions which in this case are temperature records constructed on proxies patched together in a network. You have several climategate shadowy figures deeply involved in the temperature interpretations of these papers.
I am not saying the papers are wrong Svante, what I saying you have people with very little credibility involved here, climategate conspirators, who openly discussed how to most deceptively present the data to be convincing to policy makers.
There is no question of the bias that is also undoubtedly embedded in the results if they do not in fact drive the results.
Look I am no virgin at this. I have been involved in multiple projects to optimize a desired solution in very similar GIS analytical work. It is incredibly easy to do, all you need to know is what your objective is.
I have done several projects where data was presented as optimum and myself personally using the datasets and the proper GIS software come up with far more optimum solutions, once you remove the bias and truly aim for say least economic impact outcome on the data presented. Usually the bias is for a hidden economic benefit for a particular party, sector, or political objective.
So now that you have been taught to look at any proxy with a critical eye and withhold your conclusions such as about being the best because its the most what did we learn from pages 12k? That warming is quite modest in terms of natural variation. You can run a statistical analysis on the variation seen in the output of this report along with the quantitative uncertainties and find really no significant trend in warming over the past 12 thousand years. I don’t need to actually do that, I can see that without doing that its so obvious.
You would like to point out the steepness of the current trend but thats extremely sophmoric. Fact is proxies lack details of short term runups, they miss peaks, and steepness of short term weather phenomena, and even of moderate climate change periods like decades and often centuries as well.
Svante says:
If you read the fig. 8 text it says:
No instrumental data are shown.
================================
You are right Svante, instead what is shown are Michael Mann reconstructions of instrument data. Observe and read the legend of Figure 3.
And you will find it> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7#Fig3
The whole paper really is a Michael Crichton-like State of Fear reconstruction. The details of what is being shown is buried under the footnotes. No deception Svante perfect semantics to say an instruement record hasn’t been shown when an intervening paper included it in a multi-proxy. Its just hide the decline on a monumental scale. Check the inset for figure 3 where the red, blue, yellow, and orange proxy reconstructions run out and and what is left is the black instrument line.
Thats all fine I don’t object when its all forthwith or its a reanalysis of instrument data or its instrument data. Bottom line is overall in the last 12,000 years there is no significant trend in temperature.
Another point should be perhaps we should limit warming from the top of the 12k analysis to uh a maximum of 2 degrees and start taking aggressive action when its 1.5 degrees. Or if you want to be super aggressive say a 20 year average of 1/2 a degree more than now.
The reason I say thats super aggressive is the error bars in this would be hugely much larger than the shaded area. Even the error bars for current global mean surface temperature is believed to be within + or – 2c. And its super aggressive because current warming while rapid it doesn’t match well to increases in CO2 and the IPCC has found that 30% of the warming is identifiably natural.
So anyway you want to cut it, aggressive or conservative, its still only at best about 8/10ths of degree industrial era warming and quite apt to get smaller in the next decade as that natural warming component doesn’t include the most recent El Nino cycle.
You’re a weird “auditor”. You refuse to get to the bottom of things, you just go from one Gish gallop to another.
Michael Mann’s results have been replicated time and time again. It’s a hallmark of science, but it is forbidden by your political ideas.
The authors of my first reference are:
Darrell Kaufman, Nicholas McKay, Cody Routson, Michael Erb, Basil Davis, Oliver Heiri, Samuel Jaccard, Jessica Tierney, Christoph Dätwyler, Yarrow Axford, Thomas Brussel, Olivier Cartapanis, Brian Chase, Andria Dawson, Anne de Vernal, Stefan Engels, Lukas Jonkers, Jeremiah Marsicek, Paola Moffa-Sánchez, Carrie Morrill, Anais Orsi, Kira Rehfeld, Krystyna Saunders, Philipp S. Sommer, Elizabeth Thomas, Marcela Tonello, Mónika Tóth, Richard Vachula, Andrei Andreev, Sebastien Bertrand, Boris Biskaborn, Manuel Bringué, Stephen Brooks, Magaly Caniupán, Manuel Chevalier, Les Cwynar, Julien Emile-Geay, John Fegyveresi, Angelica Feurdean, Walter Finsinger, Marie-Claude Fortin, Louise Foster, Mathew Fox, Konrad Gajewski, Martin Grosjean, Sonja Hausmann, Markus Heinrichs, Naomi Holmes, Boris Ilyashuk, Elena Ilyashuk, Steve Juggins, Deborah Khider, Karin Koinig, Peter Langdon, Isabelle Larocque-Tobler, Jianyong Li, André Lotter, Tomi Luoto, Anson Mackay, Eniko Magyari, Steven Malevich, Bryan Mark, Julieta Massaferro, Vincent Montade, Larisa Nazarova, Elena Novenko, Petr Pařil, Emma Pearson, Matthew Peros, Reinhard Pienitz, Mateusz Płóciennik, David Porinchu, Aaron Potito, Andrew Rees, Scott Reinemann, Stephen Roberts, Nicolas Rolland, Sakari Salonen, Angela Self, Heikki Seppä, Shyhrete Shala, Jeannine-Marie St-Jacques, Barbara Stenni, Liudmila Syrykh, Pol Tarrats, Karen Taylor, Valerie van den Bos, Gaute Velle, Eugene Wahl, Ian Walker, Janet Wilmshurst, Enlou Zhang & Snezhana Zhilich.
Svante you have to know what an auditor does before you call him weird. Being called weird is a phrase similar to what an auditor hears every time when he finds a mistake or a lack of due diligence or a lack of controls, or even fraud is denied.
Replication of a proxy or a temperature record isn’t like a replication of an experiment. Especially when you simply order the computer to recalculate. Or add an additional proxy or search for more stuff that fits the mold.
Building evidence of a case is a process of finding everything that supports your case and handwaving away evidence that suggests otherwise.
Get good at that and you can have a bright future of exotic travel, a-list tea parties, celebrity elbow rubbing, fame in journals and media, promotions, appointments, control of immense finances.
Gee you are a democrat right? Are you an A lister? How about B lister? or are you in the C, D, and F classes?
Bill you constantly tout your auditor skills, and expect us to be impressed by that and take your science critiques seriously, but then you post totally wrong, seemingly invented stuff like this
“Even the error bars for current global mean surface temperature is believed to be within + or 2c.”
and your credibility goes down the drain.
The auditors I’ve met were logical and coherent.
They did not respond with Gish gallops.
Nate says:
Bill you constantly tout your auditor skills, and expect us to be impressed by that and take your science critiques seriously, but then you post totally wrong, seemingly invented stuff like this
Even the error bars for current global mean surface temperature is believed to be within + or 2c.
and your credibility goes down the drain.
============================
Thats not a number I came up with Nate.
Thats a number acknowledged in conversations with those maintaining the temperature records, there is a general acknowledgement in the trade that quite a few earthly environments are very badly represented in the temperature record and a large amount of inconsistency of how temperature is measured. For example, few weather stations exist in forests, mountain tops, rugged terrain, lakes, glacier, ice sheets. Airport and city type terrain is far far over represented. Plus large differences in methods between ocean and land.
One simply cannot make an argument that says the surface records are a true representation of climate temperatures. But the argument use instead is that anomalies are not significantly affected by this heterogeneity. There are big temperature differences between urban and rural and big temperature differences depending upon vegatation types and heights.
In my first meteorology class the class took a highly accurate thermometer across campus and took ground level temperatures then the elevator to the roof of the highest building on campus, which was about 12 stories if I recall correctly and we could see almost a 1/2 degree centigrade difference between ground level and the top of the building.
Most cities and towns are built on the plains around which mountains can make up a large part of the terrain. Seems to me a 2,000 foot mountain makes for a 4C difference per US standard atmosphere. We have a few mile high cities but those even tend to be dwarfed by mountain ranges surrounding them.
Satellites may have the same problem if they don’t have algorithms to deal with elevation of the land the scans are passing over. I don’t know enough about the technology to opine on that topic.
Too bad you are too ignorant of climate science to even had a clue about that to just spout off about it as if it was a bad representation of the facts without a shred of evidence or even a logical argument of what the error is.
And to further demonstrate your stupidity and cluelessness. . . .auditors never represent anything. The job of the auditor is to simply test the representations of the auditee and obtain the evidence supporting the auditees assertions and then indicate if they have qualifications about it or not.
When an auditee is not forthcoming with evidence the auditor just assumes he is talking to the wrong underling in the organization, moves up the ladder talks with supervisors and finds out who should know.
Since different people have different jobs in an organization the process moves on getting what is known by those who know. Its amazing how many people an auditor runs into who thinks they know what is going on in an organization and actually doesn’t have clue one.
You are like that Nate as you never can back up your assertions. You operate entirely within and envelope of an unknowledgeable narrative. You spout textbook physics like that was the only thing you have actually seen in life.
When asked for definitive evidence of your definitive beliefs you always come up short. Do you actually do anything with that degree of yours or are you just fresh graduate stupid where you remember the cartoon representations of overly simplified descriptions of the world but totally lack any real world experience using those tools? Please elucidate on that.
Svante says:
The auditors Ive met were logical and coherent.
They did not respond with Gish gallops.
===========================================
And of course Svante is so clueless he doesn’t even recognize his argument above as a gish gallop.
Michael Mann’s results are not used in PAGES2k:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pages2k/pages2k-temperature-v2-2017/data-current-version/
He is cited as a reference for CPS:
“finding everything that supports your case and handwaving away evidence that suggests otherwise.
Get good at that and you can have a bright future of exotic travel, a-list tea parties, celebrity elbow rubbing, fame in journals and media, promotions, appointments, control of immense finances.”
Good at being a conformist and confirming the standard model gets you fame and fortune in science?!
Bill, on the contrary, you’ve got it exactly backwards!
Getting fame and recognition in science generally accrues to those who have pushed the boundaries of what is already known, discovered new things and created new fields. Handwaving doesnt usually cut it, since getting proved wrong is generally a career killer.
They are often non-conformists.
“Thats a number acknowledged in conversations with those maintaining….yada yada yada nonsense.”
OMG Conversations?!
And no link or cite of data?
“You spout textbook physics like that was the only thing you have actually seen in life.”
Ha!
Says someone fond of posting made up physics, that begs a response with real physics.
Nate says:
Bill, on the contrary, you’ve got it exactly backwards!
Getting fame and recognition in science generally accrues to those who have pushed the boundaries of what is already known, discovered new things and created new fields. Handwaving doesnt usually cut it, since getting proved wrong is generally a career killer.
They are often non-conformists.
====================================
Well from that one can conclude that nobody has pushed the boundaries on this ever in terms of proof of a GHG mechanism that actually results in a greenhouse effect defining both the necessary and sufficient components of such.
At least celebrated atmospheric emissions expert Dr. William Happer discovered the sodium guide star. He pushed the boundaries. I asked you for evidence of anybody pushing the boundaries currently involved in climate science and all you have so far is a lot of untested theories about as well defined as the Big Bang theory.
Then we have you adding 1366 watts from the sun to 400 watts from GHG in the atmosphere and claiming that results in the same thing as a 1766 watt light!!
Thats fantasy land stuff that simply does not follow from any physics I am aware of. Or any physics you have been able demonstrate it exists. I think you are gradually descending into insanity. The theory you are believing in was proven wrong by Dr RW Woods over a hundred years ago.
I even offered you an opportunity to prove to yourself how wrong headed that is. For as little as $100 and a small investment of time you can save yourself from a lifetime of ridicule. What a Deal!!!
Actually Hansen pushed the boundaries by making a bold quantitative prediction with a simpler model in 1981. You don’t like the results.
And as a matter of fact, Michael Mann pushed the boundaries by pioneering the millenial global temperature reconstructions, and discovered the evil vile Hockey Stick.
And after much yelling and screaming and many different groups with different methods working on it, its still holding up.
“Then we have you adding 1366 watts from the sun to 400 watts from GHG in the atmosphere and claiming that results in the same thing as a 1766 watt light!!”
Actually not 1366 W, a lot is reflected and some is abs*orbed before reaching the ground, but yes 400 W from the GHG could be added to the remainder.
You are still trying to deny this basic physics point?
You are better consulting with your team of experts on this one then to follow the lead of the troll Clint.
Because they all prefer to use real physics.
Nate says:
Thats a number acknowledged in conversations with those maintaining.yada yada yada nonsense.
OMG Conversations?!
And no link or cite of data?
======================================
You ask where is the link! Absolutely Nate where is the link?
Great example of what is wrong across the board Nate!!
Embracing facts, embracing uncertainty, being straight with people is how you build buy in.
You have to be a bigot about the intelligence of the people to treat them like mushrooms in a mushroom farm, keeping them in the dark, feeding them shiit. You see it all over the place, absence of error bars, absence of descriptions of uncertainty, lack of analysis why such uncertainty can be essentially ignored. Treat people like they are intelligent is the only way to get them to act intelligently.
Those unaware of that are either ignorant or have a hidden agenda.
So in short you can shove all that stuff about me not providing links to where the sun doesn’t shine. . . .not my job. . . .never an auditors job.
“And no link or cite of data?”
Bill,
You posted a specific number, +- 2 deg C, as the error bar on todays global temperature measurements.
AFAIK that is not even close to being correct.
And still nothing. No data. No source for that factoid.
Then, well, obviously you just made it up. Thats what you do.
And thus you have no credibility.
Nate says:
AFAIK that is not even close to being correct.
===============================
Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first. If you know nothing on the topic then the acronym AFAIK is meaningless.
“Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first.
So if I post random made up numbers, I could demand that you chase down the real ones??
Thats the wet dream of a troll..and nice try at evasion.
No evasion at all I told you straight up it was a source that I didn’t have verification of. It may well be in the documentation of Had-crut 3 or it was in the ruminifications by James Hansen, who happens to be a scientist I do like because he is straight up and open about what he is sure of and what he isn’t.
Actually a humble man even though he strongly believes in the Arrhenius theory.
So fine you don’t know. And I don’t feel any need to educate you further.
Fact is the only thing that matters about that inaccuracy is UHI and other anthropogenic changes and not how much there is of it in the record, which is quite considerable, but what matters is how much its changing. Obviously mountain terrain isn’t changing much and oceans despite predictions aren’t washing over New York highways.
“So fine you don’t know. And I don’t feel any need to educate you further.”
All of the major available T records state their uncertainties. They are all much much smaller than 2 C, your made up number that you tried to pass off as real.
Nate says:
All of the major available T records state their uncertainties. They are all much much smaller than 2 C, your made up number that you tried to pass off as real.
==========================
Oh gee really? They just state them? No significant organized study of terrain and impacts? Just off the top of their heads?
LMAO!
I suspect what you are looking at is probably various runs of computer gridding programs and the kind of variances found by employing different gridding parameters. Which of course would not touch on the representation issue.
How would I know that? Well there are a few principles you learn with experience. One is that to do it right would cost a lot of money and if you spent the money you would want to publish the result. Changing parameters on a gridding program multiple times and running them probably takes less than a day for one guy to do. Why? Because I do that kind of work all the time.
See for example
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/
current error < 0.1 C
Nate do you always fire from the hip? I wasn’t talking about the accuracy of the anomaly database. I was talking about the absolute temperatures. Thats like 288k rather than .8k.
288 vs 0.8 ?
Red herring.
In the instrument era, the absolute temperatures are measured. Then a constant offset is applied. The error is ~ the same for abs temp and anomaly.
The error is still << 2 degC.
There are slight diff between data sets because some sets incorporate higher latitudes.
In the paleo or reconstruction records the error is of course larger.
You are the only one dispensing red herrings Nate.
The big dog in surface database errors is UHI. It’s a very large number and its only questionable how much of that number leaks into surface record trends. Putting on horse blinders doesn’t make it go away.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542715
Top 10 13 month running averages – and some other numbers from 1998 / 1999
1. Sep 2020 +0,52
2. Nov 2016 +0,51
3. Oct 2016 +0,51
4. Aug 2020 +0,51
5. Dec 2016 +0,51
6. Jun 2020 +0,51
7. Jul 2020 +0,50
8. May 2020 +0,50
8. Sep 2016 +0.50
10. Jan 2017 +0,50
—-
16. Dec 1998 +0,46
19. Nov 1998 +0,45
20. Oct 1998 +0,45
22. Jan 1999 +0,45
25. Feb 1999 +0,43
27. Sep 1998 +0,42
31. Aug 1998 +0,40
37. Mar 1999 +0,37
40. Jul 1998 +0,36
51. Apr 1999 +0,33
Gasp!!!!!!
The 13 month average is .055degC above 1998. My gawd thats a rate of warming of .25degC per century!!!! You guys crack me up!
Please learn some statistics, at least some wikipedias article.
Really? Its always fun when somebody starts out talking about statistics without using any statistics. Seems kind of similar to ad hominem arguments.
It’s always fun when someone cherry picks tiny windows of data to misrepresent the overall trend.
Obviously you are talking about the guy that said:
“The 13 month running average is once again above the 1998 peak. Last month was the second warmest September on record. 2020 running ahead of 1998, likely to be the second warmest year on record.
Planet continues to warm.”
My comment was a satire on that. Just forgot to put the /s tag on it, but glad you picked up on it.
I see only data in his post, no conclusion. Your reply is straw man satire.
Midas says:
I see only data in his post, no conclusion. Your reply is straw man satire.
====================================
Oh really? I didn’t know you were such a special needs case Midas. excuse me!
But in fact:
”once again above the 1998 peak”
”second warmest September on record.”
is just as much a conclusions as:
”a rate of warming of .25degC per century”
The latter though is more informative as its not just simply comparatively ranked but gives a quantified rate of what occurred over 22 years.
Like. . . .wow! golly! gee! almost unprecendented!!!
then insignificant!!! was the satire. And golly gee here you are emphasizing it!!! LMAO! Putting a big period to it along with another repetition so even the slow can pick it up. Gee thanks Midas!!
His only words were “Top 10 13 month running averages and some other numbers from 1998 / 1999”. As usual, you are making it up.
Midas says:
His only words were Top 10 13 month running averages and some other numbers from 1998 / 1999. As usual, you are making it up.
==========================
thats only because you are too stupid to follow the reply line. I wasn’t replying to Petter…. I was replying to Robert Ingersol.
Robert Ingersol hasn’t commented in this sub-thread, so your comment is out of place and is the cause of confusion. No one to blame for not making the connection but you yourself.
No Barry he didn’t comment in this sub thread, but this subthread is a discussion of comment I made to Robert to which he didn’t object to.
You are quite late to the party.
“What actually happened is the Santer fingerprint study tracked a 17 year period of warming acceleration that died almost on the day he published.”
Uhhh, pls show us a cite and data.
Is there such thing as a “correct” global mean temperature? And if there is, what is it and why?
Our previous Interglacial Period was warmer than this one. An argument can just as easily be made that our global mean temperature is too cold.
On the climate issue, it is crucial to have a historical perspective. The global cooling of the 17th century killed around a third of the world’s population. Therefore, the current global warming is a blessing for humanity.
During the previous interglacial period there wasn’t 7.5 billion people on the planet which kind of makes a big difference.
Of course there is no correct global mean temperature I believe this is a misunderstanding of the issue. We need to avoid rapid warming as this will impact coastal populations through sea level rise, impact where crops currently grow best and lead to population migration as hot regions get hotter.
G,
And, of course, you are terrified that vast areas will become productive once again, if they become a little warmer.
Good luck with your efforts to prevent the climate changing. As to sea levels, you do realise that some 6000 m mountain peaks used to be below sea level, dont you?
What does “correct” mean to you? What is it you are wanting to optimize?
I don’t want to optimize anything. Climate does it’s own thing, with or without humans.
Likewise, is there a “correct” sea level? Geologically speaking, the answer is clearly no. Where it has been for the last 2000 years is in no way better than a meter or two higher. Of course geology doesn’t have to pay taxes to rebuild coastal infrastructure.
Now is there a correct percentage of California that should be covered with trees?
I’m trying to understand your points. Geologically speaking, why did you reference the 1998 peak? Why is 1998 more significant than the all time peak over the geological past or more significant than various peak temperatures that can be determined by taking say, 100 or 500 year slices of time from the geological record?
In the time period inferred by your reference to 1998 can you break down for me the amount of warming due to natural warming and cooling influences that have been present since time immemorial versus the amount of warming due to C02 added to the environment by human activity? And then for the peak temperature for each 100 or 500 year slice of time in the geological past can you help me understand how much of that peak can be attributed to natural warming influences versus C02 added by humans?
Since you made the economic argument that geology doesn’t have to pay taxes to rebuild costal infrastructure, can you tell me the net present value cost difference to society between the scenario where we incur costs to eliminate human contributed C02 from the environment as opposed to the scenario that calculates the cost of rebuilding costal infrastructure caused by sea level rise due to C02 added to the environment by humans?
So all you are asking from me is a full accounting of every climate event since “time immemorial”? How about you just read the scientific literature?
What is significant about 1998? Well, for one thing, it was the onset of “the pause” that was supposed to signify the end of the “AGW hoax.” How is that working for you? Just like “no decline in sea ice since 2012.” How much longer is that going to pass the giggle test?
As for the cost of replacing FF with renewable energy, I am a chemist, not an economist. But I note that FF is a finite resource (and extraction is getting increasingly expensive now because we have already taken the cheap/easy stuff). We will need a replacement soon anyway. Wind, solar and batteries are already cost competitive in many cases and getting cheaper. Add in the other environmental benefits and there are clear advantages to doing this now.
First if all you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked of you. You simply deflected and pivoted. Your deflection and pivoting demonstrates you don’t know the answers. You asked me to read the scientific literature. I have read dozens of peer reviewed studies as well as the various IPCC assessments and from reading them it is clear that the scientific literature attributes all warming since 1998 and indeed back several decades before then to C02 from burning fossil fuel while attributing no warming to natural causes. If you would have read the scientific literature you admonished me to read, you would have known this. Or perhaps you did read it and didn’t understand it.
I am an econometrician and am very familiar with complex mathematical modeling and stochastic analytical methods that are used in various modeling environments including both economic modeling and climate modeling. You can divide the geologic time line into discrete timelines of 100, or 500 or even 1,000 years, each of which would have a peak temperature associated with it. The problem is that any discrete historical time period selected in which we know natural influences were the primary drivers of the peak temperature, needs to be differentiated from time periods which have human caused C02 as the primary driver of the peak temperature. Once this is done the amount of warming that can be attributed to natural causes can be known. When it comes to time periods where significant amounts C02 were added to the environment by human activities you only have a narrow window which represents a single data point that you have available to use in your differentiation analysis. With a single data point your confidence interval is infinite and your analysis is meaningless.
I note that you claim you are a chemist and not an economist. Your comments on the economics of abating the man made effects of global warming certainly demonstrate that your statement of not being an economist is true.
Are you giggling about the Antarctic sea ice extent running in the top 10% in 2020 since the satellite era began?
Here we have someone who has looked at the graph of Antarctic sea ice extent, and believes that if this year’s extent lies inside the interdecile range that it is in the top 10%. This is what happens when mathematically challenged people involve themselves in science.
Des, please stop trolling.
“Geologically speaking” Manhattan was covered with a km thick sheet of ice 20,000 y ago…
Not good, but irrelevant to today.
Today we have massive infrastructure, productive and stable agricultural regions, water sources, and cities like London that are located where they have been for many centuries because of climate stability.
That climate stability is no longer assured.
Gee Nate no longer assured why is that? Last I heard you guys were talking about how CO2 had diverted a plunge toward a new ice age.
Nope, never did.
Just one more voice in your head that you try to blame us for.
Glad you are disclaiming those choir notes.
No you’re not. You’re just getting in cheap shots.
Nor is there a ‘choir’ on that point. Cheap rhetoric, too, bill.
Glad you guys don’t endorse that BS. Temperatures do go up and down naturally.
You can blame me for that bill.
I say we were in a long term decline for 6000 years.
Fifty ppm CO2 might have been just right to stabilize the climate, but we overdid it badly.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Svante you did read the title of the 2k paper.
”No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.”
Looking at the 12K paper it looks like there is some evidence of a globally coherent warm and cool period – – – -and of course no significant trend can be seen as well.
Moving conversation back to right topic:
Svante says:
October 18, 2020 at 2:24 AM
bill,
Your comment is in the wrong place, but I assume you are talking about LIA recovery. It means a temperature increase without a cause. First a perturbation away from equilibrium, then a return. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the correction, less strength the closer you get to the old value.
So we would expect a flattening of the curve as we approach the old value. Instead we got an acceleration as we exceeded the old level.
a record breaking solar grand maximum is a direct cause, so that is different.
=====================================
I would think the earth could walk and chew gum at the same time even if you think thats a bit challenging.
Obviously climate is subject to a variety of internal and external perturbations and even 800 year delayed reactions to such perturbations if they are sensibly significant enough to have significant influence on the deep ocean.
Probably the best evidence of that is the 800 years it takes for CO2 to peak in the atmosphere after warming has ceased. Since the industrial age is at best 170 years long and 90%+ has been in the last 50 years. So the perturbation of anthropogenic emissions has to be a drop in the barrel compared to the iceage glacial change data.
Milankovich theory could be a major contributor to mean global temperature oscillations of 3c to 10c (we really don’t even know which is closer to correct and its apt to stay that way until we go through the cycle) as areas of the world go through greater climate change than that seasonally every year.
bill hunter says:
CO2 used to come from Ocean outgassing, as a slow temperature feedback. Now CO2 is way ahead, and the Oceans are a net sink.
There is no comparison:
https://tinyurl.com/yyt6jd22
Well if change is scary for you without evidence, at least you might look more closely as to any significant change has occurred.
Measuring CO2 in the air when ice isn’t accumulating is a bit different than looking at it in ice long after it accumulated.
thats is an important step in validating a proxy, especially when the IPCC has found that CO2 could drop by 50% of the perturbation in 2 to 3 decades.
There are many other proxies for CO2:
https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-carbon-pollution-15-million-years
And oddly enough continued accelerated carbon emissions are probably the most direct path to few carbon emissions. Just that some on this roller coaster ride really don’t want to be on it.
What does that mean?
Svante says:
What does that mean?
=================================
Well I understand well how little you understand this most basic fact. Fact is science continually advances at an accelerated pace in proportion to how much time and labor can be diverted to such endeavors.
Fossil fuels are unquestionably the largest factor in getting that done. They are inexpensive because they involve less labor to extract than alternative fuels.
Pre-scientific era was largely due to everybody needing to devote time and effort to more important stuff like surviving.
Now we have a controlling elite class who don’t care that some people are still struggling. They are more interested in their heirs.
That goes double and maybe triple for the third world. And gee we recognize that if you are living a 3rd world existence you need assistance, and the proposed way of doing it is by ignoring the fact that many our own citizens are living 3rd world lives.
So this goes around. We want to change the morality of the world to the elitist hedonistic realities of modern life in the developed world. We aren’t convincing hardly anybody so we have to dream up better schemes about future disaster and free handouts to get that buy in. Of course very few liberals actually are helping now, no they want somebody else to contribute. They want that guy with a new job to pay just as he is starting a family.
He is the guy that commutes the furthest, uses fossil fuels the most to get to work and raise a family. There is no question that fossil fuels have been and will be for the foreseeable future the best path forward.
Its only special and self interest that might see otherwise. And of course evil men seldom think of themselves as selfish, self centered, narcissistic, or dishonest.
But this is a great forum attracting those sorts displaying blatantly their deceptiveness. Congratulations on being part of the cure.
Svamte, just curious what your take is on these quotes from your reference?
“For the most part, carbon dioxide was below 400 ppm for the last 14 million years or so,”
”Of course, C02 concentrations aren’t stopping today,” said Lachniet. ”We’re probably going to blow through 550 to 600 ppm.”
