Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
Right on time, the maximum impact from the current La Nina is finally being felt on global tropospheric temperatures. The global average oceanic tropospheric temperature anomaly is -0.07 deg. C, the lowest since November 2013. The tropical (20N-20S) departure from average (-0.29 deg. C) is the coolest since June of 2012. Australia is the coolest (-0.79 deg. C) since August 2014.
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).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 15 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.79 -0.79
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 2021 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
That is a big drop. Using the 1981-2010 baseline this is equivalent to a +0.11C anomaly. Will it go lower?
If I were a betting man. I would think there would be another drop for April followed by a slight increase as ENSO has gone neutral. Then a few more drops as ENSO has a plus 50% of returning to La Nina conditions for Summer/Winter.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/strengths/index.php
As La Nina means -0.5C or less, your link indicates only a 15% chance of returning to La Nina.
If I understand their table correctly, you sum the probabilities of each category. So FMA is 100%, dropping to 36% in MJJ but going back up to 86% for the Fall.
Target < -1.5°C < -1.0°C < -0.5°C < -0.5°C
FMA 0 2 98 100
MAM 0 2 59 61
AMJ 0 2 38 40
MJJ 0 4 32 36
JJA 1 7 34 42
JAS 2 12 39 53
ASO 4 17 44 65
SON 7 22 48 77
OND 9 26 51 86
Please let me know if I am missing something.
Thanks
The link says 51% chance of a return to La Nina
Thanks Bill, I see the error of my ways. 51% for Fall.
less, your link indicates only a 15% chance of returning to La Nina.
UAH global is tracking the NOAA ENSO index quite closely with a 6-month lag at the moment, so it should go lower or at least stay as low for a couple of months. ENSO started moving up again in December so, if the 6-month tracking pattern holds, UAH global could be back in low positives again by July.
UAH generally follows SST values with the 6 month lag. This also tends to track ENSO because ENSO is a big part of SST variability. Global SSTs had a moderate drop in October and have continued to slowly drop since then. I would expected UAH to follow.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1973/to/offset/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1973/to/offset/trend
This data is only published through January. Normally, I would expect to have already seen the data for February. No idea what this means.
Also consider the Nino 1-2 area has seen a significant cooling over the past couple of weeks. This could be a sign we are going to see La Nina conditions throughout 2021 and into 2022. That would mean more upwelling cold water and a continued drop in SSTs.
I expect much of the warming of the previous 6 years will now be lost. It now appears it was all ENSO driven. What happens next will likely depend on what happens with the PDO and AMO.
If the main ocean oscillations go negative then the Monckton pause is likely to extend longer and longer.
The average over the last 6 years is +0.26C. The average over the preceding 6 six years was 0.00C. Do you think the next 6 years will be around 0.00C? Given that the EEI is +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 (Schuckmann 2020) I seriously doubt the average will be 0.00C or even 0.26C.
6 years? you are talking weather not climate.
Nobody can predict the weather out more than a few weeks. You have a far far better chance though of predicting the climate say warming for your entire working career and be right, coincidentally.
No disagreement here. I didn’t pick the 6 year period though. That was from Richard M.
The 6 recent years (into the first half of 2020) have been a +PDO. Prior to that was 8 years of -PDO. Overall, the 21st century has been fairly balanced as far as the PDO is concerned. It looks like we could be moving back into a -PDO regime.
Your EEI was recently eviscerated on WUWT. Sorry.
You mean the WUWT that predicted thins in 2016?
“UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a chilly twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”. Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come. This cocktail of climate threats, paired with “hasty climate policies”, could mean “rolling blackouts” in the UK over the next few years, plunging the country into long period of darkness.”
The same WUWT that said this in 2012:
“Over the last 10 years or so as new data have accumulated the general trend and likely future course of climate change has become reasonably clear. The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer. The major natural factors controlling climate change have also become obvious.”
Or this in 2008:
“The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!”
That WUWT?
the problem with predicting cooling is clearly there are long term sources of natural climate change that we don’t have a good handle of what the causes are.
Akasofu drew out his view of a long term cycle (recovery from the LIA) and superimposed on it shorter multidecadal oscillation.
Very clearly all that exists and is not explained by anthropogenic emissions. But we can’t even predict ENSO yet and we have some good experience with it because of the mean life of an ENSO event is somewhere between one and two years and it has a definite random -like quality to its frequency. Its randomness seems to form our concept of a Pacific multi-decadal oscillation. This is associated with bunches of ENSO events with a single sign with events of a different sign less common. Akasofu, a scientist who rose to the top of the field in his specialties, worked extensively with the dynamics of the ocean in areas where the PDO signature is formed and the Arctic. Being the head of an institution within the umbrella of an Alaskan university these were the things on the minds of Alaskans as they have great economic impacts on activities originating in Alaska.
We already went through decades of climate science ignoring these effects to now they incorporate them to try to explain why models aren’t working out. But that is just an exercise common in science of writing paper that really has little data to support it that can lead to some actual investigation to obtain an answer.
Meanwhile all the amateurs and newbs immediate wrap their arms around anything that comes out that fits their belief system.
The big problem with predicting long term cooling is the positive planetary energy imbalance.
Predicting is easier than betting:
https://notrickszone.com/join-the-climate-bet-for-charity/
That’s quite unexpected coming from NTZ. I have no objections using a composite of UAH and RSS. In fact, I track this composite quite closely. It is +0.1766C/decade +/- 0.0063. I’ll be surprised if those on the cooling side of the bet actually pay up though.
bdgwx says:
The big problem with predicting long term cooling is the positive planetary energy imbalance.
———————————-
Dang thats funny bdgwx. The positive planetary energy imbalance is a plug figure after assuming the heat was disappearing into the ocean. Before that it was an assumption the ARGO buoys were leaking. Couldn’t find any leaking buoys so they mixed ARGO data with the older XBT data and part of the missing heat was found, so they plugged in an energy imbalance for what they couldn’t create a hypothesis for. I mean the whole thing is built on a house of cards and they can’t just go around making stuff up as that would expose what they are doing. Can’t have both an imbalance plug and cooling because you lose some of the hypothesized warming if you do that.
bdgwx says:
I’ll be surprised if those on the cooling side of the bet actually pay up though.
———————–
they are all deplorables right bdgwx?
“missing heat was found, so they plugged in an energy imbalance for what they couldnt create a hypothesis for. I mean”
More conspiracy theories from the denialist blogosphere, that faux skeptics here are completely unskeptical of.
bill,
Heat isn’t “disappearing” into the ocean. It is getting taken up by the ocean. The ocean takes up a lot of the excess heat/energy (~90%) because it is very efficient at absorbing both SW and LW radiation and because it has a large thermal mass. The most comprehensive analysis of the planetary energy imbalance is from Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj). I looks pretty robust to me.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never called anyone a deplorable or used any derogatory name against them nor do I think anyone is beneath me or deserving of such a name. You or anyone else are free to call me whatever you want though.
Richard M: Your EEI was recently eviscerated on WUWT. Sorry.
It’s not my EEI. It is from Schuckmann et al.
If you have a peer reviewed publication which comes to a substantially different conclusions by all means post it.
You need to understand the complexity of the situation. Energy imbalance is essentially unrealized feedback. If heat is going into the ocean it may or may not currently being expressed as a temperature. The complexity of this problem led researchers to ignore the issue and assumed that the ocean caught up in 7 years. At the time feedbacks weren’t known. I don’t see how that situation has changed any except that warming hasn’t kept up with models. One explanation can be ocean take up at a rate higher than expected. But that doesn’t mean the ocean wasn’t warming before it just wasn’t estimated. So now it is suspected that the ocean is warming in general. JMA has an estimate. But the middle half of the ocean is estimated to be a hodge podge of leaking buoys and thus insertion of old technology XBTs to bring the ocean warming rate up to expectations robbing the atmosphere of its warming quota.
The bottom third of the ocean isn’t even measured. We don’t know if its cooling down there or warming down there. The little investigation we have done has shown both its cooling in places and warming in other places. And there may not be a lot we can do for a long time to really know what is going on.
Meanwhile you get from Schuckmann and Hansen exactly what they have always done, namely provide the best possible rationalization they can think of to explain a problem away with the original Hansen theory. Nothing wrong with that. They are just defending a point of view. I have said repeatedly I like James Hansen. I think he is honest. I also think he is a nut, but I like lots of nuts. I am more interested in integrity. Same thing for Schuckmann when she tossed Argo buoys for leaking. She didnt try to hide what she did. She came right out in her paper and said what she did. Her rationale was they were reading colder than she thought they should be.
I understand the complexity and I know nobody can explain what is really going on, quite simply because there is a big distrust in all the direct measurements and as a consequence the assumed ocean warming rate affected by squishy, quantitative wise, continental uplift prompts adjustments in tidal gauge readings resulting in an ocean expanding too fast for it to be cooling. And how would it be cooling? The same way it always has! The ocean is cooler than the surface atmosphere its wrapped in. The ocean average temp is below 4C and the atmosphere as we know is 15C. And the core of the earth isnt an escape route for heat so the cold is undoubted down welling in the high latitudes to make up for all the heat it expresses elsewhere.
This could be a major climate stabilization system with ice sheets that insulate the ocean surface melting back and accelerating cold water into the bottom depths. That water is very highly saline and very cold. Its saline because ultimately its the brines that sink and the fresh water that floats.
We simply dont know what the net is. For every bucket going down some bucket must surface. We dont know if the ocean is warming or cooling. JMA says its warming but thats from scanty data and scanty data only in the top 2/3rds of the ocean. Worse it comes from essentially those modeled ideas of how much continents are uplifting to suppress tide gauge readings and adjust the rate sea level is rising upwards. Again no crimes here just folks expressing their points of view. To learn this stuff you have to dive deep into the reference material.
After another gish gallop of imagined ‘facts’ from the mind of Bill we arrive at:
“We dont know if the ocean is warming or cooling.”
Yet another thing that science understands quite well (The ocean IS warming ),
but Bill is thoroughly ignorant about, thus, WE cannot possibly know such things.
Minor technical issues that arose in the massive Argo project become ‘major’ and cancelling, in the imagination of denialists like Bill.
We have loads of measurements that call BS on Bill, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
Nate knows what his daddy tells him only.
I know what science has evidence for.
bill, Are you using “daddy” as a euphemism for evidence?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
bill, Are you using “daddy” as a euphemism for evidence?
————————————
Nope its a euphemism for getting an education and then never putting it to good use.
For the third month in sequence, the Tokyo Climate Center produces an outlook with positive ENSO values (10, 20, 20%):
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Meanwhile, the La Nina forecast was reduced from 100 down to 10 %.
This is certainly not a hint on any La Nina revival later in the year.
J.-P. D.
Imo, we will see a long La Nina as sunspots will favor the northern hemisphere of the sun for around the next 17 years. In the near term the next La Nina should drop to below -2C and last into 2022. This current solar cycle is very likely to remain a weak cycle.That in itself will lead to cooler temps. The next La Nina will drive global temps into minus territory. It will be a big strike against the agw theory.
If you say so, goldminor, if you say so.
I prefer to trust in JMA’s very long experience: Japan is, like is Australia, highly affected by ENSO signals.
J.-P. D.
It will be interesting to see what happens as there has been a change over the last couple of months that is similar to what happens prior to El Nino events. I suspect this is what drove the JMA prediction.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
However, in the last two weeks cold water upwelling appeared and that is what generally precedes La Nina events.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Being just a very simple amateur weather observer, can any one tell me where I can purchase a thermometer which can show a temp change of 0.11 degrees C?
If I breathe on my one it shows a change of 1 Degree.
Give me a break!!!
Patrick,
The current US birthrate is 1.73 babies per woman.
We can’t and probably shouldnt even try to measure 0.73 of a baby.
OTOH, if there is a long-term rise in the birthrate of 0.1 or 0.2, that is significant for the country.
Thats the magic of averaging.
Yes the logic is that reading errors on whether it was all whole babies that were being born isn’t likely an issue. e.g. no half babies or 3/100th babies were observed.
Guess that went over Nate’s head. The rule of thumb standard is don’t report results at a finer level of accuracy than the data you are averaging.
For babies the individual data point is to an unlimited number of decimal points. Each baby will be no more or no less than 1.000000000000000 babies. Thus reporting 1.73 babies per woman isn’t an issue.
But averaging temperature readings that are simply integers 20,15,17 etc. The computed average is most likely between 16 and 18 degrees if you had no other information. A lot of thermometers read tenths but I suppose that might not be universal.
“The rule of thumb standard is don’t report results at a finer level of accuracy than the data you are averaging.”
Got a source?
Of course not. Because there is no such rule.
No-ones reading thermometers here. It’s a couple of satellites reading microwave radiation at various frequencies, using complicated formulae to convert this to a temperature for various areas of space, then using another equation to estimate the temperature for the lower troposphere, then aggregating all these values to give an estimate for the global average, and then averaging all the daily global averages to get a monthly average.
How accurate this is could be debated, but the precision can be a lot more than 1 degree.
Bellman et al,
Thanks for your explanations. The point I tried to make was is it not ridiculous to be measuring temperatures down to 2 or 3 decimals
no matter by what means they are measured? Could anyone notice?
measurement uncertainty for satellite readings is certainly smaller than for the monstrous mishmash of dropping stations and dramatic adjustments to past decades hat GISS has morphed into
although satellites also introduces other uncertainties such as the exact orbital position, etc, which have been debated in the literature
still, satellites can probably be trusted within .1 degrees, at least wrt to decadal trends
TallDave,
No, I’m sorry that’s not correct.
GISS: https://tinyurl.com/4tmprfeh
Measurement uncertainty for GISS is +/- 0.05C. This is true for other station datasets as well. Refer to BEST (https://tinyurl.com/3jcutohd) for another example.
RSS: https://tinyurl.com/4kk999yu
Measurement uncertainty for RSS is +/- 0.15C. This is likely true for UAH as well though I know of no rigorous uncertainty analysis like what we have for RSS and GISS
The uncertainty in the decadal trends is pretty low for all kinds of datasets. The real question is what kind of bias is accompanying these datasets? Keeping in mind that surface datasets do not measure the same thing as satellite datasets we still see that UAH is a significant outlier relative to the others.
bdgwx,
“Measurement uncertainty for GISS is +/- 0.05C”
lol sure, that’s why so many past temperatures been changed by up to a degree that just since 1999
realistically, measurement uncertainty for GISS is more than a degree and probably closer to 2-3 given all the massaging… see the many many papers on the subject, you cannot average away error
satellites are again debated in the literature, one paper barely scratches the surface
TallDave,
Where are you seeing that GISTEMP global mean surface temperatures have changed by 1C since 1999?
Also, understand that in this context the uncertainty is aleatoric. There is epistemic uncertainty which I briefly I touched on above. This includes systematic bias like would be the case when GISS was using GHCN-M data that had not yet had station moves, time of observation, and instrument change biases corrected. GISS started using the corrected GHCN-M dataset in the early 2000’s I think. This lead to a large change in the global mean surface temperature provided by GISS.
Also, understand that temperature records get incorporated into the various repositories with some lag. This lag can be months, years, or even decades. I run the GISTEMP code daily and I get different result each time because the data repositories are constantly assimilating new observations. This is expected and desired. We want observations to be included in the underlying repositories regardless of their age. For example, GISS switch to GHCNv4 in 2019. GHCNv4 now includes ~27,000 stations instead of the ~7400 stations that existed in GHCNv3 due in part to the digitization of old records. We want this kind of thing to be happening. It’s a good thing.
I’ve never seen a GISS even remotely close to 1C though.
Yes I seriously doubt 1C also. Maybe .5C
lol again the colossal stupidity
ffs just google GISS adjustments
Heller and Watts alone have publicly documented dozens of such changes to GISS temps far in excess of .05
Zeke was even asked about one from the 1930s
“we know the temperature within .05 but we changed it by 10-20 times that”
lol in fact at this point you’d be quite hard-pressed to find very many values that have NOT been adjusted by more than .05
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/thirteen-years-of-nasa-data-tampering-in-six-seconds/
The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer.
at some point this is just Orwellian
lol there are dozens of posts like these, giyf… yes GISS readings have been changed by as much as a degree
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/
—-
Without getting into semantics, Id like to ask Zeke these simple questions:
What is the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 today?
What was it a year ago?
What was it ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
What was it in late 1936, when all the data had been first compiled?
We already know the answers to questions 1 and 2 from my posting here, and they are 76.43F and 77.4F respectively, so Zeke really only needs to answer questions 3 and 4.
——-
.05? rotflmao
lol did the red and blue lines shift by more than .05?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Patrick, Yeah, those 2 or 3 decimal points do matter. Those decimals represent degree days where crops can be grown.
A drop of 0.1 anomaly might mean 1 day less for crops to ripen and eventually that means crops don’t get picked.
During Mini Ice Age lots of land that had been marginal then failed completely leading to famine enough for Europe to eventually lose half its population.
So yeah it matters and we would notice.
TallDave,
0.05C is not equivalent to 1.00C.
NASA does not tamper with data. The only adjust they make is for UHI. It is GHCN that adjusts data. These adjustments are necessary to correct for station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, etc. The GHCN repository is constantly incorporating observations. As a result a the GISTEMP output constantly changes as well. All of this is completely transparent and open for examination.
You can download the GISTEMP source code here. https://tinyurl.com/8fxnks9m
You can download the GHCN-M source code here. https://tinyurl.com/ev56dvk
GISS’ global mean temperature has changed by 0.05C from one version to another. A big change occurred when GISS switched from the QCU to the QCF file in the early 2000’s. Other minor changes occur to the incorporation of past observations not previously contained in the ERSST or GHCN-M repositories. None of the changes have been fraudulent or inappropriate.
It should also be noted that neither Watts nor Heller produce a global mean temperature dataset that is significantly different than GISS, NOAA, Had.CRUT, Cowntan&Way, Copernicus, JMA, many others.
I should also point out that at least in regards to Heller I frequently cannot reproduce his graphs. When I track things down, which itself can be difficult since he does not always cite sources, I often find that his graphs have been photoshopped incorrectly. Sometimes it looks as if they’ve been made up.
You had 4 posts there in succession. I’m not sure which point you want to focus on, but I’d be more than happy to dive deeper into anyone them if I have not adequately addressed them. We can analyze one of Heller’s graphs if you want too.
bill said: Yes I seriously doubt 1C also. Maybe .5C
I’ve never seen an annual mean change by 0.5C. I have seen them change by 0.05C though.
lol totally unresponsive trolling, again
gave you numerous examples of far larger adjustments than .01
you clearly know nothing about GISS, there are literally DOZENs of documented adjustments, not just UHI
TallDave said: gave you numerous examples of far larger adjustments than .01
0.01 is not the same as 1.00.
TallDave said: you clearly know nothing about GISS, there are literally DOZENs of documented adjustments, not just UHI
Maybe you an help me out then.
The source code can be downloaded here (https://tinyurl.com/8fxnks9m) with a brief summary of the steps and references to official methods publications here (https://tinyurl.com/5my2zuw2).
Can you provide a list of all the adjustments GISS makes?
Or how about just 12 of the “literally DOZENs”?
“Sometimes it looks as if theyve been made up”
lol wow desperate, but ok if you don’t like Heller or Watts try McIntyre or for that matter GISS itself
in fact your thesis is so trivially easy to prove you can use any public source you like from 1999 or before
then you just have show that none of the published values for monthly temps have ever changed by more than your claimed +/- 0.05C in subsequent publications
lol but of course you already know they have, many time, even before I gave you around a dozen links showing it
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
https://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2007/08/17/Global-baloney/stories/200708170241
for any non-trolls reading, there are even an entire cottage industry of papers devoted to explaining why surface and satellite diverge, e.g.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Evid_Based_Climate_Sci/Ev_Based_Climate_Sci_Chap3.pdf
Can you provide a list of all the adjustments GISS makes?
Or how about just 12 of the literally DOZENs?
lol over a dozen adjustments were detailed in the links even before I just posted more
but of course we both already knew that, didn’t we troll?
TallDave said: then you just have show that none of the published values for monthly temps have ever changed by more than your claimed +/- 0.05C in subsequent publications
Not quite. The +/- 0.05C figure is the aleatoric uncertainty. It does not include epistemic uncertainty.
Epistemic uncertainty would be biases that contaminate the measurement. Examples of biases would be the underweighting of the Arctic region or overweighting urban stations in the spatial average, station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, etc. Epistemic uncertainty is actually pretty hard to estimate because it can be hard to identify and quantify all sources of biases.
The way science deals with this problem is via review and replication, anomaly analysis, and pairwise homogenization, and ensembling. When a potential source of bias is identified it is quantified and corrected. The problem is with unknown sources of bias. Anomaly analysis is useful because any static biases cancel out. Pairwise homogenization is useful because it can identify and correct dynamic biases (like station moves, time of observation change, instrument changes, etc.) Ensembling can be done with Monte Carlo simulations or modeling with stochastic perturbations.
Because epistemic error can be so hard to deal with science encourages independent replication using wide variety of techniques and subsets of available data. We can estimate the epistemic error by looking at the range of possibilities different groups have published.
TallDave said: lol over a dozen adjustments were detailed in the links even before I just posted more
You must be looking at something else.
I have the GISTEMP source code and I do run it on my machine. I only see one routine for making adjustments…step 2 of only 5 steps. That is the only adjustment I see being done by GISS. And for GHCN-M they run pairwise homogenization to correct for station moves, time of observations changes, and instrument changes. PHA does dynamically adjust for unknown biases as well. But no where do I see a list of dozens of adjustments being made in your links or in any of the documentation I’ve seen.
lol aleatoric or epistemic, it’s all part of the measurement error
by the time GISS publishes a monthly number, the associated uncertainty has grown far larger due to the many layers of adjustment between measurement and publishing — many taking place before GISS even gets the data
two to three degrees is reasonable
one degree is an extremely aggressive claim given the cumulative adjustments have been in that range
.05 is just rotflmao
but again, this is trivial to prove
in fact I’ll make it even easier for you
let’s see the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
hahahahaha good luck, we already both know I’m right
TallDave said: lol wow desperate, but ok if you dont like Heller or Watts try McIntyre or for that matter GISS itself
I should address this. Neither Heller, Watts, or Mcintyre publish a global mean surface temperature dataset with accompanying uncertainty analysis that is substantially different than what we already have. If they want to make a claim that GISS (and by extension everyone) has significant errors then they need to actually quantify the error and provide instructions on how they did it so that their work can be reviewed and replicated. Otherwise we’re left pondering “nuh-uh” arguments that at best have an unquantified effect or at worst have already been shown to be unjustified.
yes oddly skeptic bloggers don’t receive the same billions of taxpayer dollars GISS does so few of them publish their own global temperature datasets
but again, their claims are trivial to prove
just show us the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
hahahahaha good luck, we already both know I’m right
happy trolling
TallDave said: two to three degrees is reasonable
If you don’t mind can provide a link to a publication which quantifies the uncertainty and provides support for the claim that the true uncertainty is +/- 2-3C?
TallDave said: one degree is an extremely aggressive claim given the cumulative adjustments have been in that range
Something isn’t clicking here. Adjustments remove error; not add more of it.
TallDave said: .05 is just rotflmao
Can you provide a rigorous analysis showing a substantially different aleatoric uncertainty?
TallDave said: yes oddly skeptic bloggers dont receive the same billions of taxpayer dollars GISS does so few of them publish their own global temperature datasets
There are dozens of global mean temperature datasets available. These include satellite, radiosonde, reanalysis, SST, oceanic heat content, and surface station datasets.
You don’t need billions of dollars to do this. In fact, you can do it right there from the comfort of your own home in a matter of minutes. Just download the code and run it. Nick Stokes gets no funding (AFAIK) and invented his own method. You can find his results here.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/
TallDave said: just show us the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
I’m not sure what you are asking here. Can you clarify the request?
bdgwx,
If you don’t mind can provide a link to a publication which quantifies the uncertainty and provides support for the claim that the true uncertainty is +/- 2-3C?
lol I do mind troll, as I just gave you over a dozen, read them instead of asking for more
Something isn’t clicking here. Adjustments remove error; not add more of it.
lol they try, but every new attempt to remove error by changing the past data has its own error margins, sometimes larger than the error they’re supposed to remove
TallDave correctly said: .05 is just rotflmao
troll trolled: Can you provide a rigorous analysis showing a substantially different aleatoric uncertainty?
again, aleatoric is irrelevant, and I already cited several analyses that show .05 is roflmao to anyone with functioning neurons
There are dozens of global mean temperature datasets available. These include satellite, radiosonde, reanalysis, SST, oceanic heat content, and surface station datasets.
lol yes, and every one of them already HAS adjustments
starting from the actual raw data and developing your own dataset is not remotely a DIY effort
TallDave said: just show us the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
troll said: I’m not sure what you are asking here. Can you clarify the request?
for a fourth time now, all you have to do is find any pre-1999 publication of GISS data you like (you know, the thing you desperately claimed was “made up” when Heller tried to show you various graphs of it) and then compare the pre-1999 values published in 1999 to what GISS reports now, and see if any monthly values changed by more than the claimed accuracy of .05C
lol is that still too complicated?
the rotflmao part comes in when you realize cumulatively there are hundreds of published changes larger than .05 to pre-1999 temperatures just since 1999… but the claimed error to those measurements is supposedly smaller than any of those changes
thus 2-3C is a reasonable guesstimate of the GISS error
and .05C is rotflmao
TallDave said: you know, the thing you desperately claimed was made up when Heller tried to show you various graphs of it
Here is an example of something Heller published which I cannot replicate.
https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU
It is a graph of NCAR 1974 data with NASA 2016 data. The problem is that the NASA 2016 data does not look like that.
http://web.archive.org/web/20161201101225/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
TallDave said: and then compare the pre-1999 values published in 1999 to what GISS reports now, and see if any monthly values changed by more than the claimed accuracy of .05C
We can do that with the wayback machine.
1999: http://web.archive.org/web/19991105135002/http://www.giss.nasa.gov:80/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
2021:https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Consider 1963. The 1999 version says -0.25C. The 2021 version says -0.20C.
Consider 1976. The 1999 version says -0.23C. The 2021 version says -0.10C.
NASA provides a pretty good history here as well.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
Pay special attention to the notable changes. These changes include the incorporation of adjustments and new observations which improves accuracy, but not necessarily precision. These adjustments and new observations can have an effect on the results much larger than the statistical uncertainty envelope because these changes improve the accuracy of the dataset which is independent of the statistical uncertainty.
I find it particularly interesting that GISS went from 1000 stations in 1981 to 7200 in 1999 to 26000 in 2019. You can clearly the effect these large record digitization efforts have had on the station counts. Record digitization is STILL ongoing so expect a lot more changes to past data as GISS updates continue in the future. That’s a good thing. We want that.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
patrick healy,
Accurate or precise? Those are different concepts.
Anyway, for a spatial average (either 2D or 3D) you have to use multiple thermometers. One unintended benefit of this is that you gain precision the more thermometers you use. For example, if you want +/- 0.1C precision on the mean surface temperature in a metro area have 100 volunteers space out evenly with a +/- 1C or better calibrated instrument (they are cheap). This works because the error of the mean is E = S/sqrt(N) where S is the standard error of the individual samples and N is the number of samples. +/- 0.11 precision isn’t that impressive.
lol now you’ve confused sampling error with measurement error
embarrassed for you
the absurdity of claiming a one-foot measuring stick with no inch markings could accurate measure inches if we just averaged the errors could only find traction in climate science
The thing in climate science is you are only allowed to do that if the results are in compliance with the deemed ‘best science available’
TallDave,
I never said a one-foot measuring stick with no inch markings could accurately measure inches if we just averaged the errors. Nor did I say an instrument a thermometer without Celsius markings could accurately measure temperature if we just averaged the errors. That does sound absurd.
lol that is exactly what you said troll
you just lack the wit to understand it
to illustrate this absurdity for the slow-witted, suppose you do just what you said
“For example, if you want +/- 0.1C precision on the mean surface temperature in a metro area have 100 volunteers space out evenly with a +/- 1C or better calibrated instrument (they are cheap).”
so you come back and tell everyone “the temperature is 10.5C +/-.01 degrees”
whereupon an assistant runs up and informs you he has just tested all 100 instruments against a far more accurate instrument, and it turns out every single instrument you used tests exactly .9 degrees too warm
oops
sorry, you come back and tell everyone the temperature is 10.5C +/-.1 degrees
this is why it’s quite obvious measurement uncertainty can never be reduced below the accuracy of the measuring instruments
I think you have me confused with someone else. If you look up slightly to the post at April 4, 2021 at 3:25 PM that was from me. I’m responding to patrick healy’s post at April 3, 2021 at 1:37 PM regarding measuring temperature to within 0.11. If want to chime on that line of discussion I would be more than happy to engage.
TallDave said: whereupon an assistant runs up and informs you he has just tested all 100 instruments against a far more accurate instrument, and it turns out every single instrument you used tests exactly .9 degrees too warm
This is a great talking point.
First…I specifically stated that each participate should provide a calibrated instrument. I did this specifically because I wanted these instruments to be unbiased.
Second…Let’s go ahead and talk about your scenario instead in which each of the 100 were not calibrated but instead were found to have a 0.9C high bias. This is a great illustration of two important points.
Point 1…biases are easily corrected. We just subtract 0.9C off of the 10.5C and report a mean of 9.6C +/- 0.1. In fact, this is how instruments are calibrated. That is they often have an offset parameter (or table of parameters if the non-linear) that gets adjusted by a laboratory operator to correct the bias.
Point 2…biases cancel when doing anomaly analysis. The cool thing about this is that you don’t need to know the magnitude of the bias or whether a bias exists at all. For example, if our participants are asked to report how much it has warmed/cooled between two different times they can do so using anomalies as opposed to absolute readings. In this manner they report a single dT value instead of the T1 and T2 values. Watch what happens. dT = (T2+B) – (T1+B) = (T2-T1) + (B-B) = T2 – T1. Do you see how the bias B cancels out? Note that caveat here that the B from T1 and the B from T2 must be equal for this to work.
bdgwx — thanks, this is a great example of what a moron you are
I specifically stated that each participate should provide a calibrated instrument.
your calibration is within 1 degree, therefore nothing prevents every instrument from being off by the same .9 degrees warm
1. biases are easily corrected lol the whole point of measurement error is that you don’t know the bias, if you knew you’d just correct it
biases cancel when doing anomaly analysis.
rotflmao no you’re just assuming they do
in my example, none of the .9 biases cancel out
the correct claim about your temp is “10.5 degrees +/- 1 degree”
since you really do seem a bit handicapped mentally, let me explain further how this plays out
after you’ve published your data with the error bar, and your assistant runs up with the news about your .9 degrees too warm (or cold, if you like) instruments, one of two things happens
if you told everyone the error was .1 degrees, you are fired, laughed at, and scorned forever, as the actual error turned out to be nine times higher than you claimed was possible
if you told everyone the error was 1 degree, you just pat your assistant on the head and tell him not to worry, the bias he discovered was within your published error margin
TallDave said: your calibration is within 1 degree, therefore nothing prevents every instrument from being off by the same .9 degrees warm
The instruments are calibrated to read true. That’s the whole point of calibration. If they are found to be off by 0.9C then they weren’t actually calibrated.
TallDave said: rotflmao no youre just assuming they do
No. That’s how the math works out.
dT = (T2+B) – (T1+B)
dT = (T2-T1) + (B-B)
dT = T2 – T1
Notice that the bias B from T2 and T1 cancel to zero.
TallDave said: in my example, none of the .9 biases cancel out
First…you failed to calibrate your instrument prior to observation. In the future you should do this both before and after observation.
Second…Yes, that 0.9C bias cancels out when doing anomaly analysis. See the dT formula above. For example, if you record 10.0C at T1 and 11.0C at T2 for a difference of 1.0C. And notice that the true values would have been 9.1C and 10.1C respectively. Again, the difference is 1.0C. It didn’t matter if the bias was considered at all. That’s just the way the math works out.
TallDave said: the correct claim about your temp is 10.5 degrees +/- 1 degree
No. It is +/- 0.1C with no bias. Remember all instruments were calibrated prior to observation.
TallDave said: after youve published your data with the error bar, and your assistant runs up with the news about your .9 degrees too warm (or cold, if you like) instruments, one of two things happens
I wouldn’t ever publish data with a known bias without disclosure. That is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.
Yet that is exactly what contrarians like Tony Heller do. They know about the biases caused station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, etc. because they’ve been told about them repeatedly. But they don’t tell their audience the purpose behind the adjustments is to remove bias and instead strongly imply that the true temperature best reported via the unadjusted data. That is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.
Don’t hear what I didn’t say. I am not indicting Tony Heller of fraud. Fraud requires a standard of credibility. Heller is held to a much lower standard than bona-fide publishing scientists therefore nothing he reports will ever rise to fraud. But I am indicting him of unethical reporting.
The instruments are calibrated to read true. Thats the whole point of calibration. If they are found to be off by 0.9C then they werent actually calibrated.
lol again, this is beyond moronic… yes of course all instruments are calibrated to the correct temperature, not the wrong temperature, great insight there… their accuracy is still (in your example) +/-1 degrees.. which means (again) every single one of them could read .9 degrees warm and you’d have absolutely no grounds to complain to the manufacturer
No. Thats how the math works out.
moron, I already proved it doesn’t using your own example
your wrong equation has nothing to do with the actual error discovered after your publication, which was .9, much larger than your wrong equation came up with
TallDave said: after you’ve published your data with the error bar, and your assistant runs up with the news about your .9 degrees too warm (or cold, if you like) instruments, one of two things happens
troll somehow managed to outdo himself with: I wouldnt ever publish data with a known bias without disclosure.
MY GOD HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE QUOTED TEXT YOU ALREADY PUBLISHED IT ***BEFORE*** YOU KNEW WHAT THE BIAS ACTUALLY WAS, NO ONE CAN BE THIS DUMB
That is unethical at best
so is your ridiculously dishonest trolling
troll better or I’ll indict you for being a waste of oxygen
TallDave said: their accuracy is still (in your example) +/-1 degrees
Accuracy and precision are different concepts. The +/- 1C is the precision or random error. Specifically it is the value at which 68% of measurements deviate from true by random chance.
TallDave said: which means (again) every single one of them could read .9 degrees warm and you’d have absolutely no grounds to complain to the manufacturer
That’s not how this works. The probability that 100 instruments would simultaneously read 0.9 warmer than true by random chance is 0.18^100 = 3e-75. This is a statistical impossibility.
TallDave said: I already proved it doesn’t using your own example
No you didn’t. You are conflating statistical or random error with systematic or bias error.
Statistical error does NOT cancel out when doing anomalies. In fact, it gets larger. Specifically you use the summation in quadrature rule Etot = sqrt(E1^2 + E2^2). So for a standard error of the mean of E = S/sqrt(N) = 1/sqrt(100) = 0.1 the total error for dT is Etot = sqrt(0.1^2 + 0.1^2) = 0.14.
We trade a slightly higher statistical error for systematic error. We still have time dependent epistemic to worry about though.
TallDave said: IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE QUOTED TEXT YOU ALREADY PUBLISHED IT ***BEFORE*** YOU KNEW WHAT THE BIAS ACTUALLY WAS
No. I specifically said the instruments are calibrated before the observation takes place. This means we know before the observation that there is 0 systematic or bias error. The only error we have is statistical or random error. It is +/- 0.1C.
You might consider reading through the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
“the absurdity of claiming a one-foot measuring stick with no inch markings could accurate measure inches if we just averaged the errors could only find traction in climate science”
GISS averages N > 10,000 daily measurements of temperature. Suppose the thermometers with 1 degree markings are used, which have error of plus-minus 0.5 degrees.
The standard error (error on the average) is defined to be
(measurement error)/sqrt(N), for N independent measurements.
Thus statistical error on the the GISS global mean would be 0.5/sqrt(10,000) ~ .005.
Apparently math is absurd to you.
Now this is not considering systematic errors..which are another story.
Yes systematic errors would include all non-random errors. Like how tall was the guy reading the thermometer, did he bend over to read it perfectly parallel or did he have a bad back. Or maybe he was short, did he get a step stool.
Was the station manager aware of the possibility of reading the same temperature 2 days in a row, did he account for that or did he read it like a robot would?
All my years of auditing I never did an audit at my desk. I never did an audit without talking to the people who actually did the work or at least supervised it. I did some forensic accounting where people weren’t available to talk to. But in those audits we weren’t trying to figure out stuff to a decimal point. So should I have automatic faith that the adjustments were materially correct (knowing they aren’t going to be perfect). Hahaha! Yes I could be convinced to some degree of accuracy! But not just by some guy who has a dog in the fight telling me so and notating on the paper he is educated.
” did he bend over to read it perfectly parallel or did he have a bad back. Or maybe he was short, did he get a step stool.
Was the station manager aware of the possibility of reading the same temperature 2 days in a row, did he account for that or did he read it like a robot would?”
Riight, those ‘possibilities’ raise serious doubts about global warming trends……in Bill’s imagination.
In Bill’s view, really no science project is trustworthy because of all the things that he imagines that can go wrong…
I expect you also would have trouble reading a thermometer from a thousand miles away and 70 years later.
But I suppose you don’t think there is any problem with that. Bet you would if folks were adjusting them to lower trends.
Ha ha..
The point is REAL systematic errors can matter, such as time of day of readings, whether thermometers were screened or not, whether ocean temps are measured by buckets or engine intakes.
These kinds of systematic errors need to be dealt with, hence some corrections, IOW adjustments, are NEEDED.
But according to some here, making any such adjustments = fraud.
Nate I have been auditing scientists for over 20 years. Before that I was auditing professionals and executives in other fields for 15 years, with similar issues to the trade of science.
The fact is these are really the ONLY kind of people that need to be audited.
Others simply aren’t impacting lives at the same rate certain professions and academics are so there is no need for audit except in the case of solving crimes.
I have long made a point that fraud is rare at this level. At the levels that need auditing there is an ego-driven hubris. Its all over financial markets despite reliance of those industries on employees with PhDs and JDs. That ego generally prevents these people from out and out committing fraud. They have too much pride to do something thats going to destroy their credentials.
But bias is rampant and it becomes a game of using uncertainty to make outrageous claims in a form of advocacy. A form of advocacy even when revealed is not considered to be a firing offense or a crime.
Often all I can do is show the levels of uncertainty for what they are. But that makes the work worthwhile as uncertainty if potentially material should be disclosed.
Only newbs, morons, and sycophants are unaware of the real uncertainty. If you don’t understand uncertainty in your profession you don’t belong in that profession. But in the interest of supporting outside of the box thinking in the process of inventing new ideas, ignoring and not acknowledging uncertainty is often exactly what the employer wants. And additionally in the eye of the professional/expert in question he is fully aware of what he wants.
I find it bizarre that contrarians equate adjustment to fraud. But, if you know about these biases and errors and ignore them then to me and pretty much everyone else that is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst. How did we get to the point where this dichotomy even exists in the first place?
One more thought on that.
fraud is actually something deemed to be illegal. professionals and experts seldom commit fraud. Perhaps some of things they set off to intentionally do should be fraud. But if you had any experience in legislation or making of laws and regulations you would be aware of the ”law of unintended consequences” in all law making. Laws are imperfect as you want to avoid prosecuting somebody for what they should know but didn’t know. The bad guys on TV and in some real life are always doing that to their own employees. . . .but its not socially acceptable to the good guys.
