The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2021 was -0.05 deg. C, down from the March, 2021 value of -0.01 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.
The global cooling impact of the current La Nina is being fully realized now in global tropospheric temperatures.
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 16 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 0.31 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 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
How long can we expect the global cooling impact of the current La Nina to last?
The forecast is descending into a secondary La Nina so the cooling is far from over
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20210424//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Math, the UAH numbers tend to follow SST numbers with a 5-6 month lag. Note the November 2020 SSTs saw a small drop just like April UAH numbers.
The SSTs continued to fall through January 2021 which means a couple more months of lower UAH values. The SSTs have increased slightly in Feb/Mar so I expect July/Aug to see UAH to also increase although only slightly.
Longer term it depends on whether we see another La Nina next fall. If we get one then it should balance the dominate El Nino pattern from 2014-2020. If not then we could see some warming as the oceans still have some left over El Nino influence.
Those of us who believe that the oceans are the true driver of climate do not foresee a big cooling as 400 years of ocean warming is still with us. Whether we continue to see warming is questionable as the AMO cycle is set to switch in a few years. That should balance any additional ocean warming in the pipeline.
The lack of any additional warming should put the AGW nonsense into the dust bin of history.
There’s too much money and control at stake in AGW. It will be very difficult to put it into the dust bin of history.
They’ll claim the CO2 reductions that America and the EU have achieved prove them right and we need to keep reducing CO2. Only a massive long-term cooling can rid us of the AGW crowd.
Don – Agreed, CAGW is not quite poised over the dust-bin of history. But since CO2 is measured so prolifically, they’ll need another reason besides the (non-existent, I predict) CO2 reductions, along the lines of the “missing heat” arguments.
“they’ll need another reason besides the”
As noted by Roy, there is another reason, called La Nina, which are temporary coolings.
No sense in getting to excited.
Dons Says: They’ll claim the CO2 reductions that America and the EU have achieved prove them right and we need to keep reducing CO2. Only a massive long-term cooling can rid us of the AGW crowd.
The problem with that theory is this:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
They will have to manipulate the CO2 measurement. Problem with that approach is that anyone can measure CO2 levels to see they are lying. The problem is these fools tied global warming directly to CO2 and hyped it beyond belief. They bet the farm. They published nonsense like this:
https://i.postimg.cc/Cw9xTpv3/Hansen2130.jpg
They found a period of time, a unique period when we are emerging from the little ice age when by coincidence CO2 and Temp trended together. They took that and created some twisted Marxist Scientific Theory to try to destroy capitalism. Over time, Temp will stabilize and CO2 will continue higher. They don’t care because that is 100 or more years in the future.
They will have destroyed America by then, and no one will care about the climate or environment.
The ONI (Ocean Nino Index) is still running cool. The ONI changes over time are perfect matches to the changes in the global average temperature anomalies. I’ve been following Ventusky.com for the last couple of years. The ocean west of the Galapagos is almost an exact tell-tale sign of global fluctuations in temperature.
https://www.ventusky.com/
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
ENJOY!!!
–They will have destroyed America by then, and no one will care about the climate or environment.–
It seems to me, they have been successful mostly at destroying the Dem party.
Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and the Lurch are the leading lights of the party.
That is just sad.
And they used to have major news anchors.
If NYC is America, ok, lately, they have seemed to have done a number on that town.
It might bounce back.
“They took that and created some twisted Marxist Scientific Theory to try to destroy capitalism.”
What a nutjob you are.
Thatcher and Reagan pushed for reductions on CO2 emissions, based on scientific advice. Fossil fuel companies also did studies on it and concluded more CO2 = warmer surface temps. It’s not a leftist conspiracy, you raving twit.
AGW ceased to have anything to do with facts or science a long time ago. It’s all ideology now and will only fade away, if ever, when some counter ideology becomes more fashionable.
Having been there, I think Thatchers ‘scientific advice’ was more a convenient way of breaking the back of the Coal Miners Union and promoting Nuclear Power than it was fear of Climate Change. Do you know different?
Barry, there is no other purpose for claiming CO2 is a pollutant than to control energy production for political purposes. Now, that is nut-job.
Politically motivated nincompoops are in full flight on this thread.
No, the concern is about global warming, first and foremost. The isolated voices calling for abolishing or re-engineering capitalism can safely be ignored.
Except, of course, if you want to try and claim AGW is a Marxist hoax. Then you amplify these voices on a blog to help you rail against a non-event.
I mean, come on, guys. Stop being so damned paranoid. Fer chrissakes stop listening to the shock jocks. They thrive on amping people up on issues that are nothingburgers.
If you don’t want your government to make policy mitigating GHG emissions, then vote for the party that doesn’t do that.
That’s all you have to worry about.
Meanwhile, businesses worldwide have already taken up the cause, so no doubt they are blithely contributing to their own demise.
:eyeroll:
Barry: you comment that ‘Thatcher and Reagan pushed for reductions on CO2 emissions, based on scientific advice. Fossil fuel companies also did studies on it and concluded more CO2 = warmer surface temps.’
Where have you got this information from?
I live in the UK, and I have no recollection of Margaret Thatcher ever seeking reductions in CO2 emissions. She resigned as Prime Mimister in 1990. The IPCC had been formed just two years earlier, so I doubt that CO2 emissions were ever a concern during her tenure.
Clearly this is an interesting historical point of interest. I’ve looked on the UK government’s official website about British Prime Mimisters,and again, no mention of CO2 whatsoever. Can you supply any more information, please?
Carbon500,
This is what you are looking for: Margaret Thatcher’s speech to the UN.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
“Of all the challenges faced by the world community in those four years, one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance – I refer to the threat to our global environment. I shall take the opportunity of addressing the general assembly to speak on that subject alone…
While the conventional, political dangers – the threat of global annihilation, the fact of regional war – appear to be receding, we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger. It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries.
It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself.
Of course major changes in the earth’s climate and the environment have taken place in earlier centuries when the world’s population was a fraction of its present size. The causes are to be found in nature itself – changes in the earth’s orbit: changes in the amount of radiation given off by the sun: the consequential effects on the plankton in the ocean: and in volcanic processes.
All these we can observe and some we may be able to predict. But we do not have the power to prevent or control them.
What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways…
The difference now is in the scale of the damage we are doing…
We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air…
We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation of greenhouse gases.
It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect — but only in the right proportions…
Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: The land they cultivate ever more intensively; The forests they cut down and burn; The mountain sides they lay bare; The fossil fuels they burn; The rivers and the seas they pollute.
The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all…”
Thatcher had backed John Houghton’s efforts to set up the IPCC. In 1990 she said:
“The problems which science has created science can solve, provided we heed its lessons. Moreover, we have already established a structure of international co-operation on the environment to deal with ozone depletion, as some speakers have already mentioned. For the first time ever, rich and poor nations alike set out together to save our planet from a serious danger, and this painstaking work culminated in the historic agreement reached in London this year. That agreement is a real beacon of hope for the future…
Within this framework the United Kingdom is prepared, as part of an international effort including other leading countries, to set itself the demanding target of bringing carbon dioxide emissions back to this year’s level by the year 2005. That will mean reversing a rising trend before that date.”
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237
Barry: thank you very much for your link to Margaret Thatcher’s speech to the UN, and also the material you’ve quoted. I appreciate your taking the trouble to rely to my query.
I’d seen references to Margaret Thatcher’s views on several occasions, but I was never certain as to whether this was the truth or an oft-repeated myth. Now I know, rock-solid proof!
You’re welcome, and the sincere quest for truth is appreciated!
Carbon500,
Here’s a reference to Thatcher.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
Watch from 36mins 45sec into the doco for about 3 mins.
Not proof. But a reference. Maybe one of the ones you’ve seen.
Literally no one is claiming that the COVID slowdown is responsible for the temp dip. It is all on La Nina. The COVID reduction in emissions is too small to be detectable in a chaotic temp record. And the effect would be a decrease in the warming rate, not cooling. In fact, the accompanying decrease in aerosols might have made the planet a little warmer than it would have been otherwise.
Yeah, the pesky temperature going up and up as predicted over 100 years ago really makes it hard for climate science deniers to convince the public.
Depends on what happens with average global TPW. It is one of the measurements which glaringly demonstrate that the GCMs are pathetically wrong. NASA/RSS stopped reporting on TPW when Trump left office and might not report honestly again until objective people prevail over the Deep State. Until then, about the only credible information we have on average global temperature is what is reported here. The long term is an uptrend but the short term trend (from 2016) is down.
The excessive heat of the 1930s was followed by almost 4 decades of cooling (prompting the global cooling scare of the 70s), followed by almost 40 years of warming. Given a long list of failed predictions by alarmists (the end of snow, NYC under water, the Maldives sinking beneath the waves, etc.), why would you characterize skeptics as “deniers”? Doesn’t it seem reasonable to you that some of us want to wait to see more data before drawing conclusions? If you wanted to earn our trust, you should have demonstrated your knowledge with more accurate predictions. Right now, alarmists appear to many of us to be making wild guesses at something they don’t yet fully understand.
dummy- -have you ever checked out the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the ages? Almost non-existent- – -do you think that’s suddenly changed?
Leo said: have you ever checked out the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the ages? Almost non-existent
Just taking GHG + albedo with 0.75C per W/m^2 forcing alone yields an astonishing match to temperature over the last 800,000 years. See figure 6 in Hansen 2013 (https://tinyurl.com/2pc9wfu8). And over million year time scales the GHG + solar forcing provides a reasonable match to the secular temperature decline. See Foster 2017 (https://tinyurl.com/y5ts6u79) for more details. The Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) and other hyperthermal events in which in CO2 immediately lead the temperature change are worth checking out as well.
Richard M –
“The lack of any additional warming should put the AGW nonsense into the dust bin of history.”
Yes! Thank you
Eben should carefully read his source material.
“CAUTION: Seasonal climate anomalies shown here are not the official NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks.”
The official forecast is here (PDF).
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts an imminent transition to ENSO-neutral and continuing into fall 2021. Borderline La Nina conditions are predicted during the late fall or winter 2021-22.”
If you’re curious where Eben got his graph from, it’s on this page: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2seasonal.shtml
He chose the E3 scenario under monthly NINO3.4 SSTs outlook. The model is run with the most recent 10 days as the initial conditions. The official forecasts use a longer initialization period, which makes for more accurate forecasts.
The other link is to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Their outlook reads thus:
“The El NinoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral. Climate model outlooks indicate this neutral phase will last at least until September. With little sign of El Nino or La Nina developing, the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook status is INACTIVE.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Math,
Well the Atlantic Multidecade oscillation (AMO) is headed for its cold cycle for a fifteen or more years.
Solar cycle #25 is still forecast to be smaller than #21, #22 and #23. Some say it will be like #24, others say smaller. Let’s say the same – so cold.
Volcanic cooling has been light over the past twenty years. If this heats up things will get colder (pun & mental twisting intended)
What worries me is shutting down nuclear (atomic) power plants. Most other power plants need daily (oil, gas) or biweekly (coal) fuel deliveries. 2 GigaWatt/ 2,000 MegaWatt New York Indian Head being shut down with several other nuclear plants going off line. Texas power debacle should be a lesson learned.
I’m stocking up on parkas, and indoor food growing and diesel oil heaters. Air/air heat pumps will not make it, even in Texas. I hope air/water(ground heat) driven heat pumps will.
Natural gas is not demonized like oil & coal but does make CO2. Its biggest limitation is pipe size. Capacity is set by “slightly above average use” not “Holy Cr@p” once in a decade use.
What do you think ?
As far as I’ve read there is as much evidence that AMO follows global temps than leads them.
https://tinyurl.com/fd6h2eh8 [AMO and global temps plotted together]
You can also see in the graph is that there are times when global temps and AMO are out of phase.
Recent work suggests that the AMO isn’t even a real thing, but North Atlantic temps aliasing global.
Bellman, just look at the graphic.
Call Girls Service Chandigarh
Now we’re back to the 1980 level. A 30% increase in CO2 has caused absolutely no warming. None. How can anyone have any credibility in this theory? Let me repeat, CO2 has “trapped” a net 0.00 W/m^2 in the atmosphere since 1980 even though CO2 is 30% higher.
The oceans have warmed and that energy will influence atmospheric temperatures after the influence of the current La Nina ends. I agree it has nothing to do with mythical “trapped heat”.
Sorry to say, this temporary cooling is not going to end the climate debate.
Richard Says: The oceans have warmed and that energy will influence atmospheric temperatures
Yep, now we have to ask, what is warming the oceans. CO2 and 13 to 18µ, can’t and doesn’t warm the oceans, especially at the 50m depth, which is where the warming is. That is warmed by visible radiation.
Also, as you pointed out, El Nino will cool the atmosphere and remove energy from the system. No one denies that. If that is a fact, then there is no way for CO2 to cause catastrophic warming unless El Ninos end. Facts are, at best CO2 can cause an increased frequency of El Ninos, not catastrophic warming.
What is warming the oceans? I suspect there are multiple factors involved but two things may be more important than most people think.
Ocean salinity has been on the increase for around 400 years. This may be part of the reason for the recovery from the LIA. Higher salinity reduces evaporation which is a cooling mechanism. Humans have also been adding to the natural levels.
On top of that humans have been polluting the oceans with plastic. It is light enough to float near the surface. It gets broken down into micro-plastic bits which makes it hard to see but it is there. This also reduces evaporation as well as absorbing higher energy solar energy which would normally penetrate much deeper into the water.
It is not unreasonable that much of the warming of the last 40 years is due to these effects.
When someone explains exactly why temperatures have always fluctuated on times scales of multiple decades, centuries, and millennia, then I will believe they will have some basis for saying why they have done so for the past few decades.
Pre-global warming alarmism, there was a clearly and well documented pattern of several decades of cooling following several decades of warming, and going by data collected up to that point in time, it was clear we have seen nothing like the 1930s-1940s warmth and frequency of all manner of weather calamities.
The only thing that has changed is that some people want to convince everyone that bad weather is a new thing that never used to happen, and it is getting steadily and inexorably worserer and worserer.
Where exactly is the climate crisis on this graph?
Or in the actual world?
It exists no where at all, except in the deluded raving of alarmist panic-mongering end-of-world catastrophists.
The internet and the MSM is the new city street corner sandwich board.
And, I forgot to add, elected politicians are the new crazy old men holding those sandwich boards and screaming about the end being nigh to anyone stupid enough to listen.
Richard M Says: Ocean salinity has been on the increase for around 400 years. This may be part of the reason for the recovery from the LIA. Higher salinity reduces evaporation which is a cooling mechanism. Humans have also been adding to the natural levels.
Great point Richard, and that raises another issue I doubt any of the CO2 alarmists thought of. They claim we have been warming and sea level increasing. That is 100% inconsistent with an increase in salinity. An increase in salinity is associated with a decrease in sea level. Have sea levels been decreasing? Actually yes. Look at any major historical site in antiquity. Thermopyle is 2 km inland, Troy is 2km inland, Hannable crossed the Alps, Carthage harbor isn’t under water, Pompaii graves that used to be accessed by boat are now tourist attractions that you walk to.
“On top of that humans have been polluting the oceans with plastic. It is light enough to float near the surface. It gets broken down into micro-plastic bits which makes it hard to see but it is there. This also reduces evaporation as well as absorbing higher energy solar energy which would normally penetrate much deeper into the water.”
That is nonsense. Micro plastic is warming the oceans? Show some data to support that claim.
CO2isLife asks for data about plastic pollution: Here’s a paper that talks to the pollution itself.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15611
This is from rivers and does not count beaches and boats in the ocean itself.
Will it cause warming? What we know is fresh water has the highest evaporation rate and will hold the most CO2. Anything that reduces the freshness will lead to less evaporation and more CO2 outgassing.
Is it enough to have cause the warming we have seen? I don’t think it would be completely responsible. However, on top of the natural salinity change it could be a factor.
How does a neutral substance like plastic influence pH or the ‘freshness’ of water?
Yeah, plastic can’t be a good thing to throw into the water but it isn’t a toxic substance and so far there isn’t evidence of it affecting the carbon cycle at any stage.
No what you mean is your lost the argument and can’t admit you was FOOLish.
“Now we’re back to the 1980 level.”
Not sure what you mean by that. There was only one month in 1980 that was as warm as April 2021. The first 4 months of 2021 have been 0.21C warmer than the first 4 months of 1980.
Bellman Says: Not sure what you mean by that. There was only one month in 1980 that was as warm as April 2021. The first 4 months of 2021 have been 0.21C warmer than the first 4 months of 1980.
The atmosphere isn’t a battery, the energy level of the atmosphere is back to the level of 1980. CO2 has “trapped” exactly 0.00 W/M^2. How is this possible that 30% more CO2 has temperature levels back to the identical level it was back in 1980? Light comes in and leaves the atmosphere at the speed of light, leaving a bit slower, but still very fast. CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules. There is a whole lot af area between CO2 molecules even in the lower atmosphere, but the distance between them increases with altitude. Evidence CO2 actually helps cools the stratosphere. You act like warming next month may be important and you can blame it on CO2. You can’t. Warming will only occur if new energy is added to the system, that is the only way, and CO2 doesn’t add energy to the system.
I never mentioned CO2, I just asked what you mean by “back to the levels of 1980”?
Bellman, just look at the graphic. The level is back to where we were in 1980. The current month is below the average.
Maybe you should have said one month in 1980 if that’s what you mean. But then by that logic we are also 0.3C warmer than 1980.
Where do you think energy goes during a La Nina? Does it cause less energy to enter the system or more to leave it?
Bellman: Where do you think energy goes during a La Nina? Does it cause less energy to enter the system or more to leave it?
How would La Nina prevent energy from entering the system? Once the warm water from El Nino leaves, cold water from La Nina fills in the void. It is more energy shuffling/moving than adding or subtracting.
“It is more energy shuffling/moving than adding or subtracting.”
So sort of like a rechargeable battery that can shuffle energy to and from the atmosphere at various times. Like shuffling in energy in 1980 and shuffling out energy in 2021.
“The atmosphere isnt a battery, the energy level of the atmosphere is back to the level of 1980. CO2 has ‘trapped’..”
Co2 ignores contradictory facts, as usual.
As to electrical analogs, the atm is more like a resistor, and the ocean is a capacitor, a rather big one.
The ‘trapped’ heat is mostly in the ocean, the atm is the medium through which it gets into and out of the ocean.
The land and ice sheets also soak up some heat.
“Now were back to the 1980 level. A 30% increase in CO2 has caused absolutely no warming. None.”
You seriously need to learn how to build a linear trend
You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_trend_estimation
draw a line from the warmest month in 1980 to today
the net (seasonally adjusted) energy gain over that entire period is ZERO
nada
zip
zilch
the various ways we can fit curves to the space between doesn’t change that
Eze Says: You seriously need to learn how to build a linear trend
Really? What does a linear trend have to do with current temperatures? CO2 is 30% higher and temperatures are back to 1980 levels. Please explain the linear regression I get when I have a data point in 1980 at 0.00 and today at 0.00. Just what is the slope? Also, newsflash, there is no linear trend anywhere in that data set longer than maybe 5 years. Also, if you run your linear regression you will get an R-Squared of about 0.00. Basically there is noise, there isn’t a linear trend. Anyway, Δ Temp isn’t a function of ΔCO2, it is a function of &Delts;W/m^2. Feel free to explain how you get a linear relationship out of this relationship. Hint, it is a log function, not a linear function.
https://open.oregonstate.education/app/uploads/sites/37/2019/07/f09_rfco2_t3.png
“CO2 is 30% higher and temperatures are back to 1980 levels.”
Yup, exactly.
And while it may only be one month from 1980 and one month of 2021, that is only so far.
The present trend can continue, and if it does, the graph will look a lot different pretty quickly.
It also needs to be pointed out that 1980 was at the bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend.
So we are now cooler than the period of 1950-1980 for the most part.
Far below the vast majority of the months in those three decades.
And we are heading down, and we could have a strong volcanic eruption at any time. We are overdue for some of them, historically speaking.
It is beyond belief how selectively warmistas are able to focus their minds.
None of these data points exist in isolation.
Not looking at everything we know, IOW, the Big Picture, by definition means one is applying selective attention.
We have very good surface observations going back many decades in quite a few cities worldwide, and we have such data for the US going back over 100 years.
And in none of these places, do unadjusted records show any long term overall warming. Instead they all show various patterns of cyclical variation.
Anyone who is not a child and who has spent a lot of time out of doors over many decades observing the weather, knows that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING UNUSUAL HAPPENING WITH THE WEATHER, ANYWHERE!
It is really as simple as that.
Take away all the fake crap by biased advocates for a failed hypothesis, and there is no actual measured data showing anything like CO2 caused global warming is occurring.
I have been following this issue since the day James Hansen gave his talk to congress in 1988, and have been a careful observer and student of these subjects for a lot longer than that, and I can say with 100% certainty, that not one single warmista gave any possibility of 2021, or any month in this year, heading back to 1980 temperatures.
What we have had is 43 years of grave and urgent pronouncements of imminent and sure-as-the-Sun-will-rise-tomorrow catastrophic impacts. The projected date of the onset of doom has been various within a few years, or actually in progress, and the only question was how bad is it going to get?
Six feet of water on the west side highway, tens of millions of climate refugees, and not a maybe about it, the end of ice, the end of polar bears (who were already starved to skin and bones and adrift on an ice floe), the end of snow, huge and frequent hurricanes from now on, starting in 2004 and not only no possibility of that being wrong, but in fact we will need to invent a few new categories about cat 5, never gonna rain again in Texas, end of the story, never gonna rain again in Australia, end of the story, never gonna rain in California again, end of the story, the only place habitable by mid century will be Antarctica, end of the story because the rest of the Earth is a doomed inferno of hellish death, last time we will ever see even a decent crop harvest, sea level drowning the Maldives and every atoll in the Pacific, and we might as well start splitting up the people on them and shipping them out, cause it is a done deal, Oranges growing in Iowa, the end of permafrost, sea level rise drowning Miami, it is already started, the collapse of the ice sheets, the end of glaciers…they are ALL melting fast and all but gone already, We have five years left to save the planet, make that 12 months, no, make it 6 months…oh wait, make it two years…Widespread megadroughts everywhere except where there will be megafloods, more tornadoes, more and stronger hurricanes again, forget about the hurricane drought, those are not the droids you are looking for, six years with no warming will prove the idea wrong, better make it ten, pause, what pause, oh that pause, 87 reasons for the 15 year long pause, oh wait, no…no there never was a pause, the atolls are almost gone now, only inches left, any day any day, wait…wait, the real problem is ocean acidifciation, I mean coral bleaching, I mean ice sheet collapse, I mean the urgently important frozen wastelands at the poles must stay frigidly ice locked or WE ARE ALL DEAD(!), we only have a few years to act again, we have to act now, we have to act before 2031, we only have 13 years to act, sea level will rise several inches by 2100, Antarctica is gaining ice…wait, what…no no no that is not true, it is melting fast…or soon will be, WAIS could be gone very quickly, in the end the last of the Arctic sea ice will just vanish quickly away, death spiral, the Arctic is screaming(!), the real issue is climate crisis, climate crisis ongoing, we must tackle the climate, climate deniers are killing your children, must take to the streets, we could warm by the last few fractions of a degree that will tip us over into Cinderville, Coral bleaching again, Get rid of all the CO2, and also all the ways to make power within CO2 emissions, hate them hydro dams, hate that nuclear, climate crisis an existential threat, windmills and solar panels are the only hope, stay on message, avoid specifics, just hammer the climate crisis, we need to tackle the climate, global weirding, climate chaos, private jets and megayachts at luxury resorts for me, eating bugs and ride your bike for thee…It does not matter how or what is gonna happen, the important thing is to stay on message, move the goalposts, alter the data, and pretend that although it seems every measure of prosperity is way up across the planet, and the islands are larger, and the coral grew back…everyone knows the crisis must be tackled and it is all the deniers’ fault.
Yeah, 40 years of moving goalposts and failed predictions, but in 2021 we can pretend that the entire lower troposphere being no warmer than the warmest month of the coldest year of the entire 20th century, does not really mean warmistas have gotten anything wrong…does it?
You warmista jackasses make the Mr. Short Term Memory skit guy on SNL look like the president of Mensa.
Seriously…do you ever read anything, or recall what you were yammering about a couple of years ago?
Any of you?
Ever?
I mean it…I want an answer from each and every one of you for why any serious person on the planet should take anything you say as anything other than a joke or a naked power grab or a sign of a brain tumor grown wild?
I wish I knew how to grow a selective memory, because then maybe I would not have to think about how much you fools wasting all of our money and time make me so goddamn SICK!
“draw a line from the warmest month in 1980 to today
the net (seasonally adjusted) energy gain over that entire period is ZERO”
Nope. That’s not “the entire period.”
The period being tested here is exactly 2 months.
If you want to figure out the energy gain over the “entire” period, you use all the data for that period, not 2 cherry-picked months.
I could pick a warm day in Winter that is as warm as a cold day in the following Summer, and hey presto! There was zero net energy gain in my hemisphere between Winter and Summer.
Using your logic, that is the conclusion.
But use all the temperature data for Winter and all the temperature data for Summer, and you will see that there WAS a net energy gain.
Avoiding cherry-picking data is easy once you realize that this is what you are doing.
how many months would you suggest Barry?
All months for the selected period, which in this case is 1980 to present.
ok so pretty harmless warming then.
So far.
barry says:
May 3, 2021 at 5:26 PM
So far.
So Far is 40 years, and if you count Global Cooling, 50 years.
When is this catastrophic disaster going to begin to happen?
Well OK, not zackly the topic of the last few posts, but you know where I’m coming from. The climate crisis is always a tipping point away, over there, just under the surface, you can’t see it, and it won’t feel that much different, but it’s gonna gitcha.
Steve Case said: When is this catastrophic disaster going to begin to happen?
Can you define “catastrophic”? What amount of warming would you consider “catastrophic”?
bdgwx says:
May 4, 2021 at 2:05 PM
Steve Case said: When is this catastrophic disaster going to begin to happen?
Can you define catastrophic? What amount of warming would you consider catastrophic?
You can Google “catastrophic climate change” to see how often the fear mongers use the phrase. Ask them for a definition.
I did just that. There does not seem to be an accepted definition. It is different depending on who you ask. For example, The Guardian seems to think 1.5C of warming is catastrophic and you could infer from Hansen 2013 that 16C is catastrophic though Hansen’s rhetoric suggests lower values as well, but the IPCC does not think any amount of warming is catastrophic or at least is mute on the topic. For me no reasonable amount of warming is catastrophic. So to answer your question we need to know what your definition of “catastrophic” is.
lol we gave you a cherry and you complained it was cherry picked
neither date is arbitrary
the present date is obviously the present date
the warmest date in 1980 is the earliest date at which we can say the energy of the Earth was the same
learn some basic logic, then try physics
UAH-TLT is not a good proxy for the climate system. It is but a subset of the atmosphere which itself is a subset of the climate system. The atmosphere only accounts for about 1% of the total excessive heat uptake. The climate system as a whole (land, atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere) has accumulated over 250 ZJ of energy since 1980. So the energy of “the Earth” is not the same today as it was in 1980…not even close. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj).
good point, also don’t forget the Earth’s core
plus if you factor in the Sun the Earth barely has any energy anyway
Earth’s surface absorbs 3.9e24 j of energy from the Sun each year.
Earth’s surface absorbs 1.6e21 j of energy from the radiothermal heat generated in the core and tidal dissipation of the Earth-Moon system each year.
Neither of these sources of energy have been forgotten by scientists.
1)catastrophe: an event causing great and often sudden damage or suffering.
2)The UAH global average temperature trend is not a proxy for the climate system, it is an estimation of the observable global average temperatures and trend. Further, according to the models, 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 satellite and radio sonde balloon data indicate the models are probably significantly over estimating observed warming, by roughly a factor of 2 (and the models vary amongst themselves by roughly a factor of 2).
1. The part about being sudden is the main reason why I don’t think any reasonable amount of warming can be described as catastrophic.
2. If by models you mean the CMIP suite then understand that they do reproduce surface temperatures quite well. They certainly aren’t perfect, but not even remotely close to overestimating by a factor of 2. https://tinyurl.com/yr893sp7
‘great and often sudden damage ‘
so your opinion is based on a misreading of the definition.
‘great’ damage is all that is required.
sometimes minor damage is considered a catastrophe also when it happens suddenly and unexpectently. ‘Catastrophe struck and the quarterback fumbled.’
in that latter use its essentially slang.
many will die from the cost of increasing the price of energy in a world built on such energy. that would be a catastrophe. and the only justification for it be an assured much larger cafastrophe. the government should not be dictating who should live and who should die
“I could pick a warm day in Winter that is as warm as a cold day in the following Summer,”
in winter we know it’s going to get warmer
the future path of global temperatures is far less predictable
“in winter we know it’s going to get warmer”
Yes, we do, and we are not fooled that Summer is canceled just because one day in Summer was colder than a warm day the previous Winter.
But AGW ‘skeptics’ are fooled that all the warming was canceled when one month 40 years ago is warmer than a month 40 years later.
It’s the difference between weather and climate. ‘Skeptics’ don’t understand it.
Well, Barry gets my vote for most elaborately inane and irrelevantly contrived triple somersault mental gymnastics.
Seriously…do you know that every word you are saying is the very definition of sophistry?
A warm day in December is exactly the same as no trend over 40 years on a seasonally adjusted map of the heat content of the entire atmosphere, and global warming is actually proceeding apace?
When will you apprise us all of the actual date of extreme and dangerous warming?
What is the new estimate of doomsday?
Nothing bad happening now, nothing bad was happening in the warmest year on that graph, or any other…you know that, right?
Bad weather has always been a thing, you do know that, do you not?
Sea ice is not shrinking anyplace, it is growing, glaciers are surging, places in both hemispheres are have days long and widespread cold not seen since the the global cooling scare that never was.
No refugees, coral grew back, ocean still not vinegar, still no cat 11 hurricanes, islands not a single square meter smaller, and in the ultimate same old same old…warmistas have still not thought of a single new thing to say, and still have no explanation for being completely wrong about every single thing every one of them has said for over 30 years now.
And that is a long time.
You guys have painted yourselves deep into a corner.
Not a one of you has left a single way to extricate yourself from absolute and abject humiliation, which of course no even semi-intelligent mind can ever allow to happen to the consciousness of the person lugging around that big brain everywhere.
I can say one thing I am very glad of: I am glad I learned how to stay objective and evidence based, and not jump to conclusions and stick my fool neck out while leaving myself no qualifying remarks or intellectual recourse.
I say this with all seriousness…it must be a very nervous place to be living inside such a mind.
I feel pity for you all, real pity.
> You guys have painted yourselves deep into a corner.
There is life beyond the News Corp sphere:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/
“Sea ice is not shrinking anyplace, it is growing, glaciers are surging, places in both hemispheres are have days long and widespread cold not seen since the the global cooling scare that never was.”
What planet does Nicholas live on? Not ours it seems.
“draw a line from the warmest month in 1980 to today”
Ok so if plot heights of Presidents, I should draw a line from 1865 (Lincoln 6’4″), to today (Biden, 6’0), and conclude that Presidential heights have been trending downward for the last 150 y?
Or perhaps, should I use all the heights of Presidents in between? Hmmm.
no doubt your algorithm predicts Jefferson and Washington as well
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1115255/us-presidents-heights/
Notice “US presidents are getting taller. Of the ten most recent presidents, only Jimmy Carter has been shorter than the presidential average, while none of the presidents who have served since the beginning of the twentieth century have been shorter than the national average.”
Your ‘algorithm’ connecting two cherry-picked points by a line, FAILS to see this trend.
Absolutely no warming since 1980?
Look at the red line my dude.
*sighs in basic statistics*
One thing I want to note is that the entire range of temperature variation in the above graphic is 1.4C°. That is far less than the average diurnal change in temperature.
In the absence of such extreme air-mass changes, diurnal temperature variations typically range from 10 or fewer degrees in humid, tropical areas, to 40-50 degrees in higher-elevation,
People are hysterical because the global temperature variation is a fraction of the daily temperature variation.
To make matters worse, we are now back to the level in 1980, so you can’t even say CO2 has caused any change in temperatures.
That argument doesn’t hold water. The diurnal temperature variations during the Little Ice Age were equally large, yet the estimated average global temperature was only some 2 degrees C lower than today’s. Apparently a change in global average temperature of 2 degrees is significant, unless you also want to downplay the difference in climate between then and now. Don’t get me wrong, I do think that an increase in global temperatures (and CO2) is beneficial overall.
Chris, my point is that the temperature change since 1980 is 0.00C°, and the variation over that time is a fraction of the daily variation, meaning that we are way way way within any confidence interval or possible normal temperatures due to normal variations.
You are comparing apples and oranges: the peak temperature during an El Niño with a low temperature during a La Niña. You could also call this: cherry picking. You should use the trend 0.14 °C/decade, which would amount to 0.6 °C increase since 1980, not 0.00 °C.
Wouldn’t you think it dishonest if an alarmist would claim in 2016 (at the peak of the El Niño with +0.7 °C) that the temperature increased by 1.4 °C in only 31 years by comparing it with the bottom of the La Niña in 1985 (-7°C)? You are doing the same in the other direction.
Chris says: ou are comparing apples and oranges: the peak temperature during an El Niño with a low temperature during a La Niña. You could also call this: cherry picking. You should use the trend 0.14 °C/decade, which would amount to 0.6 °C increase since 1980, not 0.00 °C.
Really? remove El Nino and you get no warming and the volatility drops. Even with El Nino we are back to 1980 levels. Also, the oceans are warming, not the surface, 50 m deep. How is CO2 warming that depth of water? If you can’t explain how 13 to 18µ LWIR can warm that water, you can’t claim CO2 is causing the warming.
There was a font problem:
You are comparing apples and oranges by comparing the peak temperature during an El Nino with a low temperature during a La Nina. This is cherry picking. You should use the trend 0.14 C/decade, which would amount to 0.6 C increase since 1980, not 0.00 C.
Wouldnt you think it dishonest if an alarmist would claim in 2016 (at the peak of the El Nino (with +0.7 C) that the temperature increased by 1.4 C in only 31 years by comparing it with the bottom of the La Nina in 1985 (-7 C)? You are doing the same in the other direction.
“yet the estimated average global temperature was only some 2 degrees C lower than todays.”
Where are getting this from?
And even if it were less than 2 degrees C, that would only strengthen my point.
h..ps://www.thegwpf.com/new-paper-finds-temperature-drop-during-the-little-ice-age-was-twice-as-much-as-prior-estimates/
seems a reasonable estimate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266037018_On_the_recovery_from_the_Little_Ice_Age
This is the near-term prediction from the paper.
“…the situation in 2000 is similar to that in 1940, so that it is predicted that the temperature change will be flat or in a slightly declining trend during the next 30 years or so…”
that prediction is going rather poorly.
https://tinyurl.com/cevm8d4e
Paper does not posit a mechanism for its long-term prediction other than “recovery”, as if the global climate is like a piece of elastic relaxing back to some kind of ‘normal’ state.
It’s a rather vacuous curve-fitting exercise.
sort of like a computer model does, only difference is those things were observed before fossil fuel burning got underway.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/03/climate-is-everything/
jingle fallacy!
Well, no, the ‘work’ in paper is nothing like a computer model (it models no physics), and climate models do not perform curve-fitting functions to determine cause of change.
The paper is vacuous curve-fitting exercise with no physical mechanism, attempting to make predictions. Your comparison with computer models based on that criticism is likewise vacuous.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0.epdf?author_access_token=MfLloMf9cKxz-ZVERkEqtNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N7bTxBqLecWapiK43Tv3o5NDYaJnSBI4FczMAgxR2O05jTpk89GK9luGZC8XfM_wWKUQBTunUIFfXvdtfaEVJgRzb68pEcz094DWge8pvMSA%3D%3D
LIA about 0.5 C below 1960-1990 levels
You can’t just picked out months. There’s month to month variability. There’s clearly a warming trend in the data over the 40+ years. How much of that is natural variability on decadal time scales and how much is manmade is another matter. But you have to be oblivious to not see the warming trend. The convenient red line points it out for you.