Those sorts of high carbon concentrations haven’t been experienced on Earth in well over 20 million years, noted Lachniet.
I would probably point out that the last comment isn’t in quotes, when the rest were. What’s missing? Why was this journalist moved to not provide the exact quote?
Could it be a qualifier that the current level of sampling isn’t of high enough resolution to detect even multi-centennial variations? That would be my guess as a great deal of such work does lack sufficient resolution to pin it down to where no transients have occurred in the past.
Fine I really don’t have a problem with there is a recent world history analogue or not. I do have a concept of limits that we haven’t yet approached. 600ppm could be 70 to never in the future depending upon technological advances that find ways to provide competitive alternatives. I even posted an article in this thread that suggest we have to do nothing from a government perspective because renewables are already competitive enough to grow robustly over the next couple of decades.
You never even responded to that.
Fossil survives because it doesn’t pay for damages to third parties. Poor people can’t afford coal anymore even so.
Svante says:
Fossil survives because it doesnt pay for damages to third parties. Poor people cant afford coal anymore even so.
===========================
Absolutely fossil pays damages. You go into court, prove your case, and you get damages.
You are just talking about imagined cases that haven’t been made.
Maybe.
“it remains unclear if the wave of litigation — which has faced stiff headwinds in the past but is now propelled by stronger science and reports about what oil companies previously understood about climate change — will succeed or fail.”
https://tinyurl.com/yyd294hn
Can Bangladesh sue in Texas and a hundred other coal and oil producing states?
Svante says:
Can Bangladesh sue in Texas and a hundred other coal and oil producing states?
=============================
Sure! Why not? Crazy lawsuits are filed all the time.
Can’t wait to see your global temperature map. I’m sweating already.
This brings the trend up to +0.1367C/decade +-0.0067. The trendline sits at +0.3386C so this month is +0.23C above the long term trend.
Sort of tends to happen when El Ninos occur.
Just a little hint:
2019 9 0.62
2020 9 0.57
2017 9 0.56
2016 9 0.47
1998 9 0.44
2010 9 0.36
2009 9 0.26
2015 9 0.25
2005 9 0.25
2013 9 0.22
This way you better understand why I laugh when I hear “It’s cooling A LOT”.
J.-P. D.
binny…”This way you better understand why I laugh when I hear Its cooling A LOT.”
You regard 4 years of warming, following an 18 year flat trend, where 2 months have peaked, as an indication of something. You ignore the 18 years of a flat trend from 1998 – 2015, 15 years of those confirmed by the IPCC.
You fail to get it that parts of the world must be cooling in order to offset the parts that are warming. Since parts of the Arctic are +5C above the norm other parts must be nearly 5C below the norm to allow a global warming of under 1C.
Of course, your authority figure is NOAA, who retroactively went back and fudged the SST to show a warming rather than a flat trend. The same NOAA who has slashed 90% of its reporting atations since 1990, and who think nothing of using climate models to fill in the slashed stations using interpolation and homogenization statistical techniques.
The “18 year flat trend” only exists if you cherry pick the dates. Yes, there was a very strong el Nino in 1997/1998 and it messes up trend lines that start around 1997/1998.
How can you honestly look at the data and not say that there was a warming trend from 2008 through 2016 or from 2012 through 2016?
Why are you ignoring the warming trend before 1997?
I am a strong supporter of climate science and not a denier.
But I have to agree that there was a pause in the warming.
The UAH averages for 2005-2010 and for 2010-2015 were both slightly lower than the average for 2000-2005. And that misses the 97/98 El Nino.
That has been more than made up for in the last five years though, with the 2015-2020 average rising above the 2010-2015 average by as much as the TOTAL rise from 1979-1985 to 2010-2015. In other words, we are higher now than if we had extrapolated the 1979-2005 trend without the pause.
Midas, responding to your unthinking post about Antarctic sea ice –
The National Snow and Ice Data Center News & Analysis Page dated 21 SEP 2020 states in the first paragraph,
“In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is now well above average and within the range of the ten largest ice extents on record..”
I noticed how many of you silly global warming zealots got exited about the Antarctic sea ice decline in 2016. But actually, that was a sea ice compaction event due to poleward wind vectors that year. Same thing happened in the Arctic this year. Poleward wind vectors on the Siberian side of the Arctic compressed the sea ice up to 85 deg. North latitude. The Antarctic sea ice is expanding again after the 2016 compaction event. I reckon the Arctic will do the same like it did from 2012 to 2013.
CORRECTION – NAME OF POSTER – Rob Mitchell not Rosa Gonzalez – it was a misclick
Midas, responding to your unthinking post about Antarctic sea ice –
The National Snow and Ice Data Center News & Analysis Page dated 21 SEP 2020 states in the first paragraph,
“In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is now well above average and within the range of the ten largest ice extents on record..”
I noticed how many of you silly global warming zealots got exited about the Antarctic sea ice decline in 2016. But actually, that was a sea ice compaction event due to poleward wind vectors that year. Same thing happened in the Arctic this year. Poleward wind vectors on the Siberian side of the Arctic compressed the sea ice up to 85 deg. North latitude. The Antarctic sea ice is expanding again after the 2016 compaction event. I reckon the Arctic will do the same like it did from 2012 to 2013.
He tries to get away with pretending he said “top 10” when he actually said “top 10%”.
As an aid to this deception, he responds in an entirely unrelated thread, hoping no one else will look back.
Who exactly has made the “unthinking post” here?
Let’s give you the opportunity to fire up a second neuron:
Is Antarctic sea ice in the top 10% as you previously claimed, or were you lying?
In finding slightly lower averages for 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 than for that of 2000-2005, isn’t that simply a function of using such short time periods, five years, as your units of analysis? Surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures are subject to many sources of natural variability, and over short periods of time that natural variability can overwhelm the effects of anthropogenic climate change. But when you lengthen the time frame to a decade, the effects of natural variability get washed out and the pause disappears, as illustrated in the following graph:
https://www.hotwhopper.com/chart/charts/2018/decadal.png
In finding slightly lower averages for 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 than for that of 2000-2005, isn’t that simply a function of using such short time periods, five years, as your units of analysis? Surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures are subject to many sources of natural variability, and over short periods of time that natural variability can overwhelm the effects of anthropogenic climate change. But when you lengthen the time frame to a decade, the effects of natural variability get washed out and the pause disappears, as illustrated in the following graph:
https://www.hotwhopper.com/chart/charts/2018/decadal.png
I agree Midas. There was a pause or at the very least a substantial reduction in the rate of warming over that period.
Just a glimpse at any of the global temp records (even the suspicious outlier, UAH) shows that there never was a pause. If you were confused, try looking at it starting in 1999. 1998 is a cherry pick.
Further confirmation of that comes from your fellow climate science deniers who have stopped talking about “the pause” because it is an embarrassment. 1998 was a jaw dropping heat spike at the time. It is not even in the top 10 warmest years now (surface records). Last 7 years (including 2020) are all warmer than any previous year in the 140 year record. Climate science deniers predicted cooling and they were wildly wrong. Climate scientists quantitatively predicted unprecedented warming with uncanny accuracy. Why are we still debating this?
Robert Ingersol says:
Just a glimpse at any of the global temp records (even the suspicious outlier, UAH) shows that there never was a pause.
================================
UAH did show a pause. So did Had_crut 3 before it was determined they need to go global and eliminate the 1930/40’s blip. That is what one could identify as suspicious if one was inclined to go down that avenue. Which I am not.
==============================
——————————
Robert Ingersol says:
If you were confused, try looking at it starting in 1999. 1998 is a cherry pick.
==========================
Nope, if you are going to create a trend line across maximum peaks as is necessary to bring it to the present. One needs to lay the linear line down on the peaks like a long beam sitting on the longest posts to find a natural trend line. If you create a trend line that has one end of the line sitting on the ground and the other on a post you have created a false trend.
But I guess you aren’t bright enough to figure that out on your own.
Robert Ingersol says:
Further confirmation of that comes from your fellow climate science deniers who have stopped talking about the pause because it is an embarrassment. 1998 was a jaw dropping heat spike at the time. It is not even in the top 10 warmest years now (surface records). Last 7 years (including 2020) are all warmer than any previous year in the 140 year record. Climate science deniers predicted cooling and they were wildly wrong.
===========================
Seems to me you are cherry picking skeptics. I never said cooling was imminent. One has to realize that climate itself has a lot of variation. Attempts have unsuccessfully been made to either classify such variation as short term weather and where that hasn’t been possible through a rewriting of history. And still all those attempts remain incomplete. Its not easy to do. Some really out there radicals will try to take it to the extreme and start book burning. Sort of basic human nature on the part of those types of wannabee authoritarians.
=================================
———————————
Robert Ingersol says:
Climate scientists quantitatively predicted unprecedented warming with uncanny accuracy.
=============================
Hmmm, where did you read that? For years about all I have heard in that regard were frantic searches for the missing heat. If the heat was missing thats not an accurate prediction FYI, even if you claim to have found it. What that is either an excuse or a learning experience. If its an excuse its not likely you will do better in the next round. If its a learning experience then you may do better in the next round.
===================================
———————————–
Robert Ingersol says:
Why are we still debating this?
=====================================
thats easy! Because we aren’t as gullible as you.
It looks like the tropics have dropped back a tad, but they are still very elevated, not reflecting la nina conditions. If you look at 2017 as proxy, the enso region started cooling mid-year after a brief warm spell, but around September, UAH ocean tropics were still at +0.53. By early 2018 they had dropped below baseline which is what we should expect out of this la nina.
Bindidon to continue out discussion about the EGP station, I have downloaded the data, and replaced the missing daily readings indicated by -999 by interpolation. There really were not that many missing days. 10 over 5 years. I then overlaid this years data on top of other years so you can see how much we are hugging the bottom of the normal range. Due to the short data set, I did a count of the number of daily records hot and cold. The cold outnumbered the hot 75:44 and 18 of the last 18 records were all to the downside.
So how does this fit into my multiple timeframes theory? It all comes down to the relationship between the AMO and the Beaufort Gyre. There are 2 multi-decadal climate forcers… the 42 year and the 60 year. How these forcers combine and cancel is responsible for the majority of our decadal climate changes. During the last AMO peak, they were not aligned. That is why this AMO peak is higher. The 42 year cycle is driven by a multi-decadal cycle in the tropics linked to the solar cycle. The 60 year cycle has to do with the barycenter movement of the solar system, where sunspots are located on the sun. All you need to know is the Beaufort Gyre is filled with fresh, cold water right now because it has been bottled up by the combined 42 / 60 cycles for the past 20 years. Now both cycles will drop together and this water will be released. We should go deeper than the mid century cooling because at that time, the cycles were still not aligned to the down side. You had the 60 year going down, but the 42 was holding it up.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3639301112755752&set=pcb.3639303042755559&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3639301032755760&set=pcb.3639303042755559&type=3&theater
Some reading on the Beaufort Gyre…
https://www.us-ocb.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/03/OCB-meeting-2014-Beaufort_Gyre_Dynamics_and_implications_for_North_Atlantic-Arctic-exchange-1_189964.pdf
This is a temporary matter. La Nina will only be stronger now.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
You have four ENSO regions to choose from, and you always choose the most dramatic. How about some consistency so you don’t appear to be a cherry picker.
You’re wrong. The increase in the Nino 4 Index signals an increase in SOI.
SOI values for 2 Oct, 2020
Average SOI for last 30 days 9.92
Average SOI for last 90 days 7.75
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 18.11
Monthly average SOI values
Jul 4.25
Aug 8.39
Sep 9.93
Two years ago when I pointed out this same issue, you claimed that it was the Nino 1.2 index that is the first indicator of an impending La Nina. Your story changes with the wind. I assume you will not link to the other regions again.
Wind is a driver of climate change.
Predictably, you avoid the issue with a nonsense reply.
Des, please stop trolling.
Wow Scott. Do you have a degree in astrology?
Robert,
Jupiter and Saturn are the primary cause of the suns movement around a barycenter. This movement leads to cycles on the sun including the solar cycle. Do you deny that?
Yes.
rather than choosing to deny that which is unknown Svante, its usually best to say you don’t know when you don’t know.
I was hoping he had some evidence.
Apart from Zharkova’s curve fitting.
Svante says:
I was hoping he had some evidence.
Apart from Zharkovas curve fitting.
================================================
Everybody is curve fitting Svante.
In the modeling I work around hypotheses are made and tested by fitting the curve to the historical data. Review panels are very specific about testing variations of the hypotheses to determine that the chosen hypotheses does a better job of fitting known outcomes. It is very difficult because of uncertainty of quality data to measure against.
In climate science the curve neither fits the historical data nor is it compared to specified variations of the hypotheses. Variations are treated like proprietary information, though I hear there is now some unspecified amount of sharing going on between teams for the purpose of attempting to correct for failures of the chosen-one hypothesis.
Unfortunately what has happened in the past is the observation data has been judged to be in error so you don’t even have a good standard by which to measure the historical curve fitting because of obvious efforts to fit the observations to the model.
So to correct for your ignorant parroting of talking points. It isn’t that Zharkova is curve fitting. She should be curve fitting. The pejorative actually refers to a claimed lack of established physics first principles to underpin the curve fitting she is doing.
While CO2 science may not be lacking in first principles it lacks greatly in how the first principles interact between one another in a chaotic system, which in a mixed system is just as important as a first principle.
So you parrot the party line and throw out one of the first principles that is only known to occur in a non-colliding vacuum because of complete ignorance about how that principle works in a colliding medium. Is that curve fitting without the necessary underpinning information? You betcha!
Water circulates chaotically in a pool.
If you reduce it’s heat loss it will get warmer.
The accumulated thermal energy will match the imbalance precisely.
Svante says:
Water circulates chaotically in a pool.
If you reduce its heat loss it will get warmer.
The accumulated thermal energy will match the imbalance precisely.
====================
The process involves heating the surface and the surface heating the atmosphere and where the atmosphere is heated to the same as the surface TOA will be emitting what isn’t making its way directly from the surface to space but so far nobody has described a way for the GHE to exist. . . .its merely claimed that CO2 is responsible. The grade school model you were inculcated on was destroyed without response by G&T. Halpern basically agreed with G&T simply saying it didn’t work that way then failed to say how it did work.
For stable temperatures you need equilibrium at the surface, in the space interface (TOA), and everywhere in between.
At the same time.
The GHE at TOA depends temperature, which depends on altitude.
Less (IR) optical depth, higher TOA, colder.
Seen from the surface you see a lower/warmer layer, i.e. more back radiation, less heat loss.
Temperature between the surface and TOA is determined by the lapse rate, which is mainly set by convection. Yes, it varies, sometimes even inverts, but the global average is pretty stable.
The enormous imbalance we have can not hide in the atmosphere.
One degree of ocean temperature increase corresponds to one thousand degrees in the atmosphere.
Svante says:
For stable temperatures you need equilibrium at the surface, in the space interface (TOA), and everywhere in between.
At the same time.
The GHE at TOA depends temperature, which depends on altitude.
Less (IR) optical depth, higher TOA, colder.
Seen from the surface you see a lower/warmer layer, i.e. more back radiation, less heat loss.
Temperature between the surface and TOA is determined by the lapse rate, which is mainly set by convection. Yes, it varies, sometimes even inverts, but the global average is pretty stable.
The enormous imbalance we have can not hide in the atmosphere.
One degree of ocean temperature increase corresponds to one thousand degrees in the atmosphere.
============================
Just a bunch of gobbledygook Svante. We know we have a greenhouse effect, figuring out why is what we are trying to do.
Going on about less emissions from higher altitudes is simply a recognition that some have occurred at lower altitudes.
Perhaps you can help in understanding. I have a hard time seeing how emissions are reduced by the lapse rate.
Individual molecules near the surface have a given amount of energy. This energy warms the air and parcels of air rise in the atmosphere and cool while rising. So looking at gas laws how is this gas cooling as it rises. Hmmmm they say the heat is converted by work to a form of potential energy. OK fine I can see that when I fill a scuba tank or even discharge bottled air to clean dust out of my computer.
But that presents a problem. We are talking about a given parcel of air discharging heat into potential energy as it rises higher in the air. Just a given parcel of air. For each parcel of air that goes up there must be a parcel coming back down heating as the work of compression recompresses the gas.
So exactly where has the energy gone from convecting air? I would suggest it went nowhere. Instead as the air rises it decompresses both expanding the number of meters its surface represents and also optical depth of this virtual surface.
https://robertcarrollweather.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/agburt01_09.jpg
We can see by the atmospheric profile that it takes the same number of kilometers of elevation at the bottom of the atmosphere to reduce atmospheric pressure by 900mb as it takes near the top of the atmosphere to reduce it by 9thousandths of 1mb.
Under that scenario you get the same rate of radiation at the surface as you do high in the sky. If not why not? Do we just take it for granted ‘not’? Did anybody tell you Svante or do you just believe ‘not’?
Surfaces of objects are pretty well defined. In a gas atmosphere its seems rather unlikely to be so.
So how do we measure this stuff. How do you define a surface at the stratopause where its like 0C? Can I go up there and just wear a nice US48 winter coat? or should I bundle up a bit more on the chance of winter blizzards?
Your mind is bubbling over again. If you want order in your mental chaos you need to resolve one thing at a time.
Everything radiates according to its temperature.
Temperature falls by about one degree per 200 m.
So GHGs radiate less the higher they are.
How far you can see through the atmosphere depends on frequency. In the atmospheric window you can see right through to space at 2.7 K. In the GHG absorption bands you see something warmer.
The “surface” you see is a mixture of different depths.
If you want to know the radiation from that mixed “surface” you can use MODTRAN.
Heat loss depends on (T^4) temperature difference.
So if you see (in IR) something warmer you lose less.
If you see a colder layer from space then earth loses less.
Don’t ask other questions until we are through with this.
Svante says:
Your mind is bubbling over again. If you want order in your mental chaos you need to resolve one thing at a time.
======================================
I would suggest that the reason why is at each point a molecule absorbs upwelling IR, through collisions it moves up to about 80% of that into other molecules for the purpose of warming that layer in the atmosphere.
Starting with the surface, the next layer is remains cooler because of what flew out of the atmosphere window. (12C cooler just considering radiation?) With each new layer more heat is lost as heat is moved from molecule to molecule and the new atmospheric window has widened.
Process repeats over and over again and the result is molecules radiate less at altitude. There is no other avenue of the loss of that energy, its already on its way to Proxima Centauri and many other locations in the universe. So its rather duplicitous to implicate cool upper layers for warming the surface because you believe all that radiation is being retained to warm the surface.
==========================
=========================
==========================
Svante says:
If you want to know the radiation from that mixed surface you can use MODTRAN.
==========================
The missing energy up in the atmosphere has been MODTRANized!, Right?
bill hunter says:
Yes, molecules within a parcel of air will have the same average temperature. CO2 will share its absorbed energy with other molecules. When it emits energy it will also get new energy from those other molecules.
A large part of this energy comes from convection and latent heat.
So CO2 will radiate according to the temperature of the air it is in.
No, the next layer remains cooler mainly because of convection. As air rises it expands and cools according to the ideal gas law, moderated by latent heat. The corresponding falling air obeys the same relationship.
This creates the lapse rate (although it is enhanced by GHGs).
GHGs radiate less at altitude because it is cooler there.
Stable temperature on Earth requires equilibrium radiation budget with space (TOA). If more GHGs push TOA up to a cooler level, radiation drops and thermal energy accumulates inside.
Heat transport from the surface stalls because there are more “layers” to go through. The TOA imbalance propagates down to the surface along a lapse rate curve which is now longer.
Svante says:
No, the next layer remains cooler mainly because of convection. As air rises it expands and cools according to the ideal gas law, moderated by latent heat. The corresponding falling air obeys the same relationship.
This creates the lapse rate (although it is enhanced by GHGs).
=================================================
Uh. . . .no! Convection cools the surface by transporting heat from the surface into the atmosphere Svante.
Yes, convection cools the surface and warms the atmosphere, but not to equal temperature because temperature falls as the air expands with lower pressure.
“Averaging over time and large geographic regions has shown that within the lowest 10 km of the atmosphere, the lapse rate is usually positive and is typically 6-7 degrees per km.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/lapse-rate
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/adiabatic-lapse-rate
Svante says:
Yes, convection cools the surface and warms the atmosphere, but not to equal temperature because temperature falls as the air expands with lower pressure.
==============================
Yes indeed Svante. Should fall as 40watts whizzes straight out of the atmosphere from the surface. Thats good for a temp drop of 12C right off the bat. Then from their the heat reorganizes via collisions then sends another pulse up that even cooler as the window widens the higher you go. Via Trenberth a mean of 239 watts are sent. No doubt a lot more in clear sky and and a lot less from the cloud tops.
And now an increase in GHGs is pushing temperatures up.
Its nice you know that even though you don’t know how its doing that.
I just told you, more GHGs means increasing the average height where radiation leaves earth.
Higher means cooler means less radiation.
There’s a more intelligent argument you can make beyond that, but you will never get there.
Yes, I heard that.
1) Do you have link to an experiment where the mean temperature of a gas are cooled by gas laws while occupying the same space? Is it the weight of additional CO2 molecules compressing the lower atmosphere?
2) How about a study on why altitude makes a difference on a channel already blocked a few meters above the ground?
3) Finally if more space bound photons are gathered in the upper atmosphere how does that lead to cooling?
4) The atmosphere’s temperature profile doesn’t look anything like a proportional gas depressurization curve and couldn’t because gas depressurization only applies to defined parcels of air.
5)Seems more likely that the lapse rate is simply a recognition of zones of net heat gain or loss due to the mix of gases. The impotence of CO2 to cool the atmosphere with elevation is apparent when 10ppm of diffusing ozone appears responsible for the stratosphere temperature inversion.
6) hot spot theory seems to have been suggested as a critical part of the mechanism. A cold stratosphere would seem to want to attract more heat not block heat.
People have a lot of questions they want answered Svante. How come you don’t want them answered?
Seems the national response has been an attempted lockdown of thought. Block questions on the megachannels of the internet. Shame people for asking questions. Top scientists unwilling to be interviewed by the public in one on one debates. Top rated scientists disagreeing. The grandfather of global warming saying the science isn’t there while government websites hammer on it being settled in the late 19th century. Grand conspiracy theories of Big Oil spreading FUD and seeding the public with questions nobody can answer. Firing people for asking the questions. Media making scientific determinations of what questions are appropriate.
Is that what settled science should look like Svante?
One would think one would have to find some way to verify all this stuff. The theory sort sounds kind of orderly like once a CO2 photon always a CO2 photon with columns of identified photons all lining up like a marching drill team and just ignoring the chaos that goes on with molecules in the atmosphere.
You just can’t focus, can you? It always have to be a Gish gallop.
Its difficult to focus without the answers to the questions above and I am sure many other similar questions.
I have never seen something seriously considered as conclusive science by so many with so many lingering questions in my decades of experience. Kind of makes me feel like I had teleported back to 1630.
From the perspective of the USA….
Global CO2 emissions increases ~10,000 Million metric tons every 20 years. USA’s portion was ~30% in the 70s and now ~12%, likely ~8% in 20 years.
For the sake of argument, if trillions we don’t have were spent to eliminate our emissions in 20 years, global CO2 emissions would still increase ~15% instead of ~30%.
Is there anyone who has a concrete, executable plan to address emissions from China, India, etc first, since the USA has already been reducing it’s CO2 emissions slowly over the last 20 years?
Barry
From the perspective of the the rest of the world ….
Is there anyone who has a concrete, executable plan to address emissions from USA first, since China already emits 1/2 as much per capita, and India emits 1/8 as much per capita.
It’s all in your sense of what is ‘fair’.
Tim,
I’m pretty sure the equations include CO2 molecules, not CO2 molecules per capita.
Or, has the goal been changed from reducing climate change to something else?
Barry
Barry,
These are not easy issues. There is no easy answers. But it is impossible to decrease CO2 while simultaneously:
* maintaining current population levels.
* consuming energy at the rates in the US.
* relying on current energy sources.
Some very hard decisions will need to be made if the goal is indeed to decrease global CO2 output.
We could try:
* dramatically decreasing the overall population (but population control is VERY tricky — ask China).
* becoming more energy efficient per capita, like driving less, LED lightbulbs, smaller homes, (But if you live in India and are hardly using any energy, there is not much to cut).
* finding new or bigger ways to tap into energy sources. (Expensive and these have their own environmental impacts).
Tim, only idiots would consider drastically ridiculous measures for imaginary problems.
Tim,
Where I am, forecast is 39 C. Not too bad, it gets hotter at times. Too much CO2 about, do you think? Cant see why. Not much population, not many cars, no heavy industry, not much of anything really.
That CO2 must work better when the temperature is high, do you think?
Clint, and only idiots would wishfully ignore a serious problem.
Hopefully the wise people are in the middle. Realizing that global warming is definitely not imaginary, but also realizing that it is not responsible for every weather event. Realizing that some steps can be taken easily and effectively, but that we shouldn’t shut down the world to deal with CO2.
Neither the extreme you postulate nor the extreme you project onto me is a good starting point.
Tim, you are ignoring the problem. The problem is that too many people want to ignore reality. That is a serious problem. It leads to bad things, like lawlessness and rioting.
People like you, that claim to be “in the middle” but are in reality extremists, are the problem.
Tim,
If global CO2 levels are a problem, there is no viable solution currently and that is my point. A solution that does not include China, India, etc, is not a solution.
Population control is a lot more than ‘tricky’…
If you want to try your other suggestions yourself or in your community, go for it. But, nationally we are already reducing our contributions steadily while the rest of the world is increasing rapidly.
Barry
You seem to be making the case that economic growth in China and India to make them equal to our level of wealth is a huge threat to all of humanity due to global warming.
Was that your intent?
Tim,
I don’t think the USA has a moral right to demand China and others not do what we’ve done. I’m just asking what mechanism even exists.
Also, since the USA’s contribution is small and shrinking, we’re already doing our part at the moment.
Barry
How does 15% of global emissions for 4% of the global population qualify as “small”?
Per capita, the only western countries with more emissions are Canada and Australia.
It is about 25% more than Russia, 50% more than Japan, double China, more than double the entire European’s average, and almost triple the UK.
“European’s” should be “European Union’s”
Midas,
Per capita is a moral discussion. ‘The models’ use CO2 molecules.
Energy policy takes decades. USA is decreasing ~1% per yr (same as EU) and China, India, etc are increasing single digits % per yr. USAs contribution will be <10% in ~20yrs. Spending trillions to reduce USAs part more will be useless until the bulk of contributions is reducing.
Barry
If you are going with total emissions, then the US is second highest after China.
So in your words, the US releases the second highest number of CO2 molecules.
You really should have stuck with per capita. But if you want to make your argument worse, who am I to argue.
Anyway, same question … how does that qualify as “small”.
Midas,
So I think 15% is small and you think it isn’t.
That doesn’t address the fact that USA is decreasing along with EU and China etal are increasing and it appears they will be for a while.
Barry
Not 15%. That is meaningless.
15% for 4% of the population. That is LARGE.
Des, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
From the perspective of the the rest of the world ….
Is there anyone who has a concrete, executable plan to address emissions from USA first, since China already emits 1/2 as much per capita, and India emits 1/8 as much per capita.
Its all in your sense of what is fair.
=======================================
Well is 1/2 as much the target? Or is it 1/8th as much? Then we can determine who should get paid to change if anybody. That’s the standard that Turkey is holding out for. Seems to be the right approach.
From a practical point of view the nations that have signed on to the Paris agreement account for 85% of the emissions. Thats a sufficient experimental sample don’t you think? For if you don’t get a result on that you aren’t going to get one with 15% more.