TallDave,
Here is a graph, Fig 1, from the source of GISS, showing the changes in their temperature graph, over time.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
The changes are are all < 0.25 C.
lol no, that page does not show any of the actual adjustments to published individual monthly values since 1999
here’s a page that looks at just one single value
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/
——-
Without getting into semantics, Id like to ask Zeke these simple questions:
What is the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 today?
What was it a year ago?
What was it ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
What was it in late 1936, when all the data had been first compiled?
We already know the answers to questions 1 and 2 from my posting here, and they are 76.43F and 77.4F respectively, so Zeke really only needs to answer questions 3 and 4.
——-
so yes, these temperatures can and do change by at least a degree F just over a single year
lol or you can go the troll route and just claim they made it all up, seems to be a popular choice
“lol no, that page does not show any of the actual adjustments to published individual monthly values since 1999”
Lol, for climate change why do individual months matter?
The page shows the adjustments that affect 5 year averages. IOW it shows the adjustments that actually matter for climate change.
Looking at the changes over time I am seeing about .35 degrees of enhancement to the trend since the 1920’s to the present in the link you provided eyeballing it.
The decade 1925-1935 appears to have been lowered by as much as ~ 0.25 since the first GISS data sets of the 1980s. Other decades not so much.
GISS is one of 5 or 6 such surface data sets. Pick your favorite, it will make little difference to the overall warming trend.
The most important question is…is the newer GISS version more correct than the older? The evidence says yes. Since 1981 and 2019 the number of stations GISS analyzed jumped from 1000 to 27,000. They’ve also incorporated ERSST data and learned about the biases that station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, and UHI induce. Sure, it would have been nice had GISS laid the golden egg on the first attempt, but as is ubiquitous in all attempts at measurement in all scientific disciplines that didn’t happen. The next best thing is to refine and improve.
bdgwx what makes you think science was used to make those adjustments. Individual stations were adjusted so they need hundreds it not thousands of individual peer reviewed studies to give it scientific legitimacy, right? After all science is a self correcting process and unless individually documented it just ain’t science.
Of course I can understand why individual studies aren’t available. They needed adjustments immediately and there simply wasn’t the time available.
bill,
Then by all means use what you think qualifies as science and produce a global mean surface temperature dataset accompanied by a rigorous uncertainty analysis and publish it so that the entire world can review it. Let’s see just how different it is.
Sure I will do that. Just send a check!
I don’t think you need a check. You can start with the published code provided by GISS and NOAA and fix whatever problems you find. I will say that Nick Stokes created all of his materials from scratch without a check. But if you really feel it is necessary then you could probably hit up some of the same donors that contributed to Berkeley Earth. Judith Curry has a lot of pull maybe you can see if she would lead the effort.
Well bdgwx I suppose you could do the same thing for the purpose of actually lending some real expertise and value added to go along with your sycophantic cheerleading that everything is okie dokie.
bdgwx says:
”I dont think you need a check. You can start with the published code provided by GISS and NOAA and fix whatever problems you find. I will say that Nick Stokes created all of his materials from scratch without a check.”
——————————–
In my view thats the problem not the solution bdgwx.
adjusting individual weather stations isn’t something you can do reliably from an office a thousand miles away.
The bottom line is to support an adjustment you need to first understand the process by which data was actually recorded. Managers make corrections on the fly. If they didn’t then they had a useless job. . . .replace them with a computer.
Some meteorologists consider the effort as station managers being treated like idiots.
I am not as concerned about the stuff you constantly harp on such as homogenization. Computerized adjustments across the board does need its own justifications but you don’t end up with very specific new data for individual stations, which the focus of my concern.
Thus when Berkeley Earth comes along gathers up all the adjusted individual station data and runs the same programs borrowed from somebody else, whether they review them or not, and come up with the same results is merely a distraction and it isn’t another individual and separate effort to construct a temperature record. I get how and why politicized science pays for replicated work on the same data and claims that as some kind overall endorsement of the weather data. Such behaviors makes a professional auditor cringe.
And your constant harping on that is like somebody was paying you as a cover up artist to hide the actual individual station data changes by constantly pointing to other duplicative processes that endorse outcomes that don’t amount to a complete review of the issues.
Comparing satellites to surface stations is an apples to oranges comparison. But it is disconcerting that surface station data bases are not in agreement.
I can say the same thing about satellite data those should be top priority efforts to identify specific differences and while one might not be able to fix past data its a big problem if the disagreement goes on forever without a major investigation into
what the problem is.
Actually I could give a shitt about historic temperature data. The weather today is fantastic. If you don’t know that perhaps you should get outside more, unless of course you are living in a Quonset hut on some Antarctic or Arctic island where if you go outside often you are apt to get eaten by an animal with a better fur coat. However, its not advisable to live in a shell and judge weather by what comes with a headline at the top of the media you use.
What I am concerned about is if and when people think mankind should start managing the actual weather rather than simply managing the impacts of weather variation we will need tremendous accuracy and consistency in temperature records to inform our efforts.
bill,
You’ve been informed of the biases that station moves, time observation changes, instrument changes, etc. induce. If you don’t like the way the various participants in the global mean surface temperature space have dealt with these issues then you’re going to have to figure out a different way of handling it because ignoring the issues and publishing a knowingly contaminated GMST is not right and not ethical.
Uh there is another way bdgwx.
You can deem it unreliable. After all its not a dataset that was envisioned when the weather stations were established in the first place. So toss it and double down on satellite technology, or if you feel whenever the system became reliable start the temp record from there. As I understand it a huge amount of weather stations and their records were destroyed in WWII.
“adjusting individual weather stations isn’t something you can do reliably from an office a thousand miles away”
I use the original unadjusted station data. I can use the data adjusted by NOAA, but it makes very little difference. The task of getting a global average is just spatial integration. My methods are different to GISS, but get very similar results.
“But it is disconcerting that surface station data bases are not in agreement.”
They do agree very well. Far better than satellites.
Nick,
Interesting. Somehow I totally missed the fact that you were using the unadjusted data. I guess I just assumed you were using the adjusted data like GISS. If fact, I almost posted on your blog yesterday asking you to do a run with the unadjusted to see what happens.
Nick, nice work. This graph is the most in interesting,
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/01/uahadj30.png
showing the changes between different versions of satellite data, and different versions of GISS.
Nick Stokes says:
‘They do agree very well. Far better than satellites.’
A. I have little doubt its warming. My own theory supports warming.
B. Agreement isn’t what we are looking for.
I actually still use Had-crut3 because it is convenient for me. I am very disappointed that they didn’t continue the 80-80 format as that is the only existent format for which you actually rely on purely observational data and not some always biased modeling approach.
I have concerns about that data considering who compiled it. Those concerns are the similar to the ‘sacred tree’ issue emanating from the same institution and they don’t concern my approach significantly as once adjusted OK if it was its going to probably come back and bite you as time goes on and you are going to need another adjustment. . . .kind of like how something rather benign overtime turns into Bernie Madoff as you rush to keep it afloat.
So Had-crut3 likely serves for me like what it sounds like you are doing for yourself. Just that I am a bit frustrated with the end of record. Consistency is critical in what I do.
I realize there is recently a big gap emerged from satellite data. Even the reasoning for the sudden jump in it sounded political.
I just think that a major effort needs to be made to move to satellites as the primary global temperature measuring technology by fixing as quickly as possible existing issues with the intent to rely upon such an improved system going forward. I am certainly not looking for some way for it replace HC3 for me.
As I said my confidence in the surface record can be greatly improved via a truly honest and auditable effort to deal with UHI but one cannot get away from the problems of temperatures by committee in a vastly diverse political world using surface data.
So I think funds to do that (unless say the US has another need for better non-global climate US data) would likely be misspent.
Certainly there are more needs for US climate data than just global climate constructions. So what would probably be misspent would be big bucks to bring surface systems into some kind of global compliance scheme. . . .stuff that gives bureaucrats opportunities to build their own empires.
Lowest since 2013? Perhaps that is a typo? Looks to be 2018 on the graph…
Off topic but I would like people to comment on this paper from the University of Oslo. CO2 forcing tested and doubted.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Interesting.
The measure that Co2 abs*rbs roughly the predicted amount. They measure that CO2 in the front produces back radiation to the rear of roughly the expected amount (17 W/m2)
But they find that the rear box does not rise in temperature much at all. They have found an additional heat input does not produce the expected rise in temperature.
They claim this shows that CO2 doesnt produce the expected Forcing.
But they also have shown an apparent violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics! IOW they cannot account for 17 W/m^2 of heating causing no effect on temperature.
Since 1LOT is well established, there must be an unaccounted for loss of heat in the experiment.
Havent found an obvious error. Except that convective heat transfer between the chambers must be there, and they dont discuss this.
Interested to hear what Swanson thinks.
Hmmmmm, didn’t recheck calculations but am I reading a sensitivity factor of .005 as opposed to 1.8 or 3.0?
Kind of sounds somewhere within .5% of the ballpark that Swanson should get after calculating out the tinfoiled trailer with a 47% boost in backradiation using current residential heat loss calculations.
Here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662262
Nate calling out a violation of 1LOT considering only one means of heat transfer. LMAO!!!
Thats the point, they are not considering other heat transfer, such as convection.
Well you don’t need the details when you can measure the results.
They measure a reduction in outgoing IR by 30 W/m^2 with CO2 replacing air, yet they find no warming as result. They offer no good explanation for this.
They have ‘lost’ this extra heat flow somewhere.
They measure an extra 17 W/m^2 of back radiation, calculate it should have produced ~ 2.4-4 C warming in the back chamber but only find ~ 0.15 C.
Where did the extra heating go? They have no explanation. Clearly they have made some wrong assumptions in their calculated temperature rise.
For example the air in the back and the front is heated from the plate by convection, not radiation. They don’t calculate how much is lost by this.
They mention changing to an electrically heated plate. But they never indicate how much power is input.
Thus they have a problem with their experiment, not with the theory.
Nate waves his hand to make it go away.
Bill has nothing to add…just trolling.
I can’t find a mistake thats not there Nate. And neither can you.
” cant find a mistake thats not there”
You KNOW there is no mistake how? Cuz ‘Your Daddy’ told you?
Nate its peer reviewed science! No more handwaving R.Woods away! No sun/insulation model, no backradiation anti-2LOT magic!
“No more handwaving R.Woods away!”
Intentionally missing the point! You’re a faux skeptic.
“No sun/insulation model, no backradiation anti-2LOT magic!”
OK so you are a sky dragon.
“The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is
assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”
So what are they saying here? Something wrong with SB-Law? C-mon!
“The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase.”
But they MEASURED the extra radiant energy hitting the back-wall of 17 W/m^2. So what are they saying here? That the radiant energy hitting the back wall cannot heat??? Why?? No explanation given??
Really pathetic that a paper can have these conclusions, and get through some sort of peer-review.
Nate says:
” This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is
assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”
So what are they saying here? Something wrong with SB-Law? C-mon!
—————————–
the reason has nothing to do with the SB Law. The key word there is ”assumes”. S or B didn’t assume anything. Only the people who are applying the law are making assumptions about the results they should obtain. You are trying to unscrew a slot screw with a phillips driver.
Nate says:
Really pathetic that a paper can have these conclusions, and get through some sort of peer-review.
——————-
Its an experiment Nate not a study of somebody’s figment of their imagination like the 3rd grade model. Its real science!
The authors don’t have a model to reproduce the results and obviously, like I said, neither do you.
Seems to me if you are going to model climate you probably should have one that replicates the simplest of climates regarding the transfer of heat. At least thats where I started out green learning how to do it in the modeling work I have done. I don’t try to start out modeling canards.
Bill,
“The key word there is ‘assumes’. S or B didnt assume anything. Only the people who are applying the law are making assumptions about the results they should obtain.”
Yes, as I said, they have made some wrong assumptions. And that is the problem.
Lets face it. If it fits with your politics, you buy it.
Nate people don’t apply the laws of physics. Nature applies the laws of physics. By definition you can’t do an experiment that violates the laws of physics.
The only thing weird happening is you suggesting the laws of physics have been violated.
Ooops I probably confused Nate with that last comment.
The only kinds of studies that violate the laws of physics are models, assumptions (including those reasoning why results should not have been obtained that were obtained).
Heat can only disappear or laws violated in a model, statistics, and an unproven theory. . . .never in a physical experiment.
Its the physics of your greenhouse effect that has never been seen by a human. Its the Big Foot of science. Actually a Big Foot that is unprecedented in size. The biggest science hoax in history.
“Heat can only disappear or laws violated in a model, statistics, and an unproven theory. . . .never in a physical experiment.”
Glad you agree. Then you must agree that the findings of the experiment are erroneous, as I have been saying.
So Nate how can this experiment which is physical and not a model and not statistical study and not a theory, violate the laws of physics?
“violate the laws of physics?”
Now you are just trolling. Just stop.
If you can’t answer the question just say so Nate.
Don’t just try to deflect it back. Why do you think you have something to prove?
bdgwx says:
I can echo Nates comments. The CO2 experiment reduces the OLR by 29.8 W/m^2 vs the control.
———————————-
LMAO! It hasn’t reduced the OLR from the surface, not has it warmed it. Not acting as insulation here.
Obviously didn’t warm the CO2 either or that would have warmed the surface. Sort of disqualifies it as insulation, completely disqualifies it as it is being taught in the 3rd grade to and including the university level.
> disqualifies it as it is being taught in the 3rd grade
You must be speaking from experience, Bill.
bill said: It hasnt reduced the OLR from the surface
Yes it has. Here is what S&O say in their own words on pg 176 paragraph 2.
“In Figure 7, we see an IR radiation reduction of 29.8 W/m2 out of the front chamber when filled with CO2.”
bdgwx says:
bill said: It hasnt reduced the OLR from the surface
Yes it has. Here is what S&O say in their own words on pg 176 paragraph 2.
“In Figure 7, we see an IR radiation reduction of 29.8 W/m2 out of the front chamber when filled with CO2.”
———————–
bdgwx if OLR is not reduced from the surface bdgwx there is no insulating effect on the surface. If the gas warms in the chamber it will also warm the surface. The OLR is not in the chamber bdgwx and it is only a very narrow-minded person that will conclude it still is in the chamber because of it not being seen on an IR detector.
> it is only a very narrow-minded person that will conclude it still is in the chamber because of it not being seen on an IR detector.
A very narrow-minded person might also argue that unless we have a laboratory experiment of what the atmosphere we can’t conclude anything about the Tyndall Gas Effect, Bill.
Perhaps not the same very narrow-minded person as the one you have in mind.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bill said: bdgwx if OLR is not reduced from the surface bdgwx there is no insulating effect on the surface.
The front chamber is like the upper atmosphere and the rear chamber is like the lower atmosphere. The window in the front chamber is equivalent to TOA. The heater in the back of the rear chamber is equivalent to the surface. The ~30 W/m^2 reduction is measured coming out of the front chamber at the window. This is equivalent to a TOA measurement. OLR is reduced in this experiment. The equivalent of the surface in this experiment is being insulated.
They give all the details on the heating plate and how it was used.
Section 2.1
Figure 3
Table A1
What else could you want?
bill,
OLR is reduced in their experiment. I don’t know to make that any more clear. I’m not the one needing something else to be convinced here.
bdgwx, OLR leaving the box wasn’t measured.
Also significant, the back scatter was much smaller than the total absorbed which isn’t the case for multi-layered models that retain 90% of the IR shooting a large hole into the theory that CO2 isn’t at or very near saturated already. If the back scatter had been 27 instead of 17 then that would be consistent with current theory.
You just don’t want to deal with the notion.
I have given a good deal of thought to this TOA model and wonder how much CO2 blocking occurs in the mesosphere and stratosphere and how that affects the outgoing IR in the CO2 spectrum. Do you have any information on that?
bill,
Yes it was. There is a window in which detector IR1 was observing the OLR leaving the apparatus. The experimenters reported a 29.8 W/m^2 reduction when the apparatus was filled with pure CO2 relative to when it was filled with air.
bill,
Regarding backscatter…IR2 observed close to 500 W/m^2 of backscatter with 17 W/m^2 difference between air and pure CO2. They don’t tell us how much was absorbed directly but we might infer it to be 30 – 17 = 13 W/m^2…maybe. This would be the amount thermalized. In other words, the switch from air to pure CO2 caused an OLR reduction of 30 W/m^2. 17 W/m^2 or 56% was scattered back to the rear wall while 13 W/m^2 or 44% was thermalized (presumably anyway). It is rather unfortunate that they don’t discuss the 30 – 17 = 13 W/m^2 difference.
that is so incorrect bdgwx. You are imagining the boundary to be just before the heat touches anything and heat transfers again.
For all intents and purposes the apparatus is the entire box. Heat leaves that apparatus via both OLR and convection. If it were in outer space it would leave exclusively by OLR.
The only thing being measured is heat arriving at the boundary via OLR and it ignores all the molecules colliding with the inside of the box. With the heavy insulation of the box the outside of the box heated by 1C with the lamp turned on with or without CO2 (like the earth does without or without greenhouse gases.) Reduce the insulation on the box and the exterior will remain the same and the interior temperature will go down because real insulation is being used. Changing air for CO2 doesn’t do squat for insulation value. Why do you expect to suddenly do so when it arrives at TOA? Oh!!! there is no convection above that point you say!!!
Eat my shorts! Outerspace doesn’t start at TOA, gases are still capable of convecting above TOA there is just no sufficiently active ghg there sufficient to do it. . . .at least until it gets beyond the stratosphere.
All the heat departs the box with or without CO2. Backradiation is measured and the heating response from it doesn’t exist or is at a minimum far less than what is claimed widely and broadly on the media, on University websites, From Kiehl and Trenberth, the list goes on.
So we have in this TOA theory is a theory without a description or even a logic attached beyond blindly attributing the current ghe to multiple layers of absor-ption in the atmosphere. . . .which Nate no longer believes in. Either that or he pleaded the 5th amendment here. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-671584
bill,
I’m saying OLR was observed to be reduced when air was exchanged for pure CO2. This observation took place via the IR1 detector which is mounted outside of the front chamber facing toward the rear chamber looking through an IR transparent window. Are you still challenging that OLR was not reduced in this experiment?
bdgwx says:
Im saying OLR was observed to be reduced when air was exchanged for pure CO2. This observation took place via the IR1 detector which is mounted outside of the front chamber facing toward the rear chamber looking through an IR transparent window. Are you still challenging that OLR was not reduced in this experiment?
————————–
You are correct on that point but you are avoiding the obvious.
Since the window wall isn’t insulated a higher proportion of heat will go out through that wall. Really basic Title 24 stuff.
It doesn’t have to be IR and it doesn’t have to be convection either. Either is adequate to cool the chamber
Figure 5 shows another perspective of no backradiation effect. The rear chamber is warmer because of being partitioned by 2 convective barriers(10K vs 5K) the front chamber is the same as a gap within a double glazed window.
The front chamber is less warm but 5k warmer than outside the box.
I can echo Nate’s comments. The CO2 experiment reduces the OLR by 29.8 W/m^2 vs the control. This was what they were expecting. They also measured an increase of IR backscatter of 17 W/m^2 with CO2 vs the control. They get the expected results when observing the IR radiation flux, but unexpected results when observing the temperature. They make a few attempts at isolating the discrepancy, but in the end are unsuccessful and offer no explanation as to where the -29.8 W/m^2 at the front went and what effects the +17 W/m^2 at the back induced. Nor do they account for the missing 29.8 – 17 = 12.8 W/m^2. It all just goes poof in violation of the 1LOT and with the conclusion that fundamental forcing assumption of the IPCC must be wrong.
Lol, thanks for that analysis work bdgwx.
Uh molecules move too.
Give credit where credit is due. Nate discovered this first. I’m just agreeing with him.
bdgwx says:
It all just goes poof in violation of the 1LOT and with the conclusion that fundamental forcing assumption of the IPCC must be wrong.
===============================
Hardly. . . .you wish.
You are talking about a peer review study published in a journal from two credible science sources.
Are you guys now lending yourself in strong support for the propriety of such dismissals? LMAO!
If so I hope I never see any additional intellectual dishonesty rise its ugly head on that anytime in the future.
“from two credible science sources.”
Lol. You mean the ones that admit they don’t understand their own experiment…and peers of that level of accomplishment. Good luck with your admonishment bill.
Oh they understand their experiment alright. They are just stunned by the outcome.
Bill,
We are skeptics of this result, even though it is ‘peer reviewed’. We gave good reasons for that skepticism. You have no answers. But defer to what ‘your Daddy’ tells you?
And you seemed to have missed the point of our criticism.
What they have done is to study ordinary heat transfer and thermodynamics. They find a result that they cannot explain even in terms of those!
They are either missing something in their analysis or they have found a flaw in basic thermodynamics! Which one is more likely?
And it is curious why they never tell us the measured heat input?
In fact, that is essentially what they say in their conclusions. Either the SB law or their use of it is wrong with the implication that the fundamental forcing assumptions used by the IPCC is also wrong or their experimental setup is wrong. The wording makes it sound like they lean towards the former.
It is also important to note that peer review does not mean that a publication is correct. Peer review just means that there was a good faith attempt to keep egregiously incorrect or low quality works out of the journal. It is basically a spam filter. The ultimate review happens after publication when the entire world is invited to review it. BTW…this journal has a relatively low impact score. Journals with low impact scores typically have a lower bar for acceptance.
Exactly, this is a pay-to-publish journal that has lower standards.
My oh my look at all the hand wringing and anti-journal antipathy!
You guys just need to get some real world experience in applying the principles of physics. That is what cuts through the sophistry of a physics education. The only thing going on here is the reality of your narrowness of vision. Horse blinder science is what I call it having been fighting it for over 30 years. Too many folks thinking they are smarter than everybody else about everything, when in fact their isn’t any smartness their at all. Just a ego built up due to expertise with an extremely narrow focus.
Its thinking that the moon rotates on its own axis. . . .same thing, same reason, same mistake.
Its just too much fun here and I really need to get back to work!
Bill still doesnt address the criticism. Has no answers.
Defers to ‘his Daddy’s’ authority.
What a hypocrite!
Nate says:
Bill still doesnt address the criticism. Has no answers.
Defers to his Daddys authority.
What a hypocrite!
——————————
Since I haven’t told you how I think it works you are just fishing. Pretty frustrating huh? Calm down!
> Since I havent told you how I think it works you are just fishing.
TO DEFER
transitive verb
: to delegate to another
he could defer his job to no one J. A. Michener
intransitive verb
: to submit to another’s wishes, opinion, or governance usually through deference or respect
deferred to her father’s wishes
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defer
Willard please stop trolling
Let’s work it out like you’d do with your grand children, Bill:
A Sky Dragon denies the Tyndall Gas Effect.
Like this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268507883_The_Greenhouse_Effect_and_the_Infrared_Radiative_Structure_of_the_Earth's_Atmosphere
See?
Sky Dragon.
Willard, please stop trolling. #2
Both your syntax and your semantics are a bit off, Bill.
Revisit kiddo’s best practices.
To fortify you:
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
Willard, please stop trolling #3
Sky Dragon:
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20200402
Need to get a clear statement on the record from Bill here.
Are you stating that because a paper is peer-reviewed and published, its conclusions must be believed???
That depends.
Physical experiments like this that are peer reviewed are reliable.
Its attempting measure the greenhouse effect as you guys see it and how its being sold to the public.
But most skeptics were already aware of this as its the not the first attempt. R Woods did this a 100 years ago and it is handwaved away on a variety pretty much cooked up control issues.
This experiment has a very much better designed control. The controls used by Woods, Pratt, Spencer et al over time came up with numbers like 1C was likely a control issue of using two separate designs. These guys figured a way to do it with a single simpler design and just change the gas and obtained about a 1C difference which was probably error using different setups like glass, rocksalt, saran wrap etc. Maybe somebody should check the atomic number of the CO2 he used to see if it really is anthropogenic in origin [/s]
“This experiment has a very much better designed control.”
And yet they have no explanation for their result, other than a violation of SB law and 1LOT.
Sounds like the statement from Bill is, it depends.
Because a paper is peer-reviewed and published, its conclusions must be believed, IF it is anti-GHE.
Papers that are peer-reviewed and published, but are supportive of the GHE, should be treated with loads of skepticism.
Nate says:
Papers that are peer-reviewed and published, but are supportive of the GHE, should be treated with loads of skepticism.
===========================
Papers should always be treated with loads of skepticism no matter the outcome. Experiments are another matter.
Now if there had ever been an experiment able to create a greenhouse effect that didn’t involve trapping convection then you would have something.
“Papers should always be treated with loads of skepticism no matter the outcome. Experiments are another matter.”
Good, and yet you didnt for this one!
Experiments are hard.
They can be done wrong, or people can analyze the data incorrectly, and draw wrong conclusions, as is most likely here.
Understand Nate the experiment merely destroys the canard of the layered insulation in the atmosphere. It doesn’t prove CO2 has no effect on climate. It just rightfully so inserts a sharp blade into the heart of a sophist model being taught to our youngsters.
Deception is never justified in a democratic society.
Yet that will not have any effect on folks who consider themselves as crusaders for the cause. They are the ones who intentionally are supporting sophistry. . . .an intentional fallacy brilliantly designed to divert eyes from the better argument.
“the experiment merely destroys the canard ofthe layered insulation in the atmosphere.”
Wachu talkin bout Billus?
This paper seems to be designed for gullible sky dragons, who will eat up anything supportive of their anti-GHE beliefs.
The main result of this paper is that the authors have somehow lost 17 W/m^2 of energy flux. They are bad at accounting for all heat in the system.
The experiment is not like the real atmosphere. What layers?
There are no separate chambers in the real atmosphere.
They even note:
“However, we do not expect such a large
temperature response, since many atmospheric factors influence the constants in Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”
Thorstein O. Seim, Borgar T. Olsen
1
Inst. of Physics, University of Oslo, Norway; Inst. of Physics, University of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway
Neither of these guys are currently affiliated with these institutions, that they claim to be.
They appear to have been students at them ~ 30 y ago.
Also I emailed them a couple of days ago with my questions about there paper discussed here. No response.
Nate the study is merely yet another replication of an already established fact.
CO2 has no insulating value. The heat merely convects away from the backwall as ‘real’ physicists already knows what happens.
And they didn’t lose it they proved the energy was there and that it wasn’t operating as climate morons expect.
The experiment does not prove CO2 is not involved in the GHE (I think it is in a very minor way). The only thing being destroyed here is a canard designed by smart sophists to bring dim donating rich suckers into the game and to avoid inconvenient questions about how the effect came to be.
Heat has to stick around for a while to actually warm anything, you know like accumulate over time?
This is stuff that guys in the heating and air industry that but have a high school education, if that.
I suppose you either are too stupid to know the answer or you are afraid to admit it.
In Trenberth’s budget you can see it listed in the transevaporation and thermals category freely convecting to TOA.
Just that Trenberth omitted the dynamic nature of the system giving a mean view of the entire process with a flat earth model that doesn’t explain how the surface got to the temperature it is other than through a ‘plug’ number in his analysis which he says is a plug number in the text and improperly labels it as a radiant effect.
If you think you can build an experiment properly you should do it. There are billions available for climate research to do such experiments Nate. Why aren’t they even trying?
I will make my point one more time. Heat captured momentarily low in the atmosphere is a fleeting event in the diurnal cycle. The heat does not overcome natural cooling systems on the surface of the planet, fails to warm the atmosphere to the same temperature as the surface and thus the system continues to strive to do that. Sun goes down and all daytime efforts prove to be of no use. Thus as specified by physics heat moves up in the atmosphere to TOA. From there radiant insulation does work looking down. Downward IR in the frequencies of that intercepted on the way up does not get a convective assist going back down and is blocked by being colder as well. Double blocked from returning to the surface as a radiant forcing.
They don’t want to admit this why? Because you must introduce so called ‘feedback’ into the system then all bets are off. Its discovered the flat earth model is a fraud and everybody who was taken in by it jumps ship along with tons and tons of money.
So do you want to take it from there and describe how it warms the surface? Nope all death ray Nate is going to do is sit in this forum and continue to look like an idiot.
G&T didn’t get an intellectually honest response either. And they noted as much in their last rebuttal. So you can run around here Nate looking like death ray Nate, some idiot who lost his mind blabbering anonymously about stupid stuff until the cows come home Nate. But why is that we have to expect some nutcase to explain the GHE in terms of real physics instead of folks just pointing at parameterized black box models? We have there stories of scientists puttering around hundreds of different ideas of how the climate works incessantly pushing parameters around like so many shuffle board pucks that never affects the bottom line of future predictions?
Any accountant with half a wit is going to expect Bernie Madoff to be at the key board.
“The heat merely convects away from the backwall as ‘real’ physicists already knows what happens.”
Thats what I said already days ago. The problem is, they simply neglect convection and dont attempt to even explain where the ‘lost’ heat went.
But actual GHE models do account for convection, as discussed ad-nauseum, for example as MW do.
This experiment, in many respects, is nothing like the real atmosphere (as they admit), thus it is worthless for testing the real GHE.
Like you and deniers, it seems to be trying to ‘test’ a cartoon strawman version of the GHE that is a radiation-only. And sure enough, the cartoon model, in a non-realistic atmosphere model, does not work.
Quite pointless.
“CO2 has no insulating value. The heat merely convects away from the backwall”
And in the real atmosphere, all energy must escape thru the TOA via radiation. No convection takes part there.
Nate says:
Like you and deniers, it seems to be trying to test a cartoon strawman version of the GHE that is a radiation-only. And sure enough, the cartoon model, in a non-realistic atmosphere model, does not work.
——————–
Well Nate it is a real mini-environment and not a cartoon.
You must be feeling jealous since all you have are cartoons, cause obviously thats where you got the idea of cartoon experiments right. LMAO!
Nate says:
CO2 has no insulating value. The heat merely convects away from the backwall
And in the real atmosphere, all energy must escape thru the TOA via radiation. No convection takes part there.
—————————–
And radiation can’t reach the surface from there either. So I guess it just hangs around waiting its turn all night long on standby waiting for the cloud to descend to get sent packing to space.
“And radiation cant reach the surface from there either. So I guess it just hangs around waiting its turn all night long on standby waiting for the cloud to descend to get sent packing to space.”
Riiiigght.
How an imbalance at the TOA must heat the Earth/ocean/atmosphere is clear to anyone with half a brain…Do you qualify?
Yes, any idiot can do an experiment on anything, even a dog-pile.
According to you a dog-pile is a “a real mini-environment”.
Wonderful!
Nate 17w ended up there thats the imbalance.
Nate says:
”And in the real atmosphere, all energy must escape thru the TOA via radiation. No convection takes part there.”
—————————–
Well I am record here of the notion that GHG are a necessary condition for the greenhouse effect. And you just described that necessity.
However, you need to consider the ramifications of what you are saying. . . .there is only one TOA! What happened to the multi-layered model everybody hawks around here?
Layers and TOA????
Nate is having difficulty writing an entire sentence.
Bill, why do you keep fantasizing about things never stated by me?
If I say NOTHING about layers, layered models, etc, you imagine I am saying something about layers, layer models, etc.
I spoke to your Mom. She said to tell you, if you cant post something accurate, dont post!
Well getting older my memory of what you have said Nate does fade. Rather than waste time sorting through the volumes of barf you spew I will just apologize and take your comment as a statement that you are not at all in support of multi-layered CO2 atmospheric models like Modtran.
Thats good enough for me so welcome to the skeptic side of the argument.
Bill, stop booming.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No.
bdgwx I am shocked. I considered you level headed. Now I have to reconsider.
How can an experiment violate a law of physics?
Again, Bill, you are turning around what people are saying into the opposite of what they are saying.
None of us are saying we think the laws of physics are violated, we are saying the analysis of the experiment has flaws.
It sees now, you agree.
Well then the answer is clear Nate follow the tried and true approach to physical experiments you have doubts about. . . .replicate it!
Doesn’t look at all complicated. Probably could do it for a few hundred dollars. Go for it! With all the institutions out there invested heavily in climate change there should be a hundred completed by now.
Really unnecessary. Basic thermo is well tested. Basic heat transfer is well tested.
Obviously there is a tremendous amount of ignorance among the physics educated regarding an unjustified belief in the idea that layers of the atmosphere amount to the equivalent of insulation.
The S&O experiment shows once again there is no insulation there.
this experiment has been replicated many times but apparently inculcation runs deep and folks are appealing to authority in the absence of an experiment that does demonstrate the insulation effect in a gas.
Give it up Nate. Its fine to wonder what happened to the missing heat, I know what happened because I worked with this stuff for years. The people who actually have studied the issue are talking about stuff not happening in the first layer but at the top of the troposphere.
The one thing that can be said with certainty the forcing of the GHE doesn’t involve backradiation and if you think it does I challenge you to find an experiment that establishes that.
You just got caught up in the big propaganda machine run by Trenberth as deputy director of a unit whose mission is to
promote the transfer of new knowledge to society.
“The S&O experiment shows once again there is no insulation there.”
You are not making sense here.
How?
Are we back again to the ordinary Radiative Heat Transfer laws are invalid?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-665957
Nate says:
None of us are saying we think the laws of physics are violated, we are saying the analysis of the experiment has flaws.
=====================
You are just annoyed because the objective of the experiment was to solve the climate riddle, when in fact the objective was to put to a lie the flat earth model.
In that endeavor the experiment succeeded and your sour grapes about the fate of energy absorbed and observed in the system that did not warm the target surface as expressed in the flat earth model means you have to look elsewhere for a different model to explain the GHE.
“In that endeavor the experiment succeeded”
Cmon, the experiment is just plain dumb.
It ‘succeeds’ only for deniers who turn-off their skepticism when convenient.
Nate says:
The S&O experiment shows once again there is no insulation there.
You are not making sense here.
How?
Are we back again to the ordinary Radiative Heat Transfer laws are invalid?
————————-
No insulation and its zoom off into space ala Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation eager to get going considering how cold space has been since first being in the sun, then targeting a warm planet and then finally on a relaxing journey through space.
I thought you understood what insulation does and how it works?
Looks like you really don’t.
“Nate the study is merely yet another replication of an already established fact.
CO2 has no insulating value.”
Well, as matter of fact in this experiment, they found that CO2 reduced the outward flow of heat by 30 W/m^2.
But you still insist it has ‘no insulating value’??
Weird.
Nate says:
Well, as matter of fact in this experiment, they found that CO2 reduced the outward flow of heat by 30 W/m^2.
But you still insist it has no insulating value??
Weird.
—————
Not weird Nate, the 30w/m2 radiant heat has simply been absorbed into the CO2 and diffused. the radiation on the front window was reduced by 29.8w but the heating wasn’t because the heat was carried there by convection. . . .like Duh!!
Your problem when you see a problem with that is the failed flat earth model is a complete failure and your mind cannot wrap around the entirety of what that implies and you continue to rely on it to feed your doubt.
And finally ‘insulating value’ is very specific concept related to heat transfer. It is agnostic to how the heat travels.
“And finally insulating value is very specific concept related to heat transfer. ”
Uhhh, the 29.8 W/m2 was reduced heat transfer.
Insulation in action.
But selling that as insulation would be a violation of the law and get you trouble. I realize the science community has the protection of not selling anything and it is the only protection they have. So while you aren’t offering for sale but instead just spewing; I wasn’t in the market for anything like that anyway.
Denying that something that IS insulating, that is an insulator is not your finest hour, Bill.
Some answers from the authors who kindly responded:
“Hello Nathan,
Some answers to your questions:
Question: 1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you don’t measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?
Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.”
More:
2. The 17 W/m^2 is hitting the rear wall, which is ~ a black body, thus it should be absorbed and heating the wall. It seems you are finding that it is not? Isnt this a violation of the First Law and of Kirchoff’s Law?
We agree that the following response to increased IR radiation, absorbed in the back wall should be:
– The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoff’s Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!
– One explanation is that so much energy is lost due to losses through the walls and windows in the boxes. But the measurements of losses done by us do not support this.
– The loss of energy due to expansion of the gas during heating (First Law) was also discussed, and found not to be the cause of the missing heating.
3. “The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).” So then are we to conclude that the Stefan Boltzmann Law has a problem? I don’t understand?
We do not state that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wrong, but that there must be some other physical mechanism(s) that can explain the experimental results.
4. “The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC.”. But there is extra heating of the walls that should be coming from the back-scatter radiant power hitting it. So it seems you are casting doubt on basic radiative heat transfer principles here. No?
Note that the walls inside the two boxes are covered with thin, high-polished Al-foil. They reflect all IR radiation efficiently (based on tests done by us). IR radiated out from the back wall is mainly reflected out the front window. The walls are heated thermally, and the temperature is close to identical to the air temperature.
5. Is it possible that the expected rise you calculated is incorrect? I didnt see any indication of the total heating power input to the experiment? If it is much larger than the emitted black body radiation power from the rear wall, then the SB-law calculate temperature rise from eq 2 will be an overestimate.
The heating of the back wall was done in several different ways to ensure that energy loss through the rear side of the source did not influence the results. For the black-painted metal plate and the Al-foil the temperature was close to 100 oC. The back wall around the plate was heated from ca 20 to ca 50 oC. As you mention more IR radiation is emitted by the IR source than from the Styrofoam back wall. But when the IR radiation out of the front window was measured, the detector scanned the IR out the front window and the presented value is the average IR value. So we did not use the Eq. 2 to compute IR from the plate, but measured IR output directly through the front window!
I hope the answers to your questions is satisfactory! If not, please contact me again!
Best regards,
Thorstein Seim
Nate it sounds as if we should withhold judgements about the cause of the greenhouse effect until somebody provides such an explanation.
” it sounds as if”
Or we could do a better experiment that keeps track of all heat and matches better the atmosphere.
Thats pretty tough when you are just looking for heat landing in the one place that the theory suggests. Good idea to put the whole enchilada on hold until we find out where it is.
Declare whatever you want, Bill. If it is based on nothing but your feelings and biases, then it will be properly ignored.
Science will keep calm and carry on.
Indeed Nate science will move on. The question is are you.
Regarding the ‘peer reviewed publication’, Barry found this link,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
discussing the publisher, as a ‘predatory’ Chinese publisher who
“This publisher exists for two reasons. First, it exists to exploit the author-pays Open Access model to generate revenue, and second, it serves as an easy place for foreign (chiefly Chinese) authors to publish overseas and increase their academic status.”
Nate, please stop trolling.
Is it? No not really?
Nate says:
Bill said: “Nate the study is merely yet another replication of an already established fact. CO2 has no insulating value.”
————————————-
Well, as matter of fact in this experiment, they found that CO2 reduced the outward flow of heat by 30 W/m^2.
But you still insist it has ‘no insulating value’??
===========================================
Absolutely Nate. It didn’t do what insulation does which is retain heat in the emitting surface.
Any moron knows the gas absorbs some of the energy but their is no ”insulating effect” unless it forces the surface to warm. Where he heck did you learn about insulation Nate?
What has happened here is the heat left the surface and transferred the gas and then boarded a train for a tour of the cosmos from there. Insulation retains heat Nate. It isn’t a ride from one place to a different place and then on to another stop on the tour.