Matt1685: In the absence of such extreme air-mass changes, diurnal temperature variations typically range from 10 or fewer degrees in humid, tropical areas, to 40-50 degrees in higher-elevation,
Oh yes I can. The atmosphere isn’t like a battery. Energy leaves this system at the speed of light. The energy in the atmosphere is identical to the level in 1980.
How can an increase in CO2 by 30% result in no warming if CO2 causes warming?
Please explain how that can happen.
Ooops, Matt1685 Says: You cant just picked out months. Theres month to month variability.
Oh yes I can. The atmosphere isnt like a battery. Energy leaves this system at the speed of light. The energy in the atmosphere is identical to the level in 1980.
How can an increase in CO2 by 30% result in no warming if CO2 causes warming?
Please explain how that can happen.
Yes, you can. It only makes you wrong to do so. It’s no different than looking at a warm day in December and saying, “Oh! It’s 70 degrees today, the same as it was on June 16th 5 years ago! Seasonality of temperatures is a myth! How can there be over twice the incoming solar radiation in June as December and yet the temperature is the same?! Clearly there isn’t really any difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December!”
Matt1685, that is the deviation from the mean. The energy level is consistent with the whole atmosphere. That total atmosphere energy level is the same level as 1980. That means that CO2 has trapped 0.00 energy since that time period. How can CO2 increase by 30% and the current energy level be below the mean and at levels seen back in the 1980s? How is CO2 causing warming?
Clearly there IS a difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December. 91Wm-2 due to orbital mechanics. Way more than the 1.7Wm-2 attributed to CO2 since 1950s.
Here is the thing…we do not know what will happen going forwards.
If the people that say the last 30-40 years is simply part of a cyclic fluctuation, up and then down, within a range, then the graph will look a lot different a few years from now, and 30-40 years from now, it will be a sine wave like pattern.
Clearly none of the warmistas ever predicted what we are now seeing.
Just like they never predicted the pause, and eventually erased it from the data sets they could alter, in order to not have to do a bad job of explaining it away any more.
Meant to say, if those people are correct, who say the past years of warming are merely a leg of a cyclic fluctuation…
“That total atmosphere energy level is the same level as 1980. That means that CO2 has trapped 0.00 energy since that time period.”
C’mon CO2, do you severe memory loss? It has been discussed numerous time that most of thermal energy is in the ocean. And the Ocean Heat Content is still well above the levels of of 1980.
And AGAIN, “How can an increase in CO2 by 30% result in no warming if CO2 causes warming?” is a strawman.
No one is claiming that ONLY CO2 causes atmospheric temperature change. There is also internal variability like ENSO.
N,
The ocean is no different from any other salt water with regard to solar heating. Heats up in sunlight, cools at night.
Self styled “climatologists” believe in magic. Heated water gets denser, cold water starts floating, melting sea ice raises sea levels, plate tectonics doesn’t exist . . .
Believe the science deniers if you wish. Still won’t change facts. Boo hoo.
CO2isLife, it’s irrelevant if you’re talking about a global reading or a local reading, the problem with the reasoning is the same. There is inherent variability and two data points are cherry picked with the same value and then used to declare that a conclusion that can be made by looking at the entire information available to us can’t be true.
Ken, yes that’s the whole point. There clearly is a difference in incoming solar radiation between June and December, and that’s exactly why the situation I proposed demonstrates the problem with CO2isLife’s reasoning.
Ken Says: Clearly there IS a difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December. 91Wm-2 due to orbital mechanics. Way more than the 1.7Wm-2 attributed to CO2 since 1950s.
What hemisphere are you talking about? Winter in the N Hemis is Summer in the S Hemi. Just look at the data sets. Do you see an annual trend? Nope. Jan 0.42 July 0.31 Nov 0.40
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 0.31 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
The moderating effect of ocean currents means the temperature data isn’t going to show the contrast in energy flux changes over the same period.
“Do you see an annual trend? “
These data are *anomalies*. Each month’s value is compared to previous values *for that month*. Any variations within the year are averaged away. The actual data looks more like this: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/hottest-month/
The temperatures are warmer in July it seems — summer in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the land is.
“What hemisphere are you talking about? Winter in the N Hemis is Summer in the S Hemi.”
The elliptical shape puts the earth closer in January, which makes “which hemisphere?” moot. The earth as a whole gets more energy in January.
Not in a time-averaged sense. It is a remarkable fact about elliptical orbits – you spend less time at periapsis than you do at apoapsis. The intercepted energy is the same over any identical angular spread.
Bart, I suspect you mean something like “in an angle-averaged sense”. I have not specifically heard of or thought about this, but it sort of makes sense that as the earth moves 1/12 of an orbit = 30 degrees around the sun, that the energy is the same. But that 30 degrees would take less time in January than July (maybe 30 days vs 32 days).
But January still gets more in its 31 days than July gets in its 31 days.
(I thnink I got that right, but I have to rush off to work).
Bart,
TSI is 1360 W/m^2. This is the average over one orbital cycle. The instantaneous value varies between 1310-1410 W/m^2. At apogee the Earth receives (1310 / 4) W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 86400 s = 1.44e22 joules in one day. At perigee the Earth receives (1410 / 4) W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 86400 s = 1.55e22 joules in one day. Despite the Earth moving faster at perigee than apogee it still receives more energy on days in January as compared to July.
The fact that the angular velocity is higher at perigee vs apogee is interesting in that it means that changes in eccentricity of Earth’s orbit do not substantially alter the total integrated energy received over one orbital cycle. In other words a more circular orbit still receives roughly the same energy as a more elliptic orbit over the course of a complete orbit. The reason why Earth’s eccentricity is so crucial in long term climatic change is not because the yearly energy changes, but because the timing and distribution of that energy changes. It’s the same with axial tilt. Changes in Earth’s axial tilt do not change the total amount of energy Earth receives, but it does change the timing and distribution of that energy.
Tim:
“But January still gets more in its 31 days than July gets in its 31 days.”
This is an arbitrary delineation. It’s always daytime somewhere.
ME >> But January still gets more in its 31 days than July gets in its 31 days.
BART > This is an arbitrary delineation. It’s always daytime somewhere.
No, this is not arbitrary, and has nothing to do with “daytime somewhere”. The earth is closer to the sun in Jan than in Jul. So in 24 hr in Jan, more energy arrives across the face of the earth than in 24 hr in Jul. bdgwx just showed the calculations.
bdgwx added nothing to the conversation. Yes, it is arbitrary. The annual cycle has to do with revolution about the Sun. The daily cycle with rotation of the Earth. They are decoupled.
Honestly, I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here. I was just trying to be helpful to whomever in pointing out that, solstice to equinox (and equinox to equinox, and solstice to solstice, etc.) the Earth receives the same amount of solar energy regardless of the eccentricity of the orbit.
Bart,
The point is that Earth receives more energy on a daily basis in January than it does in July yet the global mean temperature is higher in July than it is January. My comment is spot on relevant to topic being discussed in this subthread.
If it helps, Roy Spencer posted about the annual cycle in UAH global temp data here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Roy’s explanation of the annual cycle, where LT temps are 2C warmer in July than January:
“The annual cycle is shown in the inset, with peak temperatures in July, due to the Northern Hemisphere land mass responding so strongly to summer sunlight.”
True, longer term trend is clearly positive.
But the extent is small and the effects benign.
And the recent decreases may be a reversion to the mean of absorbed solar, which, according to CERES, has been anomalously high the past two decades.
Matt1685 says: You cant just picked out months. Theres month to month variability.
Actually there really isn’t if you look at the data. Remember these are global temperatures so when one hemi is in winter the other is in summer. If what you say was true you would see a serrated chart, with the low in Dec, high in July, and back down to Dec. You don’t see that because when one hemi is in mid Summer the other hemi is in mid winter.
Anyway Dr. Spencer, he does make a good point. Why not instead of haveing a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average?
“If what you say was true you would see a serrated chart, with the low in Dec, high in July, and back down to Dec. You don’t see that because when one hemi is in mid Summer the other hemi is in mid winter.”
You don’t see that because these are monthly anomalies. The absolute temperatures do vary across the year.
“Anyway Dr. Spencer, he does make a good point. Why not instead of haveing a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average?”
That’s exactly how the monthly anomalies are computed.
CO2isLife,
With no seasonal adjustment to UAH data there is a 2C difference globally between January and July.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
So what you said:
“Remember these are global temperatures so when one hemi is in winter the other is in summer. If what you say was true you would see a serrated chart, with the low in Dec, high in July, and back down to Dec. You don’t see that because when one hemi is in mid Summer the other hemi is in mid winter.”
is completely wrong and you do see a ‘serrated’ effect. Check the link. It is straight from the people who compile the UAH data set (ie, Roy Spencer).
You are STILL blunderingly asserting that if there is a steady change to underlying energy amounts (either warming OR cooling) in the global heat budget, you should see global air temperature change in the same direction every month.
That is as stupid as saying that Summer is no warmer than Winter, just because one day in Summer happened to be cooler than a warm day in Winter. But that is simply weather variability, and seasons actually exist.
Barry Says: You are STILL blunderingly asserting that if there is a steady change to underlying energy amounts (either warming OR cooling) in the global heat budget, you should see global air temperature change in the same direction every month.
Ok, the data is seasonally adjusted like I recommended to Dr. Spencer. That doesn’t help your CO2 causes climate change argument, it weakens it. If CO2 was truly the cause you wouldn’t seem randomness like you are seeing. The linear trend would be undeniable. Clearly there are many exogenous factors that are driving temperatures. Have you developed a model to tease out those factors? Nope, and you say I’m blunderingly. You obviously have no experience with multivariate modeling because climate models are a complete joke.
“Ok, the data is seasonally adjusted like I recommended to Dr. Spencer.”
Seriously? You have no concept that these are monthly data, nor do you recognize the most rudimentary facts about earth’s elliptical orbit, and you want us to believe that you are giving advice to Dr Spencer and you are an expert in multivariate modelling?
I mean, seriously, how deluded is this fool?
“If CO2 was truly the cause you wouldn’t seem randomness like you are seeing.”
Yes, of course you would. You would continue to see ups and downs, no matter what the cause of long term global temperature change. You are insane to suggest otherwise. Just plain loopy.
“The linear trend would be undeniable.”
0.14 C/decade (+/- 0.05)
The linear trend is undeniable. It’s also corroborated, including with statistical significance, for the same period for all the other data sets.
CO2isLife said: If CO2 was truly the cause you wouldnt seem randomness like you are seeing.
That’s absurd. CO2 doesn’t stop weather from happening. It doesn’t ENSO from happening. It doesn’t magically stop heat transfer between land, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and the cryosphere. The atmosphere has a very small thermal mass/inertia as compared to the rest of the climate system so small changes in heat transport yield large changes in its temperature. Atmospheric temperatures are very noisy. I highly recommend you look at the climate system as whole where there is far less noise. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) for a brief overview of how the excess heat/energy is distributed throughout the climate system.
“Why not instead of haveing a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average?”
Is this a joke?
That is actually how it is done.
Barry,
The temperature trends for the months are not the same as the annual trend.
The annual trend is 0.14 C/decade. However, the trend from September to March (from 1979-2021) is around 0.15 C/decade. The trend for the period March – September is 0.125 C/decade.
If you select only the January months, this would give a warming trend is 0.156 C/decade. So the January months have warmed more than the July months. Is that maybe what CO2islife is referring to?
Barry,
The temperature trends for the months are not the same as the annual trend.
The annual trend is 0.14 C/decade. However, the trend from September to March (from 1979-2021) is around 0.15 C/decade. The trend for the period March – September is 0.125 C/decade.
If you select only the January months, this would give a warming trend is 0.156 C/decade. So the January months have warmed more than the July months. Is that maybe what CO2islife is referring to?
I’m predicting that 2021 will NOT be the warmest year ever.
Wow, you are really going out on a limb there.
/sarc
With the new Pause, the record warm year of 2016 may remain unbeaten for many years to come. We may not break the 2016 record until after 2030.
So many ‘pauses’….
https://tinyurl.com/ahuuwut8
NASA and NOAA will find a way to make that happen.
Yes, you can. It only makes you wrong to do so. It’s no different than looking at a warm day in December and saying, “Oh! It’s 70 degrees today, the same as it was on June 16th 5 years ago! Seasonality of temperatures is a myth! How can there be over twice the incoming solar radiation in June as December and yet the temperature is the same?! Clearly there isn’t really any difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December!”
Once again we see an almost perfect match between 6 month old SST changes and UAH. The HadSST3 value for 11/20 had a .02 drop while UAH shows a .04 drop.
The changes in HadSST3 for Dec (-.09) and Jan (-.03) predict we will see minor drops in UAH over the next couple of months. Of course, other factors could come into play so keep that in mind.
It would not be surprising to see a value around -.20. Satellite data at the peaks and valleys of SST variation often shows larger extremes so it could even reach -.30.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
I wonder why UAH global trend is exactly the same as HadSST trend?
In all data sets, global land trend is warming faster than global sea surface trend (including UAH).
Expected greater cooling as we are still waiting for Spring in the UK.
Its an illusion. Im sure this will be the warmest year ever because Biden demands it be so
Ioseph Biden knows about as much about climate as does Al Gore. Not much.
I suspect he recalls less about what sort of mush he swilled down for breakfast, than my dumbest cat.
Very low UV radiation compared to previous solar cycles (no strong solar flares) means a decrease in total solar radiation. In this situation, the Pacific accumulates less heat during La Nina. In addition, longer periods of declining solar wind speeds will cause zonal circulation to block and winter polar vortex attacks in the mid-latitudes.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
https://i.ibb.co/KN92gYb/plot-image-1.png
The last period of decreasing solar wind speed was from late March to mid-April.
This resulted in a brief weakening of the south polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2021.png
Does reduced TSI affect the temperature of the Pacific?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat4_sstanom_1-day.png
I think it is proven once again that ENSO is the controlling factor in climate, but not the only factor. I think we have to wait for the AMO to shift to the cold phase before any conclusion about other factors can be made.
I have a question for the atmospheric scientists and physicists. I often see how global warming alarmists like to attach the Keeling Curve to the end of proxy data for dramatizing the extremely rapid increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the 1950s. And they make the argument that the earth has never seen such a dramatic rise of CO2 in a million years. This is unnatural, and will no doubt lead to a climate catastrophe.
But I was wondering about the proxy data. Are we able to pick up the decadal fluctuations of CO2 content in the atmosphere back thousands of years ago like the instruments we use to measure CO2 with today? I suspect that the proxy data methods will not reveal temporary spikes of CO2 over decades of time. This makes a convenient comparison for those who want to demonstrate how humans are destroying the planet with excess CO2. Shouldn’t attaching instrument data to proxy data come with a caveat?
It is difficult for me to believe that the atmosphere never had 400 ppm CO2 in the past million years until now.
If you’ve seen the Keeling curve you will have noted that there is no decadal fluctuation, just a steady rise, with very little year to year fluctuation (pretty much always goes up every year, in line with global emissions).
Now, do you imagine that at 1956, when the curve starts, that CO2 levels magically stabilised in the atmosphere, so that suddenly there was no annual or decadal fluctuation (just a steady rise)?
For a layman’s read of some of the technicalities I recommend AGW skeptic Ferdinand Englebeen, who is critical of many aspects of the mainstream view.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/climate.html
This is the best page for your query.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Ferdinand is not a specialist. He’s just a process engineer who says things a lot of people want to believe.
Meanwhile, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is still tracking temperature, just like Dr. Salby said.
Nope. Correlation is very inconsistent.
https://tinyurl.com/4refms7s
Temps went down, CO2 went up. When you plot your derivative graph, the fit is by the month, so there should be no opposite signed movement over 22 years. CO2 should have gone down from 1957 to 1979 if temps drive atmospheric CO2 content.
Too far in the past for you? How about using UAH6.0 data?
https://tinyurl.com/3wvk9r9r
Temps go down or flat between 1998 and 2013 – the famous pause! – but CO2 climbs unimpeded.
At certain times and scales, CO2 has lagged temps. Not currently.
So, basically, you don’t understand calculus. Okay.
Meh.
If CO2 followed temperature we shouls see that consistently, but we do not.
We get 20 years of flat to cooling temps, and CO2 rises.
I don’t need to know calculus to see that that is a departure.
Monthly temperature changes can have an tiny affect on CO2, particularly during ENSO events, but this can only be seen at the micro level, as changes in the rate of accumulation (acceleration).
Like the headwind buffeting your car after you pull away, where the micro changes in acceleration are not caused by fluctuations in the engine, so the micro changes in acceleration caused by ENSO not responsible for the macro increase of CO2 to the system.
We do see that consistently.
Bart is referring to the incremental rise in CO2 that is sensitive to the temperature of the year. IMO, absolute CO2 is rising because of population growth. There’s a lot of burning, plowing, and decomposing going on out there.
Yep and burning of FF are the largest source of Net additions to the carbon cycle.
Absolute CO2 is the sum total of incremental changes. Incremental changes come about due to temperatures being offset from the equilibrium level.
This relationship accounts for virtually everything we see. There is little to no room for inputs from FF combustion to be making a significant impact.
Yes, Bart, and the gNat just can’t avoid buzzing in with no model, no data. Not even references! Just obfuscation.
Bart,
“Absolute CO2 is the sum total of incremental changes.”
Absolute CO2 rise is definitely not the sum of changes in the acceleration of that rise, whihc is what your graph purports to show.
It’s like saying the chopy headwinds that affect the acceleration of a car are what powers its engine.
“no model, no data. Not even references!”
Except the 47 times I gave you guys data and references.
Facts seem to have no lasting effects when youve got belief.
Bart said: This relationship accounts for virtually everything we see. There is little to no room for inputs from FF combustion to be making a significant impact.
Mass is increasing in the atmosphere reservoir. Mass is increasing in the biosphere reservoir. Mass is increasing in the hydrosphere reservoir. But…mass in the fossil reservoir is actually decreasing and interestingly enough this decrease matches the total increase in other three. So I wonder…if the fossil reservoir is not the source of the mass for the other three then where did the fossil mass go and what sourced the increase in the other three reservoirs?
“This relationship accounts for virtually everything we see. There is little to no room for inputs from FF combustion to be making a significant impact.”
Contrarians all have different faiths.
Bart goes the way of absolutism. He has absolute faith in temperature, many contradictory facts be damned.
Meanwhile Chic’s model says ‘No’ to Bartism. Its Anthro, but not the glaringly obvious fossil fuels.
But here he “Yes, Bart”?? I guess its whatever.
Then we have Bill, whos just tryin out for cheerleader.
Its all just about supporting contrarianism in all its crazy forms.
What they’re FOR doesnt matter, is what they’re AGAINST!
“Meanwhile Chic’s model says ‘No’ to Bartism.”
My model explains how Bartism = Salby.
“…if the fossil reservoir is not the source of the mass for the other three then where did the fossil mass go and what sourced the increase in the other three reservoirs?”
Nature doesn’t discriminate between the sources of CO2 that end up in the atmosphere. It’s obvious to those not blinded by AGW bias that FF emissions distribute in all other reservoirs and the increase in atmosphere CO2 is a contribution from all of the other reservoirs.
Absolutely Chic. The only thing we have to go on for some kind of steady state co2 in the atmosphere are ice core studies and the meat I put in my freezer doesn’t do a good job of preserving much of anything except some leathery dried out chunk of horrendous tasting bone and sinew. The logic behind why that is a reliable figure is beyond me.
“increase in atmosphere CO2 is a contribution from all of the other reservoirs.”
Ha! Science is just whatever pops into your head I guess.
“The logic behind why that is a reliable figure is beyond me.”
True, it is beyond you.
And once again, science will keep calm and carry on without you.
Nate can’t explain it either so he just goes ‘trust me’.
Bill,
What you can trust Nate for is to obfuscate any comment that questions his belief in AGW.
“Ferdinand is not a specialist. He’s just a process engineer who says things..”
You are also someone who says things. The difference is he makes cogent points with references, and he speaks to the topic.
He dreams up how he wants things to be, and constructs a narrative unmoored from physical reality to support it. Total meh.
That’s complete nonsense. Compare the work he has done at the links I provided with your replies here. Your comments are vacuous pap.
Nope.
“We do see that consistently.”
Given that you, Bart, have shown the inconsistencies countless times, isnt this a very good example of
“he dreams up how he wants things to be, and constructs a narrative unmoored from physical reality to support it.”?
arghhh “have been shown the inconsistencies”
There are no inconsistencies.
Thats religion talk.
Iceball Earth Nate says:
he dreams up how he wants things to be, and constructs a narrative unmoored from physical reality to support it.?
———————
Kind of sounds like the pot calling the kettle black Nate.
‘There are no inconsistencies’
Except for all the ones I’ve ignored or dismissed without cause.
From 1958-1975 inconsistent.
1992-95 inconsistent.
1000-1850 AD, 7 ppm variation while Global temps varied from Medieval Warm Period thru Little Ice Age by ~ 0.5-1.0 C, inconsistent.
Nate,
Can you even describe in English what Bart, Salby, and I are claiming as consistencies in the relationship between temperature and CO2? Unless you can do that, throwing out a bunch of time intervals is meaningless.
Yours and Barts notions are different. Or have u changed your mind? All very confusing.
Barts idea that T drives CO2 derivatives has those periods of inconsistency.
For example 7 ppm variation for 850 y while T supposedly varied considerably.
You really don’t get it. Direct measurement of CO2 has no influence on temperature, as the periods you refer to point out. But the magnitude of changes in each year’s cycle of CO2 correlate with the absolute value of the temperature. IOW, in warm years there is a larger incremental rise in CO2 whereas in cooler years the incremental rise is less. It’s an amazing correlation since 1979 at least. There should be a similar good correlation with Had.crut data as well.
> Direct measurement of CO2 has no influence on temperature
I too would welcome if directly measuring CO2 had an effect on temperature, Chic.
You really don’t get it. You don’t get Bartism.
Bart claims that the rise of CO2 by 100 ppm in the last 60 or so years is caused by temperature rise of ~ 0.8 . That is not just the year to year correlation.
And that is entirely inconsistent with the record of temp and CO2 changes of the years 1000-1850.
It isn’t confusing at all to me Nate, I would think a 3rd grader could understand the difference between somebody who thinks all of the additional CO2 is natural and someone who thinks some unquantified percentage of it is natural. Though I am not sure which grade they introduce percentages in math classes these days.
It seems demanded by the laws of science that some of the CO2 is of natural origin if any of the warming is and some of it certainly is. Current scientific thought is half the warming is anthropogenic and the other half not fully understood.
Does that ring any bells in your head Nate or are you so badly inculcated into the cult that you can’t even accept that green scientists aren’t omniscient?
Non-sequitur, Bill, as usual. If you can’t understand whats being discussed, don’t post.
“…CO2 changes of the years 1000-1850.”
There is no record of year to year CO2 changes back that far.
Wish I had a bit-coin for every time Nate obfuscates. He obfuscates so often, I can’t tell whether he gets it or not.
The total emissions of CO2 from FF and other sources are relatively well-mixed in the atmosphere. FF emissions are 1/20th of other sources. The land and ocean sinks “breathe” due to seasonal temperature variations. The contribution of FF emissions is obscured in the presence of the other emission sources. Total CO2 year to year incremental rise from Mauna Loa measurements tracks with temperature measurements from UAH TLT. There are no more accurate measurements prior to 1959. This is data that is out there for all to see.
Where are Nate’s data, model, and 47 references?
Chic, You still dont seem to get Bartism. It is not just year to year changes. It is centuries of change.
Ever heard of ice cores?
You guys want to claim ice core data should be thrown out? Why?
Feynman sez sorry, you dont get to throw out data that doesnt fit your theory. Your theory doesnt fit data, its wrong.
“Ever heard of ice cores?”
Your AGW is so far up your butt you can’t see straight. You can’t finesse yearly CO2 changes from ice core data. It’s inherently smoothed. Yet from that data one sees the lag in CO2 following long-term temperature changes. It isn’t complicated if you had an open mind and weren’t addicted to obfuscation in every one of your comments.
Just stop it.
“You can’t finesse yearly CO2 changes from ice core data. ”
And no one claims you need to, dimwit.
Can 0.8 C temperature of increase be the driver of 100 ppm of CO2 rise?
Lets test that hypothesis: ~ 0.5 C of cooling from MWP to LIA. 7 ppm of CO2 decrease.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41561-019-0400-0/MediaObjects/41561_2019_400_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
Hypothesis fails!
Oh well. Try again.
It’s the same problem with Berry’s trivial and myopic “e-time” for the carbon cycle. His value of 16.5 years (as of preprint #3) and conflation of it to the adjustment time are in sharp disagreement with observations over the glacial cycles which show full adjustment times on the order of tens of thousands of years. His model is off by 3 orders of magnitude. I will give him credit for creating a model that predicts the D14C values with skill. Too bad these models have already been created and in widespread use among the radiocarbon dating community decades ago otherwise his work would be noteworthy.
Nate,
1) nobody says throw the ice core data out. . . .thats just another of the many strawmen you construct. You construct so many its hard to believe you are not a liar. But maybe you are just a sycophant who believes whatever and whom they admire sez.
2) and feynman would not say you should not simply automatically throw any doubt to the wind and conclude that what level of CO2 is in bubbles in the ice is the same as it was 400,000 years ago or any other time in the many thousands of years represented in the ice core record.
To put it simply Nate if the ice core record is bad it won’t show any variations worth speaking about. But without confirmating being flat could well be Henry’s law at work or some other form of mixing leaving no history of variations at all. whereas if the opposite were true and a good deal of variaation were present you could conclude some kind of preservation of a record was maintained. .
Nate,
Give it up. No one claimed these processes are linear.
bdgwx,
Give it up or I’ll share some ridiculous analogies you posted sometime back while trying to learn carbon cycle concepts and AGW talking points.
In fact, go for it. It will give me another opportunity to post my model.
“Give it up. No one claimed these processes are linear.”
What is that? The get of jail of free card?
Sorry your model fails to explain the data, you lose.
But you can see the data I posted, go ahead and try to explain it with your model, obfuscation free.
Chic,
No need to dig them up. I’ll present another here.
You have a safe with 280x$1 bills. Each year you deposit 100x$1 bills and withdrawal 100x$1 bills. Your balance remains stable at $280. Then one year grandma gives you a gift of 120x$1 bills so that your balance is now $400. After 4 and 8 years the number of bills with grandma’s fingerprints is 11% and 4% respectively. Yet grandma can still rightfully claim that the $120 was 100% because of her and the 30% of your total balance of $400 is because of her.. Without grandma your balance would still be $280 even though her fingerprints only show up on a small fraction of the bills now.
bdgwx,
Apparently you are still confused about e-times and adjustment times. Thanks for saving me time by presenting a new analogy that is equally as bad as an old one.
Using your hypotheticals, I adapted my model to show how e-time actually works. The $100 in and out keeps the balance constant at $280 because the removal rate is 100/280. The inverse of that is the e-time or 2.8 years.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=0
In four e-times (about 11 years), the balance returns to less than 1% more than the starting balance before grandma’s gift. That’s an adjustment time based on a criteria of 99% return to baseline. A true 100% adjustment can never be reached if inputs and removal rates remain constant.
The difference between your analogy and reality is that the ocean does not decide to limit withdrawals to a constant amount as your spending analogy does. Temperature does affect the RATE that the ocean makes withdrawals, which is why the derivative of annual CO2 additions tracks with temperature.
My CO2 model uses the same ENSO corrections that Dr. Spencer uses to account for some of that temperature influence.
Chic,
No. I am not confused about residence time and adjustment time. I am using the definitions accepted by everyone in the field.
In my scenario the RT before and after grandma’s gift is 2.8 and 4 years respectively. The AT is not applicable yet because the balance is not declining. It is steady at $400. For AT to be applicable the balance must be declining.
Grandma’s fingerprints among the 400 bills representing the $400 balance continues to decline even though the balance remains steady at $400. After 24 years there likely will not be even a single bill among the 400 that has grandma’s fingerprints. Yet grandmas is still 100% responsible for the increase in your balance from $280 to $400.
Do not add any complexity this scenario or otherwise change the scenario until you have understood this trivial case. If you don’t understand this trivial case you will not be any more likely to understand more complex cases nevermind the vastly more complex carbon cycle.
Please state the definitions everyone is using in the field and where you learned them. Then explain why my definition, illustrated by how my model uses them, is wrong.
Your balance continues at $400 because you fixed the removal to a flat $100/year, not a rate based on a percentage of the balance. Nature doesn’t work that way. Did you even bother looking at my model? The balance returns to almost the original amount. That happens during the adjustment period. In your stupid analogy, there is no adjustment. You can make it forever if you want.
“Do not add any complexity this scenario….”
OK, go on to grandma’s house and sit on her $120 gift, but don’t forget to do your homework requested in the first paragraph.
RT: The amount of time a specific CO2 molecule or $1 bill remains in circulation. RT = L / O where L is level and O is the outflow rate. Note that RT can be calculated regardless of whether the level is increasing, decreasing, or is stable. And it does not tell you anything about what the level is doing.
AT: The amount of time it takes the level to drop by a certain amount toward the level it was originally at before the increase occurred. AT = 1 / ((O(L) – I(L)) / (Lm – Li)) where L is level, I(L) is function of the inflow given L, O(L) is a function of outflow given L, Lm is the maximum level, and Li is the initial level. If the inflow and outflow are not dependent on the level then you can replace the numerator with the trivial dL/dt term.
For my analogy RT = 4 years and AT = undefined because the balance is not dropping and will never reach $280.
My scenario is left simple intentionally. It is simple because I want to communicate fundamental concepts without the distraction of complexities. The main concept here being that the ratio of fingerprinted bills wrt to all bills changes because of the outflow. But that in no way takes away from the fact that the balance increase from $280 to $400 is 100% the result of grandma’s gift. Even when all of grandma’s specific bills are removed 30% of your balance is what it is because of grandma. We don’t care if the bills have grandma’s fingerprints on them or not. They still have the same value and behave like all of the others all the same. So the ratio of fingerprinted bills wrt to all bills and the causes why that ratio changes has little importance to you. But the balance and the causes of why that balance is what it is is important for obvious reasons. This is the point that is being made with this trivial analogy.
Your scenario is fictional because you manufactured a change in RT from 280/100 to 400/100 with no explanation.
Grade: F
No references? Back to the drawing board.
There was a one time deposit of $120. That is the cause of the increase in the balance from $280 to $400. I made that abundantly clear.
RT is determined by the balance and withdrawal rate. The withdrawal rate stayed the same, but the balance increased. Therefore RT also increases.
Do you understand why, in this specific scenario, the number of bills with grandma’s fingerprints continually declines to zero and why grandma is still the cause of 100% of the increase in balance and 30% of the total balance?
If that makes sense we can add another layer of complexity where adjustment time comes into play.
A good introduction to the carbon cycle and the metrics used to quantify it can be found in chapter 6 of the IPCC AR5 WGI. The IPCC provides a glossary that is helpful (https://tinyurl.com/4t69z58c). Refer to Adjustment Time, Lifetime, and Response Time in the document. Kohler 2018 (https://tinyurl.com/af2jmc3s) provides concise commentary on AT and RT that gets to the point quickly. O’Neill 1994 (https://tinyurl.com/4vvkrc6d) has a great summary as well. Note that you’ll often see turnover time, transit time, exchange time, and similar terms are used for residence time in the literature. Likewise time to adjust, time to equilibriate, lifetime, response time, and similar terms are used for adjustment time.
So you’ve doubled down on your simple, but fictional and most importantly non-physical scenario. This analogy simply fails, because it doesn’t happen that way in the real world.
I will relate your terminology and symbology to the definitions you provided for residence time (RT or as you’ll often see, turnover time, transit time, exchange time) and adjustment time (AT, or likewise, time to adjust, time to equilibrate, lifetime, response time, and similar terms).
Turnover time (T) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M/S. You wrote RT = L/O (level/outflow) which is the same as turnover time, T = M/S.
Adjustment time…is the time scale characterizing the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir. Unlike my reality model, your fictional model doesn’t have any adjustment, so we can skip that.
Kohler gives roughly the same definition for AT, but muffs the RT definition and doesn’t even give an equation for it.
There is nothing in those definitions that conflict with my model. It’s a model based on the physical reality that the removal rate (withdrawal rate) is proportional to the mass (or balance). By rearranging the equations defining residence time, removal rate is S = M/T or O = L/RT. The proportionality coefficient is 1/T, the rate CONSTANT.
Prior to the gift, the withdrawal rate was $100/year. When the balance increases, so should the withdrawal rate increase temporarily until the balance is returned to the original amount.
Here is your Waterloo: “The withdrawal rate stayed the same, but the balance increased. Therefore RT also increases.”
By fixing the withdrawal rate, you are defying nature. End of story.
If you disagree, please explain why I am wrong:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=0
“Temperature does affect the RATE that the ocean makes withdrawals, which is why the derivative of annual CO2 additions tracks with temperature.”
And yet T cannot explain the 100 ppm rise, as you see in the data. As you would see if you applied Henry’s Law.
Lets just stop pretending that facts actually matter to you guys.
Facts matter. And if you evaluate them with and open mind rather than a closed AGW mindset, you might at least be open to another view.
I already explained that temperature’s effect on CO2 isn’t linear although the last 100 ppm rise in CO2 is roughly correlated with a temperature rise. You interpret this as CO2 forcing a gradual temperature rise superimposed with a naturally-caused variation. That may be true, but you have no data showing how that 100 ppm is nothing but natural sources causing both the gradual rise and the variation.
I showed you factual data that explains how the absolute temperature determines the magnitude of incremental yearly rise in CO2. The cumulative rise in CO2 over six decades also corresponds to a temperature rise. You presented no factual data evidence to refute those facts.
Again, you have no facts, no data, no model. Only obfuscation.
bdgwx,
I forgot to mention that your fake phony analogy is fabricated so that you could make up the fingerprint story-book false narrative that the whole $120 gift remains even though the fingerprints weren’t on it.
Please don’t come up with another phony analogy. Just explain how my model, that is mathematically and physically realistic, is wrong OR better, show me your model that realistically demonstrates atmospheric CO2 RT and subsequent AT after a bolus injection of CO2.
Chic,
The money analogy is simple. It is simple by design to help illustrate fundamental concepts without the distraction of complexities. It is not meant to be a proxy for the carbon cycle.
It’s okay to look at the money analogy and real carbon cycle and identify where they are different. We’re not there yet though. We haven’t even introduced the concept of adjustment time.
I’ll do that now. We are going to add a layer of complexity to introduce adjustment time. Because grandma’s gift bumped the balance to $400 we now take the liberty of spending a little more. We spend a little more until the balance drops to the original $280. In the spirit of starting simple we do this by spending an extra $1 per year. The adjustment time for a 50% adjustment is AT(0.5) = 1 / ((101 – 100) / (0.5*(400 – 280)) = 60 years. After 60 years the balance will be at $340. At that moment RT = 340 / 101 = 3.4 years. Let me repeat… with this additional complexity and the introduction of adjustment time we have AT(0.5) = 60 years and RT = 3.4 years. Do you understand what AT and RT are, why they are what they are, and why they are different?
> your fake phony analogy is fabricated
I too would prefer if analogies were not fabricated.
More srsly, Chic: which part of “balance” you do not get?
bdgwx,
Your money analogy is simply wrong. If it is not meant to be a proxy for the carbon cycle, then please go to a financial blog and see how well it goes.
Now it is my turn for an analogy. A warmist goes to a psychologist complaining that a skeptic did not agree with him. The skeptic confronted the warmist with an actual realistic scenario backed up by climate data. The warmist tried again and again using the same failed argument to prove he was right. Eventually the psychologist asked the warmist why he continues to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
You’re channeling incredibilism, Chic:
http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/
It’s really hard to have a more dubious stance.
bdgwx,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=
At least twice now you avoid criticizing my model illustrating CO2 e-time = residence time, removal rate, and adjustment time.
Put up or shut up.
Lines on a spreadsheet do not a mode makes, Chic.
Here’s what real models look like:
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3280
Here’s what your Climateball move looks like:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
I added the “avoid” line just for you, and can explain what commitments mean if you need.