We can follow their lead as they prove the pudding. Only neocons, hegemonists, and ‘closet believers’ in American exceptionalism believe the US should take the lead on this.
there is another issue as well. The US is one of the few nations in the world that conforms to voluntary agreements (when properly ratified). Only the threat of enforcement induces most. Where no threat exists like in the Paris Agreement the only route to compliance is by actual willful belief in action being effective in improving the cost/benefit balance sheet. So more so perhaps than any modern agreement the Paris agreement is a broad test of that concept. I have little doubt American’s will jump in with both feet once the goodness of the pudding is observed.
I wonder how much of our reduction was because we exported those emissions to another country.
sounds like a test of that assumption is needed! Go Trump!
“trillions we don’t have”? LOL
Trump printed $2 trillion, which included at least half a tril for all his business buddies, back in March. All those businesses he said were doing so great all needed billions of $s to bail them out so he simply printed trillions on the spot.
You might want to rethink your “we don’t have” comment
b/c the US gov’t obviously has a whole lot more than anyone knows about.
Also, the US with 4% of the worlds population is still adding 15% of the worldwide total yearly CO2 tonnage to the atmosphere.
Lou,
I think you might be saying “we already spend like drunken sailors, so might as well spend even more for a benefit”?
But even if the assumptions about AGW are correct, to benefit requires the entire planet spend like drunken sailors. The USA has been a leader in reduction recently; our contribution in both absolute and percentage is already shrinking.
Barry
“The USA has been a leader in reduction recently; our contribution in both absolute and percentage is already shrinking.”
Weve done ok at reduction, but our per capita emissions are roughly double those of Europe, so reuction is relatively easier for us.
Also, we are a developed country with service oriented economy. Not the case for develpping world which produces all our stuff.
These countries need to continue their development, but must be incentivized to develop with more renewable energy.
Nate,
I’m hearing redistribution from that…
If the goal is averting crisis from elevated global CO2 levels, the solution is global reduction of CO2 emissions. We are already reducing, on par with EU percentage-wise. China etal are increasing and it appears they will be for a while.
Barry
“Im hearing redistribution from that”
Call it whatever u like.
Chinas and Indias energy use per capita will continue to grow because we still want our cheap products, and because it is neccesary to become a developed country like europe and US.
They were moving to renewables under Paris agreement, but now in the me-first world, idk.
Nate,
China would love to sign voluntary agreements obligating USA to spend trillions on this. It will hasten their rise to the top economically.
Barry
Indeed Nate reward China for its use of reeducation camps and slave labor. That will be a great investment for the future of this country.
what is unbelievable is the number of foolhardy who actually believe in that stuff.
Nate says:
Also, we are a developed country with service oriented economy. Not the case for develpping world which produces all our stuff.
These countries need to continue their development, but must be incentivized to develop with more renewable energy.
=====================================
Excellent observation Nate! Clearly the onus has to be on those producing our stuff. Do you suggest tariffs on goods produced with fossil fuels? If not what kind of incentive are you suggesting?
Obviously exceptions to compliance are huge disincentives.
Costs to 3rd parties should be added on CO2.
The same cost should be added as tariffs on imports, unless other countries choose to tax it themselves.
If you don’t like taxes then cut back elsewhere.
“Excellent observation Nate! Clearly the onus has to be on those producing our stuff. Do you suggest tariffs on goods produced with fossil fuels? ”
You dont believe Trump when he says China pays the tariff do you?
Trump is right. The basic laws of economics dictates that in trade wars the consumer nation always wins.
Free trade was the obvious ticket when the US was the No. 1 producer nation. And its still immensely popular with producers and intellectual property rights holders making a ton in China.
So the objective of the trade war is some form of reasonable parity and its definitely achievable.
I was being satirical about a tariff on goods produced by fossil fuels. That might be something some ignorant nation might pursue that could have some positive outcomes for them if they still have a consumer class when its all said and done based upon the harm they do to their own economy by eschewing fossil fuels because its not too likely they will be competitive on the world market for real goods versus intellectual goods.
Svante says:
Costs to 3rd parties should be added on CO2.
The same cost should be added as tariffs on imports, unless other countries choose to tax it themselves.
If you dont like taxes then cut back elsewhere.
=============================
Indeed that should be the case should it be shown that fossil fuel burning is bad. But so far its been good. Not only does the greenhouse effect restrict extreme temperatures, it makes the mean temperature of the planet livable. Few creatures, if any, could survive on earth without greenhouse gases.
And thats just the beginnings of benefits. It saves millions of lives every year. I provides the machinery to rescue people subjected to natural disasters. It provides the production capabilities of building homes and structures for protection from the elements for billions. It provides for modern agriculture that creates vast amounts of free time for people to invent other stuff to improve our lives. And we should charge people for it? That would be like taxing air. Imagine all the people unable to pay the tax that would die?
there is stupid then there is really really stupid.
It’s expensive if all costs are counted.
It can no longer compete with wind power in most places.
By the way, the GHE increases temperatures.
Temperatures get more and more extreme.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Optimum CO2 is 800ppm – 1200ppm , the plan is burn all you want until you run out, then figure out something else
Optimum for what?
Midas,
Do you really not know, or are you really that stupid?
Please entertain my stupidity.
M,
OK. I admit your stupidity is entertaining.
So you also don’t know what he is referring to. Got it.
M,
Of course I do, dummy. Your stupidity is indeed entertaining. More please!
Well he clearly doesn’t mean global temperature.
M,
Keep at it. Keep jumping to conclusions. You might land on a correct answer by sheer chance, but I doubt you would recognise it as such!
It’s funny watching you do everything possible to avoid being pinned down to anything, because you know you be caught out. You hate those “gotchas”, right Mikey.
M,
Maybe if you could learn to speak English, I might be able to understand your concern.
*. . . you be caught out . . .*? Really? What a donkey!
Yet again, you focus on easily-decipherable typos instead of the easily-understood message.
Des, please stop trolling.
For snowmen ball rolling
You’ll want more aerosols, less solar radiation, and/or less atmospheric GHG concentrations to optimize for snowmen building. At 800-1200 ppm of CO2 you’ve all but guaranteed a complete melt out of all sea and land ice on the planet within a few hundred years.
b,
Sounds like you have worked out a CO2 powered heater, there. Have you got plans? Should be a good market for people in cold climates with high energy costs.
bdgwx,
Here are quotes I found in a USAToday article about average temperature of Antarctica:
“Ice makes up 98 percent of Antarctica’s surface, and in some areas, the ice is more than 2 miles thick.”
“In Antarctica, the average annual temperature ranges from -76 degrees Fahrenheit at the most elevated parts of the interior to 14 degrees along the coast.”
I’m pretty sure we’ll remain in an ice age…
Barry
bdgwx
Richard Alley states that if we were to burn all fossils fuels, although CO2 concentrations would be at ice-free levels, it would take about 100,000 years to melt all the ice on the planet. At the current rate of melting it would take a million years to melt all the ice.
Bob,
Err..typo on my part. I should have said a few thousand years.
Can you post a link to where Dr. Alley says that it will take 100,000 years to melt all of the ice at high CO2 concentrations?
I’ve watched many of his lectures and read a lot of his publications and I don’t remember him throwing out an estimate that high.
Unfortunately I won’t be able to recall in which video Alley said this.
Unlike the deniers, I don’t keep a list of links to be used for bombing people.
Whereas I find this material interesting, it really is an industry for them. (Sorry for the digression)
Also apologies for mixing up those two names.
Midas, gotcha…thanks. I’ll see if I can dig it up. I thought the estimates I’ve seen for 4xCO2 (1000’ish ppm) was about 5000 years. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.
bdgwx, Des, please stop trolling.
Midas says:
Optimum for what?
========================
CO2 supplemented agriculture Midas.
The planet optimum may be higher as the agricultural optimum is restrained by the cost of supplying the CO2 which is essentially by burning propane or natural gas which has a hefty price tag.
In a natural system where the gas is being readily supplied elsewhere at essentially zero marginal cost the optimum would certainly go to a higher level unless other costs are actually observed and attributed properly.
Optimum is rather pretty clearly associated with the idea of maximum sustainable yield for feeding the World’s population. History has shown that having sufficient food is one of the greatest risks to survival.
To understand what that is one has to allow for enough freedom to actually learn what the limits are. It seems rather apparent we aren’t encroaching on that boundary now despite all the false fear mongering about CO2 lingering in the atmosphere. That has already been debunked by the IPCC.
The idea of restricting learning is what makes the ”precautionary principle” so dangerous to our well being. It really is more like a religious belief held by those who know little about living an independent life. It’s one thing to watch Bear Grylls episodes and quite another actually living them.
barry k. Its perfectly clear that it is a global problem. If every country takes a me first approach, as US has, then no action will happen.
If we come to an international agreement to take action, and that typically requires US leadership, then it will be effective, as it was with the ozone hole problem.
Nate,
If leading means another voluntary international agreement, what mechanisms are in that agreement to force compliance?
I’m saying leading is tied to actions and we are already decreasing.
I don’t think we have a right to demand compliance and withhold enrichment of other countries anyway. But that is likely decades off…
Barry
“Im saying leading is tied to actions and we are already decreasing.”
Not lately.
Reversing on regulation of coal power plants, on auto mpg, on methane leaks, on efficiency, on anything Obama did on emissions.
Nate,
You seem fixated on ‘actions’ that boil down to signing pieces of paper. Isn’t actual reduction what matters?
Barry
Well, some of the policies are failing in their goal, for example the strong effort to bring back coal, by reversing every possible pollution standard, has been unable to revive coal in the face of cheap gas and renewables.
Others have been more successful at reversing our reductions, like auto mpg standards and methane emissions. And of course leaving the Paris agreement has enabled other countries to increase emissions.
Nate says:
barry k. Its perfectly clear that it is a global problem. If every country takes a me first approach, as US has, then no action will happen.
If we come to an international agreement to take action, and that typically requires US leadership, then it will be effective, as it was with the ozone hole problem.
====================================
Its not the same kind of problem. Flourocarbons may have been beneficial for refrigeration and harmful the atmosphere.
CO2 is beneficial for a far wider range of things than refrigeration and is equal important as a life giving gas in the atmosphere. One should be very sure that it poses a very serious problem before taking action.
Other nations have agreed to take action. If they don’t that would be typical. As it stands when the US enters an agreement to take action we do. Then it requires strong punishment for violators to get the rest to come along.
If the US reputation is in danger abroad that’s the reason it is. Nobody likes the big boss. We can’t even have a nuclear arms treaty without cheaters. And everybody agrees nuclear arms are a bad thing.
bill…”Flourocarbons may have been beneficial for refrigeration and harmful the atmosphere”.
It’s ironic that since they banned fluorocarbons that another ozone hole opened over the opposite Pole. It’s the same with the banning of DDT based on Rachel Carson’s propaganda re its effect on the eggshells of raptors (bird of prey). So, the only chemical we have against mosquitoes, the cause of malaria, that kills millions each year, was banned because it was theorized that DDT was causing the shells of raptor eggs to thin.
Lo and behold, many years after banning DDT, it was discovered that raptor eggshells had been thinning long before DDT and well after it was banned. This is why I am so opposed to climate alarmists. I don’t want them imposing pseudo-science on the rest of us based on their religion of false beliefs.
Another denier gem.
Agreement from bill hunter, DREMT, Swenson, ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).?
I don’t have an opinion on it either way.
Gordon do you have a reference on that shell thinning discovery? Here in California the focus was never on the thinning of egg shells of raptors but instead was on the thinning of egg shells of Pelicans.
The Pelicans made an amazing recovery sometime after DDT was banned. But major ocean changes were underway at the same time with a resurgence in sardine populations. Anchovies a much smaller forage fish was abundant during the decline of the Pelican that was blamed on DDT. Just read an article in the rag Scientific American blaming residual DDT for continuing problems with the California Condor.
But wait!! The Pelican is a big clumsy bird that dives into the sea with a big pouch mouth open to nab prey. It is also possible because of the lack of sardines and nutrition that the pelican went into decline. And that also makes a lot more sense for a giant scavenger bird not having the kind of carrion it had back in its heydays.
Lots of big animals perished during the Holocene in California. The La Brea tarpits is a huge repository of giant sloths, huge short face bears (largest known bear), clumsy powerful sabre tooth tigers, huge lions, mammoths and more. All believed to have perished due to a lack of nutrition in the Holocene. I would be interested in reading it if you have a link.
barry k…”Global CO2 emissions increases ~10,000 Million metric tons every 20 years. USAs portion was ~30% in the 70s and now ~12%, likely ~8% in 20 years”.
Seems like a lot of gas but the end result is that CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. It has been known that the oceans absorb roughly 50% of the emitted amount but I read recently that percentage may be even higher. And let’s not forget that vegetation absorb an immeasurable amount.
The Artic region seems to be driving these higher average global temps. Any idea why?
Arctic Amplification
The Arctic is certainly the fastest warming region over the long term, but by area it is not the largest region, so saying it is the “driver” might be pushing it. In UAH the Arctic, ‘NoPol’, covers 60-90N. Land areas of the northern and southern hemispheres and the tropics are also warming faster than the global average.
bill…”The Artic region seems to be driving these higher average global temps. Any idea why?”
I don’t think the Arctic has anything to do with recent global averages. This is a hangover from the 2016 El Nino, which has been prevented from cooling off for some reason. I have cynically offered one opinion for that condition, that NOAA, who provides the sat data, is messing with the data before UAH receives it. The have fudged the surface temperatures badly, why not their own sat data?
The Arctic’s temperatures seasonally vary from around 0C down to -50C or so.
Have a look at these global temperature contour maps from UAH. Note that warming in the Arctic for September 2020 is represented by a tiny region that appears to be north of Russia with a warming of +3.5C. Opposite that, over Greenland, there is a cooling of -3.5C which cancels out the warming leaving the Arctic with little or no warming during September 2020.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
If you go back to January 2020, in the Arctic winter, you see basically the same thing but with the warming patches having moved.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/january2020/202001_Map.png
For all the commenters above who are pointing to “breaking records”, “positive trend” etc hinting perhaps that this is evidence of increasing CO2 causing increased temperatures, if one looks at the actual monthly temperatures from the UAH web site one finds, in fact, that over the whole period the hypothesis that the temperatures are stationary cannot be rejected. Like many other climate variables they appear to be fractionally integrated. For example, the Globa Land monthly values are fractionally integrated with a coefficient of around 0.45 and the Global Ocean with a coefficient of around 0.43. However, the estimated standard errors would mean one could not reject the hypothesis these coefficients are equal. The key point, however, is that these are stationary time series while the CO2 content in the atmosphere is non-stationary. That does not look good for the hypothesis that CO2 content drives temperatures.
I was called away before I could finish the previous comment. I meant to say that having TLT monthly temps stationary with CO2 content in the atmosphere non-stationary is not good for the linear model linking CO2 content to TLT.
Looking at the data further, it is interesting that the degrees of long-term persistence in the UAH TLT data differ geographically:
Region Fractional integration
South Pole Land 0
South Pole Ocean 0
SH Extra-tropics Land 0.24
Tropics Ocean 0.26
Tropics Land 0.26
North Pole Ocean 0.32
North Pole Land 0.33
NH Extra-tropics Land 0.40
SH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.41
NH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.47
These would seem to suggest that the TLT over the extra-tropics oceans are the largest sites of longer-term persistence.
Peter, try running the numbers again… but this time only use the most recent 20 years of UAH data.
In order to determine “long-memory” properties of time series you want to use the longest sample possible.
Yes, of course you do.
skeptical…”Peter, try running the numbers again but this time only use the most recent 20 years of UAH data”.
Why??? From 1998 – 2015, you have an 18 year flat trend then in early 2016, you had a major El Nino. So, you are asking Peter to analyze 4 years of heavily biased data to draw an inference about a much larger range.
Peter,
I’m not following you. The UAH global TLT trend is +0.1367C/decade +-0.0067 which is statistically significant by a large margin.
Remember that climate forcing agents (like CO2 or whatever) perturb the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). It is the net effect of all perturbations that dictate the final EEI and the final accumulation/depletion of heat in the geosphere. In addition there are several mechanisms that work on varying time scales that transfers heat from one reservoir to another. There is no expectation that CO2 (or any single climate forcing agent) should track the TLT trend exactly. Though the long term trend of the UAH global TLT is positive (not stationary) as is CO2 concentration so…
What statistical technique are you using to get the coefficients of 0.45 and 0.43? I’d like to understand more about what you’re looking at here.
The analysis treats all the series as stochastic without deterministic time trends. Use L to denote the lag operator. For a time series X_t, LX_t = X_{t-1} and L^kX_t = X_{t-k}.
A time series that is growing over time, like the Mauna Loa CO2 monthly values, is non-stationary if it has a random walk component, for example, X_t = X_{t-1}+\epsilon_t or (1-L)X_t = \epsilon_t. Such a random walk component is known as a “stochastic trend” if \epsilon has a non-zero mean. The series X_t is also said to be integrated of order 1 if (1-L)X_t is a stationary time series, integrated of order 2 if (1-L)X_t is not stationary but (1-L)^2X_t is stationary, and so on.
A time series that is integrated of order d for d integer can often be modeled as an ARMA process
\rho(L)(1-L)^dX_t = \theta(L)\epsilon_t where d is an integer,
\rho(L) = 1 – \rho_1L − \rho_2L^2 − … − \rho_pL^p with the roots of the polynomial
\rho(z) = 1 – \rho_1z− \rho_2z^2 − … − \rho_pz^p = 0 lying outside the unit circle
and \theta(L) = 1 + \theta_1L + \theta_2L^2 + … +\theta_qL^q with the roots of the polynomial
\theta(z) = 1 + \theta_1z + \theta_2z^2 + … +\theta_qz^q also lying outside the unit circle.
A time series is said to be fractionally integrated if instead -0.5 < d < 0.5. These processes have a "long memory", but not as long as random walks were the "memory" is "forever". The higher the value of d, the longer the memory.
As I mentioned in the first post, many climate variables are fractionally integrated. It turns out that this is the case for the UAH TLT temperatures.
On the other hand, monthly average CO2 from Mauna Loa is integrated. In my opinion, this is consistent with at least a partially human driver of the CO2 (emissions are related to GDP, and that is integrated, so the CO2 series inherits that integration).
My point about what this says about climate models is that if we have
∆T = k_1∆Forcing = k_2∆CO2 where k_1 and k_2 are constants (effectively a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature) then if the CO2 series is integrated so should the temperatures be integrated. However, that is not what we find. To me that means a simple linear connection between CO2 in the atmosphere and TLT is strongly inconsistent with the data. Furthermore, there does not even yet appear to be strong evidence that TLT are non-stationary, as they ought to be if they are driven by non-stationary economic processes (which economic growth is) through some other mechanism.
The other finding I emphasized is the the "length of memory" in the TLT temperatures varies across the globe. There seems to be more persistence (longer-term feedbacks operating, but still not permanent change) in the extra-tropics oceans, extra-tropics land and to a lesser extent the north pole. Then comes the tropics and southern hemisphere extra-tropics land, which appears to operate more like the tropics than the northern hemisphere extra-tropics land. Curiously, the south pole TLT does not appear to have any "long memory" process at all — maybe because it is somewhat isolated from the rest of the globe by circumpolar air flows?
Thanks Peter. I’m somewhat familiar with stochastic analysis, but pretty weak at it. When I get time I’ll see if I can’t get more up to speed on these techniques.
@Peter Hartley, It appears that you are using the lack of obvious month-to-month changes to claim that the average UAH temperature anomaly in the 2010’s is not really higher than it was in the 1980’s. If you processed daily anomalies instead of monthly, your conclusion might appear even stronger; but it would be equally senseless. Please average the data over a year or two or three and repeat your analysis.
No one is claiming that CO2 is responsible for every fluctuation of global temperature anomaly. Instead, the claim of most climate scientists is that increases in global CO2 are primarily responsible for a trend of increasing anomalies that are clearer as one averages data over longer periods. That trend is apparent in the 13-month running average of Dr. Spencer’s plot and is even more apparent when the averaging period is longer.
Jeff,
Just to clarify, I am not using month to month changes — I am looking at the whole sample of 501 months of data posted at the link to the UAH web site that Roy gives. I also am not comparing averages in the 2010’s to averages in the 1980’s. I also am not looking at trends in moving averages of the UAH data. Implicitly, these techniques assume there are deterministic trend components in the time series. My approach instead treats them as entirely stochastic. I am simply trying to characterize the type of stochastic process that the temperatures appear to be following.
Such an exercise is a different way of summarizing the properties of the data. It is useful for checking theories because the theories have to be consistent with the stochastic properties of the data sets. In particular, two series linked in a linear functional relationship should display the same levels of integration. If they do not, they cannot be so linked.
In this case, the very different properties of the CO2 series and the temperature series imply that there cannot be a simple functional connection between CO2 and temperature.
Interestingly, if one looks at the CO2 series in more detail it turns out that the fluctuations at the annual frequency are also integrated. This shows an example of what I am talking about. As CO2 content in the atmosphere follows a stochastic trend, the seasonal fluctuations due to NH deciduous vegetation uptake in the spring and release in the fall are also trending over time. More CO2 leads to more deciduous vegetation, which in turn leads to larger seasonal fluctuations. The time series properties of the series are consistent with the theoretical link.
Going back to the TLT, the other thing that is revealed by the analysis is that the longer-term persistence in TLT appears to be focused on the atmosphere over the NH extra-tropics ocean and to a lesser extent the NH extra-tropics land and SH extra-tropics oceans. Since I presented the fractional integration parameters above, I have now also modeled the short-run dynamics and the persistence levels have declined a little but the ranking remains similar to what I found above above. For the fractional integration parameters, I now get:
South Pole Land 0.0
South Pole Ocean 0.0
Tropics Ocean 0.260
Tropics Land 0.261
North Pole Ocean 0.266
SH Extra-tropics Land 0.322
North Pole Land 0.325
SH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.360
NH Extra-tropics Land 0.387
NH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.427
jeff…”It appears that you are using the lack of obvious month-to-month changes to claim that the average UAH temperature anomaly in the 2010s is not really higher than it was in the 1980s”.
In actuality, that’s close to the truth. UAH, in it’s 33 year report claimed little or no warming till the 1998 El Nino. I interpret that to mean there was little in the way of anomalies above the baseline. The 98 EN drove global temps suddenly above the baseline almost a full degree C.
Following the 98 EN came a lengthy flat trend till about 2015. The year 2010 had another significant EN yet the average remained about 0.2C above the baseline.
You have to be aware that the trend pre 1998 was made up mainly of negative anomalies, not true warming, which requires positive anomalies.
Another old gem from Gordon’s copy/paste gallery.
And once Dr. Roy updates the baseline there is no real warming at all.
bdx…”Remember that climate forcing agents (like CO2 or whatever) perturb the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI)”.
There is no such thing as a climate forcing agent. That is climate model theory based on unvalidated models and forcings apply only in models as mathematical forcing functions. Climate is an average of daily weather and the weather is driven basically by solar energy.
Weather, hence climate, involves atmospheric gases but there is not a shred of proof that a trace element in atmospheric gases, CO2, at 0.04% of the gases, is driving the temperature of those gases. That is contrary to the Ideal Gas Law. The major gases, N2 and O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere control the temperature.
Thank you, dr. Spencer! I think the most interestingin the sepember report is that the southern hemisphere is as warm (+0.56) as the northern hemisphere +0.58). This contrasts considerably from the surface measurements, for instance the reanalyzer series, where the southern hemisphere has recorded very ow values the last month.
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php
Does anyone have an explanation for this? T. Klemsdal, Oslo, Norway.
The title of that first graph is “GFS vs CSFR”. Doesn’t that mean it shows only the difference between these two models?
And the second says “bias wrt respect to 168h forecast”. Doesn’t that mean it is showing only the difference between actual temperatures and the forecast of a week ago?
Correct me if I have misinterpreted.
The top graph is the GFS analysis+forecast anomaly vs the CFSR 30 year average from 1981-2010. The analysis is to the left of the dotted vertical line and the 7-day forecast is to the right.
The graph underneath it is the GFS 7-day forecast bias relative to its own analysis. It is essentially assessing the skill of the GFS 7-day forecast. The GFS has a well known cold bias on forecasts especially for the SH. And as you can see the bias is pretty substantial. The cold bias increased quite a bit last year when the FV3 numerical core and newer parameterization schemes were implemented.
It is important to note that “analysis” and “reanalysis” while similar conceptually are not the same thing. The GFS is not designed to measure the global mean temperature nevermind produce a stable measurement of it that is consistent over long periods of time. The GFS is primarily used as an operational weather forecasting tool. Tradeoffs are made such that its skill in operational meteorological forecasting is given priority over skill in measuring climatic parameters. You’ll want to stick with bona-fide “reanalysis” datasets for climatic data analysis. The site does have the NCAR reanalysis dataset.
Tor,
Different things are being measured. UAH TLT is pretty high up in the atmosphere as opposed to the surface temperature which is only 2 meters above. Monthly troposphere temperatures can and often do move opposite that of surface temperatures even though there is a positive correlation over long periods of time.
b,
So to an alarmist, the surface does not really mean the surface? Or does the word *surface* mean anything you want it to?
I understand this mightn’t apply to little men like you, but most of us don’t experience climate within a centimetre of the surface.
M,
So you agree that the alarmist *surface temperature* is not really the *surface* temperature? Climate is the average of weather, donkey, so your pointless ad hom appears to have been wasted. My feet, unlike dreamy alarmists, remain firmly on the surface. Thats the real surface. I dont walk a meter or two above it, nor on water as some alarmists seem to imagine they can.
Funny, coming from the master of ad hom.
Des, please stop trolling.
Yes, I agree that short term different trends may be fully ‘normal’. But UAH has had the southern hemisphere as warm as the northern since may/june.
In contrast, if you plot a 3 month period (ie. june, july, august) for NOAA, land and ocean, the northern hemisphere for 2020 comes out as the warmest, at 1.17 C, while the southern hemisphere is only 0.67 C and at 4.th place.
Tor…”Does anyone have an explanation for this? T. Klemsdal, Oslo, Norway”.
I have asked this question several times. We know UAH gets their data from NOAA. If Roy is retrieving it directly from the sats, I trust him and I’ll drop the question. If NOAA is getting the data before UAH then passing it on, there is nothing to stop them fudging it upward using some kind of algorithm.
I don’t think that is a conspiracy theory. We know they have extensively fudged the surface record, for reasons unknown, seemingly political, and they have the technology to ‘adjust’ sat data anyway they want since it’s their sats and their telemetry.
Thanks for your comment. I am not looking for any conspiracy, but just trying to understand what physical/meteorolgical phenomenon could explain why the troposphere apparantly is not tracking the surface. We will see how RSS and GISS and NOAA surface records come out for september.
Note that there were several tropical storms in September. This could have caused the tropospheric temperature to rise.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo, your question has been answered several times. Dr. Spencer posts data from J. Christy at UAH which processes the satellite data that is/has been supplied by NOAA. There’s no separate way that Spencer could receive the data directly from the satellites.
Of course, Gordo immediately seq-ways into another conspiracy rant, claiming that “they” (i.e., some people at NOAA) are fudging the data. He appears to be completely unaware that NOAA STAR is not the same group of people as NOAA NCEI or NASA GIS.
Swanson your analysis fails to consider that:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab (militant group), Boko Haram, Indonesian Mujahedeen Council, Taliban, Sipah Sahaba, Iran, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are not all the same group of people either.
I would also note that all those groups above aren’t a conspiracy. Thus any discussion of them as a group shouldn’t be considered a ‘conspiracy rant’, either. Now an ‘indoctrination rant’ would seem to be at least realistic.