LMAO! Who taught you Nate? Did they strap you down on a board and give you a water drip torture to pound it into your head that CO2 gas has insulating properties? Were you conned early in life with the 3rd grade description of global warming and have never outgrown it?
Bill,
“Any moron knows the gas absorbs some of the energy but their is no ‘insulating effect’ unless it forces the surface to warm.”
You have a level of dedication to ignorance that could almost be admired.
If I add fiberglass insulation to my house, and the temp inside remains the same, you gonna claim fiberglass has no insulation effect???
What did change is that the heat loss from my house and my heating bill were both reduced.
In the experiment, the temp did rise, just < than expected because the experimenters had other heat loss that they could not find nor explain.
Nate says:
You have a level of dedication to ignorance that could almost be admired.
If I add fiberglass insulation to my house, and the temp inside remains the same, you gonna claim fiberglass has no insulation effect???
What did change is that the heat loss from my house and my heating bill were both reduced.
—————————————
Hmmmm, you heating bill went down? Yeah thats a good indicator of insulation. What was your solar bill last month Nate?
As expected, Bill is again proven wrong, cant deal with it, tosses out chaff.
Nate it was just difficult to fathom how stupid your argument was that adding insulation to your house doesn’t cause it to warm when your thermostat simply turns the heat down more.
Are you arguing that the insulation value of CO2 will automatically turn the sun off more often?
LMAO!
This is definitely headed down well beyond the 3rd grade level of comprehension. Perhaps we should invite Greta to give you some help?
No just an example proving your requirements for what insulation MUST achieve, to qualify as insulating, is wrong.
If heat flow out of a system is reduced by adding something to the system, that is something that insulation can achieve. And it qualifies as insulating.
that is incorrect Nate.
Insulation slows heat transfer.
https://www.astm.org/Standards/thermal-insulation-standards.html
Heat is slowed down by this apparatus but it makes no significant difference if 100% CO2 is substituted for
common air.
Thus the CO2 does not add insulation value.
Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen?
Yes, and moreover very easily. Back radiation cannot explain the greenhouse effect because as the whole atmosphere warms, lapse rate remains constant. Hence in any slab of atmosphere, the bottom of the slab radiating heat upwards into the slab warms (increases in temperature) by the same number of degrees as the top of the slab radiating heat downwards.
But because the bottom is warmer than the top, an increase of one degree throughout the slab must radiate more heat up from the bottom than down from the top. This follows from the fourth-degree dependence of radiation on temperature, though it would still be true if the dependence were cubic or even quadratic (but not linear, for then the two directions would cancel exactly).
Hence in any slab of atmosphere, increasing temperature in the slab can only increase net radiation upwards, never downwards.
A natural question then would be, how come the IPCC attributes the greenhouse effect to back radiation when it can be debunked so easily with theory, and with somewhat more effort experimentally as done by Seim and Olsen?
The answer is that nowhere in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, AR5, is there any mention at all of back radiation.
Gosh, well how could the IPCC account for the greenhouse effect if not with back radiation?
Great question. The glossary at the back of WG1 of AR5 defines the greenhouse effect as follows.
“Greenhouse effect: The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.”
That is, with more CO2 Earth must radiate its heat to space from a higher altitude, which being cooler due to lapse rate radiates less strongly.
Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.
Seim and Olsen should be commended for confirming theory in this way.
“Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a cartoon version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.
It seems logical to bookmark this. Now Nate thinks its only skeptics that believe the S&O experiment was flawed. LMAO!!
Weird non-sequitur Bill.
The only thing weird Nate is your flipflop on S&O.
Seems your only criticism of S&O arises out of great concern about awakening skepticism. Those 3rd graders being taught the failed model every day in school, can’t have those folks thinking independently on their own right? That would be blasphemy right?
One needs to protect the death by innumerable invisible cuts M&W mathematical function from blasphemous thinking and direct inspection.
After all any natural theory of warming wouldn’t be nearly the fund raiser for science that one is when you can impugn groups of persons and turn them into dogs worth kicking.
“S&O arises out of great concern about awakening skepticism. ”
Still a Non sequitur.
Translation for the intellectually impaired: IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
from anything I’ve said.
But if are truly dedicated to this weird belief, pls quote me saying any such thing!
Your refusal to acknowledge that the authors themselves do not claim what you make them claim is far from being weird, Bill.
It’s part for your auditing course.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664675
Nate says:
Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a cartoon version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.
======================================
Well here is a much shortened list of your ‘ignorant skeptics’ Nate.
Check Appendix D:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/a-note-on-fourier-and-the-greenhouse-effect.pdf
On the list: (partial)
Harvard University
Pennsylvannia State University (Home of Michael Mann)
University of Chicago
University of Washington
Columbia University (James Hansen)
Kiehl and Trenberth
NASA (James Hansen striking again)
US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey
Real Climate
UK Government website
Boston University
No doubt you could add hundreds more if one put the effort in.
> Check Appendix D:
First strike already in the title, Bill:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/a-note-on-fourier-and-the-greenhouse-effect.pdf
Back in my days, accountants where not mechanics.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop conflating theories and models, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling. #2
I hope people aren’t overlooking my paragraph “Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect. Although Nic Lewis feels that TCR is in the range 1.0-1.5 C/doubling, it is based on data limited to this century. Using a much wider window suggests a TCR closer to 1.85 C/doubling.
Seems a lot of university websites and textbooks need correcting.
Including any backradiation or whatever it is you want to call it tomorrow without actually demonstrating it within a lapse rate is in for a lengthy wait what with the lack of assurance it has nothing to do with natural climate change.
“Seems a lot of university websites and textbooks need correcting.”
Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.” Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley continues to believe in the back radiation theory, though his source for this (a 2003 book on the earth’s biosphere) says nothing more than what’s in the IPCC’s definition in AR5, namely that when CO2 traps heat it reradiates it both up and down. Connolley overlooks that even more heat is radiated up from below as temperature rises.
While I have a number of textbooks on modern climate I don’t have any that support Wikipedia on its back radiation theory.
Since this comes up often:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/wg2TARannexB.pdf
wow, another month that’s going to fall outside the 95% bounds of a lot of older model predictions
amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988, when Hansen predicted Earth would see about 2 degrees of warming by now (in his “business as usual” emissions scenario)
The CMIP5 and CMIP6 95% range is about +/- 0.4C. The March value of -0.01 is only 0.22 below the trendline. It is well within the 95% envelope. And this 0.22C excursion below the trendline is right at what we expect for a La Nina of this magnitude.
Is that correct? The CMIP6 trend line is close to GISTEMP which shows this month 0.4C warmer than the peak in 1999, so way above 0.2C you are stating. Roy Spencer posted a comparison of the UAH data with CMIP5 and CMIP6 not that long ago and it was close to the lower range before this significant cooling. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/06/cmip6-climate-models-producing-50-more-surface-warming-than-observations-since-1979/
don’t feed the troll
CMIP6 was literally submitted LAST YEAR
CMIP6 has been around for over 5 years now.
I recommend reading Eyring et al. 2016.
https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/9/1937/2016/
CMIP6 is still underway
” the upcoming 2021 IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6) will feature new state-of-the-art CMIP6 models.”
lol so no, we probably can’t judge the CMIP6 results yet
TallDave,
Scientists have been judging CMIP6 results for quite some time. There are a lot of publications available for review. This is how we know about the concerns with the new cloud microphysics schemes.
again, moron, the point is that they cannot predict the future
not the past
CMIP6 definitely makes predictions about the future. That’s kind of the point actually.
The KNMI explorer is a good place to download the predictions.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip6.cgi
ffs you absolutely retarded troll piece of excrement my whole point was that you are NOT judging them against future predictions
lol but since you enjoy pretending to do research, do tell us how many LT monthly temps in 2021 were lower than multiple months in 1988 in the CMIP3 ensemble means (last updated 2006, claimed “high confidence” in projections for 50 years)
hint: it’s a round number
extra troll hint: very round
TallDave,
Why would anyone bother trying to assess the skill of a model using observations that haven’t happened yet? That’s not even possible.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Yep these CMIP6 exercises are designed to whitewash what they don’t want you to look at. Either we can predict the climate or we can’t. Its a sorry state of affairs to adjust data and cherry pick models as an endorsement of the models that endorsed the 1976 Charney Report. Its so politics. . . .really folks we are doing a great job at this. . . .keep sending the checks. Oh that pesky little hockey stick that advertised the Charney Report? Move along folks nothing to see here.
I made my statement using Dr. Hausfather’s article here.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
A couple of points…
– The CMIP predictions you see are usually for the surface temperature.
– UAH TLT is not the same thing as the surface temperature.
– The CMIP predictions you see are usually for a full sphere global mean temperature.
– Had.CRUTv4 is a partial sphere global mean temperature and thus underestimates the warming since it excludes a large portion of the Arctic warms is warming 2-3x faster than the global mean.
– I’m not really sure where Dr. Spencer got his graph. It does not match up with other comparisons like those from Dr. Hausfather.
Anyway…my main point here is that the CMIP 95% envelope factors in a large amount of variability. A 0.22C excursion below the UAH TLT trendline isn’t that large. Specifically, the 2-sigma envelope for UAH TLT excursions is 0.36 so a 0.22 excursion isn’t even noteworthy among the UAH dataset itself.
People who compare UAH with CMIP know enough to compare CMIP models for troposphere where UAH observations are made.
The current observation is outside 95th percentile of statistical mean of 102 models used by CMIP. Which only demonstrates the models are profoundly wrong.
Yeah I was wondering about that. Haven’t read up on the CMIP analysis but I was noting Zeke was discussing ocean heat uptake models making for some level of atmospheric imbalance. Since that seems to be a rather dodgy assumption they probably ought to graph that in the CMIP analysis if my take is correct about what is included in it.
Others have the same concern.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/
Ken said: The current observation is outside 95th percentile of statistical mean of 102 models used by CMIP.
No they’re not. Look at the article by Dr. Hausfather I posted above.
Also refer to the publication Hausfather 2019. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378
Ken — true, and those are *current* models
past models are *really* going to take a beating this month
look at some of the AR1-4 predictions, or (for a really good laugh) Hansen’s “business as usual” Scenario A
models with predictions so dire Hansen chained himself to coal plants
but not in China lol
TallDave,
Read Hansen’s 1988 paper.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
What is scenario A?
What is scenario B?
What is scenario C?
Which scenario did Hansen feel was most likely to occur?
Which scenario actually occurred?
Next read Hausfather’s paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378
How well did Hansen’s 1988 model perform when given the inputs for the scenario that actually occurred?
How well did the other past models perform?
bdgwx,
read Hansen’s Senate testimony
compare Scennario A to last month
2 degrees of predicted warming vs none
troll better
TallDave,
First…scenario A did not predict 2C of warming.
Second…there has been significantly more warming than none since 1988.
Third…why would I want to compare scenario A to last month?
My intent is not to provoke, but to open a dialog concerning what Hansen actually wrote and how well or poor his primitive model (by today’s standards) actually performed. If my questions cannot be answered then we probably aren’t at a point at which this can be discussed yet. You are, of course, expected to ask me questions as well. I’ll try to answer to the best of my ability. Just understand that I don’t have all of the answers, but I might be able to at least point you to the publications which might contain them.
> compare Scennario A to last month
side-eyeing-chloe.gif
lol ask YOU questions??? demonstrably one of the stupidest, most dishonest people ever to troll this board? lmao sure, that sounds like a great idea
or I could just point again that you are lying very stupidly, Hansen predicted roughly 2 degrees of warming by Mar 2021 as literally anyone can see from his Senate testimony
there has been roughly zero
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/12/getting-skeptical-about-the-claims-made-by-skepticalscience-about-skeptics/
—
The Rebuttal: Any reasonable person reading Hansens testimony would understand him to be speaking about emissions, which the EPA says have grown exponentially in line with Scenario A. While it is true that the models themselves had greenhouse gas concentrations as inputs, Hansens testimony makes it clear those concentrations were chosen to represent emissions scenarios, and Hansens failure to predict how concentrations would respond to emissions caused his temperature predictions to fail as well.
TallDave said: Hansen predicted roughly 2 degrees of warming by Mar 2021
Look again. Refer to figure 3 in Hansen 1988. His predictions are for annual means ending in 2020. Scenario A, B, and C end at 1.6, 1.1, and 0.6 respectively. From 1988 these represent a warming of 1.2, 0.8, and 0.5 respectively. Scenario A being at 1.2C is far less than 2.0C.
TallDave said: as literally anyone can see from his Senate testimony
I don’t see that in your link.
TallDave said: there has been roughly zero
The 5yr mean in 1988 was 0.23C. The 5yr mean in 2020 was 0.96C. This represents 0.73C of warming.
The trendline in 1988 was 0.30C. The trendline in 2020 was 0.91C. This represents 0.61C of warming.
These values are substantially different than 0.0C of warming.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
TallDave said: which the EPA says have grown exponentially in line with Scenario A.
That is not correct. Scenario A is not what actually played out. Even Hansen himself did not expect scenario A. I refer you to pg. 9345, 2nd paragraph, last sentence where he says and I quote “Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the 3 cases”. But even scenario B overestimated the true forcing since Pinatubo 1991 erupted and cooled the planet by 0.3C and the Montreal Protocol began curtailing some GHGs in the 1990s. Neither of which were included in scenario B.
I’ll also refer you to Hausfather 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/rc7px28f) for a more rigorous evaluation of Hansen’s 1988 model and several others dating back 1970.
lol at the risk of further spreading your ridiculous excrement, Hansen’s Scenario A, B or C were *policy choices* — in predicting B, Hansen was predicting a policy result, not a physical climate result
the actual policy choice that emerged was clearly A, as the world continued conducting “business as usual” (and in fact China exceeded even that)
so Hansen clearly got his emissions policy prediction wrong
but, as it happens, Hansen ALSO got the relationship between concentrations and emissions wrong (due to carbon sinks)
and due to the coincidentally offsetting errors, it turned out that B was pretty close to actual concentrations
Hausfather’s whitewash is a joke, completely ignores the actual temperature prediction Hansen made
so, once again, your claims are totally unresponsive to my original assertion, which you have not laid a finger on
amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988, when Hansen predicted Earth would see about 2 degrees of warming by now (in his business as usual emissions scenario)
TallDave said: Hansens Scenario A, B or C were *policy choices*
Yes and No. Yes in that his selection of scenarios have a policy dependency…specifically the regulated emissions. No in that his selection of scenarios have natural dependency as well including the variability volcanic and solar forcing.
TallDave said: in predicting B, Hansen was predicting a policy result, not a physical climate result
His preferential treatment of B was based on predicting 1) human behavior and 2) volcanic and solar forcing.
TallDave said: so Hansen clearly got his emissions policy prediction wrong
Correct. That means an important input in his model had a substantial deviation relative to what actually happened. In other words, his skill at predicting human behavior was not perfect.
TallDave said: but, as it happens, Hansen ALSO got the relationship between concentrations and emissions wrong (due to carbon sinks)
You can see in the paper that he uses GHG trajectories provided by Ramanathan 1985. This puts 630 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere at around 2060 for scenario B. Obviously scenario B overestimates CO2 concentrations as well. But as indicated this is taken from Ramanathan. The H88 model does not appear to be coupled with carbon cycle model. Hansen just feeds the CO2 forcing from Ramanathan in as an input.
TallDave said: and due to the coincidentally offsetting errors, it turned out that B was pretty close to actual concentrations
Ramanathan 1985 lists 450 ppm at 2030. We’re probably closer to a 430 ppm trajectory. Can you provide a reference for the claim that there are offsetting errors here? I’d like to review that.
TallDave said: Hausfathers whitewash is a joke, completely ignores the actual temperature prediction Hansen made
Hausfather was trying to determine if the H88 model deviates from observations because of model physics or because of scenario inputs. The conclusion is that the model physics is pretty close and most of the deviation is the result of scenario inputs.
TallDave said: o, once again, your claims are totally unresponsive to my original assertion, which you have not laid a finger on
Here are your assertions in this subthread.
1. Hansen predicted 2C of warming from 1988 through 2020. False. Scenario B shows 0.8C of warming.
2. No warming has occured from 1988 through 2020. False. Using 5yr means the warming is 0.7C or using linear regression it is 0.6C.
3. Human and natural emissions have followed scenario A. False. The true forcing trajectory is just slightly below scenario B.
TallDave said: amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988, when Hansen predicted Earth would see about 2 degrees of warming by now (in his business as usual emissions scenario)
First…that’s 0.8C; not 2.0C.
Second…the highest anomaly is the GISS record in 1988 is 0.57 in January. We have to go back to Feb of 2014 before we find a month that is below this value.
Third…the GISS record has about 0.15C of variability in the departures from the trendline. In 1988 the trendline was at 0.28C. The trendline in 2014 was 0.78C. That gives the 0.55C value a z-score of -1.5 or about 6%. Therefore over a 12 month period surrounding Feb 2014 there was a 53% chance of this happening. And over a 24 month period there was a 78% chance of this happening. And over a 36 month period there was a 90% chance of this happening. The point being that variability makes it extremely likely that La Nina will induce drops that go below El Nino’s from 30 years ago. In other words, this is expected.
> amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988
side-eyeing-chloe.gif
bdbwx, the paper you want me to read is paywalled. Must not be considered important.
bill,
Which paper are you trying to read?
Hausfather 2019
I posted this link above. https://tinyurl.com/rc7px28f
BTW…when you google for “Hausfather 2019 pdf” it is the first link.
bdgwx says:
Read Hansens 1988 paper.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
What is scenario A?
What is scenario B?
What is scenario C?
Which scenario did Hansen feel was most likely to occur?
Which scenario actually occurred?
—————————-
Gee no peak oil, no runaway warming? Wow we fixed the problem without doing anything at all! I suspect we ought to stick with the winning strategy!!!
GCM Models indicate lower-troposphere average global anomalies to be HIGHER that the surface temp anomalies. Therefore surface anomalies are even lower than the UAH values, according to current models.
Yes. The mid-troposphere tropical hotspot is especially a zone of enhanced warming shown in most models that deviates significantly from observations. This has been a known problem for almost 2 decades now. Clearly the CMIP suite of models have a deficiency in this area and other areas. I will say that the overall energy budget of modeling seems reasonable which makes me wonder if the overestimation of warming in some areas is balanced by the underestimation in others. In other words is the modeling distributing the heat incorrectly. Anyway, I haven’t seen the results of CMIP6 yet, but given that the cloud microphysics has been implicated as being subpar I’m not holding out much hope that this has been improved much. We’ll see.
bdg…” The CMIP predictions you see are usually for the surface temperature.
UAH TLT is not the same thing as the surface temperature”.
1)Unvalidated models cannot ‘predict’. they can only ‘project’.
Here’s the IPCC jargon, and I mean jargon, from the Mother of all Double-Talkers. Note below that their scales of “most likely” are created by the IPCC and have nothing in reality against which they can be calibrated.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html
“When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections”.
“A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold. A projection may serve as the raw material for a scenario, but scenarios often require additional information (e.g., about baseline conditions). A set of scenarios is often adopted to reflect, as well as possible, the range of uncertainty in projections. Other terms that have been used as synonyms for scenario are “characterisation”, “storyline” and “construction””.
2)the UAH TLT is essentially the same as surface temperatures because it can be directly correlated with altitude. That fact has been corroborated with radiosondes.
UAH TLT is about -9C. Surface temperatures are about 15C. They definitely are not the same. And RSS matches radiosondes better than UAH. https://tinyurl.com/3hww42re
The ratpac data set is just one subjectively processed set of many others that are in line with UAH. None have been proven to be superior to the others. In fact most radiosonde data trends are often lower than the UAH or RSS value. Christy has written extensively on this here and elsewhere. See for example
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-observations/
The point is, the UAH global average lower troposphere anomaly can be taken as an upper limit on the same surface anomaly, unless the models are unreliable.
m d mill,
Yes. Christy has written extensively on this. Here is an actual publication.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
Notice that this publication is focused on the IGRA dataset.
And notice what IGRA has posted in the Recommend Uses and Limitations section on their homepage.
IGRA is useful as input to air pollution models, for studies of the detailed vertical structure of the troposphere and lower stratosphere, for assessing the atmospheric conditions during a particular meteorological event, and for many other analyses and operational applications. NCEI scientists have applied a comprehensive set of quality control procedures to the data to remove gross errors. However, they did not attempt to remove jumps and other discontinuities caused by changes in instrumentation, observing practice, or station location. Users studying long-term trends may wish to use the NOAA Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC) or one of the available non-NOAA IGRA-derived, homogeneity-adjusted radiosonde datasets.
https://tinyurl.com/e52j2jnw
And here is commentary from experts regarding Christy’s graph.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/comment-page-3/
As per is standard Dr. Christy needs to address these issues and resubmit for review. It is preferred this be done through the normal process so that issues like these can be addressed before the work is used for official purposes and before it is duplicated along with any errors ad-nauseum over the internet.
if you read closely, sometime around AR4 or AR5 they started adding an optimistic caveat that there might someday be developed a quantitative method for evaluating the physicality of the models
so there’s hope for the future
*snort*
Please, the so called expert here is Gavin Schmidt who is no more expert on these data sets than Christie. The “critisisms” of Schmidt and others referenced from REALClimate here(not peer reviewed either) are either ridiculous or weak. The Christy plots referenced there average 4 Balloon data sets and 3 satellite and are in general compelling and no evidence has been given to prove they are wrong. The critisisms amount to “I don’t like the way you presented that or the data set values you use.”, not that anything presented is proven incorrect.
The ratpac data set is just one subjectively processed set of many others that are in line with UAH. None have been proven to be superior to the others. In fact most radiosonde data values are often lower than the UAH or RSS value.
The main point again is, the UAH (and RSS) global average lower troposphere anomaly can be taken as an upper limit on the same surface anomaly, unless the models are simply unreliable. And the satellite and radio sonde balloon data indicate the models are indeed significantly over estimating observed warming. The 7 averaged satellite and balloon data sets MIGHT be wildly wrong, but is it really likely? Probably not, IMO. It is telling that theoretical models (unproven and questionable over multi-decadal time periods–see the Lewis-Currie conservation of energy based sensitivity analysis using IPCC “sanctioned” forcing and temperature data) are taken as unquestionable, but 7 averaged actual observed data sets are quickly dismissed as rubbish. The results of Christie’s compelling 4 plots you referenced may be wrong, but no more likely so than the 102 model average, of models which exhibit a roughly factor of 2 difference even among themselves! That is the point, the question is not settled, not nearly. It would be good if Schmidt and other AGW propogandists simply acknowledged that fact. Not that they are wrong but that they reasonably could be.
You are right on that bdgwx. I was expecting this too.
lol the deadline to submit CMIP6 was 2020
so it’s nice to know the model that is being used to drive multi-trillion-dollar global policy for the next 50-100 years survived… three months
meanwhile this value is probably outside the range of nearly every IPCC-endorsed model from more than 20 years ago (also used to drive multi-trillion-dollar global policy)
lmao I mean you seriously just tried to claim CMIP6 predictions still being in bounds after ~.1% of the model lifetime meant something
TallDave,
Observed surface temperatures haven’t fallen outside the 95% CI envelope of the CMIP6 suite since 1929. Since that time there have been 91 consecutive annual mean values that have stayed within this range. We should have expected about 4 excursions, but got none. In fact, the odds of going 91 consecutive years without an excursion is about 1%. That means the +/- 0.4C 95% range indicated by CMIP6 is an overestimate. In other words, the model has more skill than advertised.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
BTW…notice how well both CMIP5 and CMIP6 perform. They certainly aren’t perfect. No modeling will ever be perfect here, but it is reasonable and better than most other models out there. And they absolutely destroy contrarian models in skill. In fact, most contrarian models are so bad they can’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct.
are you seriously this stupid?
CMIP6 was under active development LAST YEAR
you really think it’s at all impressive to predict the PAST?
lol troll better
TallDave said: are you seriously this stupid?
I don’t claim to have superior intelligence or insights. And I’ll be the first to admit that I make more than my fair share of mistakes. I’ll also be the first to admit that those doing the actual research are far smarter than me. The more I learn the more I realize how little I know.
TallDave said: CMIP6 was under active development LAST YEAR
Yeah, that’s correct.
TallDave said: you really think its at all impressive to predict the PAST?
Of course. It’s remarkable that it performs so well given the complexity of the climate system. But being impressed is not the reason hind.casting is performed. It’s done to test, validate, and quantify the uncertainty and biases in the model. The obvious concept here is that models that have the least skill in matching reality are ranked lower in terms of the confidence in their ability to predict the future. This concept is ubiquitous in all disciplines of science. In fact, it is one of the core mechanisms by which scientific understanding and ability to predict progress. Scientists should test models against past data. That’s a good thing. We want that to happen. Be suspicious of those that aren’t doing it.
lol troll better
scientists make predictions about the future
be suspicious of stupid trolls who don’t do that
Hello Tall One,
Sometimes scientists make predictions about the past, but then they call it retrodictions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction
You’re welcome.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yes, september 1988 had a higher anomaly… +0,04 K! Wow, what a difference!
And just like that , we are below the zero line
That is using the new 1991-2020 baseline. Using the 1981-2010 baseline it is still +0.11C. Remember…all of those posts predicting below zero were based on the 1981-2010 baseline. We are not there yet.
Of course another way of looking at it is the current anomaly is the same as it was in February 1980 more than 41 years ago.
February 1980 was -0.10°C, not -0.01°C.
Ooops you are right. Have to go to March 1983 when it was +.02. thats just a mere 38 years.
March 1983 was the first positive (using new baseline) month. The next wouldn’t be till June 1987, and then there was another in December 1987.
In contrast March 2021 is the first negative month since September 2018, and then you need to go back to April 2015 for the next negative month.
Of course 1983 and 1987 were El Nino years, whereas 2021 and 2018 are La Ninas.
Well what that tells me is that we are still within the range of short term natural climate variability. Unfortunately the satellites are still restricted to the ranges of short term natural variability.
We already know that ocean oscillations feature a dominance of one sign of short term natural variability over the opposite sign. Whether its a result of the same unknown source of causation or not could matter. As Dr. Syun Akasofu stated to understand anthropogenic warming you first must understand natural warming. Figuring out the cause of the warming of the first half of the 20th century could give us fantastic information regarding that uncertainty. The question is does anybody want to find that. Probably about as much as they want to find the cause of UHI trends and their amplitude. As it is they are flailing to maintain concern with CO2 as the control knob. . . .can’t be upsetting that apple cart. . . .as good as killing the goose that lays the golden egg. . . .noting that the Emperor wears no clothes and all those other marvelous parables that have arisen throughout the recorded history of mankind.
bill said: Have to go to March 1983 when it was +.02. thats just a mere 38 years.
That isn’t out of line with expectation. At +0.1365C/decade we expect the trendline to move up 0.52C. And with the standard deviation of the departure from the trendline being 0.18 the z-score for a 0.22 excursion below and 0.33 excursion above are -1.2 and 1.8 respectively. These are probabilities of 12% and 3% respectively. Therefore the odds of randomly selecting 2 such values 38 years apart that would happen this way is 1-in-275. And with 51 attempts the odds of this happening by March 2021 is about 17%.
If, however, there was no +0.1365C/decade trend we would get a radically different result. The probability of any two randomly selected anomalies of the same month from different years being >= +0.02 and <= -0.01 from the mean in that order is about 20%. And with 51 attempts the odds of this happening by March 2021 is 99.998%.
In other words the secular warming (whatever it may be caused by) changed this event from a near certainty to one that would have only been expected 17% of the time.
Probability calculations can be tricky so if someone wants to double check my work that would be appreciated.
You are right bdgwx. Just shows we are still in the range of natural variation.
bill hunter
So you feel the need to compare a La Nina to a very strong El Nino?
Sure why not?
thats clearly within the range of natural variation. As we know there other drivers of natural variation, such a multi-decadal oscillations that ostensibly favor a persistence of single phases of the shorter termed oscillations. there are likely other variable that lead to other natural variances. Picking a temperature that is in the range of any observed natural phenomena is fine as we know nothing of its persistence or its trigger. NWS believes it understands some of the mechanisms that make these oscillation short lived, the primary one being the piling up of water in the western Pacific and the propensity to slosh back over the entire Pacific and knowledge that wind patterns can change over time to facilitate that slosh back. They include data on all that in the ENSO forecasts but disclaim offering it as the cause or limit it in anyway absent science that demonstrates its limits.
For example in the early 20th century a decades long warming occurred that models have failed to duplicate. Take home message on that is models are deficient.
The real truth is we can’t verify the claim that none of the warming we have seen isn’t natural nor can we reject the claim that all of it is natural.
The range of natural is the range of natural and without understanding its limitations all we can say about warming beyond the range of natural is we suspect it must be manmade.
Early on a lot of propaganda was being spread, especially by Al Gore, that we had moved beyond the range of natural variation. A claim that cannot in anyway be validated.
Its as bad as claiming any hurricane or any group of hurricanes being influenced by AGW. There simply is not the data to support that. If you believe climate models tell you so then you know very little about climate models. Climate models are merely assumptions about estimated primary effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and estimates about the feedbacks arising from them. Change the variables that aren’t set in stone by science and you will get different results.
I make it 0.12C under the 1981-2010 baseline. This would have been a slightly bigger drop from February than under the new baseline.
bdg…”That is using the new 1991-2020 baseline. Using the 1981-2010 baseline it is still +0.11C”.
Let’s not cherry pick over a tenth of a degree, which you could not measure reliably on a typical room mercury thermometer, let alone sense.
The global SSTs have dropped an additional .18 C since the 6 month lag cut off. UAH usually reacts even stronger to these changes so I would expect another .2-.3 drop in UAH. Keep in mind that each month has a + or – error of about .1 C so some of that may already be within this months anomaly.
With the Nino 1-2 area now dropping again we could see more drops again in the future.
Its going to be hard to convince people of technical common sense that there is a climate crisis being caused by CO2 emissions.
Well indeed, if you only give them half the story Ken. It was predicted that this La Nina would induce a drop.
Is this going to affect the long term trend?
No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.
“No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.”
What a load of old cobblers, mate. The zero line is arbitrary (it was changed 2 months ago). A negative value is meaningless without the context of the rest of the data.
“The zero line is arbitrary”
Competent scientists never use “arbitrary” zero lines. They always use non-arbitrary zero lines, that is, zero lines that are conventional but also rational. “Conventional” and “arbitrary” are not synonymous.
Thanks for the assertions, but you missed the point.
UAH changed its baseline 2 months ago. If they had not, the negative value would not have occurred.
The fact that the value is negative is purely to do with the baseline, and nothing else. In terms of climate and climate change, a negative anomaly is meaningless without the trest of the data to put it in context.
Eg, my friend is 10 cm shorter than me. If my height is the baseline then my friend height anomaly is -10cm!
But I’m 2.2 metres tall. My friend is 1.8 metres tall, nearly a 6-footer.
Your comment was all about how things look, ands nothing about how things are. Politics concerns itself with the optics of a matter, science doesn’t care.
Galaxie … the problem of half the story is that it was also predicted that El Nino would induce a rise but nowhere is that mentioned; its automatically attributed by the non technical people in the audience as being due to human emissions. Double Standard.
ENSO is mentioned all the time as being a significant contributing factor to the variability of the UAH TLT anomalies both positive (El Nino) and negative (La Nina) phases. If you didn’t see it mentioned then you had blinders on.
Furthermore, ENSO occurs regardless of what the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is or what is causing the EEI to be what it is. Just like a positive EEI does not stop the seasons from happening it also does not stop ENSO from happening.
The media practice a scandalous double standard: they present the effects of El Niño as proof of global warming, but it never occurs to them to present La Niña as proof of global cooling.
They also pin every weather extreme on climate change as well and tend to overrepresent the more extreme predictions as well. These are all good reasons to stop using the media as a source of information.
Its like Mark Twain said: “If you don’t read the paper you’re uninformed. If you do read the paper you’re misinformed.”
Clearly, the more things change the more they stay the same.
After the adjustment of the baseline up a few months ago, it was predictable that someone would come along and say a silliness like:
“No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.”
Don’t you like the new baseline? Worse for you.
“REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.”
The linear trend could be the same for 100 y, giving a rise of ~ 1.4 to 2.1 C.
But if we keep adjusting the baseline every 10 y, then the anomaly will continue to oscillate near 0.
As if there was no warming!
Basic math you guys.
How is it worse? Baseline choice is arbitrary, meaningless.
Do you not get that??
Nate, think a bit. When the thermal values are below zero, the job of the climate alarmists becomes much more difficult.
That’s not how that works Rawandi. UAH could have arbitrarily picked a baseline such that all anomalies are below. The warming trend would still be +0.14C/decade.
“UAH could have arbitrarily picked a baseline such that all anomalies are below”
Yes, but that choice is irrational and therefore unscientific.
The baseline chosen by Roy Spencer is the one advocated by the World Meteorological Organization. This choice is obviously conventional, but not irrational. And one obvious consequence of such a rational choice is that falling below zero is a nightmare for alarmists.
I don’t think something is fully clicking here. The choice of baseline is arbitrary. It doesn’t matter at all what the baseline is. It could be 1951-1980 like what GISS uses, 1979-1998 like what RSS uses, 1971-2000 like what NOAA uses, 1991-2020 like what Copernicus, or something entirely different. There is no consistency here in climatic datasets and that’s okay because it doesn’t matter at all. The warming trend is exactly the same regardless of the choice.
And I don’t know who the “alarmists” are that you refer to but understand that the UAH TLT trendline is at +0.21C and the departures from the trendline have a standard deviation of 0.18. That means we expect departure below 0.0C about 16% of the time or about 9x every 5 years. In other words, this is not unexpected at all. Actually, it is expected with some regularity actually.
“The choice of baseline is arbitrary.”
No. That statement is flatly false. All the baseline choices you mentioned in your last comment (GISS, RSS, NOAA, Copernicus, and UAH) are rational conventions, and therefore cannot be “arbitrary”. “Conventional” and “arbitrary” are not synonymous.
Rawandi,
Let me see if I can explain it this way.
Using the 1979-1998 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 1981-2010 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 1991-2020 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 1979 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 2020 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Nate says:
After the adjustment of the baseline up a few months ago, it was predictable that someone would come along and say a silliness like:
No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.
=================================
Makes sense to me Nate. If after 30 years you have discovered anything alarming about the present climate, a new baseline makes a lot of sense. Doncha think?
“a new baseline makes a lot of sense.”
Not if the point is to detect the magnitude of the global warming trend.
Nate says: ”Not if the point is to detect the magnitude of the global warming trend.”
Trend doesn’t tell us shiit. 30 year baselines give us basically a more current view on recent warming. 40 year baselines can minimize an accelerating trend.
But it all is pretty meaningless unless you can equate a trend or an anomaly to something negative occurring.
“Trend doesn’t tell us shiit. 30 year baselines give us basically a more current view”
So you think we should be paying more attention to baselines, for some reason, and disregard trends.
Obviously Roy Spencer, and anyone with common sense, disagrees.
Nate says:
Trend doesn’t tell us shiit. 30 year baselines give us basically a more current view
So you think we should be paying more attention to baselines, for some reason, and disregard trends.
Obviously Roy Spencer, and anyone with common sense, disagrees.
===============
Thats so ignorant of you. I just went over why trends are important for the purpose of identifying change. What I meant by a trend not telling us shiit is once you know you have a trend you still don’t know if its a good trend or a bad trend.
Over a 150 years the anomaly gets bigger and propagandists love that, but when you have gone 150 years and the general trend in human suffering indicates its a good trend, a long term anomaly can only mean something to the ignorant.
Get less than 30 years and its more uncertain that any trend in human suffering might be due to war, depression, or something else mankind tends to do to increase suffering, usually resolved in the modern era within 30 years. So you can say with more confidence the last 30 years have been good years too. That’s certainly my perspective anyway. Go beyond that and you are in danger of transposing any belief you have that your parents, grandparents, or great grandparents had fewer obstacles to success than you.
“What I meant by a trend not telling us shiit is once you know you have a trend you still don’t know if its a good trend or a bad trend.” “human suffering might be due to war, depression, or something else mankind..”
As usual you drift way off-topic.
The topic was whether crossing ‘zero’ is meaningful , when arbitrary baseline choice affects where ‘zero’ is.
Logic and math say NO.
You said ‘makes sense”, but cannot defend this with relevant logic.
Then just stop posting.
You wanna talk about something else??, then don’t post HERE.
Nate says:
You wanna talk about something else??, then don’t post HERE
————————-
Sour grapes masquerades as wannabee moderator. Goodness!!
You called dropping below baseline silly. Well I got news for you going below baseline means the climate has been cooling for a month you also seem to fancy yourself as an enforcer of the effect of the 15 second soundbite making sure it always points in the same direction until little teams of circular reasoners can find an excuse to alter the observations. LOL!
Suffer Nate. . . .Suffer! I can’t think of anybody here who deserves it more than you.
“You called dropping below baseline silly.”
Yep, and explained the logic of the non-significance of it.
You objected, but have no logic.
Case in point:
“going below baseline means the climate has been cooling for a month”
LOL
The temperature had been kept elevated by consistent El Nino conditions for much of the last 6 years. We are now correcting for that situation.
We are likely sequestering some ocean energy that will return after the La Nina comes to an end. However, a lot of energy was lost over the past 6 years and I doubt we will come close to replenishing it.
Well they always have the black box in which alarming warming has been disappearing beyond sight into the bottom of the ocean glaring us in the face.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/
> Its going to be hard to convince people of technical common sense that there is a climate crisis being caused by CO2 emissions.
I heard something similar recently:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-652049
Sometimes, a a few per cent of the several hundred Wm-2 in the natural flux to space fail to convince contrarians with technical common sense. Some other times, a monthly drop convince contrarians with technical common sense.
Contrarians who appeal to technical common sense are very hard to convince when it does not suit them.
well 40 years into that 100 year journey to in excess of 3 degrees warming the scientists in charge say we have .6 to .9 tenths of it unrealized to date getting buried out of sight mostly at the bottom of the ocean. When can we expect that to rise like a phoenix bird? In 1,500 years?
All very pertinent questions, Bill.
The Earth already enjoyed five mass extinctions. What’s a few Cs in a few hundred years?
Yep, I think I mentioned in the previous monthly update that asteroids were a much larger threat.
I like the way you’re thinking, Bill.
There are larger threats, therefore AGW isn’t one.
Willard says:
”I like the way youre thinking, Bill.
There are larger threats, therefore AGW isnt one.”
Hmmm, thats a figment of your own imagination.
I see.
If you accept that AGW is a threat, Bill, on what grounds have you come to the conclusion that an asteroid strike is a bigger threat than AGW?
There is not much upside from 500 meter diameter space rock hitting Earth. Lot’s up side to warming if you are in an Ice Age.
The world has spent trillions of dollars related to irrational fear of global warming and less than 100 million dollar relate to finding impactors 1 km in diameter or larger which could hit Earth. And it’s international effort, and didn’t require endless and expensive conferences like global warming seems to need.
There is zero proof that any further warming will be severely drastic to life on this planet.
> The world has spent trillions of dollars related to irrational fear of global warming
Citation needed.
Willard says:
”I see.
If you accept that AGW is a threat, Bill, on what grounds have you come to the conclusion that an asteroid strike is a bigger threat than AGW?”
Well they seem to be the most plausible theory of the cause of mass extinctions Willard.