“I already explained that temperatures effect on CO2 isnt linear”
Nope that is a speculative wish, that when you look into it quantitatively, can’t be taken seriously. That would require an increase of ppm/degree of ~ 10x for Temperature rising from 287 to 288 K! There is no known phenomena with that extreme non-lineariy.
“although the last 100 ppm rise in CO2 is roughly correlated with a temperature rise. You interpret this as CO2 forcing a gradual temperature rise superimposed with a naturally-caused variation. That may be true, but you have no data showing how that 100 ppm is nothing but natural sources causing both the gradual rise and the variation.”
Correlation is not causation. There are several things rising during this period, T, CO2, emissions, etc. The causal link between them is unknown, until you try to identify mechanisms.
The T causing CO2 has no identified plausible quantitative mechanism, while the reverse does. Emissions causing CO2 rise is a quantitative match.
“I showed you factual data that explains how the absolute temperature determines the magnitude of incremental yearly rise in CO2.”
Yes, this is a well-known effect of ENSO. The mechanism has been identified as the warming and drying of tropical land regions. This effect is only observed over ENSO time-scales of 1-3 years.
“The cumulative rise in CO2 over six decades also corresponds to a temperature rise. You presented no factual data evidence to refute those facts.”
I have shown this data to Bart many times. The magnitude of the observed long-term CO2 rate-of-rise vaguely matches temperature (they are both rising), but with a very different scale factor that does not match the short-term short-time ENSO-related variation factor.
There is no link between these two phenomena, long term rise and short-term variation.
https://tinyurl.com/cy4pjnew
In addition if you look at CO2 rate-of-rise data back to 1900, it continues to drop to near zero, and the the match to temperature fails completely. You can see the separation beginning 1958-1970 above.
Chic said: Your money analogy is simply wrong.
The scenario is neither right nor wrong. It’s just a defined scenario.
And I’m pretty sure my calculations for RT and AT are correct for my scenario.
Again…they are AT(0.5) = 60 years and RT(1) = 3.96 years, RT(0.5) = 3.37 years. If you get different results let me know.
Chic said: Now it is my turn for an analogy. A warmist goes to a psychologist complaining that a skeptic did not agree with him.
I’m trying to be serious here. I’m trying make a good faith attempt at explaining what adjustment time and residence time are.
Chic said: At least twice now you avoid criticizing my model illustrating CO2 e-time = residence time, removal rate, and adjustment time.
The scenario you are modeling is different than mine. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong. I’m not discussing it because your scenario is unique in that AT = RT. That makes it incredibly difficult to explain how adjustment time and residence time are different concepts.
Remember…we are keeping the scenario simple in effort to understand fundamental concepts like residence time, adjustment time, and why the level/mass/balance/etc. can behave differently than the ratio of one kind of entity wrt to the other kinds of entities.
Do you understand what RT and AT are? Do you agree that in my scenario the values I calculate are correct? Do you agree that grandma’s fingerprints will eventually vanish from the stock of bills? Do you agree that grandma is THE cause of the increase in balance from $280 to $400? If yes then we can add another layer of complexity. If no then I’ll have to try another approach in explaining these concepts.
Nate,
I think you need to obfuscate less on your first Nope. I don’t follow your reasoning at all. It may relate to your last point which I will address on a new thread.
“Emissions causing CO2 rise is a quantitative match.”
Not exactly. And you know that is just a correlation which is easily debunked by pointing out that natural emissions are 20 times greater than FFs…
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ih7g7xtovuey6no/Yearly%20emissions.jpg?dl=0
…and cumulative FF emissions increase exponentially while CO2 long term rise is closer to linear.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1pchjgwn82jpi4m/Cumulative%20emissions.jpg?dl=0
I think we would agree more on a lot of this data, if you weren’t interpreting it through the AGW lens. Either that or someone is paying you to obfuscate so Big Climate stays in business. I am open to more data that would strengthen your position, but I’m just not seeing it.
Also, you shouldn’t obfuscate the “link between…long term rise and short-term variation” by manipulating the data presentation: https://tinyurl.com/4hpb78br
I’m taking your “CO2 rate-of-rise data back to 1900” point to a new thread to separate it from my other conversation with bdgwx.
Chic,
I have one word for you.
Only one word.
Are you listening?
No, not “plastics” – “logarithm.”
“Not exactly. And you know that is just a correlation”
Not JUST a correlation. It is a quantitative match, within uncertainty, when CO2 in atm, ocean, and land is tracked. And the match is excellent for 6 decades of Mauna Loa.
The temperature driven CO2 relationship is JUST a correlation, and the weakest type, two variables rising. There can be no quantitative match since the mechanism is completely unspecified.
“which is easily debunked by pointing out that natural emissions are 20 times greater than FFs”
Sorry you cannot debunk conservation of mass. You are mixing up natural transfers between the reservoirs with ADDITIONS from an external source, which adds to all reservoirs.
And the graph is not manipulated. It is transparent data, that you once again, try your best to ignore.
bdgwx,
You gave me references for RT and AT definitions. I verified those definitions are consistent with my understanding of the terms and their AKAs. We have discussed this ad infinitum. Somehow you think I don’t understand RT and AT despite writing it several times and providing a model that demonstrates exactly how those terms work in a physically relevant realistic model. Your model is not physical. You make up changes in RT that don’t happen in any physical world. It doesn’t work like a bank balance. Please stop with these stupid bank analogies.
“…your scenario is unique in that AT = RT.”
No. Do you not know how to read a spreadsheet or haven’t you even looked at that model where I demonstrate the realistic RT of atmospheric CO2 using your numbers? The original and constant RT is 2.8 years. You can’t change it just to prove a point. My AT(0.5), IOW the time for the balance to go half way towards the starting balance, is only half an RT. AT(0.9) is about 6 years, AT (0.99) goes up to 11 years or 4 RTs, etc.
I revised the section of the spreadsheet showing the % adjustments AT(x) and how many RTs and the equivalent number of years for the balance to relax to the % adjustment.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=0
I also made another spreadsheet and modified it to show your calculations just in case you don’t think I know what you are doing. It shows your calculations correct using your fake phony model.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgbesx2c0moyysx/bdgwx%20finance%20model.xls?dl=0
“If no then Ill have to try another approach in explaining these concepts.”
Please don’t!
Your formula translated into English means if one manually adjusts the throttled withdrawal rate from $100 to $101, then half of the gift ($400 – $280) will be withdrawn in 60 years, 0.5*$120/($1/year).
That is financial correct, but not realistic of the natural processes governing atmospheric CO2.
1) My model demonstrates the same principles as you do, but I do it with the correct physical laws. CO2 sinks just don’t decide to increase themselves.
2) This is the Nth time you suggest I don’t understand the terms RT and AT.
3) You seem unwilling or unable to recognize that my model applies the RT and AT concepts correctly using realistic physical mechanisms, not manufactured ones.
My next response is going to a new thread to avoid the long one here. I hope we can resolve the conflict and move away from fake phony models that have nothing to do with climate.
Conservation of mass. That is a point worth repeating.
– The mass in the atmosphere reservoir is increasing.
– The mass in the ocean reservoir is increasing.
– The mass in the biosphere reservoir is increasing.
but…
– The mass in the fossil reservoir is decreasing.
That is a very powerful observation.
Chic,
Great. You get RT and AT. I accept that.
And if RT and AT are different in your model then I definitely missed it. They look pretty close to me. I’ll accept that they are not the same though.
Let’s discuss the real carbon cycle now. The real carbon cycle has an RT of about 4 years while the AT is believed to be on the order of 50+ years for the first half-life, several hundred years for the second, and ten thousand years for the third. Though these values are certainly debatable. The glacial cycles had an AT that were far longer than what is believed to be in play today. But regardless of what the actual RT and AT values are we know that the human fingerprints drop out rapidly even though humans are at least close to 100% responsible for the increase from 280 ppm to 410 ppm.
Nate,
I posted in a new thread dedicated to you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-691076
bdgwx,
Pleasse see my response in a new thread. This one is getting too long.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-691098
Nate @ May 12, 2021 at 4:19 PM
Not exactly. And you know that is just a correlation
“It is a quantitative match…”
It isn’t. Both signals had a roughly linear rise in rate. Such signals are always affinely similar. So, they picked a start time and a scale factor of roughly 1/2 and, no surprise, the integrated signals looked somewhat similar. This is not an impressive feat.
Meanwhile, temperature matches both the roughly linear rise and all the more information-rich features of the CO2 signal as well.
“Sorry you cannot debunk conservation of mass. You are mixing up natural transfers between the reservoirs with ADDITIONS from an external source, which adds to all reservoirs.”
The deep oceans are effectively an external source, as transfers to and from them require timelines of many centuries to interact. This is such a dumb argument.
“The deep oceans are effectively an external source, as transfers to and from them require timelines of many centuries to interact. This is such a dumb argument.”
What you call a ‘dumb argument’ is actually empirical science, based on many observations of the carbon cycle in the ocean over many decades, requiring more and more sophisticated models, built with observational feedback.
There loads of contemporary studies of carbon dynamics, which are all published and available.
You alternatively offer hand-waving speculation that makes no quantitative predictions.
Whereas real scientists eagerly seek to confirm or falsify their hypotheses, you make no attempt to test yours against all the available data, or even make the simplest back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if your model has any feasibility whatsoever.
It seems you prefer to have an untested, unfalsifiable theory. That properly places it in the religion category.
“‘It is a quantitative match’
It isnt. Both signals had a roughly linear rise in rate. Such signals are always affinely similar. So, they picked a start time and a scale factor of roughly 1/2”
Both signals are NOT roughly linear. The Co2 rise shows acceleration, with a decade by decade match in rate-of-rise, as demonstrated by the constant scale factor, which is the singular parameter required to make a match.
The scale factor makes actual physical sense based on the simple conservation of mass mechanism (Occam is quite pleased), and quantitatively fits observations of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere and ocean and land.
Your attempted minimization of this relationship with a fancy name is simply a refusal to accept contradictory facts.
The integrated temperature CO2 relationship requires two or more arbitrary parameters that have no physical explanation whatsoever.
Meanwhile the scale factor in the temperature Co2 relationship is far from a constant, the fast dynamics require low CO2 scale factor, while the long term rise requires a much higher scale factor.
Your dogmatic desire for it to be constant, and unjustified filtering of the data to make that appear so, is simply a lack of scientific integrity.
The relationship match between temperature and CO2 rate of rise breaks down before the 1970s, and only gets worse in the first half of the 20th century.
In the centuries from 1000 to 1850, and the during glacial cycles, the scale factor between temperature and CO2 rate is much much to small to account for the 20th century rise.
Nate,
See close correlation between between the rise in population and the national dept? The cumulative fossil fuels are confounded with other variables. Your “quantitative.” correlation is not statistically meaningful. Get off it and quit obfuscating.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mq4n6ncruxl9dwk/Pop%20vs%20CO2.png?dl=0
And stop conflating the FF emission versus CO2 rise with the temperature versus CO2. Apples and oranges.
“See close correlation between between the rise in population and the national dept? “Your ;quantitative.; correlation is not statistically meaningful. Get off it and quit obfuscating.”
To claim a link between any two variables that are rising, without a clear causal mechanism, is called the correlation-causation fallacy.
That is a valid concern for the temperature-driven 100 ppm CO2 rise. There is no plausible quantitative mechanism identified.
It is not a valid concern for the emissions-CO2 relationship, two things that have a clearly identified causal mechanism: and a clear quantitative relationship that is in fact observed.
This relationship is so predictable, that it was predicted at the end of the 19th century, well before it was observed!
“The cumulative fossil fuels are confounded with other variables.”
Huh???
You are in full speed obfuscation mode now. I cannot discern what two variable relationships you claim is a correlation-causation fallacy. All of these relationships are conflated with each other. You cannot just plot one variable correlated with another and claim a clear quantitative relationship.
“There is no plausible quantitative mechanism identified.”
A plausible quantitative mechanism is that every year 20 times more non-FF CO2 gets emitted and a little bit more stays in the atmosphere during warm years than during cooler years. That’s what the data says, not just Bart and I. Of course there is a FF contribution that is swamped by the natural contribution. You need data to prove otherwise.
I’ll repeat for clarity sake. You post a graph showing cumulative fossil fuels perfectly correlated with rising CO2. If there were no other contributions to the rise, concluding a causative mechanism would be appropriate. But there is reasonable doubt of no other contributions.
That is what the statement, “The cumulative fossil fuels are confounded with other variables” means.
Your middle paragraphs are so convoluted, it is impossible to know which two variable relationships you are talking about.
Give it up or post a new thread. This one is entirely too long.
“I cannot discern what two variable relationships you claim is a correlation-causation fallacy.”
Hmm, maybe the one I specifically pointed out???
“That is a valid concern for the temperature-driven 100 ppm CO2 rise. There is no plausible quantitative mechanism identified.”
T causing the 100 ppm CO2 rise. Can’t discern that?
“All of these relationships are conflated with each other.”
Yeah, its too complicated for science to figure this shit out, right?
Wrong. One relationship is extremely simple:
None of the other variables CAUSE anthro emissions. But Anthro emissions CAUSE CO2 rise. It was predicted long ago. It is a clear, and simple mechanism. And one that is OBSERVED.
“You cannot just plot one variable correlated with another and claim a clear quantitative relationship.”
Stop playing dumb. This has been explained over and over in this thread.
The plot shows STRONG agreement between the cumulative rise of CO2 and anthro emissions, decade by decade, over all 6 decades of careful observation.
This alone, addresses the often heard criticism from blogs that they are NOT tracking each other.
But there is a constant multiplicative factor between them that can be understood simply with CONSERVATION OF MASS. The cumulative additions of CO2 to the atmosphere, together with that in the land and ocean, altogether, is in QUANTITATIVE agreement with CO2 emissions (within uncertainty of the measurements).
“A plausible quantitative mechanism is that every year 20 times more non-FF CO2 gets emitted”
Red herring. 20x more, 20x more reabso*rbed. Not added CO2, just moved from one reservoir to another.
The ‘mechanism’ is not in quantitative agreement. The scale factor cannot be explained with any theory.
I have to do your homework for you to find out how much CO2 could be expected to rise per degree of ocean warming.
The answer is: dlnPCo2/dT =.042
https://tinyurl.com/paabh6sj
That means that for a 1 degree C rise in ocean temp, we would expect a 4% rise in PCo2. Say initially it is 280 ppm, we would expect it to rise by ~ 12 ppm.
This is consistent with the 7 ppm drop from MWP to LIA, and NOT NEARLY enough to explain the 100 ppm rise of the last century.
“and a little bit more stays in the atmosphere during warm years than during cooler years. Thats what the data says, not just Bart and I.”
As explained, over and over, this is an ENSO effect. Lots of literature on this. Look it up!
The long-term effect of Non ENSO-related T change on CO2 is much smaller (different scale factor), as I showed you, but you try to ignore.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-696367
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-696490
I forgot to have a look at this corner.
All I can say is that years ago, ‘Bart’ tried to contradict Engelbeen with some little arguments of his own, and… utterly failed.
Everybody can search the web for such discussions, I’m too lazy and too tired to do such nonsense job.
Bart is here simply dishonest.
J.-P. D.
You might like:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/#comment-701529
Search for the other “bartemis” in that page. There are 150 comments from him.
Nonsense. Engelbeen is a dilettante who only thinks in static terms.
Here is link to a paper describing 180 years of CO2 measurements. Keeling isn’t the only data set.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/180_yrs_Atmos_CO2_Analysis_by_chemical_methods_Beck_2007.pdf
Error code: SSL_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_VERSION
It’s Beck’s horribly flawed 2007 paper.
Beck finds some wild fluctuations in the CO2 history from 1812. Amazingly, this volatility completely disappears after 1956, from the moment measurements were taken daily at Mauna Loa.
The main problem is that Beck took data that was collected near CO2-rich or CO2 fluctuating locations.
Detailed analysis here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Thanks, barry.
If every contrarian did like Ernst and compiled 90K of historical data from all over the world, they’d earn the right to their eccentric views.
You rock.
Yep like CO2 alarmists until they started watching temperature rise.
They’re looking for auditors, Bill:
https://iedro.org/
Willard, please stop trolling…
“It is difficult for me to believe that the atmosphere never had 400 ppm CO2 in the past million years until now.”
Obviously in last million years, Earth has had warmer temperatures, but you don’t need higher CO2 levels to have warmer temperatures.
But it difficult to believe the measure Global CO2 levels.
Global CO2 levels are determine a careful method of getting global CO2 level. If it’s not necessary to do this, why are doing it?
So obviously we currently making precise measurements in order to measure global CO2 level. And past determination of CO2 are guesses.
It’s same way they measure global average surface temperature, guesses compared to later guesses. Which gives us global average temperature of about 15 C.
And at moment that average is going down.
And a lot this fuss, is trying to determine how much warming a doubling of CO2 would cause to our Ice Age world.
No answer, yet.
I hoped to would be more, but apparently it seems to be less.
But even if it was more, we would still be in an Ice Age.
In case you forgot , I was the one who predicted this drop a year ago, for later predictions down the line you will have to wait a little longer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-454034
“The last dip almost reached the zero line, the next one will cross it”
You were wrong. When you posted that the xero line (baseline) was 0.12 lower. It is only because the baseline has been raised that we got negative anomalies this year. Here is how the data looks with the old baseline – the one operating when you posted last year.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.12/plot/uah6/trend/detrend:0.579/offset:0.368
The latest anomaly isn’t on the UAH source page yet, which that applet uses, but it’s still above the zero line.
Now, if you want to claim credit for predicting the baseline would change, you go right ahead.
Eben,
I still have that comment bookmarked. Apr 2021 is at +0.07C on the 1981-2010 baseline. You need another significant drop for that prediction to verify. La Nina peaked in November. The UAH-TLT lag is about 4-5 months so it could be close. I’m rooting for you though.
Eben,
While I have no doubt you were A one, I am pretty sure you were not THE one.
As in the only one.
I predicted as much, although I did not put a time deadline on it, just that it is a’comin’.
It logically must be, if CO2 is not the thermostat control knob of the atmosphere.
It has always fluctuated on every time scale, including multidecadal ones.
So where adjustments and UHI are not wrecking the data, it stands to reason that it will always do what it has always done, unless by some incredible coincidence, permanent gradual warming just happened to coincide with a sharp rise in CO2 levels in the air.
Anyone who thinks other factors outweigh CO2, such as anyone who has looked at the past, ought to feel fairly confident that we have not seen the last multidecade cooling period.
In fact, we already know that from the early 1950-ish period to about 1979-1980, temp did not go up, it went down, while CO2 was already rising steadily.
So ad hoc explanations involving particulates notwithstanding, we already have many years of evidence that other factors outweigh CO2.
And the decades of warming prior to that show that sharp warming occurs for other reasons than steadily rising CO2.
“we already have many years of evidence that other factors outweigh CO2..”
for the period you indicated, which is well discussed in the literature.
Well, who forgot to send me the memo re changing the laws of physics?
Huh??
Just about 40 y ago, Hansen tried to account for the up and down 20th century temperature record before 1980, with volcanoes, solar variation, and CO2.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
He then predicted that going forward, GHE forcing would increase and become dominant, and global T would rise up enough out of the background variation produced by other factors, to become noticeable.
He predicted when, where, and how much temperature would rise. The Arctic and Northern Hemisphere more. The tropics and SH less. West Antarctica would warm, but not East. Arctic Sea Ice melt would become significant in early 2000s. Globally ~ 0.7 C rise from 1980 to now.
The main features proved remarkably accurate (within error). Prior predictions in science are, IMO, more convincing then post-hoc explanation.
Of course there’s a difference in received Solar generation between January ( the most) and July (the least).
We are much closer to the Sun in January than in July. ( About 6 million Kilometers closer)
Grrrr autospell. Radiation
At the next El Nino, would your same argument apply. Can’t we all use 30 yr trends and not 1-2 yr blips?
30 year trends have there own problems as they can be affected by major natural short term variation events. ice core records show regular fluctuations similar to the modern warming that only look significant when temperatures from different climate zones are appended on to the record
one example can be seen in this record. it seems to fluctuate between 1.2 and 1.4 starting with the warming surge detailed by Santer.
now with a longer record the fluctuation is taming as expected.
the multidecadal fluctuation seen in all the temperature record has this warming surge getting long in the tooth. we will need to see what the next couple of decades brings.
“we will need to see what the next couple of decades brings.”
AGW ‘skeptics’ said that 20 years ago. They will say it 20 years from now. They will always say it, because they are no true skeptics.
brry somebody is always saying something. even with a huge estimated eei assisting (ever larger portion manifesting itself at the surface as time has gone on) surface warming has been slowing. Get that slowing out 30 or 40 years and it could very well turn into cooling. NOAA has recognized a need to smooth the solar data with a 60 year filter for decades.
I’ve been at this for 14 years, bill, and the physics is pretty straightforward. More GHGs, slower cooling of surface until GHGs stop accumulating and energy in/energy out reaches equilibrium.
We’re not going to stop pumping out CO2 any time soon, so the surface is going to continue to warm.
I can cite you reams of ‘skeptics’ with failed cooling predictions from even before my time in the debate. Published papers advising that by 2020 global temps will plummet by 1.5C for example.
Global cooling has been around the corner for 20 years at least (setting asdide the handful of 70s cooling papers), according to the ‘skeptics’. Obviously, it is wishful thinking. You can see it all over this thread, as people hope for another la Nina, tell us that warming has peaked etc. Same old denial of long term reality.
I think people who shrug about it are playing dumb or otherwise just ignorant. The physics isn’t hard to understand, and it is well-verified. So something makes these people reject it, ignore it, dismiss it or whatever they feel the need to do.
This has nothing to do with alarmism or politics or modeling. It’s just physics. Cool, neutral physics. If you slow the cooling rate of an object receiving continuous energy, then that thing will get warmer.
That’s it. Simple.
I’ve been at it for about the same length of time and the bullshit is pretty strait forward. To use one example of bullshit from your side of things, the polar bears are still here.
Why do I pick that one. Because about 15 years ago I was in a captive audience and some PhD egghead was telling us how the polar bears would be extinct by 2020. I knew it was bullshit but I didn’t have much ammunition to fight back. I’ve been obsessed with the climate topic ever since.
I agree, Steve.
Barry’s physics is straight forward, but not well-verified. There is no experimental evidence that more CO2 is going to affect global temperatures. The GHE has maxed out.
Of course there is experimental evidence, as well as empirical measurements of CO2 in the lab. Spectroscopy shows that the CO2 effect is not saturated, and why would it be anyway? If ‘saturation’ happens in the first meter, then that layer radiates energy in all directions, including upwards to the layer that is not saturated.
I’m afraid the fact that polar bears exist does not forbid the greenhouse effect.
And while some boffin in a lecture said something, this is not mainstream understanding. It’s a lame argument when you have to rely on straw men.
Did you know that Einstein’s work has been completely debunked? I can even cite published papers. :eyeroll:
I wrote that the GHE, I regret using the term, is maxed out presuming Steve Case understands basic climate science enough to know that IR absorbing gases thermalize all the available IR within meters of the surface except for what goes through the window. Thermalization means that radiation is no longer in control of the cooling process that occurs mainly by convection while the sun is out. From the surface up, while cooling, each layer becomes cooler, less dense, and less saturated the higher up in the atmosphere so that eventually the radiation goes to space by reverse thermalization.
Lab experiments, polar bears, and boffin lectures have nothing to do with job of showing how an increase in CO2 above current levels will have any further effect on global temperatures.
If the greenhouse effect is saturated in the layer of atmosphere near the ground, that just means that this layer is now radiating IR in all dirfectiopns, including upwards to layers where the effect is NOT saturated.
Even Venus CO2 heating effect is not saturated, and it demonstrates that a planet can get much hotter with more GHGs.
It’s not the proximity to the sun. Venus is twice as far away as Mercury, but the globally averaged surface temp is hotter than Mercury.
It’s also nearly the same temperature on the night side as the day side on Venus, as well as being relatively uniform temperature across latitude bands. The greenhouse atmosphere, in the absence of oceans on the surface and receiving only 2% of sunlight at the surface (compared to Earth’s 50%), is what makes Venus’ heat globally uniform, and hotter on average than Mercury.
Our greenhouse effect is nowhere near saturated throughout the atmosphere, though it is somewhat saturated near the surface (there are still lines of absorp.tion that are not saturated near the surface.)
Using greenhouse effect means nothing to me if you don’t say what you mean by it. By writing “our greenhouse effect” is nowhere near saturated throughout the atmosphere, you are agreeing with me. You just need to understand better how the atmosphere works and stop using the term GHE assuming everyone knows what you mean.
Understandably, you know less about Venus than you do about Earth. The confirmation bias is strong with you.
Chic Bowdrie says:
May 5, 2021 at 7:35 AM
I agree, Steve.
Barry’s physics is straight forward, but not well-verified. There is no experimental evidence that more CO2 is going to affect global temperatures. The GHE has maxed out.
I expect there’s a “Z” curve. At very small concentrations, there’s no set increase in temperature per doubling. I have no idea at what concentration the same temperature rise per doubling begins, and similarly no idea where it finally maxes out. I doubt that we are there yet.
My view is that a critical amount of IR-absorbing gases are responsible for intercepting the full spectrum of IR surface radiation. CO2 fills in a gap and is otherwise just ordinary except for one thing. It is uniquely suited to radiate strongly at around 200K, the temperature at the TOA.
All the radiation that can be absorbed at the surface is thermalized in a matter of meters. Convection gets that energy up to the TOA where CO2 can radiate the bulk of it away.
NASA seems to understand that visible radiation is warming the oceans. Funny how they don’t point this out in the Congressional Hearings.
Radiation from the sun constantly strikes the earth’s surface but unlike land, the ocean is not opaque. It has a special transparancy property which allows for the transmission of light on an average depth of 60 m in the ocean, though in some areas it can go to as deep as 300 m. This zone is known as the photic layer and the process is known as transmissibility. As the sunlight penetrates through the ocean it converts to heat energy, more at the surface progressing down. The ocean is also constantly mixing the surface water with the deeper water. Both conditions allow for the distribution of heat and thus allow the ocean to hold large amounts of heat.
https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/1997/oceanchars/lev_t_zon.gif
https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/1997/oceanchars/temperature.html
How does NASA reconcile the above post with this graphic? They don’t. They just count on people now understanding the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule.
https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/par_light-depth.jpg
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/sites/default/files/Fig9.7-LightPenetration.jpg
From your link. GISS –
“When solar energy reaches the earth, most of it is spent on evaporating water and melting ice. It is the oceans that prevent the world’s temperature from having wide variations, whereas the moon, without any water, has variations of about +135°C at noon to about -155°C at night.”
Actually, they have got it wrong, yet again.
It is the atmosphere which prevents the world’s temperature from having wide variations. The oceans do not “store” or “accumulate” solar radiation, any more than rocks or lakes do.
The upper water gets heated during the day, cools during the night. Just like anything else heated by the Sun.
> From your link
Good for you, Mike!
“It is the atmosphere which prevents the worlds temperature from having wide variations.”
Really? Then why are temperatures less extreme near oceans and more extreme in the middle of continent?
“Just like anything else heated by the Sun.”
No. Water has a large heat capacity, and an ability to mix warm and cool water, which moderates the temperatures. If the ocean were “just like” the ground, its temperatures would have temperature swings like the ground and costal areas would not have temperate climates.
“It is the atmosphere which prevents the world’s temperature from having wide variations. The oceans do not…”
Oh dear God.
“Really? Then why are temperatures less extreme near oceans and more extreme in the middle of continent?”
Exactly. Anyone who grows grapes for wine knows this for an experienced fact.
The sheer weight of ignorance deposited by ‘skeptics’ here could stun a team of oxen ten times a day.
The retort by Tim and Barry is hilarious!
Evaporation from the oceans puts water vapor in the atmosphere.
So is it the oceans or the atmosphere that controls the wide variations in temperature that saves our butts from freezing solid overnight and having our blood literally evaporate out of bodies at noontime.
And in this environment GISS all set to say no greenhouse effect would exist without CO2 and the earth would be an iceball. LMAO!!!
As I said earlier here there is no consensus. There is just a huge crowd of rabble following the money. Like seen in the days of large armies advancing on foot. Whores, trinket vendors, intoxicant salesmen, folks that would do anything for a dollar that the army wasn’t already sufficiently providing for its soldiers.
The retort by Bill is perplexing.
“So is it the oceans or the atmosphere that controls the wide variations in temperature “ … which of course was exactly the point we were both making! Oceans moderate temperature swings.
” [saves our butts from] having our blood literally evaporate out of bodies at noontime”
What? Yeah, it would be hot with no atmosphere at noon, but blood would not ‘literally evaporate’ from within sealed blood vessels inside sealed skin. We would die from other causes long before our blood ‘evaporated’.
So you are only slightly off-base here.
“saves our butts from freezing solid overnight “
This is more problematic. Now you are completely off-base.
Oceans are only buffers; they absorb heat and release heat, but they can’t create heat. Without the greenhouse effect, the 960 W/m^2 of sunlight can’t keep the average temperature above ~ 255 K globally. A quick calculation shows that — even at the equator with 960 W/m^2 of sunlight varying through the day — the average temperature would stay below freezing without the greenhouse effect.
So, no. The ocean by itself cannot save our butts from freezing.
So, yes. The earth would literally be a frozen iceball without greenhouse warming.
Wow Tim you are a regular fount of misinformation!
What happens when you cook a turkey to an internal temperature of 240F?
Yes oceans moderate temperature swings by putting water vapor in the atmosphere cooling the ocean surface in the process, and warming the atmosphere in exchange.
And yes I am fully aware of the fairy tale yo daddy told you that you earnestly ascribe to that if greenhouse gases were totally removed clouds would remain in the sky like they were pasted there preventing the mean temperature of the earth from rising above freezing. LMAO!!!
Bill says: “if greenhouse gases were totally removed clouds would remain in the sky like they were pasted there preventing the mean temperature of the earth from rising above freezing. LMAO!!!
If you want to play that game, if GHG’s were completely removed then there could be no life on earth. Where would that blood have come that you conjectured? Or if there were no oxygen and carbon around, then the solar system itself would be completely different — there might not even be an earth then!
You can play these ‘what if’ games for ever. Or you can make reasonable assumptions — assume “everything else being equal” as is commonly done in science. Like … a planet the size of earth but with a surface slightly more reflective. We could hire the Magratheans to build it. It could have either no atmosphere or a pure N2 atmosphere the same mass as earth’s atmosphere.
Or you could simply use the moon as a surrogate. But you won’t be happy. The moon has a ‘blackbody temperature’ of 270.4 K = -3 C = below freezing. And the actual ‘average temperature’ is significantly cooler than that. So even that enhanced sunlight darker surface won’t get us above freezing (on average).
Clouds are not the reason the earth is below freezing. Lack or thermal radiation from the sky is the reason.
So you won’t be “LMAO”, you will be “FMAO”.
> if greenhouse gases were totally removed clouds would
What clouds?
you won’t give up even if wrong tim.
earth would not be an ice ball without ghg.
1) mean temperture doesn’t mean same temperature everywhere
2) the equator receives ~415w/m2 on average.
and do you really think i believe tere would be life on earth after pointing out you blood would boil? and tim, tap on the shoulder,….the earth is not freezing and it wouldn’t be an ice ball without ghg.
thats just something your daddy conned you with to make you believe co2 controls the climate….i.e. no ghe without co2.
“1) mean temperature doesn’t mean same temperature everywhere”
But is does mean that if some areas are warmer than the mean, others must be cooler. So some areas some times would be warmer than my calculation and other will sometimes be cool.
“2) the equator receives ~415w/m2 on average.”
That is the right ballpark. If that were distributed evenly, that would be constant at about 293 K (20 C) 24/7.
But it is NOT distributed evenly. The actual temperature will necessarily be lower. How much lower depends on just what assumptions you make about rotation, heat capacity, etc.
And that is at the equator!
So you have shown that — without the GHE — the equator could be about as warm as the actual global average! Congratulations! A band in the tropics would not freeze. The polar ice caps would only cover basically all of the temperate zone. (Which would of course change the albedo, and make the earth even colder than the simple calculations.)
“earth would not be an ice ball without ghg”
So if your point was “Earth wouldn’t ENTIRELY be an ice ball with dark ground and no clouds – just 60 or 80 or 90% would be an ice ball” — well, then I accept your refinement on my quick calculations earlier.
Tim you should learn something before just guessing at it. Its not a tropical band, the greater than freezing would extend to near 45 degrees.
and of course even ice gives off some water vapor, especially since the mean by latitude isn’t the same temperature over the diurnal cycle either. ever hear of henry’s law? you would have get rid of the oceans as well, then you have no ice either.
and don’t blame me for playing this stupid game. you were the first to try to make fun of the comment about ghg making climate more moderate and then when I called you on it you told me there would be no life without GHG. LMAO! So you want your cake and eat it too huh Tim?
.
I wrote a longer reply, but it got lost. Here is the shorter version.
* NASA was right that the oceans play a moderating roll.
* Swenson was wrong to deny oceans do not play a moderating roll.
* I was right to question Swenson’s claim.
Furthermore, none of this is about GHGs — nothing NASA said nor Swenson said nor I said. The ocean’s ability to moderate temperatures is not about the greenhouse effect (but rather about penetration past the surface and mixing and heat capacity and convection). Bill was the one who took the discussion off on a tangent about GHGs and rabble and iceballs.
Furthermore, “what if” scenarios are always fraught with peril. Any one change in the real world will, of course, lead to other changes. So asking “what if the earth had no water” or “what if sunlight were uniformly distributed” always entails many other, intertwined issues. (For example, if we assume “no greenhouse effect in the atmosphere” does that mean no H2O at all, so no oceans and no icecaps — or maybe we just ‘seal the earth’ so water can’t evaporate. Or maybe we just imagine that CO2 and H2O didn’t emit IR.)
So claims like “the greater than freezing would extend to near 45 degrees” or “60 or 80 or 90% would be an ice ball” always include some implicit, unstated assumption. (I tend to make the assumption of “all other things being equal”, but that is also somewhat arbitrary.)
I am curious what assumptions you made to be confident that regions up to 45 degrees would remain ice-free.
Tim you are stretching.
The atmosphere is what forms the clouds, condenses water and drops it on the land via snow, ice, and water.
Marine influence on the land is something that Hansen went back and forth on, ultimately choosing land influencing the water probably because he needed some more heat.
Marine influence can travel in up to 50 miles here is socal as the air eventually will be sent skyward from convection off the hot and dry desert. From there it goes back out to sea cooling and descending for another run across the coast picking up more water like a fire fighting airplane. Thats the prevailing condition anyway.
“Marine influence can travel in up to 50 miles here is socal ”
In Europe, in influence of the warm ocean is felt far across the continent. And the moderating influence of the oceans stretches the *other* direction all the way to the opposite shore (ie over most of the earth(.
As further evidence, there is the recent discussion of the global temperatures following the northern hemisphere’s temperatures — warm in July and cool in January (despite the face the earth gets stronger sunshine in Jan than July). Temperatures swing more widely over the land of the northern hemisphere than over the oceans of the southern hemisphere.
Again, factors are interconnected. Yes, the atmosphere is what forms the clouds, condenses water and drops it on the land. But the ocean provides that water. And the land changes albedo due to ice. No one factor could exist without the interplay of land oceans, and atmosphere.
PS. Even if the polar ice caps would only extend down to 45 degrees as you claimed, that is still acknowledging that the GHE (IR radiation from the atmosphere back to the surface) is responsible (at least somewhat) for keeping the ice caps limited to the polar regions.
Sun light by itself cannot provide the answers.
Clouds cannot provide the answers.
Moderation by oceans or atmosphere cannot provide the answers.
PPS I would still like to know where your got your “45 degree” answer. What calculation led you to that number?
Tim Folkerts says:
May 3, 2021 at 7:32 PM
“It is the atmosphere which prevents the worlds temperature from having wide variations.”
Really? Then why are temperatures less extreme near oceans and more extreme in the middle of continent?