We are very clearly in a data fudging era. And I am not talking about intentional or necessarily conscious fudging. Never seen that in my area of examination. But still have had numerous findings. The non-conscious fudging is at least an order of magnitude greater than the conscious fudging among people who have worked hard to get where they are. And for all kinds of fudging its several orders of magnitude in the direction of either direct money or fealty toward the dispenser of the money. And it doesn’t have to be a lot of money it can be as little as an regular or occasional cup of coffee as long as its relatively larger than other inducements.
So data fudging automatically arises out of an impassioned search for the truth already believed in.
Here is a great email exchange exemplifying that:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt
They were right, 1940 is not in line with proxy data:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Something changed with ship measurements.
WWII?
Fig. 3.
You are right who knows. then you just pick your favorite answer right?
It seems rather stretchy to be using proxy data to overrule the instrument record considering how bad proxy data tends to be.
But maybe this would shine more light on the topic.
“TC: I have only read a few emails and then realized I shouldn’t read any of it – it is, let us not forget, illegally obtained material from a personal email, and in my view has the same respect as would any personal letters that one may get in the mail.”
Crowley talking about climategate. Lets see what did he get wrong? Well number one we don’t know if the emails were illegally obtained. It could be a whistle blower. It could be the system was left openly accessible. No reason to believe the emails were illegally obtained without some proof.
Second, these are not ‘private conversations’ these are conversations being conducted under payments to the persons from public funds. There is a public right to know involved here.
But none of that matters to Crowley. He just sees it as a problem for a rather loosey goosey case for CAWG.
And there is more:
”Crowley’s reconstructions of Earth’s temperature history have independently corroborated those of Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann and other scientists, who were the subjects of the email hack.” Hmmm is this his occupation? Has he ever corrected any of those folks? Is there even a shade of a color of independence shining from Crowley in regards to his neutrality as a dedicated scientist? I’ll let you try to figure that out Svante.
In politics I have a learned aversion toward people that tend to check every check box on the party platform. Rules you out from being a sneaky ideologue anyway.
Now take Judith Curry and Roy. Both believe in the basic greenhouse effect but recognize uncertainty and rather reasonably believe that observations suggest a much weaker effect.
bill hunter says:
OK, the difference is within the statistical error margin, so you can go with the instrumental record if you trust that.
P.S. 1903-1904 are also statistical outliers.
Svante says:
P.S. 1903-1904 are also statistical outliers.
===========================
statistical outliers? The weather changes daily. How are you defining a statistical outlier?
It’s at 2‐σ
See: https://tinyurl.com/y4gkfofa
Is that the proxy that Tom Wigley said needed to be created?
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt
Maybe, but the word proxy is not in your reference.
‘a change in radiative forcing perturbs the surface air temperature’
Your link states the above as the precondition for feedbacks. I will look at that after somebody describes and defends exactly how additional layers of absorp-tion by CO2 perturbs the surface.
Svante says:
Maybe, but the word proxy is not in your reference.
======================
doesn’t matter is anything that isn’t going and reading the thermometer in the afternoon and early morning and recording the reading on a log is a form of proxy for doing that.
How about MODTRAN?
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Modtran is a proxy for temperature if one decides that it is. For that matter your mother’s french poodle could be a proxy if somebody decided it was.
No, no, no.
It calculates IR radiation.
You asked about radiative forcing remember.
but so far the only description of converting whats absorbed to surface forcing has been your closed window greenhouse model that was debunked a long time ago. I will let DREMT have the last word here unless you offer more.
If you think photon energy is destroyed at the surface you are violating the first law of thermodynamics.
If you think the surface turns into a mirror whenever it sees these “excess” photons, then you’re even weirder.
It will add thermal energy to the surface, and temperature will rise.
When you understand that you can think about feedbacks, and the only relevant question is how much?
Svante says:
If you think photon energy is destroyed at the surface you are violating the first law of thermodynamics.
If you think the surface turns into a mirror whenever it sees these excess photons, then youre even weirder.
It will add thermal energy to the surface, and temperature will rise.
When you understand that you can think about feedbacks, and the only relevant question is how much?
===================================
come on Svante building a whole chinese army of strawmen and BS doesn’t get you anywhere.
It’s been calculated and measured.
It’s not stopping in the atmosphere and it’s not coming out of the oceans:
* K. von Schuckmann et al.: Heat stored in the Earth system
https://tinyurl.com/y32lsoxq
Svante says:
Its been calculated and measured.
Its not stopping in the atmosphere and its not coming out of the oceans:
=======================================
Where in the world Svante did you ever get the idea that heat might be coming out of the oceans?
The oceans are colder than the surface. Is this some kind crackpot concept of cold things warming hot things ran totally out of control?
Wow!!
You gave me that idea, ocean cycles you said.
If surface warming came from ocean cycles the ocean heat content (OHC) would go down, wouldn’t it?
Svante says:
You gave me that idea, ocean cycles you said.
If surface warming came from ocean cycles the ocean heat content (OHC) would go down, wouldnt it?
============================
Well you may have gotten that from me but that would be due to your misunderstanding of everything i have said about the dynamics of internal variation via ocean oscillations. And I have said plenty, if read properly, to come to the completely opposite conclusion.
1) I have only ever discussed any dynamics on the PDO and ENSO.
I have had people many times point out (can’t remember if you were one) that the PDO index isn’t an index of increasing ocean temperatures, which I have agreed with every single time. In fact, efforts are made to detrend the PDO data.
2) I have explicitly said I wasn’t certain how the PDO affected world climate but have merely noted it is highly correlated with it. Thus one explanation, and the one I find the most plausible in the absence of another finding, is that ocean storm tracks do move when the PDO moves. That results in longer trips across the Pacific for storm systems. Wind is a huge variant in evaporation as shown when you blow on hot food to cool it. thus the injection of water vapor into the atmosphere (which I consider to be the largest by far possible avenue for additional greenhouse warming – considering water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere) could be a likely explanation for the correlation. Now technically thats removing heat from the ocean but only temporarily as it falls back within days and it seems likely to have no impact or de minimis impact on ocean heat content, which at a minimum renders your claim as rather absurd.
3) the above recognizes as I have regular recognized effects from a greenhouse effect. And its also due to the fact its clear that water is not saturated in the atmosphere completely consistent with a single layer GHE philosophy.
4)I have never studied the AMO. I really don’t know anything about the AMO beyond believing its very possibly a key ingredient in the comings and goings of Arctic ice because it is one of two major pathways for maintaining cold ocean bottoms. This infusion of cold water into the deep ocean would have possibly large impacts on ocean heat content over time. But there is no sense in talking about it because we don’t measure ocean heat content at the bottom of the ocean.
b,
You do realise that EEI is just alarmist gibberish, dont you?
Unless you have a magic one way insulator which allows more total energy to pass unidirectionally, of course! The climate dills at NASA apparently believe in such a thing, but of course it only exists in their imaginations.
swenson…”You do realise that EEI is just alarmist gibberish, dont you?”
It’s based purely on radiation theory and radiation is known to be a minor player at terrestrial temperatures. In other words, it is not a good means of heat dissipation at those temperatures. If it was, home-builders would not be as focused on preventing heat loss by only conduction using insulation like R-rated insulation.
EEI disregards several complex means of heat retention and heat loss on the planet. Furthermore, Trenberth and Kiehl, who wrote the nonsense admitted they had no scientific basis for the theory. You can see that when they have back-radiation for GHGs transferring as much heat back to the surface as what is dissipated via radiation.
I lost any respect I had for Trenberth when he was caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting the warming has stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why. Then he interfered in peer review while his IPCC partner as a Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, claimed he and ‘Kevin’ would ensure that certain skeptical papers would not reach the review stage. I think one of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
Alarmist scumbags!!!
Gordo tosses out another of his science denialist rants. For example, he wrote:
It’s well known that reflective insulation layer reduces radiant heat transfer under a roof.
Not to mention the fact that the UAH data analysis is based on the same theory of radiation heat transfer in the atmosphere, though at a longer wavelength band in the microwave than the emission bands of CO2 and H2O which provide the Green House Effect. Of course, he ignores the fact that the surface loses thermal energy thru convection, in addition to radiant HT, so there’s no reason to expect that the upwelling IR must equal the downwelling IR.
E. Swanson says:
Its well known that reflective insulation layer reduces radiant heat transfer under a roof.
======================
In some directions! One has to understand which directions.
GR said: Its based purely on radiation theory and radiation is known to be a minor player at terrestrial temperatures. In other words, it is not a good means of heat dissipation at those temperatures.
ALL…as in 100%…of Earth’s heat dissipation is via radiation. It is the ONLY means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures or any temperature for that matter. That is the exact opposite of “not a good means of heat dissipation”.
There is one other means, albeit insignificantly small.
The escape of gases from our atmosphere into space.
You have to wonder what other means of dissipation Robertson could be suggesting, given that conduction, convection and phase transition require a medium, which is missing in the vacuum of space.
bdgwx, Des, please stop trolling.
Number of months above +0.3
Last 5 years (60 months) … 47 (78%)
Before that (442 months) … 31 (7%)
Number of months above +0.4
Last 5 years (60) … 32 (53%)
Before that (442) … 16 (4%)
__________________________
Incremental CHANGES in 5-year averages.
(ie. 60-month periods ending September)
(First period starts in Dec 1979, so has 82 months instead of 60)
1980-85 … ___
1985-90 … +0.09
1990-95 … +0.01
1995-00 … +0.17
2000-05 … +0.06
2005-10 … -0.03
2010-15 … 0.00
2015-20 … +0.30
Sum of first 6 increments: +0.30
Last increment” +0.30
M,
Now entertain us all by correlating your figures to CO2 concentrations. Weekly will do.
Do you think I would get a positive correlation or negative?
What if I instead tried to correlate global temperatures with solar activity?
M,
You are the one doing the entertaining calculations. How would I know what answer you are trying to get? I am assuming your calculations are completely pointless, and you are just trying to appear intelligent.
If you want to correlate global temperatures against solar activity, go your hardest. Or you could correlate them against US postal charges – you would find a very good correlation. Try learning some physics, and apply the scientific method to your figures.
I’ll take that an agreement that global temperatures will correlate negatively with solar forcing.
M,
You can keep making stuff up to your hearts desire. Keep up the gibberish about *forcings*. If you find nobody understands what youre saying, try using physics terms.
Heres a hint – the GHE is not a scientific effect.
By the way, nobody has ever even defined what a *global temperature* is, let alone measured one. If you keep braying like a donkey, people will draw the obvious conclusion!
It is not “a global temperature”. It is “a global average temperature”.
Hope that help you avoid your next straw man argument.
M,
Oh, I see. So the *global temperature* is not the *global temperature* at all. Its something else.
Maybe you could explain what the *global average temperature* is? Only joking, of course.
Just like Mike Flynn, you use asterisks to bold words, forgetting you’re not on YouTube.
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas I assume for those calculations you used post-adjusted calculations? How does it come out with the pre-adjusted datasets?
crickets! Obviously not an independently thinking mind. Just another soul the Godless socialists can swap out for a robot.
I believe he used the UAH TLT file so yes those calculations are post-adjusted.
that wasn’t the question I asked. I had already assumed that.
I don’t know regarding the second question. You’d have to ask Dr. Spencer.
Why? I think the older version is still up on the UAH website. Or it was a few weeks ago.
All of the UAH version make adjustments. They do not publish a file that would be described as “pre-adjusted”. I’m not sure it would be meaningful or even possible for that matter.
bdgwx says:
October 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM
All of the UAH version make adjustments. They do not publish a file that would be described as pre-adjusted. Im not sure it would be meaningful or even possible for that matter.
====================================
Whatever. Its a tool I frequently use. It’s actually a requirement in financial statements to inform investors and lenders of the changes in a displayed comparative manner over a period of time.
“Planet continues to warm”
Yes since the end of LIA ,170 years ago.
100 of these years CO2 was at preeindustrial levels.
The LIA ended in the 1910s.
Funny how when you have two correlated effects – “end of LIA” and “rising CO2” you decide for yourself without justification that one is the cause of the other instead of the other way round.
M,
Funny how you decide one is the cause of the other instead of the other way round!
The cause of the rise in CO2 levels is not disputed.
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas says:
The LIA ended in the 1910s.
Funny how when you have two correlated effects end of LIA and rising CO2 you decide for yourself without justification that one is the cause of the other instead of the other way round.
===============================
Some may, including yourself. I don’t. The answer to that is inconclusive and uncertain to me.
The Northern Hemisphere could prepare for a strong La Nina from November.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01014/pscf56hnyz96.png
Talks of the northern hemisphere as he gives a graph of Antarctica.
During La Nina, sea ice grows in the south.
I’m sure it does. Doesn’t explain the link between your comment and your graph though.
The temperature of the Humboldt Current depends on the amount of melting Antarctic ice.
A problem with that:
Like all ocean gyres, the Humboldt Current (which is part of the South Pacific Gyre) does not cross the equator. So it doesn’t effect the northern hemisphere. (At least not on the timescales you are referring to.)
And you say “depends on” without saying which way the dependence goes.
The Humboldt Current is a surface current and reaches the Nino 1.2 region. Depends on the wind along the west coast of South America.
Yes – and Nino 1.2 is south of the equator – nothing to do with the northern hemisphere.
Of course by “equator” I actually mean the Intertropical Convergence Zone.
Midas says:
A problem with that:
Like all ocean gyres, the Humboldt Current (which is part of the South Pacific Gyre) does not cross the equator. So it doesnt effect the northern hemisphere. (At least not on the timescales you are referring to.)
And you say depends on without saying which way the dependence goes.
============================
I seriously doubt that. If you didn’t have a lot of mixing occurring at the equator you wouldn’t have an ENSO effect that affects world temperatures.
During La Nina and low solar activity, stratospheric intrusions in the Northern Hemisphere during the winter / spring period can be very severe.
How is climate hustle 2 going?
It’s been a week since the premiere.
Anybody paid money to see it?
studentb,
Millions. Why do you care? Are you one of the producers? Worried you are being ripped off? I dont blame you. Tough gig, the movie business.
Apparently no one.
I hear they can’t even give it away.
When you say india and china produce less, that is the average.
Some of the worst industries are in those countries getting away with high emmissions, whilst rural people emit nothing.
This distorts the average.
Mark Wapples
” … whilst rural people emit nothing. ”
A very good remark indeed!
This the reason why some people no longer do compare countries on the basis of the emissions they produce, but rather on the basis of the emissions produced by their imports from the exporting countries:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05905-y#Fig6
China’s and India’s emissions have few to do with the average behavior of their inhabitants. For the US and Europe, the inverse is the case.
J.-P. D.
What days of the year are the strongest contributors, what time of day does the greatest warming happen, and where on Earth are these events most evident? The problem of averages is that it suggests things are as bad in Prudo Bay as they are at Cairo. And why is 0.14ºC/decade considered climate change and not climate rebound? This warming has been going on since the last glacier-building era ended in the 1800’s.
Your problem is that you believe the issue is about how warm it is on a particular day in a particular locality, instead of the slow-response factors which don’t care about the temperature on a particular day.
M,
Your problem is that you haven’t got a clue. What slow response factors? Don’t you realise that climate is the average of weather?
Maybe you could have a stab at giving everyone a good belly-laugh by telling us how CO2 affects weather! Or you could try diversion, I suppose.
M,
And now you see why I use asterisks instead of apostrophes. Nothing to do with YouTube. If leaping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you would be an Olympic champion
Who cares what your reason is – the whole point was that it proves you are Mike Flynn.
M,
As I said, if leaping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you would be an Olympic champion.
Maybe you should devote yourself to learning some physics. Then you could involve yourself in discussions about science, rather than your silly fantasies..
“Leaping to conclusions” involves presenting no evidence. I have presented countless pieces of evidence, this month and last. Everyone here knows you are Mike Flynn. The only question is why you are ashamed to admit it.
Fan of Ray Bradbury, are you Mikey?
M,
You leap to the conclusion that a GHE exists. No testable hypothesis, no physical basis, but there you are! Your assumptions are no more evidence, than the silly NASA climate model runs are experiments!
As I said, if leaping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you would be an Olympic champion.
Maybe you should devote yourself to learning some physics. Then you could involve yourself in discussions about science, rather than your silly fantasies. Going to try for another diversion?
The record has a scratch.
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas says:
The record has a scratch.
==================================
You are right. All I hear is ”You are Mike Flynn” being constantly repeated. . . .and who cares?
I see DREM has had another bout of urinary incontinence and PST’d himself again, 8 times in 7 minutes.
The pads must be running out.
Wow, you really are completely obsessed with me, aren’t you?
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
Well maybe Des has something to say about obsessions.
All your 8 PSTs were obsessively aimed at someone called Des!
DREM, you can’t take a trick, can you? Absolutely hopeless.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Wow, you really are completely obsessed with me, arent you?
================================
Pee dreams!! Wow!!
Yes Billyou may be right.
DREM’s spontaneous emissions of PSTs seem to be the wet dreams of a piss-ant, probably associated with REM.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Mike R, I was just commenting on what must be going on inside of your head where please stop trolling is imagined by you as a golden shower. you seem to be asking for more.
Bill,
I eventually worked out that your reference to pee dreams was related to DREM’s enuresis, but what are these golden showers you are talking about?
Are they just sun showers? Is this some new meteorological phenomenon related to global warming?
I have just done a Google search and it seems that it is a type of micturition that seems to be common in Las Vegas ( could be the right climactic conditions) and is the method of ablution preferred by the current PUTZUS.
Thank-you Bill for broadening my knowledge. Is there anything else urological that Immediately comes to mind?
you tried all that?! my word!
Bill,
Tried what? You seem to have an over-active imagination.
Denial?
You seem to be the one with the imagination
”another bout of urinary incontinence”
”PSTs seem to be the wet dreams of a piss-ant”
I was just responding to that juvenile stuff. Now you want to make it about me and pretend you had nothing to do with it? LMAO!
Bill,
Yes you are 100% correct.
I should have not have made fun of DREM and his predeliction for repetitive four word commentary via cut and paste.
DREM’s periodic outbursts of PSTs are clearly a sign of a superior intellect.
How did I not realise this and that you are such a fan of his contributions?
Trolling does seem to be a rather enthusiastically pursued occupation around here as opposed to actually discussing the issues. Seems legitimate to point it out when it’s occurring. If it’s not trolling a well reasoned argument should make that apparent. But I think that’s probably exactly what DREMT is suggesting.
bill, MikeR gives everyone the respect that deserve.
Ask him a sensible question if you want a sensible answer.
Bill,
I don’t know why I find DREM’s outbursts of PSTs so irritating. Maybe it’s the repetitive vacuous natureof them.
The first time might have been, in the eyes of some , slightly amusing , to others slightly offensive. By the 2000th time (rough estimate),the charm has worn off leaving just offensiveness
Bill, do you find them entertaining, intelligent, witty, perhaps worthy of Oscar Wilde?
Perhaps you find them irritating because you are a troll, but are in denial about it.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
That’s you in a nutshell.
…and you in a nutshell, Svante.
I’m not in denial about anything. I’m fully aware that there are several people here who consider me a troll, and I understand why. They’ve lost a few arguments to their intellectual and moral superiors, they start getting upset, I start correctly asking those who are trolling to stop, and in their agitated state they consider that an act of trolling in itself. I get it.
MikeR says:
Bill, do you find them entertaining, intelligent, witty, perhaps worthy of Oscar Wilde?
=============================
I would reason that if you wanted to set a standard for posts in this forum you start with yourself.
Bill,
I would attempt to ascend to the intellectual heights of the twat’s micro-tweet length PSTs but removal of my frontal lobes is not an option I would like to pursue.
I kind of see it like a question of ones manhood. If you aren’t in doubt about it that nonsense rolls off your back. I see it could be very irritating to a troll.
Bill,
If you want to introduce a manhood pissing contest ( apologies for another allusion to a pungent topic) then yes, I doubt if I could win.
At my age and hevresultant BPE, I probably couldn’t compete unless he has a indwelling catheter.
I am also terrified by the impressive intellectual cod piece that DREM brings to the table.
One prick and it reveals an intellectual vacuum underneath. An imploding troll would surely be a sight to behold but I might be severely concussed by the force of the implosion.
MikeR says:
If you want to introduce a manhood pissing contest ( apologies for another allusion to a pungent topic) then yes, I doubt if I could win.
At my age and hevresultant BPE, I probably couldnt compete unless he has a indwelling catheter.
I am also terrified by the impressive intellectual cod piece that DREM brings to the table.
One prick and it reveals an intellectual vacuum underneath. An imploding troll would surely be a sight to behold but I might be severely concussed by the force of the implosion.
============================
Sheesh, the sensitivity! It was a well known analogy commonly held. It wasn’t an attempt to question your manhood. Way too much trolling in here and too little honest debate.
“Sheesh, the sensitivity! It was a well known analogy commonly held. It wasnt an attempt to question your manhood. Way too much trolling in here and too little honest debate.”
Yes Bill, pissing contests are well known around these parts.
I have no idea why you are rushing to the defence of the uber troll, if you are genuine with your concerns about trolling.
Do you want join the PST brigade, maybe as a backup singer?
He already has, lunatic reference frame and all.
Svante,
Really! Bill is a card carrying member of the Non Rotational Axis of Evil?
I must have missed it. I thought he might have been slightly saner. Oh well it explains a lot.
Confused as always, but bill hunter says:
I told him to fill a big bowl with water and let small bowls float around the edge. He insisted they would face inward as the big bowl rotated, just like DREMT thinks.
DREMT spilled the water all over, but bill insisted it was the Coriolis effect that forced the small bowls to keep to the inertial reference frame.
Svante, MikeR, please stop trolling.
Watch the pretzel production team in action:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-476833
ditto. Svante obviously you believe the moon coincidentally rotates in perfect time with its orbital rotation and in complete denial of cause and effect.
So the Moon does not rotate.
You have graduated with a lowercase ‘z’.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e. about its own center of mass. That is what is being argued. The moon does rotate, about the Earth/moon barycenter. This is known as “orbiting” or “revolution”.
Whatever.
But as Tim Folkerts pointed, nothing rotates on its own axis.
It has to be in relation to some frame of reference.
The Earth rotates on its own axis.
OK, let’s agree on that.
OK, Svante.
With respect to the inertial reference frame.
From any reference frame, the reality is that the Earth is rotating on its own axis. You may be able to think of a reference frame in which it appears not to be, sure.
I think we have finally an understanding of where DREM and his disciples are coming from.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-535306
We are now at the begetting stage of the ancient narrative where in the Book of Sock Puppets , g-e-r-a-n begat JDHuff and Hapless, who begat DREMT who is still busy begetting ClintR.
MikeR is just going all weird again.
I have worked in heavy math my entire life. I know that averages smear reality outside the drawing lines suggesting peaks and valleys don’t exist and that grey areas are painted in hues by statistics not found in grey areas.
There is no reason to believe the average temperature applies to every hectar of the Earth equally, and that all times of day are equally affected, and that time times and places are different in important ways than others.
Gordon Robertson pretending he is not Gordon Robertson.
Are you getting paranoid about holding a minority opinion Midas?
Will there come a time when you begin to make sense?
Tor Klemsdal [October 2, 2020 at 12:59 AM]
You wrote above:
” Yes, I agree that short term different trends may be fully ‘normal’. But UAH has had the southern hemisphere as warm as the northern since may/june.
In contrast, if you plot a 3 month period (ie. june, july, august) for NOAA, land and ocean, the northern hemisphere for 2020 comes out as the warmest, at 1.17 C, while the southern hemisphere is only 0.67 C and at 4.th place. ”
*
I’m always wondering about such trials to deduce something valuable from so little data.
Here is the comparison, for UAH6.0 LT, of the two hemispheres:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11iNbVZZAouWgXVz7mBP214SARHhY6mem/view
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/y4ln5u9t
Below the NH and SH plots, there is a plot of their differences (which were displaced by -1.1 to avoid them interfering with the data out of which they were calculated).
You see above all that it not so very useful to concentrate on two or three differences around 0.02 C when these in fact span over [-0.63 : +0.65].
But you see as well that the differences were mainly negative before about 1996, and moved then to positive values, what means that before 1996, the UAH SH anomalies were on average surprisingly higher than those in the NH.
Last not least, the comparison might be interesting in so far as while in the NH the difference between 2015/2016 and 1997/98 is positive and very high, the inverse happened in the SH: there, the difference between the LT reactions on the two El Nino periods matches the differences between the ENSO signals in the MEI index (2015/16 was about 85 % of 1997/98).
J.-P. D.
Because the changes observed since the early 20th century are not a rebound. Left to natural climate processes Earth would have continued cooling at the same rate as the last 5000 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Instead we have artificially upset the balance in favour of accumulating heat and are now warming as a result of our own activity.
Do you think we can compete with solar energy? Also with the magnetic energy of the solar wind?
It’s not the energy we produce which is the problem we only produce 15 terajoules /year.
It’s the 300 zettajoules/ year the planet is soaking up because we’ve upset the energy balance.
RW,
Rubbish. You cant get anything to soak up energy, on a yearly basis, on the Earths surface. After the sun goes past the zenith, things start to cool down. Even worse, the elliptical orbit and axial inclination of the Earth cause seasons. No soaking up. No accumulation.
Put a sealed container of water outside in the sunlight. You cant even get it to soak up enough energy to boil! Not even if you let it soak up energy for a hundred years!
Swenson says:”Rubbish. You cant get anything to soak up energy, on a yearly basis, on the Earths surface.”
Sure you can… it’s called ice. Ice must absorb energy in order to melt. A glacial retreat is ice soaking up energy on a yearly basis.
Swenson,
“Put a sealed container of water outside in the sunlight. You cant even get it to soak up enough energy to boil! Not even if you let it soak up energy for a hundred years!”
You want to make a bet on that?
s,
A glacial retreat is lack of precipitation. Nothing to do with absorbing more energy than it emits. Antarctic ice close to the pole gets six months continuous sunlight. No soaking up, no accumulation. No melting.
b,
Absolutely. Now you can pretend to be a smart donkey, and tell us about your magnifying lens, parabolic mirror, electric heater, or any of the other idiotic things alarmist donkeys present trying to overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
I have never lost a bet against a stupid donkey. What are your hidden conditions? Do I really have to include no additional heat source, and only the unconcentrated rays of the sun? And so on?
Yes Swenson,
No additional heat source, no parabolic mirrors, no electric heaters.
I can still do it.
Still want to bet?
Hint the word is still!
Yep. Unconcentrated sunlight only energy source. Sealed container of water. Go for it. Provide proof of your measured temperatures.
Imaginary experiments or models dont count.
I missed the sealed container part, which makes it impossible, without breaking the container.
So I will launch it into orbit, still outside, still in the sunlight and crash it into an asteroid, where the container will break and all the water will boil.
Silly answer for a silly question.
b,
It seems like you missed the *imaginary experiments . . . dont count* bit, too. Donkey.
Then there is another answer, connect a vacuum pump to the sealed container and evacuate until the contents start boiling.
Donkeys will kick you where the Sun don’t shine.
blob, please stop trolling.
DUMPTY,
Please stop spreading like a slime mold.
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
Richard, obviously you don’t have much background in physics. Consequently, you don’t understand how funny such statements are:
“Instead we have artificially upset the balance in favour of accumulating heat and are now warming as a result of our own activity.”
And,
“It’s the 300 zettajoules/year the planet is soaking up because we’ve upset the energy balance.”
Or maybe you’re just poking fun at several of the idiots here that believe such nonsense?
..and yet, despite all the protestations, we have +0.57 degrees for September !
Maybe Richard is getting scared, like you. It’s looking more and more like reality is setting in.