By that logic an asteroid strike would be a bigger threat than say obesity, Bill.
But do continue to equivocate. No rush.
Bjorn Lomborg has done extensive research on the cost of climate change studies and policy fronts. If you want to get a good idea how many billions of dollars that have been spent on “fighting” climate change, Lomborg has this pretty well documented. He is an economist by the way. I think those billions are already getting to the trillions.
–Willard says:
April 2, 2021 at 5:17 PM
> The world has spent trillions of dollars related to irrational fear of global warming
Citation needed.–
Do you know how much Germany has spent?
I think Germany does some things right, such as in terms of accounting for such costs.
Now, Germany also does really crazy stuff, like solar energy.
[[Trying to be solar capital of world was quite mad.]]
Germany Solar and Wind is Triple the Cost of Frances Nuclear and Will Last Half as Long
https://energycentral.com/c/ec/germany-solar-and-wind-triple-cost-france%E2%80%99s-nuclear-and-will-last-half-long
“Frances nuclear energy spending was 60% of what Germany spent on renewables. France gets about 400 Terawatt hour per year from nuclear but Germany gets 226 Terawatt-hours each year. 45 Terawatt-hours of Germanys renewable power comes from burning biomass which generates air pollution.”
“France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion (290 billion). The complete buildout of the 58 reactors was less 400 billion. Germany has spent about 500 billion over the last 20 years to get to 35% renewables. 7% of this is burning biomass.”
Frances cost was $1 billion to build each terawatt hour per year of clean energy.
Germanys cost is $2.5 billion to build each terawatt hour per year of relatively clean energy.
“Chinas cost is $0.5 billion per terawatt hour per year of clean energy. Chinas nuclear buildout is over 5 times cheaper than Germanys.”
> If you want to get a good idea how many billions of dollars that have been spent on “fighting” climate change, Lomborg has this pretty well documented.
Even if this was true, which I doubt so I welcome your sources on this Rob, he’s still trillions short for gb’s pontifications to hold.
Here’s what trillions look like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Willard says:
By that logic an asteroid strike would be a bigger threat than say obesity, Bill.
But do continue to equivocate. No rush.
============================
Haven’t thought about it. But is this a precursor to you telling me you voted to outlaw the sale of extra large sodas in you muncipality?
–Even if this was true, which I doubt so I welcome your sources on this Rob, he’s still trillions short for gb’s pontifications to hold.
Here’s what trillions look like:
The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per US citizen.–
I am talking about world, US is not the world. Nor is federal government all of US government.
And since 1975 when stupid religion began.
Why does Germany have such a high cost of electrical power and what do costs of having your nation having a higher price of electrical power.
It is said global warming market is currently about 1.5 trillion dollars a year and going increase according to some to tens of trillion.
That it’s it’s cost trillions of dollars is a under statement.
And all a waste of time and money- in comparison to say, the 300 billion dollar global satellite market. Which might climb to 1.5 trillion in a couple decades.
> I am talking about world, US is not the world.
I showed you numbers, gb, and can show you more:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/six-big-tech-stocks-down-1-trillion-in-three-days.html
Keep saying stuff.
Willard says:
”The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per US citizen.”
Thats a darned good example there Willard. $1.9 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq that one dime probably shouldn’t have been spent. . . .all to get rid of non-existent WMDs. Perfect dude!
“Lomborg has this pretty well documented. He is an economist by the way.”
Yes Economics is different from the physical sciences, in that the results you get in Economics seem to depend on one’s political agenda.
There are schools of economics that always find government regulation is bad, and others that find the opposite.
Nate says:
There are schools of economics that always find government regulation is bad, and others that find the opposite.
———————————–
Yes Nate believes anybody should just know a couple a degrees of warming is bad and anybody who doesn’t simply isn’t in any legitimate school of thought.
Nate you are such an inspiration with your super acute way you see things.
Do you know the difference between an ice age and our times, Bill?
5C.
So yes indeed, “a couple a degrees” can indeed matter.
Willard says:
Do you know the difference between an ice age and our times, Bill?
5C.
So yes indeed, a couple a degrees can indeed matter.
————————–
Hmmm, Willard I suspect an ice age is pretty cold. Are you expecting a couple of degrees of warming is going to trigger one?
LOL!
Whats the matter had a little problem of digging up how the Eskimos fared in the Arctic 6,000 years ago? Wasn’t that when some pre-Iraq civilization invented a wheel?
And indeed Willard aren’t we actually now talking about something around a half that? Seems to me nothing but better has happened so far.
Keep throwing squirrels, Bill.
You still tried to minimize the impact of “a couple a degrees.”
Willard says:
Keep throwing squirrels, Bill.
You still tried to minimize the impact of a couple a degrees.
———————
Well in truth the perspective doesn’t matter.
1) Scenario 1: I am shivering in the 19th century, yeah a couple degrees would be great!
2) Scenario 2: I am now and 1 degree is in the can. Since my favorite places are S. California, Florida, and Hawaii and I live in CA. Those other places have a mean climate 8C higher than LA. So I am still going yeah a couple of degrees would be great.
3) Scenario 3: It warms another degree and I start changing my mind. Well in 3 decades we could be back to half way between Scenario 1 and 3. That thousand years for feedback to playout by the ocean bottom waters upwelling to the surface would never be more than slightly realized as 3 decades will wipe out the imbalance and cut into the primary.
So what should I be worried about. What are you so worried about?
don’t forget the thousands to millions of excess deaths already attributable to climate change policy
raising energy prices to chase carbon fairies has deadly consequences for the poor
> don’t forget the thousands to millions of excess deaths already attributable to climate change policy
Got a cite for that, TallDave?
“So I am still going yeah a couple of degrees would be great.”
“So what should I be worried about. What are you so worried about?”
As long as Bill is comfortable, the world will be happy.
Nate the world is comfortable with 2 degrees thats clear. where worries exist is when zealots start claiming twice to six times that amount.
> zealots start claiming twice to six times that amount.
C’mon, Bill. 2 x 2C = 4C.
You don’t think its zealotry claiming twice the observed warming rate?
Do you even statistics, Bill?
Willard I got an award for being the best stat guy in my class.
But went into the field of finance and long term unique assets and learned a different style of auditing that doesn’t extrapolate with statistics and is far more reliable and possible to do when dealing with fewer transactions.
Statistics simply isn’t adequate when your standard of completeness and materiality disallows you from having any errors or in situations where the population isn’t random nor representative as it is with surface stations and sacred trees.
If the surface station records would address UHI far more honestly I would have more confidence in them. But to do that you have to properly identify the source of UHI trends and then audit using the stable records as a control sample. But there is a group that will resist that as long as the day is long because all it can do is subtract from their paltry alarmism as it is.
The corruption is so high in highly politized science issues you find yourself arguing with people being intellectually dishonest.
I found it interesting that Roy found the UHI trend variable and that BEST and others didn’t even try to find it. They didn’t want to find it.
But scientists have zero qualms about referencing another study as the foundation of their study without independently verifying the other study or at least knowing the details of how it was validated completely. So BEST UHI BS study gets quoted over and over again.
Auditors are prohibited from doing that they are required to form opinions by examining everything.
Even their peer review has standards of covering everything.
Peer review in science is whatever the peer reviewer decides it to be. So do I have mistrust? You betcha and a helluva a lot of education about why I should as well.
Bottom line here is that standards are established for consistency. But there is no formal single entity that promulgates standards in science. In science its just any old science paper peer reviewed any old way or sometimes not at all and when they decide to set a standard, politics is what gets the panelists selected.
Independent auditors don’t have that problem. They don’t sit on a panel to set a standard for a government unless they are getting paid by that government to do it. Auditors pay for their own standards by paying a membership fee. And they have a huge interest in it being the right standard because of huge liability concerns. Do you think scientists are going to pay for the damage they do? LOL! The only way that happens is in a revolution where they get carted off to the guillotine.
The IPCC is a case in point for which they got a professional opinion that their structure didn’t have the protections of independence. The IPCC rejected the notion that lead authors should not be the final arbiters of what the wording will be in various communications, documents, and reports if its their own work that is being featured. At least they did for AR4. I didn’t follow it after that but that was an eyeopener for everybody and it appears to some degree the message sank in.
but the deal is Willard I probably have more experience in my littlest finger with this sort of stuff than you do.
> the deal is Willard I probably have more experience in my littlest finger with this sort of stuff than you do
Which begs the question as to why you would rely on all these silly tricks, Bill.
My guess for now is that it always takes an ounce of machiavellianism to swindle investors.
Willard says:
My guess for now is that it always takes an ounce of machiavellianism to swindle investors.
——————–
Well that certainly wrong. My experience suggests that not knowing what you are doing is how the vast majority of investors effectively get swindled, depending upon a lot of people to go beyond their skill and experience set to get a job done.
Doctors, accountants, passenger for hire pilots,drivers,captains, building contractors, and many other professions entail both passing tests and establishing actual experience over a fairly decent period of time say 2 years. Then comes in bonding and insurance to ensure performance, along with accepting near unlimited liability. For the purpose of protecting the population from those who would harm them.
Interestingly the government doesn’t need to do any of those things.
Myself I built and worked exclusively on a basis of recommendation with zero marketing efforts on my behalf, today is the same as yesterday in that. My results speak for themself and thats all the marketing I need. Whereas the government has bunches of scientists being paid to do really nothing but sell what they are trying to sell, haven’t successfully produced any end products in the field and neither have their scientists. But they love to advertise the `17th through 20th scientists that did produce stuff in other fields of endeavor.
> My experience suggests that not knowing what you are doing is how the vast majority of investors effectively get swindled
And you’ll never guess by whom, Bill.
You know, that kind of grammatical swindling works better orally. On the Internet, everyone can pay due diligence to the fast ones you’re pulling. Not that you care, mind you.
I can understand Clint and Mike’s abuses. They have little else. Why you’re playing these silly games is still hard to explain.
At least you know my working hypothesis.
there is no swindle when your message is solely caution.
I am just a guy that stands up for the little guy. The guy that always gets trampled.
It doesn’t matter what it is that the government involved. healthcare, social security, taxes, all regulations, many laws.
the principle is sold as helping the little guy but the guys that get helped are a small fraction of the least motivated, totally bottom of the barrel to earn a check in that box. Then the system is designed for the rest of the little guys to take care of the bottom of the barrel. Limits to contributions on healthcare, social security and social security; tax deductions; disproportionate compliance cost for the smallest operators in obeying regulation; payroll taxes; unemployment insurance; corporate income taxes, even income taxes disproportionately come out of the pocket of the little guy. Investors and royalty recipients skirt many taxes. No wealth tax to keep the disparity in place.
The same deal exists with environmental policy. Oh we will raise energy prices to take care of the issue, cap and trade, and all of it is targeting the lowest classes. We hold our citizens to higher standards on the real environmental issues and thus our poorest suffer the most.
Yes we are all created equal but that doesn’t mean we should be equal. But in that there is an element of equal opportunity and its in the form of taxation and regulation that equal opportunity dies on the vine succumbing elitism and the mob mentality.
Fact is most of those that beat those odds aren’t subservient to what their daddies told them. Questioning authority is perhaps the best lesson I have learned from my years of investigation.
> there is no swindle when your message is solely caution.
That’s not solely your message, Bill, in fact I’m not sure that’s the main part of your message.
And that’s not even true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
If you look at Cambridge definition of “swindle,” you get:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/swindle
My little finger has more experience in parsomatics than you.
You explained what a swindle is but you didn’t produce anything I said that was a swindle.
Earlier that subthread there is this splendid one, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-657993
Your D’Souza impersonation remains my favorite so far in the thread.
You want more?
not to worry, they’re also hard at work dismantling the concepts of scientific rigor and empirical accountability
sort of turns “nullius in verba” on its head, doesn’t it?
Good afternoon Dr. Spencer,
Thanks for your work. I have tried to send you an email asking what are probably simple questions, but the email address at the foot of your page won’t deliver it.
I don’t want to bother you, but as a non-scientist I’m interested in getting answers to the greatest policy shift in my lifetime.
Many thanks and happy Easter.
You can ask questions here.
I’m not even going to mention it this month. Bet you that you all still end up arguing about it anyway.
42 base 2
x 17 fort 9
La Nina is back.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
ren
No it isn’t back:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Alarmism isn’t good, whichever its direction.
J.-P. D.
Sunspots still show extremely low magnetic activity, so TSI is also lower.
https://i.ibb.co/xswmhk6/AR-CH-20210331.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Dr. Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue)
Temperature analysis (T319) from Japanese Met Agency (JRA-55 Reanalysis) on a 2-day Delay. Current climatology for data is 1981-2010 but maps were shifted to 1991-2020.
http://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55_temperature.php
How low will it go?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMdZ4ZPq8Rw
Beautiful!
Winter conditions will continue in Canada and the northern US.
https://i.ibb.co/0C1sm3c/gfs-toz-NA-f120.png
BTW, regarding the shift to a new 1991-2020 baseline…this is exactly what the European (Copernicus) Global Temp did. Seems like standard industry practice.
The only ‘standard’, such as there is, is that the baseline be at least 30 years long. You see plenty of variety among global temp data sets, and even between UAH and rival RSS satellite temps.
It really doesn’t matter which period you pick or where you put the baseline, the trends remain the same. And the trends are the point when you’re talking about climate.
E. Swanson said on April 2, 2021 at 9:10 AM: And, how did they derive their equation used to calculate the LT product?
In a post a couple of months ago I showed that even an incredibly small change to the weighting function can have a large impact on the trend.
For example, using the current weighting function…
LT = 1.548*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
…we get a trend of +0.1378C/decade.
But using an ever so slightly changed weighting function…
LT = 1.548*MT – 0.538*TP + 0.000*LS
…we get a trend of +0.1446C/decade.
Just by increasing MP by 0.01 and decreasing LS by 0.01 we changed the trend by 0.007C/decade.
Obviously the trend is hyper sensitive wrt to the weighting function.
Gee bdgwx that sounds like a lot less sensitivity to the sensitivity of misreading surface station thermometers.
I guess we should say surface station thermometer gridding and kriging are like ‘super hyper sensitive’?
“a lot less sensitivity to the sensitivity of misreading surface station thermometers.”
Actually the opposite is true.
Averaging all the thousands of surface station measurements means problems with a small subset of stations makes little difference to the global average.
A change to the analysis of the LT data potentially affects temperatures measured everywhere on Earth at the same time.
That is why the updates to LT analysis, like from UAH 5 to 6, or RSS 3 to 4, can have a more dramatic effect on the trends.
where did you find an analysis of that Nate? Thats the sort of stuff I would love to read.
You need a basic understanding of how the two measurements are done. Do you have that?
Comparison of Trends here: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Switching the goal posts Nate?
A 140 year temperature trend of .07 per decade kind goes along with the other subthread about changing baselines every 30 years.
Over the past 140 years there is no question mankind has prospered and isn’t losing any fight with the climate. It might be less clear over 30 years, so a lack of evidence seems to be a good reason to change the baseline. In another 140 years the same thing may be able to said with clarity as for the past 140 years. . . .unless of course government make some disastrous choice that changes the direction.
Off topic, Bill as usual.
From that link 1978-2019 Trends for various analyses of
surface data Trends (degC/decade)
GISTEMPv3 0.175
GISTEMPv4 0.185
Berkeley 0.188
Had*CRUT4krigv2 0.187
with HadSST4 0.187
Lower Trop. data Trends (degC/decade)
RSSv4.0 TLT 0.208
RSSv3.3 TLT 0.134
UAHv5.6 TLT 0.155
UAHv6.0 TLT 0.127
Do you see the difference?
Different analysis of LT trends are much more scattered.
Surface: stand. deviation = 0.0054
TLT: stand. deviation = 0.037
The standard deviation is 7x larger for TLT data sets, as compared to surface data sets.
Yeah well the question does have some real answers.
Satellites seem to be a more robust way of getting a representative sample.
But all this mine is bigger than yours back and forth isn’t science at all.
And worse trends can just tell us if its warming or cooling. It tells us zero about the impacts of what the climate is doing.
Fake numbers are a managers worst nightmare as they so frequently lead to failure of management. Inaccurate data, if it doesn’t bite you one way it will bite you another way. That is the big lesson managers learn the hard way with experience.
This is why accuracy and transparency is so important. Another big problem is consistency. If the data isn’t consistent because of too much fiddling here and there the data begins to lose touch with the important stuff. I am frustrated that the UK Met stopped processing v3 of their temperature sets. Going to v4 gave you more complete coverage but using models to manufacture the historic data to infill the high latitudes is a consistency problem because essentially you are choosing a new set of instruments to record the record and you are only left with another concern that the manufactured data might be polluting the message. It would have been better to continue v3 and then get v4 up and running with non-manufactured data only likely shortening the record. But no doubt politics played into the silly decision they made.
Managers must know all the details both to improve the science and to successfully manage. Any thing else puts blind folds on the scientists motivated to improve the science and the managers motivated to improve outcomes. Not a good deal which I have seen occur many times.
“Satellites seem to be a more robust way of getting a representative sample…Then yada yada…no answers…more yada yada…the standard Bill Shtick”
Uhhh, thats again the opposite of reality.
How can a ‘more robust’ method give so wildly variable results depending on choice of analysis??
Nate says:
Satellites seem to be a more robust way of getting a representative sampleThen yada yadano answersmore yada yadathe standard Bill Shtick
Uhhh, thats again the opposite of reality.
How can a more robust method give so wildly variable results depending on choice of analysis??
==================================
there is a difference between the robustness of method and the robustness of the results. Good methods lead to a faster pace of solving problems.
Certainly the approach to an argument that consists of mine is larger than yours is so ignorant of the role of methods in achieving the desired outcome and doesn’t get you anywhere near the desired results faster.
So absolutely I favor satellites and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction.
hunter
I followed your discussion with Nate above, ending with
” So absolutely I favor satellites and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction. ”
*
1. Well: firstly, I’m afraid this is not quite honest, because IMO you should have rather written
” So absolutely I favor UAH and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction. ”
Simply because you very probably won’t agree with NOAA’s, let alone with RSS’s satellite reading results, as they show much more warming than does UAH.
This is due to different, even opposite opinions about which satellites are doing “biased” work, and hence, depending on that opinion, were included in / excluded off the data sources.
*
2. Now let us have a closer look at UAH’s satellite readings on land, because I want compare them with surface data.
There will be three. One is NOAA land-only, highly homogenized, together with two evaluations of the rawest surface data available, namely GHCN daily.
One evaluation is mine,
– based on a plane grid, with of course both latitude and area weighting;
and the other one was made two years ago by Clive Best,
– based on a very accurate, 3D spherical triangulation (which makes both weighting functions superfluous), together with some decent infilling.
1. Comparing NOAA land with GHCN daily by Clive and by Bin for 1880-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18RJTDnYp0wgNS8CUJ0-ADheNit3WlN1p/view
2. Comparing UAH6.0 LT land with NOAA land, GHCN daily by Clive and by Bin for 1979-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oACrb0PNvtiBwK9Xuw0rhVBngdQp_032/view
Hopefully you will think a bit more than Robertson when looking at these graphs, and hence might have something more to say than his stoopid, eternal ‘fudged’ blah blah.
J.-P. D.
lol why do so many people in climate science seem to think sampling is the only possible source of measurement error? it’s not even the most important
doesn’t matter how many samples you take if the instruments and siting aren’t reliable (and few are, see Watts surfacestations.org), even before you start massaging the data with adjustments that each introduce their own additional errors
note this is all PUBLISHED data
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/thirteen-years-of-nasa-data-tampering-in-six-seconds/
——-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/giss-hockey-stick-adjustments/
In the graph below, the blue dots are the differences in hundredths of a degree C for the same months between GISS data as of May 2014 versus GISS data as of August 2009. GISS provides data as an integer representing hundredths of a degree C. The blue (1880-1909) and red (1910-2005) lines show the slope of the adjustments for the corresponding periods. Hundredths of a degree per year equal degrees per century. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are
1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
1910-2005 +0.190 C degree per century
The next graph is similar to the above, except that the analysis is more granular, i.e. 1910-2005 is broken up into 5 smaller periods. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are
1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
1910-1919 +0.732 C degree per century
1920-1939 +0.222 C degree per century
1940-1949 -1.129 C degree per century
1950-1979 +0.283 C degree per century
1980-2005 +0.110 C degree per century
——-
https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/03/15/understanding-giss-temperature-adjustments-in-southern-africa/
Of note is that the adjustments in the early 1890s and around 1930 is about three times the size of the change in trend. This might be partly due to zero net adjustments in 1903 and partly due to the small downward adjustments in post 2000.
Regarding the surfacestation.org website here is a really good assessment and quantification of the bias related to the station classification in regards to the USHCN warming trends.
Menne 2010: https://tinyurl.com/pp4hf5f4
Pay particular attention to table 1 and the conclusion document in paragraph 19.
It is also important to note that USCRN is consistent with USHCN.
Hausfather 2016: https://tinyurl.com/4y62vxxm
Pay particular attention to the conclusion in section 4.
So it seems as though the PHA methodology employed by USHCN had already adequately addressed the concerns of Watts. Actually, if anything USHCN is probably still underestimating the conus warming trend.
lol and yet again, totally unresponsive to the point, which is that there are much larger adjustments to the past data than the claimed accuracy
the fact they looked at the adjustments and decided they didn’t affect trends much does not in any way increase the accuracy of the measurements
TallDave said: which is that there are much larger adjustments to the past data than the claimed accuracy
Don’t confuse precision with accuracy. Adjustments make things more accurate, but they don’t make it more precise. And the magnitude of the adjustment does not by itself invalidate a claim on accuracy. If anything an adjustment should increase the confidence regarding a claim of accuracy because that adjustment works to improve it.
TallDave said: the fact they looked at the adjustments and decided they didnt affect trends much does not in any way increase the accuracy of the measurements
That is not even remotely close what these publications said. In fact, these publications say the opposite. Adjustments DO affect the trends and by a significant amount. This is plainly obvious if you read the papers.
I want you to read these papers thoroughly. If you do not understand the contents please ask questions. I (or someone else) will try to answer them as best I can.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Given the close agreement with global SSTs it appears UAH satellite data is far better than any other satellite metric or surface data set.
Lets be honest here: ‘far better’ does not mean objectively the most accurate, for you.
It means LOWEST TREND.
Nate, when you finally accept real science you will realize the oceans drive our climate variations. Then you will look to data that best agrees with the oceans. That’s all I have done.
Land cannot warm more than the oceans over long periods of time. Obvious logic.
“Obvious logic.”
Nope. Already proven wrong.
Nate, let me know when the land temperature is 10 C above the oceans or is that too “obvious” for you?
Most of think that this evidence that UAH is underestimating the warming. Land warms faster than the ocean so if they are in close agreement then one of them is likely wrong. And considering that most SST datasets agree with other and that UAH is an outlier compared to global datasets it is more likely that the problem is with UAH. Or at least UAH cannot be considered as a reliable proxy for a global mean surface temperature anyway.
Actually only partly true bdgwx. Surface ocean catches up in a few years. So it could be an issue back to 2010, but to say its a longer term issue is an assumption for which no support seems to exist.
Better understanding UHI could provide a major part of an explanation why long term ocean trends are so much slower. You already agreed it should be redone better identifying the source of UHI trends. Work so far seems so perfunctory and unimaginative avoiding the most likely measure the cause of UHI trends. Then that perfunctory and unimaginative estimate of UHI results in finding nothing significant and the issue is handwaved away.
John and Roy should be funded to oversee such a project as Figure 1 of Roy’s really appears to nail where to look and thats true despite efforts to dismiss his initial and under funded effort to identify UHI. If somebody found something like that supporting ocean uptake and the .87 EEI unrealized warming, money would be pouring in by the bucketful.
” Surface ocean catches up in a few years. ”
Ohhh?
More declared ‘truths’ from Bill, a skeptic who has no self skepticism.
Nate please stop trolling. Make an argument if you have one.
According to UAH TLT the atmosphere over land warms at a rate 50% higher than oceans. It is generally accepted that UHI effect does not contaminate land average in any significant way.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
In February/March 2021, the stratospheric polar vortex resurfaced, so Arctic air masses are expected to flow down later in April. Now such a wave will flow down to central Europe.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_JFM_NH_2021.png
Yes, that’s because if there is no LS term, the weighting function actually has a small amount of negative weight in the lower stratosphere. When combined with cooling there, it inflates the warming trend. You can’t arbitrarily change one of the 3 terms, because they are derived together. Look up “deconvolution”.
I’m not saying that you should arbitrarily change the terms nor am I am saying the current choice is wrong. I’m just saying that the warming trend is sensitive to the choice.
bdwgx I would suggest the difference between being sensitive and not being sensitive is easy to determine.
If the output is less than the perturbation, the general rule of thumb is it is at least somewhat not sensitive (e.g. negative feedback)
So if you want to suggest something rather vague about the process keep it to its ‘not sensitive’. If you are sure that’s wrong, Roy suggested you read the paper on it. Do that and then come back.
A 1% change in the weighting function creates a 5% change in the warming trend. I did read their paper. That’s how I know what the weighting function is.
I haven’t read the paper but isn’t what you did was remove 100% of the LS distortion. Better check your math too. Looks like your formulas aren’t correct.
bill,
Refer to http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/ for the weighting function.
The first formula in my post matches exactly.
The second formula in my post is a small perturbation. I adjusted MP up by 0.01 and LS down 0.01. Notice that I was careful to keep the net weight at 1.000.
Furthermore, I actually laid out MT, TP, and LS into columns A, B, and C in Excel and then entered the official formula into column D and reproduced LT exactly. I then entered the perturbed formula into column E and computed the trend.
No, my perturbed formula is not removing 100% of the LS value. It is changing +0.01*LS to +0.00*LS and -0.548*TP to -0.538*TP.
Roy…if you get a chance sometime, will you clarify the meaning of weighting function? May be wrong, but I am comparing them to the bandpass responses of devices like graphic equalizers. Such an equalizer is a complex tone control that can adjust the tone over a narrower frequency range in individual tone (frequency) ranges.
In an equalizer, the audio spectrum is broken into bands. An octave equalizer breaks the spectrum into octaves, which are a doubling of frequency. The A above middle-C is 440 hz. An octave above is 880 hz and an octave below is 220 hz. A professional equalizer is broken into 1/3 octave bands.
Each band is tuned to a centre frequency at which frequency it is most responsive. If a band is tuned to 440 hz, its response will drop off as the frequencies deviate from the centre frequency. So, each band has a bell-shaped response curve with adjacent curves for adjacent bands overlapping.
That means a frequency that is within the bandpass of both response curves will affect each band response to varying degrees. Obviously, the narrower the response curve (1 octave versus 1/3 octave) the better the device is able to filter sound wave frequencies more accurately.
Is that what the channels in the AMSU unit do? Are the weighting functions actually bandpass response curves?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
bdg…if you look at the telemetry, the weighting function curves are related to channels on the AMSU telemetry. The article to which you linked does not explain weighting functions on that basis.
Each channel’s weighting functions seems to be centred on the centre frequency of the channel. They all overlap, and as I see it, the functions represent the EM radiation received by the AMSU units at various frequencies.
I have been saying since 2006 that we have a serious period of cooling cooming, Volcanos are now going off everywhere. While fraudsters try to extort money out of us for CO2 fraud. Why not deal with the litter in our countryside and oceans. As for the sheep wearing masks, there are mask droppings everywhere.
Back in 2006 where did you see the 2021 UAH anomalies being at?
Can’t speak for Tim but I anticipated a cooling trend between 2010 and 2020.
It is a bit later due to oceanic thermal inertia but it does seem to be coming.
If La Ninas continue to dominate relative to El Ninos then the current trend should continue and intensify.
The balance between La Ninas and El Ninos appears to be related to solar activity via effects on global cloudiness but not from the so called Svensmark effect.
More likely it is a consequence of changes in jet stream meridionality which involves solar induced ozone variations above 45 km over the poles which force the polar troposphere downwards so that polar air flows equatorward more often thereby increasing the length of the lines of air mass mixing hence cloudiness changes.
I expected them to be lower, but then again there has been a big lag. It was enough for me to put my money where my mouth is and walk out of a carbon management company.
The 5yr mean in March 1991 is -0.18C.
The 5yr mean in March 2006 is +0.03C.
The 5yr mean in March 2021 is +0.26C.
If 2006 was a pivot point you might expect the 5yr mean in March 2021 to be -0.18C like it was in 1991. Instead it is 0.26C. That is a difference of +0.44C. I’m not suggesting you were thinking the post 2006 change would be cooling of equal magnitude as the warming that preceded it. But for those that did make that prediction ended up being 0.44C too low.
But had you used the +0.1516C/decade warming rate as of 2006 you would have predicted exactly +0.26C and would have nailed the March 2021 value to a tee.
And lest I be accused of cherry picking here I’ll point out that I didn’t pick 2006 or 2021 which occurred 15 years later. I’m just presenting what the data says for the parameters given to me.
Perople here have been expecting a cooling trebd around the corner since 2010 at least.
After all these years, it looks more like wishful thinking than anything else, as each disappointment spurs zero reconsideration in the proponents.
barry, please stop trolling.
> I have been saying since 2006 that we have a serious period of cooling cooming,
That’s, like, 15 years ago.
I’ve been pointing out from about 2007 that since 2000 the jet stream tracks have been becoming more meridional which is a cooling indicator.
My stopped clock is right twice a day, Stephen.
My clock has been successfully applied through the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Modern Warm Period.
The stopped clock is the AGW theory which is going awry following the cessation of warming around 2000.
Retrodicting the past is indeed easier than predicting the future, Stephen.
Unless you’re older than I presume?
There is good evidence of differing climate zone positions back through to the Roman Warm Period so I don’t need to have been personally present.
In particular, the LIA has jet stream tracks very variable as compared to the Mediaeval Warm Period during which latter time the Scottish Isles were more settled and equable than at present.
We were discussing predictions, Stephen. I don’t mind if you switch to Da Paws, but if it’s just to say stuff that won’t be very helpful.
Got anything I can read?
No reason to thing the pause has ended Willard. The great El Nino of 2014/15 was insignificantly more robust than the one in 1998.
Projected warming then was what .87degrees higher than realized? Now just for the last 20 some years this unrealized warming figure appeared virtually out of nowhere. One with a skeptical mind just might think basic CO2 physics of warming needs a much closer look.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/
And remember folks, El Ninos are the trend fakers.
La Nina’s: nothing to see there…
Right guys?
> No reason to thing the pause has ended
Pause? What pause, Bill?
You might like Bart’s thread on this:
https://twitter.com/bverheggen/status/1355216469991317504
Nate says:
And remember folks, El Ninos are the trend fakers.
La Ninas: nothing to see there
Right guys?
=======================
Nope they are both trend disrupters that isn’t considered to be climate. If you want to see trends in climate you absolutely have to smooth out the data to eliminate the ENSO cycle.
However, doing that still doesn’t assure to any degree that other natural variation isn’t also present beyond the length of ENSO cycles.
> doing that still doesnt assure to any degree that other natural variation isnt also present beyond the length of ENSO cycles.
You’re asserting something that is very unlikely, Bill:
https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf
Willard says:
Youre asserting something that is very unlikely, Bill:
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes.
——————————–
One just has appreciate the stupidity and hubris of experts talking in absolutes. Its like saying the CO2 pulse will be around for hundreds of thousands of years as some body of water tries to hunt down the last molecule of anthropogenic caused CO2. Probably would make a great detective movie doncha think?
> One just has appreciate the stupidity and hubris of experts talking in absolutes.
Which part of “very likely” you don’t get, Bill?
Willard says:
Which part of “very likely” you don’t get, Bill?
———————————–
Passe! Willard
FAQs do not get approved in detail thus amount to a good deal of politicization. And it got tossed in AR5, despite FAQs still not being approved in detail, showing the improvement in the IPCC processes. Good riddance.
Quite simply science does not prove negatives it merely disproves explicit ‘hypotheses’. Science can claim to rule out natural change. The moron that wrote that passage doesn’t understand science.
Such junk should never ever see the light of day in anything connected to science, no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on.
In the IPCC’s deliverables, Bill, “very likely” has a statistical meaning, so your editorializing on certainty has no leg to stand on.
Funny you say that you value integrity.
Dr. Curry takes apart what the IPCC deems highly likely from a climate perspective. I didn’t need a climate perspective to see the BS. You say statistics. Indeedy do! With statistics you can argue any level of certainty you want and come up with a statistical analysis to support it.
I worked in a trade where liability was attached to being wrong. Where a person depending on my work could sue me and win it I had failed to adequately address all the issues outlined by Dr. Curry. Academia and government is completely 100% shielded from such recourse and responsibility. So instead of being a robot and believing everything you are told perhaps you ought to learn a little bit about it. Steve McIntyre’s blog has a long historical record of how you screw with statistics with regards climate issues. But its probably all about 20,000 feet over your head.
Bill knows what his mommy tells him only.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The next 15 years should be the period where this cooling trend will reach its deepest point. I see similar to what S Wilde sees. That is the cyclical nature of climate shifts. Takes some time to gain a proper perspective of what future years should mean for global weather patterns. There are enough clues though in all of the climate data produced over time though to correctly assess climate shift points, where temps move from cooling to warming.
It actually helps to have some idea of the causation of the various suspected drivers of natural climate change before getting into the prediction business.
NWS has been struggling with that for a long time on ENSO. They do a 9month forecast only but actually the way it has worked is it should be a 9month forecast given once a year on the same month as when it moves to subsequent months the forecast for month 9 months out begins to deteriorate each month to the point of no skill.
Solar folks haven’t shown much skill yet, if any, predicting solar cycles. Though they do like embracing the model that comes the closest the following cycle, something that the IPCC is wont to do for political reasons.
bill,
I agree with you here. ENSO is very difficult to forecast. We’re making progress slowly, but it is slow going and still subpar IMHO. Solar is the same or even worse. Forecasters (for the most part) cannot demonstrate skill with dynamic or statistical approaches. The only thing that seems to work is persistence (just assume the next cycle will be the same as the current one) and that’s not much of forecast really. I still think we’re due for a grand minimum anytime. I’m rooting for one because it would be a great opportunity to better calibrate the magnitude of the solar influence.
Yeah I hear you bdgwx. I can’t root for cooling because I think it would be harmful. But its hard to not want to experiment with the climate to learn more about it. So i often feel torn about it.
I realize that in effect we are in the midst of the human experiment but carbon in the atmosphere really isn’t an experiment it was pursued to improve lives from the availability of energy providing more time and resources to pursue science.
I understand why some people feel uneasy about all that. Watched Val Kilmer in Thunderheart last night. Been many years since I saw that film and it makes it clear we really probably don’t know what we are doing most of the time. Long story but its the reason I work for the environment and search for the best possible answers.
A cooling trend would be very educational. . . .as long I don’t wish for it. In the modeling work I do it would be a disaster to not have reversals of fortune as its the only way to determine if you are doing the right thing. And the true fact is, its not at likely we would be doing anything if it weren’t the case that most of the players weren’t feeling negative impacts from not doing anything.
Literally nothing is happening.
The March value continues to agree with the values of global SSTs lagged by 6 months. The 9/20 drop in SSTs was about .1 C with a value of .58 C. The last global SST value was .36 C in January. This predicts a continued reduction in UAH over the next few months.
With La Nina now looking likely to continue through 2021, we will get a chance to see if the climate industry continues to generate massive propaganda as has happened over the past 6 years. All the 21st century warming is gone.
Yep definitely absent. Soon the proponents of CAGW will be agreeing on the need for at least a couple of decades of data before saying anything. . . .again; unless the climate bails them out of having to do that.
Whats next? Extending the blanket hypothesis to a warming of the core of the earth? But no doubt that will have to wait until we get a good number of thermometers to the bottom of the ocean. And no doubt they probably won’t give the details of that either (e.g.
magma super heated by CO2 convecting downwards to the core)
bill said: Soon the proponents of CAGW
I see CAGW thrown around a lot. Can you objectively define what CAGW is?
CAGW is the central square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
I’m sure Bill will be helpful in filling the gaps.
Cool page.
Are you thinking most contrarians use 4C has a threshold for the C part?
I guess we’ll see where bill puts the target.
Thanks, b.
FWIW, Judy never responded to what she thought about a 4C world.
Searching back my notes, the best I could find is from NG:
https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2010/11/yale-exam-part-2-what-do-scientists-believe/
So once again contrarians are earning their epithet.
If you never read NG, you’re in for a treat.
first the definition of global warming if googled, is:
–noun
a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.–
Or:
“What is global warming in simple words?
Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels. Jun 3, 2010
Or:
–What is Global Warming?
Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.–
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
Or not merely that Earth average temperature increases, rather it’s the increase caused human activity. Global warming is another word for AGW. Though AWG would include stuff other than adding greenhouse gases. So deforestation is not [per definition} Global warming but is AGW.
CAGW generally tied runaway effects or consequence of human activity warming Earth. An example, having ice free arctic ocean polar sea ice- if all melts in summer, less grows back in winter,
and various other wild ideas of the consequences.
Another example of CAGW is Greenland and Antarctica losing a lot glacial ice, causing meters of sea level rise. Perhaps seen pictures on magazines of NYC completely flooded. Another thought is that warming ocean could release massive amounts of Methane gas. Ocean acidification. And many other end of world type stuff.
“FWIW, Judy never responded to what she thought about a 4C world.”
I don’t think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD. But Judy worried about CAWG effects which don’t require the world to warm by 4 C. Basically she worried about unknown weather effects which might occur from even from say 1 C of warming.
I don’t think anyone believes in CAGW, but probably everyone believes unknowable stuff could happen. Stuff like Texas can happen. As guess I would say Judy probably more interested in, can it be predicted. And how could one do this.
a)Catastrophic adjective
involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
> I dont think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD
I don’t think I mentioned “by 2100,” gb, in fact I’m not even asking about what’s being perceived as plausible.
Since you made two blunders in your first two jabes, here’s the deal. You want to entertain science-fiction scenarios about anything you fancy? Fine with me. You want to spout Freedom Fighter crap in response to my comments? You’ll get a response.
Hey Willard you sound like a wannabee task master of the socialist uniform briefcase drill team!
Did you ever consider lending your skills to being a DI?
How do you feel about a 4C world, Bill?
Even luckwarmies can’t really pretend it’s not in the cards:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
The main goal is to reach carbon zero, and I dare you stand in the way.
Willard says:
How do you feel about a 4C world, Bill?
———————
Freaking Cold!!
169, Bill.
169:
https://xkcd.com/169/
“I don’t think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD.”
BUT what does Earth which has an average temperature of 19 C, look like.
Earth has in the past has had average temperature an average temperature of 19 C.
But the Earth in the past was different world, and our world is presently in an Icehouse climate {for the last 34 million years}.
and icehouse climate is cold oceans and having glaciers in polar regions.
Our current interglacial period, the Holocene has been colder than the last interglacial period, Eemian.
One could ask, during the warmest period of Eemian, how close to 19 C did it get to in terms short time periods of say, less than 100 years. Wiki:
“The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E.” And:
“The climate of the North Cape is subarctic, with very cold winters and very cool to quite cold summers.