—————————–
seems you have conceded this argument with ”Again, factors are interconnected. Yes, the atmosphere is what forms the clouds, condenses water and drops it on the land. But the ocean provides that water. And the land changes albedo due to ice. No one factor could exist without the interplay of land oceans, and atmosphere.”
and now we are in agreement
Tim Folkerts says:
PS. Even if the polar ice caps would only extend down to 45 degrees as you claimed, that is still acknowledging that the GHE (IR radiation from the atmosphere back to the surface) is responsible (at least somewhat) for keeping the ice caps limited to the polar regions.
Sun light by itself cannot provide the answers.
Clouds cannot provide the answers.
Moderation by oceans or atmosphere cannot provide the answers.
PPS I would still like to know where your got your “45 degree” answer. What calculation led you to that number?
————————-
i interpolated it from a cloud-free insolation by latitude table that only listed tables for 0, 30, 60, 90. that would give or take a few degrees. i know that the people you like to believe isn’t lying to you but you would be wrong about that. the lies are as thick as locusts, little lies but numerous.
Bill says:
“earth would not be an ice ball without ghg.”
“the greater than freezing would extend to near 45 degrees.”
“i interpolated it from a cloud-free insolation by latitude table”
[Here is a nice chart of insolation: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1004%5D
Thanks for the explanation. But insolation only provides part of the answer. Eyeballing the chart, at 45 degrees, the average annual insolation is about 310-320 W/m^2. This translates to an effective black body temperature right around 0 C. So far, so good.
But the earth does not ab.sorb all the incoming sunlight, so you have to knock off some energy off the top, depending on what sort of surface you have (around 8% for oceans, 10-40% for various soils/sand/rock, 30-80% for ice or snow) (plus possible additional scattering/absor.ption by the atmosphere before the sunlight gets to the surface). So that puts us perhaps at 35 degrees as the dividing line for a ‘typical’ southern extent of our ‘ice line’ (and possibly all the way to the equator). The position of the ‘ice line’ will also of course depend on the season.
Furthermore the actual average temperature is ALWAYS less than the effective BB temperature without IR from the atmosphere (ie without GHGs), due to the non-uniform nature of the incoming sunlight. This pertains both to day/night cycles, and to seasonal cycles.
This is where all those complications come in. Are there oceans or atmosphere on our hypothetical planet to temper the swings? What is the thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the ground? What exactly is the albedo of the surface? Will ice form and dramatically increase the albedo?
But whatever values we choose, it ALWAY pushes the ‘average ice line’ even closer to the equator than the simple “effective black body calculation”.
tim folkerts you need to work a lot more on those numbers. If all the soil/sand albedo was sand it would be about 30% albedo. 30% albedo out of the 23 watts of 184 watts in Trenberth budget gets you about 7 watts. Scaling up to 341 mean insolation moves up to about 12 watts. 320 watts at 45 degrees less 12 watts and you are still above freezing.
Forget ocean, snow, and ice because you can’t have any of those and NOT have greenhouse gases.
and worse than that for your imaginary world any body with intelligence would realize that the words iceball and even the word freezing would be meaningless.
You are just a mark in a con game dude! Wake up and smell the coffee and get a little skepticism about what you hear coming out of the mouths of scientists.
Bill, an albedo of 0.3 means 30% reflects. 30% of whatever comes in. So if an average of 320 W/m^2 of sunshine comes in at 45 degrees north, then 0.3 * 320 = 96 W/m^2 reflects and 0.7 * 320 = 224 W/m^2 gets absorbed. I have no idea where your 12 W/m^2 of reflection comes from!
224 W/m^2 is DEFINITELY not enough to keep that sand world from dropping WAY below an average of 0C at 45 degrees north.
Even the equator with 415* 0.7 = 290 W/m^2 would not achieve an average temperature of 0 C.
Understand Tim that total earth surface albedo is 23 watts estimated cloud free mean. That is with insolation of 184w/m2 global average not reflected by clouds..
Change that to 341w/m2 and it becomes 43w/m2.
Now look at your own estimates of how albedo is spread between water, ice/snow, and soils.
A finger in the air look would seem to put 30% of 43watts as the high end of the range. . . .or about 13w/m2.
You also have to factor in that these soils are not blackbody emitters. Sand one of the more reflective at 30% emits at an emissivity of 94% knocking a couple more percent off the effective albedo. Not sure effective albedo would be the way to put it terminology wise, but that would be albedo times emissivity. . . .to get to the effective albedo number for estimating temperature at equilibrium. But I am not factoring that in below.
That is about sufficient to reduce your figures for zero degrees down to 297 to 307. At 30 degree the average insolation would be well in excess of 400w/m2 (about 415w/m2)
So lets say 397w/m2 for 30 degrees and 300w/m2. That wouldn’t move it down to 35degrees. So we are looking for 1/6th the distance between 45deg and 30deg. . . .say 3 degrees. 42 degrees. OK so lets be conservative and say 40 degrees. That hardly qualifies as an iceball.
Bill,
Bond Albedo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
That’s a robust measurement.
“A finger in the air look would seem to put 30% of 43watts as the high end of the range. . . .or about 13w/m2.”
No, we need 30% of the TOTAL INCOMING sunlight to your hypothetical airless, sand covered planet. Not 30% of 12% of incoming light.
For the hypothetical planet as a whole:
** 341 W/m^2 –> 239 W/m^2
For the equator on your hypothetical world
** 415 W/m^2 –> 291 W/m^2
For 45 latitude on your hypothetical world
** 320 W/m^2 –> 224 W/m^2
These are the absorbed energies.
You *are* absolutely right about these materials not having emissivity = 1. That does increase the temperatures a bit.
If we spitball the emissivity at 0.9 (probably a low value), we get
415 W/m^2 –> 275 K (rather than 268 for a blackbody).
The equator could (on average) be *slightly* above freezing.
Tim light colored sand is very rare. . . . .even in ocean bottoms.
I wasn’t talking about a planet that was 100% sand. what we have is a planet increasing greenery which has the lowest albedo of all natural surfaces and evapotranspiration cools the surface while immediately warming the air where the thermometers are. But no snowballs or iceballs dude!
Bill, I think this conversation has run its course. There an an infinte number of variations for surface albedo and surface emissivity and cloud cover and GHGs in the atmosphere and non-GHGs in the atmosphere and latitudes and feedbacks and …
I want to keep coming back to “choose particular values for parameters that allow calcualtions from first principles”. You seem to keep objecting to specific variations either being “unphysical” or “not what I was imagining”.
If we can’t agree on a starting point, there is really no point.
Tim thats fine since you have already acknowledged that your claim up at the top of this subthread was totally bogus an an example of scientists conning the public on global warming.
Your statement:
”So, yes. The earth would literally be a frozen iceball without greenhouse warming.”
No it would not be ‘literally’ a frozen iceball. How ridiculous.
No, Bill, the claim is not “totally bogus”. The original claim is “Without the greenhouse effect, the 960 W/m^2 of sunlight cant keep the average temperature above ~ 255 K globally.”
I stand by that. Since the true emissivity is less than 1, the temperature could be a bit higher — maybe 10 K higher. However, since sunlight is not definitely uniform, the average temperature must the a bit lower that this calculation. In any case, ~255 K is a reasonable estimate. And the average temperature for the hypothesized conditions is certainly going to be below 0 C.
Now, you could add your OWN stipulations and change the conditions and then argue that for YOUR conditions, the average temperature could be above freezing. You could choose your own albedo. You could choose an emissivity. You could do detailed calculations to show just what latitude might stay above 0 C average temperature under specific conditions.
That is all fun and interesting. But it can’t negate basic physic. A world absorbing an average 960 W/m^2 of solar radiation (like earth) simply cannot maintain an average global surface temperature above 0 C without ‘back radiation’ ie without ‘the greenhouse effect’.
Tim the moon’s average temperature is well below freezing but its not even close to being an iceball. Its daytimes get up 100C and above. Your blood would boil.
Scientists tell you this iceball krapola so you won’t ask questions about why day times got hotter instead of cooler if there were no greenhouse gases.
Thats why they want you to think of average temperature.
Its all part of the con game. Lie their arses off to take advantage of you. And you bit on it like a cod on any anchovy.
“Scientists tell you this iceball krapola so you wont ask questions about why day times got hotter instead of cooler if there were no greenhouse gases.”
‘Skeptics’ cling to the high daytime temperatures on the moon to avoid having to deal with the ‘balmy’ nighttime temperatures on earth. The hot noontime temperatures on the moon are trivial to understand — neither the theory nor the data are controversial. The nighttime temperatures of the earth are much more complicated. But one of the factors that MUST be included is ‘the greenhouse effect’ ie ‘thermal IR from the sky’.
Also, it turns out the moon *is* an ‘iceball’ in terms of temperature — at least once you get past the top half meter where the temperature swings wildly.
“It turns out that near the equator the immediate sub surface temperatures are around 260K, possibly slightly higher. Of significance is the fact that from 0.5m down the two weeks of day and two weeks of night do not alter this value; such is the insulative properties of the lunar regolith.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-inner-temperature-of-the-Moon-Just-below-the-surface-Deep-in-its-core?share=1
A swimming pool full of water on the moon (sealed to prevent evaporation) would freeze solid overnight and would not thaw out during the day. A lunar colony needs to be more concerned about freezing than boiling.
Tim you are a hopeless sycophant. The moon isn’t an iceball anymore than the earth would be one.
The only ice on the moon is near its poles.
Bill, you need to learn to be less literal and to move beyond the “concrete operational” developmental stage. An object can be “ice cold” without having to be made of ice!
tim you already acknowledged that the mean freezing line was about about 35 degrees latitude. About 1/2 the area of the globe is between the 30’s.
Also you won’t get the iceball albedo without water vapor.
The notion of an iceball earth seems totally at odds with any kind of reasonableness test.
So if you want to continue advance this seeming nonsense, you need to actually come up with some area by area calculations to support your case.
My thought is its all an imaginary fairy tale. Do you have any evidence beyond some global warming scientist telling you so?
Bill, the calculations depend critically on what assumptions we are making. This is turn depends on how closely we are trying to ‘match’ the actual earth.
“tim you already acknowledged that the mean freezing line was about about 35 degrees latitude. “
No, I acknowledged that 35 degrees latitude was still a “best case” estimate. This estimate for the “effective blackbody temperature” assumes that the sunlight is evenly distributed over the surface. Sunlight is NOT evenly distributed. It is concentrated in a ring that briefly gets quite warm around ‘noon’ and then spends a long time being quite cold. This pushes the “average” temperature much lower than the “effect BB temperature. This in turn pushes the ‘frost line’ much further south than 35 degrees latitude.
“The notion of an iceball earth seems totally at odds with any kind of reasonableness test.”
Define “reasonable”. The behavior of the universe is not limited by the imagination of any one person!
For the moon, measurements mentioned above show that even the equator stays below 0 C on average. So here we have an actual example of world that has permanent icy conditions just a foot or two below the surface at the equator (and all the way up to the surface at many places near the poles). So an iceball moon is not only reasonable, but is indeed observed.
For earth, it is much more complicated (and the results depend dramatically on what assumptions are you willing to make). I will just point out that scientists have proposed that ‘iceball’ conditions have existed in the past (maybe not all the way to the equator, but close). So again, many think it is perfectly ‘reasonable.
Finally, one of the main reasons that it might seem unreasonable is that our experience of climate includes both the moderating influences of the oceans and the warming effects of GHGs.
Tim lots of people have strange beliefs. But thats not a reason to believe them. I said bring the evidence. . . .not your opinion.
I’ve brought more evidence and done more calculations than you have, Bill.
Lets start by re-iterating the evidence of the chilly subsoil of the moon. The average surface temperature at the equator must be below freezing to keep the lower layers at 260 K. Even with a lower albedo than the earth. There is a real-life experiment.
Testing
420 ppm of CO2 and nothing to show for it.
Huh?
Global surface temperatures since 1850: https://tinyurl.com/74nszba2
Global lower troposphere temperatures since 1979: https://tinyurl.com/seze3sb4
Basic linear trends included, using all the available temperature data for each plot.
Temperatures have been up and down in the past, all when CO2 was lower. Going way back in time, CO2 was many times higher and life existed. CO2 is not driving the climate or the temperature.
CO2 had to be many times higher in the past to offset the lower solar radiation. CO2 is actually an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem.
“420 ppm of CO2 and nothing to show for it.”
Do you want to deal with what you said and the reply to it, or did you change the subject to avoid that?
No one is contending that life will cease to exist if CO2 goes up or down. Looks like you’re new to the discussion.
Discussion? lmao!!
You are the cause of your own derision, bill. Nice irony.
well a few less toady boot lickers would welcome
I’ll put it more bluntly. CO2 is irrelevant!
welp
back to the drawing board for the CMIPs
Roy should re-publish the CMIP5 comparison trendlines, it was ugly several years ago but now it is just brutal
eventually modelers will be forced to accept reality and add some negative feedbacks (e.g. tropical thunderstorms have been suggested)
even though that means admitting there’s no crisis
but since they claim it’s already a crisis that shouldn’t matter much
still, for the sane folks, ECS trending lower
CMIP5/obs – here you go, this is up to date.
https://tinyurl.com/58zaab46
no, the real one https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
But that’s not up to date.
Here is Roy’s latest effort:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/
But it has issues, which are dicussed early in the comments, and other graphs shown.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/#comment-418488
The problem comes if the temperature keeps going down. ‘Colder’ will cause a lot more ‘crisis’ than ‘warmer’.
It’s fun to imagine a world in which the post-1979 temperature and CO2 trends are reversed — nearly everything would be worse, and the outlook for the future genuinely cataclysmic.
But good news, folks! This month was as warm as one in 1980!
After nearly 20 years of people saying that the temperature will go down, and it hasn’t, that prediction seems rather empty.
Warming has been a bit less than the model ensemble means. It is uncertain how things will go from here, but that uncertainty cuts both ways.
lets not forget those defending predictions of much more rapid warming. those predictions seem rather empty too!
Perhaps you would like to be more specific. What predictions would you like us to remember that stand out from what we’ve already said?
seems to me the central tendency was 3c. but 1.7 seems it with some unknown portion being solar (1980-2000) with perhaps
60 more years of solar built EEI (if not longer)
some unknown portion being UHI, and some unknown portion being other anthropogenic;
and a good bet there is some low solar in the offing to erode the above warming influences to yet an even lower total sensitivity number so the system could continue in a cooling direction
If temperatures stay flattish for the next few years, those who have been pushing CAGW will all of a sudden be embracing natural variability. Something that was persona non grata for so long will feel their warm embrace. Otherwise what kind of excuses will they have.
Natural variability is going to find a lot of friends. From the most unexpected places.
yes even warming seems likely to win a lot of friends if the horn of plenty continues to support a burgeoning population.
Literally nothing is happening.
Awwww – the Scientific American wrote –
“We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and Were Going to Say So” and .Its time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed”
That’s impressive! 13000 scientists!
That’s less than 0.2 % of the more than 7,000,000 scientists in the world. This means that more than 99.8% of scientists either don’t think there is a “climate emergency”, haven’t been asked, or have no firm opinion.
We all need to rush about to “halt or reduce climate change” do we?
Is the Scientific American published by idiots, or do they assume their readers are idiots?
Climate is the average of weather. It changes.
“Literally nothing is happening.”
Huh?
https://tinyurl.com/seze3sb4
A couple of relatively cool months didn’t wipe out the long term trend, I’m afraid.
Actually the last few months did wipe out most of the atmospheric heat gained over the last 20 years. A trend only tells you what happened. It doesn’t guarantee the future.
Several things could happen. The next El Nino will restore the heat lost over the last few months with the trend continuing. Or a new paradigm begins with a decreasing trend persisting for decades. Or something in between.
“Actually the last few months did wipe out most of the atmospheric heat gained over the last 20 years.”
That’s a strange way of putting it. Like a cold day in Summer canceled the season…
Atmospheric temps are volatile. Nothing much can be learned about long term change by comparing a couple of months. 2021 is still, on average much warmer than 1980, even though 1980 began with an el Nino and 2021 began with a la Nina.
It is what it is and will be…who knows. Like you said, temps are volatile.
But 20 years ago was 2001, not 1980. And don’t bet the farm that won’t be wiped out too eventually.
2001 was warmer than 1980. 2021 is so far warmer than both.
We’ve been due a cold year after so many warm ones.
“… who knows…”
I think mainstream understanding of what will happen to surace temps as a result of CO2 increase is very solid. Absent global dimming from some cataclysm, the globe will continue to warm. The only uncertainty is the rate at which that will happen.
I am beginning to wonder if you truly understand the concept of wiped out. It means gone, erased, vanished; sayonara.
Next month, we may see a jump back up to 2016 levels or another 0.4 degree drop. Both unlikely. Most likely about the same up or down.
If you don’t think that heat was lost to space for good, where do you think it went?
Chic asked: If you don’t think that heat was lost to space for good, where do you think it went?
Land, hydrosphere, cryosphere, or even a different layer of the atmosphere are options as well. Heat and energy move around the various reservoirs continuously. This movement ebbs and flows and creating a very noisy atmospheric temperature record. But the total heat/energy uptake of the entire climate system is much less noisy. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) for an overview of how excess heat/energy is distributed throughout the climate system.
bdgwx,
So your hypothesis is that the generally always colder atmosphere lost its energy lately by warming the generally always warmer land, hydrosphere, and cryosphere?
Or maybe you’ve detected the missing hot spot above? Finally after all these years!
“…a very noisy atmospheric temperature record.”
I’ll bet the Schuckmann crowd burst out laughing when they heard that.
Chic,
The hypothesis is this. Each body has an ingress and egress of heat/energy. The net change in heat/energy dictates the bulk temperature of that body. A body will cool/warm if the ingress decreases/increases more than the egress. And, of course, per the 1LOT all energy is conserved so if a body experiences a net gain/loss then it will have to balance with a net loss/gain in all of the other bodies of equal but opposite magnitude.
So how can the atmosphere cool you might ask? There are several ways. 1) Egress stays the same and ingress decreases. 2) Ingress stays the same and egress increases. 3) Egress increases more than ingress. 4) Ingress decreases more than egress. Don’t get trapped into thinking that cooling only occurs when a body sheds more energy. The body could cool all the same if it begins receiving less energy than it did before. In fact, it is the later scenario that is play when the atmosphere cools in part because of ENSO negative phases.
That is BS climate pseudo-science. The atmosphere doesn’t cool just by receiving less energy. To cool, it must lose more energy by radiating to space than it gains from anywhere warmer, not by receiving less energy from its warmer sources. IOW, the difference between all your ingresses and egresses goes to space not backwards in violation of 2nd LOT.
Chic said: That is BS climate pseudo-science.
Patently False. The 1LOT is an unassailable physical law of reality and it has nothing to with climate.
Chic said: The atmosphere doesn’t cool just by receiving less energy.
Patently False. If sensible, latent, or UWIR energy flows decrease then the atmosphere will cool. The 1LOT says so.
Chic said: To cool, it must lose more energy by radiating to space than it gains from anywhere warmer, not by receiving less energy from its warmer sources.
To cool it must lose more energy than it gains. Period. Sure, the loss part of the budget includes space, but it also includes flows from warmer parts of the lower troposphere to cooler parts of the land, hydrosphere, and cryosphere. This is a frequent occurrence on small spatial and temporal scale due to advective and diabatic processes. But even if these valid flow pathways from the atmosphere to the surface are not enough to convince you the simple fact that the generally warmer surface to the generally cooler atmosphere to the even colder space is in full compliance of the 2LOT even when the surface-to-atmosphere transfer rate decreases while the atmosphere-to-space transfer rate stays the same. The flow of heat is still from hot to cold. This is in full compliance with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.
“I am beginning to wonder if you truly understand the concept of wiped out. It means gone, erased, vanished; sayonara.”
I understand, I just don’t agree.
Firstly, you said ‘the atmosphere’. UAH data only covers a slice of the whole atmosphere.
Secondly, the (UAH) lower troposphere constantly exchanges energy with the rest of the biosphere (including upper atmosphere and near surface atmosphere) on short time-scales. The energy has not been ‘wiped out’ it’s been displaced by normal weather activity.
If you want to say that the lower troposphere as the same temperature as it was for one month in 1980, that’s fine. But 40 years of warming hasn’t been wiped out by one cold month, any more than a cold day in Summer wipes out Summer. The background warming is still there.
The old difference between climate and weather. And semantics, I suppose.
Barry and bdgwx,
A temperature drop means heat loss, not heat hiding. The recent heat loss from the atmosphere isn’t hiding in the oceans or upper atmosphere or anywhere else. It radiated to space. Get over it.
If it’s any consolation, it could warm up again with an El Nino or ASR > OLR.
“The recent heat loss from the atmosphere isn’t hiding in the oceans or upper atmosphere or anywhere else. It radiated to space.”
Which monitoring system did you check to see that happening? Could you provide a link?
The reason temps are cooler is simple – there is an ongping la Nina. And yes, ENSO events move energy between the atmosphere and the oceans.
“But the surface warming and cooling during El Niño and La Niña don’t involve more or less heat energy entering or escaping the climate system as a whole. In other words, the whole climate system isn’t really cooling or warming. Heat energy that's already present in the climate system is simply shifting back and forth between the atmosphere (where it shows up in the global surface temperature value) and the deeper layers of the ocean (where it doesn't).
The changes in sea surface temperatures during El Niño and La Niña are caused and helped along by changes in the trade winds, which normally blow from east to west across the tropical Pacific Ocean. When the trade winds are stronger than normal during La Niña, the winds push more surface water to the western half of the Pacific basin. The pool of warm water grows deeper, storing excess heat at depth, and allowing for colder, deeper water to rise to the surface in the eastern half of the Pacific basin….
All of this amounts to a shuffling of heat from one place (ocean) to another (the atmosphere) without affecting the Earth's overall energy budget—the balance between incoming and outgoing energy across the entire planet. So unlike volcanic eruptions, which actually block energy from the Sun from reaching the surface, or solar minimums, which reduce the total amount of energy the Sun emits, the phases of ENSO are not creating or removing energy from the climate system. La Niña hides some of Earth’s existing heat below the surface, while El Niño reveals it.”
https://tinyurl.com/sj2wmmkv
What good would providing a link do? With access to CERES data, I could confirm that energy loss to space occurred. Stop being simple minded. How could the atmosphere cool if more energy did not go to space than entered from somewhere else?
You ask me for a link but you provide a link with no data!? And in that irrelevant description of ENSO, you highlighted the wrong sentence. It should have been “…the phases of ENSO are not creating or removing energy from the climate system.” But the atmosphere DID remove energy by radiating it away to space. That’s why the UAH measured a drop in the lower troposphere temperatures the last few months.
The atmosphere is colder than the land and oceans. It can’t lose NET energy to them. Don’t be daft.
Chic said: A temperature drop means heat loss, not heat hiding.
It means there was a net transfer of energy out of that body. That energy has to go somewhere. It could escape to space or it could accumulate in other bodies in the climate system. It is probably a combination of both.
Chic said: The recent heat loss from the atmosphere isnt hiding in the oceans or upper atmosphere or anywhere else. It radiated to space.
How do you know that?
Chic said: If its any consolation, it could warm up again with an El Nino or ASR > OLR.
El Nino is a mechanism by which more heat transfers from the ocean to the air. That’s why UAH-TLT is correlated well with the ENSO phase.
Chic said: The atmosphere is colder than the land and oceans. It cant lose NET energy to them. Dont be daft.
Actually it can. It is frequently the case that the air temperature above the surface is warmer than the surface itself because of advective processes. Heat transfers from the atmosphere to the surface in these scenarios.
But that’s not the only mechanism behind the ebb and flow of energy in the atmosphere on a global scale. It is also caused by a waning of the energy transferring into the atmosphere from other bodies.
A good analogy here is your home. On a cold day your furnace may run at full capacity 24×7 to maintain a comfortable 22C temperature. If you turn your furnace off you are reducing the energy input into your home but keeping the output the same. Your home has a net negative energy imbalance not because the output increased, but because the input decreased. Your home will begin to cool.
bdgwx, the bulk of it most likely radiated to space due to less water vapor in the atmosphere that primarily originates in the tropical oceans.
Besides lower seaside temperatures cool water offshore of the US west coast (the westcoast being downwind due to prevailing westerlies) sees big drops in precipitation. It is also a growing prevalence of this effect that hasn’t been seen since the 50’s and 60’s that accounts for increases in wild fires. Its particularly bad when precipitation begins to seesaw from wet to dry as the wet grows the fuel and the dry allows it to burn. Nearly all wildfires in California are a result of either arson or human carelessness. . . .a factor that grows with population. . . .just to bust up yet another CAGW myth.
bdgwx,
You make a few statements that agree with me and those that don’t remind me of Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
How do I know the recent heat loss from the atmosphere was radiated to space? Because that’s what it does.
“Actually [the atmosphere can lose NET energy to the land and oceans].” Technically you are right if you only consider inversions. But that is hardly often enough to result in NET energy transfer over several month’s time. Which is what my original claim was. The heat went to space, not back into the warmer ocean or land.
Dumb analogy for you, but good for me. The room cools because heat continues going outside like it always does, warm to cool.
Chic said: Dumb analogy for you, but good for me. The room cools because heat continues going outside like it always does, warm to cool.
That’s right. The home cools because heat continues going outside like it always does. That’s the point! The rate at which the inside-to-outside flow of energy occurs didn’t increase. The negative energy imbalance on the home is not because more energy is leaving the home. It is because less energy is coming in.
Chic said on May 4, 2021 at 4:42 PM: The atmosphere doesnt cool just by receiving less energy. To cool, it must lose more energy by radiating to space than it gains from anywhere warmer, not by receiving less energy from its warmer sources.
The home and furnace analogy is contradictory to your statement here. The atmosphere can cool by receiving less energy when the inflow from the ocean is reduced just like your home cools by receiving less energy when the furnace is turned off. No change in the magnitude of the output flows are required in either case. That’s the 1LOT (dE = Ein – Eout)!
bill said: the bulk of it most likely radiated to space due to less water vapor in the atmosphere that primarily originates in the tropical oceans.
It’s a fine hypothesis. But then why is OHC inversely correlated with UAH-TLT? In other words, why does OHC have a tendency (albeit small) to increase/decrease when UAH-TLT decreases/increases?
Why do I waste time playing these semantic games? My whole point to barry was that the energy that caused the recent temperature drop went to space.
Can you honestly double down on the idea that the energy went somewhere else?
No more what ifs. Yes, no, or data please.
Chic said: My whole point to barry was that the energy that caused the recent temperature drop went to space.
Can you show that the inflow of energy from other bodies to the atmosphere stayed the same while the outflow of energy to space increased?
Is the magnitude of the increase in outflow to space consistent with the magnitude of the temperature decrease?
Chic said: Can you honestly double down on the idea that the energy went somewhere else?
OHC and UAH-TLT data says it happens (albeit by a small amount) so I don’t see how this hypothesis is unreasonable for the current drop. The atmosphere has interface points with the land and the cryosphere bodies as well. At the very least it is highly likely changes in both inflow and outflow terms of the atmosphere energy budget explain the drop.
Chic said: Yes, no, or data please.
The OHC data comes from Dr. Cheng (https://tinyurl.com/3sboqkgt) and UAH-TLT comes from Dr. Spencer (https://tinyurl.com/hzsp6sjt).
The answer to your first question can be answered by you taking your OHC and UAH data and see if the majority of TLT temperatures are greater than the ocean temperatures. A necessary occurrence for any net energy going from atmosphere to ocean in the last few months.
The answer to your second question is, who cares? But there doesn’t need to be and probably isn’t any increase in outflow to space. Take a nice warm bath and think about it. Open the drain and experiment by adjusting the tap and observing the water level.
The proof that your hypothesis is unreasonable is in the data. Analyze it and report back.
bdgwx says:
bill said: the bulk of it most likely radiated to space due to less water vapor in the atmosphere that primarily originates in the tropical oceans.
Its a fine hypothesis. But then why is OHC inversely correlated with UAH-TLT? In other words, why does OHC have a tendency (albeit small) to increase/decrease when UAH-TLT decreases/increases?
————————-
well if u look at trenbeths global budget you will see a large amount of sky backscatter that convects to toa. . . .it doesn’t penetrate the ocean surface. less wv less backscatter less clouds.
bottom line is upwelling water must be replaced more study is needed on net effects. but the net effect of less wv is a cooling of the atmosphere as water is a huge heat delivery system taking heat from the surface into the atmosphere.
you would normally argue less wv means less warming eroding the ghg. isn’t that the objective of the ipcc?
oh!….OHC! where is that being measured down to a single la nina event? and does backscatter warm or cool oceans in your master book on climate?
Chic said: The answer to your first question can be answered by you taking your OHC and UAH data and see if the majority of TLT temperatures are greater than the ocean temperatures.
No. That wouldn’t answer my question. BTW…UAH-TLT is about -10C and is far colder than the ocean. That means heat does not flow from TLT to OHC. It is the other way around heat flows from OHC to TLT.
The question is…is that heat flow reduced? To answer that question we need to look at dOHC and dTLT. When I do that I get a negative correlation. When OHC increases TLT decreases and vice versa. The correlation is small explaining less than 10% of the TLT changes, but it is there. That means this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that a reduced inflow of energy from hydrosphere-to-atmosphere causes the hydrosphere to accumulate more energy and warm and the atmosphere to dissipate more energy and cool.
This is the 1LOT (dE = Ein-Eout) in action.
Chic said: Take a nice warm bath and think about it. Open the drain and experiment by adjusting the tap and observing the water level.
Just like there is conservation of energy (dE = Ein-Eout) there is also conservation of mass (dM = Min-Mout). The bathtub analogy works great for demonstrating this.
If the tap is 1 gal/min and the drain is 1 gal/min then the mass of the water in the tub stays constant. If you decreases the inflow but keep the outflow unchanged a negative mass imbalance occurs such that mass and thus level of the water begins dropping. That tub lost mass not because the outflow increased, but because the inflow decreased. The tub analogy should be a rather intuitive way to understand reducing inflow can cause a drop in temperature (energy) just like it causes a drop in level (mass) for the water in the tub even when the outflow is unchanged.
bill,
You can get OHC on a monthly basis from here (https://tinyurl.com/3sboqkgt).
Increasing backscatter puts a warming tendency on the ocean.
Just as long as it is clear its not reality, its CMIP5 ocean heat content reconstruction on a short term scale.
Reality is reality. La Nina – less evaporation, less lapse rate super stabilization – less clouds – more IR escaping to space. . . .unless of course you want to concede that ghg don’t warm anything so that the additional solar input will override any cooling. Myself I am betting on a job critical need to not lose heat.
So perhaps rather than pointing to the model reconstruction in a locked black box you could as I have attempted to do. . . .explain it differently?
bdgwx,
I refuse to start name calling and questioning your intelligence. You don’t seem to play games, so I conclude you are struggling with conformational bias to find some way to avoid saying, “OK, I agree with you.” /psych analysis.
Look, it is this simple. When the water level dropped, NONE of the lost water went back through the tap. All of it went down the drain.
I should know better than to use another analogy, but I know how much you like them. So it’s rush hour. The traffic over the xyz bridge into Gotham City is steady at 10 cars/minute on and off until 9am when 100 cars are on the bridge. At 10 am, only 80 cars are on the bridge, because the rate on dropped to 8 cars/minute while the rate off only dropped to 9 cars/minute. How many cars turned around and went back home?
Answer: None. All of them went to the City.
Caveat: On a micro level, there is always diffusion back (against the gradient) and forth, but the net flow is always from concentrated to less concentrated. So please don’t dig yourself any further into the hole by pointing to times and places where heat was transferred from atmosphere to ocean. We are discussing a period greater than two months here.
Chic said: Look, it is this simple. When the water level dropped, NONE of the lost water went back through the tap. All of it went down the drain.
That’s right. The outflow is through the drain and only the drain.
That in no way changes the fact that the water level began dropping not because the outflow increased, but because the inflow decreased.
A change in inflow rate is the cause of the water level decrease.
Chic said: The traffic over the xyz bridge into Gotham City is steady at 10 cars/minute on and off until 9am when 100 cars are on the bridge.
Gotcha. 10 cars/minute inflow and 10 cars/minute outflow. The mass balance on the bridge is balanced with it holding steady at 100 cars.
Chic said: At 10 am, only 80 cars are on the bridge, because the rate on dropped to 8 cars/minute while the rate off only dropped to 9 cars/minute.
I get 40 cars at 10 am. dM = Min – Mout = (8 cars/min * 60 min) – (9 cars/min * 60 min) = 480 – 560 = -60 cars. Mnow = Mpast + dM = 100 – 60 = 40 cars.
In this case the mass of cars on the bridge decreased because the inflow decreased more than outflow.
Note that this scenario is subtly different than the bathtub scenario in that water level in the bathtub decreased because and only because the inflow decreased, but the cars on the bridge decreased because the inflow decreased more than the outflow. The former is like configuration #1 and the later like configuration #4 in my comment here (https://tinyurl.com/esbbk72b).
Chic said: How many cars turned around and went back home?
Answer: None. All of them went to the City.
Sure. No challenge here on that.
Just keep in mind that question and answer have little relevance to the number of cars on the bridge. In the same manner it doesn’t matter where the water goes after falling down the drain. The water level in the tub drops all the same. Likewise, it does not matter whether the energy in the atmosphere goes when it leaves. As long as Ein Eout and decreases when Ein < Eout. Either changes in Ein or Eout or a combination both can contribute to increases and decreases of it contained within the body in question.
All of this is in direct contradiction to your statement “The atmosphere doesn’t cool just by receiving less energy.” which is patently false per the 1LOT which says dE = Ein – Eout. The fact is that the atmosphere can, in fact, cool just be receiving less energy. If the atmosphere continues to shed energy at the same rate as before and if the hydrosphere-to-atmosphere transfer rate decreases and all other things remain equal then the atmosphere WILL cool. Period. That is not debatable.
You went through all that just to prove me wrong by writing the atmosphere “doesn’t” cool instead of “didn’t” cool?
You got me. +1 for you. Congratulations.
Now stop the nonsense. This thread went south after I said the heat in the TLT four months ago was lost to space and you obfuscated:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-683070
BTW, I never said anything about outflow increase!
Saying the atmosphere cooled because the energy escaped to space is like saying the level in the bathtub went down because water went down the drown. But that explanation tells us nothing about why the level in the bathtub was stable at one moment and then began dropping in another or why the energy in the atmosphere was stable at one moment and then began decreasing in another. In fact, that explanation could be misleading because it may be interpreted by some that the change in state was due to an increase in outflow even though the outflow rate never changed. The explanation misses the crux of the issue at best and is misleading at worst.
Chic wrote:
“My whole point to barry was that the energy that caused the recent temperature drop went to space.”
I asked you umpteen posts ago to provide the evidence for that happening in the last few months – where the energy coming in from the sun was exceeded by the energy leaving the Earth.
You mentioned CERES, but did not provide that data to corroborate your claim.
We are experiencing a la Nina – it is well-known that during la Ninas air temperatures decrease because energy shifts from the atmosphere to the oceans. unfortunately we’ll have to wait for the ocean heat content data to be updated to see if energy accumalted there in the last few months.
Meanwhile, you made an unequivocal claim that the energy loss from the atmosphere was not transferred to the oceans but was instead lost to space.
Please provide the data for the last few motnhs substantiating that claim.
No more argumentation, just the data, please.
Point to the any time when I said ASR > OLR in the last few months. All I wrote was that the atmosphere cooled and that energy went to space. It couldn’t go any where else warmer. If you think otherwise, it is up to you to prove it. The data will show it. Why should I have to prove to you the 2nd LoT is obeyed?
This reminds me of that brief cooling phase or the great “hiatus”.
This low is a clear LA Nina anomaly and is difficult to be interpreted as more significant than that to the global warming story. I do find the ocean pattern very interesting because it does appear there is potential for another cooling trend and two LA Nina in succession would make an actual cooling trend in the global temperature. The other potential pattern I see is that this LA Nina trough appears it may get significantly lower than the previous few LA Nina troughs, which is abnormal since the mega 97 98 El Nino. The peaks at El Nino and troughs at La Nina tend to have been warming as per global warming trend after 97 98 event. Another fun story for me to watch- will a new hiatus form!