Protesting won’t help.
richard…”Left to natural climate processes Earth would have continued cooling at the same rate as the last 5000 years”.
That would be fine had we not endured a mini ice age called the Little Ice Age for 400 years, It cooled a lot faster during that time and we are slowly returning to whatever the norm was before the LIA.
So you agree the globe has warmed since the LIA.
So tell me … how does the ideal gas law prevent greenhouse warming, but not prevent this warming?
I’ll wait for your spin.
Des, please stop trolling.
Its already starting to dip in the Uk, I can see this being an awful winter. Not helped by the Covid1984 hoax. Regards Tim
So Herr Trumpler is hoaxing you now, is he?
No Midas. Trump is conducting sophisticated epidemiological experiments.
How does Covid spread on a aircraft?
How do you maximise spread via running superspreader events? On the latter, very early results are in with 6 infections but more to come…
Hahaha – hilarious! Every time he picks up a cocktail glass, he loses the means to count up to one, let alone six.
Up to 11 now. Decimal digit overflow. Time to take off socks.
Des, MikeR, please stop trolling.
I thought I could smell something, DREM your pads need changing again.
The latest figures are 34. Now there are more active Covid cases in the White House than in Taiwan. At this rate the White House should be able to overtake China in a week or two.
Time to rename the virus.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
MikeR says:
The latest figures are 34.
======================
Be thankful to those people working hard for the nation. Everyone has the personal choice of holing up in a basement somewhere should they choose.
Bill, it would be good to know which nation they are working so assiduously for.
The notorious DJT has been rumoured to work for several nations on a reciprocal basis.
Anyway it has been speculated * those in the White House may have been working on a biological weapon and that the virus has inadvertently escaped.
* source PizzaAnon
Let me guess. Drugs is a popular recreational pastime around your place or was at one time.
Nah Bill,I never inhaled!
What’s your choice of poison?
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
The troll is stuck in an infinite loop. Time for a hardware reset.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
The troll is now out of control. Going around in circles. Maybe he is a roomba?
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
I think the troll is stuck in a corner. That’s what happens when you can’t rotate on your axis.
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
It’s still in a boot loop, just keeps mindlessly generating PSTs.
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
There seems to be a lot of flashing lights but no one appears to be at home.
Will DREM break a 100 PSTs? That is the question,
more to come…
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Anyone know the Help Line number for an out of control PST troll?
The troll is running hot.
Stay tuned…
There are a few people with this type of experience, but none of them have been able to cure it:
– Rex Tillerson
– John Bolton
– Jim Mattis
– John Kelly
– Mike Mullen
– James Comey
– Robert Mueller
– H.R. McMaster
Svante, please stop trolling.
Yes Svante,
The parallels are obvious. I am sure DREM regards himself as another stable genius and wears a MAGA hat.
The good news is our resident troll is just a pain in the arse and only causes aggravation in the confines of this forum. It is also fortunate that the main victims are the “guilt by association ” denialists.
The bad news is the troll is unlikely to be gone by Halloween or shortly after.
#8
MikeR, please stop trolling.
I think the malfunctioning troll needs a firmware upgrade of some sort. Dumb trolls are just passe.
MikeR please stop trolling
My God, the trolls are breeding. I didn’t think they were capable as they are directionally deficient.
Must be the result of a cloning experiment that went wrong.
#9
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Now that Bill has joined the circus, DREM has competition at last and it’s time to reopen the book on Troll of the Month. DREM has won the Golden Troll by default for the last 2 years.
Could there finally be a challenger? Starts a long way behind (70 PSTs) but you never know.
#10
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM now leads by 71. Where’s the other troll?
Just facts MikeR. As long as you aren’t adding anything to the debate. . . .you are nothing but a troll.
Bill,
I will endeavour to be as fact free as a PST. However I am not sure I can manage it.
What’s your secret?
#11
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Oh, you are taking, cut and paste lessons from DREM.
MikeR says:
I will endeavour to be as fact free as a PST. However I am not sure I can manage it.
What’s your secret?
===============================
the please stop trolling message is rich in meaning MikeR.
A troll is a person who posts unresponsive messages with no rationale for the sole purpose of being a pest.
It comes from mythology where trolls ate farmer’s goats. It places you in the same category of pests as a ground squirrel is to a gardener.
therefore when a response in a debate is effectively the sound of somebody stomping his foot that’s being a pest, intellectually dishonest, non-responsive, or designed to offend.
So if you are having a hard time remembering all that in a single one line message I can certainly oblige an old codger like yourself and compose some longer text if you desire to let you know that your last post wasn’t at all helpful nor did it appear to be intended to be helpful.
PST is obviously not a troll. . . .its sole purpose is to end trolling. If I post a PST on a post where you disagree that the intent of the targeted post was indeed helpful the reasonable response would be to explain why the targeted post was labeled a troll incorrectly.
I am in here to discuss the issues, share my perspectives, learn, and debate. If you don’t like that FU! Just don’t read or respond to my posts.
Bill, so PSTs are an effective method for controlling trolls?!
That’s why the PST has been repeated thousands of times by DREM?
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Consequently DREM, if he is not a troll, he is insane.
Personally I think he is both.
Well if it doesn’t work at least its works as a sign post to warn trolls live here.
Yes in a self referential sense it does, but we don’t need incessant reminders of DREM’s mental state.
Well if you can’t take a hint I guess the public service announcement is needed.
Bill , as they say. Troll heal thyself.
Or alternatively heel, kindly resist the urge to troll.
Compris le message?
Sounds like good advice to trollers. Hopefully it will work.
Yes Bill, I am hoping so as well, but the signs aren’t that hopeful as the PSTs are continuing apace.
I don’t know about that Mike. You haven’t caught any today. As the old saying goes if you want to change the world start at home.
Yes Bill,
Great advice which I am sure you are following to a T (and a S and P). Pity about the Troller in Chief who is rapidly approaching 100 PSTs.
At this rate he could suffer from intellectual burn out.
and Svante why not a recovery bigger than the decline? after all we just went through a record breaking solar grand maximum
bill,
Your comment is in the wrong place, but I assume you are talking about “LIA recovery”. It means a temperature increase without a cause. First a perturbation away from equilibrium, then a return. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the correction, less strength the closer you get to the old value.
So we would expect a flattening of the curve as we approach the old value. Instead we got an acceleration as we exceeded the old level.
“a record breaking solar grand maximum” is a direct cause, so that is different.
Svante says:
First a perturbation away from equilibrium, then a return. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the correction, less strength the closer you get to the old value.
So we would expect a flattening of the curve as we approach the old value. Instead we got an acceleration as we exceeded the old level.
============================
Yes in general one would expect at least a small diminishment under say a general increase in insolation as that effect slowly melted ice and warmed the deep ocean. But these are not short term processes and its rather inconclusive that late 20th century warming was faster or slower than early 20th century warming.
The fact that cooling climate change occurred between the two just adds to the mystery rather than subtracts from it.
The ‘mixing’ zone in the ocean warms quickly because the waters do mix. Then mix from the heat added into the photic zone of the ocean creating convection, and winds, and tides.
Below that for 90% of the ocean is the aphotic zone of the ocean consisting of unique currents that have been moving for over a thousand years without substantial mixing, with substantial mixing determined by a inability to date the water.
====================
====================
====================
Svante says:
a record breaking solar grand maximum is a direct cause, so that is different.
===========================
Indeed and essentially adding an confounding element whereby one may not expect any slowing in warming. You got feedbacks and you have recent solar activity primary effects. . . .enough perhaps to actually increase the imbalance naturally.
Here’s the net effect since 1750:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/climate-forcing-figure2-2016.png
Svante says:
Heres the net effect since 1750:
=============================
The correct way to put that is “our best estimate of the net effect since 1750 if and only if the highly sensitive versions of control theory from a mean estimated from a wide range of models is correct.
Observations (all current temp records) conclude to various degrees that level of sensitivity is incorrect and thus the chart is in need of change. However, since the chart was designed to support political objectives thats the way it was looking when published.
You need at a minimum to distinguish between political science and real science.
Your solar idea is still an order of magnitude too small.
Another argument from ignorance. The correct and intelligent way to term that Svante and not look like a dumbass in the process is to say ”Your solar idea may be an order of magnitude too small.”
But on the other hand one can equally say: ”your carbon idea may be an order of magnitude or more too large”
And again, if the warming was caused by the Sun the stratosphere would not be cooling.
Svante says:
And again, if the warming was caused by the Sun the stratosphere would not be cooling.
=========================================
Only if the sun doesn’t cause changes of water and clouds in the atmosphere Svante. Uh. . . .of course that’s how CO2 does it mostly also.
So who taught you that stupid idea?
Increased solar power delivery at the surface would flow upward and warm the atmosphere all the way to the top.
You think it will create an enhanced greenhouse effect instead, and clouds to take away the surface input at the same time? Shall we call it the pretzel effect?
Except there is no evidence of increased solar input. In space or at the surface.
Svante says:
October 22, 2020 at 7:40 AM
Increased solar power delivery at the surface would flow upward and warm the atmosphere all the way to the top.
You think it will create an enhanced greenhouse effect instead, and clouds to take away the surface input at the same time? Shall we call it the pretzel effect?
Except there is no evidence of increased solar input. In space or at the surface.
==============================
Strawman alert!! Svante I never said that solar TSI is responsible for all the warming observed. All you are doing is flopping around like a fish out of water cause you can’t see the issue clear enough. You can’t get that kindergarten-Greta Thunberg-model out of your mind. Its being played in Technicolor on the wall of the cave you are living in.
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543760
Svante please stop trolling.
Tim Wells
My humble guess is that your awful winter prediction might be much more a hoax than is the very present COVID19 (please have a look at Worldometers, the alleged hoax is in the US responsible for 30 times more fatalities than the seasonal flu).
I just downloaded the latest UK temperature data and can tell you that while few stations were at the top of the list, just as few were on the bottom lines.
The coldest corner during September was
https://tinyurl.com/yxzt55lq
J.-P. D.
tim…”Not helped by the Covid1984 hoax. Regards Tim”
It is a hoax, Tim, not with an intent to deceive but based on a belief in seriously bad, unproved science. The premise of covid, as with HIV, is that we cannot find the virus but we believe its there and a lot of scientists agree in the belief. In lieu of actually isolating it and seeing it on an electron microscope, we will infer that certain strands of RNA come from a virus.
I am not saying it’s there, or it’s not there, I don’t know and I don’t care. I am saying the science behind it is dreadful just like the anthropogenic theory. Whatever is behind the contagion, it has not killed more than 0.06% of people in any population, hardly the basis for declaring a pandemic and depriving people of their democratic rights.
Dr Roy,
I posted the following at the article on Mid West Temperatures vs UN Models. I’ve been told that you don’t look at posts in the later stage of a blog, so I’m re-posting it here with the hope that you see it.
September 30, 2020 at 8:20 AM
Dr Roy,
The NOAA web site says that the average temperature for the earth has increased at a rate of 0.18c/decade since 1981. it further states that in 2019 Central North America was the only pocket of cooler than average land temperatures.
Your graph for the US Mid West shows a rate of 0.08c/decade. Is Central No. America that much cooler than the rest of the world or is there something up with the NOAA data?
Would it be possible for you to do a graph similar to the one in this article with NOAA overall observations for the average earth’s temperature compared to the CHIP model?
Tom
Thanks for your good work.
Tom
There is satellite data specific to the US midwest?
M,
If you say so. Or are you just trolling?
Apparently you don’t understand the purpose of a question mark. Or are you just trolling?
M,
So you dont know whether there is satellite data specific to the US Midwest, and will believe whatever Tom Tucker tells you, is that it?
Pull the other one, donkey!
No I don’t know. Do you?
M,
And youre gullible enough to believe what an unknown commenter tells you, are you?
What a gullible donkey you are!
If he ever answers, I would expect him to link to this data.
If he doesn’t link to it then I won’t believe or disbelieve him, until some evidence comes along.
See how it works, Mikey?
Midas poses a gotcha. Not interested in the answer. As diverting as ever,
“See how it works?” is a “gotcha”??
You deserve my sympathy.
M,
You posed the following supposed question – * There is satellite data specific to the US midwest?*, as a gotcha – that is, you are not interested in the answer, rather just in being a donkey.
Your worm-infested brain has now transformed that into *See how it works?*
Another diversion. I assume you are attempting to be gratuitously offensive, or maybe you are just stupidly trolling. Others can judge for themselves.
How are your physics studies going?
I am most definitely interested in the answer. The purpose of the question was to get the data, nothing more.
I passed 2nd year physics with flying colours 35 years ago. You?
Midas,
Was it your physics lecturer who advised seeking data from total strangers? No wonder you passed with flying colours!
All nonsense, of course. You could have sourced the data from a reliable source, but you just want to troll.
Carry on.
Apparently inquiring about the location of data is now “trolling”. A google search reveals no such “reliable source”.
Des, please stop trolling.
tom t…”Your graph for the US Mid West shows a rate of 0.08c/decade. Is Central No. America that much cooler than the rest of the world or is there something up with the NOAA data?”
As you say, Roy may not see your post at this stage. I have not seen him around much in this thread anyway. Hope he is OK.
There is something seriously up with NOAA. They have been fudging surface data since 1990 and since that year they have discarded 90% of their ‘reporting’ surface stations (GHCN). After the IPCC reported 15 years of a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, in AR5, NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to show a trend.
It’s very well documented on this site, how NOAA and NASA GISS have accomplished the fudging.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
If you read through the entire site you will see info on NOAA, GISS, Had-crut, GHCN and NCD-C.
Once reason the sat data is lower has to do with the comprehensive coverage of the sat telemetry which covers 90% of the surface as opposed to about 15% for NOAA. For example, in California, NOAA has only three reporting stations, all near the warmer coast. In the Canadian Arctic they have one…ONE!!!…reporting station covering the entire region. NOAA does not care about colder regions, their focus is clearly on warmer stations.
The alrmists around here will try to convinceyou that the sat telemetry can only measure a 4 km thick region of the atmosphere. That’s because every one of them is totally ignorant as to how a satellite AMSU unit (telemetry) works.
Now here is what the IPCC ACTUALLY said in their AR5 report:
“The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years. … Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 19982012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 19512012.
NO flat trend was reported. Do you ever speak the truth?
Midas is obviously stupid enough to believe IPCC propaganda as being factual. Sucker!
GR: The IPCC said this.
Me: No, here is what the IPCC actually said.
Flynn/Swenson: I’m going to pretend the comments were not about what they said, and add my own drivel, irrelevant to that discussion.
Midas says he is going to keep pretending. Nothing new there.
Serious comprehension issues there on your part, Mikey.
Des, please stop trolling.
roy provides a link every month to under lying data and maps
bdg…”Im not following you. The UAH global TLT trend is +0.1367C/decade +-0.0067 which is statistically significant by a large margin”.
You can’t take the stated trend literally over the entire UAH range. It’s a number, nothing more, which includes an 18 year flat trend and before that a trend below the baseline. UAH referred to that trend as showing little or no true warming. That is an obvious reference to the occasional blip above the baseline from 1979 till about 1997.
How do you explain an 18 years flat trend within the context of a 0.13/decade trend over nearly 40 years?
Remember the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not).
The modern saying is: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.”
bdg…”ALLas in 100%of Earths heat dissipation is via radiation. It is the ONLY means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures…”
I see you have absorbed all the bs taught by your authority figures at realclimate and skepticalscience. Why should 100% of surface heat dissipation be via radiation to space?
Ever heard of the Ideal Gas Law, it equates temperature, pressure, volume, and the number of atoms/molecules in a gas? It tells us clearly that heat can be dissipated in a constant volume when the pressure drops. Guess what happens to pressure with increasing altitude?
It means heated air can dissipate heat simply by expanding. It has plenty of time to do that during the night hours when solar input is not there.
Also, the fact that the atmospheric average temperature is a theoretical 33C above what it would be without an atmosphere and oceans, suggests something has caused that average temperature to rise. What could that be, maybe the Sun? So the Sun raises the temperature of the atmosphere to 33C higher than what it could be then it “HAS TO MAINTAIN THAT TEMPERATURE”.
It cannot maintain that temperature while radiating all the input energy back to space. Sorry…but there is far more to the dynamic nature of the surface-atmosphere relationship than a simple theory of heat in = heat out. A lot of heat is retained, in the surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere.
That’s why the Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget has to create a fictitious back-radiation to balance the heat budget. They don’t even begin to understand how complex the problem is they are dealing with.
I wish DTrump a speedy recovery.
With access to the best/latest treatments, that Americans do not, I suspect he will be fine.
But I agree that
“With ready access to testing and the best public health minds at his disposal, President Donald Trump should have been the American safest from COVID-19. Instead, he flouted his own governments guidelines and helped create a false sense of invulnerability in the White House, an approach that has now failed him as it did a nation where more than 200,000 people have died.”
I sincerely hope that his supporters will learn from his experience, that fact and science denial eventually catches up too you.
Trumps got Covid? Fake news surely.
Well Adolf Trumpler is definitely the master of fake news, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
Des, please stop trolling.
Gordo wrote:
Which shows us, yet again, that Gordo has no inkling that he understands heat transfer and thermodynamics. It’s flaming obvious that any mass which continually receives some energy input but which does not simultaneously lose energy at the same rate will exhibit an increase in temperature. For the Earth, averaged over the years, the input from the Sun (minus that reflect) must be equaled by the energy emitted out to deep space. Given that the Earth is surrounded by a vacuum, the only path for this energy to leave is via thermal radiation.
Gordo is either a complete moron or is intent on spreading disinformation about science.
The troposphere is so thin that it cannot trap infrared rays near the surface in winter.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
In November, global sea surface temperature will be the lowest.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
You really should avoid using “will”. You have been wrong so many times.
How do you tell from that graph that December won’t be lower than November?
Des, please stop trolling.
The close dependence of tropospheric temperature on pressure is clearly visible in the tropics.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2019.png
You can also see that the heat radiation that is generated in the ozone production process is released into space.
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017joules of en-ergy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it. For a planet sitting in the near- vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation, which occurs primarily in the sub-range of the IR spectrum with wavelengths of 550 μm for planets with temperatures between about 50 K and 1000 K.”
Pierrehumbert, Raymond T. (2011). Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 1, 33; doi: 10.1063/1.3541943.
Ramona, where did you ever find such nonsense?
The Internet is full of trash like that. Useful idiots come across it and instantly want to believe it means something.
Do you have any idea how stupid that is? Even if you allow the violations of the laws of physics, you still have the lack of logic.
It’s like saying if you never went to the restroom, but continued to eat, for a billion years, you would weigh enough to be a planet!
Does that sound stupid?
Wanting to believe in stupid things makes people idiots.
reference provided.
It’s simple Physics.
Oh, I saw the reference. My question was more to what search words did you use? “Stupid”, “Earth too hot”, “global warming nonsense”?
And it is VERY simple physics, as in “zero” physics. If you believe in that nonsense, provide the calculations.
Then, I’ll show you all the violations of the laws.
ClintR says:My question was more to what search words did you use?
Answer: I don’t get my information from the internet; I read the paper as an assignment for a class in Atmospheric Physics several years ago.
I can’t wait to see your list of “violations of the laws” [of Physics I presume].
If you believe in that nonsense, provide the calculations.
Then, I’ll show you all the violations of the laws.
RR,
And if my bicycle had three wheels it would be a tricycle!
At night the surface radiates away all the energy it received during the day. Thats why it cools. In winter, it is radiating away more than it got the day before. Each day is colder.
Simple physics. Ray Pierrehumbert even said the atmosphere is just insulation! This esults on lower daytime temps, higher nighttime temps. Look at the Moon temps.
Dont people realise that refrigerators use insulation to keep things cold? Have the alarmists no attachment to reality?
ClintR,
Why don’t you prove that you can do the calculation.
You have already proved you don’t understand the applicable laws of physics.
folks have been evacuating the room with grade-school physics models that don’t hold to to scrutiny.
Perhaps you can go a little further?
Didn’t you up it to kindergarten level models?
So, I wouldn’t know, as I never went to kindergarten.
congratulations you said something everybody can agree upon.
FYI, Physics Today is published by the American Physical Society, with 10s of thousands of Physicists as members.
But our almost-physics-minor, Clint, thinks Physics Today is internet trash!
This is the troll who is constantly telling us we dont understand physics, which is an excellent example of projection of ones deepest flaws onto others..
Nate proves me right, again. The Internet is full of trash like his.
And Nate, since I know you will be trolling here all day, I will enjoy ignoring you.
No Snape/Doris/Ramona, your “bad” was finding/promoting nonsense you don’t understand, but just believe in. That’s exactly the behavior of cult members.
I’m still waiting to see if you can do ANY of the calculations at all. Then, I’ll show you why the physics is wrong.
Dr. Pierrehumbert’s paper is very complete, but I get the impression that you may not be able to understand any of it. My bad for not posting material that is over your head.
Dear girl, you were not able to find my relevant link. Let me help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-532922
RR,
The paper is rubbish. Pierrehumbert has no clue about the interaction between photons and matter. If you wish to believe such nonsense, be my guest. I suggest you read it again.
I’m only here to do research for a paper on science denial, but I will say that Dr. Pierrehumbert’s credentials are impeccable having taken several classes from him. He was just recently elected to the Royal Academy; what are your credentials I wonder?
Great to know you and your false god are so knowledgeable about physics, Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Perhaps you can provide the calculations for his fraudulent 800,000K.
We’ll be waiting…..
RR,
Appealing to authority? His credentials are impeccable because you were his student?
Read what I said.
You say Dr Pierrehumbert was recently elected to the Royal Academy. Maybe you might like to revise your statement. Or did you turn him into a famous artist intentionally? In any case, scientific fact is not determined by credentials or elections.
Credentials?
Galileo said ‘In matters of science the authority of a thousand isn’t worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.’
Appeal to authority on the basis of credentials isn’t science.
“Appeal to authority on the basis of credentials isnt science.”
No, but the science in this review article in a highly reputable physics journal IS science.
While ad-homs with no science content is the alternative presented by the two proven dimwit-trolls, Clint and Swenson.
There is no contest here.
Nate can’t help Snape/Doris/Ramona with the calculations, so he resorts to his usual blah-blah. They always try to cover for each other, like good little cultists.
https://royalsociety.org/people/Raymond-Pierrehumbert-25380/
blob, please stop trolling.
DUMPTY,
please stop drooling
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
” Even if you allow the violations of the laws of physics,”
huh?
I thought so!
The first clue was the fake name. The second clue was the stupid nonsense. Then we see she can’t place her comments correctly!
Welcome Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Hi g.e.r.a.n
Midas, I wish you would enlighten me as to how I impress you as much as your hero. Can you link me to any of his comments?
I wish you could enlighten me as to why you feel shame about your old identity.
Links?
oh c’mon, its bleeding obvious.
Only you and him are constantly telling people to ‘learn some physics’, while posting physics gobbledegook, such as trying to add momentum and force vectors.
Des, please stop trolling.
The ocean constitutes the largest heat reservoir in the Earth’s energy budget and so exerts the most significant influence on climate. The rate of heat uptake/release by the ocean is dependent, to a large extent, on dynamic processes controlling air-sea exchange. The exact nature of these processes is debatable; for example it is still unclear if the largest contribution of changes to ocean heat content is due to dynamic changes in the equatorial or the higher latitude oceans. The processes are thought to impact climate from decadal to century and millennium timescales. Superimposed on the overall decreasing trend since Holocene Climate Maximum (~8000 years BP) is significant multi-century variability. For example it may be that the deep Pacific is still adjusting (down) related to the cooling going into the Little Ice Age. This lag suggests that large parts of the ocean interior are not in equilibrium with the recent observed tropospheric anomaly. We have much to learn. There is good reason to suspect that the massive volume and heat capacity of the oceans will mitigate small radiative changes in the atmosphere, and that short-term tropospheric temperature anomalies can be mostly explained by dynamic variations of air-sea heat exchange.
What we do know is that the top 2000m of the ocean is taking up a large amount of heat. And a study just recently published revealed that the stratification of the ocean is increasing as well which means vertical mixing of heat and carbon is now being suppressed. That means more heat may be available for transfer to the atmosphere and the ocean’s carbon buffer capacity may be beginning to wane.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00918-2
b,
More Mann/Trenberth nonsense. Warm water floats, cold water sinks. Vertical mixing of heat? No wonder Nature has to retract so many papers!
The authors need to do a few experiments, rather than indulging in wild flights of fancy.
The authors appear to omit the possibility that the upper ocean has been gaining heat since well before the 1960s related to net cooling of the deep ocean since the the LIA. Over the period of hundreds of years changes in upper and deep ocean heat content have similar ranges, highlighting the importance of deep ocean dynamics on heat and carbon dioxide exchange at the surface.
Very astute, CAD.
Such facts and reasoning derail the Alarmist Train.
ClintR
Please notice the apostrophes.
Don’t you just hate it when you get ignored and have to request notice?
You seem to be saying you know the feeling all too well.
Trolls can’t ignore me Midas, as you so clearly demonstrate.
Swenson
[Warm water floats, cold water sinks. Vertical mixing of heat? No wonder Nature has to retract so many papers!]
Large scale vertical mixing (top square):
https://tinyurl.com/y6cjr8xx
S,
Dont be a donkey. Are you really saying that the hottest water is not on the surface? Only an alarmist would be so stupid as to post a link which contradicts him!
https://tinyurl.com/Temperature-Profiles
M,
For the same composition, the deeper you go, the colder it gets, until water reaches its maximum density, Why do alarmists persist in linking to data which confirms what I said? Are you quite mad? Maybe Trenberth has hypnotised you into thinking his missing heat is hiding in the ocean depths.
Now, tell us all again, how you get water heated by the sun to plunge into the denser, colder, water beneath.
As my diagrams show, what you say does not contradict what they say – that there is vertical mixing of heat. Saying “the deeper you go the colder it gets” goes nowhere close to contradicting that.
Midas,
There is no vertical mixing of heat. There is no heat mixing from the surface into colder layers below. Trying stupid diversions by playing with words does not alter fact. Trenberth is deluded – there is no missing heat lurking in the oceans.
At least you are all getting a bit of healthy exercise flogging a dead horse,
So now it comes down to your outright denial without even attempting a scientific explanation. I suppose the oceans don’t convect?
Midas, you witless wonder!
I assume you are referring to convection, where heat enters the ocean from the bottom, and the warmer water rises. Did you sleep during your physics classes?
You suppose the oceans dont *convect* because you are dim. Trying to put words in my mouth and asking stupid gotchas wont make anybody think you are a clever donkey – youll still look like your average alarmist jackass,
“Now, tell us all again, how you get water heated by the sun to plunge into the denser, colder, water beneath.”
By making it saltier as the heat from the Sun evaporates the water.
b,
Nope. The hot water still sits on the surface. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, diffusion ensures that salinity increases, ensuring that the hot water doesn’t sink.
Even if you force it (by pumping, say), the warm water cools to the temperature of the surrounding water, raising the temperature of the surrounding water, which now being of lower density rises until it is surrounded by water at the same temperature.
Nature is amazing, isnt it? Doesnt seem to care about credentials, education or consensus. Who knew?
Amazing how different the anomaly looks, right?
[Dont you just hate it when you get ignored and have to request notice?]
Ignored?
Actually, somebody welcomed me back before I had even posted a comment.
You’re such an idiot, Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Got those calculations finished yet?
No, because you’re an idiot.
ClintR/g.e.r.a.n and Swenson/Mike Flynn clearly studied at the same school of denial.
Dimwitted Midas doesnt accept that denying the existence of something that doesnt exist (a testable GHE hypothesis), is just common sense
He is still trying to invoke the Holocaust, just like James Hansen and his *coal trains of death*!