The North Cape (Nordkapp in Norwegian) is located on the northern coast of the island of Magerøya, in Finnmark county (which in 2020 became the county of Troms and Finnmark), at the 71st parallel, so, much further north of the Arctic Circle. Consequently, the sun never rises (polar night) from November 20th to January 22nd, while you can watch the midnight sun from May 13th to July 31st, and the white nights, in which it is not completely dark even at midnight, from April 8th and, after the midnight sun, again until September 4th.
Given the position exposed to ocean currents, in winter, the temperature only reaches -15/-17 °C (1/5 °F) on the coldest days, while in southern Finnmark the cold records are around -40 °C (-40 °F) or below.
Sometimes, the temperature can rise above freezing even in the middle of winter, and rain can fall instead of snow.
On the other hand, even in the height of summer, there can be cold days, with highs around 7/8 °C (44/46 °F), in addition, the wind can increase the feeling of cold. In May (and October) it is normally cold, and sometimes it can snow.
Occasionally, in the summer the temperature can reach or exceed 20 °C (68 °F), but sometimes it only does so for a day. In July 2014, it reached 26 °C (79 °F).”
So, it seems greater axis tilt is not going make much darker in winter {night is night} and could make it warmer in summer, or in year period one should get more sunlight reaching surface- more light for plant growth. And our greatest axis recently was 10,700 years ago, and becomes least 9,800 years in the future.
But Eemian had warmer ocean than our present 3.5 C ocean. And warmer ocean would make North Cape a lot less cold in the winter
And it seems North Cape would be much warmer within our holocene period more 5000 years ago. And a significant aspect of earlier
within our Holocene, was Sahara desert was green- lots trees and grassland. Hmm:
“About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase moister than the present began, and this lasted until about 115,000 years ago, with greater rainforest extent and the deserts almost completely covered with vegetation.”
So warmer time of Eemian also had green Sahara region.
And:”…A resumption of warm, moist conditions led up to the Holocene ‘optimum’ of greater rainforest extent and vegetation covering the Sahara. Conditions then became somewhat more arid and similar to the present.”
https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercAFRICA.html
So it seems before we can get 19 C, Sahara has to green.
And many people imagine a greening Sahara would cause a global warming effect. But even with a sahara warming effect, it seems it wouldn’t cause average global temperature to become 19 C. It’s more on order of about .5 to 1 C.
Oh, what happens if all deserts in the world, green.
I don’t think ever seen any kind analysis of that, but rising global water vapor, should not just effect the Sahara desert.
So instead of at most 1 C, it might be around + 2 C.
And we could also count warming effect from loss of glaciers {though more water vapor could cause some glacial growth. Or it’s known that shrinkage of Mount Kilimanjaro is due to lack moisture. But rainfall can wipeout glaciers rapidly, so the net effect of temperate glaciers of global warming with higher water vapor, should glacial net loss. So one expect more rainfall in Himalayas, replacing lower frozen wasteland with vegetation, and eliminating runaway cooling effects from glacial formation. Though with highest elevation and/or coldest average temperatures, more snow, though more melting, and nets to increase in glaciers- or weather could shrink them though weather could also grow them- or more year to year different in snow pack levels. So that might account for more than .5 C to warming.
Anyhow, if ocean warms to 5 C and with all these factors, it could get around 19 C. So doubling global forest area, big increase in grasslands, less temperate area with glaciers.
And what about Greenland and Antarctica. Well 5 C ocean from thermal expansion alone is somewhere around 1 meter sea level rise which by itself have significant effect upon these ice sheets. But if deserts green, that means more water added to desert regions, Sahara desert is longer all about fossil water, it’s adding to this ancient water. But one could still looking at say +2 meters of sea level rise.
But addition of .5 to ocean temperature within century seems very likely.
–Willard says:
April 3, 2021 at 12:04 PM
> I dont think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD
I don’t think I mentioned “by 2100,” gb, in fact I’m not even asking about what’s being perceived as plausible.–
Ah, I got around to addressing idea of “it ever getting to a average global temperature of 19 C” before seeing this post.
But obviously before 2100 AD is related to government policy, and we were talking about governmental policy.
But to summarize it, we currently living in 34 million year old ice age, and our present interglacial period has been cool.
Earlier in the Holocene, it was warmer, and Sahara Desert was green.
And when Sahara desert was green, it does seem like the global average temperature was anywhere close to 19 C. And after Sahara desert is grassland and forests, it’s possible Earth could reach an average temperature of about 19 C.
What failed to mention was details regarding average land and average ocean. So currently our average ocean surface is about 17 C and average land surface temperature is about 10 C and when average gives the average global air surface temperature of about 15 C.
Anyhow, one can’t get average global temperature of 19 C, without ocean surface temperature warming higher than about 17 C.
Perhaps ocean surface temperature only needs to warm to +19 C and land surface has dramatic increase of more than 15 C.
Deserts are both hot and cold, and whenever they get wetter, the average temperature increases- you get warmer nights. And in addition largest countries in world are fairly dry- Canada, Russia, US, China, can have very low temperatures during night and winter. Russia average is -4 C and Canada minus 3 C, because of this.
And snowfall can be warming effect. Though obviously raining is warmer than snowfall.
Or California has average temperature 15 C but if had rainfall it would have higher average temperature. And if ocean average temperature was about 19 C, California will get a lot more rain {probably even more snow in the winter and in the mountains}.
> But obviously before 2100 AD is related to government policy, and we were talking about governmental policy.
No it’s not, and no we weren’t. It’s related to and we were talking about how you feel about a 4C world. You’re tap dancing instead of answering directly.
3C is only a best estimate. The range is from 1.5 to 4. It has not changed much since Charney.
Whether or not we’ll get 4C by 2100 is immaterial. If 2100 is too soon for you, add a few decades. Luckwarm feelings won’t change the fact that the Earth won’t stop warming unless and until we get to carbon zero.
“No its not, and no we werent. Its related to and we were talking about how you feel about a 4C world. ”
I would feel pretty good about living in world which was 19 C.
Though can’t imagine living for all centuries that would be needed to possible live in such a world.
Though with an extremely huge/insane amount ocean volcanic activity {or something worse} it could happen within a short period of time.
And currently in southern California and California has average temperature of 15 C, I would guess it would mean the average temperature of California could be about 19 C.
India has average temperature of 24 C, and has always been 19 C or warmer {or least for last couple hundred million years}- and over billion people live there and they like the place. And Mexico currently has average temperature of about 21 C. And Germany instead of about being about 9 C, could be close to California’s average temperature.
Canada instead most people being within 200 km of Canadian/US border could more comfortably live in all parts of Canada.
Anyhow where live, it would mean I wouldn’t have any winter heating bills. And could likely have lower highest temperatures in the summer. But it would probably be more cloudy- which not the case, now.
And not having much cloudy weather is nice aspect of where I live, presently. But it seems that in California, it does not rain and instead can pour. And it seem likely it would rain much more often- and not pour.
But even with all the rain, we probably still get forest fires, at least during the drier summers. Probably be as wet as Oregon- though much warmer- and Oregon has forest fires- even the very rainy Washington State sometimes has some fires.
I guess it is a matter of personal opinion for than anything, but I just do not interpret “catastrophic” to include any consequences that can be reasonably expected by 4C of warming (or 4.5C using the IPCC upper range for 2xCO2). And I’ve posted about this before. The IPCC does not make definitive statements regarding whether 1.5-4.5C of warming will be “catastrophic”. In fact, the word is seldom used in their official publications and when it is used the context is not in reference to expected consequences of warming.
That was kind of the basis of my question…”Can you objectively define what CAGW is?” Follow-up questions might include “Who is advocating for them?” and “Is there evidence to support CAGW?”.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
”bill said: Soon the proponents of CAGW
I see CAGW thrown around a lot. Can you objectively define what CAGW is?”
Sure thing bdgwx. The word catastrophic to me would be the standard that would justify government intervention. Rather simple don’t you think?
IMO, the government shouldn’t involve itself in regulating something that hasn’t yet been established as a widespread imminent catastrophe.
After all that was the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government to guard against a catastrophic attack by another nation. Without that we don’t need a federal government. But like anytime you grant power the power becomes very difficult to contain. Government can rise to the level of a catastrophe in its own right.
So to complete the line of thought. There should be a large gap between the where government addresses catastrophe and where the government becomes the catastrophe. A narrow gap almost assures a catastrophe.
Unfortunately that gap in the last 40 years has been whittled down to something about the size of a puddle jump. And by that mean in just about everything the government involves itself in. Empire building is just too irresistible.
I suppose you disagree by virtue of your question and your position on the matter.
> After all that was the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government to guard against a catastrophic attack by another nation.
You got a cite for that, Bill, right?
W,
Your’e still trolling, right?
No cite needed. Maybe Bill doesn’t care what you think either!
Why should he?
Good morning, Mike.
You are terrified to attempt to provide the citation that I am asking, because you know it wont give the answer you would like.
Not my fault, sorry.
Live well and prosper,
W,
You really should spend more time talking to your imaginary playmates. How is Charlie?
You don’t seem to realise you asked Bill for a citation (God alone knows what goes on in your bizarre fantasy) rather than or your imaginary Mike.
Oh well, if you think I am Bill as well, good for you!
Any additional people to add to your list of my supposed alter egos? I can’t keep up with the contents of your fantasy. You even seem confused yourself.
You really need to either lift your game, or seek help from a more effective troll. The trolling standard here is not very high, unfortunately.
bill,
I honestly didn’t know. I’m not sure there is any amount of warming within reason that I would personally categorize as catastrophic. That’s why I was asking.
> You really should spend more time talking to your imaginary playmates.
I’m sorry to break it to you, son, but you’re real to me.
Yes I have a source go to the library of Congress and read about the debates leading up to the US Constitution.
bdgwx says:
bill,
I honestly didnt know. Im not sure there is any amount of warming within reason that I would personally categorize as catastrophic. Thats why I was asking.
=================================
Well we are in the same boat. We will know when it gets there.
The mentality of some prevents learning. Its like overly protecting a child, the child never learns. You have to pay out the leash. Proper regulation doesn’t stop the experiment but instead seeks the data to learn about the results. Human ingenuity hasn’t come close to reaching its limits. All you can do is stop it by not allowing people to do anything out of fear of them making a mistake.
And when you do make a mistake you don’t want to overdo the cure but instead just pull back on the reins to move more cautiously. Just out and out stopping the activity because of a mistake ends the experiment of learning how to do it in a sustainable manner.
Its almost obscene that the objective of some is to end the burning of fossil fuels, at least at this point in time. Its obscene to oppose all nuclear development. We want and need to do this and do it relatively safely.
first job is to properly educate people. This article paints a sad picture. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/01/perceptions-of-climate-impacts-at-odds-with-scientific-data/
> Yes I have a source go to the library of Congress and read about the debates leading up to the US Constitution.
Your source doesn’t need to move their armchair, Bill:
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html
Here’s a TL;DR:
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
The Constitution has nothing to do with the C in CAGW, contrarians’ favorite meme.
Bill-
The federal government does stuff to predict the weather.
https://www.weather.gov/
It’s about only thing the federal govt does somewhat well.
Another thing it does is:
U.S. Geological Survey
https://www.usgs.gov/
History:
“Created by Congress on March 3, 1879, the U.S. Geological Survey was originally dedicated to exploring the geology and mineral potential of western lands, but over its 139-year-history, it has evolved to dramatically expand our knowledge of natural science.”
I wish NASA would do 1/2 as well as these two government departments have done, but NASA does better than most of Federal government.
Willard, you forget that all the non-enumerated powers were reserved for the states.
Bill, you got caught saying stuff and you won’t succeed in rope-a-doping out of it.
Governments are not created because of any catastrophic threat. That’s just your way of coatracking libertarian crap.
Nope Willard far from being a libertarian am I.
Many decades now what I work toward is representing a large group persons who share common perspectives and working hard to develop open and transparent processes where differences between groups of people with different interests can be worked out fairly and where the benefits and costs of compromise are fairly shared.
Your technique of going along with listening to the 15 second soundbite is just the exact opposite of my approach. And why would that be Willard? Its because the power of the 15 second soundbite is the power of the 1%ers. It actually takes a big effort to listen a lot more closely and find solutions that deal with only the issues at hand and more fairly distributes the benefits and costs of government decisions.
The word catastrophic is a scalable word. Catastrophe happens to individuals a lot more frequently than to nations. If your ears are turned off all you hear is the 15 second soundbite and you aren’t getting anywhere near enough information to be able to be fair. Fact is that information is not available in any database anywhere.
So indeed catastrophe is striking many thousands of times a day on scales you are apparently totally unaware of, or are aware of and you just don’t care. The decisions of governments and the courts in common law need to listen incredibly closely to understand what the real balance of catastrophe means to a nation.
That should be enough explanation of what I mean by CAGW. So its great that none of us believe catastrophe will strike from increasing carbon, but in the narrow way you desire to frame it, you can’t be more wrong, more committed to authoritarianism than you ever even imagined you are.
> far from being a libertarian am I.
Then cut the minarchist crap.
There are many reasons why we have goverments, and raising armies is far from being the main one. Think Sierra Leone.
Willard says:
> far from being a libertarian am I.
Then cut the minarchist crap.
———————————–
What minarchist crap! You do realize that saying the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government in no way says the only reason. It merely recognizes that war is the primary thing that a state can’t manage on its own. You can include in that of less consequence to war immigration control and foreign trade.
Is English your second language?
The primary reason I left private enterprise was through an awareness that somebody had to do something about the stupid stuff that gets done in the regulatory arena, an arena that favors the big bullies in the world. . . .creates banks too big to fail. . . .puts small up and coming competition at a huge disadvantage to the mega corporations who can afford big teams of compliance lawyers and especially the international ones that get a free pass to skirt enforced compliance with the regulations altogether.
Willard says:
There are many reasons why we have goverments, and raising armies is far from being the main one. Think Sierra Leone.
———————————–
Governments? Sure governments are necessary for lots of things. The best kind of government is one just big enough to get the whatever job it must do and no more.
I don’t see it as a toy for wannabee despots to manage the people like they were an antfarm.
> You do realize that saying the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government in no way says the only reason.
You got the primary purpose wrong, Bill.
It’s really not that complex.
But keep ripping off your shirt.
form a more perfect Union.
establish Justice.
ensure domestic tranquility.
provide for the common defence [sic]
promote the general Welfare.
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity.
Those are the 6 reasons provided in the preamble. However providing for the common defense was the biggest problem.
If you want raise and army and provide a defense of the nation its good to have a good track record on honoring your promises.
The Shay’s Rebellion was the most immediate motivator to replace the Articles of Confederation.
That involved a debt to soldiers that fought in the Revolutionary War having their farms being foreclosed upon at least in part because of the failure of the US government to pay the debt owed to these men. In addition most of the problems the US was experiencing under the articles involved war debt. Meanwhile tensions with Britain was escalating and had no money to raise an army or a navy but would have to depend upon the generosity of the States to provide military units at the State’s cost.
Ensure the blessings of liberty is kind of a repeat of providing a defense. Unless you can make a case that there was something else brewing at the time that was getting people off the dime.
Shay’s Rebellion probably provided the clause to ensure domestic tranquility as a direct result of the US being unable to financially support a defense or borrow money for one.
And establishing justice and tranquility also have overtones on the problems the government was having. It was an injustice that the Shay’s rebels hadn’t been compensated and the rebellion was certainly not tranquil.
So rather than just throwing spears at what I said how about you make a different case for something more important in your view and of course with evidence of that as well.
C’mon, Bill.
The **Declaration of Independence** was, wait for it, to declare Independence. So the main reason why people create countries is sovereignty. Ask any nationalist. From that follows everything I mentioned to you.
A government’s role is first an foremost to establish a Rule of Law. Taxes help make sure the country has enough services and infrastructures that the most prosperous citizens pay more taxes.
Nations are internal affairs first. AGW is an international thing. This leads to a problem that has been known since at least Kant: nations are floating in some kind of legal semi-void.
We can’t even say that your analogy breaks, for there’s nothing that works in it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I thought I answered this earlier.
The catastrophic word in CAGW to me means the level at which government should begin to consider taking preventative action.
The only reason the Colonies created a federal government was for the purpose of mitigating the high potential of catastrophic impacts. . . .back then a war with another nation was pretty much it.
So in that regard I don’t have a number in mind. I have lived in deserts, tropical and temperate beaches, cool rainy valleys and that spans a wide range of mean temperatures. .7 degrees per century doesn’t even register a concern with me.
It is my opinion we can’t even accurately measure the warming, much less identify its cause, and even far far much less than that if its going to be good or bad. Judith Curry says all we can measure about anthropogenic climate change is the sign.
It way premature to start putting numbers on it. What we need to see are impacts. Will impacts from warming from emissions be more or less than the impacts of mitigating warming from emissions?
One cannot deny the human presence on this planet is a grand experiment. We should do it and learn from our mistakes.
lol sure, objectively define “catastrophe” for people who say the most favorable climate conditions, crop yields, and general living conditions in human history are a “crisis”
then slap a price on your speculative nightmares and call it the “social cost of carbon”
oddly “staving off the end of the current interglacial (civilization-ending event at our current technological level) and oh yes also the next 500,000 years of glaciations” never seems to make it onto the debit side of that equation, even though IPCC has insisted for some decades that this is the case
Oops, That’s embarrassing !!!
The rope holding up your pants snapped?
Tell this to Dr Schwab. No need for the great reset I suppose..
The the rope on his pants snap?
You’ve read the terms Schwab and Great Reset on the intertubes, haven’t you? I hear they’re trending.
barry, please stop trolling.
Typical ‘Richard M’ nonsense:
” With La Nina now looking likely to continue through 2021, we will get a chance to see if the climate industry continues to generate massive propaganda as has happened over the past 6 years. ”
Look at how strong La Nina is this year:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
The La Nina power moved from
– a 100% forecast for November 2020 till March 2021
down to
– a 10% forecast for April 2021 till August 2021
confirmed by
– a 10% forecast for May 2021 till September 2021.
*
” All the 21st century warming is gone. ”
That is really one of the most laughable statements since many many months.
Even UAH6.0 LT shows since January 2000 a trend of 0.17 C / decade.
And the surface time series of JMA, Japan’s Met Agency, which shares with UAH6.0 LT the lowest trend for 1979-2020 (namely 0.14 C / decade) shows since January 2000 at trend of 0.18 C / decade.
*
I don’t know why some people urge in claiming any global cooling ahead all the time. Are they paid by Heartland and GWPF?
Alarmism is BAD, regardless its direction.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon gives us all a great example of pure denial. The current month is below the average anomaly of the 21st century. Why do you deny obvious facts? And, it’s likely to continue to drop for at least the next 4 months as that is what the SSTs have done.
The current La Nina now seems to be strengthening. Is it short term or will it carry throughout 2021? We are right at what is normally called the ENSO prediction wall which makes this a rather unusual event. My guess is it will continue.
Check those ENSO forecasts in a couple weeks.
I said nothing of the future although I have pointed out many times that ocean cycles are likely to move into their negative phases relatively soon which would also make lower temperatures more likely.
This discussion about UAH’s new reference period (1991-2020) IMHO is complete nonsense.
Simply because the previous period (1981-2010) was chosen by Roy Spencer (as the successor for the deprecated 1979-1998) years before the revision 6.0 came out: revision 5.6 was already wrt 1981-2010 as well.
At that time, WMO’s official reference period still was 1971-2000.
*
What would be interesting for me would be
– to download the new anomalies and the climatology for 1991-2020
– to generate a time series of absolute temperatures out of them
– to compare that time series with what I generated in the same way for anomalies and climatology wrt 1981-2010.
In theory, the two absolute time series should be nearly identical…
If commenter MrZ still is watching Roy Spencer’s blog, he could do exactly the same job.
J.-P. D.
Binni
Bit of alarm seems to be creeping in, it is what it is. If the speed limit is 50km and I drive at say 80km and the police catch me I can.t demand to be let off because the last 100km my average works out to be 47km. Right now the temp is more or less the same as 20years ago we have to wait to see what the future holds as you know trends change all the time
Regards
Harry
> Right now the temp is more or less the same as 20 years ago
See for yourself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg
Toy with it yourself:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2021
Willard
I’m not 100% sure that WFT’s conceptor Paul Clark had time enough to take into consideration the change of reference period for UAH since Jan 2021…
Stopping in 2020 might be more secure:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2001/to:2020
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Ooops!?
My bad: I wrote nonsense above. WFT takes the anomaly file ‘as is’, of course.
JP,
Quite sure Paul didn’t.
Someone close to Roy should tell him.
Willard
He doesn’t (need to) care about that, because he never considers anomalies as numbers wrt a given period.
The problem is on our side: if we had made last year a WFT graph showing GISS and UAH plots such that via the ‘offset’ attribute, GISS is plotted wrt 1981-2010 instead of 1951-1980, it is now… wrong.
J.-P.
Harry
I understand what you mean, but you made here the typical mistake of looking at anomaly levels between two points in time, instead of looking at… the trend for that period.
Even if the anomalies were identical (I didn’t check), the trend for the 20 year period is, within UAH LT: 0.17 C / decade, a tiny bit higher than for the complete sat era.
Anomaly levels don’t matter, trends do. Sorry.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon appears to be the hiker who after long, long walk up hill comes to a cliff. His friend tells him to be careful but Bindi says not to worry. He calculated the trend including the next 6 feet and found it only drops a few feet so they can proceed without worry.
The truth is trends can be useful if you know the real causes and whether those causes are still present. Projecting trends of unknown origin is a fool’s game.
That’s a metaphor for a prediction, which is not what is being discussed.
Somewhere upthread, I read a fantastic prediction…
Stephen Wilde says:
April 2, 2021 at 3:12 PM
” Cant speak for Tim but I anticipated a cooling trend between 2010 and 2020.
It is a bit later due to oceanic thermal inertia but it does seem to be coming. ”
*
Oh well oh well!
Did top forecaster Mr Wilde ever have a look at any time series for that 2010-2020 period?
1. UAH 6.0 LT Globe: 0.33 +- 0.05 C / decade
2. JMA surface Globe: 0.33 +- 0.03 C / decade
Yeah.
So, “it does seem to be coming” ?
My humble guess is that Mr Wilde will have to be a bit patient.
J.-P. D.
For those who are interested about how absolute global average temperatures for UAH 6.0 LT look like (the graph ends with Dec 2020, due to a change in the reference period and hence to the climatology):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYWNHBLQFRetPEJ-83c1Oeh-n8PbERt0/view
Please compare the black 2020 plot with
– the 1981-2020 mean (grey);
– the years 1998 (gold) resp. 2016 (red).
J.-P. D.
Update below the Drive link: mean 1991-2020 (light blue) added.
Co2 is not a GHG and man does not cause the climate to change.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/
…and the surface temperature data is being altered.
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/rewriting-the-climate-at-nasa/
It’s not every day I see the two worst climate blogs cited in the one comment.
You must work for the IPCC.
Barry:
Is that meant to be a falsification of two papers?
These can be replicated in almost any lab. Yet years ago you were a little upset when I slammed the BBC experiment as totally deceptive and useless on YouTube and gave my reasons.
As for Tony Heller I’m certainly thankful to him for doing the work which highlights certain issues. Certainly the key one is why do all the T adjustments correlate with CO2 changes with an R^2 of 0.99? Perhaps you can answer that.
(BTW Siem + Olsen are wrong with the IPCC back-radiation formula conversion to K change which includes H2O feedback. This does not affect the actual results -just the expectation.)
The BBC experiment has nothing to do with the present experiment which I hope will be replicated and verified soon.
The data is being altered, which if you followed climategate, is premeditate to show a correlation with the rising atmospheric co2 level to promote the man caused warming theory.
What is wrong about the conversion?
S.K.
What is wrong about the conversion?
————–
From Hansen (must have been 1987 or 88) and also concurs with Charney:
The sensitivity C per W/m2 corresponds to 3C for doubled CO2 forcing (4 W/m2). If Earth were a blackbody without climate feedbacks the equilibrium response to 4 W/m2 forcing would be about 1.2C (Hansen et al., 1981, 1984)
It’s a bit of hocus pocus as to when equilibrium is established and what are all these feedbacks (H2O is prime one).
Prof Happer uses a slightly different sensitivity factor but has a similar conversion (0.75 K per W/m2). He suggests 2.2C for doubled CO2 + fixed relative humidity which compares well with Charney and others.
Seim + Olsen is only working on CO2 with NO feedbacks so would result in a CO2 sensitivity of just over 1K per doubling instead of 3K they suggest.
Oh there will be the usual complaints and excuses but thus far the warmists have NO controlled experiments to rely on.
They keep harping on Tyndal and whilst he did meticulous work he did not test any back radiation. Instead they propose blue and green flying saucers as their theoretical experiment.
There is no reason to spend any time looking at either of these two sources. I sometimes do it for fun, to see how wrong they get things. The second link is so wrong it’s not even interesting.
The first link has two papers, one from a predatory journal, so you can’t even be sure it’s been peer reviewed.
The other paper was not linked – instead the blog author links to a picture of the front page of the paper.
Why?
The blog author could easily link to the paper – here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chunhua-Liu/publication/243492513_Climate_change_in_a_shoebox_Right_result_wrong_physics/links/5b5177410f7e9b240ff0ad1a/Climate-change-in-a-shoebox-Right-result-wrong-physics.pdf
Now because I know this blog author’s tricks, the first thing I did was look up the paper and head straight to the conclusion.
“Our results apply only to the interpretation of classroomscale demonstrations; they do not call into question the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the Earths climate or existing models of those phenomena.”
THAT is why the blog author only showed a picture of the paper.
The two websites are the worst climate blogs out there. both authors are deceitful.
The point of such blogs is not to shed light on the climate debate. realclimatescience lies and distorts the story of climate data, and notrickszone scours the scientific literaturte from any source and publishes anything he can find that argues against AGW – even when it doesn’t actually argue against AGW.
They are propaganda mills. Only good for practise how to debunk, but not very challenging.
b,
Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You can’t even formulate an AGW theory. Typical cultist thinking – faith will become fact, if you repeat it often enough.
Keep repeating the assertions. They still won’t magically become true.
Barry:
So I guess you found nothing wrong with those papers.
Nor do you have an explanation for the delta CO2 vs T adj R^2 of 0.99. Normally one would want to find out why.
Having problems with authors, publishers or sites does not affect the validity unless you show something is wrong with the work like even the retracted Lancet paper on Covid 19. Those simple experiments are amenable to testing in simple labs.
I might add I was already aware of the second paper and actually posed a version from the top of my head here. I specifically asked Norman what predictions he would make about it.
Yet in contrast, about the same time I think, you were quite supportive of the BBC junk CO2 experiment. You have been quite supportive of blue and green flying saucers with solid surfaces in the sky where I might bump my head. Do you see any solid surfaces in the sky?
You have been quite supportive of the junk published by Mann – no questions asked despite clear breach of statistical methodology in Mann 98. He is a recidivist; his 2008 paper is similar junk. Despite his boasts McIntyre writes:
When challenged to show results without either stripbark bristlecones or upside-down mud , Mann (and Gavin Schmidt) stuck their fingers in their ears, with the larger climate community obtusely refusing to understand a criticism that was obvious to any analyst not subservient to the cause.
(NB: this relates to Mann et al 2008; the upside-down mud had been contaminated).
Dr Curry sums up Mann’s latest peee reviewed junk :
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/06/canceling-the-amo/
“..Brilliant! Almost as ‘brilliant’ as the Hockey Stick.
Relying on global climate models, which dont adequately simulate the multi-decadal internal variability, to ‘prove’ that such multi-decadal internal variability doesn’t exist, is circular reasoning (at best). How does this stuff get published in a journal like Science? Peer review is sooooo broken.”
Yet this climate clown is feted as some guru.
…that should read..
I already knew about the 1st experiment ..ie…Wagoner 2010 comparing Argon; I had read the full paper.
“So I guess you found nothing wrong with those papers.”
So I guess you don’t want to deal with what I wrote.
With the amount of BS out there (who posts a picture of the abstract of a paper?!), you have to get discerning on what you follow up. I know not to bother with those two websites because the ratio of dross to quality is 50 to 1.
But I followed up anyway because others chimed in. I even read a review paper on classroom CO2 experiments while I was doing it. Enjoy.
https://tinyurl.com/ve77daws
You may still choose to deal with what I wrote and not ignore it. I will certainly ignore the substance of your replies until you do me the courtesy.
Barry:
The difference is I did read what you wrote.
I pointed out I was already familiar with the first paper including your comments. I took no note of what the reference site that you disclaim said as I read both papers in toto for myself.
I also addressed your concerns about the peer review itself by showing that “reputable peer review” is hardly robust; many more damning illustrations can be given. I may add that peer review is NOT a requirement of the scientific method so why would I give it much thought when I have done my own review.
How else do I tell you that you have no argument? The only requirement is whether that controlled experimentation is robust.
As for Tony Heller I gave you my views. He made no assertions re the delta CO2 vs adj to T other than calculating the R^2 so why should I accept your aspersions which may totally relate to your own prejudices.
“Mann… He is a recidivist”
And you want me to take you seriously with political rhatoric casually tossed in to your avowals that you’re only here for the science.
Not to mention that you failed to follow the conversation – a typical foible of those with an axe to grind.
I’ll remind you.
“Co2 is not a GHG” – cried S.K.
Did you correct S.K? No, you ground your axe.
The BBC experiment? Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Does that not demonstrate that CO2 absorbs radiation, and therefore is a greenhouse gas?
S.K’s cry of no AGW, no GHG is what I replied to. It seems you strayed off-topic.
The first paper attests to the greenhouse effect. Kind of fucks up S.K’s claim. I guess S.K. isn’t interested in reading like you are. Pity.
I provided a link to a review of classroom experiments because it includes one of the ones at notrickszone’s links – the paper from the predatory journal.
What did you make of the review paper?
The experiment proves there is no GHE in a classroom demo.
It doesnt prove “Co2 is not a GHG” in the Earth atmosphere.
Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?
It should be easier to confirm the sensitivity in a controlled environment than in an uncontrolled one if co2 is a GHG.
“Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?”
Because the atmosphere is kilometers deep and a classroom is not. Angstrom made the same mistake 100 years ago when trying to replicate the GH effect using a short tube.
Short answer: ‘optical depth’.
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ese148a/lecture8.pdf
b,
You should read what you link to.
If you calculated the optical depth of a column of 100% CO2 (1 million parts per million) at 1 bar, and compared it to a column of atmosphere at 400 parts per million CO2, also at 1 bar, which would absorb the most radiation? Choose any wavelength you like.
Continuing on, what happens to the absorbed radiation? It cant just vanish – not without violating conservation laws, anyway.
You really don’t know, do you? Your faith is admirable.
Your ignorance, not quite so.
Try again.
All else being equal (including an atmosphere at 1 bar for its entire depth!), the more CO2, the more absorp.tion and re-emission/collision would occur. ‘Saturation’ would have little impact, as each layer would absorb and re-emit. That energy of that radiation can’t just disappear, after all.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry says:
”Because the atmosphere is kilometers deep and a classroom is not. Angstrom made the same mistake 100 years ago when trying to replicate the GH effect using a short tube.”
That was accounted for in the experiment Barry when they calculated the expected range of greenhouse effect.
If you calculate the length of the CO2 tube and concentration it was expected to produce about 1/3rd of the greenhouse effect that CO2 is blamed for in your atmosphere.
So your short tube argument would suggest that increasing the density of CO2 in the atmosphere would have zero effect due to the shortening of distance between the layers as is done with a tube with 2500 times the density of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you doubt that you should duplicate the experiment with a longer tube.
“That was accounted for in the experiment Barry”
I’ve lost count of the times you haven’t been able to follow the conversation. My point replied to:
“Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?”
> Ive lost count of the times you havent been able to follow the conversation.
That’s a generous way to put it, Barry.
Bill throws squirrels and expects readers not to notice the tracks he leaves.
barry says:
Ive lost count of the times you havent been able to follow the conversation. My point replied to:
Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?
————————
Its pretty sad when the most popular argument is essentially total BS. Why would anybody wonder for even one second as to why skepticism is all over the place?
Skepticism and contrarian crap isn’t the same thing, Bill.
Contrarians are on the wane. Troglodytes die.
Rejoice while it lasts!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Non-scientist here. Basic question:
If the linear warming trend since January 1979 continues at +0.14 C/decade, and 2021 temperatures come in exactly in line with that trend, will they average about 0.42 higher than the 1991-2020 average? And 2031 about 0.56 higher, 2041 about 0.70 higher, etc.?
Thanks.
Michael G,
The trendline sits at +0.21C right now. In other words, if 2021 comes in line with the trend then it will average 0.21 higher than the 1991-2020 average. 0.35 for 2031, 0.49 for 2041 and so on.
NASA
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
Tells us:
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
It’s difficult to say what the actual rate of global temperature rise is just looking at the data from the various government agencies NASA, for example, that are responsible for tracking that sort of thing for the simple reason that they change it every month. Over the past 12 months GISTEMP made over 4,000 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI].
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
These changes go on every month, and although they are small 1 or 2 hundredths of a degree, they do add up and make a difference. The earliest publication of LOTI that can be found on the Internet Achieves Way Back Machine is from 1997. Compared with LOTI today the rate over that 47 year period was increased by 0.25° per century. Here’s what that looks like:
https://i.postimg.cc/Hx7sZhkT/image.png
On top of that, taking a 40 year sample when you have 140 or 170 years of data is dishonest. After all, if you look at the data the 1905 to 1945 has a similar rise in temperature. Was CO2 responsible for that?
Are you able to describe what material differences there are between the 1997 data set and current? Because that may explain why there is a change.
If you haven’t bothered to find out, then I don’t see what your issue would be except that the rate of warming has increased along with the change.
Is that what the issue is? Would the changes be satisfactory if the change led to a cooling of the record? I know for damned sure you would not complain about it.
Are you able to describe what material differences there are between the 1997 data set and current? Because that may explain why there is a change.
bdgwx Pretty much covered it.
If you haven’t bothered to find out, then I don’t see what your issue would be except that the rate of warming has increased along with the change.
“…the rate of warming has increased along with the change.” You are really good at turning words around. The issue is that the changes caused the rate to increase. There’s a theme in climate science that repeats over and over and over again and that is: “Worse than previously thought.” Thought being the operative word.
Is that what the issue is? Would the changes be satisfactory if the change led to a cooling of the record? I know for damned sure you would not complain about it
Well it’s nice to be damned sure. All I know is what it looks like. And what it looks like is if the changes did produce a cooling of the record, it would never see the light of day.
Speaking of changes in the plural my incomplete files (ask me why they’re incomplete) document 54,366 changes to the monthly entries to LOTI since June 2003.
And I see you ignored the comment about 1905-1945 looking very similar to the 41 years of data since 1979. And what caused that?
“And what it looks like is if the changes did produce a cooling of the record, it would never see the light of day.”
And yet that’s exactly what happened when the oceanic portion of the record was adjusted, making the long term trend LESS than with all raw data, and even with the land part corrected.
Total adjustments have cooled the long-term record.
“And I see you ignored the comment about 1905-1945”
We’ve discussed it many times. You want to go another round? I’m tired of repeating myself, but for old time’s sake, if you insist…
barry says:
April 5, 2021 at 6:45 PM
And yet that is exactly what happened when the oceanic portion of the record was adjusted, making the long term trend LESS than with all raw data, and even with the land part corrected.
Total adjustments have cooled the long-term record.
How about some links to charts and before & after data.
You mean I provide a link to the data held by NOAA, and you don’t say that it’s all fiddled and fudged and completely unreliable?
Am I not wasting my time giving you what you ask for, when you’re just going to rubbish it anyway?
Here’s an explainer – you can do the rest if you’re genuinely interested.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Barry says:
April 12, 2021 at 11:14 PM
Am I not wasting my time giving you what you ask for, when you’re just going to rubbish it anyway?
Thanks for the link, you don’t have to look any further than the comments section to find the rebuttal:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
The notion that climate science has been adjusting the data has been going on for a long time:
Chip Bok cartoon 2009
The headline “Worse Than Previously Thought” is a common denominator. It doesn’t take much imagination to connect the dots to come up with a skeptical view point as to what is going on.
Regarding the bucket over the side of the ship issue, I’ve never seen the study where they actually went out on a ship and compared bucket and intake water temperatures and report the numbers.
This You Tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFO-mfH0SkA
was used in Zeke’s “Explainer” link
First up was the bucket issue and the claim that: “…the water tended to heat up as it was slowly pulled on to the deck making these measurement warmer than those taken using other methods.” And then they go on to absolutely ignore exactly how much warmer those bucket measurements tended to be. My short critique is, “All words and no numbers.”
And “Slowly pulled…” Who at Carbon Brief decided to put that spin on it?
Besides that, if canvas buckets much like desert water bags, were used, the water would have cooled not warmed.
The reality is the bucket and intake water temperatures probably didn’t vary any appreciable amount, so they weren’t reported, but we were treated to a word salad that “…the water tended to heat up…” not warm up, but heat up.
Several years ago I did a search to find a “Bucket vs. Intake” temperature comparison in the literature, and all I ever found was a model of a bucket with calculated time vs. temperature curves, but no actual data. Doesn’t mean it’s not out there.
So after all these years a search on “sea temperature bucket vs intake” Turns up this paper:
Comparing historical and modern methods of sea surface
temperature measurement – Part 1: Review of methods,
field comparisons and dataset adjustments
J. B. R. Matthews
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/191081342.pdf
About ten pages with overwhelming data that bucket temperatures are cooler than engine intake water:
In general, bucket temperatures have been found to average a few tenths of a ◦C cooler than simultaneous engine intake temperatures.
…
One of the most observation-rich bucket-intake comparisons ever conducted was that of James and Fox (1972). They analysed 13,876 pairs of near-simultaneous bucket and intake temperatures obtained aboard VOS ships between 1968 and 1970. Although of global distribution, reports were mainly from the North Atlantic and North Pacific shipping lanes. From a compilation of all observations, intake temperatures averaged 0.3 ◦C warmer than bucket readings.
But Hausfather and Carbon Brief tell us, “…the water tended to heat up as it was slowly pulled on to the deck making these measurement warmer than those taken using other methods.”
Carbon Brief posted the You Tube July 2017 and the Mathews paper above was published July 2013. I didn’t find the Mathews paper when I looked a few years ago, but surely Hausfather and Carbon Brief knew about it. Besides, where did they get the notion that the buckets would warm up compared to “other methods” I note that they didn’t say “engine intake water.” or define the “Other methods”
So Barry, you can go ahead and “rubbish” the Mathews paper
The paper you linked does not once exanmine raw SSTs, so it does not reply to my point, corrobrated in the explainer.
Adjusting SSTs cooled the long term record (since 1880s). Adjustments to the land surface records results in a long term trend that is warnmer than the raw data. Your paper merely corroboratesd what I said, but only half of it.
Combined, adjustments to SSTs and land surface data have cooled the record since 1880.
Let me know if your skeptic friends, with their references to blogsites, have done THAt work.
Meanwhile, skeptics that have done the work to construct their own data sets – the hard yeards, not just copy-pasting from blogs – have validated the temp records.
I expect you’ve forgotten the many exmaples I’ve linked you. Here are some again, to help you remember.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146
http://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/
Barry says: April 19th:
The paper you linked does not once exanmine raw SSTs, so it does not reply to my point, corrobrated in the explainer. Adjusting SSTs cooled the long term record (since 1880s). Adjustments to the land surface records results in a long term trend that is warnmer than the raw data. Your paper merely corroboratesd what I said, but only half of it.