Non-scientist here. Simple question, I hope, about the graph at the top of the post:
Given the +0.14 C/decade trend, would an anomaly for 2021 of about +0.22 C be pretty close to exactly in line with that trend?
Thanks.
Yes, about right.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/trend
Obviously, there is a lot of up and down year to year, so 2021 could fall above or below that line. Because the year has started with a fairly strong la Nina, which causes global surface temps to cool for a few months, 2021 annual anomaly will very likely fall below the trend line.
Thanks very much.
The ENSO-forecast says neutral conditions into the autumn, followed by another La Nia late this year:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
So the 2021 anomaly will probably be well below the trendline.
Your link says La Nina has < 50% chance of occurring late this year. I do agree that 2021 will likely be below the trendline.
Neutral only 40 % and El Nino 12….
JMA gives la Nina a 10% likelihood of arising by October.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
Looking across the monitoring groups, there is a slight chance of la Nina late in the year. It would be unusual, as la Ninas tend to develop by August/September. There have been a few exceptions to that in the last 70 years.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
it seems premature to call it a strong la nina (not over yet).
It started late (as is typical with the warm phase of ocean oscillations) but not typical when all phases of the oscillation are considered.
Same thing. I would judge strong as >1.5 anomaly
-.5 to +.5 is neutral. .5 to 1.0 as weak, 1.0 to 1.5 as moderate and 1.5 to 2.0 as strong.
That would be on a backdrop of longterm warming which slews the grid in favor of El Nino.
Even prior to the 1980 surge in warming La nina still had to contend with the monster solar cycle 19. If underlying cooling actually sets in which I am not sure will occur depending upon how long low solar activity lasts and how much momentum is in the system (.9 is a lot) then we could see some
unprecedentedly strong la ninas.
You’re very close. I get +0.21C. The standard deviation on the monthly departures from the trend line is 0.18. That means there is a 32% chance and 5% chance that the anomalies will exceed 0.18 and 0.36 departures respectively due to natural variability.
CAGW is so screwed…
According to CMIP6.0 global warming projections, the global temperature trend should be at 0.5C/decade by now when reality shows it to be 0.14/C/decade—-3.5 TIMES too high; what a joke.
It only gets worse from here as the PDO and AMO will both soon reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles which will bring 30+ years of global cooling, as observed from1880~1913 and again from 1945~1978.
Moreover, empirical evidence show that for past 80 years, there have been NO long-term increasing global trends of frequency nor severity for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, and hail. CAGW is a complete bust.
The earth has been around 4.5 billion years, and It’s hilarious Leftists can’t wait another 5 years to see what cooling effects will occur when the PDO and AMO reenter their respective cool cycles, before wasting $100’s of trillions on the completely disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis.
CAGW has always been a political phenomenon and not a physical one…
How much longer must we endure this silly charade?
“According to CMIP6.0 global warming projections, the global temperature trend should be at 0.5C/decade by now…”
That’s complete bullshit.
https://tinyurl.com/w8kfprus
The fastest warming scenario (RCP8.5) is about 0.25 C/decade between 2020 and 2040.
If by “now” you mean, say, a 20-year trend with 2020 in the middle, then it’s just over 0.2 C/decade, by my eyeball, again using RCP8.5 for the CMIP6 projections.
No reason to choose the highest possible scenario, other than to make any discrepancy as large as possible. You’re welcome.
Of course, these are projected surface temperatures, and so should be compared with surface temperature data (not lower troposphere).
As you used the 1979 to current data period for your trend, here is the same in C per decade for various surface data sets.
GISS: 0.19
Had4: 0.17
NOAA: 0.17
BEST: 0.19
Of course the more important question is what the trend would have been without any increase in CO2. With volumes of evidence and peer reviewed studies on the Holocene Thermal Maximum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and that the LIA was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene, it’s a stretch to say some of the warming the last 200; years isn’t just what you would expect with natural variability.
Until the Industrial Revolution hit its stride the trend was downward, 1C in 5000 years.
Without humanity, I imagine the downward trend would have continued. Sooner or later the ice sheets would reform and we’d be back in another glacial period.
Entropic
No, the sea level rise started in 1700s (Jevrejeva), glaciers were melting early 1800s. Both signs of warming prior to CO2. Per IPCC, CO2 had an effect Post 1950. And then we had Roman and Medieval Warm periods. Some of the warming is a repeat of both of those periods.
For the warming to be a ‘repeat’ of those periods, then you need to say what the common mechanism is. And to match your complete certitude on this, there needs to be no doubt about cause.
There are new papers coming out all the time providing insights into and challenging previously held views about climate science. There are many uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge about why concerning numerous scientific areas. Why about past Climate is just one area in our ignorance.
If your comments reflect these uncertainties, that will be more useful than espousing things with certitude.
We have no determined mechanism causing the Roman and Medieval warm periods, or even if they were truly global, so it is impossible to say that any of the current warming is a “repeat” of those.
Science progresses by testing conventional wisdom, but it’s usually a refinement rather than an overhaul. It’s fine to be hopefulo, but until something really convincing overturns the general understanding, we continue to board planes even though we model tubulence imperfectly, and make many decisions based on knowledge that has ‘gaps’.
Thank GOD for the CAGW, if that is the reason 🙂
Natural variability is going to be every warmists friend over the next 20 years. As the divergence between models and observational data widens like a giant crocodile jaw, excuses will abound. The most convenient reason for why the correlation between CO2 and temperatures went kaput will be the obvious- natural variability.
I hope those hanging onto the myth of CAGW have their mental health insurance premiums paid up. It’s going to be a rocky ride.
barry says:
M
For the warming to be a repeat of those periods, then you need to say what the common mechanism is. And to match your complete certitude on this, there needs to be no doubt about cause.
—————————-
Its been said barry.
Its solar activity. About as well described as CO2. Sure we could make up some numbers to make everything fit but we would need to understand how hot spots work up in the sky to do that.
“Its been said barry”
It has not been demonstrated. At all. Denny’s certitude that some of the current warming is a repeat of prior warming events is misplaced, as Denny conceded in their reply.
Denny: “There are many uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge about why concerning numerous scientific areas. Why about past Climate is just one area in our ignorance.”
The causes of the current warming period are far less obscure than those of a millenium or two ago.
barry says:
“Its been said barry”
It has not been demonstrated. At all.
——————————
And neither has CO2. At all!
As I see it I can easily extract solar effect trends that strongly suggest solar activity accounted for up half of the warming in the last 2 decades of the 20th century and 1st decade of the 21st. I haven’t figured out how to separate CO2 from longer termed solar variations.
Its a factor in modeling that when your driver has cycles it only takes a few generations of the cycle to build a statistical case. . . and solar cycles provides an opportunity to look at that variable
so solar effects have more science behind them than does CO2
It is an extreme form of wishful think to suppose, let alone expect, that we have ended the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods that have prevailed for millions of years.
It is just a matter of time.
We can not control a light frost, or a warm day, on one place, for one minute, let alone the preposterously idiotic notion that we can control the temperature regimes of a planet over decades and centuries via the powerful mechanism of woke political philosophy, or the granting of all power and much credulity to some dimwitted elected officials and disaffected middle school dropouts from northern Europe.
“As I see it I can easily extract solar effect trends that strongly suggest solar activity accounted for up half of the warming in the last 2 decades of the 20th century and 1st decade of the 21st.”
I doubt that very much.
https://tinyurl.com/2s7eevxb
But let’s test solar against the IPCC claim that CO2 has been the dominant driver since 1950.
https://tinyurl.com/4v6fy5n2
Solar has been on the wane while global temperatures have risen.
Do you imagine that natural factors have not been researched and assessed? Have you bothered to read the IPCC docs at all? Solar, cloudiness, volcanic activity, galactic cosmic rays and others influences have been assessed at length and contiunue to be.
I came to this ‘debate’ 14 years ago when a ‘skeptic’ said that the coming IPCC report (AR4) would completely omit water vapour and SO2. When it came out I checked meticulously. Hundreds and hundreds of mentions of each, and whole sections devoted to water vapour and SO2.
That was my introduction to ‘skeptics’ and the online debate. Since then I’ve met plenty of ‘skeptics’ who were just as ignorant of what research has been undertaken, and who are just as confident in their ignorance as he was. You remind me of him.
Correct Denny, the effort should be to learn about “natural variability”, not chasing imaginary fears for funding.
In just the 40 years of satellite data, it appears monthly anomalies can deviate about 0.7C from the zero lone. In another 40 years, we should have some pretty solid evidence of “natural variability”.
What we know now is that CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures.
> CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures
Not even on the side of the Earth where it’s -270C, Clint?
What ClintR knows now is that CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures because CO2 molecules only radiate toward space writing:
“Exactly Bindidon. CO2 emits to space. The more CO2, the more emission to space.”
What an entertaining ClintR 3ring circus to read twisting his faulty science comments into pretzels to protect his cult.
Barry-san:
You’re so cute when you get angry.
The hilarious new and improved CMIP6 models predict 5C+ of glooobal waaaarming by 2100, which is a trend of 0.5C/decade, which is completely devoid from reality…
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
It must be so frustrating being a CAGW cultist and realizing your Leftist religion is dead.
Cheer up, perhaps Leftists will switch the narrative back to manmade global cooling like they did in the late 70’s…
Don’t worry Barry-san, I’m sure your Leftist high priests will come up with a another doomsday hoax for you to believe in…
Remind me again. Rightist. When is the Rapture due?
Ent, thanks for reminding us that you trolls never have anything of value to offer.
Rapture? Judging by the craziness that marks our times … soon.
Sorry, Samurai, you’re still posting bullshit.
You can’t read. Look at the time period for the 5C projection in your link. Hint: you halved it.
Not to mention the projected warming isn’t linear, so even if you didn’t halve the time frame, you would still have to account for that.
Happily, the article gives you the current trend – what you call “now.” It is 0.22 C/decade for CMIP6, 1970-2019. The model uncertainty range completely encompasses the observed trend for the same period.
You really blew the reading on the article you googled.
There is no anger when I say that you are posting bullshit. When presented with dreck it’s often best not to mince words. Hopefully the fool commenter will feel some shame and take more care the next time.
Only works if the commenter has the kind of humility that permits them to feel shame, Samuri-san.
“what you call now. It is 0.22 C/decade for CMIP6, 1970-2019. The model uncertainty range completely encompasses the observed trend for the same period. ”
Interestingly the trend for the most recent ten years of UAH is 0.2C/decade.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2021/every/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2021/every/trend
Time period is way too short to derive a meaningful trend, EM.
I get 0.46 C/decade starting January 2011 (to present), using UAH6.0.
The uncertainty is +/- 0.38.
It’s a numerical fluke that we get a statistically significant trend, though. Add a year to the beginning and the trend becomes statistically non-significant.
2010 : 0.32 C/decade (+/- 0.35)
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Barry
“Time period is way too short to derive a meaningful trend, EM. ”
I agree entirely, but the contrarians here are statistically unsophisticated. They are happy to take a little bit of short term numerical straw and spin the end of global warming from it.
You never know, they might even accept short term evidence as proof of warming
barry, you overlooked the very start of Samurai’s comment: “CAGW is so screwed…”
Instead, you went off bickering over your “eye ball” reading of the graphs.
What you need to focus on is the “science”. “Believing” CO2 can heat the planet ain’t “science”. That false belief is built on nonsense like:
1) Earth only receives 240 W/m^2 solar,
2) Flux is energy,
3) Flux can be averaged,
4) CO2 molecules don’t emit to space.
If you focus on the REAL science, you will learn “CAGW is so screwed”.
> Earth only receives 240 W/m^2 solar.
That figure rather represents the steady-state temperature of the Earth.
Wrong again, Willard.
But don’t worry — “Ignorance is bliss”, as they say.
OK, Clint.
Clint R
” 4) CO2 molecules dont emit to space. ”
Nobody ever wrote that except yourself.
The contrary has been written.
Namely that
– in the absence of CO2 molecules (and of course, of H2O molecules as well), more IR is directly emitted to space;
– in the presence of such molecules, more IR is absorbed by these, and only half of the IR then is directly reemitted up to space;
– the other half is reemitted down, and reaches either surface or again IR intercepting molecules, which again reemit only half of that IR to space, and so on.
*
You are all the time distorting, discrediting, denigrating and lying.
J.-P. D.
Exactly Bindidon. CO2 emits to space. The more CO2, the more emission to space.
I know it makes you frustrated and angry when your cult religion fails. But, the upside is there is no charge for you being an idiot.
Clint R has a point. CO2 molecules cool the atmosphere via thermalization and subsequent emission. More CO2 intercepts more surface IR, but also cools more atmospheric molecules. There is both a warming and a cooling tendency. Which one wins out depends on the state of convective overturning.
“More CO2 intercepts more surface IR, but also cools more atmospheric molecules.”
How exactly does that happen? I suspect that if you describe it carefully you will see that it provides no cooling of the atmosphere.
But let’s see how you understand it, first, all the way to how this intermolecular activity provides more cooling with more CO2 molecules.
“I suspect that if you describe it carefully you will see that it provides no cooling of the atmosphere.”
barry, this is where your lack of understanding of science messes you up.
1) CO2 emits in all directions, including to space.
2) Emission to space means energy lost to space.
3) Therefore, more CO2 means more energy to space.
barry – see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermalisation
Yes, Bart, I understand thermalization, but not how you conceive that this process provides a coolng offset to the IR warming from increased GHGs.
That’s why I asked you to explain it. I think if you lay it out carefully, piece by piece, you will see for yourself the flaw in your thinking.
There is no flaw. This is actually very basic knowledge in climate science. You just didn’t read about it in the Cliff’s Notes.
A series of non-responses from you, Bart. Yawn.
You’ve gotta’ do some legwork, Buckaroo. I can’t fill in all the blanks in your education in the response section of a blog.
That legwork has been done, which is why I know you are seeing it wrong.
But I can’t see how you’re geting it wrong until you explain the way you see it.
Which you’re not going to risk, because it will expose the flaw in your thinking. So your tactic now is to stall by putting the onus on me for your claim.
In short, you are now trolling.
No, the onus is on you to show why Bart is seeing it wrong. I think he has it exactly right. The problem is your failure to either want to understand or be able to understand.
I too would prefer just to say stuff and burden otters with proving me wrong, Chic.
Alas that only works for blog scientists like you.
Chic 9:49pm, Bart is seeing it wrong because more informed others using well earned “basic knowledge in climate science” know added earthen well-mixed CO2 increases the higher-pressure lower atm. IR opacity resulting in less IR photons to thermalize in the upper atm. regions. It is Bart that is the buckaroo needing to pass a meteorology 1st course in atm. radiation.
That is appealing-to-authority purely theoretical assertions overly seasoned with climatological gobbledyygook.
But, welcome to the discussion anyway.
Where is there any actual data showing that global temperatures rise by a statistically significant amount when an incremental dose of CO2 is added to an atmosphere containing more than 300 ppm?
Chic, your answer is in the already observed actual data easily found with some work.
Let’s see your bona fides: 1) compute the amount the black line in top post just went up, 2) from the ppm CO2 measurably added during the black line period compute the expected increase in TLT global temperature in the period, 3) find your two results are reasonably the same, 4) exhaustively research you can make no reasonable case for any other black line increase driver to be the monotonic cause.
Does anyone have a clue what Ball4 just wrote?
BTW, those are not my bona fides. Look it up.
Ball4 @ May 7, 2021 at 8:59 AM
“Bart is seeing it wrong because more informed others using well earned basic knowledge in climate science know added earthen well-mixed CO2 increases the higher-pressure lower atm. IR opacity resulting in less IR photons to thermalize in the upper atm. regions.”
Not even wrong. What does this have to do with convection?
Bart, since you don’t understand what I wrote, please complete a college course in atmospheric radiation with a passing grade.
I can try to dumb it down for you if you ask questions to try and fill in your lack of expertise in the subject matter. Obtaining a good text book on atm. radiation and studying it closely while working the relevant problems will also help fill in your lack of understanding.
“I can try to dumb it down for you….”
It’s dumb enough already. Don’t embarrass yourself any further.
Chic, looks like you lack understanding of lower atm. increased opacity effect on upper regions just like Bart. Even a beginning course in atm. radiation is hard, go ahead & ask questions to learn.
Find me a course that has actual data showing how much a 100 ppm pulse of CO2 causes a measureable change in global temperature and I’ll sign up. In fact any measurements proving your opacity non-sense.
There is enough hand-waving arguments going on here. Just stop.
Those measurements and data are already in the published literature; passing a basic course in the subject would help you look, find and understand the subject matter. I’m tired of the lack of understanding.
One good reference could prove you right. Or just keep on blathering. Your choice.
Looks quite clear to me:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Chic 9:12 pm, I am not a college librarian. There are actually several publications and you haven’t found even one to answer your own question indicating a lack of preparation in the subject matter.
Time to get to work Chic, your local college librarian will be happy to apply their trade for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4
Poor Barry-san….
Your insane CAGW suicide cult is the one terrorizing children by indoctrinating them from 5 years old to believe CO2 will destroy all life in earth.
The problem with making insanely unrealistic hypothetical projections is that they simply doom your CAGW suicide cult that much quicker.
I know you must be traumatized your religion is on the verge of becoming a laughingstock, but, again, I’m sure your Leftist cult leaders will come up with a new religion you can blindly place your faith in and you’ll fall for the next scam, too…
How sad…
Can you tell us which page in the IPCC AR5 report says all life on Earth will end?
Can you define CAGW objectively? What amount of warming is the threshold for the “catastrophic” part of CAGW?
bdgwx, are you going to deny all the “We’ve only got X years left” nonsense from the “Gretas” of your cult?
Pretend it never happened, huh? Pretend the cone is receiving 180 W/m^2 over its entire surface, rather than 900 W/m^2 at its base, as clearly described.
Pretend, pretend, pretend.
Can you link to anyone of note seriously saying “all life” will become extinct from increased CO2?
The only people I’ve seen saying that are AGW critics, who invent it as a straw man.
Retweeted by Gavin Schmidt –
“1. Global crop failures by 2°C.
2. Most humans dead by 4°C.
3. Earth uninhabitable by 6°C”
Maybe he’s a fool who retweets straw men from AGW critics. Anything is possible in GHE World.
“…anyone of note seriously saying all life will become extinct from increased CO2?”
Well, now that you ask…
Was Steven Hawking a “person of note?”
Hawking said:
“”Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/902350/Stephen-Hawking-climate-change-Donald-Trump-Global-warming-weather-venus
He also said on more than one occasion we are likely past the point of no return.
Was he the only one?
Hah!
There are books written on the long list of such people.
I have not heard one prominent climate scientist in the warmista camp speak up in the press and denounce proclamation of a ongoing climate catastrophe.
Now, here is a counter challenge: Can you link to any of the serious dangerous global warming caused by humans proponents speaking up to contradict the raucous chorus of climate crisis prognosticators in the press, in Hollywood, on the political stage?
Come on now…if no one has said it, they must have spoken out forcefully against wild exaggerations, and continue to do so whenever such unhinged claims are made, right?
All of them should.
All I hear is deafening silence from every last one of them, which is a black eye on the entire profession, to put it quite mildly.
Stephen Hawking was wrong. Well done finding someone of note who said that. But I don’t think his opinion weighs much in the general understanding. IPCC certainly doesn’t make such a claim (nor does Gavin Schmidt).
Swenson, you duplicitous troll. I looked it up and Schmidt criticised those quotes saying they were hyperbole.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1386507724154888192
b,
Unfortunately, Gavin Schmidt did not state why he thought they were hyperbole. Just more of Schmidt appealing to his own authority as a mathematician.
So the following –
“Here, a 6C rise in temperatures resulted in the extinction of 95% of the planets species, and is considered the worst event ever endured by life on Earth.” (You can look it up yourself, if you have mind to), is hyperbole also?
How much exaggeration? Why do think AGW supporters say such things?
It’s all about as pointless as asking the delusional Michael Mann what the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere is!
What is your answer? Can’t say? Won’t say?
If a 6 C rise is just hyperbole, what about 10 C? No danger that you could quantify?
Keep wriggling. If you can’t quantify any danger from increased levels of CO2, why should anybody worry about it?
You are an idiot.
Serious question ,Clint R.
The Right has its own doomsday cults.
Harold Camping predicted that the Rapture would come in 2011.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping
David Meade predicted September 2017.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/856661/End-of-the-world-2017-september-23-bible-christians-prophecy-planet-x-nibiru
doomsday cults are everywhere ET. But how many run the ‘SHOW’.
Ah, but AGW is the only doomsday cult supported by scientific evidence.
Ent, it is a “doomsday” cult, but there is NO scientific evidence. There’s only your made-up nonsense, like passenger jets can fly backwards and sideways.
Cults make up stuff to support their nonsense, but that ain’t science.
E,
Is it your contention that computer models are “evidence”?
As in experimental evidence?
Because according to the thingamahoozit called The Scientific Method, evidence is the result of experimentation and observation, not speculation.
Speculation is not even counted as an hypothesis unless it makes clearly enunciated and falsifiable predictions, and proposes a method for obtaining such evidence.
Note: Peer review is not evidence either. It is not even a method of verification, and is no part of The Scientific Method.
Before it was dressed up as something it aint, it was merely something akin to formalized proofreading. A literary editing process.
Ent, it can’t be a very “serious” question if it’s not even a question.
Were you smoking behind the bicycle sheds when you should have been in English lessons as well as science lessons?
Well at least you learned to phrase a question, including using the relevant punctuation.
Who said idiots can’t learn?
> Who said idiots can’t learn?
You did:
Ent,
Come on now, let’s be analytical here.
You indicated a question was forthcoming in the preface to your remark.
No question can be detected, and I have had top men analyzing the utterance.
“Literary Oops*” for $1000, Alex!
* Yes, this is an actual Jeopardy! category. Three up from “Quotes & Quotable”, IIRC.
Cue the music, aaannnd…CUT!
With this update the anomaly using the old 1981-2010 baseline is +0.07. The 1979-present trend is +0.1358C/decade +/- 0.0065. The trend line sits at +0.21C. The Apr 2021 anomaly is a 0.26 departure below the trend line. The SD on the trend line departures is 0.18. That gives this month a z-score -1.4. The probability of this happening in any given month is expected to be 7% though it is important to point out that departures have a clustering tendency due to the ENSO cycle.
“The trend line sits at +0.21C.”
This phrasing has always been a little obscure to me. It is not ‘the line’ but the current endpoint that sits at value X above the baseline, right?
Otherwise, interesting stuff. SD is 2-sigma, yes?
Yeah, correct. The Apr 2021 endpoint of the trend line is at +0.21C.
The SD of 0.18 is 1-sigma. So 2-sigma is 0.36. And those are departures from the trend line so clearly there is a lot of variability above/below the trend line.
1-sigma is 68% of the distribution, which is unconventially tight, isn’t it? I thought 2-sigma (95%) was standard for this kind of data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule
Never learned stats formally, hence the noob query.
Excel’s LINEST and STDEV functions report 1-sigma. If you want 2-sigma you just multiple by 2, or for 3-sigma you multiple by 3, and so on. The caveat is that your population has to be “normally distributed”. The monthly departures from the trendline are indeed normally distributed so I can just do =2*STDEV.P(…) in Excel to get 2-sigma envelope of +/- 0.36 on the departures.
Yes, 2-sigma is considered the minimum standard for “statistically significant”. It is really confusing because there isn’t always a standard for what sigma level the +/- X uncertainty you see is in reference too. When in doubt assume it is 1-sigma, but very often it is actually reported as 2-sigma. For example, the GISS uncertainty of +/- 0.05 is 2-sigma. The RSS-TLT uncertainty of +/- 0.10 reported by Mears 2011 is 1-sigma so you have to multiply by 2 which means the 2-sigma uncertainty is actually closer to +/- 0.20 for the satellite data. The +/- 0.0065 uncertainty on the +0.1358C/decade comes straight from LINEST so it is 1-sigma.
Thanks, understood.
bdgwx,
Although I doubt your comment is relevant to anything climatic, it’s statistically interesting to me and it appears to have been to Barry as well.
A z score is a relative test of how far a measurement is from the mean. So your phraseologies “below the trendline” and “trendline departures” seem to be misplaced. What is that you are really trying to evaluate? How different this month is from the 1979-present average or how unlikely it is from what would have been predicted based on the trend?
Chic asked: What is that you are really trying to evaluate?
The “trendline” is computed via LINEST in excel. It is +0.136C/decade and starts at -0.36C and ends at +0.21C. The departures from the trendline are the trivial difference between the value of the actual anomaly and the value of the trendline for that month. The mean of the departures is 0.00 because the departures are normally distributed. The standard deviation of the departures is 0.18. So with the Apr 2021 anomaly at -0.05 and the trend line at +0.21 the departure is -0.05 – 0.21 = -0.26. A negative (or below trendline) departure of this magnitude has occurred 36 times out of 509 months in the UAH record (1979-presnet). This is a real recurrence rate of 7.1%. The expected recurrence rate with a z-score of -1.44 calculated from the SD of 0.18 is 7.6%.
Chic asked: How different this month is from the 1979-present average or how unlikely it is from what would have been predicted based on the trend?
The later. The probability that Apr 2021 would come in at -0.05C or lower is expected to be 7.6% based on the value of the trendline of +0.21C. The probability that any month in 2021 would come in at -0.05C or lower is 61%.
The odd thing about Climate Science. Just read all the posts above. Everyone believes the oceans control the climate. El Nina, La Nina, location of the warming down 50 m, covers 70%+ of the Globe, contains more than 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere, etc etc. If everyone understands the oceans control the climate, why isn’t anyone explaining how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ? The oceans are warming 50 m below the surface. How could CO2 possibly cause that observation? CO2 has added an additional 0.63W/m^2 since the start of the industrial age. A single cloudy day can add 80W/m^2 or more. A single El Nino can remove the CO2 equivalent of hundreds of years.
Why isn’t anyone trying to explain why the oceans are warming? If you claim CO2, prove it. Take an IR lamp and warm water 50 m deep. I’ve tried to warm water in a foil-lined bowl using an IR Filter and 1,000 Lumin Lamp and got no warming, none.
That is a real easy experiment. Simply take a daylight lamp, IR Lamp, and 3 foil-lined bowls of water. Simply shine the various lights on the bowls of water and measure the temperature change. You will find as I found, the IR lamp won’t warm the water.
“Everyone believes the oceans control the climate.”
Do they? I don’t. I would say the oceans have a moderating influence on weather. ENSO events exchange energy between ocean and atmosphere (ie, surface/atmospheric temps increase during el Nino, when energy is moved from the ocean to the atmosphere, and the opposite during la nina).
ENSO events are partly responsible for the ups and downs we see month to month in the temperature record. These are weather, not climate events.
Global climate change is a long-term phenomenon, measured in decades, not months.
I hope I have been clear.
Barry Says: Everyone believes the oceans control the climate.
Do they? I dont.
Simply look at the Temperature Graphic. A single El Nino can increase temperatures by over 1C° in less than 1 year. Climate Alarmists claim CO2 does that in 100+ years. I’ve identified many Desert Stations that show no warming over the past 140 years proving CO2 doesn’t come close to 1C°
ENSO events don’t persist. They are weather events. They are also internal to the climate system, and not a source for long term change. They just move the energy around the system.
You don’t understand the difference between weather and climate. Climate is a persistent phenomenon and is roughly predictable (think seasons), whereas weather events are more chaotic and harder to predict.
Climate is the average of weather conditions over a given period. For the seasons it is roughly 3 months (in the mid-latitudes). For global climate it is roughly 3 decades.
Frgot to add: the initiating cause of ENSO events is not well known.
Clint R
You’re doing the wrong experiment.
DWLWR does not add additional energy to the oceans on top of that brought in by shortwave radiation. DWLWR reduces the amount of energy leaving the ocean surface.
It is that imbalance between energy entering and leaving the ocean which causes ocean heat content to increase.
Here’s how to modify your experiment. Put a saucepan of water on a low heat. Feel free to wrap a towel around the sides. When the water temperature stabilises equal amounts of heat are flowing in from below (Swenson will love this ) and out through the surface of the water. The saucepan is in energy balance and the temperature is constant.
Now shine your IR lamp onto the water surface and watch the temperature increase. The IR is creating a warm surface film which makes it harder for heat to flow from the water to the atmosphere.
Ent, what in the world are you talking about?
You seem to live in a tangled web of confused nonsense when you believe everything you imagine is reality!
It doesn’t work that way….
Clint R
Did you actually try the experiment before opening your mouth and putting your foot in it?
Ent, what experiment are you talking about?
Are you drunk, senile, an idiot, of all of the above?
I think it’s this one:
If you had a hammer, EM may not mind.
Dear Mr Willard,
I tried your experiment.
Any suggestions for how to extinguish the towel fire in my kitchen?
It is getting real smoky in there, so any help is much appreciated.
PS, I think I am passing out from smoke inhalation, but but I do believe the saucepan is warming, even without the IR lamp.
PPS, I tried adding a UV lamp because, you know, Sun and all, but the cord has melted on that map from the towel fire, and now there seem to be an electrical problem…
I hope you get my message soon. Tell my girl I loved her…
-Menicholas
Nicholas McGinley
When your widow repeats the experiment, may I suggest that she uses an electric hob rather than a gas hob.
As you observed, the extra heat generated by the burning towel and the electrical short circuit obscured the DWLR heat flow inhibition effect.
Apologies. This post should have been a reply to CO2isLife’s May 3rd 10.34am post.
I managed to put my reply in the wrong place and address it to Clint R instead of CO2islife.
E,
You forgot something. Turn your IR lamp off 12 hours out of 24. When it is on, make sure that it provides the same amount of energy per unit area as the Sun does, varying from minimum to maximum and back again, just like the Sun. Make sure that the surface of the saucepan faces the same sort of radiation sink as the ocean does, and ensure that the bottom of your saucepan is held at 4C or so, like the ocean.
Now tell me how the switched off heat lamp prevents the warmest top water from cooling. Don’t forget that as it cools, water sinks, displacing the water beneath, which rises to the surface – to cool.
You are an idiotic denialist. Don’t you realise that proper experimenters like John Tyndall and others provided physical explanations for ocean temperatures and thermal gradients, as well as land surface temperatures and the underlying thermal gradients more than 150 years ago?
No GHE. Neither you nor anybody else can even usefully describe such a crackpot idea!
“Make sure that the surface of the saucepan faces the same sort of radiation sink as the ocean does,”
That’s a good idea. The experiment might work better under an open sky.
The rest of your comment is bullshit.
Co2IsLife
” Why not instead of having a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average? ”
I think it’s not the first time you write such nonsense, and show how ignorant you are.
Maybe you finally start really learning instead of all the time blathering about things you don’t know anything about.
This stuff you miss one more time: it is what ALL people calculating anonalies do, and is called, e.g. by Roy Spencer: ‘removing the annual cycle‘.
Why, do you think, does the top of the descending sort of the UAH anomalies in the LT look like this:
2016 2 0.86
2016 3 0.77
2020 2 0.75
1998 4 0.74
2016 4 0.73
and not like this
1998 7 1.71
2020 7 1.63
2016 7 1.58
2019 7 1.58
1998 8 1.53
Your knowledge about anomalies is like that of weather stations or like of that of CO2’s activity: zero dot zero.
J.-P. D.
Bindi Says: This stuff you miss one more time: it is what ALL people calculating anonalies do, and is called, e.g. by Roy Spencer: removing the annual cycle.
Typically to “remove the annual cycle” you “seasonally adjust” the data by taking a 12-month average, or you take the deviation from the same month 1 year ago. If that is what they are doing, just what is the value that is reported? It says that the deviation is the deviation from the mean. The mean is the average temperature right? Are you saying that you seasonally adjust the data and then subtract the mean? If that is the case, just what then is that temperature point mean? It clearly doesn’t mean the current temperature deviation from the mean. If it is the seasonally adjusted value different from the non-seasonally adjusted average of the of temperatures?
If I take the current -0.5C° deviation and add it to the 30 year average, just what does that mean? If it is what the actual temperature is, then that value isn’t seasonally adjusted.
Bindidon, if those points are seasonally adjusted, you have a whole lot of negative and falling values. If CO2 caused the warming, and that data is seasonally adjusted, you would see an extremely linear relationship between time and temp. Each month should simply step up from the previous year by the additional contribution of CO2. You don’t see that. You see randomness. One Jan can be up, the other down. That is hard to explain if CO2 is the cause of climate change because CO2 always increases. Care to explain how CO2 can cause randomness in seasonally adjusted data?
“If CO2 caused the warming, and that data is seasonally adjusted, you would see an extremely linear relationship between time and temp. Each month should simply step up from the previous year by the additional contribution of CO2.”
This is where you fail. This is completely wrong.
Seasonally adjusting data does not get rid of ENSO events, and all the other short-term influences on global temperature that exchange energy between the lower atmosphere and the rest of the biosphere. Seasonally adjusting the data does not remove the influence of cloudiness or the small changes in solar radiation. All these influence global temperature on short time scales (solar influence has an 11-year cycle).
You are essentially arguing that with CO2 warming, ENSO should suddenly cease, cloud cover would suddenly become a static value, the solar cycle would suddenly cease, and any exchange of energy between the lower troposphere and the rest of the biosphere should likewise cease.
This is nuts. There is no reason to expect any of that.
But because you seem to believe that CO2 warming cancels all other activity, you have a hopelessly broken view of the issue.
Barry says: But because you seem to believe that CO2 warming cancels all other activity, you have a hopelessly broken view of the issue.
Go back and re-read your post. You just debunked the AGW Theory. You listed many exogenous factors that cause temperatures. How do you tease out CO2’s effect from all the others? You do, and you can’t. You list all these events that DO cause Temperatures to change and can be proven it, and yet everyone says CO2 is the cause. Prove it. Design a model that adjusts for El Nino, Clouds, Solar Variation, Humidity, the UHI, etc etc etc. Problem is, no one does that. They just say CO2 is the cause, and ignore all the real causes of temperature change.
You have completely avoided the point. Obviously this is why you are being so stupendously stupid on the issue at hand. You simply turn away from it.
The itmes listed are short term influences on global temperature. Global warming only becomes evident from the noise of interannual variability after a few decades.
Your belief that all these other, short-term influences should completely disappear with long-term CO2 warming is brainless idiocy, and no amount of trying to change the subject is going to change that fact.
Like the change from Winter to Summer and daily temps not following a straight line up, so too with steady background warming (or cooling) and monthly and interannual variability. This is the difference between climate change and weather volatility.
There is absolutely no reason to expect “each month should simply step up from the previous.”
This is your lunacy. You need to recognize it, discard it, and then make a better argument. As long as you hold on to this notion you will remain a dunce.
b,
For about four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled.
Long term enough?
Or do you want to cherry pick a shorter period?
How about what was the Earth doing, warming or cooling, before the Earth had a Moon?
denny
Upthread you wrote:
” No, the sea level rise started in 1700s (Jevrejeva)… ”
Sorry, this is nonsense.
Firstly, J.’s series started in 1807.
Jevrejeva’s sea level time series moreover has been analyzed years ago, and is simply incorrect.
The reason is: her unluckily trivial approach to sea level anomaly construction, based on the fully deprecated, first-difference technique.
All statisticians having constructed time series do this either
– by calculating, out of absolute values, anomalies wrt the means of a reference period, or
– by calculating such anomalies wrt the mean of local periods and then globally aligning the local anomaly series using ordinary least squares methods.
If you want a today’s evaluation of sea levels, so please rely to real professionals, e.g.
Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s
Sönke Dangendorf, Carling Hay, Francisco M. Calafat, Marta Marcos, Christopher G. Piecuch, Kevin Berk & Jürgen Jensen
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8
Unfortunately behind paywall (I have it on my disk); maybe it is accessible somewhere else for free.
The title sounds quite alarmistic, but the work done is, from my point of view as a former engineer, very good.
And even if I don’t like the title, I have to agree that for the recent period, sea level does not increase linearly:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qBSUtBULXrWDDhbMYoe3fA9Iw9wytyY2/view
I suppose that you perfectly know how to compute the numbers for 2100 out of the 2nd order polynomial equations.