Midas could always try to practice a bit of science, but then he would have to face reality. He might as well keep up his trolling and idiotic gotchas. What a donkey – braying loudly, hoping someone will think he is a clever donkey, at least. Other donkeys might.
Midas, where are those calculations your false religion supports?
Where are they, Midas?
And they both respond together on cue.
Calculations?
snape…”somebody welcomed me back before I had even posted a comment”.
You’re never away, you’re always posting under a different nym.
The temperature distribution in a hurricane (in this case Teddy) shows the relationship between temperature and pressure. The temperature of the cloud tops that reach the tropopause drops to -80 degrees C, gradually dropping in the lower troposphere layers.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/01014/54k48wra2jz7.jpg
This image also shows how thin the Earth’s troposphere is. As with other planets with a dense atmosphere, the troposphere ends at a pressure of about 100 hPa.
I found something called CET and noticed that temperatures have risen 2.5C since 1700.
I guess that about says it all: its the end of the world as we know it. However, I feel fine.
Somehow I am disappointed as its not quite the conflagration we’ve been led to expect.
Exactly, Ken.
My furnace is ready to go, and I’ve got plenty of CO2-producing firewood stored.
Life goes on.
ken…”I found something called CET and noticed that temperatures have risen 2.5C since 1700″.
The Little Ice Age lasted from about 1400 to 1850. During that period, global temps were claimed to be 1C to 2C lower than normal. You 2.5C sound close to the range.
We must remember that the LIA was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period, where temps were claimed to be higher than today. Apparently the ice in Greenland melted enough to allow the Vikings to farm there.
Naturally, the global average has warmed since then but lo and behold, it is blamed on CO2, a trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. No mention from alarmists about the LIA.
During the LIA, glacier expanded in a major way and now that they are melting, wouldn’t you know the alarmists blame it on…wait for it…CO2. Sea levels would have been lowered as well and CO2 levels would have dropped since colder oceans absorb more CO2.
Gordon , what do you mean there is no mention of the LIA from “alarmists”. What are you implying that people who believe that C02 is currently raising Earths temps , ignore there was an LIA? if so your statement is total nonsense.
+1
For each US climate region, number of months (out of 120) above the 1895-2019 average, in the 1930s and 2010s.
Regions (% of US 48-state area in brackets)
1. Northwest (8) – ID, OR, WA
2. West (9) – CA, NV
3. Southwest (14) – AZ, CO, NM, UT
4. West North Central (16) – MT, NE, ND, SD, WY
5. South (19) – AR, KS, LA, MS, OK, TX
6. East North Central (8) – IA, MI, MN, WI
7. Central (10) – IL, IN, KY, MO, OH, TN, WV
8. Southeast (10) – AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA
9. Northeast (6) – CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT
10. Entire Continental USA (48 states)
Maximums:
1. 72-83 (72 months above average in 30s, 83 above average in 2010s)
2. 71-83
3. 66-93
4. 84-78
5. 79-75
6. 70-66
7. 73-67
8. 68-75
9. 73-83
—————
10. 77-86
Minimums:
1. 60-89
2. 62-96
3. 62-98
4. 70-87
5. 72-82
6. 61-88
7. 63-84
8. 63-94
9. 56-95
—————
10. 70-98
Averages:
1. 71-86
2. 66-92
3. 67-97
4. 77-78
5. 72-81
6. 68-79
7. 69-77
8. 66-86
9. 68-88
—————
10. 76-91
I might do this for other cutoffs (ie. more than 1C above average, more than 2C below average, etc.) Perhaps also other decade comparisons.
Prepared for the Robertson spiel and the Flynn/Swenson and g.e.r.a.n/ClintR vitriol.
Midas,
You obviously think you have a point, and also a clue. You seem to be singularly clueless, and your comment is pointless. Is this something to do with a GHE that you cant even describe?
Why have you ignored the other 95% of the world? Thats not very polite, is it?
Pointless and clueless, even for a not-so-bright donkey.
It’s the other 98% of the world, S4B.
And I’d be happy to include it, given that it did not experience the warmth of the US in the 1930s.
I’ll give you a chance to reconsider whether you want me to make my case so much stronger.
Midas,
Boasting about leaping to conclusions about global anything based on 2% of the globe, seems about as pointless and clueless as a donkey could get.
Are you trying to say that 98% of the world was cooler than the 2%, or not? What is the case you are going to make so much stronger? A nutcase, perhaps? Mind how you go!
“Do you really not know, or are you really that stupid?”
Midas likes to play with the data, believing he understands science. It reminds me of a little girl playing with toy pots and pans, pretending she is cooking.
Are you using the raw data or the 30-40’s data that was adjusted downward a decade ago.
https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USHCN-temperature-adjustments.png?resize=720%2C633&ssl=1
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/03/restoring-scientific-debate-on-climate/
Graphs without data prove nothing.
Just follow the references if you want the underlying data.
midas…”So you agree the globe has warmed since the LIA.
So tell me … how does the ideal gas law prevent greenhouse warming, but not prevent this warming?”
Of course it has warmed since 1850, when the LIA ended. I did not say the IGL prevents greenhouse warming since I don’t think greenhouse warming occurs in the atmosphere. Greenhouse warming involved molecules of air being heated by conduction then trapped by glass when they try to rise. There are no glass walls or roofs in the atmosphere. In fact, as Joe Postma put it, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
The IGL gives a scientific relationship between temperature, pressure, volume and the number of atoms/molecules in a gas. The atmosphere is a gas and the IGL shows that a decrease in pressure of the gas produces a natural heat dissipation vehicle.
There you go pretending that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is what actually happens in a greenhouse. It is a NAME, nothing more.
And it has NOT warmed since 1850. It has warmed since the 1910s, which were colder than the 1850s. That is when the LIA ended.
And why not say “Of course the LIA ended in the 1910s, when greenhouse warming started to become significant”. You have no reason for the choice of causation, other than your preconceived notion that there is no greenhouse effect.
So let me ask again … how does the ideal gas law prevent the greenhouse effect, yet not prevent other warming?
Midas,
So tell us – why call the greenhouse effect the greenhouse effect if it has nothing to do with greenhouses? NASA disagrees with you. Of course, the climate dills at NASA are as deluded as you, so my question is moot.
No wonder no-one can come up with a testable hypothesis for something that cannot be described!
Keep flogging that dead horse! Do you think that putting a blanket over the corpse will bring it back to life? Have you heard of the scientific method? Give it a try.
It only became NOT a real greenhouse effect when RW Woods more than a century earlier debunked it and nobody since has been able to undo that debunking without fudging the experiment.
In a word “no”
You should try some research and try to determine whether or not Wood’s experiments have been repeated with better results or not.
Not looking good for your argument.
Remember this, repeating Gordon’s assertations without researching whether they are true or not will get you in trouble.
No I have not seen significantly different results
Bill,
Maybe you took a vacation from this site, which is admirable.
But Woods experiments have been repeated and the results were posted on this site recently.
what I have seen are a number of repetitions of Woods that didn’t come up with significant differences. But that is no longer a point of debate at the upper levels of thought on this.
Dr. Lindzen in particular has noted the necessity of a lapse rate in current thought for the purpose of creating the surface forcing.
Thus focusing on the Woods experiment is really only useful for educating those who remain uneducated. And of course the scientists concerned about CO2 aren’t interested in recognizing that Woods was right either.
There is a political cost associated with telling your supporters that they have it wrong. That tends to get them questioning the very authority they were originally believing.
Here is one for you:
The lapse rate is caused by the greenhouse effect.
Just say no!
I’ll ignore you.
blob, please stop trolling.
ramona…”For a planet sitting in the near- vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation…Pierrehumbert”.
That might be the case if you had no training in physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry. Pierrehumbert is wrong about the planet continuing to heat without a means of heat dissipation. Atoms and molecules can take only so much heat energy for a certain heat input. They don’t store it as he suggests. Clearly, Pierrehumbert does not understand quantum theory.
In order for the Earth to reach the incredible temperatures suggested by Pierrehumbert, it would require a nearby star with the means of transferring that much heat. He clearly does not understand thermodynamics, then again, none of the alarmists do.
Has Pierrehumbert ever noted that the planet is claimed to be +33C above what it would normally be in space with no atmosphere or oceans? Has it not occurred to the rocket scientist that the 33C needs to be maintained once the equilibrium temperature has been established? If you want to maintain that temperature difference you don’t want to radiate a lot of the energy to space. If you radiated away all the daily solar energy, the planet would cool. Without heat storage in the oceans and atmosphere, the planet would cool.
Why would it need to radiate a lot of energy to space? The ocean, atmosphere, surface system is part of a planet located at the ideal distance from the Sun and rotating at exactly the right speed to maintain the 33C with the same solar input. That system exchanges heat from surface to atmosphere and ocean to atmosphere. The atmosphere acts like a compressible gas, which it is, expanding while the Sun is shining and contracting while it is not.
Once the Sun has raised the global average by the alleged 33C, all it needs to do is maintain the temperature by shots of solar radiation for several hours a day. When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation.
The problem with Pierrehumbert is that he’s unable to think in more complex terms required for this kind of dynamic system.
As Robertson illustrates he believes heat is stored in electron energy states of an atom.
Does the nonsense never end.
“When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation.”
Please indicate the means of this dissipation. Is it convection, conduction or phase transition. And where does the heat go?
According to Gordon and his understanding of the Ideal Gas Law, the atmosphere expands and takes the heat with it and leaves the Earth.
Actually a whole economy has developed around the grade-school radiation model. But then again at UFO fests they sell an awful lot of aluminum foil beanies with propellers on top too.
That explains a lot, if you get your science from UFO fests.
Bobdroege – I was merely inquiring where the science is. . . .all I see is what I would expect to come out of a UFO fest.
So either put up or shut up!
Bill, you will have to ask Gordon.
Well at least you admit you don’t have it.
Crickets is a more common response
Bill,
I didn’t see you pose a scientific question.
They usually end with a “?”
Here is one
“what is a grade school-radiation model?
You will have to ask Nate. He is the one that labeled it a ”grade-school model”.
Bill,
That explains a lot.
Did you have a question about anything I have posted then?
bobdroege says:
Did you have a question about anything I have posted then?
======================================
No not anything you have posted. Just what you haven’t posted, which namely is a common place condition with all the warmists on this board and has been an issue now for over 30 years. And thats a description of how the greenhouse effect actually works to force the surface. Its not anything anybody is ready to post as the job of figuring that out has been assigned to dozens of modeling groups.
Bill,
You must have missed it then, here is what I have posted about what is the core of the greenhouse effect.
Here goes, it’s pretty simple really.
CO2 as a gas emits infrared radiation in three specific wavelengths at a rate determined by the concentration of those molecules in the gas with the required excited states. The concentration of those states being determined solely by the temperature of the gas.
Some of that radiation then reaches the ground.
Now if you increase the concentration of the CO2 gas, that above effect is increased which would be the forcing you are looking for.
So I call bullshit on you saying no one can describe the greenhouse effect.
”I often say that when you can measure what you
are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you
know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the
state of Science, whatever the matter may be.”
Lord Kelvin, 1883
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earth’s surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Sorry Bill,
Try refuting what I said instead of complaining that I didn’t give you any equations or numbers.
I am aware that I was responding to someone who can’t do numbers and equations, so I didn’t give any.
Google something like populations of excited states calculations.
I found an on-line calculator that gives the percentage of excited states.
Maybe you can do your own homework for once and try not to be such a rent seeker.
bobdroege says:
Sorry Bill,
Try refuting what I said instead of complaining that I didnt give you any equations or numbers.
I am aware that I was responding to someone who cant do numbers and equations, so I didnt give any.
==============================
My gawd what a lame excuse that is! Did the dog eat your homework?
====================
===================
bobdroege says:
Google something like populations of excited states calculations.
I found an on-line calculator that gives the percentage of excited states.
Maybe you can do your own homework for once and try not to be such a rent seeker.
=============================
thanks I wasn’t at all interested in what gases emit. What I am primarily interested in is 1) how the radiation reaches the ground; and 2) quantified reasons for why you treat radiation as the dominate and only force needed to be quantified.
Should be simple stuff for somebody who knows what they are talking about. I sure don’t know what you are talking about unless you start talking about why you think what you think.
That’s what I thought.
You want to know why I think what I think, because you don’t understand the greenhouse effect, because it has to do with the behavior of gases and you are not interested in that.
I know I am dealing with a philosopher who doesn’t understand that the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Get on the right side of that argument and I can talk to you.
Until then.
But you wonder
“1) how the radiation reaches the ground; and ”
Some goes up, some goes down, the part that goes down, unless it’s absorbed, it reaches the ground, radiation goes in straight lines for the most part.
2) quantified reasons for why you treat radiation as the dominate and only force needed to be quantified.
Because that is the only way to escape the Earth, convection and conduction don’t.
bobdroege says:
”1) how the radiation reaches the ground; and ”
Some goes up, some goes down, the part that goes down, unless its absorbed, it reaches the ground, radiation goes in straight lines for the most part.
”2) quantified reasons for why you treat radiation as the dominate and only force needed to be quantified.”
Because that is the only way to escape the Earth, convection and conduction dont.
==========================
I am not asking for the kindergarten lesson Bob. I want to see the graduate school blueprint.
Here it is:
https://tinyurl.com/y3aqyrfm
Svante says:
Here it is:
=============================
Goodness you mean I have to pay $60 to get an answer from a guy reported here as saying: ”Remember Dr Pierrehumbert said energy input so not heat, so I dont see what laws of physics would be violated.”
LMAO!!! I can see why you are so messed up on the science and bandying around kindergarten models.
It’s physics. You don’t want to know?
Ray Pierrehumbert is absolutely brilliant.
That’s why ClintR has to slander him.
Here’s a free version where he alludes to the “800 000 K”.
If you are prepared to spend six minutes on the climate issue that is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slPMD5i5Phg
Bill,
You don’t seem to be qualified for the graduate school version, try enrolling in grad school and pay the tuition.
In chemistry, physics, atmospheric sciences or some other equally appropriate curriculum, it’s a lot harder to get into than philosophy or underwater basket-weaving.
bobdroege says:
You dont seem to be qualified for the graduate school version, try enrolling in grad school and pay the tuition.
In chemistry, physics, atmospheric sciences or some other equally appropriate curriculum, its a lot harder to get into than philosophy or underwater basket-weaving.
================================
what degree did you earn that made you so proficient at arguing via ad hominems? Antifa University?
Bill,
I learned it from you most recently.
“I often say that when you can measure what you
are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you
know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the
state of Science, whatever the matter may be.
Lord Kelvin, 1883”
And others on this thread.
You are getting the idea Bob. Warming by CO2 is a quantitatively deficient theory.
Nope, that would be incorrect
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Sorry Bob but correlation is NOT causation.
Arrhenius quantified the causation in 1896.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Bill,
Not that old correlation is not causation canard, you have to do better than that.
Correlation with a mechanism makes a pretty good theory.
I already gave you the mechanism.
You didn’t understand it, that does not confront me.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
Not that old correlation is not causation canard, you have to do better than that.
Correlation with a mechanism makes a pretty good theory.
I already gave you the mechanism.
You didnt understand it, that does not confront me.
========================================
that wouldn’t pass an auditor’s scrutiny for a manufacturing company that made soda pop.
Auditor goes and looks at the books and sees the company has boasted a $3 billion increase in sales and $1 billion increase in profits. So the auditor asks to look at the sales books.
Manufacturer produces a US Commerce Department report that says the soda pop industry increased its sales by $5 billion in the past year.
Auditor says: Is that all you got in the way of books?
Happens all the time and if you don’t have an auditor you might actually think thats good evidence. A classic is a home owner in a big city who owns a home in New York. He wants to know the value of it. So he picks up the New York Times that runs a periodic column on New York housing prices and it reports that the average cost of homes sold in New York was $2,700,000 each. Home owner is now satisfied his home is worth $2,700,000.
Evidence? LMAO!!! You have a model that can’t imitate natural variation because nobody knows how it operates and so you are going to look at temperature records and confirm your theory on how much warming CO2 is going to cause?
You’re thinking here is like saying the CO2 increase is natural. We know we emit twice as much but that disappears down a hole somewhere, not sure where, and the increase is from somewhere else, not sure where but we’re sure it’s natural.
Bill gets busted using the correlation is not causation canard, and then doubles down
“Evidence? LMAO!!! You have a model that cant imitate natural variation because nobody knows how it operates and so you are going to look at temperature records and confirm your theory on how much warming CO2 is going to cause?”
with a Gish gallop of:
1) models can’t imitate natural variation canard.
and
2) nobody knows how models work canard.
but dear Bill,
you can get a reasonable estimate of how much warming you will get from comparing the CO2 record with the temperature record.
still has a lot of uncertainty, but the correlation is positive and if you are careful you can get statistical significance.
Bill,
Your irrelevant examples clearly show that your experience as an auditor has not equipped you to evaluate science.
Completely different fields.
But you think it doesnt matter. It does.
Just as I, a physicist, am not equipped to tell whether an economist or a liver doctor know what they are talking about, and I know that.
The internet has mislead many people into thinking they can easily know as much as an expert.
Check out The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols.
Nate says:
Your irrelevant examples clearly show that your experience as an auditor has not equipped you to evaluate science.
Completely different fields.
But you think it doesnt matter. It does.
Just as I, a physicist, am not equipped to tell whether an economist or a liver doctor know what they are talking about, and I know that.
The internet has mislead many people into thinking they can easily know as much as an expert.
Check out The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols.
================================
Nate if you have never worked in any of those areas how can you know their examples are irrelevant? I can freely agree that experience in a particular industry is a necessity to understand what is translatable and what is not.
But what you are ignorant of is I haven’t worked in just one industry. So on one hand I can agree you know nothing of the subject for having never been there but you can’t project your own shortcomings to someone you don’t know who has been where.
Bottom line is an auditor learns the skills to audit anything. Of course you need a couple of years experience in a field before being an auditor in charge. thus you absorb an effective demotion each time you change industries. But I have never been motivated by money so that hasn’t mattered. I have received education in philosophy, meteorology, biology, architecture, and business. I have experience in outdoors, radiant systems, finance, auditing, and policy making based on science. Other than winning a physics award and scoring above 95% of my physics peers in highschool, I have no physics education. So as auditors learn to do I rely on physics experts. And the truth is even if you are a professional you still do the same thing, or you should be.
One gets an effective demotion each time an auditor changes industry. But most of us spend most of their time on earth working. Thus I feel its more important to have a passion about your work than make more money which does you no good at all when you die.
So besides the numeric/statistical/documentation skills that come with auditing, auditors still use expert advice and there is an art to that as well which is 100% translatable from industry to industry. What you want is a variety of expert opinions. Where the opinions don’t agree you can mark down as uncertainties. Its important when you change industries to realize that experts always agree on some stuff and seldom agree on other stuff.
So I would ask you if you accept expert opinion in a balanced and intelligent way? There is obvious disagreement. Sometimes pinning down the exact nature of that disagreement is difficult but that is the challenge of the auditor has to be a journey if he is going to dispense advice. Its time consuming but very doable.
Obviously your expertise hasn’t risen to that level yet. Who are you or whom am I to decide that issue? Answer is we both aren’t.
there are far more qualified physicists out there than you or I.
But I talk about uncertainty and you talk about certainty so its clear you are ignorant of your own ignorance.
Whereas I am not. Sure I can misspeak once in a while and I have a favored viewpoint, developed from that list of experiences above but I haven’t even yet revealed what that is much less tried to promote it. I am still working on it hoping I can bring it full circle to a conclusion that can be tested and proven. I’ve done the same thing to NASA I do here and challenged their web developers to put more convincing evidence up than they have up.
If my government is going to spend trillions on solving a problem I want to know its a problem in need of a solution. I don’t buy the concern of rich environmentalist with a seaside estate worrying about ocean accretion. I have lived myself in that harm’s way almost my entire life. And it didn’t go beyond notice that the Obama’s hocked their children’s future by recently buying into such an estate with their new found wealth. Were they seriously convinced? Nope they are just laughing their way all the way to the bank.
“Bottom line is an auditor learns the skills to audit anything.”
Now that truly is cause for LMFAO.
You are the Dunning Kruger poster child, Bill.
It is the height of ignorance Bill, that your auditor experience misleads you into thinking you have the expertise to judge the validity of highly technical theory in another field, when you clearly don’t.
And, the supporting evidence is your track record in your posts. You have many many erroneous scientific claims already, that were easily attributable to ignorance.
You simply view science thru a highly ideological filter. Then you prejudge it, regardless of its validity.
Nate says:
Bottom line is an auditor learns the skills to audit anything.
Now that truly is cause for LMFAO.
You are the Dunning Kruger poster child, Bill.
It is the height of ignorance Bill, that your auditor experience misleads you into thinking you have the expertise to judge the validity of highly technical theory in another field, when you clearly dont.
================================
LMAO, you can’t resist showing how stupid you are Nate can you?
Is that denial? Yep!
In your best fake news tradition you just cut out of your quote of mine (Of course you need a couple of years experience in a field before being an auditor in charge.)
Thats how it works dude. If you change fields you go back into a form of advanced apprentice mode. Beginning apprentice mode is when you leave academia no matter the level of your degree. Apprentice mode is when you learn about the real world rather than the imaginary hypothetical worlds of academia.
Doctors go through it. Engineers go through it. Lawyers go through it. It matters not if you have Bachelor or a PhD. Of course having a PhD gives you an advanced skill set but you are still just as real world dumb as a green Bachelor degree apprentice.
After serving as a lead auditor, if you change fields you demote down to assistant lead auditor for a couple of years.
In auditing you don’t need a degree in the field you are auditing. You just need auditing know how, the math, the standards, and the experience with what you audit.
On technical issues auditors consult with independent experts.
And excellent example of how that is done can be found at climate audit.
Here you have an expert mining auditor auditing climate. He consults experts and plies his trade. His work has been recognized by the National Academy of Sciences.
A lot of people he has helped go out of their way to not acknowledge that it was his help that caused them to make corrections.
Phil Jones feared having him audit his temperature records so much he said he would destroy the evidence before handing it over to him.
Sometimes auditors aren’t liked, but only when somebody really has something to hide.
We really are nice guys.
=============================
==============================
Nate says:
And, the supporting evidence is your track record in your posts. You have many many erroneous scientific claims already, that were easily attributable to ignorance.
==============================
In your ignorant opinion of course. Try to back it up. You are too ignorant to do so.
=============================
==============================
Nate says:
You simply view science thru a highly ideological filter. Then you prejudge it, regardless of its validity.
================================
Stop projecting Nate.
“You simply view science thru a highly ideological filter. Then you prejudge it, regardless of its validity.
================================
Stop projecting Nate.”
Not at all Bill, one doesnt have to be a detective to discern the ideology in many of your posts where you liberally (Ha!) mix science in with rants about Leftists, Dems, govt regulation, govt control, socialists, etc.
It is no coincidence that these gish gallops result in the science being rejected as ‘uncertain’ or ‘leftist’.
That rejection is transparently not based on any expert review of the science that you ordered.
“On technical issues auditors consult with independent experts.”
Great. Where is your team of ‘independent experts’?
FYI, they are not found on denialist blogs.
They are rarely experts.
They often have political agendas, ie they are not independent.
Nate says:
Great. Where is your team of independent experts?
FYI, they are not found on denialist blogs.
They are rarely experts.
They often have political agendas, ie they are not independent.
================================================
Richard Lindzen
Judith Curry
William Happer
Fred Singer
Roger Revelle
Syun Akasofu
Don Easterbrook
Nir J. Shaviv
John Cristy
Roy Spencer
Are all blog denizens? Rarely experts? Not independent?
And you are relying on that? Your expert is one who acknowledges the science was not settled in 1991 and tells you because the uncontrolled experiment of the world getting warmer for 4 decades the theory must now be settled.
Nate you are a moron!
Well Bill, thats great.
Why dont you listen to them? Especially when they concur that the basic mechanism of the GHE is valid?
At least those among them who actually worked in climate science.
Among them none would agree with many of your posts on this issue such as this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537257
Because they actually understand the science.
If you dont fully understand it, fine. Don’t assume no one understands it.
Read the papers of your team of experts and become illuminated.
Nate they don’t vouch for its validity they say its plausible and the only known option.
I agree with that.
That doesn’t validate it. There is no proof of causation, there is only proof of mean existence.
If you have somebody who actually described a proof, which I have been asking for years for, the argument would be over.
Two of them, Roy and Judith Curry have talked about how the concept is pretty mushy and poorly established. It occupies the null hypothesis as its the only one not disproven. . . .so far.
Further the actual investigatory work being done by all these individuals avoids addressing that issue. So why question it.
That fact is the difference between a scientist and an auditor; and is also the difference between academic peer review and audit peer review. Audit standards establish a minimum level of effort in every area where doubt is possible and potentially material.
In the end auditors are allowed to rely on expert opinion to reach conclusions. But that is a concession necessary to make audits not overly oppressive.
The doubt about the very foundation of the greenhouse effect is at the current moment is not sufficient alone to forestall action, but larger problems are. Like how much warming will occur (where the investigatory work of all of them are currently centered) as well as the impacts that will occur, which entails decisions that only science can assist in making. Its not even conclusive that more warming isn’t sustainable. All that is is a moral imperative of the environmental movement that mankind has no rights to create change. No GMOs, no nuclear impacts, no pesticides, no herbicides, no chemical residues, no warming, no cooling, no sky coloring, no contrails, no meat, no artificial enhancements, no extinctions, no ash or soot, no guns, no profits, no personal property, no individual rights to life.
I do recognize that that list isn’t a good description of each and every environmentalist or environmental organization but the thinking is based upon the same basic premises across the board.
“Two of them, Roy and Judith Curry have talked about how the concept is pretty mushy and poorly established.”
Roy has always stated the GHE mechanism is real, exists, etc. He is trained in meteorology, and thus fully understands the lapse rate issues you have issues with.
I assume the same for Judith.
If you have quotes from her otherwise, show them to us.
Judith Curry has no apperent doubt about the GHE mechanism, as you erroneously believed.
“However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.”
However she thinks there is a gap between the public explanation of the GHE and the real models.
This is because the real models require lots of physics and math.
https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
Nate says:
Judith Curry has no apperent doubt about the GHE mechanism, as you erroneously believed.
“However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.”
However she thinks there is a gap between the public explanation of the GHE and the real models.
This is because the real models require lots of physics and math.
==========================
Thats typical of you Nate. You find an article that essentially says alternative skeptic ideas that have been laid out don’t hold up to close scrutiny. And you broaden it to ”has no apparent doubt” as to the certainty of the mainstream GHE mechanism (as if it were carved in stone like a physical law).
Nothing unusual is happening here Nate when a political organization determines an issue such as manmade climate change is worthy of billions of dollars in funding to investigate what climate scientist would not be intensely interested in participating? The answer is none. Dr. Curry has selected her role and reasonably believes that the theories laid out by the early scientists is probably the correct model. Which is fine but it hardly qualifies as scientific proof. The entire modeling exercise and you have already acknowledged it as so is for the modeling exercise to become so predictive that it can be accepted as a basis for action. Dr. Curry clearly does not think that to be the case. It remains uncertain and as long it remains uncertain the entire theory is up for grabs.
Another cocktail of scientific and political misunderstanding.
Yes, the “GHE mechanism” is “carved in stone like a physical law”.
Judith Curry is retired now but she doesn’t deny that, because that would be stupid.
Svante says:
Another cocktail of scientific and political misunderstanding.
Yes, the “GHE mechanism” is “carved in stone like a physical law”.
Judith Curry is retired now but she doesn’t deny that, because that would be stupid.