What it does is disagree with the short video in Hausfather’s Explainer about buckets cooling or warming when they are brought up on deck.
Combined, adjustments to SSTs and land surface data have cooled the record since 1880.
That would be cooled the past right?
Let me know if your skeptic friends, with their references to blogsites, have done THAt work. Meanwhile, skeptics that have done the work to construct their own data sets – the hard yeards, not just copy-pasting from blogs – have validated the temp records.
So you provided me with a blog post that is over ten years old.
I expect you’ve forgotten the many exmaples I’ve linked you. Here are some again, to help you remember.
Besides the ten year old blog two more links that old.
What I have is files from NASA’s GISTEMP that extend back to 1997 that can be compared to what they said last month. Here are two links to what that looks like:
https://i.postimg.cc/brVBw6nb/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/sD1ZKVF3/image.png
You don’t have to search very far in the popular press to find a reference to NASA’s GISTEMP here’s one from 17 hours ago:
2020 was one of three warmest years on record, study says
NASA’s GISTEMP made 338 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) last month.
“That would be cooled the past right?”
Nope, the adjustments to raw SSTs warm the past, making the long term trend cooler. The adjustment to the past is large anough that it overwhelms the warming adjustments made to the land data, so the combined global trend is cooler than raw.
There is now more coverage, so the skeptic-made data set would have to include the new raw data. But ‘skeptics’ were complaining a decade ago that the official temp records were too warm ,and according to these skeptics, they weren’t.
Skeptics didn’t learn anything then that didn’t fit with their worldview, and they won’t learn anything now. You are the living proof.
Steve said: NASAs GISTEMP made 338 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) last month.
Actually they make well over 1000 changes every single month. The reason is because GISTEMP downloads the new ERSST and GHCN-M files each month and reprocesses the entire 1880-present time period each time. If you modify the gio.py file and add a few more decimal places to the output files you’ll see that each value changes every single time. In fact, the ERSST and GHCN-M files are posted daily so this all changes on daily basis as well assuming you run the GISTEMP code daily.
LOL! Sort like relocating weather stations once a month.
> Sort like
Look, squirrel!
Willard, please stop trolling.
LOL! Looks like Bill has no more card in his hands.
Willard, please stop trolling.#2
bill said: LOL! Sort like relocating weather stations once a month.
With over 27,000 stations in the repository now there is a pretty good chance that at least one gets relocated each month. Stations get added each month as well. Observations are being added continually even for months, years, and decades in the past. Record digitization efforts are still ongoing.
Wow thats some reanalysis. Move one station and it affects 26,999 others? Where is the master station? In the Lab at GISS?
barry says:
April 22, 2021 at 11:05 AM
“That would be cooled the past right?”
Nope, …
I put links to data and charts showing that the NASA’s Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) over the span of a decade or more has been changed enough that LOTI’s overall temperature trend has increased. Barry puts up a word salad.
bdgwx says:
April 22, 2021 at 11:23 AM
Steve said: NASAs GISTEMP made 338 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) last month.
Actually they make well over 1000 changes every single month…
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.
bill said: Wow thats some reanalysis. Move one station and it affects 26,999 others? Where is the master station? In the Lab at GISS?
I didn’t say that.
I suggested changing every station with every monthly run was like changing the location of every station. You are the one that suggested they change at least one every month.
One huge change is that GISS switched from using the GHCN-M QCU file to the QCF file. The QCU file is the unadjusted data. The QCF file contains the pairwise homogenization adjustment to correct for non-climatic biases caused by station moves, time of observation changes, and instrument changes. Other change include digitization of old records. These often include areas that are sparsely covered.
Wow, temperatures are back to 1982 levels. Clearly, the increase in CO2 is causing warming.
Dr Spencer, I just completed a controlled experiment that every climate scientist should be running.
Material:
2 Plastic Containers
Aluminum Foil
2 Scientific Thermometers
2 1000 lumen LED Lamps
2 12 oz bottles of water
Long-Pass IR Filter
I put the Long-Pass IR Filter in front of the 2 1000 lumen LED lamps and pointed them 6 inches away directly at the 12 oz water in the aluminum foil lined plastic container.
I then placed the other container in the near vicinity but blocked it from the lamps’ LWIR. This is the control.
I them placed the thermometer sensor in the water and recorded the temperatures over 3 days.
After 3 days of blasting the water with LWIR between 13 and 18µ from 2 1000 lumen lamps there was absolutely no uptrend in temperatures and no difference between the two water samples that could be considered warming. I had a slight calibration error where one thermometer consistently showed a 0.1 degree difference.
Anyway, this is a very very very very easy controlled experiment that anyone can run in any University Lab. When controlled for the LWIR between 13 and 18µ you will see that CO2 can not warm water even if you use extreme lighting like 2 1000 lumen lamps.
This is what was expected because LWIR between 13 and 18µ is consistent with -80C°. If those wavelengths could actually warm water, Ice would melt itself.
BTW, I would appreciate everyone running the same experiment and confirming or refuting my findings. If my findings are confirmed, it totally debunks the AGW theory.
CiL, you’re on the right track. 15μ photons cannot raise the temperature of ocean surface water. But your demonstration has several weak points.
The first concern, as Ken mentioned below, is using LED lamps. Because the photon emission is different from an LED than from a filament, you don’t know if enough IR is even been emitted. I would use an incandescent bulb, to eliminate any doubt.
Next, what are you using for a “long-pass IR filter”? How do you know the photons passing through are in the band you want? If you have access to a spectrum analyzer, that would help. If not, an inexpensive hand-held IR thermometer that can read temperatures at least as low as -60F would do.
Finally, I would recommend 3 plastic containers — One being heated directly by a bulb, one being “heated” by a second bulb, thru the IR filter, and one in the shadow of both bulbs, i.e., only being affected by room temperature. That last container would be your “control”.
ClintR, thanks for the comments. LEDs do produce IR but at a reduced level. I’ll re-run the experiment using an actual IR LED to remove any questions. Using 2 1000 lumen LEDs I assumed would easily output far more LWIR than the 0.94 W/M^2 of CO2 Backradiation provided by Industrial Era CO2. Anyway, great point, and I’ll make the adjustment meant.
When you buy the Long-Pass IR Filter they provide the spectrum. You buy them depending on the wavelengths you want to allow to pass. That is why they are called Long-Pass Filters.
I’ll work on the last part. I think if I simply put the samples in insulated coolers with a hole cut in them and cover the holes with the filter. Place them in a dark room so only IR back radiation is present, and then shine an IR LED through the filter on the one container that we should be good.
Once again, thanks for the comments. My only question is why hasn’t the rest of the scientific community run such a simple experiment. It should have been the first experiment run before all this CO2 drives climate change nonsense started.
Believing that thermalizing 1 out of every 2,500 atmospherica molecules can change anything is a stretch to begin with.
You’re still going to have trouble getting as low energy photons as 15μ, with any IR emitting LED. Good quality “long-pass IR filters” are expensive.
Save yourself some money by just using ice cubes to heat your water. Ice emits a spectrum peak at about 10μ, which is 50% “hotter” than the CO2 15μ photon. If you can’t warm something with ice cubes, you can’t warm it with CO2.
Be careful with ice cubes, as the idiots tell us the flux adds and you could burn your house down with enough ice cubes!
“You’re still going to have trouble getting as low energy photons as 15μ, with any IR emitting LED. Good quality “long-pass IR filters” are expensive.”
Clint, you are dead on and seem to be one of the few that seems to understand how complex this issue.
I can’t even find filters that cut-on around 13µ. I accidentally thought 1300nm was 13µ and bought the wrong filter. Problem is CO2 emits 2.7 and 4.3µ which are consistent with 330C° and 800C°. Even if I buy a CO2 lamp it will still emit those wavelengths.
In reality the best way to do this would be to find a blackbody radiator and warm it to -80C°, but CO2 isn’t a blackbody, it only emits 13 to 18µ.
In reality it basically comes down to trying to warm water by adding ice. There is no way radiation from a blackbody of -80C° is going to warm anything.
Clint, these are the specs for a Long-Pass Filter:
Material: Plastic
Shape: Rectangular
Size: 75mm*25mm
Thickness: 0.8mm
Transmittance at 800-1600nm: 90%
Transmittance at 680-800nm: 10%
Transmittance at 400-680nm: 0%
Quantity: 2 pieces
You need a filter that will pass 13 to 18µ
You can get more expensive photographic filters to narrow the filtering down even more to specifically 13 to 18µ.
Here is the exact filter you need:
1300nm High Performance Longpass Filter, OD >4.0 Coating Performance
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/1300nm-250mm-dia-high-performance-longpass-filter/32123/
Bit pricey, but it would finally put an end to all this debate on CO2 causing climate change.
My understanding is that LED emissivity is about emitting a very narrow band of energy. Those 1000 lumens probably don’t include any IR energy.
Correct Ken. An LED emits based on characteristics of a “p-n junction”, not thermal energy. The S/B equation doesn’t apply to an LED.
Ken, we will re-run the experiment using an IR LED. LEDs do emit the IR spectrum, just not as much as the visible spectrum. That is why I used 2 1000 lumens. I wanted to make sure we exceeded the small amount of back radian provided by CO2.
I had not considered there would be application for LEDs in the IR spectrum. I learned something today; you can buy LEDs that put out light at 15 um.
Ken, I just went ahead and purchased ceramic very very very hot IR Lamps. I’ll use aluminum foil to concentrate the IR light and keep the lamps at a distance. The lamps put out enough energy to revive lizards, so I know it provides more IR than the back radiation than the existing back-radiation from CO2. Otherwise, the lizards wouldn’t be in hibernation.
Not sure what you mean by controlled experiment.
Two days and no evaporation/condensation ??
No heat exchange with surroundings losing any heating almost on the fly??
(would expect the plastic wall facing the lamps ought heat a little – if any IR was coming through)
Hard to get comments through
CO2isLife Use science .
Not pointless hand waving
” LWIR between 13 and 18 is consistent with -80C.”
‘-
You believe in radiation. That is good.
This experiment is done every day in homes around the world.
Pour a cup of hot tea. Turn the lights on. Go out for the day.
Result the tea cools down.
–
Hint it is not as cold in the room with the lights on.
Angech, not sure your point. This experiment was done in the dark with continual addition of LWIR applied to one sample. Very similar to the light and bean plant experiment you run in 1st grade.
“Not sure what you mean by controlled experiment.
Two days and no evaporation/condensation ??”
Can you name a real-world example where that wouldn’t happen? The key is the samples were basically sided by side with the only variable being changed was the application of the LWIR. All other factors were controlled. They may have varied a bit, but the variation was equal on both sides.
Thanks Tony, I’m rerunning the experiments adjusted for all the comments.
Tony, we are addressing all your issues.
“I put the Long-Pass IR Filter in front of the 2 1000 lumen LED lamps and pointed them 6 inches away directly at the 12 oz water in the aluminum foil lined plastic container.”
You should use an incandescent bulb that has a blackbody spectrum like the sun. LED lights emit very little long wave IR.
That is one fatal error in your experiment.
Just use one of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Reptile-Ceramic-Emitter-Infrared-Aquarium/dp/B017RCQ4JO
Nate, that is the Lamp I just bought. A ceramic lamp.
This is the one that I may buy for the next version.
Carbon Dioxide Spectrum Tube
https://www.flinnsci.com/carbon-dioxide-spectrum-tube/ap1331/
One way or the other we will get answers to these questions.
OK, I’ve addressed all the issues and improved the experiment:
1) I’ve purchased 2 100 Watt IR Lamps that do get very hot.
2) I’ve purchased 2 Styrofoam Coolers
3) I’ve purchased a 1300nm cut-on LWIR Filter to truly isolate the 13 to 18µ LWIR effect on H20.
I should have the results by next week assuming delivery of all products.
Why not just buy LEDs that emit energy at the desired spectrum? No mucking about with LWIR filters which subsequently removes the issue of whether the filter is working as expected.
Ken, the problem is isolating the 13 to 18µ wavelengths. H20 absorbs more IR below 13µ than CO2 does. You can’t really find a lamp that emits specific wavelengths without paying up for them.
That may be the next phase, however. A CO2 gas lamp bulb costs $45.20 and the lamp costs $242.00. That way we will be 100% certain we are dealing with the proper wavelengths because CO2 will be the gas-producing them.
Once again, this is such a simple and relatively cheap experiment that I can’t believe every high school in the world isn’t running.
“Once again, this is such a simple and relatively cheap experiment”
Well, as you learned, not so simple.
There is a problem with the CO2 Lamps, they are to be used for no more than 30 seconds at a time. It looks like filters are the best. Also, CO2 emits SWIR which isn’t relevant to the GHG Effect, so the lamp would be adding too much energy anyway.
CO2 absorbs and emits 2.7 and 4.3µ which aren’t emitted by the earth, except over volcanos and fires.
4.3µ is 330C°
2.7C° is 800C°
How about an alcohol flame, “Ethyl alcohol’s flash point is 55°F, its ignition temperature is 685°F, ”
And wiki, cool flame:
“A cool flame is a flame having maximal temperature below about 400 °C (752 °F).”
I think normal candle is fairly hot:
“Temperature. The hottest part of a candle flame is just above the very dull blue part to one side of the flame, at the base. At this point, the flame is about 1,400 °C”
And:
“Medium-wave and carbon (CIR) infrared heaters operate at filament temperatures of around 1000 °C”
It seem alcohol flame might best. Maybe have it heat something, small blackbody surfaced disk, in which you could point at a target.
wiki:
“An alcohol burner or spirit lamp is a piece of laboratory equipment used to produce an open flame. It can be made from brass, glass, stainless steel or aluminium.” And:
“Alcohol burners are preferred for some uses over Bunsen burners for safety purposes, and in laboratories where natural gas is not available. Their flame is limited to approximately 5 centimeters (two inches) in height, with a comparatively lower temperature than the gas flame of the Bunsen burner.”
Amazon:
Sunnytech Mini Brass Metal Alcohol Lamp for Stirling Engine Steam Engine Alcohol Burner Can Be Used to Boil Tea Coffee M095-1
Price: $10.99
1300 nm cut in = 1.3 um. That will do quite a poor job of isolating 13-18 um light.
Tim, you are right. I need to adjust my order. Thanks for identifying that error.
CO2isLife, How do you plan to remove the effects of convection from your test setup?
HERE’s what I did to cancel out convection while allowing the effects of IR emissions to have a measurable impact. When you have your test setup finished, I would suggest that you provide photos for all to see.
E. Swanson, both of the water containers were exposed to the same convection. The samples are next to each other. Remember, the objective is to see if LWIR will warm H20. My hypothesis is that it will likely COOL the water through extra evaporation.
Anyway, next phase will use coolers to control many more factors, and I may buy CO2 lamps to isolate everything.
E. Swanswon,
That is a well designed experiment with convincing results. (And actually quite similar to something I started building a while back, but then got sidetracked by other things.)
The fact that foil is SO much better than clear plastic wrap is pretty much irrefutable.
* The difference cannot be due to convection — both stop air flow.
* The difference cannot be due to conduction — plastic would be a better thermal insulator.
* the difference must be due to radiation.
Bravo. (Now I may have to see if I can find my ‘stuff’ and perform my experiment to independently confirm your results with slightly different conditions.)
Yes, Tim, the difference is due to radiation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Note the “reflected rather than absorbed”. Radiative insulation works via the reflectivity of the material, not back-radiation.
Wikipedia is (usually) a great source for learning the basics. It is not always a great source for deeper or more subtle points.
Reflection of thermal radiation back to its source is certainly one way to limit heat loss. A quite effective way, actually, which is presumably why it is highlighted. So if you are an engineer designing something specifically to reduce heat loss by radiation then you use reflectors (eg space blankets).
But you once again latch on to one sentence and ignore broader issues. Like the first line in that wiki article. “Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence. ”
That is their defining statement. A layer that absorbs radiation, warms up, and then emit some of that radiation back ALSO provides a ‘reduction of heat transfer’. And is ALSO ‘thermal insulation’ (by the definition of your article).
Obviously not, Tim, because the layer which warms up is being warmed by the initial layer. It can’t then warm up the initial layer further. Not without violating thermodynamic laws.
Look here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the Stefan–Boltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
As they note, the initial layer still radiates 460 W, in other words, does not warm up.
P.S: note that theoretical example was with emissivity = 1, in practice MLI uses reflective materials so emissivity will be less than 1.
DREMT, you missed a couple key statements in that quote you provided.
1) “held at a fixed temperature of 300 K”
So you are right that it does not warm up, but that is because it was designed to stay at 300K using some sort of thermostat mechanism.
2) for a net [radiative] loss of 230 W
SO as they ACTUALLY note, the loss in NOT still 460 W!
There is a net radiative loss of 230 W from the original surface to the new layer. There is a net radiative loss of 230 W from the layer to space. A nice steady situation. The outer layer is 300 * 0.5^(0.25) = 252 K. So in this example, they could maintain the temperature at 300 K, but needed only half the power!
If, on the other hand, they had kept a fixed POWER of 460 W into the original surface (similar to the experiment mentioned above), then the temperature would have risen. The net loss from both the outer layer and the original surface would have been constant at 460 W. The *outer* layer would have been 300 and the inner surface would have risen to 300 * 2^(0.25) = 357 K.
I am curious which law of thermodynamics is violated by any of this.
"So in this example, they could maintain the temperature at 300 K, but needed only half the power!"
Imagine how useful this would be if the real world worked like that. Sadly, it doesn’t.
Of COURSE the real world works like this! If you add more insulation, you need less power to maintain a given temperature! The article you were using says exactly this!
“The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
Right there. Literally in the passage you quoted. An external heater of one half of 460 W = 230 W can keep the original surface at 300K when there is an outer, passive, unheated layer intercepting the radiation. Without the layer, a 460 W external heater would be needed to keep the original surface at 300 K.
There is simply no other way to read the article you presented as correct.
Then the article I presented is wrong.
You can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
If you can’t trust your own judgement regarding a simple scientific article like this, why should anyone else trust your scientific judgement?
Oh, I disagreed with the article beforehand. I just wanted to be the one to link to it first, and for you to be the one to explain what was wrong with it.
You can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
OMG, DREMT quotes the MLI example that thoroughly demolishes his beliefs. But fails to notice.
How is that possible?
The two layers reduce radiative flux by a factor of two. IOW two layers are more insulating than one.
The layers are simply black bodies, so that destroys his argument that radiative shielding can only be done by reflection.
It is another astonishing DREMT display of 1+1 = 1 .
You can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
“You cant ‘need only half the power’ to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional layer of”
R10 insulation to an existing layer of R10 insulation.
“You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.”
No surprise that DREMT lacks the basic understanding that all insulation is passive, and yet it still INSULATES!
Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread, you can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
I await your response, Tim.
“I just wanted to be the one to link to it first, and for you to be the one to explain what was wrong with it.”
No one is buying THAT, DREMT!
(And even if they did buy it, you would be admitting 1) you post false information and 2) you turn to me to explain things properly.)
“You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.”
What does “passive” have to do with anything?
Adding a ‘passive’ lid lets me keep a pot of water boiling, but turn down the stove.
Adding ‘passive’ insulation lets me keep my house warm with a smaller furnace.
Adding a ‘passive’ coat keeps me warmer in the winter.
Adding ‘passive’ layers with varying impacts on radiation in Swanson’s experiment made the temperature rise varying amounts (which you agreed with!).
Tim, all arguments at this blog have been had many, many times before. Normally, when I link to the “Thermal Insulation” wiki and make the argument that, as they note, radiative insulation works via the reflectivity of the material, the response is to link to the article on MLI (which is ironic, because in practice all MLI uses highly reflective materials anyway). This time I thought I would spice things up by linking to it first. In general, the article is fine, the only error appears to be in that one section I quoted (which lacks any citation, I notice), in which their logic leads to the absurd conclusion that adding a single BB layer means you only need half the power to maintain the same temperature.
I mean…imagine if it really worked that way in real life. That would mean, with one single layer with emissivity less than 1, you could do even better than only needing half the power to maintain the same temperature! Then start adding other insulative properties to your single layer, or alternatively add more layers, and it gets even better than that…where does it end? Needing only one millionth of the power to maintain the same temperature!? Insulation is just not that effective, Tim.
” the only error appears to be in that one section I quoted (which lacks any citation, I notice), in which their logic leads to the absurd conclusion that adding a single BB layer means you only need half the power to maintain the same temperature.”
except that it agrees with the equations given, which in turn can be found in the cited textbook Savage, Chris J. (2003). ‘Thermal Control of Spacecraft’ and elsewhere.
“Then start adding other insulative properties to your single layer, or alternatively add more layers, and it gets even better than that…where does it end?”
Indeed DREMTs denial of facts doesnt seem to ever end.
The stated MLI equation gives heat transfer proportional to 1/N for N layers. For N approaching infinity heat transfer approaches 0. How absurd is that!
Having made this erroneous GPE argument for the last 2 y or so, DREMT has run out of options.
Even when caught in logical pickles, such as here, or presented with facts he cannot refute, such as here, he sees no option but to double down on stupid and dishonest.
And thus he goes all in, declaring ever more ridiculous and ever more dishonest things.
I await your reply, Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
“Tim, all arguments at this blog have been had many, many times before.”
An apparent realization that it is quite pointless to KEEP BRINGING THEM UP.
And yet he still does!
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
March 3, 2021 at 9:32 AM
This was the original Green Plate Effect:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
One of the many ways it was debunked was..”
Once again, I await your reply, Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
“Tim, the only person I am responding to”
As if inconvenient facts just vanish when I dont respond to them!
Again, I await your reply, Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
“I await your reply, Tim,”
What Nate said. ^^
“Tim, all arguments at this blog have been had many, many times before.”
Yes, for centuries. And the best ideas survive and get put into the thermodynamics textbooks. And your interesting-but-misguided ideas get discarded.
“the only error appears to be in that one section …
Science doesn’t work that way. Sure, undergraduate-level textbooks have errors sometimes (almost always just typos), but that is not the case here. That ‘one section’ is embedded within the fabric of thermodynamics. That ‘one section’ and only be discarded by unravelling many other adjacent parts of the fabric.
“I mean…imagine if it really worked that way in real life. That would mean, with one single layer with emissivity less than 1, you could do even better than only needing half the power to maintain the same temperature!”
I don’t have to imagine — it is sitting on my desk right now!
If I put a 500 ml hot coffee into a simple metal container, it would stay hot for only a matter of minutes. But I have a wonderful double-layer metal coffee mug that keeps the coffee hot for hours. The interior is shiny metal with a low emissivity. Heat loss for this double layer container is easily 1/10 that of a single layer, due to the low radiative transfer from the first layer to the second layer. The outer layer doesn’t even feel warm when boiling water is added! I could use 1/10 (or less) as much power to keep this coffee warm as would be required without the second layer.
“What Nate said.”
I no longer respond to Nate, and he knows that. Haven’t done for nearly two years now. So, if you want responses to any points Nate has raised, you will have to raise them yourself.
“That ‘one section’ is embedded within the fabric of thermodynamics. That ‘one section’ and only be discarded by unravelling many other adjacent parts of the fabric.”
Typical TF waffle and rhetoric.
“The interior is shiny metal with a low emissivity”
Exactly. Radiative insulation works via reflectivity. Another example of that, thanks.
You keep trying to wiggle out of what you said.
“I mean…imagine if it really worked that way in real life. That would mean, with one single layer with emissivity less than 1, you could do even better than only needing half the power to maintain the same temperature!”
I provided an example of exactly what you asked for.
* single layer covering — check
* emissivity < 1 — check
* even better than 1/2 power — check
What you consider an absurd fantasy is the standard thermos bottle!
I could presumably build a similar travel mug with the emissivity = 1 on all the surfaces. It would work much worse than the one I have, but it would be very close to 1/2 the power loss due to radiation.
Swanson already did a similar experiment (above). It worked. Less transparent films led to more warming.
If I could make a suggestion for Swanson, it would be to repeat the experiment with a few other conditions.
* Like a sheet of paper. This should have emissivity close to 1 and be better than the clear plastic but worse than the Al foil.
* Or spray painted Al foil, which should be very similar to paper.
* Or 2 layers of plastic, paper, and foil. Two layers of plastic should make little or no difference. Two layers of paper should help. 2 layers of foil should help more.
Tim, you also said:
“If I put a 500 ml hot coffee into a simple metal container, it would stay hot for only a matter of minutes”
According to what we are discussing, the act of merely adding any surrounding layer at all ought to mean your coffee needs only half the power to remain at the same temperature. Never mind the fact that the simple metal container will still have emissivity less than 1. So your “staying hot for only a matter of minutes” isn’t good enough. It ought to be staying hot for longer than that. Even if somehow the emissivity of the container was one.
This is an awkward discussion for you because I am not disputing that radiative insulation exists or works. I am merely arguing along the lines of the first Wiki article, that radiative insulation works via reflectivity. That’s difficult for you to argue with because every example of radiative insulation you will find in real life does utilize reflectivity. Including MLI.
Every real example of radiative insulation uses reflection because it is more *effective*, not because it is the only option. No one is going to wrap a satellite in layer after layer plastic with emissivity ~ 1 when they could use 1 or 2 layers of shiny metal with emissivity ~ 0.05 instead.
Your inability to move beyond emissivity = 0.0 to emissivity = 1.0 says that you ARE disputing that radiative insulation works — certainly disputing the basic equations and principles. Or lets turn it around. Show us that you DO know how radiation works with some simple calculations.
1) A sphere with emissivity = 1 and surface area 1 m^2 has a 100 W heater inside it. It is suspended in an evacuated chamber with walls @ 300 K and emissivity = 1. Show that the sphere will be 315 K.
2) Change the emissivity of the sphere to to 0.05 and show the sphere will be 456 K now.
3) Go back to emissivity = 1 for the sphere. Add a thin concentric shell with emissivity = 1 just barely above the first so that the surface area is still approximately 1.0 m^2. Show that the shell will be 315 K. Show that the original sphere will be 328 K.
4) For (3) reduce the power to 50 W (1/2 the original) and show the shell will be 308 K and the sphere will be 315 K.
If you can’t actually do the calculations, then you don’t understand the topic. If you think I am wrong, show your equations and your work.
I have nothing to prove, so will not be performing at your request.
Its useless arguing this stuff.
What you need is an experiment that establishes a greenhouse effect for a planet that can be replicated.
Woods proved it was wrong with a greenhouse. Response by warmists to that is the greenhouse effect isn’t a greenhouse effect.
Since they they have never described what kind of effect it is. Manabe and Wetherald devised a hypothesis of how the lapse rate came about that is contrary to basic physics of gasses of how the lapse rate is actually constructed.
Its kind of like instead of a greenhouse they made numerous tiny little ones they sum up the non-working results from.
G&T expressed their frustration of not being able to analyze any of these tiny little greenhouses. . . .and the warmists focused on G&T suggesting the non-described greenhouse effect might be violating the 2nd law by. . . .uh. . . .saying the same stuff as above.
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
— Lord Kelvin
“You cant “need only half the power” to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer.”
Would you need the same, full 100% power? Maybe 90% is enough? Or 66.7%? Maybe only 25%? You can’t do the calculations! All you can do is imagine.
Tim, you always do the same examples, and always try this same tactic. As soon as I see you have your sphere with a heat source and walls at a fixed temperature (in other words you have an additional heat source somewhere to keep your walls at that temperature) and that you are basically repeating the already debunked steel greenhouse concept, I lose interest immediately. You know the GPE is already the simplest example to explore these ideas and you know that we have been through all that, so what are you trying to pull? Just more TF rhetoric and games.
I often do similar examples because they are simple and highlight the relevant physics. As such, they are accessible to people with even a rudimentary understanding of the equations. These examples are a starting point — like frictionless surfaces and massless pulleys.
You loose interest because you can’t actually do that physics. You can’t actually find an error in the calculations, so you repeat some vague, unsubstantiated claims. If you can’t calculate a bare sphere in a room at fixed temperature, how can you possible claim to know anything more complicated?
Tim, if I can explain how you calculated your 1) and 2), will you stop commenting for 120 days?
“I lose interest immediately. You know the GPE is already the simplest example to explore these ideas and you know that we have been through all that, so what are you trying to pull? Just more TF rhetoric and games”
Ha! Tim is the most patient listener and explainer of the facts. So apparently who the poster is, is not a real issue.
The real issue is the facts are unsupportive.
The facts involve proven technology, and proven theory.
Your lack of interest in these unsupportive facts is quite a poor excuse.
If you have no interest in honest discussion of the GPE facts , then STOP BRINGING IT UP!
Its that simple.
I repeat my question to Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
”
I have nothing to prove, so will not be performing at your request.”
Translation:
I cant prove the science is wrong. I just have a feeling that is absurd. Thats my ‘winning’ argument.
Gosh, why arent people convinced?
Again, Tim, if I can explain how you calculated your 1) and 2), will you stop commenting for 120 days?
Tim, you must be getting to DREMT, as he feels it very important that you stop posting!
Really, everyone who understands the science should just stop posting annoying science facts!
Once again, Tim, the only person I am responding to in this sub-thread, if I can explain how you calculated your 1) and 2), will you stop commenting for 120 days?
DREMT,
If you can show how to analyze 1 & 2 using correct physics, I will be impressed. That is a great start toward understanding and puts you ahead of most people in these discussions.
If you can show how to analyze 3 & 4 using correct physics, I will be very impressed. Then there will be no need to comment back to you on this topic.
Like I said, I have nothing to prove; and I’m not impressed by your “DREMT can’t calculate this” game that you seem to want to play, trying to make it all about the player and not the ball. So I’ve come back with my own game. If you want me to show how you calculated your 1) and 2), then you can offer up something you value in return. Your time commenting on this blog. If you really think I can’t do it then you should be confident to accept the terms I proposed. After all you have already made a big fuss, quoted Lord Kelvin and gone on about how inferior you think my understanding is. That wouldn’t be right if you actually thought I could do it, all along.
If, on the other hand, you were just full of crap and trying to discredit your “opponent”, whilst knowing full well that I can calculate it, then I guess you would try to avoid accepting the terms I proposed.
If you can calculated all this properly, then you would know that the ‘steel greenhouse’ has not been debunked. Then you would know that one layer of BB material really can cut in half the power lost by radiation. Then you would know the “blue plate experiment” really does work.
If you pick the side of actual physics, there would be no need to continue this discussion.
“game that you seem to want to play, trying to make it all about the player and not the ball.”
OMG, who would do that?
DREMT. ALL THE TIME.
“Manabe and Wetherald devised a hypothesis of how the lapse rate came about that is contrary to basic physics of gasses of how the lapse rate is actually constructed.”
Sure thing. Pls show us how it is contrary to basic physics…
I recall introducing you to MW in response to you false claim that models didnt consider convection.
Tim, if you were honest, you would not attempt to discredit your “opponent” by suggesting they can’t do calculations when you actually think that they can. Of course, if you genuinely thought that I couldn’t do it, then you would have been happy to agree to the terms. You are full of crap, Tim.
“1) A sphere with emissivity = 1 and surface area 1 m^2 has a 100 W heater inside it. It is suspended in an evacuated chamber with walls @ 300 K and emissivity = 1. Show that the sphere will be 315 K.
2) Change the emissivity of the sphere to to 0.05 and show the sphere will be 456 K now.”
How you did it:
1) Using the SB Law:
E = σT^4
You found that the E for a T of 300 K was 460 W/m^2. Since the sphere is receiving 460 W/m^2 from the walls and 100 W/m^2 from the internal heater you simply added them together to get 560 W/m^2. Then, again using the SB Law, to get T from E, you would have used:
T = (560/σ)^0.25
T= 315 K
For the temperature of the sphere. This is because you are assuming whatever it receives is what it must then emit, and if it is emitting 560 W/m^2 its temperature must be 315 K.
2) Similar to 1), you are using the SB Law to work out what the sphere is receiving, and therefore what it must emit. The only complication is the emissivity. So, you are aware that the walls are emitting 460 W/m^2, but the sphere will reflect most of this radiation due to its low emissivity. 460 x 0.05 = 23 W/m^2 that the sphere will actually absorb. The rest will be reflected. That means, you reason, that the sphere will have 100 W/m^2 from its internal heater plus the 23 W/m^2 from the walls and be receiving (absorbing) 123 W/m^2, so it must warm until it emits 123 W/m^2. However, the emissivity is only 0.05. So, if you divide 123 by 0.05 you get 2,460 W/m^2, which is what a blackbody would be emitting at the temperature you are looking for.
T = (2460/σ)^0.25
T= 456 K
Wow impressive. It took two years but he finally is able to solve a homework problem!
Dare he apply it to 3, 4, and risk finding out his beliefs are wrong??
Or will he just declare physics has it all wrong?
DREMT, No one put you in charge (no matter how ironic your name might be). I don’t have to play by your rules. I enjoy the conversations and reply if I like.
As for the calculations, I actually did think you could do them. That is why I am amazed that you so boldly insist on wrong answers.
You are 1/2 way there. Now try (3) and (4) and confirm/debunk the ‘steel green house’ for yourself. Then you will never again have to wonder. You will never again have to take someone else’s word about ‘steel greenhouses’ or ‘green plates’ or thermos bottles.
“As for the calculations, I actually did think you could do them.”
So your 6:35 PM, 7:04 PM and 5:42 AM comments were all BS then, weren’t they Tim!? So why should I even continue a discussion with a proven BS artist?
I should have perhaps have said “won’t” rather than “can’t”. Or perhaps “you have never demonstrated that you can”.
That said, you STILL haven’t shown that you can do the proper physics for anything other than the simplest problems. The fact that I think you can do the math for simple cases doesn’t mean I have any confidence that you can do the next level properly.
Rather than spending post after post avoiding the physics, just go ahead and do it already! Confirm or debunk the steel greenhouse for all to see. Confirm or debunk “You can’t “need only half the power””.
Known BS-artist Tim, 3) & 4) ain’t exactly difficult. I already went through your “logic” for 1) & 2), I think most people will get what you have done for 3) once they realize the sphere (with its 100 W/m^2 internal power supply) at 328 K would be emitting 660 W/m^2, the passive shell at 315 K would be emitting 560 W/m^2, and the walls at 300 W/m^2 emit 460 W/m^2. I think it is fairly self-explanatory.
The problem is that you are adding a passive shell and thinking that this will increase the temperature of the inner sphere. The shell does not have its own power source, it is passive. All that would happen in real life is, the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.
I would note that Tricky Tim is not correctly representing the original Steel Greenhouse concept here, either, in that he has added these walls at 300 K which are effectively a second heat source. In the original concept the only heat source was within the sphere. There was just the sphere and the shell.
Ah DREMT understands the logical steps to get there, but refuses to be led by logic..
Tricky Tim, if the space within your walls at 300 K was filled with a material which was the same as the sphere, the temperature of the walls would remain 300 K (because they are fixed at that temperature), and there would be a temperature gradient through to the sphere itself. All energy transfer would be via conduction. What would the temperature of the sphere be (the sphere still has its 100 W power source)?
“All that would happen in real life is, the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.”
You certainly are working hard to get the wrong conclusion.
If the heated sphere is within surroundings at temperature T, it is easy to find the temperature of the sphere with 100 W/m^2 of power.
SURROUNDINGS SPHERE
0 K ………. 205 K
205 K …….. 244 K
300 K …….. 315 K
315 K …….. 328 K
You did the calculations. You know how this works. You don’t dispute any of those numbers.
Now note — it makes NO DIFFERENCE *why* the surroundings are the temperature they are. Nothing in the calculations depends on how the surroundings get to their temperature. Nothing in the calculation cares about “active” or “passive”. It also makes no difference whether we call the surroundings a “shell” or “walls”.
Only temperature matters!
If the sphere is surrounded by a 300 K shell or by 300 K walls, the sphere will be 315 K.
If the sphere is surrounded by a 315 K shell or 315 K walls, the sphere will be 328 K.
Tricky Tim, a response to my question, please. Then we can get onto what numbers I dispute, and why.
” at 328 K would be emitting 660 W/m^2, the passive shell at 315 K would be emitting 560 W/m^2, and the walls at 300 W/m^2 emit 460 W/m^2. I think it is fairly self-explanatory.”
DREMT expertly shows what the SB law requires the temperatures to be. Hooray.
“The problem is that you are adding a passive shell..the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.”
Oops, the SB law gets it wrong, he claims!
“Nothing in the calculation cares about “active” or “passive””
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe it should?
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great.
“If the space within your walls at 300 K was filled with a material..”
Alert! Red herring alert! Red herring alert!
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great.
‘Passive’ aggression alert!
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great..
Caution: Logical failure imminent!
Immediate evasive action required!
“via conduction…”
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great…
Tim Folkerts says:
If you can calculated all this properly, then you would know that the steel greenhouse has not been debunked. Then you would know that one layer of BB material really can cut in half the power lost by radiation. Then you would know the blue plate experiment really does work.
If you pick the side of actual physics, there would be no need to continue this discussion.
——————–
LOL! You wish Tim!
Indeed BB material blocks radiation. But that doesn’t lead to a warming conclusion. A home window blocks stuff but it doesn’t lead to an insulation value. Thats because glass doesn’t represent insulation. You can multi-pane a window with intervening airgaps in each layer and get an insulating value. Climate science envisions instantaneous layers and ignores diffusion that closes the gaps by physically delivering the heat without any net radiation at all adding to the truckload being delivered. If CO2 added to that you would be buying windows with CO2 in the layers rather than inert gases.
In window engineering radiation isn’t even counted because convection operates as 100% negative feedback. Only the convective breaks are considered. Could be the appropriate approach as radiation doesn’t have a greenhouse effect in solids either or water. . . .so why not gas too?
The only time radiation is considered in window technology is when you start adding reflective coatings (like cloud bottoms?) then you can get a small boost in insulating efficiency from radiation.
So out of this library of engineering contradicting climate science arises a sudden assumption that convection doesn’t operate as a 100% negative feedback. But I have yet to see the proof.
And its hard for warmists to suggest CO2 promotes cloud formation for a little bit of reflection because of the impact on blocking sunlight in the process.
So while all this stuff is out there well documented in physics, atmospheric alarmist scientists pretend to be unaware of it, if they aren’t pretending it must be because most of them transferred over from some other discipline so as to satisfy their need to help save the world from itself and they just aren’t aware of what engineering has learned about heat transfer through all sorts of objects. Heck climate science couldn’t even answer G&T’s questions of exactly where the forcing comes from.
the true answer is when the debate comes up they run for the hills.
Its a science in an extremely sad state of affairs. And of course you always have the sky is falling Chicken Littles ready to take advantage of such a situation. So out of frustration with tons of money to fling around they just resorted to the principle of post normal science whereby the best science available is determined by fiat instead of science. And here we are.
Bill says: “Indeed BB material blocks radiation. “
That is an excellent start. You, me, DREMT and the entire scientific and engineering communities agree.
“But that doesnt lead to a warming conclusion. “
That is the point of contention. Simply proclaiming something doesn’t make it true. Especially when you yourself contradict this conclusion: “then you can get a small boost in insulating efficiency from radiation”. So radiation CAN boost insulation, which naturally leads to warming.