Data
– Jev
https://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/gslGPChange2014.txt
– Dang
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt
J.-P. D.
You can get Bindidon’s paywalled paper here:
https://sci-hub.do/10.1038/s41558-019-0531-8
If ever you need to source a paywalled paper, sci-hub should be one of your first stops.
https://sci-hub.do/
That is the current domain. It changes sometimes, so just google ‘sci-hub’ if that link dies.
Super useful. I’ll definitely be using that a lot. Thanks.
If you need a book, search b-ok dot cc.
There are papers too.
That’s great, W. Thanks.
You both need to read Jevrejeva 2008 CONCLUSION. It said sea level rise appears to have started at the end of the 18th Century.
The 18th Century is the 1700s.
You missed the overall. Whether before 1800 or after is irrelevant. It’s 150 years before the time the IPCC said CO2 had an effect on temperatures. This means natural variability.
Both you and Barry need to get used to this kind of thing. When the AMO flips we will have 20-30 years of non warming. That means the myth of a climate emergency and climate disaster collapses. You have backed the wrong horse.
Jevrejeva et al (2013)
“The time variable estimates of acceleration in 203 years of global sea level reconstruction suggest that there are periods of slow and fast sea level rise associated with decadal variability, which has been previously reported by several authors… Several studies have found various different accelerations in global sea level reconstructions, suggesting that results are very dependent on the time period considered for analysis. In addition, results from individual tide gauges are very dependent on the location and influence of high-frequency (2–15 years) variability. However, Fig. 15 and the associated uncertainties discussed in Section 3.4 show that long term estimates of time variable sea level acceleration in 203 year global reconstruction are significantly positive, which supports our previous finding (Jevrejeva et al., 2008a), that despite strong low frequency variability (larger than 60 years) the rate of sea level rise is increasing with time.”
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/504181/1/1-s2.0-S0921818113002750-main.pdf
Jevrejeva’s projection of sea level rise published in 2012.
“Here we use a physically plausible sea level model constrained by observations, and forced with four new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenarios (Moss et al., 2010) to project median sea level rises of 0.57 for the lowest forcing and 1.10 m for the highest forcing by 2100 which rise to 1.84 and 5.49 m respectively by 2500. Sea level will continue to rise for several centuries even after stabilisation of radiative forcing with most of the rise after 2100 due to the long response time of sea level…”
Jevrejeva et al (2008a), by the way, refers to the paper you are citing, Denny. According to Jevrejeva et al (2013), they have confirmed from the original paper that sea level rise is accelerating long term, while there is decadal variability in acceleration. This is consistent with most other authors on the subject.
And after all that the conclusion still says sea level rise began in the 18th Century.
You need to catch up with the science. It’s clear you have been brainwashed.
I’ve just quoted the author you cited.
Saying that sea level rise has accelerated over the last 200 years.
Saying that sea level will continue to rise with CO2 emissions.
Are you saying that the author you approvingly cited is trying to brainwash people?
barry, how much have sea levels varied in Earths’s history? Underwater cities have been found, as well as sea-life fossils on mountains.
And what is the “correct” sea level for Earth?
Or, is sea level rise just another issue used to scare the sheep?
Clint R,
The sea life fossils on the mountains didn’t get there because the sea level was that high, they got there because the mountains rose from the tectonic plates pushing them up.
Yes bob, most people believe that.
Do you also believe that tectonic plate movement can cause sea level change?
And, don’t overlook the question — “What is the correct sea level for Earth?”
Clint R,
“Do you also believe that tectonic plate movement can cause sea level change?”
Yes, it can change local sea levels, there is evidence for that, not that it matters what I believe. I believe you are a dumbshit.
“And, don’t overlook the question — What is the correct sea level for Earth?”
That’s a dumbshit question from a dumbshit. A different question might me more appropriate, maybe you can think of one.
Probably not though, remember you are a dumbshit.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Says the troll
RLH, please stop trolling.
The emergency is very obvious. If the earth starts to cool dramatically before the climate change people can drastically change our economy and way of life, they will have to admit the whole AGW theory is just hot air. That will trigger a made rush to exploit every available fossil fuel which is probably a bad idea since it will run out at some point anyway. Oh what a tangled web we weave…..
Planning for the future is not a bad thing if it is done carefully and intelligently.
Except emissions in the upper troposphere which would be approx. halved.
Im sure La Nia is at play, but for the decrease in jet aviation not to be visible in a dataset like this would be near impossible.
Depends how big you expect the effect to be.
Numbers please.
How much do you expect the decrease in jet traffic to decrease the measurements?
How does this compare with the 95% confidence limits of the data?
My comment was actually to Robert Ingersol who said:
May 3, 2021 at 10:24 AM
Literally no one is claiming that the COVID slowdown is responsible for the temp dip. It is all on La Nina. The COVID reduction in emissions is too small to be detectable in a chaotic temp record.
I’m not trying to publish anything, I’m just saying that we are currently doing the most amazing atmospheric chemistry experiment ever and I’d be amazed if there was no impact on temperatures from the decline in global jet aviation.
We will see when either we resume airline travel, or we go back into El Nino, or the temperature jumps back up without any of those things.
Climate always has been, and always will be about water and it’s phase changes and how they affect the radiative balance on the planet. CO2 may have a small effect, but its a side show, especially compared to land use change like deforestation and draining swamps.
The planet is cooling, folks. I hope this isn’t trouble.
No it isn’t…not even close. And the EEI is still significantly positive which means more long term warming is still in the pipeline. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj).
No bdgwx, the EEI is NOT “significantly positive”…not even close. The Earth Energy Imbalance is some of the unscientific nonsense you continue to cling to. It’s NOT “Earth”, it’s an imaginary object. It’s NOT “Energy”, it’s flux, and flux is NOT conserved. And, it’s NOT “Imbalance”, as flux does NOT balance, as I taught you with the cone-in-space example.
See a physics book.
the eei may well be significantly positive from the lia recovery and climb to solar grand maximum extending to 2007.
just that the climate nerds only recognize it when needed to account for missing heat.
TSI peaked around 1960 and has been declining ever since. It is lower now than it was in 1880. The RF from 1960 to present is about -0.1 W/m^2. The RF from the Maunder Minimum to the Modern Maximum was about +0.3 W/m^2.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Someone might be cooking the books on that TSI plot. It does not coincide with CERES data.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/general-product-info/#total-solar-irradiance-tsi-information
I forgot to mention that TSI is only indirectly responsible for the resulting Earth temperatures. ASR-OLR determines the EEI and that difference is not significantly different.
The NASA data comes from SATIRE. The CERES data comes from SORCE. There will be differences. You might be able to cut the RF from 1960 down to -0.05 W/m^2 using the community consensus reconstruction from SORCE (which happens to use SATIRE prior to 1978). Either way the solar RF since 1960 is neutral to slightly negative. That means it puts downward pressure on the EEI. The EEI has been increasing since 1960.
What I’m saying is, TSI only a contribution to ASR which determines the net solar input. OLR is the output. Regardless of what measurements you use, these measurements aren’t accurate to less than 1 W/m^2. IOW, TSI does not determine EEI = ASR – OLR.
No one cuts solar RF down. It does what it does. Where are you getting this obfuscatory nonsense?
Right. TSI is only a component of ASR. I agree there.
According to SORCE which CERES uses the community consensus composite has an uncertainty of +/- 0.2 W/m^2 and +/- 0.05 W/m^2 for the daily data in 1980 and 2020 respectively. That means the monthly means would have an error of E = 0.2/sqrt(30) = +/- 0.04 W/m^2 and E = 0.05/sqrt(30) = +/- 0.01 W/m^2. An 11 year mean would have an uncertainty of E = 0.2/sqrt(4018) = +/- 0.003 W/m^2. In reality it is probably higher than that, but that’s pretty good nevertheless.
TSI is a contributing factor to EEI because it is a contributing factor to ASR. If the 11yr mean TSI drops by 1.0 W/m^2 then ASR drops by (1.0 / 4) * 0.7 = 0.175 W/m^2. And because EEI = ASR – OLR that means EEI drops by 0.175 W/m^2 as well all other things being equal.
Regarding “cuts down”…I just mean we can amend the estimated -0.1 W/m^2 of solar RF from 1960-presented using SATIRE data to -0.05 W/m^2 using SORCE data. I’m getting this from the TSI data provided by SORCE and Dr. Kopp’s TSI page and doing RF = (TSI/4) * (1-ALBEDO) on it. Nothing more.
bdgwx say.
Either way the solar RF since 1960 is neutral to slightly negative. That means it puts downward pressure on the EEI. The EEI has been increasing since 1960.
==================
it would be nice if we knew what direction EEI was going but we don’t. if we did there would no need for deep argo and we would be wasting more taxpayer dollars on it.
Of course some think you can simply extrapolate from some land surface station out 1500km over the ocean and create a temperature record like that also. …heck whey not extrapolate 3000 meters downward at the same time from the same station?
bill said: it would be nice if we knew what direction EEI was going but we dont.
We do know. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj).
Don’t believe anything schuckmann writes bdgwx. She was the first to start tossing out cold ARGO buoys without any confirming reason whatsoever to begin the narrative against the ocean cooling. If you are going to believe anything be sure to pick through her work with a fine tooth comb first.
There are 37 other authors on the publication.
Do you have another equivalent comprehensive study of the EEI that comes to a significantly different conclusion that you want us to look at?
“…we can amend the estimated -0.1 W/m^2 of solar RF from 1960-presented using SATIRE data to -0.05 W/m^2 using SORCE data.”
Who is we? Are you claiming solar RF known to that level of accuracy? Don’t confuse precision with accuracy. You can hit the same point on the target over and over again, but miss the bullseye every time.
“At-launch absolute accuracy is estimated to be 0.48 W/m^2 (350 ppm), largely determined by uncertainties in instrument-power nonlinearities.”
https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#quality
> miss the bullseye every time.
I too would like if scientific progressed by hitting the bullseye every time.
I’m not conflating precision with accuracy here. Precision is the statistical or random error of measurements. Accuracy is the bias or offset error of measurements. Accuracy error is problematic if the analysis relies an the absolute value of the measurements like would be the case if you wanted to infer the BB temperature of the Sun. Accuracy error is moot if you only care about the change in the measurements like is the case for RF calculations. Dr. Kopp actually has a cool plot of TSI as measured by different instruments. There is clearly a difference in the absolute values provided by the different instruments, but the anomaly values are very similar. This allows Dr. Kopp to calibrate each instrument and form a consistent composite of TSI. The point…uncertainty on TSI measurements is low enough for us to conclude that solar RF is neutral to negative from 1960 to present.
bdgwx says:
May 6, 2021 at 10:13 AM
There are 37 other authors on the publication.
Do you have another equivalent comprehensive study of the EEI that comes to a significantly different conclusion that you want us to look at?
————————-
Of course not bdgwx and neither does anybody else.
EEI is about ocean heat content and how it changes. We don’t yet know half of what we need to know to begin to come up with credible estimates of EEI. 37 scientists signing on to a paper is nothing more than a political statement and an indicator that science operates with about the same level of integrity and oversight as a 19th century carny barker.
I’ve lost track of this thread. If your point is TSI today is same as 1960, I agree. At least it appears to be 1361 W/m^2 now and back to 2000, although it varied +/- 2 W/m^2 in between.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/general-product-info/#total-solar-irradiance-tsi-information
The value of 1361.03 shown on the graph does not mean TSI is known to between 1361.01 and 1361.03. It’s just an average of measurements over a 20 year period.
I don’t think we will agree on the uncertainty and I really don’t care to debate you further. Here, have a blue ribbon.
bill said: Of course not bdgwx and neither does anybody else.
There are other studies out there. Schuckmann lists several. They just don’t come to a significantly different conclusion. And if there is nothing else to be added to the body of evidence in this regard then I no choice but to go with what the evidence says now. That’s means the EEI is +0.87 W/m^2 +/0.12.
bill said: EEI is about ocean heat content and how it changes.
It’s about heat in the land, air, oceans, and cryosphere.
bill said: We don’t yet know half of what we need to know to begin to come up with credible estimates of EEI.
And yet Schuckmann 2020 estimated it to be +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 which is consistent with other studies regarding EEI. It’s also consistent with other lines of evidence.
bdgwx, numbers of studies doesn’t matter. How many modeling teams are being paid to model the climate using the same theory? There could be hundreds of studies considering model output as science. No other choice as there is no observation data to base it on. Use the right model or get your funding jerked.
“The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2021 was -0.05 deg. C, down from the March, 2021 value of -0.01 deg. C.”
Uh oh, the anthropogenic global warming crowd is starting to get nervous..
Joe
You can’t imagine how nervous I am!
Here is the top ten of a sort of UAH6.0 LT’s April anomalies, beginning with the lowest ones:
1993 4 -0.46
1982 4 -0.44
1985 4 -0.43
1979 4 -0.40
1992 4 -0.39
1997 4 -0.39
1984 4 -0.37
1989 4 -0.32
1986 4 -0.28
1994 4 -0.28
April 2021 isn’t in Roy Spencer’s monthly file yet, but the first occurrence of ‘-0.05’ is
2006 4 -0.05
at position 26 of currently 42.
So until we reach the top of this negative list above, I hope I’ll have some time to recuperate.
J.-P. D.
“Uh oh, the anthropogenic global warming crowd is starting to get nervous”
I don’t see that at all.
What I do see is AGW ‘skeptics’ all abuzz about a few cold months, and predicting the the collapse of AGW theory because of that. It’s all over this thread and at WUWT etc.
barry, what Skeptics are “all abuzz about” is watching you AGW fanatics still trying to defend your nonsense. Your science was wrong from the start. CO2 can NOT warm the planet. So every time the anomalies fall below zero, we get to laugh at you.
“every time the anomalies fall below zero, we get to laugh at you”
The anomalies are below zero for UAH purely due to changing the position of the zero line in February this year.
That you and other ‘skeptics’ don’t get this, when it is explained in every update here since, doesn’t make me laugh. It makes me shake my head at how dense ‘skeptics’ are.
But barry, several of you are on record for approving the change in the zero line.
Now you don’t like it?
I think only Bindidon has said he approves it.
I don’t. For one reason only. It creates confusion.
Which you have amply demonstrated in this very conversation. As have other hare-brained ‘skeptics’ since the change occurred.
barry –
Lol, of course, I’m just joking. You can’t paint all skeptics with a broad brush. Yes, some are taking it too far.
But it doesn’t help the warming side that we’ve had a few months of notable cooling, that’s all.
A few months cooling doesn’t hurt the ‘warming side’ either.
Well, except for in the minds of those ‘skeptics’ I so broadly brushed!
Someone explain this. The temperature data shown by Dr. Spencer is a deviation from the mean. The measure of C02 in the atmosphere is the cumulative total amount of C02 present in the atmosphere. A graph of the C02 concentration over time is a smooth upward curve. A graph of the UHA satellite temperature data shows the deviation from the mean with significant variation of temperature deviations that spike sharply upward then fall precipitously downward. This pattern is repeated in what appears to be a random way over time. Because of the significance of the variation in the temperature deviation data, to view and enumerate its trend, requires a least squares time series analysis.
If the cumulative C02 in the atmosphere were the prime driver of temperature, then the temperature deviation data would not have so much variation. Rather the deviations would more closely mirror the cumulative C02 data as it is that data which is the cause while the temperature data is the effect. However, because the effect shows much more variation than the cause, we must conclude that other influences are also attributing to the cause in order to create the sharp spikes and the precipitous declines.
Now the sharp spikes and precipitous declines result in a confidence interval with significantly more magnitude about the mean with respect to temperature data (the effect) in deference to the confidence interval and its magnitude about the mean of the C02 data (the cause). If economic, or medical, or demographic cause and effect data exhibit these characteristics, the econometrician, the medical researchers and the social scientists would attribute only a portion of the effect to the cause variable.
Mathematically, to get the cause and effect of relationship between C02 and temperature we must relate a first derivative to a second derivative, which in itself implies that other influences play a significant role. This assumes that the sharp increases and the precipitous declines may not be random but are functionally derived from an influence exogenous to to the C02/temperature relationship.
Indeed, if the exogenous influence Is La Niña/El Nino, then one cannot conclude that C02 is the primary driver of temperature (especially in light of the magnitude of the confidence intervals of the temperature deviation data as compared to tighter confidence interval about the cumulative C02 data).
Even if La Niña/El Nino is truly random and not functionally derived, the fact remains that until their incidences can be better understood, we cannot claim that C02 is the primary driver of temperature. The only thing you can and should do in the case where you cannot functionally derive their incidence is to statistically remove their influence.
My initial premature reaction to your comment was to explain pejoratively that the UAH data are temperature anomalies relative to a reference temperature defined specifically as the average of all temperatures from 1991-2020.
On further reading, I find your comments insightful. Prof Murry Salby was doing research along these lines until his untimely departure from Macquarie University in 2013. He used low-pass filtering of temperature and CO2 emission rates and found a near perfect correlation. His data supported his contention that FF emissions, being only 1/20 of total CO2 emissions, could not be responsible for the temperature change and that temperature is surely driving the CO2 increase.
You can view his (latest?) presentation here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/13/new-video-dr-murry-salby-control-of-atmospheric-co2/
Yep. Salby was right. Still tracking, even the latest nosedives.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.19/offset:0.17
The usual crickets when you post that chart, Bart.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/integral/plot/uah6/scale:0.19/offset:0.17
Other way:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.19/offset:0.17/integral/offset:337
y tho
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:100/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.70/offset:0.17/integral/offset:337
If you alter the relationship, the relationship changes. Who’da thunk it?
But if you fit less curves you still have the same number of curves.
Unless you fit curves prfctly.
Go home, little boy.
Stephen, there has been plenty of discussion about Bart’s curve-fitting in the past. Months and months of it. I know because I was doing a lot of it.
Here is the same graph and the same concept with much less curve fitting.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/normalise
A good rule of thumb when correlating data is to make as few selections as possible.
Ask Bart to explain in detail what leads him to choose specifically 0.19 scaling and offsetting by specifically 0.17 for the UAH data.
There won’t be a physical or mathematical justification other than ‘it makes them fit better’.
Fatuous comment. Your criticism is like saying I can’t compute a ballistic trajectory because I just pulled 32 feet per second per second out of the air.
> Your criticism is like saying I cant compute a ballistic trajectory
Galileo could not either, so it would not be so bad:
http://intellectualmathematics.com/blog/galileos-errors-on-projectile-motion-and-inertia/
barry,
The scale only shows the relationship exists. I could write an equation for it. It means there is a connection between temperature and the change in CO2. The warmer it is the more CO2 incremental rises. This makes sense because ocean out-gassing and plant decomposition likely increase in warmer temperatures.
It doesn’t make sense that a small yearly change in CO2 will cause a relatively large change in temperature…sometimes up, sometimes down.
Chic, have you heard the phrase:
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
https://tinyurl.com/4347vnny
“Your criticism is like saying I can’t compute a ballistic trajectory because I just pulled 32 feet per second per second out of the air.”
Nope, 32 feet per second (per second) refers to a physical reality – the effect of gravity on a falling object at Earth’s sea level.
It is a physical reality that you can justifiably use for ballistic trajectory, but you can’t justify your choices for fitting that graph.
Why don’t you just explain the physical reality behind using a scale of 0.19 and an offset of 0.17 for UAH data?
Lol. How do you think 32 f/s^2 was determined in the first place? You think they weighed the Earth on a scale?
Seriously. This is not a valid criticism. Find something else.
Are you saying that 32 feet per s per s was derived from fitting curves on a graph with arbitrary parameters?
You’re not making much sense, Bart.
Of course it was. How else do you imagine they would have done it?
Please stop. I’m an empathetic guy. You’re embarrassing me on your behalf.
barry,
This is not just a matter of fitting a time series of data to an equation. The plot of the two series confirms that a relationship exists. If there was no relationship between the two variables, no fiddling with offsets and scale factors could make the two time series correlate.
Salby derives dr/dt = gamma*T – alpha*r on theoretical grounds. T is temperature and r is CO2. I know 1/alpha is about 4 to 5 years. Gamma must be the scaler.
The bottom line is that two time series are explained by one equation covering a 40 year period.
Bart,
Is the filter that makes Salby’s plot smooth or is it smoothed after filtering? I guess what I’m asking is how did he get your WoodforTrees data so smooth?
Seems there are two or three steps, taking the delta CO2, applying a low-pass filter, and smoothing?
I’m taking a yearly running average of the CO2 data. That squashes the annual variation which otherwise would dominate. So, that is what the “mean:12” part in the menu is doing.
Plotted linear trends onto your graph.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.19/offset:0.17/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/trend/plot/uah6/scale:0.19/offset:0.17/trend
Please explain why CO2 and temperature are increasing at the same rate.
That’s not CO2 and temperature. That’s the rate of change of CO2 and temperature.
There you go – temperature is not responsible for the overall increase in CO2, but has an influence on the rate at which it increases.
Betraying your ignorance of calculus again. The integral of the derivative is 1:1 modulo an integration constant with the original series.
No, temperature’s strong influence on the rate at which CO2 increases means that temperature is predominantly responsible for the overall increase in CO2. And because the non-FF emissions are 20 times greater than FF emissions, it follows that FF emissions have an indistinguishable influence on CO2 increase.
“No, temperature’s strong influence on the rate at which CO2 increases means that temperature is predominantly responsible for the overall increase in CO2.”
Doesn’t follow. If a car’s speed is slightly affected by winds, you are arguing that the winds power the car.
This is an extraordinary failure on Bart’s part, and I am surprised to see you making the same gaffe.
It’s really very simple – the amount of anthropogenically emitted CO2 is nearly twice the atmospheric increase.
The annual turnover is a larger amount, but there is no getting around the fact that the overall increase is half the anthropogenic contribution.
Bart’s answer to this is always “but Calculus!”
There is also corroboration from isotopes that the rise is anthropogenic. All the evidence corroborates.
Bart’s (actually Murray Salby’s) evidence is purely theoretical, and based on parameters that are simkply assumed and have no physical basis.
Essentially, the “evidence” agains the rise of anthropogenic CO2 is based entirewly on a model and one that has no empirical physical basis.
Which is why, whenever temps do not correlate with CO2, such as the relatively flat/cooling periods 1956 to 1978, or 1998 to 2012, Bart will always say, “but Calculus!”
Salby is a maverick, his models are unphysical, his assumptions unempirical. And Bart is his lazy, unconvincing bulldog.
While Salby and Bart try to use math to magic away the 30+ billion tonnes of CO2 humanity pumps out year after year, the rest of the world has accepted the obvious fact of anthropogenic rise in CO2.
barry,
Do you disagree with the concept that CO2 outgasses during the warm seasons is reabsorbed by the ocean during the cold months?
And if so, wouldn’t those processes be governed by partitioning according to Henry’s Law?
“Its really very simple the amount of anthropogenically emitted CO2 is nearly twice the atmospheric increase.”
Simplistic. Simple-minded. It is those. This is a very dumb argument.
The leftists worked really hard and quickly to silence Dr. Salby because his research revealed problems with climate change dogma. I wish he would reemerge somewhere. He is an intellectual giant.
Who?
I remember someone on Curry’s website doing a mass balance that totally destroys Salby’s argument that the rise in CO2 is natural.
The pseudo-mass balance argument is one of the dumbest ever made by a semi-sentient being. It was some computer “scientist” in Australia who came up with it.
You must be fun at parties, Bart.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Says the troll
RLH, please stop trolling.
Yes, he is. Galileo redux.
ENSO isn’t an exogenous factor in the climate sytem. It is internal to it, and it shifts energy between the oceans and atmosphere, partly why we see the ups and downs superimposed on the long term trend. Time scale is important. ENSO lasts for months. CO2 warming is measured in decades.
A useful analogy to cut through some misconceptions is seasonality.
When a hemisphere moves from Winter to Summer, and the daily temperature changes are essentially random – up and down and up and down – do you imagine that this indicates that the orbital pattern causing the change from Winter to Summer is not the prime cause of the seasonal change?
If an ENSO event depressed Summer temperatures in one hemisphere, would you conclude then that ENSO is a significant factor in the cause/s of the change from Summer to Winter?
You can also look at the stock market and see why people invest in share portfolios over the long term. A GFC may come along every now and then, but over the long term productivity continues and increases, as do the value of shares in general.
Of course there are influences working on air temperatures other than CO2, especially at short time scales. But the increase of greenhouse gases is steadily rising underneath the dailly, weekly and even multi-annual fluctuations.
We know the mechanism for seasonal change – the angle of the Earth’s axis and the revolution of the planet about the Sun.
The mechanism for ‘greenhouse’ warming is also well-understood. The fact that other things influence global temperature from month to month and from year to year does not change the mechanism.
And those other factors have been and continue to be heavily researched. Your query is fair, and has been attended to for many decades. Check out the IPCC documents, or the scientific literature supporting it for more information.
b,
Couple of points –
“You can also look at the stock market and see why people invest in share portfolios over the long term. A GFC may come along every now and then, but over the long term productivity continues and increases, as do the value of shares in general.”
Nonsense. Look at the companies in any index even 50 years ago. Companies who go bust, or who fail to perform, are dumped, and replaced by current stars. Following an index fund will lose money, but at least it will be slow.
You also wrote –
“The mechanism for ‘greenhouse’ warming is also well-understood.”
Rubbish. You can’t even give a useful scientific definition of the “greenhouse effect”!
Carry on spruiking. Some gullible fools will buy what you’re selling, I’m sure.
Index funds that diversify to a large number (or all) of the holdings of an share index do indeed increase in value over the long term, simlarly to the share index.
But your quibble is irrelevant to the point. During the 2008/2009 GFC the share markets took a big dip. If climate contrarians were investors, they would have said that this was the beginning of a return to share prices of the 1980s and lower.
They would have been wrong.
Every investor knows that the most recent performance is not indicative of future performance, especially in the near-term. Nor is it wise to compare a quarter’s performance 30 years ago to the latest quarter to get a good idea of the long term trend. Nor is it wise to judge the share market on a single company.
But ‘skeptics’ do all this with respect to the temperature record, which is about as volatile as the stock market.
b,
My general point is that examination of the past is not a reliable guide to the future. I think you agree.
If there is a physical basis for the GHE, then this should provide useful predictions. Predictions based on physics can be confirmed by experiments – if not confirmed by experiment, your speculation is wrong.
So far, nobody can even describe the GHE in any useful way, let alone devise an experiment to check the premise of the GHE. It’s just not science, whatever you might call it.
> It’s just not science, whatever you might call it.
I agree, Mike Flynn.
Your adorable obduracy isn’t science at all.
It’s SCIENCE!
> Phrases like “climate contrarian” and “climate denier” seem like childish name calling
Just like when we say that Warren Buffett is a contrarian investor.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If we all do our jobs, we will each be rewarded according to our just desserts.
I’m sorry you were wrong.
Barry;
After getting my finance MBA, I edited a for profit financial newsletter for 43 years. I’ve been an investor for 45 years.
But I can’t figure out what you are talking about, and what the stock market has to do with climate science. The comment you replied to was even worse.
Most important: What is a “climate contrarian”
I think I might be one, and not realize it.
I love global warming, and want a lot more warming. In fact I want enough warming to retire my snow shovels. I retired 16 years ago, and believe snow shoveling is worse than going to a job.
Phrases like “climate contrarian” and “climate denier” seem like childish name calling to ridicule others — put downs that make people unworthy of debate.
So there is no debate. We are told a climate crisis is coming, and don’t you dare question it.
If you say: “But scientists have been predicting a coming climate crisis since the late 1950’s. Where is it?”, you are called a climate denier, and told to shut up.
That’s nothing like the science I learned in college when getting my BS degree. Back then science had theories that were falsifiable. It seem the alleged coming climate crisis can not be falsified, and can not even be questioned without retribution.
The stock market will tell you when your investment decisions were wrong. With the coming climate crisis, decade after decade goes by with no climate crisis, but the coming climate crisis prediction never changes.
A contrarian is someone who goes against the consensus. A supporter is someone who advocates for the consensus. Neither are derogatory.
I don’t know what “climate crisis” means to you so I can’t comment either way on whether hypothesis falling under that umbrella can be falsified or not. But I can say that the consensus theory on the cause of climate change in the contemporary era can definitely be falsified. For me there is no reasonable amount of warming that I would define as a “climate crisis”.
bdgwx, consensus is the wrong word. its more akin to the rabble that used to follow along behind large well funded armies of foot soldier infantry before armies became mechanized.
Richard,
“But I cant figure out what you are talking about, and what the stock market has to do with climate science.”
I’m explaining the difference between short term volatility and long term gain, which are both seen in stock indexes and global temperature data.
That analogy has arisen because some people here don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.
A contrarian is someone who goes against conventional understanding.
It’s a term I use when I’m being polite.
More accurate labels get too wordy. I trust people will accept some shorthand for the sake of brevity.
barry,
The only thing I know about investing is buy low, sell high. A lot of good that’s done me. /sarc
Why does the stock market keep rising despite the ebbs and flows? I suspect it is because new technology, products, and increases in productivity outweigh obsolescence, declines, and failures. Can I prove it? Not without data.
This is the problem for GHE proponents. Their hypotheses are legion, but the details cannot be demonstrated by experiment.
Chic,
I have a great stock for you.
It’s called SKY.rp.
The stock can generate huge dividends. 33% per year.
On the flip side, it can generate huge losses. -273%.
But that’s better than a stock that always loses -18%, don’t you think?
Witless Wee Willy,
There you go again. More “silly semantic games”!
You don’t have any stocks at at all, do you? All fantasy and delusion.
You just make stuff up, trying to look intelligent. What an idiot you are!
Mike Flynn,
You write –
“semantic games”
That’s more a a thought experiment.
But then both concepts are foreign to you.
So pick any word you like!
SCIENCE
Willard, please stop trolling.
You can sell high and then buy low if you have the stomach.
If it was possible to lose more than 100%, I’d short that stock to the ground.
Waffling Wee Willy,
If it was possible for you not to be an idiot, you would still choose to be one.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Chic, I’m explaining the difference between short-term volatility and long-term gain, an analogy for climate and weather. I’m not using the analogy for a discussion of causes, just behaviour.
I use the stock market analogy because people invest real money in it. It is a serious pproposition and something many people are acquainted with. I also hope that my interlocutors have some investment in shares, so they can’t just pass off the analogy as abstract and meaningless.
As to why the stock markets increase in value long-term? I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess that a simple answer is capitalism works.
AGF is mainly politics driven, and hyped by their fellow travelers in the Media and public education (read teachers unions)
The plebs are told it’s a “given” that the Earth is warming at a dire rate, and any schoolkid these days will tell you that unless we dismantle the current capitalist system (and the cheap fossil fuels that currently are feeding the world’s hungry, and providing them with the basics of life) there will be human devastation.
It seems only skeptics, in the fine historic tradition of scientific progress are reporting actual observations, rather than models and anecdotes.
Fortunately we have benchmark satellite data now and can track the daily average temperature and ice data with more accuracy than ever.
Compared to the usual NASA modeling nonsense that goes back to 1850, when large swaths of Africa, Australia, the Americas and both North and South Poles had yet to be reached.
The 42 year satellite record covers our current definition of “climate” and is the only relational database we have.
Likewise Global Ice Extent.
Which of course shows no dire, or even scientifically significant change, over the entire satellite record, given a statistical margin of error.
Very little of that is factual.
The satellite data is not “benchmark.” The two main satellite records are more different than the surface records of global temperature.
UAH trend 0.14 C/decade
RSS trend 0.22 C/decade
Same period, late 1978 to present.
The lead compiler of the RSS satellite record says that the land surface records are more reliable. None of the records are “benchmark.” They are all best estimates.
NASA “modeling” does not go back to 1850. The NASA temp record goes back to 1880. The UK Meteorological Office temperature record goes back to 1850.
There are other indicators of global climate, not just the satellite, lower troposphere temperature record. There is also ocean heat content, arguably a better source. Certainly skeptics have previously argued that it is a better source (eg, Roger Pielke Senior).
It is unclear what you mean by “global ice,” but whether mountain glaciers, polar ice sheets, or sea ice, the trend globally is down for all 3, and statistically significant for mountain glaciers and the 2 polar ice sheets.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/
Antarctic sea ice trend is is virtually flat from 1979, but Arctic sea ice has a statistically significant negative trend. Here is the combined data for a global chart.
https://tinyurl.com/9t939u3b
It is notable that the last few years have been consistently lower than the 2-sigma range for the rest of the record.
Satellite retrieval of ice amounts over time are what lead and corroborate these findings.
I don’t know where you got your information. I am happy to provide further references if you need.
There was an explanation of the difference between RSS and UAH by Roy Spencer some time ago:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/comments-on-new-rss-v4-pause-busting-global-temperature-dataset/
Is there any problem with it?
bohous
” Is there any problem with it? ”
The problem begins for me with an unnecessary polemic title:
” Comments on New RSS v4 Pause-Busting Global Temperature Dataset ”
At the time I asked myself: was I reading Roy Spencer’s blog here, or was I redirected to WUWT?
*
Maybe there is no problem for you ‘with it’, but there might very well be one for all people who checked years before 2016 UAH’s consistency wrt satellite sources (I intentionally exclude here the ‘Skeptical Science’ blog).
It began soon after beginning of the satellite era. But one of the the most impressive papers was:
Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies
Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J. Thorsen, and Qiang Fu
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/6/jcli-d-13-00767.1.xml
*
Furthermore, I remember sound comments published by ‘Olof R’ at WUWT, here and on Nick Stokes’ blog.
E. Swanson knows a lot about all that, but is here denigrated all the time by thoroughly incompetent Pseudoskeptics (I mean all those who say ‘I think they are wrong; prove me wrong’, instead of proving them wrong).
I personally lack any scientific qualification allowing to contribute to such a discussion. But other people here think they can do that, though knowing even far less than me.
All what I can say is that UAH’s LT time series fits a bit too good to NOAA’s MT series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E-GWkQvAunLlcb2qsC1Qt143aA8IMIhD/view
But that is layman’s view, and not a scientific contradiction.
Some dumb Contrarians here of course will say: “NOAA’s data is fudged’, but this Pavlovian reflex doesn’t help much in a fair discussion.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, I seldom read all your comments since you typically have NOTHING. But, I’m glad I read this “I personally lack any scientific qualification…”
What are the chances that the one time you hit on truth I was lucky enough to see it?
My lucky day….
There is an assumption that you are making with the math that might be false. The deviation from the mean, your sigma, is being defined over a series of annual periods. Think about that.
What if annual is not a very good time period to measure basis of change over time? What if a more appropriate period of time was 2 years or ten years?Then the true standard deviation from the mean might be substantially greater. And therefore, the radical departures from the mean that have been calculated might begin to make sense.
Here is an analogy. Suppose I was graphing how often I laugh over time. If you start your observations while I’m at a party Friday night and drinking, I might laugh every 15 minutes. If you base your sigma on that, maybe the sigma is 15 minutes and if I went an hour without laughing my behavior lies way outside my normal behavior. Now suppose you then make observations over 6 hours starting Monday morning when I’m at work.
Are you getting my drift here?
Been a while since I checked out Arctic sea ice. Turns out 2020 had the lowest annual sea ice average in the 42 year satellite record, but it’s very close to the minimum set in 2016, so probably not statistically significant.
info here: https://tinyurl.com/3xcayjwb
Click on link at number 3. “Sea ice extent and area organized by year” and you’ll get the data downloaded for a spreadsheet. Annual values are on the right.
Lowest annual extent for the Antarcic was in 2017 (click on the correct tab in the spreadsheet)
More disinformation from Barry. Bindi is not quite so quick to correct Barry, though. Barry, how does measuring sea ice extent prove anything other than sea ice extent rises and falls with temperature?
I’m not sure what your objection is, Stephen, but I’ll point out that I’m referring to annual averages, not seasonal change. Here’s a visual.
https://i.imgur.com/TBfoFtE.png
My point is that annual averages only tell us that the arctic has been warming (or cooling). Your implication is, “we’re causing it, and we better do something about it.”