======================================
Indeed Ronald Reagan was right:
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/
From the conclusion:
”The simplified radiative forcing model that relates the tropospheric radiative flux to the surface temperature requires far too many unwarranted assumptions (my concerns with the equation ΔTs = λRF will be the subject of a future post.)
I’ve mentioned these general ideas a number of times before, including my opinion that the equation ΔTs = λRF was not carved in stone on Mount Sinai.”
Lost another argument guys. What does that make? A shutout?
Bill,
You so quickly lose focus when your posts are proven erroneous. Keep your eye on the ball.
“You find an article that essentially says alternative skeptic ideas that have been laid out don’t hold”
We were talking SPECIFICALLY about the basic GHE mechanism. On that she is absolutely clear. It is valid.
She has other issues with the IPCC. She thinks positive feedbacks are smaller. She agrees with the rest of us that there is uncertainty in the magnitude of feedbacks.
Different issues.
Nate don’t be a moron and not read what the discussion has been about here and what Dr. Curry thinks about it.
The discussion is about the assumption in climate science that the absorp-tion of radiative flux equals the change in surface temperature, before feedback.
Thats what I started discussing here, never refuted by you except by declaration. You even tried to include Dr Curry as supporting your position, and I just showed that to be a lie.
IMO, and always has been that the atmosphere is too complex for such a simplistic assumption such as that.
One more point. If that equation falls all bets are off.
“The discussion is about the assumption in climate science that the absorp-tion of radiative flux equals the change in surface temperature, before feedback.”
I dont think so, Bill. First of all ‘equals the change in surface temperature?’ makes no sense. No one is saying that.
You have mentioned feedbacks and their uncertainty. If you stuck with that, Dr. Curry could agree with you.
But instead you went all Denier on us, and into the whole thing with the GHE mechanism being uncertain, not including convection (it does), there being no way for the TOA to communicate with the surface.
She would not agree with you on any of that.
But feel free to change the subject.
“The simplified radiative forcing model that relates the tropospheric radiative flux to the surface temperature requires far too many unwarranted assumptions”
Yeah. I think that is a reasonable complaint. The magnitude of the surface temp rise should not be assumed to be the same as the TOA temp change.
But she is not denying that there will be a significant surface temperature rise.
A proper model, like GCM, is needed to evaluate the actual change. And the feedback’s need to be correct.
Nate says:
“The simplified radiative forcing model that relates the tropospheric radiative flux to the surface temperature requires far too many unwarranted assumptions”
Yeah. I think that is a reasonable complaint. The magnitude of the surface temp rise should not be assumed to be the same as the TOA temp change.
But she is not denying that there will be a significant surface temperature rise.
A proper model, like GCM, is needed to evaluate the actual change. And the feedback’s need to be correct.
==============================
Sheesh Nate I had to erase an entire page of comments on your previous assertions before I arrived here at your current comment.
Yes this is about the central equation for atmosphere capture of out outgoing IR used in models before feedbacks. Though she isn’t talking about TOA temp change. She is talking about the entrainment of additional IR into the atmosphere and how that radiatively affects the surface.
Who knows when we will know what a proper model is. Certainly not anytime soon as none are fully documented much less validated.
Until then we can use the best models we have.
They told us where we were heading forty years ago.
If you skip climate models and have zero feedback you get 1 C for a doubling of CO2, but we’re already past that for much less than a doubling.
https://cobblab.eas.gatech.edu//warming_papers/Hansen_etal_1984.pdf
Well Svante if we use your new super study and compare it to the Michael Mann hockey stick we are about 3tenths of a degree warmer than the MWP and a blistering 5 hundredths of a degree warmer than the Holocene Maximum. Expand that 5 hundreths to 100 hundredths and you will have my attention.
We are 0.8 C above the MWP if you measure from the edge of the error margin, and 1 C over the average estimate.
So this is not a LIA recovery.
By the most generous reading we are just passing through the Holocene max. The Paris agreement attempts to stop it before your “100 hundredths”, but look at the rate of warming:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Svante says:
October 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM
We are 0.8 C above the MWP if you measure from the edge of the error margin, and 1 C over the average estimate.
So this is not a LIA recovery.
By the most generous reading we are just passing through the Holocene max. The Paris agreement attempts to stop it before your 100 hundredths, but look at the rate of warming:
==================================
so you ascribe to the rot that your mates Nate and Barry just disavowed?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-532926
Natural climate does indeed go up and down.
You do have to realize though that during the Holocene max the arctic was indeed ice free. And since the official line is that entails positive feedbacks it looks like we aren’t really there yet.
Looking at the ice core temperature record for interglacials I am seeing double and even triple peaks. Also interglacials lasting up to near 50,000 years. You have to be a moron to rule all that out as a possibility. And thats not to speak of .3 tenths of a degree in the long term instrument record trend coincides with the recent El Nino cycle. That needs to play out for maybe another couple of decades.
I think its at least equally reasonable to conclude we could be in the ballpark of the Holocene max entirely due to natural variation. . . .because we do actually have a track record of that. . . .which of course CO2 theory doesn’t. The CO2 theory remains deficient in both inductive and deductive worlds of logic. Can we solve that problem? I tend to think we can but via an approach that doesn’t depend upon model predictions, historical proxies or any such stuff as that. Over funding all that stuff is just for political reasons not scientific ones.
What do you suggest if it’s not models or proxies?
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
I didn’t know the Arctic was ice free in the mid Holocene.
Do you have a scientific citation for that?
I guess there must have been less ice than today, because feedbacks had more time to settle.
Yes there are number of geologic studies that establish the arctic was ice free or virtually ice free. Among the most compelling are beaches on the shores of far northern shores that show the type of wave action erosion that can only be accomplished through wave actions generated over ranges of miles that overlap the central arctic. Others include bottom deposit studies which are less conclusive but universal in showing open ice free water during the Holocene. Those aren’t conclusive quite simply because the arctic is not yet ice free and thus there are areas yet to be sampled.
https://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf
Its a good start.
It says:
“Further north, ridges are short and sporadic, restricted to mouths of embayments and valleys, which suggests that permanent sea ice persisted throughout the Holocene at the northernmost stretch of the coast”.
You are right Svante. When I pointed that out about 10 years ago in a discussion as I recall about Mark Serreze prediction of an ice free arctic back from 2007 as occurring in about a decade; I was informed and subsequently confirmed that in climate science – ice free is determined to be less than one million square kilometers of of persistent ice.
You see the problem is these thick layers of bottom fixed ice that you find around glaciers and shorelines aren’t expected to go away in order to declare the arctic ice free so they allow for the ice extent to remain at one million square kilometers. You need to read up primarily on shoreline geologic studies to determine if the arctic ocean was, as defined, ice free. Those studies rely upon wave power. Large waves need long distances to build up to gain enough power to move big boulders and such. These event occur rarely even in open oceans because it requires massive storms and long distances for big waves to form. Its certainly not an exact science like all proxies but one should look at the data, especially data that isn’t politically controversial, though that process itself brings controversy when it rubs against political narratives. Usually it spawns a host of political science robots to search out contrary information. So keep this low profile, we don’t need more government corruption than we already have.
The data indicate that the temperature of the planets’ troposphere, with an atmosphere with a mean surface pressure well above 0.1 bar, is dependent on distance from the Sun and pressure at a certain atmosphere level.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Holmes24/publication/324599511/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/A-thermal-gradient-appears-in-all-planetary-atmospheres-10kPa-1.png
In the troposphere of planets with a dense atmosphere, there is a certain mean temperature gradient.
Heat dissipation in the troposphere is influenced by such factors as conduction, convection, and the planet’s rotation speed about its axis.
Exactly and our efforts to date to characterize that have been deficient.
Arrhenius made a pretty good estimate in 1896:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Its an impressive piece of work Svante. The challenge though is in validating the theory.
Yes, like in the paper you analyzed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/?replytocom=529975#respond
Line-by-line radiative transfer model compared with measurements.
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/#comment-530083
Yep picked up on that paper on antarctic and greenland. Sometimes the greenhouse effect works as advertised and sometimes it doesn’t.
I already had the figured out.
You asked about validation, was it good enough for you there?
Works sometimes doesn’t work others?
Thats validation? You should hear the excuses auditors hear all the time!
Please be specific, which page are you referring to?
Svante I have no idea what you are talking about. Your link says this in the conclusion i.e. cooling on the antarctic plateau:
Our findings cannot be understood as explanation of this phenomena but show remarkable similarities with the observations. . . .
Yet we showed that for the cold Antarctic continent some care needs to be taken when discussing the direct warming effect of CO2.
==================================
One might not be able to say it more delicately than that.
Your quote is taken out of context. They are talking about earlier work.
I was wondering if you were happy with their validation of radiative transfer calculations with GHE measurements by satellite?
Nice try Svante. I said it was in the conclusion and its in the first person plural.
Go ahead and don that tin foil hat with the spinner on top again.
Here’s quote with more context:
Are they talking about earlier work maybe?
No!
What do you think the word “this” refers to then, if it’s not the findings by the 3rd person plural?
Svante says:
October 13, 2020 at 4:22 PM
What do you think the word this refers to then, if its not the findings by the 3rd person plural?
=========================
By pronoun reference rules it refers to: ” slight (but statistically not significant) cooling trend for the centre of Antarctica.” found in the preceding sentence.
Instead of getting so worked up over it and playing quiz games why not just come out and say what you think>
I think it refers to the preceding sentence:
“They even found a slight (but statistically not significant) cooling trend for the centre of Antarctica.”
And “They” refers to “Chapman and Walsh [2007] and Steig et al. [2009]” in the sentence before.
Which is earlier work like I said.
Now the question I asked was if you were happy with their satellite validation method when you analyzed their paper.
I haven’t read their paper. I read the conclusion to see if it was something I should read.
this is pretty serious stuff Svante. Think seriously about it for a moment.
Your kindergarten model proposes a forcing on the surface based upon CO2 evenly distributed in the atmosphere.
Thus the forcing should be the same everywhere according to the kindergarten model. Yet you have two studies that show that the Antarctic has no warming and in fact cooling with increased CO2.
All you have do now is do what climate scientists do routinely and just extrapolate your arse off. that means there is no greenhouse effect above the Antarctic. Is that a violation of physics laws Svante?
Obviously there must be something else about this greenhouse effect we haven’t figured yet.
So you link to a study to explain this and the authors themselves disclaim it as an adequate explanation. And further add a warning to assume that the ghe is as simple as advertised.
Now I could take the time to read their study but why? I am only interested in answers with high levels of certainty. I am not interested in the study for the purpose of what most are interested in such studies that work in climate science, namely figure out how it does actually work. For somebody trying to do that that might be useful. For somebody like you what is it? Some way to feel better that there might be an explanation?
I guess that figures that if you need 3 variable that need to come together and each is about 1 chance in 3, then you add all that up and get 100%?
what it really adds up to is one chance in 27.
It’s kindergarten simple, why can you not understand?
There is no GHE without a positive lapse rate.
There is a negative GHE with a negative lapse rate.
That is because higher temperature means more radiation.
What matters is the temperature where radiation leaves for space, the temperature that you see (in IR) from space.
Higher temperature, more IR loss to space, and vice versa.
Fig. 4 gives you the global picture of the varying GHE.
Svante says:
October 15, 2020 at 8:22 AM
Its kindergarten simple, why can you not understand?
There is no GHE without a positive lapse rate.
There is a negative GHE with a negative lapse rate.
That is because higher temperature means more radiation.
What matters is the temperature where radiation leaves for space, the temperature that you see (in IR) from space.
Higher temperature, more IR loss to space, and vice versa.
==========================
Thats really interesting Svante. So the colder the atmosphere the greater the backradiation?
I will have to plug that idea into the kindergarten climate model.
That’s right, if the space interface cools everything inside of it will warm up. Back radiation is only part of the story.
There must be equilibrium at the surface, at TOA, and everywhere in between. Until we have that, temperatures will go up.
Correction: Until we have that temperatures will go up or down as they always have and always will. Fact is the problem, if its a problem, will only ever cease after we are all dead and fully rotted away.
Pretty compelling argument that you have your head in the clouds.
Yes, temperatures have always changed.
Always changed for a reason.
Today it’s a very strong reason: GHGs.
You don’t care because you are dead soon.
That’s inconsiderate and impolite.
Svante I agree temperatures change for a reason.
As we continue to work on understanding how climate changes we will get better at predicting it. We aren’t very good now when we have to after the warming has occurred go down range and move the target into the spot the bullets hit. That’s the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
We were good enough at prediction fifty years ago, and 150 years of history is telling us how it works:
https://tinyurl.com/y4ml8269
#2
Yep! We took 500 years to plumb the depths of the LIA, we should take maybe as long to climb out of it.
Some hope that though it might not take as long if you look at ice core records recoveries from glacial periods take a lot less time than the plunge into the glacial takes. It would be good to have a hypothesis that produces that pattern, but alas we don’t.
“The problem with Pierrehumbert is that he’s unable to think in more complex terms required for this kind of dynamic system.”
Evidence from just three of his many publications spanning 38 years belie your statement. To wit,
1980: The Structure and Stability of Large Vortices in an Inviscid Flow. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2010: Principles of Planetary Climate. Cambridge University Press, 652pp.
2018. Global or local pure condensible atmospheres: Importance of horizontal latent heat transport. The Astrophysical Journal 867:54
Snape/Doris/Ramona, where are your calculations for the [bogus] 800,000K?
Surely you don’t swallow nonsense just to prove you can swallow, do you?
The fact that you seem hung up on a set of basic calculations found in every textbook on Introductory Atmospheric Radiation leads me to believe that you are not yet schooled in the subject. That, combined with the ad-hominem attacks indicate you may be in middle school, maybe?
When you reach college you will be exposed to Petty’s book for example, where chapter two will walk you through the theory and the problems will provide ample opportunity to practice.
Don’t be discouraged. Keep working at it; Physics is the most rewarding of all the sciences.
Snape/Doris/Ramona, you remind me of Nate and Norman. A lot of “blah-blah”, but no substance.
Where are your calculations for the [bogus] 800,000K?
ClintR,
There is a word you need to look up in the dictionary.
The word is “if”
We’re still waiting for your calculations, Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Even IF some troll jumps in trying to distract.
ClintR,
It is a simple calculation, anyone who almost has a minor in physics ought to be able to do it.
Why don’t you do it ClintR?
Somebody that used to post here tried to calculate it before. This is their effort:
“dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume). => dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.”
…
So far we’ve got Snape/Doris/Ramona, Nate, bobdroege, Midas, and bdgwx, all accepting the 800,000K nonsense.
One stated the nonsense could be verified by “…a set of basic calculations found in every textbook on Introductory Atmospheric Radiation.”
One stated “It is a simple calculation…”
But yet, none have supplied the “simple calculation”.
I’ll be glad to show the calculation, after it’s substantially clear that none of them are capable. They can’t meaningfully support the nonsense they believe in. That’s typical cult behavior.
Thanks DREMT, now I don’t have to do it.
Let’s see IF any of the cult members can explain why it’s wrong.
ClintR says:
Dear ClintR, add me.
If you cite the whole paragraph and don’t take it out of context.
Oh yes silly Svante, we know you’ll swallow anything.
DREMT has kindly provided the calculation, now what laws of physics are violated?
Remember Dr Pierrehumbert said energy input so not heat, so I don’t see what laws of physics would be violated.
Other than the ones already violated by his statement of if the earth couldn’t get rid of the heat.
Obviously it’s a preamble to the argument that reducing the rate of cooling would result in the world warming.
I guess he’s on about “cold can not warm hot”.
Which depends on two way radiation,
which doesn’t apply “if the earth couldn’t get rid of the heat”.
It’s been long enough. If any of the idiots could recognize the problem with the bogus 800,000K, they would have said something by now.
A “thought experiment” is used frequently to make a point. It’s usually easy to understand, and has a valid purpose. The problem arises when it is used to pervert science. A thought experiment can NOT violate the laws of physics. If it does, it is invalid, bogus, and corrupt.
Pierrehumbert’s “800,000K” nonsense is an example of perverted science. He allows no energy to escape Earth. That’s impossible.
Pierrehumbert then goes on to require Earth to continue warming even after it has reached the maximum temperature for the incoming flux. That’s not how it works, and violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This garbage should never have been published, and indicates either incompetence or dishonesty of everyone involved. It’s another good example of the perversion of science happening before our eyes.
You’re funny ClintR.
A child like literalist.
If by “child like”, you mean “uncorrupted”, then that’s correct.
If by “literalist”, you mean “realist”, then that’s correct.
“He allows no energy to escape Earth. That’s impossible.”
Lots of things in lots of thought experiments are impossible.
* frictionless surfaces
* massless pulleys
* perfectly rigid objects
* perfect vacuums
* perfect blackbodies
* perfect reflectors
* wires with no resistance (at room temp)
* incompressible fluids
* ideal Carnot cycles
* ideal gases
* perfectly insulated containers
The concept of a perfectly insulated containers that allow no heat to escape is hardly more extreme or perverted that any of the other idealizations listed. Pretty much every calorimetry problem in freshman physics, engineering, or chemistry makes this assumption.
“Pierrehumbert then goes on to require Earth to continue warming even after it has reached the maximum temperature for the incoming flux. “
That is actually not 100% clear in original article. (https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf)
In one interpretation, the energy is sunlight. In another interpretation, the energy merely needs to be 1.22 x 10^17 J. It is perfectly possible to interpret the sentence to merely mean an amount of energy, in which case there is no ‘temperature for the incoming flux’ to compare with.
**********************
Look, I agree it is a kind of silly calculation, taken to a silly extreme. I would have preferred 800K in 1 million years to 800,000K in 1 billion years. That would have side-stepped issues like “hotter then the incoming sunlight” or “any mirror would melt” while still making the point that the earth would quickly become uninhabitable.
Tim, that’s a lot of “blah-blah” trying to defend nonsense.
bobdroege says:
Remember Dr Pierrehumbert said energy input so not heat, so I dont see what laws of physics would be violated.
=========================
Criminy! With that exception you could toss the entire 2nd law.
Yes, the 2nd law applies to heat, not its one-way components.
Hmmmm, I can see how that would work for a surface at 0k
Yes, the equation has only on term then instead of two.
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
Svante says:
Yes, the equation has only on term then instead of two.
q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
==========================
Gee Svante everytime I fill in the terms and the second term is smaller than the first the heat flows from hot to cold.
If I switch the terms and fill them in the heat still runs from heat to cold.
What am I missing???? A lobotomy?
Maybe we could make some progress if we get past the abstract of the paper?
sorry Bob but the Stefan Boltzmann law is the conclusion of the paper. You can check beyond the abstract of it if you wish but a lot of us already have.
One correction to the above. The Stefan Boltzmann law does not include the emissivity variable because of the difficulties of properly presenting that variable in a simple manner.
Bill,
That statement would be incorrect.
The Stephan-Boltzman law does not include emissivity because it is for black-bodies, which are perfectly emitting and perfectly abbysorbbing.
Bill go ahead and reread the paper, as you are wrong.
If this
“sorry Bob but the Stefan Boltzmann law is the conclusion of the paper. You can check beyond the abstract of it if you wish but a lot of us already have.”
was true the paper would not have advanced science any and it might not have been published.
The conclusion of the paper is a little more than that.
bobdroege says:
That statement would be incorrect.
The Stephan-Boltzman law does not include emissivity because it is for black-bodies, which are perfectly emitting and perfectly abbysorbbing.
=================================
Take off your sunglasses Bob thats what I said: Svante posted the formula with the emissivity factor in place. q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
I made my first post then noticed he had the emissivity factor in the equation so I made a second post that said:
“One correction to the above. The Stefan Boltzmann law does not include the emissivity variable because of the difficulties of properly presenting that variable in a simple manner.”
Not only is that the Stefan Boltzmann law without the emissivity factor but it would indeed be a blackbody calculation because blackbody emissivity is 1.0
The emissivity factor should always be used in a real world problem because there is no such thing at least in our part of the universe of something being a perfect blackbody.
Gordo continues spewing his delusional physics, writing:
Gordo never offers an basis from physics to explain how his atmosphere “dissipates” it’s thermal energy at night. The only mode of “dissipation” for the atmosphere is radiation heat transfer to deep space because there’s no convection or conduction possible in a vacuum. And, the outgoing thermal radiation also happens during daylight hours as well.
Gordo needs to learn some physics, or quit trolling a science oriented group. That’s not likely, as he’s been so wrong for so long that he must have some ulterior motive for his moronic posts.
As a result of convection, warm air rises, where the pressure drops and the gas increases in volume. The temperature must drop. Atmospheric layers above the globe increase the volume of air with increasing .
Temperature in the tropopause above the equator drops to -80 degrees C, and above the poles to -60 degrees, and in winter to -70 degrees C.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2020.png
The Earth’s stratosphere can be an example of a thin atmosphere in which the pressure drops below 0.1 bar (as is the case on Mars). In such an atmosphere, heat is only dissipated by electromagnetic radiation.
“The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to the density found 35 km above the Earth’s surface.”
swannie…”Gordo never offers an basis from physics to explain how his atmosphere dissipates its thermal energy at night”.
I explained it. During the day, the atmosphere expands as it warms. At night, it contracts and cools.
Charles’ Law from the Ideal Gas Law, V1/T1 = V2/T2.
As Foghorn Leghorn would often say to Henry the Chicken Hawk, “you’re built too close, I say boy, you’re built to close to the ground, went way over your head”.
Gordo repeats his moronic delusion, writing:
Yes, the atmosphere is a mixture of gasses which expands when it is warmed and contracts as it cools. The cooling is the cause of the contraction. In your delusional physics, you have got the cause and effect backwards and are ignoring the process of cooling, i.e., the loss of energy to deep space. And, the fact is, that energy loss can only occur via thermal radiation heat transfer.
Old Foghorn was a funny critter who could barely fly (perhaps made worse by his excess weight), telling a hawk who could soar high above about being “over your head” in understanding.
Gordon says: “During the day, the atmosphere expands as it warms. At night, it contracts and cools.”
To reiterate what E. Swanson said, these sentences muddle cause and effect. It ought read:
During the day the atmosphere absorbs more energy than it emits, causing it to warm and therefore expand.
During the night the atmosphere emits more energy than it absorbs, causing it to cool and therefore contract.
It is always energy change -> temperature change -> volume change for earth’s atmosphere.
The atmosphere absorbs energy from sunlight and from the warmer surface.
The atmosphere emits energy to deep space. (And occasionally a bit the surface when there is a temperature inversion).
Without the emission to space, there is no energy loss, there is no cooling, and there is no subsequent contraction at night.
E. Swanson says:
Gordo continues spewing his delusional physics, writing:
The atmosphere acts like a compressible gas, which it is, expanding while the Sun is shining and contracting while it is not.
When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation.
Gordo never offers an basis from physics to explain how his atmosphere dissipates its thermal energy at night.
==============================
Sure thing Swanson go ahead and make fun of somebody for not understanding how the system works. But please avoid the strawmen.
We all know that TOA radiation is in part how the earth cools. The question at hand isn’t that its how those free floating gases at TOA actually exact a rigid insulation like forcing all the way back down to the surface.
We are already to hear the take on that that convinced you. So prove right now you aren’t a total boob.
“[the question at hand is] how those free floating gases at TOA actually exact a rigid insulation like forcing all the way back down to the surface.”
It’s not a ‘rigid’ forcing, but there is a simple-to-explain connection.
* The CO2 at the TOA is what emits IR in the 15 um band to space.
* The more CO2, the higher the altitude of the TOA.
* The higher the TOA, the cooler it is.
* The cooler it is, the less IR energy emitted to space in the 15 um band.
* The less emitted @ 15 um, the more must be emitted at other wavelengths to achieve a steady-state.
* the more emitted at other wavelengths, the warmer those surface would have to be.
It’s all related to that most fundamental of principles, Conservation of Energy.
Tim Folkerts says:
Its not a rigid forcing, but there is a simple-to-explain connection.
* The more CO2, the higher the altitude of the TOA.
* The higher the TOA, the cooler it is.
* The cooler it is, the less IR energy emitted to space in the 15 um band.
* The less emitted @ 15 um, the more must be emitted at other wavelengths to achieve a steady-state.
* the more emitted at other wavelengths, the warmer those surface would have to be.
Its all related to that most fundamental of principles, Conservation of Energy.
============================
I have no problem with that simple explanation of a steady state lapse rate.
That’s the basis of insulated window physics.
So the theory is that CO2 raises the height of the troposphere in order to insert additional layers is that correct?
Tim,
There is no forcing, rigid or flexible. You are confusing fantasy with forcing.
So –
Anything at about 193 K radiates IR in the 15 um band. Doesnt matter if its on the surface or elsewhere.
The height of the top of the atmosphere does not depend on CO2 in the atmosphere. Please dont tell me that TOA really means something else than Top Of Atmosphere! The alarmist use of redefinitions gets more bizarre each day.
You are talking gibberish as usual. CO2, like anything else, radiates photons whose wavelengths are proportional to its temperature. No spectrometry or excitation involved here.
Go away, learn some real science, and come back.
Swenson says: “Please don’t tell me that TOA really means something else than Top Of Atmosphere! ”
Let me clarify. I should have said something more like “the CO2 that is detected when we look down from above the atmosphere”. So let me try again, with slightly different wording (but the same conclusion).
* When looking down from outside the atmosphere, the 15 um IR that is observed comes from CO2.
* The more CO2, the higher the altitude from which that 15 um IR comes.
* The higher the altitude, the cooler that CO2 is.
* The cooler it is, the less IR energy emitted to space in the 15 um band.
* The less emitted @ 15 um, the more must be emitted at other wavelengths to achieve a steady-state.
******************************************
“Anything at about 193 K radiates IR in the 15 um band. “
This hints at some serious misconceptions. What you seem to be referring to is the fact that a blackbody at about 193 K radiates most strongly in the 15 um band. This is knows as “Wien’s Law”.
But …
1) Objects at other temperatures (both warmer and cooler) also radiate in this band. In fact, a blackbody at higher temperatures will radiate MORE in this band than a 193 K object.
2) Non-black bodies radiate differently. For example, a ball of CO2 at any 193 K radiates a lot of IR near 15 um, as does a ball of ice. However, a ball of N2 at 193 K radiates essentially zero IR in the 15 um band, and a ball of polished silver also would radiate poorly near 15 um.
Tim Folkerts says: Crickets!
Tim,
As I said – *Anything at about 193 K radiates IR in the 15 um band. Doesnt matter if its on the surface or elsewhere.*
You agree. Good.
B Hunter wrote:
You missed the point I made about Gordo’s delusional physics. Read back up the thread. He clearly doesn’t understand that the Earth emits thermal IR radiation to deep space.
What convinced me you ask? How about reading several texts on atmospheric radiation heat transfer, and that after earning 2 degrees in ME. The atmosphere tends to be stratified in layers and I think models built using multiple layers should do a good job of representing reality. Then, one must understand that the GHG molecules radiate in all directions and emissions within a layer would tend to be absorbed again within that layer, so the net effect is that the IR in each layer at any GHG wavelength emits with the same intensity downward as upward. Compounded over many layers and the surface would be warmer than without those GHG’s.
Sorry, I see no need to “prove” anything for you. You gotta figure it out for yourself.
OK so lets assume thats correct. So in effect the ”convection adjustment” is a slowing of convection by slowing TOA cooling.
We also have a more rapidly warming polar region (eventually for antarctica too) that reduces the movement of polar to equator convection loops.
thus things like wind shear are also reduced. Now how do we end up with more hurricanes? Tornadoes? etc.
B Hunter, I think it’s more complicated than you suggest.