“A home window … water … convection … clouds … negative feedback … G&T … money …”
These are all potentially interesting topics, but 98% of what you wrote has nothing to do with this discussion. Here we are discussing the basics of radiation. You could join this discussion and perhaps analyze “a small boost in insulating efficiency” and how it relates to the ‘boost in insulating efficiency’ of a thin black body or reflecting shell. You might even try relating low emissivity coatings on window to my examples (1) and (2).
“Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please.
If the space within your walls at 300 K was filled with a material which was the same as the sphere … energy transfer would be via conduction … What would the temperature of the sphere be?”
Well, first of all, there would be no sphere — there would be a room-sized block of material. There are plenty of tools for analyzing heat flows and temperature gradients in such situations, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method. But I can’t see how this is germane to our discussion.
I could instead clarify a few assumptions about the current scenarios.
* All spaces are vacuum
* All temperatures refer the the surface temperatures.
* the sphere has a uniform surface temperature — because the heater is uniform and/or the material has a high thermal conductivity.
* the shell is thin and has high thermal conductivity so that the inside and outside can be treated as having the same temperature.
What would the temperature of the sphere be, Tim?
As expected DREMT is unable to answer why he dismisses the straightforward SB law Temps that HE calculated.
He is stuck in a 2 y rut.
What would the temperature of the sphere be, Tim?
> there would be no sphere
What would the temperature of the sphere be, Tim?
> there would be no sphere
We could go around in circles like this forever. There is no sphere. there is no radiation. Your new scenario is entirely unrelated to our discussion.
You could
* realize that I already told you *how* to solve your scenario.
* provide details that would be required before any numerical solution would be possible. (How big is your “room”? What is your ‘sphere’ made out of? Where is it in the room? What is the shape of your heat source? …)
* explain why you are so keen on changing the topic.
* go back to the original issue.
*******************************************
This might be a good spot to re-start.
“All that would happen in real life is, the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.”
If I understand your claim:
* The bare sphere starts at 328 K.
* Add a shell and the shell ‘takes on the temperature of the sphere’ = 328 K.
Are you claiming the inner sphere stays at 328K? If so, the sphere and the shell would be in thermal equilibrium, and no heat can move from the sphere to the shell. What do you think happens to the extra 100 W still being added to the sphere, if not to warm the sphere up further?
Tim Folkerts says:
”But that doesnt lead to a warming conclusion. ”
”That is the point of contention. Simply proclaiming something doesnt make it true. Especially when you yourself contradict this conclusion: ”then you can get a small boost in insulating efficiency from radiation”. So radiation CAN boost insulation, which naturally leads to warming.
————————–
You are into apples and oranges Tim. CO2 doesn’t reflect it absorbs and emits in all directions. The small boost comes from reflecting more than 50% as convection has a flux factor of .5 in basic heat transfer equations.
so mathematically comes out in a gas environment of negative feedback of 100% provided by convection to radiant BB forcing.
If you don’t think that is true that engineers are stupid by all means provide a reference that supports your lunatic point of view.
I will even help you. Manage and Wetherald speculate that there must be an error in the basic engineering calculation. After all there is a need for a GHE that does exist. So it appears in their paper they propose a tiny effect hoping nobody notices that there is zero proof it exists. the only thing that can be said about it is their assumption turns out to be adequate to explain the greenhouse effect a figure no doubt arrived at by first measuring the greenhouse effect then providing an equation to produced it.
If you doubt that then please provide a reference to an elegant test of the assumption.
Bill, at the risk of sounding argumentative, you are into red herrings.
DREMT wants to discuss the basics of radiative heat transfer. You want to talk about CO2 and 50 year old science papers and windows and “convection has a flux factor of .5” (whatever that means), and many many other things. One thing at a time please!
I am not here to defend every aspect (real or imagined) of climate science from the past 100+ years. I am here to defend basic physics like P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)(Th^4 – Tc^4) or “heat only flows when there is a temperature difference”.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill, at the risk of sounding argumentative, you are into red herrings.
DREMT wants to discuss the basics of radiative heat transfer. You want to talk about CO2 and 50 year old science papers and windows and “convection has a flux factor of .5” (whatever that means), and many many other things. One thing at a time please!
I am not here to defend every aspect (real or imagined) of climate science from the past 100+ years. I am here to defend basic physics like P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)(Th^4 – Tc^4) or “heat only flows when there is a temperature difference”.
===========================
I understand Tim. You want to pretend you are on space ship and only need to deal with radiation. But up there you can’t use CO2 because you have no atmosphere to work with. You need to come back down to earth and learn the basics of radiation in a gas medium, cause in space you have no atmosphere. Here on earth you need to deal with it. Thus I will state very clearly for you that if you are not dealing with convection you are just imagining greenhouse effects in fairytale land.
Lol, Tim, it is your original scenario, only instead of a vacuum between the sphere and walls, it is filled with a material the same as the sphere. What is the temperature of the part of the room-sized block of material represented by the original sphere, in the middle? Just as a rough estimate. 205 K? 300 K? 315 K? Higher? I am going somewhere with this. Next place I am going is lots and lots of shells around the sphere, with gaps, filling out the entire room. Say there was 100 shells. Or 10 shells. Whatever is easier to calculate. What would the temperature of the sphere be then?
Bill,
Still waiting for you to show us the physics errors that you said you found Manabe and Weatherald made, in their pioneering atmospheric physics paper of 1967. Point out the page and paragraph, pls.
Im impressed that you found the physics error that no one else noticed.
“I am going somewhere with this.”
Down another rabbit hole, hoping to evade my basic issue with the SB law.
Its just astonishing, really. DREMT seems to understand how the original shell in vacuum problem can be SOLVED using the actual laws of physics.
But that doesnt give him a satisfying result.
So what to do? Change the problem completely. Solve the new one.
Then, quite strangely, claim, without any logical reason, that the solution to the new one must work for the old one too! The one that he already straight forwardly solved, but got a different answer.
Why does he think this is a ‘winning’ argument?
“DREMT wants to discuss the basics of radiative heat transfer”
No, Tim, DREMT only wanted to make the simple point that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not via “back-radiation”. You of course want to lead the discussion in a way that you can control, so you devised yet another silly thought experiment, gave me the answers and said that if I truly understood the issues, I would be able to explain how you got those answers. I refused to participate, so like a kid in the playground you stood there going “DREMT can’t calculate it, DREMT can’t calculate it” until I did.
So at that point I should have proved that I do have the understanding to appreciate the issues, and we could have gone back to the original discussion, but of course this is all forgotten. Now it’s all about the new thought experiment. Which was your intention all along.
You want to talk about a thought experiment? OK, let’s discuss it. We can start by you answering the questions in my 11:52 PM comment.
“make the simple point that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not via ‘back-radiation’.”
Another bizzare DREMT method. Take something that happens one way, “via reflectivity”, and assume, wrongly, that must be the ONLY way it happens.
And of course he knows better. His own calculation shows how it works another way. So he is simply obfuscating.
Is there any devious method of evading reality that DREMT wont try?
Oh, and by the way, just for anyone reading, in case they were interested…the Steel Greenhouse is debunked here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/22/incomplete-thermodynamics/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/
It is the original scenario … only completely different. You switched from 100% transfer by radiation to 100% transfer by conduction.
Conduction, convection, and radiation operate on completely different principles, with completely different equations. You really should figure out how each works before trying to combine them. And currently you are working on understanding radiation. Like calculate 1 shell around 1 sphere in uniform surroundings (with various idealized properties).
Come on, Tim, what are you so afraid of? Answer the 11:52 PM questions for this discussion to continue. If not, that’s that. I’m done.
Oh, and by the way, just for anyone reading, in case they were interestedthe Steel Greenhouse is NOT ACTUALLY debunked there.
Postma actually does reasonably well. There are still errors in his efforts, but it is a good try. And he gets bonus points for trying to deal with a shell that is not the same radius as the sphere.
The first critical error comes at line (3). Once the shell is added, the shell becomes the ‘environment’ for the sphere. The sphere no longer radiates to the surfaces at temperature T0, but instead radiates to surfaces at temperature Tsh
“3a) 4πRsp2σ Tsp4 = 4πRsh2σTsh4
3b) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 T04) = 4πRsh2σ(Tsh4 T04)”
should be
3a) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – Tsh4) = 4πRsh2σTsh4
3b) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 Tsh4) = 4πRsh2σ(Tsh4 T04)
There is a later error as well, dealing with energy flow back from the shell to the sphere, but by that point, the analysis is too flawed to be useful.
No, Tim, because as he explains:
“The shell’s surface would emit on its interior as well, however, internal emission by the shell will always meet another interior side of the shell (or the sphere), and hence will not leave the shell. Internal emission by the shell’s surface hence does not lead to a loss of energy for the shell, and hence the energy produced by the sphere will be conserved with the outward emission of the shell to the environment.”
“What is the temperature of the part of the room-sized block of material represented by the original sphere, in the middle?”
I keep feeling like I am doing your homework for you.
For simplicity, lets assume a spherical room, with radius r(2) = 2 m. The original sphere was r(1) = 0.28 m. The thermal resistance between the spherical walls is R = (r2 – r1)/[4 pi r1 r2 k].
The temperature difference would be Delta(T) = Q R. For copper (k = 400) that would be about 0.06 K and for fiber glass (K = 0.045) that would be 538 K.
Pretty straightforward. Didn’t you ever do problems like this in the physics classes you took?
You still haven’t actually answered the questions from my 11:52 PM comment.
Nate says:
Still waiting for you to show us the physics errors that you said you found Manabe and Weatherald made, in their pioneering atmospheric physics paper of 1967. Point out the page and paragraph, pls.
Im impressed that you found the physics error that no one else noticed.
——————————–
I never said they made a physics error Nate. How is the strawman business coming? Sales good?
Let me repeat: “Once the shell is added, the shell becomes the environment for the sphere. ”
This is the key error. The sphere in the shell is NOT radiating to surroundings at T0. It is radiating to surroundings at Tsh. Hence he should be using (Tsp^4 Tsh^4) in both (3a) and (3b).
Your comment addresses the 2nd error. His explanation sounds plausible superficially, but it is still wrong. You have to carefully define you “systems” in thermodynamics. Even thought the “sphere” is completely enclosed within the “shell” they are two separate ‘systems’ in two separate volumes of space. Energy DOES leave the ‘system’ of the shell when it enters the ‘system’ of the sphere.
“The sphere in the shell is NOT radiating to surroundings at T0”
Effectively it is, for as he notes:
“Internal emission by the shell’s surface hence does not lead to a loss of energy for the shell, and hence the energy produced by the sphere will be conserved with the outward emission of the shell to the environment.
This is another regular strategy DREMT uses to distract from the logical failure of his own argument.
Send the reader somewhere else, to read someone elses flawed argument, without understanding it enough to explain himself..
Really DREMT just simply needs to defend his own arguments already made from the very legitimate criticisms made by Tim and others, that it disagrees with the solution he has found using the laws of physics.
Clearly he can’t do that, hence the need for a series of evasion tactics.
Well, if there are no further replies from Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread, and given that it seems clear he is never going to give a direct answer to the questions I asked in my 11:52 PM comment, I guess that’s that.
Bill,
“I never said they made a physics error Nate.”
Of course you did. You said M and W:
“devised a hypothesis of how the lapse rate came about that is contrary to basic physics of gasses”
Pls explain how, and on what page and paragraph, they state anything ‘contrary to basic physics of gases’.
Or you can just retract it.
DREMT: “Then we can get onto what numbers I dispute, and why.”
Clearly he cant do that.
21 comments so far, directed towards a person he knows won’t respond to him. Stalkers are weird.
>> The sphere in the shell is NOT radiating to surroundings at T0
> Effectively it is, for as he notes …
No.
A lightbulb inside a box does not ‘effectively’ light up the room. It lights up the inside of the box.
A glowing sphere inside a sealed shell does not ‘effectively’ radiate out into the environment. It radiates to the inside of the shell. The thermal IR gets absorbed 100% there. It does not radiate back.
****************************************
Here is yet one MORE problem with his analysis.
“4a) Qsp-sh = 4πRsp2σTsp4 4πRsh2σTsh4”
We could make heat from FROM the cool shell TO warm sphere, simply by making the radius of the shell large enough. Bye bye 2nd Law!
He needs to understand the idea of “view factors”. The correct equation would be
4a) Qsp-sh = 4πRsp2σTsp4 4πRsp2σTsh4
“it seems clear he is never going to give a direct answer to the questions I asked ”
I already gave a much more direct, complete answer than your vague question deserved. The ‘sphere’ that is actually just a hypothetical region in a solid ‘block’ would be on the order of 0.1 K warmer than the walls for a good thermal conductor like copper, and would be a few 100K warmer than the walls for a good thermal insulator like fiberglass.
OK, Tim. Whatever you say. People can read through the articles and comments and decide for themselves.
Meanwhile, is there any chance of you answering those questions? Or is this complete waste of my time finally coming to an end?
“is there any chance of you answering those questions?”
[Ie “What is the temperature of the part of the room-sized block of material represented by the original sphere, in the middle?”]
The answer is literally in my previous post, right before the one where you asked this question.
The “sphere” is ~ 0.1 K warmer than the walls (300K) if the material is a good conductor (ie 300.1)
The “sphere” is ~ 500 K warmer than the walls (300K) if the material is a good conductor (ie 800 K).
And we all notice that you continue to avoid answering *my* question about a sphere within a shell.
OK, you have finally answered my first question. Still one more question to go, Tim (for now) about the sphere with multiple shells. Keep going.
Re: your question, a passive shell cannot increase the temperature of the sphere, as I already explained.
Well, there we have it.
DREMTs efforts to distract, delay, dismiss, and deny were all transparent attempts at evading an uncomfortable contradiction.
He uses the laws of physics, like the SB-law and 1LOT, to calculate temperatures of the sphere and shell, and they turn out not to be the same.
But, regardless of what the laws of physics say, the sphere and shell must be the same temperature, he declares, without calculation.
But he can offer no explanation why the physics-based solution must be wrong.
22.
Nate says:
Sure thing. Pls show us how it is contrary to basic physics
——————
good point Nate. The use of the word contrary wasn’t called for.
The laws of gases determine how the lapse rate forms. M&W propose a novel means of changing the lapse rate without producing any physical proof.
Does that suit you better?
“propose a novel means of changing the lapse rate without producing any physical proof.
Does that suit you better?”
Well, in mathematics we have proof. There is rarely ever proof in physical sciences. There is only experimental tests.
They produced a physics-based model that helped to explain the real-world lapse rate, which was not fully explained previous to this paper.
And it served as the basis of future GCM models.
It is unimpressive that M&W mathematically described the lapse rate. With mathematics its not necessary to deal with real world complications, like for example latent heat released by the condensation and freezing of water in which vapor pressure plays a huge role or need deal with varying percentages of water vapor in an air column. These physical issues can only be sorted out in experiments are you are talking about give me 3 variables and I will construct you an elephant. Give me a 4th and I will make his trunk wiggle.
“a passive shell cannot increase the temperature of the sphere, as I already explained.”
… and yet you just agreed that passive shells CAN increase the temperature of the sphere. From 300K up to any where between 300.1 and 800K depending on the material used for passive insulating shells.
Radiative insulation works via reflectivity, Tim.
Are you going to answer the next question, or what? Getting pretty bored of waiting.
No, the best radiative insulation works via reflection. But it still works with blackbodies. If you are bored, try answering my (3) and (4).
Already did!
Waiting…
DRENT, I guess I needed to be more specific. You need to give a *correct* answer.
The thing you don’t seem to realize is that your answer depends on the *name* you give an object, not on the properties of the object.
In your world:
The heated sphere inside a 300 K “room” will be 328 K.
The heated sphere inside a 328 K “shell” will be 328 K.
Tim Folkerts says:
No, the best radiative insulation works via reflection. But it still works with blackbodies. If you are bored, try answering my (3) and (4).
—————————
Tim you should be aware that after many response by you arguing for a solely radiant GHE, you have resorted without exception to demonstrate your argument with a sheet/wall/sphere composed of an impermeable surface.
If you understood anything about passive heating you would realize that accomplish it you must enclose it with a solid substance.
Current theory claims to close it by a lack of substance. . . . sort of. Since their theory fails the basic test of cooling occurring with elevation in the stratosphere, the effect they reason must be occurring the troposphere. Worse if occurring in the mesosphere it has no way to cross the stratosphere. The temperatures are not being controlled from those regions of the atmosphere.
So part and parcel to that is a warming occurring within the mid atmosphere. Thus the Hot Spot theory remains out there like a phantom and is only occasionally spotted and sketched/photographed like Big Foot.
Still just patiently waiting for Tim to answer the next question.
“like for example latent heat released by the condensation and freezing of water in which vapor pressure plays a huge role or need deal with varying percentages of water vapor in an air column. These physical issues ..”
You really should read a paper before declaring what its flaws are, Bill.
These physical issues were included in the MW model. And in more detail in the GCM models that followed it.
Of course, there’s a good reason that Tim doesn’t want to answer the next question. As you add more and more shells, according to their “logic”, the sphere just gets warmer and warmer…without a limit! Meanwhile, as you add more and more shells around the sphere, it starts to resemble the situation where the vacuum gap between the sphere and walls was replaced with material the same as the sphere. It becomes more and more like one big solid mass. Yet in that situation, Tim was happy to claim the sphere would only be 300.1 K!
Basic physics gives an answer that DREMT doesnt like. Therefore he declares it wrong, absurd, and declares victory.
Thus he must desperately evade discussing this central issue, that could quickly settle the argument, and not in his favor.
His evasion tactics are laid bare for all to see. Distract with red herrings. Delay with childish games. Claim, without evidence, that a different problem should give the same results. Give false significance to the names of objects.
If he can, again, successfully evade having to explain away correct answers found with basic physics, this enables him to come back in a month, and declare the argument settled, and in his favor.
23.
Nate says:
April 10, 2021 at 7:25 AM
like for example latent heat released by the condensation and freezing of water in which vapor pressure plays a huge role or need deal with varying percentages of water vapor in an air column. These physical issues ..
You really should read a paper before declaring what its flaws are, Bill.
These physical issues were included in the MW model. And in more detail in the GCM models that followed it.
—————————————
Sure they assign all the known variables around the CO2 absor=ption profile and viola you have a basic mathematical description of the modtran model complete with moisture parameters and all.
This is easy stuff to do, I did it for a living, during my apprenticeship. . . .of course when doing it I had experts to let me know the reasonable range for the various variables I could use. The was litigation support. We were getting numbers that varied from the opponents in an outcome in 30 years of 300%. Not like the climate outcome of about 2% in a 100 years. The we went to court for the client and won.
Here its a case of the US government suing its citizens for it freedom based upon projected outcomes using computer models. Of course today I am still part of policy processes that do this and I am supportive of the models that have proven themselves.
That apprenticeship was over 30 years ago. The losing side proposed an outcome 3 times the outcome we provided. The actual results 30 years later showed that both sides overstated the outcome. The reason was that as professional consultants we wanted to provide our best guess possible. We easily could have taken the low ground and no doubt could have achieved the real outcome with the reasonable range of variables we had at our disposal.
So what was the difference in this multi-billion dollar lawsuit? The difference was the plaintiff was simply picking across the board high parameters for their variables as we could duplicate their outcome using the reasonable range of variables that was part of what we did. As an apprentice I was just working on the modeling and we had PhDs citing the variables and choosing mid values for them as being reasonable makes for winning judgements.
So what I know of the ranges of reasonable ranges of water vapor and convection flows (you can observe the ranges in historic documents estimating the variables in radiant budgets) They far outweigh the 3 watts assumed for CO2 forcing over 100 years.
I can give a tip of the hat to Manabe and Wetherald because I was running computer programs in the years they were using punch cards for inputs first in the armed forces then later in the University that embraced the year that M&W was published.
When I apprenticed on computer models over a decade and half later we actually had IBM PCs and a few XTs running Lotus 123 with 640kb memory, truly ground breaking technology that was busting into all sorts of industries at the time. While the Air Force and Universities had mainframes about 16 times faster we could do the work a whole lot faster because of much better I/O capabilities.
So from experience I can give M&W a salute, I am very much aware that what they did was provide a means to construct computer models to come up with estimated warming based upon the assumptions either of M&W or of subsequent improvements to the M&W approach.
But thats no different that the work I consult around today. The ultimate tests of such models depend upon regular and repeated success in prediction. One eventually learns from failure assuming of course you have identified the right variables. Which in this case I don’t think they have.
And that comes from my experience obtained in passive solar energy that filled that decade and a half between the University and my apprenticeship in my current trade.
So perhaps Nate you could enlighten us with your experience in this sort of stuff. Seems to me you just gobble up without a shred of skepticism the goulash from any plate your daddy hands you. Enlighten me differently!
“US government suing its citizens ”
Not a science argument, Bill. Learn the difference.
“So from experience I can give M&W a salute, I am very much aware that what they did was provide a means to construct computer models to come up with estimated warming based upon the assumptions either of M&W or of subsequent improvements to the M&W approach.”
Good, I would only add: ‘physics based assumptions’.
DREMT, you seem to be getting hopelessly confused.
“As you add more and more shells, according to their “logic”, the sphere just gets warmer and warmer…without a limit!”
Yes! Of course.
The same is true with more and more plain old insulation. The same is true of voltage if you true to maintain a constant current and add more and more resistors. That is basic physics, not scary airquote “logic”.
“Meanwhile, as you add more and more shells around the sphere, it starts to resemble the situation where the vacuum gap between the sphere and walls was replaced with material the same as the sphere.”
No! No matter how many layers you add, it never ‘starts to resemble’ a solid. There are always vacuum gaps between the layers. There are always regions where conduction is impossible.
“Yet in that situation, Tim was happy to claim the sphere would only be 300.1 K!
Yes! In a completely different situation with no vacuum gaps and continuous conduction from the “sphere” to the “walls of the chamber”, the answer is completely different.
Meanwhile, DREMT still thinks there exists a “Stefan-Boltzmann Law for Passive Shells”. That a “passive” surface at T(cold) radiates differently than an “active” surface at T(cold), even though the equation:
P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)[T(hot)^4 – T(cold)^4]
depends merely on temperatures.
Whether there is an “active wall” at 300 K or a passive “shell” at 300 K, the sphere will be warmer — 315 K for a sphere with a 100 W/m^2 internal heater.
Likewise, whether there is an “active wall” at 315 K or a passive “shell” at 315 K, the sphere will be warmer — 328 K for a sphere with a 100 W/m^2 internal heater.
"The same is true with more and more plain old insulation."
Tim, a BB shell made of a highly conductive material is not an "insulator". It is about as far from being an "insulator" as it is possible for something to be.
"No! No matter how many layers you add, it never ‘starts to resemble’ a solid. There are always vacuum gaps between the layers. There are always regions where conduction is impossible."
As you add more and more layers, into the finite space within your walls, eventually you are going to run out of room. The line between conductive transfer through the shells and radiative transfer between them becomes blurred as the number of shells added increases. Yet you have your sphere increasing indefinitely in temperature as more and more shells are added, even though with a solid mass you claim its temperature will be 300.1 K. This is a discontinuity that shows the error of your logic.
"Meanwhile, DREMT still thinks there exists a “Stefan-Boltzmann Law for Passive Shells”. That a “passive” surface at T(cold) radiates differently than an “active” surface at T(cold), even though the equation: P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)[T(hot)^4 – T(cold)^4] depends merely on temperatures."
Lol, Tim, you never even used that equation. Here comes the dishonesty party, the usual conflation of "the SB Law" with "the Radiative Heat Transfer Equation". All the tricks we’re used to seeing. The equation you showed there is the RHTE. You never even used that equation in getting your results, as I showed. All that was used was the SB Law, and that was only used to convert BB temperatures to the corresponding radiative flux values, and vice versa. Tim, all you people ever do is add fluxes together. You never actually use the RHTE to get your results. Which, as you know, is where Postma says you go wrong.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Of course, there’s a good reason that Tim doesn’t want to answer the next question. As you add more and more shells, according to their “logic”, the sphere just gets warmer and warmer…without a limit! Meanwhile, as you add more and more shells around the sphere, it starts to resemble the situation where the vacuum gap between the sphere and walls was replaced with material the same as the sphere. It becomes more and more like one big solid mass. Yet in that situation, Tim was happy to claim the sphere would only be 300.1 K!
—————————
Bingo! While heat conductivity varies in materials virtually all insulation relies upon multiple layer air gaps where the air is prohibited from mixing with the gas in other gaps.
Quite simply surface radiation is a very low source of surface cooling due to clouds, aerosols, dust, smog, water, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Budgets place combined cloud reflection, water phase change, and convection at more than 8 times that of the radiation that is being absorbed from the surface and then being emitted at TOA. Virtually all those variables are or should be considered to be feedbacks to primary forcing in a TSI control knob hypothesis.
That suggests negative feedback results in a sensitivity number of about .12 times primary forcing.
And that suggests (my favorite sciency word found being used prolifically in science publications better than but along with may, could and others) with 23 watts of atmosphere absorbed radiation yet to be blocked by more layers in the atmosphere about 3 watts of net warming should occur before saturation.
but science aware of that is looking at unlimited warming by artificially dreaming up yet more layers in the atmosphere without adding any significant mass to the atmosphere. The hubris just boggles the mind!
Any correction to the math and logic above would be an appropriate response.
“As you add more and more layers, into the finite space within your walls, eventually you are going to run out of room. ”
DREMT, I said an infinite number of shells would lead (theoretically) to an infinite temperature. I never said they would fit in a finite space. Indeed, an infinite number of shells with physical dimension and physical gaps would require … infinite space!
And physical shells with physical gaps will never resemble a solid object. This is a discontinuity that shows the error of your logic.
“Tim, you never even used that equation. “
Of course I did. I didn’t write it down, but I did indeed use
P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)[T(h)^4 – T(c)^4]
or solving for T(h)
T(h) = [(epsilon)(sigma)P/A – Tc^4]^(0.25)
This equation is a simple application of the SB law, calculating both the power LEAVING one surface and the power ARRIVING from surrounding surfaces.
“Tim, all you people ever do is add fluxes together. You never actually use the RHTE to get your results. “
Well, when the situation warrants, then yes, I add fluxes.
The full radiative heat transfer equation equation is actually much more complicated than what we have been using, involving view factors and the emissivity of both surfaces. The “view factor” is how you “add fluxes” coming in from different parts of the surroundings to get the total incoming flux.
Tim, if you’re not going to debate honestly, then I have nothing more to say. Feel free to claim victory, if you like. I’m sure my stalker will be along to hurl more abuse and twist my every word, but the Steel Greenhouse was debunked years ago. That’s that.
Nate says:
“US government suing its citizens ”
Not a science argument, Bill. Learn the difference.
——————————-
Well I suppose you could have just fallen off the turnip cart Nate. What you should say is the US suing its citizens should not be a science argument. Your statement ass-u-me-s its not the current case.
=============
==============
=============
============
Nate says:
“So from experience I can give M&W a salute, I am very much aware that what they did was provide a means to construct computer models to come up with estimated warming based upon the assumptions either of M&W or of subsequent improvements to the M&W approach.”
Good, I would only add: ‘physics based assumptions’.
==========================
Then if you understood the long dissertation above you would realize that the evaporation of water varies over temperature a precise humidity and rates of convection in there you have plenty of variables in which to ‘model’ outcomes from additional CO2 with or with out forcing from that CO2 modifying the lapse rate.
“plenty of variables in which to ‘model’ outcomes from additional CO2 with or with out forcing from that CO2 modifying the lapse rate.”
The real Earth has those variables, need to include them, and they are included.
So again, no specific problems with MW.
So…?
DREMT is out of ammo, and left grasping at straws about metal being just as good at insulating, as a vacuum gap.
“Feel free to claim victory, if you like.”
Certainly should, given that DREMT has no sane answers.
24.
Tim Folkerts says:
As you add more and more layers, into the finite space within your walls, eventually you are going to run out of room.
DREMT, I said an infinite number of shells would lead (theoretically) to an infinite temperature. I never said they would fit in a finite space. Indeed, an infinite number of shells with physical dimension and physical gaps would require infinite space!
————————-
well then you largely agree with DREMT. You avoided DREMT’s point by making more room instead of answering his question.
Making imaginary layers closer together is all that is being done by increasing CO2. CO2 is considered already uniformly distributed and its almost a inconsequential addition to the volume of the atmosphere.
So I commend you on your ability to . . . .uh. . . .somewhat think outside the box and correctly state what one of the most important variables is. (volume isn’t the whole story but is closely related to one of the key variables). the classic examples of this is the volume of the Venus atmosphere having a huge greenhouse effect and being 94 times larger than earth. OTOH, Mars which has more CO2 per square meter surface area than earth has such a small greenhouse effect its essentially not measurable because of having so much of a smaller atmosphere than earth.
It is a very good example of clear headed thinking which I can’t encourage you more in. You are on the right track IMO with your infinite volume idea. Hang on to that and don’t let go.
“Bingo! While heat conductivity varies in materials virtually all insulation relies upon multiple layer air gaps where the air is prohibited from mixing with the gas in other gaps.”
Bill gets how insulation works, and could explain to DREMT.
Imagine the air gaps in insulation with the air completely evacuated, IOW vacuum gaps. Would the insulating R value be higher or lower with vacuum gaps?
Clearly, it would insulate much better with no air to conduct/convect in the gaps.
Now imagine replacing all of gapped insulating material with solid metal!
Would it be a better insulator? Just as good an insulator as DREMT believes? Ha ha!
25.
Nate why don’t you notice there are no sheets of material in the atmosphere to make for separate air gaps?
Nate says:
US government suing its citizens
Not a science argument, Bill. Learn the difference.
================================
What does it feel like being a pro-establishment multi-national corporate shill Nate?
Bill “in the atmosphere” is off-topic for this discussion.
“feel like being a pro-establishment multi-national corporate shill”
Weird. I have no idea.
I’m pro-fact. You?
“US government suing its citizens”
This is…still….way off topic…and…of no interest.
“…there are no sheets of material in the atmosphere to make for separate air gaps”
Exactly, bill. Also, as I have pointed out before, when discussing things like the Green Plate Effect…it is supposed to be a discussion of how back-radiation leads to warming – not of how a vacuum gap may be an effective insulator. It’s not called “the Vacuum Gap Effect”, after all. The Green Plate is meant to increase the temperature of the Blue Plate via back-radiation.
You have to be careful with them, as they’ll try anything to distort the truth.
” not of how a vacuum gap may be an effective insulator.”
Again, DREMT tries to distract from his problems, by again trying to make it all about what we call things.
Whether its called ‘insulation’ or ‘back radiation’, makes no difference to getting the correct temperatures.
Whether its called a ‘shell’ or a ‘room’ makes no difference to getting the correct results.
Whether its called ‘passive’ or ‘active’ makes no difference to the results.
His arguments are going from bad to terrible.
26.
Integers are just not a very good rebuttal, though they are a ‘response’.
Just as ” not of how a vacuum gap may be an effective insulator”
is clearly a response to my post, discussing this very topic.
So I’m gonna have subtract 1 from DREMTS count.
Maybe I should keep count of all the times DREMT responded to my posts while claiming that he is not responding.
THAT would be a large number.
Meanwhile his actual arguments are getting increasingly horrible.
But this latest ‘what we call it changes the result’ argument reminds me of the ‘its NOT HEAT’ stupidity.
DREMT, realized that there needed to be 200 W of heat flow from Blue to Green plates, but wanted the heat flow to be 0 to fit his beliefs.
Thus he simply renamed the 200 W of heat flow as NOT HEAT, just ENERGY flow.
Astonishingly DREMT thinks the ‘what you call it’ arguments are winners. He thinks it changes reality, changes the temperatures.
Sorry it doesnt.
27. Tim, the person I was actually talking to, only wrote 30 comments to me in total himself. Imagine being that obsessed with somebody…embarrassing.
Nate says:
Whether its called ‘insulation’ or ‘back radiation’, makes no difference to getting the correct temperatures.
Whether its called a ‘shell’ or a ‘room’ makes no difference to getting the correct results.
Whether its called ‘passive’ or ‘active’ makes no difference to the results.
His arguments are going from bad to terrible.
———————————
Hmmmm, Nate your statement here is very interesting:
”Imagine the air gaps in insulation with the air completely evacuated, IOW vacuum gaps. Would the insulating R value be higher or lower with vacuum gaps?
Clearly, it would insulate much better with no air to conduct/convect in the gaps.”
Now primary forcing is a straight up estimate of the absor-ption rate of IR traveling through an atmosphere with GHG.
Here we have an insulating system that goes from being something of either zero or immeasurable insulation value to one of the value of the radiation only model only applicable in vacuums with solid opaque spheres.
You being a ‘facts man’ energy absorbed above the first layer absor-ption layer has no radiant forcing avenue back to the surface by virtue of your own insulation argument. Arguably the path up isn’t blocked at all and the path down are nearly blocked as much as the vacuum gap insulation model.
That makes the 3rd grade multi-layered radiation model a canard. . . .an obfuscation.
Yet you here are still jumping in to defend it as does Tim where its the centerpiece of his argument. But in reality the insulation model is total bunk.
It seems as you been negotiating the curvy roads of this argument you haven’t noticed that your vehicle has flown off the cliff. And the multi-layer backradiation arguments should be all be thrown on the trash heap.
I notice Bill wont address whether removing air from the gaps in insulation will make it a better insulator. He wont confirm or deny that material with vacuum gaps make better insulators than solid metal.
Instead he again goes off-topic, always trying to change the subject to the atmosphere.
Is it because he knows DREMTs argument on the GPE is a loser?
Appears so, as he never directly defends any of it.
Nate says:
I notice Bill wont address whether removing air from the gaps in insulation will make it a better insulator.
He wont confirm or deny that material with vacuum gaps make better insulators than solid metal.
Instead he again goes off-topic, always trying to change the subject to the atmosphere.
——————————————-
Stop being such a total jerk. I could care less about glass spheres out in outer space with zero CO2 in the intervening spaces. This topic is about the appropriateness of that analogy to the atmosphere.
Yes a model is proposed for the GPE which last I checked was an effect that can occur standing in front of your open freezer door, thus with an atmosphere.
If you have an example of some astronaut opening up a freezer door on the outside of a space craft and getting a response, please submit that for review and perhaps it might lead to a lively discussion of the hazards of space travel or something like that.
Meanwhile, please respond to this post if you can.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-661184
If you don’t want to intellectually discuss that honestly I will end my discussion with you here and now on anything related to the GPE effect, or for that matter radiant atmosphere forcing models in general; and mark up yet another major debate loss on your part.
Bill, this whole thread was about multi-layered insulation, which is used in vacuum, a vacuum sphere shell model, which was related to the Green-plate-Effect, which is plates in vacuum. None of those are intended to model the real atmosphere.
Clearly you understand insulation and cannot defend DREMTs POV because it makes no sense, but refuse to get involved in the topic.
You kept trying to go off-topic. You brought up MW. I thought that that was done. Now I cant tell what you are on about.
Nate says:
Bill, this whole thread was about multi-layered insulation, which is used in vacuum, a vacuum sphere shell model, which was related to the Green-plate-Effect, which is plates in vacuum. None of those are intended to model the real atmosphere.
=================================
I am plenty happy to have you disavow the multi-layered model Nate. Just hope you will remind your buddies also Nate unless you are happy to treat them like a spore in a mushroom farm.
Has anybody conducted a 3 sphere model in space? Sort of a Dr. R. Wood multi-layered greenhouse model deployed from a manned space mission. seems it might be low priority having no real world applicability, kind of like tidal locked moons rotating on an internal axis that appears to take on a life of its own born of a mathematical shortcut as its mother and an inculcated student as its father.
Nate says:
feel like being a pro-establishment multi-national corporate shill
Weird. I have no idea.
=============================
Yep, walking dead for sure.
“I am plenty happy to have you disavow the multi-layered model Nate.”
Whatever you say, Bill. Off your meds again?
Nate says:
Whether its called insulation or back radiation, makes no difference to getting the correct temperatures.http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-661000
————————–
Here Nate for a fleeting moment observes the massive pileup of braincells in his brain resulting in ‘stupid’. He pauses for a split second, uses his daddy’s latest press announcement to cleanse his mind of skepticism and blurts out, it doesn’t matter if the flow of energy is negative or positive parroting one of the biggest and most shared canards of the entire climate change endeavor.
And then he wonders why a simple non-science educated ordinary person looks at him like he is an idiot.
One of the challenges in a conversation like this is that once you have mastered the 1-shell, closely spaced, blackbody, in-a-vacuum scenario (which DREMT apparently still has not), then there there are myriad ways to expand/refine the scenario.
* you could add more layers in the same volume.
* you could add more layers in a larger volume.
* you could make the layers more reflective.
* you could make the layers more transparent.
* you could add gas between the layers and consider conduction.
* you could add gas between the layers and consider convection.
* you could make the shell permeable to gas.
* (and many more).
These refinements are how you move from a “homework problem about radiation” scenario to a full-blown atmospheric model and the actual greenhouse effect. But you still need to know the physics of the first model before you could hope to deal with the more advanced models.
So for example, Bill is 100% correct that the ‘height’ of the atmosphere is a critical factor, which explains much of the reason Venus has a huge GHE, and Mars has a tiny GHE.
But when everyone jumps off in new directions (before mastering / agreeing on the basics), then the conversation is doomed to ineffectiveness.
Tim, you don’t want to acknowledge that “passive” and “active” objects should be treated differently, and that the shell is entirely dependent on “active” energy sources for its temperature. The shell, being “passive”, a good conductor of heat, and a blackbody (no reflectivity), cannot raise the temperature of the sphere. You ignore these points whereas Postma acknowledges them and incorporates them into his thinking, and into his math. This is why I think Postma is right and why you are wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Tim Folkerts says:
So for example, Bill is 100% correct that the height of the atmosphere is a critical factor, which explains much of the reason Venus has a huge GHE, and Mars has a tiny GHE.
===============================
thanks for acknowledging that. I hope to add to that in the near future. But I just wanted to say it really has nothing or little to do with backradiation or the existence of insulating layers in the atmosphere.
Want to call your attention to this paper posted by another in here:
https://tinyurl.com/y396pczc
Bill says: “thanks for acknowledging that.”
You seem to think that this is some surprising new result — that scientists don’t know and/or can’t explain why Mars with more CO2 has a smaller GHE. In fact this is well known and the explanation is not all that complicated.
Yes, the GHE is limited by convection (ie by the lapse rate). The real GHE is WAY less than what would be predicted by a purely radiative model. To let the GHE be effective requires a ‘tall’ atmosphere where
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill says: thanks for acknowledging that.
You seem to think that this is some surprising new result that scientists dont know and/or cant explain why Mars with more CO2 has a smaller GHE. In fact this is well known and the explanation is not all that complicated.
Yes, the GHE is limited by convection (ie by the lapse rate). The real GHE is WAY less than what would be predicted by a purely radiative model.
——————————–
Its not surprising at all Tim. It is a central premise to more than one alternative theory for the greenhouse effect. Including the one I am working on.
DREMT, we seem to agree that the “RHTE” as you like to call it is
P/A = (epsilon)(sigma) [Ta^4 – Tb^4]
This applies to a surface of area A @ temperature Ta and emissivity (epsilon), with surroundings at temperature Tb.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/14-7-radiation/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
There is no separate “P-RHTE” and the “A-RHTE” for ‘passive’ surroundings and ‘active’ surroundings. As such, it would be a mistake to think they have different effects.