“Your implication is, ‘we’re causing it, and we better do something about it’.”
No, all I was doing was checking a claim someone made upthread (it was wrong). Policy had nothing to do with it.
If you want to know what I think about policy, you can always ask.
Ice is likely to melt in a gradually warming world regardless of the reason for warming. Let’s stay focused on temperatures and why they rose.
Any new data evidence showing how an incremental increase in CO2 warms the planet?
Barry so politely corrected me regarding the seasonal adjustment of the temperature departures. What I don’t think Barry understood is that seasonally adjusted values greatly weakens the case for CO2 causing any warming. Today’s values are very close to or below the April values back in the early 1980s. Theoretically, because CO2 is claimed by some to be responsible for 100% of the warming since the start of the industrial age, there should be a clear and highly linear trend in temperatures. Each Dec would simply increase ΔT by the associated ΔW/m^2 due to the ΔCO2. Guess what? You don’t see that, not even close.
What would be interesting is to create monthly charts to make the trends from the past more clear. My bet is you won’t see any relationships that would closely tied to CO2.
BTW, no one ever even tried to explain why there is a difference between the N and S Hemisphere, and how it ties to CO2. The N Hemi has far more land, so the difference between the N and S Hemi isn’t due to CO2, it is due to a large Urban Heat Island Effect and relative increases in H2O due to the greening of the N Hemi.
Keep digging and evidence pointing at CO2 keeps collapsing.
Funny, nothing seems to look like what Hansen predicted.
https://postimg.cc/1gt2ZWtV
I’ve explained why he is wrong countless times, yet the alarmists keep believing the big lie.
https://postimg.cc/1gt2ZWtV
That graph does not appear in the Hansen 2013 publication. It is photoshopped. See Hansen 2013 (https://tinyurl.com/2pc9wfu8) for details on what Hansen actually said.
Figure #10 clearly shows CO2 driving temperatures 10C° higher.
That have never happened in 600 million years, even when CO2 was 7,000 PPM.
The PETM was almost 15C warmer than today with about 2000 ppm. Regardless Hansen isn’t predicting a 19C temperature increase by 2120. If you don’t understand what this publication is saying then ask questions. You should have done that before posting a photoshopped graph that grossly misrepresents the publication.
bdgwx
I did read some of the Hansen 2013 publication. He does believe that a 1400 PPM CO2 level will lead to 20 C of land warming and 30 C increase at the poles making life on the planet mostly unliveable for people. I am almost thinking he is as much as a crackpot as Joe Postma or Claes Johnson. I do not think he has much empirical support for his claims and I think they are an extreme view. I think Hansen is a fanatic.
Here is another study to balance his fanatic claims. Common sense would say his view is ludicrous. How do you think a 9 W/m^2 forcing could elevate and sustain temperatures of 20 C higher than now?
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm
I guess you can view him as credible. I lump him in the lunatic bin. I certainly hope people stop listening to his voice.
I think the contrarians are right about anything Hansen claims.
He does indeed predict that 4.8xCO2 will lead to 16C of global warming (20C on land). That is a climate sensitivity of a bit over 3C per doubling of CO2. It is well within the IPCC’s 1.5-4.5C range and less than the CMIP6 inferred sensitivity. So in that regard Hansen’s prediction isn’t out of line or even noteworthy. And while Hansen’s bravado may be off-putting at the very least he still didn’t predict a 20C land temperature rise by 2120 in that paper and CO2isLife is still grossly misrepresenting Hansen here.
Yikes. My post was a disaster. 16C @ 4.8xCO2 implies about 6.7C @ 2xCO2. That is way higher than 5.7C upper bound from the CMIP6. That definitely makes Hansen’s prediction a noteworthy outlier.
Anyway, yeah, 16C from 9 W/m^2 is 1.8C per W/m^2. That is definitely on the high side of climate sensitivity estimates. Though to be fair I believe Hansen is speaking about the slow-feedback ECS here in which the ice sheets have fully melted out.
Co2IsLife
Now you really start behaving like a dumb ass.
No arguments – only distort, discredit, denigrate, and lie.
Thanks for that!
J.-P. D.
Bindidion says that I “lie.”
Even if I do, which I don’t, the numbers don’t lie. Simply do the experiment that I detail below. Download the Lower Trop data from above, chart each Month separately for the S Pole, and the graph will prove that CO2 has 0.00 effect on Temperatures. That is NASA’s own data, selected to control for the UHI and Water Vapor, and it isolates the effect of CO2 has on Temperature. It is none, nada, zip and Nasa data proves it. Only reason this hasn’t been demonstrated before is because alarmists don’t understand controlled experimentation.
By the way, I don’t necessarily agree that CO2 is 100% responsible for recent warming – that’s not what the IPCC says – but I understand it is responsible for most of the warming, because other factors are assessed to have had a negligible or cooling affect for the recent period.
Yes, other factors DO get included in the assessment. Clouds (the biggest uncertainty), solar influence, volcanic activity (SO2), black carbon (albedo), CFCs, land use changes (albedo), etc. Also assessed are ENSO and other ocean/atmopsphere systems.
You should try reading the IPCC technical summary (not the summary for policy makers, which is thin on the details) to see what has and hasn’t been assessed as contributing to global climate and change.
“The primary purpose of this Technical Summary (TS) is to provide the link between the complete assessment of the multiple lines of independent evidence presented in the 14 chapters of the main report and the highly condensed summary prepared as the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The Technical Summary thus serves as a starting point for those readers who seek the full information on more specific topics covered by this assessment. This purpose is facilitated by including pointers to the chapters and sections where the full assessment can be found.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf [17MB PDF]
For the complete set of chapters of the latest IPCC report (2013), go here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
If you’re going to criticize the science, you’d do well to at least know what has been covered.
The above post was meant to follow this one, which is a reply to CO2isLife’s comment starting this thread.
“What would be interesting is to create monthly charts to make the trends from the past more clear. ”
The first graph here shows monthly temperature trends since 1880.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
ET, I replicated this graphic controlling for the UHI and Water Vapor, and guess what? Absolutely no warming. None nada zip. Read the experiment, the numbers don’t lie.
“What would be interesting is to create monthly charts to make the trends from the past more clear. My bet is you wont see any relationships that would closely tied to CO2.”
That prediction was proven 1,000% accurate. Funny how I can make predictions and the data seems to always prove me right. Why can I come up with these experiments but the climate alarmists fail to see even the easiest ways to debunk the CO2 drives temperature nonsense. It is as if they aren’t even looking for the truth, and simply ignore the obvious experiment that debunk this nonsense.
“Theoretically, because CO2 is claimed by some to be responsible for 100% of the warming since the start of the industrial age, there should be a clear and highly linear trend in temperatures.”
No, that does not follow, and looks like the source of your misconception.
The cause of the change from Winter to Summer is well known. It is a steady increase in the amount of sunlight received by either hemisphere.
You are essentially arguing that because daily temperature does not smoothly rise with the steady increase of insolation on the hemisphere, orbital mechanics cannot be the cause of the change from Winter to Summer temperatures.
That is essentially how you are pitching global climate change.
And when we point out that other factors have short-term influence on monthly temperature changes, you exclaim that these then must be the cause of global warming.
Which is like saying that the daily weather effects that make the evolution of daily temperature uneven from Winter to Summer, are therefore the cause of the changes in season.
Even a single day’s temperature evolution is uneven, but the factors that make that change uneven are not the cause for the middle of the day being hotter than the middle of the night.
So, the revolution of the Earth around the sun can be 100% responsible for the temperature difference between Winter and Summer – even though the day to day temperature evolution is uneven, and one day in Summer can be cooler than a hot day in Winter.
Increasing CO2 can be 100% responsible for warming over a certain period – particularly if other factors have had a cooling influence over the same period. Monthly up and downs are normal weather processes, and do not detract from that understanding any more than daily temperature shifts forbid orbital mechanics as the cause of seasonal change.
List of failed predictions:
http://www.extinctionclock.org
Judith Curry said, “CO2 is not the control know of the climate”
That is a really cool website, Mike!
Thanks for sharing.
Oh, that is a treasure chest. In a Psychology class we covered people that believed aliens would destroy the earth on a certain day. When they didn’t they changed their belief that they prevented the aliens from destroying the earth, or they simply claimed to have miscalculated the date and pushed it off further into the future. The key was to keep the lie alive. controlling people was the goal, not being truthful or accurate. The goal was to get gullible people to act like sheep.
My America hometown is getting colder and colder for 100 years:
https://tinyurl.com/nrm4eznk
Now the coldness spreads to whole world!
Eiszeit kommt
Howard, thanks for that site. I’ll add it to the list. I have over 500 sites from all around the globe that show absolutely no warming. If you identify sites removed from the UHI and Water Vapor effect, you will find locations with no warming.
Howrd, here is another. If you simply define the location as one void of the UHI and Water Vapor effect, you fine no warming. Funny how I can find countless sites that the Alarmists can’t.
Heron 2 Nw (48.0800N, 116.0014W) ID:USC00244084 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00244084&ds=14&dt=1
Debunking the CO2 myth is like shooting fish in a barrel if you simply use real science.
OWilson
” AGF is mainly politics driven, and hyped by their fellow travelers in the Media and public education (read teachers unions) ”
*
Yeah.
And of course, the Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation are both financially, economically completely disinterested, angelic companies that only want our very best.
*
” It seems only skeptics, in the fine historic tradition of scientific progress are reporting actual observations, rather than models and anecdotes. ”
Yeah.
Like articles at WUWT, written by the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, endlessly repeating nonsense like this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-by-two-months-to-6-years/
*
” The 42 year satellite record covers our current definition of climate and is the only relational database we have.
Likewise Global Ice Extent.
Which of course shows no dire, or even scientifically significant change, over the entire satellite record, given a statistical margin of error. ”
Yeah.
That’s the typical (intentional) mistake: to put alltogether, in one data set,
– sea ice extent around pack ice floating on water, enclosed by warming land masses
and
– sea ice extent around Earth’s coldest continent, enclosed by Earth’s coolest oceans.
Like this, OWilson?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxoDtocaaq5K-mqPwfYrPBzR4GufaEyE/view
*
Everybody knows, OWilson, that Antarctic sea ice is – nearly – rock solid.
But… are you sure this holds for the Arctic as well? Sure you aren’t, OWilson: because otherwise you would have mentioned Arctic, and not Global sea ice, isnt’it?
*
Let us compare the two Poles: but not by splitting the data above into North ans South, but rather showing their recent years superposed, together with the mean wrt 1981-2010.
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ag55YesvQdh6dlZCG9Pq_Gdqi3_Go2bq/view
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/121nlFUUGfmtIJnnbuu_5D-8cUOcmbKWZ/view
*
Oh. You prefer numbers? me2! Ascending sort of yearly extent averages, in Mkm^2:
Antarctic
2017 10.702
2019 10.781
2018 10.890
1986 11.044
2002 11.176
2016 11.178
1980 11.206
1997 11.341
1983 11.344
1990 11.365
No 2020? Oh, so what!
Arctic
2016 10.162
2020 10.175
2019 10.211
2018 10.350
2017 10.395
2012 10.420
2007 10.498
2011 10.506
2015 10.589
2010 10.734
Looks pretty good, doesn’t it?
J.-P. D.
Barry has provided a very very very easy to debunk the CO2 drives temperatures theory. He was kind enough to point out that the data is seasonally adjusted, making it much easier to isolate the effect of CO2 on temperatures.
How then do you do it? I’ll have to post multiple posts because for some reason if I write the entire experiment it won’t post.
As I’ve said countless times you have to identify locations that are natural controls for the UHI and Water Vapor Effect. That data set is the South Pole in the Lower Troposphere data set you can download from above. Link won’t post.
To start the experiment, download the above data set and open it in Excel. Sort the data by Month and then by Year.
Once you’ve downloaded and sorted the data, graph each month separately. Here is what you will find.
1) There is absolutely no uptrend in temperatures
2) Only November has any chance of being called an uptrend, and no uptrend exists but the Alarmist will claim one does
3) June and July actually have downtrends
4) Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Aug, Sept, Oct and Dec are flat as boards.
When you control for water vapor and the UHI effect, and isolate the effect of CO2 on Temperatures, NASA’s own data proves CO2 doesn’t cause warming unless the laws of physics ceases to exist in the S Pole.
I also have a list of over 500 weather stations that show no warming, many going back to 1880. Simply control for the UHI and Water Vapor, and you get no warming.
Anyone care to explain why a 30% increase in CO2 didn’t cause warming at the S Pole?
I am not an expert on the South Pole, but here is one hypotheses that seems very plausible.
At the poles, the tropopause is lower in elevation and higher in temperature. According to this source, the temperature is about -50 C or -60 C at the poles. http://www.chanthaburi.buu.ac.th/~wirote/met/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/navmenu.php_tab_2_page_5.1.0.htm
As it turns out the temperature at the south pole is ALSO typically around -50 to -60 C.
So GHGS in the atmosphere block outgoing -50C to -60C IR from the ground and replace it with outgoing -50C to -60C IR from the tropopause. In other words, GHGs at the South Pole basically have no effect.
Just a hypothesis … but it sure seems to explain the observations.
Sometimes the lapse rate completely reverses down there. When that happens GHGs put a slight downward tendency on the surface temperature.
“…downward tendency on the surface temperature.”
You mean upward, right? An inversion would warm instead of cool.
The GHE puts a warming tendency on the warm side of the GHG layer and cooling tendency on the cool side of the GHG layer. Because the warm side is almost always the surface and cool side almost always the stratosphere this means the surface gets a positive/warming nudge and stratosphere gets a negative/cooling nudge.
But over Antarctica the lapse is so extreme over a huge depth of the atmosphere that the inversion goes all the way up to tropopause and beyond sometimes. That means the warm side is the stratosphere and the cool side the surface. This completely reverse the direction of the GHE when this happens. The effect is isolated almost exclusively to central Antarctica and only for part of the year.
I needed a Rush Limbaugh disgronificator to understand what you mean. Let me translate and see if I understand you correctly.
The untested hypothesis that IR absorbing gases make the atmosphere work like a greenhouse tends to make the lapse rate somewhat larger. The surface will be somewhat warmer and the stratosphere somewhat cooler.
[The disgronificator added an inversion here.]
The lapse rate over Antarctica is so much larger that this inversion of the lapse rate goes to the tropopause and sometimes further. The surface is cooler than the stratosphere and this only occurs in central Antarctica. When this happens, the IR absorbing gases completely reverse the way a greenhouse works.
Tim,
I tried to contact you by email. The emails just bounced back.
You can find my email on my websites.
Best,
W
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh yeah , and Sea ice is exactly normal ,
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2021_day_123_1981-2010.png
Eben, the alarmists will claim that we are below the mean, and not exactly normal. They don’t understand statistics and confidence intervals.
Dr. Spencer, Bindidon claims I’m a liar in one of his posts above. Would you or the DSEMT run the experiment I detailed above? It only took me 15 minutes, but it clearly shows 0.00 warming in the S Pole where CO2 has increased by over 30% since 1979 when you data begins.
It is fascinating to see the findings, and I’d like to hear how the alarmists explain how the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole.
Bottom line, you have all the data to blow the lid off this CO2 drives temperature hoax.
Howard Weizendanger
” My America hometown is getting colder and colder for 100 years: ”
Are you kidding us, Howard?
1. Your link
https://tinyurl.com/nrm4eznk
shows Spokane’s December months, with a tiny trend over the entire century. OK, slight decrease over 100 years…
*
BUT… didn’t you think of letting the page compute the trend for 1979 – now?
The trend then looks quite a bit different, huh?
https://tinyurl.com/y76fy3sm
*
Since many people here have nothing in mind with this crazy Fahrenheit stuff, I downloaded the annual data into Office Calc and converted it in Celsius:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wUM-FN7PDK9PL0qyQf-O3UWrTLkvn8zK/view
Trend for 1921-2020: 0.04 +- 0.03 C
….. for 1979-2020: 0.20 +- 0.09 C
0.2 C per decade!
And you dare to write
” Now the coldness spreads to whole world!
Eiszeit kommt ”
Yeah.
Die nächste Eiszeit mag vielleicht irgendwann kommen, Howard, in den nächsten Jahren aber ganz sicher nicht bei Ihnen.
*
Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana.
J.-P. D.
You have to understand what a statement like “Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana” does for your credibility. You could be singing complete TrVth that makes Einstein look like an idiot but you lose it with the insults.
Ken, this is an Arby’s.
Waffling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Ken, this is an Arbys.”
Is this an example of your “silly semantic games”, your “auditing skillz”, or just idiotic stupidity masquerading as trolling?
Mike Flynn,
As Bugs Bunny would say, no.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken
On the one hand, you are absolutely right.
But on the other hand, you must understand that I can’t keep quiet all the time when seeing what a nonsense the CO2IsLife guy can write:
” If you identify sites removed from the UHI and Water Vapor effect, you will find locations with no warming. ”
He didn’t even understand the mistake Howard Weizendanger had made.
If he had checked the info before writing his nonsense, I wouldn’t have written what you correctly viewed as an insult.
I’m regularly the target of insults by Robertson, Clint R and some others, and have to live with that too, Ken.
J.-P. D.
Gosselin posted some weeks ago a thread on his TricksZone blog, which of course was soon replicated at WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/25/greenland-and-iceland-mean-winter-temperatures-continue-cooling-since-start-of-the-century/
There we enjoyed to read, among other nonsensical things
” 2021 Arctic melt refuses to start
Finally, this winter’s Arctic sea ice was still continuing its climb as of March 21st and reached it ”
*
Below we can see how the melt actually refused:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mN-EMjLMAAHwZkz_VQLDd-KYV5MXesj9/view
Wonderful.
I use to say: “Warmistas aren’t good for us, but… Coolistas are even worse. ”
J.-P. D.
“Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana.
J.-P. D.”
Dr. Spencer will you please school J-P-D?
Anyone can read the posts on this blog and here are the facts:
1) Many posts discuss the exogenous factors that impact global temperatures that are completely unrelated to CO2.
2) None of the alarmists seem to have any interest in developing models that control for such exogenous factors.
3) Alarmists simply accept CO2 as the cause of the warming without providing any evidence what so ever, while admitting things like El Nino have huge impacts on temperatures
4) They point to facts like the oceans at depth 50 m is warming, yet never explain how LWIR between 13 and 18µ can warm that depth of water.
5) Barry was kind enough to politely point out that the data produced on this website is seasonally adjusted, ie controlled for the season, so at least part of the data has an incorporated control.
From the data collected from this blog I, an uneducated non-climate “scientist,” proposed a simple experiment that would control for the impact of CO2 on temperatures.
Simply download the lower troposphere, sort by month and then year, and chart out each month for the South Pole. The South Pole is a natural control for the UHI and Water Effect (exogenous variables).
What you will find is that either 1) the laws of quantum physics cease to exist in the South Pole or 2) CO2 has absolutely no impact on temperature proven by data collected by NASA.
People need to ask why no one has done this experiment in the past? You literally have to be deliberately not looking for the answers to overlook such an obvious experiment. On another post I posted how to identify stations that will show no warming and have over 500 stations that show no warming, some going back to 1880. Now we have yet another data set, identified in advance, that validates the hypothesis this uneducated non-climate scientist has been promoting.
I develop experiments and my critics simply call me names.
“Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana.
Please publishe the charts I’ve described and ask these climate alarmists to explain why the laws of Physics ceases to exist.
Binding is flipping out of his mind from this temperature drop. despite the predictions I gave him it was going to happen.
These people are so emotionally invested in this nonsense it is going to be interesting to see how they handle the collapse of temperatures. No adult likes to admit that they are gullible tools of the political left.
They’ll move on to the next cause. They’ll never admit they were wrong about anything because it is about advancing the agenda.
Eben
What temperature drop did you ‘gave me’, Eben?
Maybe such typical Gosselin nonsense?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/30/latest-jma-data-show-france-ireland-and-finland-have-cooled-in-march-no-warming/
Or this one?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/19/so-far-germany-seeing-coldest-april-in-104-years-second-coldest-since-1881-snowiest-since-1986/#comment-3228584
Shall we for example compare Germany and France in April 2021 with Aprils in other years?
J.-P. D.
You can tell he is out of his mind when his reply is an unrelated psychobabble like this
What a load of old cobblers. No one is surprised that global temps get cooler for a few months during a la Nina.
The only people flipping out about this dip in temps are ‘skeptics’.
CO2isLife.
It wasn’t just me, nor was I the first to point out to you that the UAH global temperature data is seasonally adjusted.
But you haven’t learned the next lesson, which is that global temperature is affected by many things on different time scales, and the reason we see the quick up and downs month to month is because of these factors.
I don’t know why you hold on to this bizzare notion that all these other factors that cause the ups and downs in monthly temperature should cease to occur with long term CO2 warming.
Instead of taking the opportunity to exclaim that other things affect global temperature, which everyone knows and ‘alarmists’ have been telling you for months, why don’t you explain why these other factors should cease to operate with CO2 warming?
Let’s keep this simple. You and everyone here knows that ENSO events affect global temperatures on the scale of several months to a couple of years, and can have an amplitude as large as 1C with respect to global temperatures (I paraphrase your own words here).
Why do you think ENSO would cease to operate with a background warming of 0.2 C/decade? Why do you think that every month would suddenly not be influenced by ENSO events, but only be influenced by one thing – CO2 warming?
And does your opinion hold the same for ANY cause of warming? If the sun began to warm, at a rate consistent with 0.2 C/decade global temperature increase, would the effects of ENSO likewise cease to operate, and would every month increase in temperature monotonically, as you say it should with CO2 warming?
Or is is only CO2 warming that would cause every other short-term factor to stop working, and stop causing the month-to-month ups and downs in global temperature.
I’m curious to hear your explanation for why warming would make all other factors cease to operate, and whether this would hold true for warming for any cause.
I can’t figure out why you think CO2 warming cancels out everything else that affects global temperature, such that global temperatures shopuld perfectly match the climb of CO2. You are the only person I know who holds this view.
The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2. There is no allowance in the models for ENSO etc.
2016 was a warm year, probably due to El Nino, and we have to suffer Greta and others of her non-scientific ilk, telling us ‘look its the hottest year on record’ and we need to up the carbon tax because there is a climate crisis and its all due to human emissions.
So here we come every month with bated breath hoping for more la Nina cooling … which is dumb because significant cooling would be much worse of a crisis than any warming scenario.
There still is no loud and clear acknowledgement from our politicians, who have bought into the climate change claptrap hook line and sinker, that there are other factors in the climate than any warming that might be attributed to CO2 emissions.
Until someone can get the simple fact that there is natural variation, and that its probably more significant than CO2, into the narrative, there will be no science behind the carbon policies that threaten our way of life.
So far Biden has cut 11000 jobs in one fell stroke of a pen. Its starting to look a lot like Holomodor is happening again.
> There is no allowance in the models for ENSO
Vintage 2018:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Ken,
A VERY detailed paper on radiative/convective climate modeling. From 1978, a seminal paper in the math behind climate models.
Ramanathan & Coakley (1978).
Ken
” The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2. There is no allowance in the models for ENSO etc. ”
Why do you say such things when you know nothing about the subject?
J.-P. D.
Ken,
“The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2.”
That is simply untrue.
Modeling begins with control runs, where none of the various exogenous factors that might change global climate change. This is how they test the model to make sure it doesn’t just run warm or cold or does something bizarre with a process.
Then various exogenous factors are included to see how the model is perturbed. These processes are all programmed on physcial principles. Atmospheric gases are modelled based on spectrosocopy from an empirical database like HITRAN, and the laws of physics.
There is an excellent primer on GCMs here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
b,
The article says –
“As the climate is inherently chaotic, it is impossible to simulate with 100% accuracy, yet models do a pretty good job at getting the climate right.”
The outcome of a chaotic system is impossible to predict using numerical methods. You or I are able to guess outcomes just as well, using naive prediction methods based on prior experience.
As climate is the average of weather, “models do a pretty good job at getting the climate right” is just nonsensical gibberish, of no use whatever.
Wishful thinking, and fervent hopes, are no substitute for reality. GCM’s produce nothing of use, at great expense. Have you any evidence at all to the contrary?
I thought not!
> The article says –
Mike Flynn clicked on a link!
Great SCIENCE success!
b,
As I said, you or I can do just as well. No need for expensive and pointless models.
As to the overall climate system, there is no such thing. Climate is the average of weather.
Maybe you might like to define the Earth’s climate numerically? Is it better or worse than 100 years ago? Different, even? You can’t say?
I didn’t think so.
I’m very sure that means that the exact state of the climate system – like when ENSO events will begin and end – is not possible to predict. But the overall climate system is predictable.
From a model of orbital motion you can predict when Summer and Winter will occur in which hemisphere, but you couldn’t predict 6 months away which days will have rain or not.
There is plenty of evidence that models do a good job of getting the climate system right. For all the patterns that emerge purely from the physics and equations that are not parametrised, GCMs do a good job of replicating the real climate system.
No model is perfect, is the general message, which goes for any model of anything. Are they good enough? Depends on the query.
Whoops. Posted in wrong place previously. Sorry. Laughing at Witless Wee Willy noticing that somebody follows other peoples’ links, just not his! What an idiot the is!
b,
As I said, you or I can do just as well. No need for expensive and pointless models.
As to the overall climate system, there is no such thing. Climate is the average of weather.
Maybe you might like to define the Earth’s climate numerically? Is it better or worse than 100 years ago? Different, even? You can’t say?
I didn’t think so.
“As to the overall climate system, there is no such thing.”
Curiosity is a cure for ignorance.
“The climate system, as defined in this Report, is an interactive
system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the
hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface and the biosphere,
forced or influenced by various external forcing mechanisms, the
most important of which is the Sun.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-01.pdf
I do not know how if there is a cure for a lack of curiosity.
b,
As usual, the cultists just come up with with a meaningless conglomeration of words,
Climate is the average of weather. You can’t even say what the Earth’s “climate” is now, or how much it has changed since last week year, or century!
The IPCC is in a similar predicament.
As to “external” influences, the IPCC admits that the atmosphere behaves chaotically, and a chaotic system needs no external influences to exhibit chaos.
This is presumably why the IPCC states elsewhere that it is impossible to predict future climate states.
There is no cure for stupidity. No cure for the stubborn refusal to accept reality.
Such is the nature of cultists.
ken…”The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2. There is no allowance in the models for ENSO etc. ”
That’s right. The head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician/modeler, is on record as claiming CO2 contributes between 9% and 25% of the warming. Amazing stuff considering the Ideal Gas Law predicts about 0.04C per 1C rise in temperature.
The other bs factor in models is a phantom positive feedback supposedly introduced by that same CO2 back-radiating EM to the surface and warming it. Since that warming in AGW theory comes from the surface, it means CO2 absorbs heat from the surface and returns it to increase the heat in the surface.
When Schmidt tried to explain positive feedback he fumbled it badly. As a mathematician, he could not provide the proper equation for PF. Had he been able to do that he might have noticed that the equation requires an amplifier. There is no amplifier in the atmosphere. Schmidt thought PF caused gain whereas in reality it is a small factor in the overall gain of an amplification system, where the gain is produced by an amplifier.
The notion that CO2 can radiated EM to the surface from a region is the atmosphere which is colder than the surface is a direct contradiction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The notion that it can amplify heat is perpetual motion.
I have no idea how this pseudo-science began or why anyone is stupid enough to believe it.
“That’s right. The head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician/modeler, is on record as claiming CO2 contributes between 9% and 25% of the warming.”
You got that totally wrong, too. These figures are not coded into any model, and the numbers do not refer in any way to GCM input or output.
Those figures are quoted at realclimate, and I’ll leave it to you to do the research, so you will hopefully learn what they refer to.
Just to help – the figures are 9% and 26%.
Good luck!
Actually 25-26% sounds about right.
The most recent climate sensitivity estimates are around 4.
Thus 25% of the observed warming would be directly due to CO2 and the other 75% to feedbacks like increased water vapour.
Ignoring lags, that would be 0.3C directly due to the GHE of increased CO2 and 0.9C due to feedback amplification.
That is NOT what those figures refer to, and you got the figures wrong – 9% to 26%..
Gordon is too lazy to inform himself and will continue to spread his crazy ideas.
For you, EM, here is what the figures refer to.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
It’s the CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect, NOT the contribution to warming over time.
Gordon
In electronics you describe positive feedback using the closed loop gain function.
A = a/1-af
This is open ended and describes unlimited amplification. Applying the closed loop gain function to global warming may explain why some sceptics look for a runaway greenhouse effect.
In the context of climate change unlimited amplification is impossible because limiting factors kick in and resist unlimited amplification.
A more appropriate equation is the sigmoid function
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
or the Gompertz function.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function
barry…”Thatcher and Reagan pushed for reductions on CO2 emissions, based on scientific advice”.
No Barry, Thatcher was her own scientific authority. She had a degree in chemistry and was advised by an advisor to use that scientific knowledge to baffle the UN, which she did. Based on her version of the science, they formed the IPCC and installed one of her cronies, climate modeler, John Houghton, as a leader.
The IPCC did not need any prompting. Since the 1960s, they had been looking for a method to implement global taxation. To do that, they needed nations to agree on it but first they needed a scare tactic to get everyone onside. Catastrophic global warming became that scare tactic. When people failed to buy into the catastrophic warming theory it was changed to catastrophic climate change theory.
Houghton admitted that. He claimed they needed to scare people to get them onside.
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen,” Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three IPCC reports, stressed as early as 1994.
The Observer, 7th February, 2010″.
Thatcher’s plot involved making the UK coal miners look bad. She couldn’t handle them and had to create an international lie to make them look like the bad guys.
Reagan was too stupid to understand anything scientific. His administration unleashed the HIV/AIDS theory on us without peer review. Now, the scientist who is credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that it’s harmless to a healthy immune system.
Obviously, AGW is a lie too.
You may have nmissed, Gordon, where CO2isLife claimed AGW was a Marxist hoax. That’s what I was replying to as you quoted me here.
Now, if AGW is a Marxist hoax, and Thatcher is responsible for initiating it through the UN as you are saying….
Well, I’ll let the geniuses work that one out.
Meanwhile, you are posting a fabricated quote from John Houghton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houghton_(physicist)#Misquotation
You were better off quoting Stephen Schneider.
https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/
Again, the professional liar nicknamed Robertson claims:
” Now, the scientist who is credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that its harmless to a healthy immune system. ”
This is simply disgusting.
Never did Montagnier say such a nonsense.
Robertson is replicating lies produced by contrarian, pseudoscientific virus deniers.
All these people claim also that poliomyelitis and similar diseases are not caused by a virus!
J.-P. D.
bindidon doesn’t know crap about science. He’s just a “camp follower” to whatever the consensus is. He would have supported “flat Earth”, “blood letting”, and witch hunts.
He is filled with hate, and despises anyone speaking against his cult. He’s a good example of what not to be.
test
The planet blackbody effective temperature formula
Te = [ (1 – a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is not capable to provide any realistic planet average temperature approach…
Let’s see why,
Moon’s average distance from the sun
R = 150.000.000 km
or
R = 1 AU (AU is Astronomical Unit, 1AU = 150.000.000 km which is the Earth’s distance from the sun)
In the solar system, for convenience reasons, astronomers use for distances comparison the AU instead of the kilometers
Moon’s satellite measured average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature) Tmoon = 220 K
Mars’ distance from the sun
R = 1,524 AU
Tmars = 210 K
There is the planet blackbody temperature formula, which calculates the planet uniform effective temperature…
It is a theoretical approach to the planet mean surface temperature estimation. It is defined as the temperature planet without atmosphere would have, if planet is considered as a uniformly irradiated blackbody surface. And therefore it is initially assumed a blackbody planet effective temperature being a uniform surface temperature.
The planet blackbody effective temperature formula:
Te = [ (1 – a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
a – is the planet average Albedo (dimensionless)
S – is the solar flux on the planet surface W/m²
So – is the solar flux on Earth. (since Earth has atmosphere with clouds, the So is measured above the clouds at the Top of the Atmosphere, or TOA)
So = 1.361 W/m
S = So*(1/R² ) it is the from the sun distance the square inverse law.
The formula can be written as
Te = [ (1 – a) So*(1/R² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Now, since the formula is a fundamental physics the planet surface average temperature approach, the planets’ effective temperatures should relay accordingly.
So we can write the planet average surface temperature comparison coefficient:
Let’s assume comparing the planet’s 1 and the planet’s 2 effective temperatures Te1and Te2.
Then we shall have:
Te1 /Te2 = [(1 – a1) So*(1/R1² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ / [(1 – a2) So*(1/R2² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
(Te1 /Te2 )⁴ = [(1 – a1) /(1 – a2) ]* [(1/R1² ) /(1/R2² )]
Let’s compare Moon’s and Mars’ satellite measured temperatures
Tmoon = 220 K
Tmars = 210 K
(Tmoon /Tmars)⁴ = (220 /210)⁴ = 1,0476⁴ = 1,2045
Let’s compare Moon’s and Mars’ comparison coefficients
[ (1 – a.moon) /(1 – a.mars) ]* [(1/Rmoon² ) /(1/Rmars² ) ]
[ (1 – 0,11) /(1 – 0,25) ]* [(1/1² ) /(1/1,524² ) ]
( 0,89 /0,75)* (1,524² ) = (0,89 /0,75) * 2,32 = 2,75
Conclusion:
We obtained on the left side of the comparison equation the
1,2045 number (for satellite measured planet average surface temperatures comparison)
and on the right side the
2,75 number (for planets’ coefficients comparison)
Consequently we may conclude here, that the planet blackbody effective temperature formula is not capable to provide any realistic planet average temperature approach…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“CO2isLife says:
May 4, 2021 at 4:32 PM
ET, I replicated this graphic controlling for the UHI and Water Vapor, and guess what? Absolutely no warming. ”
I wonder if you realise the implications of what you are saying?
Physically atmospheric water vapour increases by 7% per 1C warming and its greenhouse effect doubles the warming due to other forcing.
To account for the 1.2C warming since 1880 using UHI and water vapour alone would mean that UHI had a direct warming effect of 0.6C since 1880.
Do you have other data to support your claim?
ET Says: Physically atmospheric water vapour increases by 7% per 1C warming and its greenhouse effect doubles the warming due to other forcing.
To account for the 1.2C warming since 1880 using UHI and water vapour alone would mean that UHI had a direct warming effect of 0.6C since 1880.
Do you have other data to support your claim?
CO2isLife Says: ET, do you not understand the concept of a controlled experiment? Do you not understand what I am doing by selecting data sets that control for the UHI and Water Vapor Effect? The whole reason I choose desert locations is to tease out the effect of the UHI and Water Vapor effect that you reference.
Simply open your mind and think like a real scientists trying to develop an experiment. You clearly identify water vapor and the UHI affect as exogenous factors that need to be accounted for. Well, Deserts, hot and cold, meet that condition. What is the bets on on early? The isolated S Pole. Simply do my experiment, download the data, create monthly charts for the S Pole. You will see that when you remove the seasonal effect, the UHI effect and the Water Vapor Effect, AND YOU WILL FIND NO WARMING. None Nada Zip. Before I kept spreading the fake news, the disinformation about CO2 causing warming, I would first explain why CO2 ISN’T causing warming in the S Pole. DO the laws of physics cease to exist in the S Pole?
The graph I linked showed global average monthly temperatures since 1880.
How did you correct global averages for UHI and water vapour?
ET Says: The graph I linked showed global average monthly temperatures since 1880.
How did you correct global averages for UHI and water vapour?
ET, your question exposes that you don’t even have a basic understanding of scientific experimentation, and now I understand why you don’t grasp the concepts I’ve been posting about. I’m pretty sure now that you have a degree in History, Literature, Journalism, or Art. You certainly don’t have a background in science.
You didn’t answer the question.
You have been cherrypicking individual stations that might match your delusion and trumpeting them as disproving climate change. That is not science.
So,once again, how did you correct the GISS global monthly temperature averages since 1880 to remove the effect of UHI and increasing absolute humidity?
Show your calculations and link to your data so that I can replicate your work. That is how science works.
ET says:
You have been cherrypicking individual stations that might match your delusion and trumpeting them as disproving climate change. That is not science.