Warming in the tropics appears as a measured increase in the pressure height of the tropopause, since there’s more convection as the radiation energy loss from the surface to to deep space is reduced. The vertical convection would be strengthened as the surface layers would become less dense due to the addition of more water vapor, which has a lower density than the N2+O2 mixture.
I expect that the stronger vertical convection would result in stronger storm systems, both in the tropics and the mid-latitudes. Winter air mass movement from the tropics to the polar regions would also strengthen, leading to more intense weather at the boundaries between the warm and cold air masses. Remember that the tropics are in surplus, i.e., more solar energy arrives than thermal IR leaves above TOA and the poles are in deficit, the deficit being satisfied by tropic to pole energy movement via convective mass transfer. This may explain the data which shows greater warming during the polar winter than summer, even though the snow/sea-ice/ocean albedo feedback is strongest in summer.
Or, as I’ve pointed out, this difference between polar seasonal temperature change, particularly that reported by the UAH data, may be incorrect due to the influence of the reported decline in melt season sea-ice area.
But, hey, what do I know, I’m no professional PhD career guy.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, I think its more complicated than you suggest.
==============================
I haven’t suggested a mechanism. I was pointing out claimed effects of upper layers reducing radiation to space and the observed and warmist explained more rapid warming of the colder regions of the earth relative to the warmer ones. And both of those suggest less convection.
And yes to correct for it there would need to be more convection at least at TOA, but not necessarily cross latitude.
In fact while typing that the actual melting of the arctic allowing more heat from the oceans into the atmosphere via stripping of the ice insulation barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean, would suppress equatorial convection also perhaps accounting for the entire globe warming. Said to be a feedback but is it?
But thats a distraction. Something to keep in mind.
E. Swanson says: (parens my comments)
”Warming in the tropics appears as a measured increase in the pressure height of the tropopause, (wouldn’t that be expected in a warming world?).”
”since theres more convection as the radiation energy loss from the surface to to deep space is reduced. (my current understanding is that convection is restricted leading to surface warming and to correct convection will return to its original value)”
”The vertical convection would be strengthened as the surface layers would become less dense due to the addition of more water vapor, which has a lower density than the N2+O2 mixture.(isn’t this the hypothesized return of convection that was restricted by a lack of cooling at TOA?)”
”I expect that the stronger vertical convection would result in stronger storm systems, both in the tropics and the mid-latitudes. (stronger than the suppressed convection value? Yes! stronger than the original value, no!)”
”Winter air mass movement from the tropics to the polar regions would also strengthen, leading to more intense weather at the boundaries between the warm and cold air masses. (huh? storms come out of the arctic, not vice versa because the big convection loops deliver high level air above the poles that then cool and descend to the surface pushing surface air south. The restriction of convection at TOA is slowing that process down not speeding it up, you need another mechanism)”
”Remember that the tropics are in surplus, i.e., more solar energy arrives than thermal IR leaves above TOA and the poles are in deficit, the deficit being satisfied by tropic to pole energy movement via convective mass transfer. This may explain the data which shows greater warming during the polar winter than summer, even though the snow/sea-ice/ocean albedo feedback is strongest in summer. (this fact tells me that since emissivity equals absorp-tion per Kirschoff’s law that if the polar region is default a heat loser that when you lower the emissivity it becomes a bigger heat loser via heat loss being proportionally bigger than heat gain. This seems to be potentially part of an iris-like effect of warming)”
”Or, as Ive pointed out, this difference between polar seasonal temperature change, particularly that reported by the UAH data, may be incorrect due to the influence of the reported decline in melt season sea-ice area. (well I imagine it still beats to a pulp then any claim toward more accuracy achieved by extrapolating land station temperatures over the polar seas out to about 1500km!! and then kriging in the remaining holes)”
”But, hey, what do I know, Im no professional PhD career guy.(yep!)”
b hunter, there’s much in your post to which I disagree. To begin with, you mention”TOA”, but you appear to be thinking about the tropopause, which is a way below TOA, i.e., outside most of the atmosphere where satellites operate.
Then you write: “.. my current understanding is that convection is restricted leading to surface warming..”, which I’ve not heard of. It should be obvious that increasing the water vapor content at the bottom of the atmosphere would result in stronger vertical convection. Perhaps you could provide a reference?
Continuing, you wrote: “huh? storms come out of the arctic, not vice versa because the big convection loops deliver high level air above the poles that then cool and descend to the surface pushing surface air south.”. In the mid-latitudes, such as the US, the storms form along the boundaries between the polar flowing warm air masses and the returning cold air. The cold, dense air flows below the warmer air, forcing the warm air to rise resulting in precipitation as the moisture condenses. Both air masses exhibit rotation in a clockwise direction due to the Coriolis Effect and at the frontal boundaries, there’s a change in wind direction, which tends to spin up storms. In Winter, the storms which form in the North Pacific roll onto the west coast and progress across the US.
Then you wrote: “this fact tells me that since emissivity equals absorp-tion per Kirschoff’s law that if the polar region is default a heat loser that when you lower the emissivity it becomes a bigger heat loser via heat loss being proportionally bigger than heat gain.” You are focusing only on surface emissions while ignoring the atmospheric emissions. And, the snow/ice albedo effect applies only to solar energy, not thermal IR emissions. Besides, over the Arctic Ocean in the summer melt season, there is frequent cloud cover and thus the out going emissions tend to originate from the clouds, not the surface.
Regarding the UAH data over the Arctic, they are useful for short term weather forecasts, but may not provide an accurate picture of the longer term trends, in which is what we are most interested.
Mental models are fun, but, as we all know, they aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
b hunter, You may think this piece from CBS last night as too alarmist, but it’s still of great importance to those impacted. And, HERE’s some additional Twitter comments.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, theres much in your post to which I disagree. To begin with, you mentionTOA, but you appear to be thinking about the tropopause, which is a way below TOA, i.e., outside most of the atmosphere where satellites operate.
=========================================
I am using TOA as intended in the study of the radiation as measured from satellites. You are just confused over the fictional descriptions of CO2 doing something, still to be specified, at the top of the troposphere
======================
========================
Swanson says:
Then you write: .. my current understanding is that convection is restricted leading to surface warming..,
===================
All I am doing here is using the only reference so far supplied to me by Nate for evidence that convection didn’t override the forcing of new undescribed layers at the top of the troposphere. Its possible I got what a convection adjustment wrong because I didn’t spend much time reading the paper as its merely a hypothesis based upon some ‘assumptions’ about steady state lapse rates.
But if you disagree with that we are on the same page. What I would be interested in rather than you arguing point by point is that you provide the study you use to describe how the multi-layered GHE operates then I can make some comments better tailored to your viewpoint.
=====================
====================
Swanson says:
which Ive not heard of. It should be obvious that increasing the water vapor content at the bottom of the atmosphere would result in stronger vertical convection. Perhaps you could provide a reference?
======================
You are jumping ahead of the discussion Swanson to a surface forcing.
It gets a bit confusing because I can acknowledge continued leakage of CO2 bandwidth to space on the shoulders of a single layer near TOA single layer model that additional CO2 could fill.
The only thing I am issuing challenges for evidence is that the idea of multiple radiation exchanges in the atmosphere results in a greater forcing at the surface.
So I am accepting a single bite at the apple theory and challenging people to provide evidence that multiple bites can be taken.
=======================
======================
Swanson says:
Continuing, you wrote: huh? storms come out of the arctic, not vice versa because the big convection loops deliver high level air above the poles that then cool and descend to the surface pushing surface air south..
In the mid-latitudes, blah blah blah
========================
See above. . . .wrong page.
=========================
=======================
Swanson says:
Then you wrote: this fact tells me that since emissivity equals absorp-tion per Kirschoff’s law that if the polar region is default a heat loser that when you lower(correct to raise) the emissivity it becomes a bigger heat loser via heat loss being proportionally bigger than heat gain. You are focusing only on surface emissions while ignoring the atmospheric emissions. And, the snow/ice albedo effect applies only to solar energy, not thermal IR emissions. Besides, over the Arctic Ocean in the summer melt season, there is frequent cloud cover and thus the out going emissions tend to originate from the clouds, not the surface.
==========================
OK so you have an argument. But keep in mind that the process of forming clouds is by far the largest means of net transfer of energy from the surface into the atmosphere accounting for atmosphere emissions to space on a global basis. . . .per Trenberth and Kiehl 2009
========================
=======================
Swanson says:
Regarding the UAH data over the Arctic, they are useful for short term weather forecasts, but may not provide an accurate picture of the longer term trends, in which is what we are most interested.
Mental models are fun, but, as we all know, they arent worth the paper they are written on.
=======================
Golly Swanson how do you account for not being a skeptic then?
b hunter wrote:
You previously wrote: “And yes to correct for it there would need to be more convection at least at TOA, but not necessarily cross latitude.” Most of the vertical convection is in the troposphere and there’s little in the stratosphere above, which is the reason I mentioned TOA. Your assertion of “fictional descriptions” is just an assertion of your political world view.
You continue: “I am doing here is using the only reference so far supplied to me by Nate”. I don’t read everything posted on the blog and so that’s why I requested a reference.
Lastly, you ask: “Golly Swanson how do you account for not being a skeptic then?” Surely you understand that all true scientists are skeptics. Without questioning the conventional wisdom, there would be no scientific progress. So, I’m skeptical about the validity of the UAH LT product for assessing temperature trends.
You said mental models aren’t worth the paper they are written on. so that includes the greenhouse effect. We know there is a greenhouse effect, we can measure it and compare it to other principles like Stefan Boltzmann equations we have established as correct.
But when it comes to explaining it its all mental models.
And I don’t see how that relates to UAH temperature record. Reading temperatures with IR equipment is a well documented and correlated process. Not sure what the mental model part is.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, You may think
=====================================
Mostly I avoid formulating my opinions based upon 15 second media soundbites on every topic probably especially science.
b hunter wrote:
The Greenhouse Effect theory is based on mathematical models, which are subject to verification by comparison the model(s) to actual atmospheric measurements.
Then you wrote:
Perhaps you haven’t noticed the claims, going back several years, about whether the S-B equations (which include back radiation from a cooler body to a warmer one) are incorrect.
And then you wrote;
And I don’t see how that relates to UAH temperature record. Reading temperatures with IR equipment is a well documented and correlated process.
You are making the same mistake that Ol’ William Happer made in Congressional testimony.
The MSU/AMSU instruments don’t measure IR “temperature”, like that from a hand held IR thermometer. They measure microwave intensity in a narrow bandwidth, which is the result of emission/absorp_tion from the ground to the instrument orbiting above TOA, then compare that measurement to that from a heated target at known temperature and a scan of deep space. The instruments scan side-to-side across the ground track, with the middle being downward at nadir and the end scan positions viewing near the “limb” of the Earth. Each scan position “sees” a different peak emission altitude, but all are weighted averages over a range of pressure altitudes. S&C take these measurements from each scan swath and combine them using a theoretical math model to create their MT, TP and LS data series. They then combine these three using another theoretical model to create the LT product which we all enjoy each month.
BTW, speaking of where you get your scientific information, you still haven’t given your reference to Nate’s source.
E. Swanson says:
The Greenhouse Effect theory is based on mathematical models, which are subject to verification by comparison the model(s) to actual atmospheric measurements.
==============================
All you are saying there Swanson is climate varies and people pretend to have mathematical models to explain it all. . . .except that those models don’t explain it. Perhaps you need a few lessons in the scientific method, control of experiments, statistics, and the validity of apriori assumptions such as is there really a GHE. Its easy to beg the question in an argument and its far too much easier to do it in a mathematical model than it is in a philosophical model, and that’s because philosophical models inspect all the various assumptions in a language everybody can understand. . . .whereas highly trained numerically focused determinists often fail to do.
======================
========================
========================
E. Swanson says:
compare it to other principles like Stefan Boltzmann equations we have established as correct.
Perhaps you havent noticed the claims, going back several years, about whether the S-B equations (which include back radiation from a cooler body to a warmer one) are incorrect.
===================
Yes but in an atmosphere I think backradiation doesn’t matter.
Backradiation in window technology is routinely ignored and test results show it doesn’t matter. If those tests are too inaccurate is a possibility but thats why I would like to see a bigger test that demonstrates that fact. It seems to me the null hypothesis should be no, backradiation does not matter.
Intuitively I think it does matter in a vacuum but actually I would like to see that established via carefully measured testing in a vacuum environment. . . which may have already been done just that I haven’t seen the tests. Shouldn’t be a hard test to do getting good vacuums at sea level is a challenging job but perfect isn’t all that necessary.
=======================
======================
======================
E. Swanson says:
And then you wrote;
And I don’t see how that relates to UAH temperature record. Reading temperatures with IR equipment is a well documented and correlated process.
You are making the same mistake that Ol William Happer made in Congressional testimony.
The MSU/AMSU instruments dont measure IR temperature, like that from a hand held IR thermometer. They measure microwave intensity in a narrow bandwidth, which is the result of emission/absorp_tion from the ground to the instrument orbiting above TOA, then compare that measurement to that from a heated target at known temperature and a scan of deep space. The instruments scan side-to-side across the ground track, with the middle being downward at nadir and the end scan positions viewing near the limb of the Earth. Each scan position sees a different peak emission altitude, but all are weighted averages over a range of pressure altitudes. S&C take these measurements from each scan swath and combine them using a theoretical math model to create their MT, TP and LS data series. They then combine these three using another theoretical model to create the LT product which we all enjoy each month.
===========================
LMAO, Ol William Happer. Come on Swanson Happer is incredibly well qualified to talk about those matters. You are embarrassingly wrong in criticizing his use of IR. Here is the key definition:
”The infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum covers the range from roughly 300 GHz to 400 THz (1 mm 750 nm). It can be divided into three parts: Far-infrared, from 300 GHz to 30 THz (1 mm 10 μm). The lower part of this range may also be called microwaves or terahertz waves.”
Beyond that weirdo criticism, which actually is a big negative to your case; the UAH methodology is so superior from a sampling point of view to the surface record its almost a joke. From an accuracy point of view the surface record is constantly undergoing adjustments for non-heterogeneous sampling techniques – – -using not a whole lot more than a divining rod with the assumption that station managers are morons as a guide. I could go on and on about problems with assumptions about buckets, engine intakes (actually have worked on a few boats), XBTs, ARGO corrections, time of day, and probably a few more I have forgotten. I have years of sample design experience that is connected to the kind of industries I have worked in over the past 35 years as a consultant. Give me any sampling design and its like the doctor hit my knee reflex muscle and I have a list of items to look more closely at. This is the entire problem with proxies, especially in the area of bias which is endemic to everything political. Microwave scanning of the surface I am sure has a few flaws in coverage of spherical object but they are teensy weensy compared to surface temperature station coverage.
Its actually ridiculous to consider anything but, IMO. But we are stuck with surface station data before 1980 and I love for archaic projects to continue to provide coverage for the sake of consistency even if I really can’t make a really good argument for why. I use satellite data regularly both professionally and recreationally. It is ridiculously superior to what I used when I first started with such data some 50 years ago.
I suspect that if you personally had a real world application for the use of the data you would quickly grow to understand that.
BTW, speaking of where you get your scientific information, you still havent given your reference to Nates source.
b hunter, you wrote:
I’ve worked with dynamic models on several occasions and found them very useful for, example, in satellite control systems design and railroad accident reconstruction. Other engineering applications for models, such as finite element models for load calculations, are common. AIUI, the models used for climate projections are similar to weather models, except that they must be run with longer time steps because of computational constraints. The climate models don’t “explain” anything, they just simulate things, given a set of assumptions.
Regarding back radiation, you wrote:
Been there and done that. Perhaps you haven’t noticed the discussion over the past few years about the Green Plate Effect and my back radiation experiments.
You continued:
OF course, you haven’t a clue about the details of the UAH product, so you resort to an ad hominem putdown and a long digression about your experience, completely ignoring what I wrote about the UAH products. Then, you wrote
.
Allow me to point out that “using” satellite data (probably the weather visualizations from synchronous orbit) and understanding how it’s produced and the science behind it are very different. I certainly do understand the great advances in information available from satellites, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to the MSU/AMSU and follow on instruments.
Lastly, you seem to think that I know Nate’s source, when it was I who first asked you for that reference to support your claim.
E. Swanson says:
I’ve worked with dynamic models on several occasions and found them very useful
========================
Nobody said they can’t be useful Swanson. Its just their use in trying to figure out how the greenhouse effect exacts a surface forcing to create a greenhouse effect isn’t like to succeed for at least two reasons, one of which might doom it to failure and the other all but certain to doom it to failure.
There only use is to try to scare people. Dr. Lindzen knows it and has called them out on it. I know it because I have worked with sophisticated models where you can’t test outcomes or control variables. The models I have worked on are much more complicated, namely natural systems as opposed to engineered systems you have worked on.
=====================
=====================
E. Swanson says:
Been there and done that. Perhaps you haven’t noticed the discussion over the past few years about the Green Plate Effect and my back radiation experiments.
========================
I am not disputing, per se, a simple non-forcing single layer greenhouse effect. The green plate effects I have seen are next to irrelevant in speaking about what is defined as the earth’s greenhouse effect.
==================
==================
E. Swanson says:
OF course, you haven’t a clue about the details of the UAH product, so you resort to an ad hominem putdown and a long digression about your experience, completely ignoring what I wrote about the UAH products.
=====================
1) I did mock you mocking the extremely esteemed Prof Happer for saying MW frequencies were IR. They are! Have you still not figured that out?
2) Perhaps I missed something significant in what you said about UAH but everything you said about it didn’t seem to me anything I should be concerned about. I haven’t audited their model but it doesn’t appear to me you did either as you simply talked essentially about ”concerns” and didn’t reveal an found ”error”. I have little doubt if you found something you could actually express in words and numbers Roy and John would be interested in what you had to say. My comments on the satellite data ACROSS THE BOARD is 1) the amount of data; 2) the consistency of the data; 3) the detail of the data; 4) the completeness of the data; 4) the accuracy of the data. Having that data and the knowledge of atmosphere, the relationship of brightness to temperature. . . .how can you go wrong? These are the data paradigms you pray for. And you make a post oh gee they use a theoretical model here and there. You need to be a lot more specific than that.
==================
==================
E. Swanson says:
Allow me to point out that “using” satellite data (probably the weather visualizations from synchronous orbit) and understanding how it’s produced and the science behind it are very different. I certainly do understand the great advances in information available from satellites, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to the MSU/AMSU and follow on instruments.
======================
I suppose an apprentice auditor on one of his first couple or three audit assignments probably could get away with a comment like that as the summation of his work product in a specific area. But he would have to quickly fix it to last through his probationary period. Thats not an ad hominem, that’s just a fact. I am not impressed. Perhaps you have more to say and can actually verbalize a real concern.
b hunter, the models I worked with were of necessity limited in complexity, given the available computational capabilities of the day. Much has changed since my time working on a UNIVAC 1108 with 56 K of memory.
You wrote:
The same S-B physics of back radiation also works with multi-layer insulation, even for materials of high emissivity.
Regarding the UAH products, you wrote:
See my 2017 paper HERE and my updated version HERE.
You wrote:
See previous links.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, the models I worked with were of necessity limited in complexity, given the available computational capabilities of the day. Much has changed since my time working on a UNIVAC 1108 with 56 K of memory.
=========================
I started around there first bringing the first military personnel records online in the early 60’s, studying programming in the late 60’s, then in the early 80’s started doing modeling on a 500somethingkb Compaq portable PC.
===================
==================
E. Swanson says:
I am not disputing, per se, a simple non-forcing single layer greenhouse effect.
The same S-B physics of back radiation also works with multi-layer insulation, even for materials of high emissivity.
=====================
Indeed I am aware of multi-layered insulation models with physical solid materials in place to impede convection.
======================
=====================
E. Swanson says:
Regarding the UAH products, you wrote:
I havent audited their model but it doesnt appear to me you did either as you simply talked essentially about concerns and didnt reveal an found error.
See my 2017 paper HERE and my updated version HERE.
================================
I glanced at your paper and it seems interesting. In fact part of your key finding was on the emissivity of water. I actually posed that question to Dr. Trenberth because he uses an emissivity 1.0 for the entire earth’s surface for his radiation budget. I understand that to be impossible having a few years seatime under by belt and have had to deal with water reflectivity constantly. Dr Trenbert provided me with some papers to support his position. After reading them they strongly supported a lower emissivity for water than 1.0 some significantly lower (I didn’t inquire about ice though). So rather amazed that Trenberth gave me supporting science contrary to what he was using I got back in touch with him and he merely said he didn’t believe the papers he gave me.
Go figure!
Let me take a shot at this.
OK, this concept of work being employed from rising air is a bit of a misnomer. The reason is the total potential energy in the atmosphere never changes. And since it never changes there is zero work for convection to occur, instead convection is simply a process of diffusion that is always unstable (from the standpoint as a mean value) because of TOA cooling.
And since no work has to occur this diffusion has no limits on how rapidly it will overturn air and via this overturning of air evaporation is accelerated creating an additional greenhouse effect over land and accounting for feedback.
So really the only issue is the additional layering of CO2 within the troposphere having an effect. But thats where I become skeptical because the top of the troposphere seems defined by the upper limit of condensable water and with no work involved in potential energy the lapse rate won’t additionally destabilize.
So the problem seems to be evidence that CO2 can cause water to rise into colder zones of the atmosphere and what does it look like up there in regards to saturation in the CO2 bands.
It must not be too good or folks wouldn’t be talking about multi-layered gas insulation models, but it seems rather complicated how that kind of model would fit into a diffusing gas environment. All I know is such an environment in the study of insulating windows one can completely ignore radiation effects and simply calculate the gas diffusion effects.
Please if you have comments stay on topic and avoid all the haranguing and heartburn the discussion might cause. I am just an amateur at this and would like to learn more.
Bill,
“OK, this concept of work being employed from rising air is a bit of a misnomer. ”
Birds seem to be able to get work from rising air.
Me too, but I only jumped off of a cliff twice, once into a deep pool of water and once on the back of a hang glider pilot, where we managed to stay aloft longer by using thermals.
Your mileage may vary.
Well what I am saying isn’t inconsistent. If the gas laws are correct and indeed they are for ideal gases. And total potential energy is locked to the mass of the atmosphere, where does the energy for the work come from? I am an amateur at this. I just like to hear logical explanations. Not one that it must come from somewhere.
It’s the Sun.
If its the sun how much should we subtract from surface warming due to the use of that energy as work?
For the kindergarten level model or the grade school model?
which ever one you use
How the oil industry made us doubt climate change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382
Thats just pure propaganda!
Nate is posting links today pointing out models were done in 1959 and 1967 and this guy at Exxon mobil discovered climate change in 1981 with a computer model?
Pure propaganda. He may well have, pure plagiarism. . . .like what Biden is expert at.
It wasn’t Nate, it was me.
There is no major western oil company that openly deny climate science.
Because that would make them look stupid.
Like you.
Svante says:
There is no major western oil company that openly deny climate science.
Because that would make them look stupid.
Like you.
================
Exxon wants to sell fuel to idiots. I don’t so I don’t care.
Why do you care then?
And why does Exxon agree that the GHE is real?
Because it was led by a brilliant fact based republican maybe?
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change
Svante says:
Why do you care then?
And why does Exxon agree that the GHE is real?
Because it was led by a brilliant fact based republican maybe?
==================================
LOL! Why does Exxon agree you ask?
They agree because they have an understanding that the oil companies won’t be paying for curing climate change it will be you.
Where do you get this idea it has something to do with a Republican?
Because their policy changed when Rex Tillerson came in.
Why did they do that?
https://tinyurl.com/jnwrz4g
thats easy in the mid 2000’s GW Bush put together a bipartisan coalition with environmental community buy in for cap and trade.
Global warming became political in the US after that, but Exxon stands by the science.
It’s an inconvenient truth for them, their product has damaging side effects.
No silly snowflake. The product has no damaging side effects, unless you misuse it. Using it for fuel adds CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere. Both compounds are essential for life on Earth.
Bill said:
”thats easy in the mid 2000s GW Bush put together a bipartisan coalition with environmental community buy in for cap and trade.”
Svante changes the topic. Are you in on a piece of the action Svante?
Yes, why not?
Well at least that rules out idiocy for being such a big advocate. Hopefully you are collecting monthly and not betting on the long bet.
Would love to see this graph with data averaged per mooncycle, instead of per month. So on Oct 16th the data of mooncycle 2020.09 that started with the new moon on Sep 17th, and all previous mooncycles…
Martijn van Gelderen
To do the job in an accurate manner, you need a daily time series.
Met vriendelijke groeten uit Duitsland
J.-P. D.
ClintR
Regarding Pierrehumbert,
A thought experiment starts with a premise and is followed by a logical conclusion. Doesnt matter if the premise itself is true or false. Heres an example –
If Clinton is dumber than Gordon, and Gordon is dumber than Flynn….
… it follows that Clinton is dumber than Flynn.
*****
The three of you could argue about who is really the dumbest. Doesnt matter. The conclusion in the thought experiment, given the premise, is still valid.
Trying to blame others for your problems won’t fix your problems.
You’ll always be an idiot unless you start accepting reality.
Bad example snape, could be true.
800 000 K can’t be true, we all know that.
S,
But Al Gore said there were millions of degrees just a few kilometres below the surface, didnt he?
Less than a million above the surface? A mere bagatelle!
[A thought experiment starts with a premise and is followed by a logical conclusion. Doesnt matter if the premise itself is true or false.]
S,
So whos the dumbest out of Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, and Pierrehumbert? Assume that one is the smartest, and one is the dumbest. How would you rank them?
swenson…”So whos the dumbest out of Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, and Pierrehumbert? Assume that one is the smartest, and one is the dumbest. How would you rank them?”
That’s a tough one. Obviously Schmidt and Mann are dumber than Pierrehumbert because they run realclimate and have installed him as their climate science authority. Schmidt also used to be a subordinate to Hansen and Hansen taught him all he knows. Not sure how Trenberth fits into things but after his energy budget sci-fi and accepting Phil Jones of Had-crut as his Coordinating Lead Author partner at IPCC reviews, he’s questionable.
Hansen, however, was a disciple of Carl Sagan, an absolute fool of a man who talked a bit like Elmer Fudd. That wouldn’t be bad in itself but he looked like Elmer and thought like him. Hansen, a physicist, spent much of his career following Sagan in astronomy, before dabbling in climate modelling.
Shyster science at Peak Stupid
https://youtu.be/6YpfJgVZ5ow
There are no “secrets” of science hidden within YouTube, blogs, memes, or elsewhere on the internet.
If it is not in the peer-reviewed literature, it is just someone’s opinion.
RR,
And all so-calked climate science is merely someones speculation. Peer review is meaningless, judging by the number of scientific papers having to be retracted.
Keep appealing to authority. Climate is the average of weather. An average 12 year child can do averages.
The Five Characteristics of Denial (FLICC)
Fake experts.
Logical Fallacies:
Red herring
Misrepresentation
Jumping to conclusions
False Dichotomy.
Impossible Expectations.
Cherry Picking.
Conspiracy Theories.
Ramona Rivelino says:
All real potential alternatives to a theory not clearly stated.
RR,
You have pointed out the characteristic of alarmists – precisely. For starters – fake experts.
Gavin Schmidt – not even a scientist. Mathematician. Michael Mann – faker, fraud, scofflaw, deadbeat.
You work the rest out for yourself. Climatology is not science.
Snape/Doris/Ramona, was the 800,000K nonsense from your church’s “peer-reviewed literature”?
As with all cults, your “church” is perverted and corrupted. How many examples do you need?
I see you still can’t wrap your brain around the 800,000K in 1×10^9 years idea. Try 800K in 1×10^6 years, same workflow, but maybe more manageable for you.