You did not use that equation in getting your results, Tim.
Here is how the RHTE should be used:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math/
And here is how the Steel Greenhouse is debunked:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/22/incomplete-thermodynamics/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/
“The shell, being ‘passive’,
Yes, Tim, this passive vs active thing is quite mysterious, and not found in any law of physics.
“a good conductor of heat”
Uhh but vacuum not so good. Did he forget the vacuum again?
“and a blackbody (no reflectivity), cannot raise the temperature of the sphere.”
Except he did the calculation and found that it DID raise the temperature.
But using WORDS rather than calculation he gets a different answer. Hmmm.
28.
That is certainly how Postma *attempts* to debunk the “steel greenhouse”. However …
1) there are many errors both large and small in his analysis, some of which have already been pointed out.
2) his equations disagree with pretty much every source, like the ones presented above.
So you can continue to “believe in” an analysis that confirms your desired conclusions despite numerous red flags, or you can critically engage.
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
I notice when he has no answers he defers to Postma, someone who is not here to provide answers.
But in fact, when you go to Postma and politely challenge his work, he responds by belittling you, yelling at you, throwing a string of expletives at you, and finally banning you.
Those are his answers.
That was my experience with Postma.
DREMT doesnt do that, at least.
He just quits the argument while he’s behind, caught in yet another logical pickle, offering no logical way out, and declares ‘victory’.
Yet another ‘triumph’ for the Liar-Trolls.
29.
Nate 8:33am, that action is truly what is expected from a blog entitled climate sophistry. The blog offers a lot of that sophistry as does DREMT on this blog because the screen name with “Postma” in it was either banned or dropped here.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please return to the climate sophistry blog where your contributions are appropriate & well received. Take Clint R with you. Peace.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Yes Postma seems to be a con-man.
He says:
“Q parameter in Equation 2 still depends on the difference between Thot and Tcold and can not in any way be independently fixed.”
Of course it can! In Tim’s problem it is fixed at 100 W.
“If you understood Equation 1, then it is clear that is impossible to ‘hold Q constant’ if you increase Tcold. To say that you want to hold Q constant in Equation 2, actually makes Q an independent source of input energy and heat”
Yes it is! The 100 W IS an independent source of energy and heat!
“that no longer has any relation whatsoever to the difference between Thot and Tcold and the heat transfer equation”
Of course it does! This makes absolutely no sense.
The simple RHTE equation has 3 parameters, Q, TH, TC. He claims we cannot FIX Q and TC and determine what TH is.
There is simply NO SUCH RULE.
He is making this BS up!
30! Wow, that is some desperate stalking. 30 (mostly abusive) comments aimed at somebody you know will not defend themselves…over the course of only one discussion!
DREMT does a decent job of defending the climate sophistry blog positions of sophist Postma so Nate has no need to post over there & can do it here because DREMT is here. DREMT should just post on climate sophistry blog and Postma will readily agree so there will be peace on both blogs.
I do not respond to Nate, Ball4. Haven’t done for nearly two years now. Doesn’t seem to stop him from writing comments to me or about me though.
“30”
Weird
Even when I respond to Tim, Ball4, or Postma, he counts my posts.
He seems to be stalking me.
31.
Nate at 4:29 AM
He did not find any errors in Manabe and Weatherald, 1967 because being an accountant there is nothing in that paper for him to audit, assuming he understood any of it. I’ll be very surprised if he read it.
Grow up Tyson!
So no error in Manabe and Weatherald, 1967 then.
Yes Bill is an auditor who is afflicted by chronic Dunning-Kruger syndrome. There is no effective treatment.
For a science paper the error is introducing a mythical process into a discussion already pretty well understood by science.
The example would be Einstein where the majority of the science community did not accept Einsteins work for years until a solar eclipse was observed that established the curvature of light.
Same standard of skepticism should hold M&W accountable. The purpose of an audit is to squash such unsupported claims.
I didn’t say M&W made and error. It is an error though and it is your error for accepting it simply cause you daddy told you to accept it. . . .or which I doubt is true in your case you are just too dumb to know the difference.
Nate says:
Yes Bill is an auditor who is afflicted by chronic Dunning-Kruger syndrome. There is no effective treatment.
———————————–
You don’t know it but you are talking about your own Dunning-Kruger syndrome and not mine.
Difference is that I don’t overestimate my knowledge on climate change. I only have about a decade or so of radiant heating experience and acknowledge its a complex topic that actually can be made simple when you actually know how it works.
I have identified a body of science that eliminates what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas from being the cause of the GHE in all experiments and all practical application in engineering that I am aware of.
You though do suffer because you overestimate your knowledge of what auditors do.
Auditors ask question, auditees respond, auditor processes response for consistency with what the auditor has learned. If not consistent auditor points out that the principle just claimed does not work for windows or insulation (including reflective radiant barriers in cases of upwelling heat).
Auditee is stunned because he cannot process that as it is completely inconsistent with what he believes. So he ignorantly accuses the auditor of not knowing stuff he actually does; cause its the auditee that is overestimating his knowledge of the topic.
Bill,
The main point is auditors are not atmospheric physicists. They are thus extremely unlikely to have found physics flaws in a respected atmospheric physics paper, that no atmospheric physicist has found over the last 50 y.
And sure enough, you did not, though you believed (or at least claimed) you did.
This is a regular occurrence with you.
You way overestimate your own competence in areas which you have little or no expertise. (DK syndrome).
You way underestimate the value of expertise.
The full explanation is here Nate:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-660370
Bottom line is the skills I learned early, translated into an apprenticeship later. I know exactly what M&W did and at the time they did it I said I give them a tip of my hat.
But don’t confuse that with physical proof in any way shape or form. One cannot even quantify the uncertainty with doing things that way. These are extraordinary methods of prediction. They need seasoning to be accepted not as proof but of probability built upon repetitive success with variables that fluctuate greatly.
Unfortunately the science is young and the generations poor in climate modeling. Climate modeling simply doesn’t have the variability necessary to pin down variables of a low percentage, certainly not the percentages of one degree C of primary forcings. So M&W for you is a canard. For computer climate modelers its a career. This will be a long movie, one can’t sit there munching popcorn on this one. Primary research is needed to better pin down the real variables. Thats an unpaid hobby I toy with in my spare time regarding how to advance the primary research in an imaginative way. I think I am pretty close but in this business so infused with politics close doesn’t count.
This is yada yada yada, Bill, not science. You don’t seem to realize the difference.
What you seem to be doing is applying political biases and beliefs to all climate science, but misrepresenting that as ‘expert opinion’ based on ‘experience’.
But your ‘experience’ is not in the right field. Your critiques are neither fact-based nor specific.
You would never be called as an expert witness in any civil case that centered on the science in MW.
Bottom line: science is specialized and requires specialized expertise and skills, to do it, or to judge it.
well nate there is a good deal of discourse going on between you and me. If you want to make an effective argument you should attack specific comments I have made rather than just making an unsupportable claim I don’t understand this issue. I am fully cognizant that I may be missing something but your lack of an ability to point out explicitly what that is suggests you are a whole lot more ignorant on the topic than I am.
MW paper was “contrary to basic physics of gasses” is a specific comment of yours that I criticized.
My point is you should not be regularly tossing out science criticisms like this that you just cannot back up with facts.
Is that the best you can do Nate?
I already corrected that sentence and yet you still cling to it.
Corrected it. And yet you continue smearing..
“For a science paper the error is introducing a mythical process into a discussion already pretty well understood by science.”
“It is an error though and it is your error for accepting it simply cause you daddy told you to accept it”
WTF are you talking about with ‘mythical process’?
‘Pretty well understood by science’. You are working overtime to be ignorant.
You still have not shown what the ‘error’ is yet keep claiming there is one.
The ‘error’ is your attempts to cast the political divide on climate science in the 2000s, onto an atmospheric science paper of the 1960s.
It makes little sense.
Nate says:
WTF are you talking about with mythical process?
—————————
Nate it is best exemplified by Big Foot. Something people believe in that hasn’t been reliably confirmed as in normal science.
Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists. So the ‘popular’ theory (or more correctly the many versions of different theories held) remains a myth until one is actually captured, examined, photographed and understood to not be some human in a gorilla suit.
“remains a myth until…”
Science is obscure unless YOU bother to learn it.
We’ve been over this at length, Bill.
This is like saying weather models are ‘mythical’ because no one has bothered to spoon feed them to me.
Even if someone did, they would make little sense to you. They involve MANY COMPLEX EQUATIONS and numerical calculations.
Same is true for GCM climate models.
The papers describing climate models, and GCM simulations are all out there for you to read. Go read them. And tell us what they did wrong!
Not willing to do that? Then no wonder its a mystery to you!
Nate says:
remains a myth until
Science is obscure unless YOU bother to learn it.
—————————————
Science isn’t learned its demonstrated either physically or via random statistics for a valid population of homogeneous samples.
Lots of pretend statistics going these days that are little more than a gorilla mask covering a vivid imagination.
Nate says:
This is like saying weather models are mythical because no one has bothered to spoon feed them to me.
Even if someone did, they would make little sense to you. They involve MANY COMPLEX EQUATIONS and numerical calculations.
————————-
Weather models work 70% of the time because the weather is changing every hour and practice makes perfect. . . .eventually.
Nate says:
Same is true for GCM climate models.
———————-
LOL! Yeah maybe in a few centuries they will catch up with weather prediction success.
Nate says:
The papers describing climate models, and GCM simulations are all out there for you to read. Go read them. And tell us what they did wrong! Not willing to do that? Then no wonder its a mystery to you!
———————–
You want me to prove they did something wrong before they ever prove they ever did something right? ROTFLOL!
“Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists. So the popular theory (or more correctly the many versions of different theories held) remains a myth”
FALSE.
Youve been shown basic theory descriptions.
Want more? GO…READ…PAPERS.
bill said: Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists.
Patently False. Just because you have buried your head in the sand or turned a blind eye does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Nate says:
Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists. So the popular theory (or more correctly the many versions of different theories held) remains a myth
FALSE.
Youve been shown basic theory descriptions.
Want more? GOREADPAPERS.
===================
I realize you believe it has to be one of two completely different mechanisms, but you can’t describe either and you acknowledge that as an insulation argument it would be next to impossible for high in the atmosphere energy to get back to the surface because of the existence of an unperturbed multi-layer radiant insulation model against energy coming down and an ineffectual one against energy going up.
And yet you persist in the idea of a 1 for 1 return of energy to the surface from the absorp-tion of energy high in the atmosphere. Just doesn’t wash Nate.
OTOH, I have acknowledged if the atmosphere were warmer above it could indeed warm the surface. . . .but thats no aid to high in the atmosphere absorp-tion and an absolutely devastating argument for CO2 whose effects are almost entirely hidden behind the effects of water vapor.
Ultimately your thinking on the matter is like imagining the great layered finger food ideas of sandwiches, tacos, burritos, etc. and are going to try consuming one as a soup sandwich. The layers simply are a figment of your imagination, the only definable layer in the atmosphere is the entire atmosphere itself.
Sure you can measure how that layer changes with variations in water vapor from the surface but setting up a mathematical calculation to compute what is going on mid atmosphere is simply a canard. All plausible ideas, most not in violation of the 2nd law unless you try to warm something with the heat of something colder like weak backradiation.
Insulation only warms stuff in the very imprecise language of the word that allows you to just look at one aspect of warming and ignore completely how much energy is left after the warming. To argue that point you must sort out that collision of stupid inside your brain and be realistic. Its a sad state of affairs that you fear and reject simple experiments that could resolve this conundrum and instead dream up something you can’t even describe within the frame of physics with a blueprinted model.
Myself whose strength is in logic as opposed to science perceive the argument to be one in which the effect you can’t describe within the frame of physics (e.g. the a convective multi-layered radiation model that doesn’t work) instead gets hidden in a far away place up in the troposphere where hotspots are created on virtual layers there instead of at the surface where the effect has been debunked by experiment, by trade experience, by window technology, and by insulation technology.
I’m sticking with that until somebody proves otherwise.
I NEVER SAID “And yet you persist in the idea of a 1 for 1 return of energy to the surface from the absorp-tion of energy high in the atmosphere.”
Why do you keep claiming I said things that I never said??
I have explained this before. The GHE is operating on the same principles as insulation. There is a temperature gradient from the surface to space, and there a heat flow, Q, from the surface to space. The output Q is matched by input Q from the sun.
Just as in my attic the fiberglass insulation layer has a temperature gradient to outside, and a heat flow, Q, thru it. The output Q is matched by Q input from my furnace.
If I add an extra inch of fiberglass insulation on top of the existing insulation, the R factor will increase, and given the same Q input and output, the Temperature change across the whole insulation layer will increase, and thus the temperature at the bottom of the insulation layer and in the house will increase.
If we add a CO2 forcing that is operating at the top of the atmosphere, but yes, by the same principle, it affects the temperature gradient across the whole troposphere, and at the surface.
But its not a 1 for 1 change at top and at surface.
CO2 absorbs 3 more watts of energy at TOA and 3 watts of forcing shows up on the surface? Thats not 1 for 1?
Again, things I have never said. Stop making up things I have not said!
First law of Thermodynamics applies. Net energy in must go somewhere.
3W/m^2 imbalance at TOA, MUST show up SOMEWHERE in the system, atmosphere, ocean, land, latent heats of melting and vaporization.
Most ends up in the ocean.
How much ends up as sensible heat, ie, a temperature change at the surface, requires good modeling.
Nate says:
Most ends up in the ocean.
———————-
Via bad modeling.
Nate says:
How much ends up as sensible heat, ie, a temperature change at the surface, requires good modeling.
———————-
Truer words could not have been said.
Via common sense and measurement.
Why do call measurement modeling?
If its measured please link me to the database or raw measurements extending from 1,500meters to 11,000 meters into the ocean over the past 30 years so we can get an idea of how much the ocean has warmed.
Nate you are just talking through your hat as per usual. There is no such dataset.
“There is no such dataset.”
Actually, bill, there is from 1000-4000m and below. This just shows how little bill knows or has read up on what he is writing about. Time to get to work bill, read up on:
“Abyssal global and deep Southern Ocean temperature trends are quantified between the 1990s and 2000s to assess the role of recent warming of these regions in global heat and sea level budgets… High-quality temperature observations of the global deep ocean originate mostly from ship-based conductivitytemperaturedepth (CTD) instruments.” – Dec. 2010 Sarah Purkey and Gregory Johnson, U. Washington, Seattle, Journal of Climate
Yes Ball4
other studies show that recovery from both the MWP and the LIA is still progressing in the ocean in different locations.
Interestingly the study you provided shows that the first couple thousand miles of the thermohaline current running out the arctic down the eastern Atlantic is cooling.
That fits perfectly with my theory that ocean cooling began at the beginning of this century in concert with accelerating loss of ice extent.
contrary to that cooling has been some warming in the deep Antarctic ocean stemming from likely. . . .you guessed it. . . .higher than average ice extent. With Antarctic sea ice in recent decline perhaps a new study may show some cooling there as well.
“After 3 days of blasting the water with LWIR between 13 and 18µ from 2 1000 lumen [LED] lamps … ”
LED lamps don’t “blast LWIR”. LED lights are designed to product visible light with very little heating — ie with very little LWIR.
You are right, 15 micron IR radiation is not going to warm the atmosphere. All CO2 does is block the 15 micron radiation from leaving the atmosphere. In other words, it reduces the rate of cooling. However the sun at ~6000K keeps on warming the planet just like it always has and the temperature warms up.
A few more problems with this experiment.
1) The room in which you are doing the experiment is ‘blasting’ over 400 W/m^2 of LWIR toward your containers.
2) Typical IR lamps are around 1000 C or 1300 K. At such temperatures, on the order of 5% of the IR power is 13+ um. So the lamps are only ‘blasting’ on the order of 2 * 100W * 0.05 = 10 W of IR in the range you are concentrating on.
2b) only some of that actually goes through the filters and to the containers. It would depend on the geometry, but probably like 10% of the light is focused on the containers. So you are down to something on the order of 1 W of heating at the containers from your 2x100W IR lamps.
3) The plastic containers may or may not be transparent to different wavelengths of IR.
a) If the plastic is NOT transparent to 13+ um IR, then the IR would be absorbed by the plastic before reaching the water. Much of any additional heating would warm outside of the container the room, rather than the water.
b) If the plastic IS transparent to 13+ um IR, then the IR would mostly be reflected by the shiny aluminum. The IR would STILL not heat the water effectively.
There are more problems, but that is enough for now. This is not a “very very very very easy controlled experiment”. There are lots of details (small and large) that you have not taken into account. The “signal” of extra heating from 13+um
“Wow, temperatures are back to 1982”
Wow, this day in Summer is the same temperature as this other day last Winter.
I guess seasons aren’t real.
Huh?
Barry, you clearly don’t understand that the chart is the deviation from the 30-year mean. The Seasonal Adjustment done with the 13 mo moving average is also headed down. Anyway, CO2 is claimed to “trap heat.” hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.
CO2isLife
” Barry, you clearly dont understand that the chart is the deviation from the 30-year mean. ”
Are you sure? I think barry understands a huge amount more than you about what are departures from a mean!
But… YOU aren’t about to increase your understanding of what CO2 does or doesn’t.
*
1. ” CO2 is ‘claimed to trap heat’. ”
Of course it isn’t claimed to trap heat. And it doesn’t trap heat at all.
This is what some official web sites manage to publish when they feel the unnecessary need for ambiguous shortcut explanations.
All what CO2 does above the Tropopause (the top level of the Troposphere) is, like H2O does below (and that by dimensions more than CO2), to prevent, tiny bit by tiny bit, more IR from directly escaping to outer space.
No idea of how much the effect is right now, let alone of how much it will be in 50 years.
*
2. ” Hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all… ”
What? Temperatures FALLING?
Trends in C / decade, for UAH 6.0 LT (at the surface mostly higher):
– 1979-2020: 0.14
– 2000-2020: 0.17
– 2010-2020: 0.33
and starting behind the year 2016 to exclude the direct El Nino effect:
– 2017-2020: 0.28
What the heck are you telling us here?
Just because of a 0.2 C drop within the last month?
*
3. ” … when CO2 is continually increasing. ”
You were told so many times that CO2 is one of probably hundred simultaneous causes for warming and/or cooling.
But you deliberately ignore that, and it’s getting each time more and more stubborn and above all: boring!
J.-P. D.
Bindidion, the one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by the thermalization of outgoing LWIR between 13 and 18µ. That is the one and only defined mechanism that is supported by undeniable physics.
If that is the case, there is no way for temperatures to cool under that theory ceteras paribus. CO2 can only add energy to the system by preventing it from escaping the system. Incoming solar radiation warms the oceans, and CO2 prevents the LWIR from cooling the oceans by warming the atmosphere like a giant blanket. How can adding more and more blankets possibly lead to cooling if the blanket doesn’t stop any of the incoming radiation. It can’t. 0.94W/M^2 can only warm the atmosphere at a certain rate, so once you lose that energy it takes time to replace that energy, there is a well-defined flux. If the current temperature is below that of 1982, because the atmosphere isn’t a battery, all the accumulated energy since 1982 is gone, and the slow rate of additional energy by CO2 can’t explain the almost certain to come warming. That is due to fewer clouds and more radiation reaching the oceans. There is no way for you to prove CO2 can warm the oceans, and what is warming the oceans is causing any climate change, not CO2. We are developing an experiment to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. YOu will never design an experiment to get to the truth, you simply perpetuate the myths.
CO2isLife
” … the one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by the thermalization of outgoing LWIR between 13 and 18µ. That is the one and only defined mechanism that is supported by undeniable physics. ”
That has NOTHING to do with ‘undeniable physics’; it exists solely in your mind.
Why are you so pretentious? Why don’t you try to escape out of things which don’t exist outside of your imagination?
Bin, that is actually a reasonable description of the direct action of CO2. “Warm” radiation from the surface gets absorbed and thermalized by the cooler layers above. These layers in turn emit “cool” radiation to space. This reduces the outgoing energy and leads to warming.
Much of the rest is questionable.
* This March could be cooler than March, 1982 without disproving that CO2 has a warming effect.
* The experiment that has been suggested is inadequate to show what CiL hopes to show.
I don’t understand how you could fail to get it when it is so easy, and it’s been explained to you a dozen times.
Climate change does not mean that every day, week, month or year will rise (or fall) monotonically, a little step in the same direction each time.
That is a MORONIC understanding of weather and climate. And yet this is apparently what you believe should be happening with global warming. Eg,
“hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.”
The seasons are the perfect analogy. They are different climates that we are familiar with, and though the orbital change that brings our seasons is a steady change, you can still have a day in Summer of the same temperature as a day the following Winter, or even warmer.
There is absolutely no reeason to expect that if there is an underlying mechanism causing climate change, that natural variability should suddenly cease. Doesn’t happen in seasonal climate change, which has a steadily changing cause. No good reason to imagine that natural variability ceases with CO2 warming in the background.
How do you get this so bone-headedly wrong?
barry, it’s wise to start moving away from your cult. I see you’re now accepting “natural variability”. Good. All the recent warming has been due to “natural variability”. The AGW nonsense is anti-science.
It’s good you are starting to move toward reality, but how do you get this so bone-headedly wrong?
Barry, if you understood the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule and simple probability of 1 out of every 2,500 having a significant impact of the other 2,500, then you understand why this belief that CO2 can cause any warming above -80C° is pure nonsense.
You don’t even need to understand quantum physics, just simply study the geological record of CO2 and Temperature. You have 600 million years of data debunking this theory.
Barry Says: Climate change does not mean that every day, week, month or year will rise (or fall) monotonically, a little step in the same direction each time.
Barry, you don’t seem to understand how science is done. CO2’s one and only mechanism to affect climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR. That is it. CO2 can’t cause cooling. Thermalization of EM radiation will never cool something. It converts EM to kinetic/thermal energy.
CO2 maintains a CONSTANT level of backradiation. Because CO2 backradiation if a CONSTANT something else has to be causing the variation. It is up to the alarmists to prove that CO2 is the cause by teasing our all the other independent variables that impact temperatures. From the IPCC models, it is 100% evident that they haven’t done that.
CO2isLife
” … you dont seem to understand how science is done.
CO2s one and only mechanism to affect climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR. ”
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN: where is any internationally accepted, scientific proof for such a claim?
Instead of arrogantly trying to teach others ‘how science is done’, what about presenting valuable sources?
“I see youre now accepting ‘natural variability’.”
You’re an idiot. I’ve been trying to get it into your thick skull that natural variability has a larger signal than long-term climate change for months, and you’ve replied to those posts so I know you’ve seen them. Now you say I’m ‘accepting’ it? There is something wrong with your memory.
Not one of your 3 replies addressed my point.
So I expect you’ll utter the same nonsense here month after month, pretending that anyone has ever said CO2 warming (CLIMATE) cancels natural variability (eg, WEATHER).
You’ll keep pretending that I never pointed pout that there are ups and downs suring seasonal climate change, which has a steady cause of change, and you’ll keep forgetting that there is no reason to expect global climate change will cancel natural vbariability.
barry, you STILL believe CO2 is warming the planet?
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were trying to desert the sinking ship.
Hang in there. Maybe a few others will go down with you. When cults finally implode, it’s not a pretty sight.
As I try to understand your comment barry, it appears you are willing to stay with the sinking ship, but you’re wearing a flotation device.
That’s probably smart….
You continue to be a troll. As usual you comments are tangential to the discussion.
barry, you will have to admit you’re not making sense. This ongoing plunge in the UAH results has you panicked. You try to deny the science, but it’s even harder to deny the actual data. When you see your beliefs being wiped out, it’s hard not to be affected.
You have admitted you don’t understand the science. That’s why you got so easily fooled by things like the blue/green plates and the moon issue. But, you used to be able to communicate intelligently. Look at your latest “effort”:
“You’ll keep pretending that I never pointed pout [sic] that there are ups and downs suring [sic] seasonal climate change, which has a steady cause of change, and you’ll keep forgetting that there is no reason to expect global climate change will cancel natural vbariability [sic]”.
Even allowing for the fact that we all make typos, you seem to just be rambling, along with false accusations. Let’s see if you can clarify your beliefs:
1) Do you still believe that it’s okay to violate the laws of physics for the purpose of promoting a hoax? (blue/green plates)
2) Do you still believe it’s okay to violate the laws of physics to promote astrology? (Moon issue)
3) Do you believe it’s okay to censor science, to protect your cult beliefs? (climategate)
“hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.”
Climate deniers say the darndest things!
“hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.”
Yeah, its as if something else could also cause the the temperature to change…
That would be weird!
Nate says:
hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.
Yeah, its as if something else could also cause the the temperature to change
That would be weird!
=====================
How about water vapor Nate? I mean we know that water vapor changes the lapse rate at least so it might be the only gas with radiant forcing potential. Then you have the potential of cosmic rays influencing cloud, minor TSI changes that influence clouds, changes in wind patterns by whatever it is that shifts the jet stream, etc.
Why do you have such a closed mind on all this?
barry
I think that, due to some readers, enclosing such comments within e.g. {sarcasm} resp. {/sarcasm} brackets sooner or later will become a necessity.
J.-P. D.
We now find ourselves in the enso 3.6 year down beat as predicted. As to if it will be a double dip La Nia, it is hard to say. Taking 2010, 11, 12 as proxy during the last 11 year enso cycle La Nia down beat, we have a fairly good chance of a double dip. That said, you cant set your watch by these things. The deep mid Pacific has been warming. Guess we will have to wait and see. NOAA hedging their bets giving it a 50% chance.
Going sub baseline is another blow to these models predicting an ice free arctic. Instead we saw meridional flows all winter helping the earth shed heat followed by an early spring season strengthening of the polar vortex. Just what you need to shed heat during the polar night, bring moisture in, build snow and ice, and lock it away with a strengthened vortex at the end of the season. I wonder if this setup will occur frequently over the next 14 years… 1960-1974 is our proxy location for the important 60 year cycle.
That’s exactly what it is. Now the 0 o C isotherm is only at an altitude of about 600 m in Central Europe.
Radiation from the sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s climate system. Changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun cause variations in the seasonal distribution and amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. Records of past climate show that there is a correlation between these variations and long‐term climate changes [Hays et al., 1976; Imbrie et al., 1992]. Interglacial conditions begin with increasing mid‐latitude summer insolation and end as mid‐latitude summer insolation decreases. Orbital‐scale climate cycles are driven largely by variations in solar radiation associated with precession, obliquity and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. Recent studies of the Asian monsoon show that the transitions between the glacial and interglacial conditions took place abruptly, perhaps only in century‐long events [Wang et al., 2001; Yuan et al., 2004]. However, it generally takes about 10 ka for the insolation to change from a minimum to maximum and vice versa.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025401
Just as much as the alarmists claiming it’s going to affect the long term trend when we’re in the midst of an El Nio…
Bary like my comment so much, I think I will repeat it.
Co2 is not a GHG and man does not cause the climate to change.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/
and the surface temperature data is being altered.
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/rewriting-the-climate-at-nasa/
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/NASAGlobal2000-2017.gif
There are continuous westerly winds in the tropical southeast Pacific. A southern polar vortex can amplify them.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/samer2/mimictpw_samer2_latest.gif
Sorry, constant easterly winds.
So, according to Richard M, I’m in pure denial ?!
Aha.
Here is SST data from HadSST3, compared with UAH6.0 LT:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2020/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010/trend/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2010/trend
Where is HadSST3 on the decline? Maybe in the last months?
Trends per decade since 2010, according to WFT and any spreadsheet calc:
UAH: 0.33
SST: 0.25
Btw, if UAH for the entire Globe looks so similar to a sea surface series over its entire lifetime:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2020/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend
should we not interpret this as an ocean bias inside of UAH?
Hmmmh.
J.-P. D.
Perhaps, but then could be adjustments made by HAD or simply following UAH.
BTW is there an RSS which includes oceans?
sorry silly Q… RSS global and land only quite similar but bit higher slope with land.
Of course, land-only series show higher trends than global ones, and conversely ocean-only series do the inverse, see LT as well as surface.
J.-P. D.
I thought RSS would have given up the land/ocean separations, but that was a mistake. They merely changed the data tree organization, now here for all available combinations:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
Ocean-only data is for example, for rev. 4.0:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Ocean_v04_0.txt
what then could be compared with column 5 in UAH’s zonal/regional data.
J.-P. D.
My bad, sorry: TMT -> TLT!
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Ocean_v04_0.txt
Bindi once again tries to used cherry picked trends to support imaginary warming. The only way to use trends of very noisy data is to remove as much of the noise as possible. Total failure on its part.
Always best to stay within ocean cycles like the PDO. Your trend went from -PDO conditions to +PDO not to mention using La Nina events early in the trend and El Nino events toward the end. It appears your true goal was to fool yourself. Certainly didn’t fool anyone with common sense.
Here’s a look at the last few years while we’ve been in +PDO conditions. You can see the SST changes and how they are reflected in the UAH data after the ~6 month lag.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.5/to/trend
What jumps out is the El Nino warming followed by the cooling when the El Nino effects end. All the claimed warming of the last few years appears to be non-existent.
If we are lucky we will get a 2 year La Nina to allow the full removal of all the El Nino warming. Then 6 months after the La Nina ends we can start to do some year to year comparisons to find if there’s been any warming at all.
Yeah, S. K. (Dodsland?) really is a gullible follower of Heller aka Goddard…
Years ago, Nick Stokes compared the differences between
– various changes applied to GISS data over the years
– UAH6.0 and UAH5.6 (for the LT)
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html
And no: I’m NOT a gullible follower of Nick Stokes. Simply because I obtained very similar graphs some years ago using available data.
*
Another example of being blind on one eye is Ole Humlum, who exclusively presented years ago the differences between RSS4.0 and RSS3.3, while persistently avoiding to show those between UAH6.0 and UAH5.6. His today’s view now is more equitable.
*
Just for fun, I made a comparison of these differences (until July 2017, UAH5.6’s expiration date):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xVNr2ry4ozSCYh49MpfLoH7Twx7C2HLP/view
*
Now, reading this:
” CO2 is not a GHG …
… and the surface temperature data is being altered. ”
That’s great, S. K., really great.
*
Btw: no, the surface temperature data is NOT being altered.
What has changed is the evaluation of the surface temperature data.
A typical example is area weighting of surface station data, which must be applied whenever portions of the Globe are overrepresented when compared with other parts.
Another example is infilling of unknown parts using interpolation techniques like kriging: if you don’t perform that, the unknown parts automatically get as value the average of the entire data.
There are, I agree, some evaluations which might look more questionable than others, e.g. NOAA’s Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm, see Clive Best’s critique about it on his blog.
J.-P. D.
Tony Heller’s comparison of measured and adjusted data is as scientific as it gets and yes the data is being altered/adjusted to promote man caused climate change.
tonyM summarized it perfectly:
As for Tony Heller I’m certainly thankful to him for doing the work which highlights certain issues. Certainly the key one is why do all the T adjustments correlate with CO2 changes with an R^2 of 0.99?
If you followed climategate you would understand the altering was premeditated.
Maybe I did that long time before you, who knows… and, in opposition to you, Heller & company: without preconceived ideas.
Again: you are Heller’s gullible follower.
I trust in the data I can honestly and successfully process.
J.-P. D.
Funny how until recently the alarmists were all quite happy with using a 30 year trend (which coincidently just happened to start in the coolest period of the 20th century). But now that they are seeing their voodoo models crumbling in the face of reality, out come the excuses as to why a 30 year trend is inappropriate.
Who are the “alarmists” you speak of. What do they believe? And what models are they using?
bdgwx, the “alarmists” are your allies here that believe the same as you and use the models you use.
But, if you now want to distance yourself from your cult, that’s probably wise.
Leave that sinking ship while you can.
Somewhere upthread I read a typical Coolista comment:
” Going sub baseline is another blow to these models predicting an ice free arctic. ”
I love such statements!
Wrt the former reference period 1981-2010, there were, between Dec 1978 and Dec 2020, 297 anomalies above zero.
Wrt the new reference period 1991-2020, there are now, between Dec 1978 and Dec 2020, only 180 anomalies above zero.
Sometimes, I ask myself whether there will be, within some brains, any increase of understanding about what anomalies exactly mean…
*
The average absolute temperature for 1981-2010 was near 263.95 K.
That for 1991-2020 was near 264.09 K.
The difference between them is +0.14 (K or C, doesn’t matter here).
Thus, it is evident that the anomalies wrt the monthly means for 1991-2020 MUST BE LOWER than those computed using the monthly means for 1981-2010.
The same happens, that should be evident, to GISS anomalies wrt the mean of 1951-1980 compared to anomalies wrt 1981-2010: the difference is about 0.42 C for land+ocean, and about 0.55 C for land-only series.
**
Luckily, the Arctic still is way away from becoming ice-free:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10qA6klNnFn_bo1DNOQZrPPa0fzWSvRYG/view
Simply because while the melting levels in September decreased by 4 Mkm^2, the rebuild levels in March decreased by less than 1 Mkm^2.
No reason, however, to ignore that Arctic sea ice melting in September is also way away from becoming lower.
Source for HadISST ICE
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, changing the base period doesn’t change the trends in the database(s). It does, however, change the seasonality of the new vs. the old version. HERE’s a look at the NH data> comparing the new minus the old basis.
R. E. Swanson
Thank you, but… that is in theory evident to me.
I’ll fully believe in it when the generation of an absolute time series out of anomalies + climatology wrt 1991-2020 is sufficiently identical to that generated out of the 1981-2010 data (which I still have on disk of course, he he).
This is no unnecessary skepticism: it has always been my way of processing data.
Germans around me love to say: “Vertrauen ist gut; Kontrolle ist besser”.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
R. E. Swanson
I did the check.
The differences between absolute temperatures generated out of anomalies and climatology wrt 1981-2010 and those generated wrt 1991-2020, differ by [-0.002: +0.003], probably due to rounding errors, as the grid has no more than 2 digits atdp.
Thus: both data sets very certainly have exactly the same origin.
I recall having made a really different experience some years ago…
J.-P. D.
The average temperature in the tropopause over the equator drops to -90 degrees C. This is the temperature reached by cloud tops in hurricanes. The record temperature was recorded in June 2018 and was -111 C at an altitude of 20.5 km.
The tropopause over the equator is very wide, and the lowest average temperature is always around 100 hPa.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
There is no temperature anomaly in the troposphere. The average temperature decreases according to the average vertical temperature gradient.
ren
100 hPa correspond on average to about 16 km.
With 6.5 K / km of negative gradient, that means about 105 K below surface, i.e. -90 C.
Sounds good!
J.-P. D.
This graph shows how the state of the stratospheric polar vortex has a huge impact on winter weather. The state of the winter polar vortex is beyond human control. This is shown in the graphic below. Winter pressure changes over the Arctic Circle can be very rapid.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png
Robertson’s eternal nonsense
1. ” … the UAH TLT is essentially the same as surface temperatures because it can be directly correlated with altitude. ”
Typical stuff written by the one with the by far least knowledge of all people commenting here.
This is absolute nonsense, Robertson. The LT is all the time dominated by processes which, like strong poleward advection streams, are (luckily) totally absent at the surface where we live.
The average absolute temperature where UAH observes them moreover is around 264 K, what corresponds to an average measurement altitude of about 4 km.
Zero relation of LT to surface – with one exception: the similarity of their anomalies wrt the same reference period.
But it is typical for boasters like you that this similarity is exactly what you deny, woefully speaking about me as of a person presenting “faked graphs over fudged data”.
*
2. ” That fact has been corroborated with radiosondes. ”
You have no idea about which radiosondes were used to get them ‘corroborating’ UAH data! Zero dot zero idea.
Firstly, John Christy presented already in 2006 a set of 31 (of course: so-called ‘US-controlled’) radiosondes which were calibrated in such a way that they would themselves reflect a posteriori satellite-based measurements.
Secondly, Leopold Haimberger, an Austrian professor at the Vienna University, developed methods for further calibration of radiosondes (RICH and RAOBCORE).
Thirdly, later on, the NOAA radiosonde set named ‘RATPAC’ (85 units) was selected among the entire, raw radiosonde set, and subsequently highly homogenized.
Here you see the difference
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VxPFlXEvnzEvQRdBmWKLdvMiQmr7JwDP/view
plotted in 2016, between
– the RATPAC-B data (nearly identical to UAH at 700 hPa);
– the 85 IGRA sondes selected for RATPAC-B, but without Haimberger’s homogenization schemes;
– the average of all available, of course raw sonde data within the 1500 IGRA units.
*
Nonetheless, even if homogenized, the 85 RATPAC radiosondes give a fit to UAH if and only if they measure temperatures at a higher atmospheric pressure than that corresponding to UAH6.0 LT’s measurements).
I’m not sure you would ever be able to understand what this means.
Doesn’t matter, Robertson.
Simply because you all the time write things you don’t understand anything about – regardless what it is: temperature measurements, anomalies, energy balance, 1Lot & 2Lot, Einstein’s relativity, GPS, Moon’s spin, viruses etc etc etc.
J.-P. D.
bindidon, you’re so jealous of Gordon you can’t get him out of your mind. You’re obsessed with him, to the point of mental illness.
Not only can he communicate better than you, but he also understands better than you, things like — temperature measurements, anomalies, energy balance, 1Lot & 2Lot, Einstein’s relativity, GPS, Moon’s [lack of] spin, viruses, etc etc etc.
Feel free to show this comment to your therapist. You need help.
Thanks a lot, Clint R!
You have just managed to demonstrate to all the readers of this blog that, as usual, you can’t manage to reply more than what Germans like to call a ‘Returkutsche’ (sorry: it’s a bit hard to translate, even in… Norsk).
But my little finger is telling me that you perfectly understand what Germans are saying with this idiom, which moreover matches the image you are constantly conveying about yourself: prepubescent.
Merci beaucoup, vielen Dank
J.-P. D.
No problem Bindidon. Hope it helps.
When’s your next therapy session?
binny…”what Germans like to call a Returkutsche (sorry: its a bit hard to translate, even in Norsk)”.
Let me help you with the translation, it means “the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered”.
That would apply if Clint was the one suffering the insult, which was not the case. I did not suffer insult from your pompous diatribe, I simply considered the source. I actually feel sorry for you in that you are burdened with such an embittered mind.
binny…”The average absolute temperature where UAH observes them moreover is around 264 K, what corresponds to an average measurement altitude of about 4 km”.
***
You have no idea how oxygen molecules in the atmosphere radiate energy and the difficulty of gathering that data using receivers in a satellite. The receivers are capable of gathering O2 emissions all the way to the surface, and they do. The trick is in determining which radiation comes from the surface area and which comes from various altitudes.
In your deluded mind, you probably think the receivers gather only O2 emission data from 4k altitude. You know nothing about AMSU receivers but you are willing to bray like a donkey, or should I say, an ass, about technology you know nothing about.
Roy has already explained that the AMSU receivers can gather surface data but that UAH does not use it due to differentiating it from noise generated at the surface.
***
“You have no idea about which radiosondes were used to get them corroborating UAH data! Zero dot zero idea”.
***
I don’t need to know anything about it, John Christy does know about it and he has written about the confirmations.
I don’t look at your home-made graphs, which are obviously inaccurate and biased. I’ll go with the studies done by John Christy, and probably Roy.