———————————-
LMAO! You are correct its not science ET.
Science cannot prove something doesn’t exist. Thus post normal science is essentially the elimination of science in favor of political fiat. . . .widely advocated by extremists of all stripes.
Reversing the burden of proof via politically-determined fiat through the rationalizations for post-normal science is in effect a return to the days prior to the science revolution.
I am fully aware of the real implications of post normal science and it seems as if few have paid any attention.
Disproving the 3rd grade model of backradiation controlling temperatures at the surface is a piece of cake to demonstrate.
And without ‘capable’ backradiation at the surface there is no physical basis for a CO2 controlled greenhouse effect.
There is talk of CO2 super stablizing the lapse rate in order to slow the convective response, but the fact is the only gas known to super stabilize the lapse rate is water vapor.
And when you then factor in that the radiative effect of CO2 is at best about 10% of blackbody radiation and that convection can override blackbody radiation. . . .a guy that is experienced at real world problems of this nature simply has to be skeptical of the hubris of those doing the accounting.
Bill,
You are funny,
The only thing you have to do to verify the greenhouse effect is point an infrared thermometer at the sky.
And no, it doesn’t control the temperatures at the surface, it’s one of several inputs that determine the surface temperature.
You look at the whole picture, if you want be competent.
So far, you are not doing so well.
Exactly bob. The GHE hypothesis can be falsified by point a working IR thermometer at the sky and observation 0 W/m^2 or 3K (CMB temperature) on the display. Has anyone ever been able to falsify the GHE in this manner. NO!
thats ridiculous bdgwx.
reversing the burden of proof isn’t science its politics.
Yes there is a ghe! But beyond that it doesn’t appear anybody is willing to even entertain alternative theories as they are as difficult to prove as any. Only difference is everybody else can’t use reversal of burden of proof because its a political issue thats not going to go away. and the institutional kingmakers are resistant to funding much at all thats a threat to the goose.
brave scientists, standing up for science, have to remain quiet, carefully speak the correct way, play homage to the king and hopefully get a job to support the political windfall machine that ends up showing the truth. Then to get published you must put in caveats all over the place that the findings aren’t a threat to the King with no clothes.
> it doesnt appear anybody is willing to even entertain alternative theories
Are there any that satisfies your inner High Expectation Auditor, Bill?
bill said: thats ridiculous bdgwx.
Are you are challenging the idea that we can falsify that GHE hypothesis by pointing an IR instrument toward the sky and observing no backscatter? Or are you challenging the idea that an instrument can give us a reading with enough precision and accuracy that we can draw conclusions?
What hypothesis are you referring to? I didn’t read the context and I plan to skip discussions about no atmosphere or no IR absorbing gas atmospheres which are useless for understanding the effect of any more CO2. Does anyone doubt the atmosphere makes for a warmer planet?
I keep asking about that sensitivity problem, precisely for the reason that I don’t think it is falsifiable. How do you do that experiment?
The hypothesis is that the GHE creates IR backscatter directed towards the surface. Even a cheap IR thermometer pointed upwards will report a temperature.
Is there anyone at this blog who doesn’t know that? I would have thought this trivial a point would be beneath you. So many other important questions to answer.
bdgwx says:
bill said: thats ridiculous bdgwx.
Are you are challenging the idea that we can falsify that GHE hypothesis by pointing an IR instrument toward the sky and observing no backscatter? Or are you challenging the idea that an instrument can give us a reading with enough precision and accuracy that we can draw conclusions?
———————————-
No I am merely saying nothing is proven until something is proven.
You want me to prove there is no greenhouse effect when I agree there is a greenhouse effect.
The issue isn’t if there is a greenhouse effect the issue is whether CO2 is responsible for the greenhouse effect.
Nobody has proven it is and it is unscientific to proclaim it by default without proof and then suggest I should falsify that CO2 is the cause of the greenhouse effect.
You are a smart guy bdgwx. How much money do you make promoting co2 as the master of climate here?
> I am merely saying nothing is proven until something is proven.
I too would applaud proofs in empirical sciences if they ever exist.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Since “The Effect(s)” is(are) not falsifiable, I propose we rename it(them) and propose, cite, and/or carry out experiments that address “The Effect(s).” Greenhouse analogies lend credence to misunderstanding in general and specifically to a multitude of useless discussions at drroyspencer.com and elsewhere.
Here’s a quick n’ dirty guide to falsifying AGW:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/a-quick-n-dirty-guide-to-falsifying-agw/
You’re 10 years late, Chic.
E,
John Tyndall, over 150 years ago –
“In Sahara, where ‘the soil is fire and the wind is flame,’ the cold at night is often painful to bear. In short, it may be safely predicted, that wherever the air is dry, the daily thermometric range will be great.”
Less GHG (H2O) in the air, the hotter during the day, the colder at night.
And, of course, the higher you go, the less GHG there is, and the hotter it gets during the day –
“From a multitude of desultory observations I conclude that, at 7,400 feet, 125.7°, or 67° above the temperature of the air, is the average effect of the sun’s rays on a black bulb thermometer. . . . ” – Hooke, quoted by Tyndall.
The GHE fantasy does not seem to be borne out by observation, nor theory.
No GHE from H2O. The hottest places on Earth are also the driest. As are the coldest.
Sorry about that. Only joking, of course.
Barry Says: CO2isLife.
It wasn’t just me, nor was I the first to point out to you that the UAH global temperature data is seasonally adjusted.
But you haven’t learned the next lesson, which is that global temperature is affected by many things on different time scales, and the reason we see the quick up and downs month to month is because of these factors.
CO2Life Says, Barry you have to have been living under a rock to believe that I don’t understand that other factors affect temperature. That has been my whole point, and exactly why I have been developing ways to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. This blog is full of “experts” discussing the exogenous factors that ARE NOT accounted for in the models as demonstrated by the inability of models to model temperatures accurately. What you learn is that this “science” consists of “experts” that erroneously attribute warming due to exogenous factors to CO2. It is a completely fraudulent “science.” Simply read the posts on this blog. No one even tries to explain how the Oceans are warming at a depth of 50 m due to CO2. Clearly the oceans are warming, clearly extra energy is being added to the system, and yet everyone just ignores this fact and claims CO2 is the cause. I’ve said this millions of times, CO2 and LWIR beweteen 13 and 18µ. If you can’t explain how CO2 is warming the oceans at a depth of 50m, then you can’t even start to explain climate change.
Climate Science is like a Dietitian claiming that you can gain weight by only drinking water. The data they collect is water intake and weight. Of course the patient goes to McDOnalds 3 times a day, but the Dietitian just ignores that fact, and only measures the water intake. The dietitican doesn’t report about the trips to McDOnalds, only the water intake. That is climate science. They only report what they want the voting public to know because if helps their cause.
I’ve done 3 experiments, all of them isolate the effect of CO2 on temperature.
1) I’ve identified over 500 stations, some with records going back to 1880, that are selected to control for the UHI and Water Vapor, and all show no uptrend in warming.
2) I’ve run controlled experiments of water being radiated by IR Radiation, and the water does not show any warming when IR is applied.
3) Thanks to you pointing out that the data is controlled for the season, I immediately identified the S Pole Data as a data set that would certainly show no warming. I knew this because the S Pole is the ideal control for the UHI and Water Vapor. Sure enough, I created graphs of each month going back to 1979 for the S Pole and you can check it yourself, there is no warming in any of the months. None Nada Zip.
How can CO2 increase by over 30% and Antarctica experience no warming? No one can answer that. Why didn’t climate scientists already run the experiments that I’ve detailed that debunk CO2 causing warming? They don’t want to. Once again, I don’t have a Ph.D in Nonsense or Climate Science, so how can a non Expert so easily identify data sets that should show no warming? These flaws in this “science” are so obvious a non-expert like me can easily fine them. That pretty much proves there is no “science” backing this nonsense, and the people that know the truth work to hide it instead of publish it.
Problem is, everyone can download the data and run the experiment I detailed above, so at least they will know the truth. You can keep fighting to hide and obfuscate the truth.
“How can CO2 increase by over 30% and Antarctica experience no warming?”
Antarctica HAS warmed, just less than the rest of the globe.
While it’s pat to say that this is a result of the largest ice cube in the world keeping temps depressed, it’s more complicated, as atmospheric gases besides CO2 have had significant changes over that region (ie CFCs, ozone).
UAH6.0 has Antarctica (the land mass) warming at 0.09 C/decade since 1979.
But if you want to find cooling somewhere on a large regional scale, UAH has the Southern Ocean cooling at -0.01 C/decade (from the edge of Antarctica to the 60th latitude South).
Studies of temps going a bit further back also show warming since 1952 in Antarctica, but there is strong regional variation. Most of that warming has occurred over the Antarctic Peninsula.
CO2islife
I’ve answered your questions and corrected your misconceptions repeatedly, yet you keep on spouting the same bullshit.
There is old advice that you have one month and two ears. You should therefore spend twice as much time listening as talking.
You might learn something.
ET, you have never explained by CO2 doesn’t cause warming in the S Pole. If you did, you would have to admit that the AGW Theory is pure fraud. Is that what you are admitting?
Nothing to explain. The South Pole is warming.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/record-warming-at-the-south-pole/#:
ET, your sources are once again, making my point.
“By contrast, the South Pole located in the remote and high-altitude continental interior cooled until the 1980s, but has since warmed substantially. These trends are affected by natural and anthropogenic climate change, but the individual contribution of each factor is not well understood and challenging to precisely determine.”
“Antarctic interior during the last 30 years was chiefly driven by the tropics, especially warm ocean temperatures in the western tropical Pacific Ocean,”
“A team of scientists analysed weather station data,“
CO2isLife, why do you keep acting surprised that climate scientists recognize that other factors besides greenhouse warming are also in play?
This is particularly so when you scale down regionally to locally, which is well-known, much discussed in the literature, and features in each IPCC report.
Do you base your entire understanding of mainstream climate science on the most alarmist NEWS articles you can find?
This is from the original abstract.
” Over the last three decades, the South Pole has experienced a record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61 0.34 C per decade, more than three times the global average. ”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z
More relevant is how much more will Antarctic need to warm before the ice starts to melt?
IIRC the East Antarctic is holding it’s own, while the West Antarctic already has a negative mass balance.
ET, your referenced article simply isn’t supported by the data. I told you how to verify that article. Simply look at the data. Climate Scientists will simply write what they want to make their case. Simply look at the data provided above. The numbers don’t lie.
BTW, my bet is that Nature Article, which I haven’t read yet, will reference stations near the ocean and are picking up what warming of the oceans, and that isn’t due to CO2.
Imagine that, I just read ET’s article and guess what? It totally supports my prediction. Here is a quote:
“The warming resulted from a strong cyclonic anomaly in the Weddell Sea caused by increasing sea surface temperatures in the western tropical Pacific.”
ET, please tell me how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ’ warmed that water. If you can’t explain how CO2 warmed the water, you can’t blame CO2 for the warming of the Antarctic. Once again, you are proving you have absolutely no scientific background.
Your article then goes on to explain that the interior HASN’T experienced warming, but somehow that too is due to CO2.
“Further, this study shows that atmospheric internal variability can induce extreme regional climate change over the Antarctic interior, which has masked any anthropogenic warming signal there during the twenty-first century.”
ET, if you understood the article you chose, you would understand that it supports my position, not yours. Thanks for proving my point…again.
CO2IsLife
” Simply look at the data. ”
About 50 stations, with only a few of them inland?
Hmmmh.
*
” BTW, my bet is that Nature Article,
which I havent read yet
will reference stations near the ocean and are picking up what warming of the oceans, and that isnt due to CO2. ”
Yeah. You didn’t even take care to read its abstract.
They did exactly the contrary, CO2IsLife.
What you think they did, in fact would look like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YF52I9Thi2KaKGKs4sPXKUBnQiS9CdPN/view
You see the blue line? That, CO2IsLife, is the average of all Antarctic station data available in the GHCN daily data set; nearly all are located at the coast…
J.-P. D.
Once again, this website has all the evidence needed to complete debunk the AGW Theory. Simply create the monthly graphs of the S Pole. If anyone has connections over at WUWT, please send them a message to do an article on this evidence.
I suppose that you are referring to the UAH LT time series. Please note that the data stops at 82.5S, thus does not include the South Pole. Also recall that the high elevations of the Antarctic distort the data, which is the reason given by RSS for excluding data poleward of 70S. Also, consider the effects of the Ozone Hole, given that ozone is another Greenhouse gas. Besides, playing with data isn’t an “experiment”
Yes, you are indeed a “non Expert”.
E Swanson Says: I suppose that you are referring to the UAH LT time series. Please note that the data stops at 82.5S, …Yes, you are indeed a non Expert.
What difference does it make? I’ve identified a data set covering a huge amount of the earth AND IT SHOWS NO WARMING. Please explain how that happens? Why does CO2 warm some areas and not others? DO the laws of physics cease to exist in some areas? Please “Expert” answer that simple question.
CO2IsLife
When will you be willing to get really informed about what you only manage to guess?
I’m not a great fan of this lay(wo)man-based CO2 discussion, simply because the effects of CO2 are by far too complex for us.
But… at least I understand that if there is ONE place on Earth where we can’t say ‘CO2 behaves equally everywhere’, then that is… THE ANTARCTIC.
The very first reason is that it is, on average, so cold there at the surface that the atmosphere is, in comparison, warmer.
This can’t be without consequences.
What about learning a bit?
Antarctic Specific Features of the Greenhouse Effect:
A Radiative Analysis Using Measurements and Models
Holger Schmithüsen
https://epic.awi.de/37121/2/Dissertation_Schmithuesen.pdf
*
While the reemission of intercepted IR normally happens at places colder than the surface and therefore reduces the radiant energy leaving Earth, the inverse happens over the Antarctic (and, to a lower extent, also in Northeastern Siberia).
*
As long as you keep on your trivial ‘500 stations with no warming’, you will make no progress.
And whining all the time and calling ‘ Dr Spencer! Dr Spencer!! Dr Spencer!!! ‘ won’t help you much more.
J.-P. D.
“CO2IsLife
When will you be willing to get really informed about what you only manage to guess?
Im not a great fan of this lay(wo)man-based CO2 discussion, simply because the effects of CO2 are by far too complex for us.”
How much more informed do I need to be when I can state a hypothesis in advance, identify a data set, and that data sets proves my point 100%. None of the “experts” can do that. They keep klinging to models that fail at every level. I have the data on my side, and the models I detail explain the observations. None, and I mean none of the experts can make that claim. I point to undeniable data, you point to failed models. Who has the better case?
“Antarctic Specific Features of the Greenhouse Effect:
A Radiative Analysis Using Measurements and Models
Holger Schmithsen
https://epic.awi.de/37121/2/Dissertation_Schmithuesen.pdf”
You can find thousands of Climate Scients that all say the same thing, and they are all wrong. The Data trumps the expert opinion. This is science, not politics.
Anyway, everything is based on the GHG Effect. We all agree the oceans are warming. How does the GHG Effect warm the oceans? Please explain that one. If you can’t explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans, you can’t blame the GHG Effect for warming.
CO2IsLife
Instead of arrogantly claiming
” You can find thousands of Climate Scients that all say the same thing, and they are all wrong. ”
You should better dead the dissertation I linked to.
Because your idea
” If you can’t explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans, you can’t blame the GHG Effect for warming. ”
simply is so incredibly trivial that it would make even the WUWT crowd get a big laugh.
Why don’t you want to learn?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, when you graduate to a more advanced keyboard class, you will be taught to have a point before you start typing.
Hopefully….
You know I’m over the target because of all the Flack I’m getting. Once again, data on this website prove that when you control for seasoality, the UHI and Water Vapor you get absolute no, none, nada, zip warming due to CO2. Once again, you aren’t arguing with me any more, you are arguing against undeniable data. No matter how many corrupt scientists publish articles claiming otherwise, I have the undeniable data than anyone can verify.
Some please send WUWT an message asking them to do an article on the experiment I detailed.
I’m still waiting on the answer as to how CO2 warms water 50 m below the surface. I’m also waiting on the answer to “do the laws of quantum physics cease to exist in the S Pole?”
” Some please send WUWT an message asking them to do an article on the experiment I detailed. ”
Why don’t you do that yourself?
Are you so afraid of embarrassing yourself?
“Why don’t you do that yourself?”
I’m not a climate science and would have no credibility. I’m also not experienced in writing climate articles. I’m sure Anthony Watts would be far better at writing an article and has far better and more experienced people than me that he could ask to look into my claims.
Willis isn’t a climate scientist and he publishes a lot on WUWT in the same vane as what you have done. But you need to write it up in a form that can be reviewed. Write it up and post it here. We’ll peer review it for you.
If you can’t inspire someone else to do it, like Bindidon wrote “Why don’t you do that yourself?”
CO2Liver, Your repeated claims have no merit. for example, the ocean surface layer is rather well mixed by wind forcing, which is the reason one sees a warm layer on top of the very cold deep waters. throwing up graphs which you cherry picked without the context says nothing, for example, your post of a graph showing a snap shot of the tropical Pacific temperature anomaly profile. The shifting of the anomaly across the Pacific is the result of the ENSO cycle in the atmosphere, AIUI. The surface temperatures change from month to month, as seen in THIS GRAPH.
CO2Liver, Your repeated claims have no merit. for example, the ocean surface layer is rather well mixed by wind forcing, which is the reason one sees a warm layer on top of the very cold deep waters.
Really? it mixes to 50 meters? Wind is mixing down 50 m? Over 1/2 a football field?
Doubt it.
Anyway, prove to me LWIR warms water. Just prove it. Dr. Spencer demonstrated a possible slowing of cooling using the entire spectrum, but not warming due to LWIR between 13 and 18µ.
CO2Lifer, Regarding Mixing, look up Ekman Pumping.
Water is a good absorber of IR radiation, including both that from water vapor and CO2. As a result, the LWIR does not penetrate very deeply, unlike water in the open ocean.
Swanson,
As someone who has submerged and worked underwater in the Atlantic, I can tell you it isn’t well-mixed. The ocean is made up of thermal layers that don’t readily mix. That’s why submarines are so difficult to find with sonar from the surface. The active sonar bounces off the thermal layers. At 50m you are pretty much hidden from the surface due to the barrier caused by the thermal gradient.
SP Anderson, the CO2Lifer posted THIS GRAPH a couple of days ago. In the Atlanta around the tropics, above the thermocline, the ocean looks rather warm. Things are colder at higher latitudes. Perhaps that was where you were stationed…
And sometimes in some places you have to rig for deep submergence to get below the thermocline.
Tailed a Victor for 30 days that way, back in the day.
Though all I did was sleep, make water, and play cards.
A month with no field days.
We usually ran from the Victors or waved at them when we went by.
Swanson you need to sharpen your pencil a lot on thermoclines and how they mix.
First only the top layer well less than 30 meters is wind and tide mixed. To get to 30 meters you need hurricane force winds that will generate 15 meter swells. Typically 7 meter swells occur due to winds several times a year. Larger ones are sporatic and don’t occur annually everywhere.
Deeper mixing solar where heating is more at the surface than deep so no mixing in the summer. Winter the surface is cooling promoting convection but a typical winter only does part of the job. As can be seen in the following graph.
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/7/2019/05/figure6.2.5a.png
So the thermocline is believed to take about 10 years for solar absorbed warmth to be felt at the surface at near entirety levels and radiate away. any thing backscatter can
do is instantly carried away.
CO2isLife was asking for evidence that that wasn’t true and you answered by explaining how deep absorbed solar mixes in the zone that does not extend to the depth of the question. Hang in there Swanson you will eventually learn that there are a lot of significant uncertainties.
B Hunter, CO2Lifer made a claim based on THIS GRAPH posted on May 1, claiming that:
The basis of this claim is the lower graph, which displays the anomaly data for a narrow band in the tropical Pacific. that data is usually associated with the El Nino/ENSO cycle, it’s not a long term warming trend.
You replied with THIS COMMENT, writing:
.
As I recall, I was pointing out that his referenced graph had nothing to do with CO2 warming, either for or against.
For CO2islife
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/
MH, where did you get your troll training?
You never showed up here before UAH temps started dropping.
Why are you here now?
March is cool, Clint, and this ain’t no Sky Dragon blog.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not to disagree with Dr. Spencer, but CO2 only radiates 13 to 18µ LWIR. If he were to use his IR Camera on a CO2 gas cell, it would show -80C°, not 7F°. You can verify that at Spectral Calc.
His experiment didn’t show any warming, it showed a differential in cooling, and the water was exposed to the entire IR spectrum, most of which has nothing to do with CO2.
I’ve run a similar experiment where I used 2 1,000 Lumen Lamps and a long pass filter. I recorded no warming at all. I have since gone out and purchased 2 IR Lamps and will soon re-run the experiment. I’ll post the results.
As far as Desert Rock, there has been no warming there since the start of the record, or at nearby Death Valley.
Mercury Desert Rock Ap (36.6206N, 116.0278W) ID:USW00003160
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USW00003160&ds=14&dt=1
Death Valley (36.4622N, 116.8669W) ID:USC00042319
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1
More importantly, Dr. Spencer’s own data, the S Pole Data shows no warming at all, none, nada, zip. Until someone can explain why CO2 has increased 30% and caused no warming in the S Pole, there isn’t much evidence CO2 causes warming.
CO2isLife
I might agree with your assessment that Death Valley does not seem to show warming but I would not agree that Desert Rock shows no warming. I am not sure how you determine a nonwarming signal in the data.
With your experiment it really is more complex.
Water does not absorb IR well in the Near IR range so it depends upon the lamp you are using. You may be removing most of the energy from the lamp with the filter or the energy that does reach the water is not in the correct bands.
CO2isLife
Wavelengths absorbed by water
https://tinyurl.com/334e6ssw
Different types of IR heat lamp emission wavelengths
https://tinyurl.com/3fp2unpc
IR heating can be very precise based upon what bands are primarily emitted by the source.
https://tinyurl.com/2esr3aae
Norman, yes, that is true. CO2 emits and water absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR, and that wavelength is consistent with a black body of temperatures -80C°. You don’t warm water with energy consistent with -80C°. In fact Ice emits IR of a shorter wavelength than CO2. In other words, if 13 to 18µ could warm water, Ice would melt itself.
CO2isLife,
13-18 um is consistent with ALL black body temperatures.
13-18 um band radiance is higher for black bodies at higher temperatures.
CO2isLife said: You can verify that at Spectral Calc.
I think I will.
BB @ 193K has a 13-18 um band radiance of 5.35 W/m2.sr.
BB @ 259K has a 13-18 um band radiance of 18.98 W/m2.sr.
bdgwx, that is an interesting way to look at it:
Band Radiance: 31.8612 W/m2/sr
Change that to 10µ, which is the earth.
Band Radiance: 107.868 W/m2/sr
Problem is, H2O and CO2 both absorb those wavelengths, and it is a fraction of what the earth normally amits.
Change the settings to:
15µ
Upper 18µ
Lower 13µ
Temp – -80C°
You will see that at -80C° you get a peak of 15µ
That is the true energy of CO2 and 13 to 18µ
If those wavelengths could warm water, ice would melt itself. Change the settings to 0C° and you sell see that ice emits 10.5µ far higher energy than CO2.
Band Radiance: 29.677 W/m2/sr for Ice vs Band Radiance: 23.0652 W/m2/sr for CO2.
Ice would melt itself if 13 to 18µ could warm water.
CO2isLife said: Change that to 10, which is the earth.
This Earth isn’t at 10 um. The Earth is at 288K which is where 10 um has the highest spectral irradiance. The Earth emits in ALL wavelengths, but 95% of the total emittance is between 4-45 um.
CO2isLife said: You will see that at -80C you get a peak of 15
-80C (193K) is the BB temperature at which 15 um becomes the wavelength with the highest spectral irradiance. That does not mean it is the only temperature at which 15 um is emitted. In fact, the spectral irradiance at 15 um is higher at higher temperatures. At 0C body emits more 15 um photons than a -80C body.
CO2isLife said: That is the true energy of CO2 and 13 to 18
No. The true energy of the 13-18 um band is represented by the integration of the spectral irradiance of that band. It depends on the temperature of the body. A body with a higher temperature has a higher band radiance. CO2 at -80C has a band radiance of 5.35 W/m2.sr while at 7F it is 18.98 W/m2.sr.
CO2isLife said: Band Radiance: 29.677 W/m2/sr for Ice vs Band Radiance: 23.0652 W/m2/sr for CO2.
You’re still confused. Band radiance is dependent on the temperature. Both ice and CO2 can be at arbitrary temperatures. Ice is not always at 0C nor is CO2 always at -80C. And I’m not sure how you got the 29.677 and 23.0652 figures above.
CO2isLife said: Ice would melt itself if 13 to 18 could warm water.
There is clearly something wrong with your understanding of the physics because an increase in 13-18 um like any IR band increase does, in fact, lead to higher water temperatures. If you turn off the IR lamps from restaurants and cafeterias the food will be cooler than if the lamps were on. This experiment is repeated countless times every single day.
CO2isLife
Carbon Dioxide actually has a wider emission than just between 13 and 18 microns. It also emits at 3 and 4-5 bands. The total emission will be about 20% of what a blackbody emits.
https://ozcoasts.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/oze_fs_009_04.gif
Here is the emissivity of CO2 (the graph lines are based upon path length and CO2 concentration). At full concentration CO2 has an emissivity of 0.2 at cooler temperatures.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
The -80 C only indicates the peak emission wavelength of a spectrum for a blackbody. It does NOT indicate how much energy CO2 can emit.
The variable that determines how much energy CO2 emits is based upon it emissivity (based upon concentration and path length) and temperature.
Saturated CO2 gas at 300 K will emit 91.85 W/m^2
This is comparable to a blackbody at 200 K
But if you had hot CO2 like at 600 K (620 F) it would radiate 1469 W/m^2 which would be the same rate as a blackbody at 401 K (262 F). CO2 will emit energy based upon its temperature so you are not correct to say it would only emit at the rate of a blackbody at -80 C (if that is what you are implying).
Also, the lower energy DWIR does not heat the ocean surface. It reduces the rate the water loses energy. With no GHE the water could lose 450 W/m^2, with GHE it would lose a NET of only 110 W/m^2. Now the solar input of 24 hours can warm the water to a higher temperature.
Norman Says: CO2isLife
Carbon Dioxide actually has a wider emission than just between 13 and 18 microns. It also emits at 3 and 4-5 bands. The total emission will be about 20% of what a blackbody emits.
Yes, I am aware of that, but the Earth doesn’t radiate 2.7 and 4.3µ LWIR, except over volcanoes and fires. There just isn’t much 2.7 and 4.3µ LWIR for CO2 to absorb. The earth emits close to 10µ, far away from 2.7 and 4.3µ.
CO2isLife said: but the Earth doesnt radiate 2.7 and 4.3 LWIR, except over volcanoes and fires
Patently False. All of Earth radiates at 2.7 and 4.3 um. It’s just that neither of these channels have the highest spectral irradiance at the majority of locations.
CO2isLife said: There just isnt much 2.7 and 4.3 LWIR for CO2 to absorb.
Now that is a true statement. At 288K the spectral radiance at 4.3 um is 0.729 W/m2.sr.um. For 15 um it is 5.819 W/m2.sr.um. There is over 20x more energy from terrestrial radiation near 15 um than 4.3 um that CO2 can capture. So while 4.3 um is very relevant for CO2 NDIR sensors it can be mostly ignored when quantifying its GHE.
CO2isLife said: The earth emits close to 10, far away from 2.7 and 4.3.
Be careful with phrasing here. Everything emits 10 um. The warmer the body the more 10 um radiation there is. The Earth emits at all frequencies; not just 10 um. It’s just that 10 um happens to be the frequency with the highest spectral radiance relative to the other frequencies at 288K. Bodies less than 288K emit less 10 um while bodies higher than 288K emit more 10 um.
Based on context I think you are erroneously thinking that 288K is the temperature which has the highest amount of energy at 10 um which isn’t the case at all. For example, a 300K body emits more energy at 10 um than a 288K body even the peak frequency has shifted to a lower frequency.
https://youtu.be/tj0LRVTylZs
CO2isLife
You are clearly struggling with the concept that you can warm a fluid by reducing its rate of heat loss.
Consider the analogy of a bank account. You can increase your bank balance by decreasing your spending.
You earn $1000 a month and spend $1000 a month. At the end of each month your bank balance is constant.
Now you change your lifestyle. You earn $1000 a month and spend $999 a month. Your bank balance increases by $1 a month.
Ent, you are clearly struggling to understand that flux does NOT insulate.
Norman is famous for finding links he can’t understand, but above he reported:
Saturated CO2 gas at 300 K will emit 91.85 W/m^2. This is comparable to a blackbody at 200 K.
If you assume Norman got it right, a black body at 200 K is NOT going to stop the ocean from cooling. An ice cube emits 300 W/m^2. You actually believe you can warm the oceans, or slow the cooling with a third the flux and ice cube emits?
ET Says: CO2isLife
You are clearly struggling with the concept that you can warm a fluid by reducing its rate of heat loss.
I’m fully aware of that concept. That also assumes that when things cool, they don’t cool below the level set the previous day. The seasons pretty much ensure that happens. That is why I’m always pointing out when temperatures reach levels below previous lows. All the accumulated energy you claim to be getting stored has been lost.
Also, I’ve pointed out millions of times, CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didn’t boil.
Lastly, CO2 only radiates 13 to 18µ, so even if IR does warm water or slow its cooling, it is unlikely it is due to CO2.
CO2isLife
“All the accumulated energy you claim to be getting stored has been lost. ”
That turns out not to be the case. You are thinking too short term. Over hours, days years the surface temperature varies. In the long term the ocean heat content shows an ongoing upward trend as, on average, heat is lost more slowly than it is taken up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File%3AHeat_content55-07.png
“CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didnt boil.”
I discussed this with Gordon Robertson upthread.
” In electronics you describe positive feedback using the closed loop gain function.
A = a/1-af
This is open ended and describes unlimited amplification. Applying the closed loop gain function to global warming may explain why some sceptics look for a runaway greenhouse effect.
In the context of climate change unlimited amplification is impossible because limiting factors kick in and resist unlimited amplification.
A more appropriate equation is the sigmoid function
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
or the Gompertz function.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function ”
“Lastly, CO2 only radiates 13 to 18, so even if IR does warm water or slow its cooling, it is unlikely it is due to CO2.”
Look at this DWLR spectrum taken from the Winsconcin monitoring station. Being a wavenumber spectrum,the area under the curves represents total energy. Where is most of the area, and hence most of the DWLR? In the CO2 band.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
CO2isLife”
CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didnt boil.
Further to this discussion.
Using the temperature form of the CO2 forcing equation you can calculate how much warmer a 7000ppm CO2 atmosphere would be.
5.35ln(7000/280) = 14.0C
Actual Preindustrial global average was 13.8C with 280ppm.That becomes 27.8C with 7000ppm.
In practice, 27.8C is probably an overestimate because the Sun was dimmer then.
Oops.
5.35ln(7000/280)3/3.7 = 14C
CO2isLife said: Also, Ive pointed out millions of times, CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didnt boil.
That was 600 MYA. Solar RF was -12.0 W/m^2 relative to today. CO2 RF was +15 W/m^2 relative to today. That is a net of only +3 W/m^2. Of course, there are many other factors besides solar and CO2 that must be considered.
bdgwx, that is pretty easy to prove. Place a bucked to water in pure CO2 atmosphere and shine a daylight temp lightbulb on it. 0.00% chance the water boils. 0.00%. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Every highschool in the world would run that experiment if it works. Simply look at the experiment ALarmists aren’t running to get to the truth. Their selectivity proves they know this is a fraud.
What does that have to do with the RF 600 MYA ago?
Entropic,
I think a better banking analogy related to the rate something cools is you have $500 in the bank and add $1000 in earnings at the beginning of the month. You spend $1100 that month resulting in a $400 end of month balance. By reducing spending to $1050, you could have $450 at the end of the month.
I think many people struggle with the semantics that your bank balance is higher. Clearly, $450 is lower than $500, and thus lowering your spending did not increase your ending month balance. But it is higher than if you spent $1100.
This could be analogous to a clear sky night vs. partly cloudy temperature wise. Unless a warm air mass move in at night, temperatures always decrease from the daytime high. Always! It is theoretically impossible for the earth to increase night time temperature without adding an energy source. Warm air mass/massive volcanic eruption are possibilities. But at night, DWIR originates from the surface, since slightly more IR leaves Earth then receives there is always net cooling barring a different energy source.
Earth example: Day time temperatures shoot up 10c degrees (earnings) to 15c degrees from the 5c degrees beginning day temperature . On a cloudless night it cools to 4.5c. (9.75C average). Partly cloudy it cools to 4.8 (9.9C average). Fully cloudy it cools to 6C (10.5C average). This last scenario shows a higher beginning temperature.
The Earth is usually in balance near the terminus of day/night. On average, day and night sides are typically out of balance. Though clouds can put the surface temperature in balance day or night. All over the world some places are increasing their temperatures and some places are decreasing their temperatures (seasons).
The overall net may be positive (global warming) or negative (global cooling). Using Dr. Spencer’s running average data, there have been 14 global warming periods and 14 global cooling periods. We are currently below the 30 year average but above the 1979 (starting point).
With multiple cyclic processes involved that impact global average temperature, linear temperature analysis is only as good as the largest cycle. Unfortunately, we will not live that long to see (or fortunately). Thus, in my opinion, the linear trend since 1979 is not very useful.
Yeah. That is a really good way of looking at it. And I’ve used that analogy with a bank account that has inflow (deposits) and outflow (withdrawal) of money before myself both to describe energy content in a body and mass content in a body.
BTW…the banking analogy works really well in explaining the nuances of the carbon cycle as well. Consider your balance is $280 all in $1 bills. You receive 100×1$ bills each year and you spend 100x$1 each year. Your balance remains at $280. But then one year you get an extra $120 worth of $1 bills from grandma. Your balance is now $400. However, due to the outflow of 100x$1 the stock of the original bills grandma gave you begins depleting. After 4 years and 8 years only 11% and 4% respectively of the 400 bills have grandma’s fingerprints on them. But grandma is still the cause of 30% of the $400 value and 100% of the value increase from $280 to $400. If grandma hadn’t been generous you’d still only have $280.
In a similar manner only about 4% of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere have human fingerprints. But humans are still the cause of 30% of the 400 ppm and 100% of the increase from 280 to 400 ppm. The contrarians will say…yeah, but the carbon cycle is more complicated than the banking analogy. And I agree. It is. But if you cannot understand the fundamental concept that the banking analogy is trying to communicating then there is no way you will understand the vastly more complex carbon cycle.
–bdgwx says:
May 6, 2021 at 10:33 AM
BTW…the banking analogy works really well in explaining the nuances of the carbon cycle as well.–
Yeah, and one thing to note is rather look at increase in
CO2 levels is increasing amounts Earth is removing CO2 from Atmosphere.
Or if making CO2 is money, Earth making more money and is spending more money.
And related is CAGW idea, that Earth will at some point stop spending as much money. That’s the doom.
But like typical US consumers, Earth might be getting more in debt with more money it makes. Rather than “get tired” of spending more money.
This might seem crazy, but Earth at moment is CO2 poor, and has been poor for tens of million of years. Earth used to have fat bank account of CO2 and then it become poor.
Or I think Earth ‘knows” how to spend money- if it’s got money to spend.
In terms global temperature, the bank account way of looking at it, is what I call illusion of warmth.
I would start with obvious that 15 C is not warm.
Second, we measure daytime high temperature. That sort like counting what in bank account by peak amount money it has, per day.
Third, global temperature of 15 C, is caused by having 40% of earth’s surface having a high uniform daily temperature.
The tropics has always been warm, and 60% of rest of world could freezing it’s butt off, but averaged with tropics, it seems warmer. And land and ocean difference, average ocean {which includes very warm tropical ocean surface temperature} is 17 C and average land is 10 C.
[[Or if live on the ocean, we would be warmer, but we don’t.
{and I think we should live on the ocean {and be warmer, then we actually are- particularly ocean water closer or at the tropics- or living in Gulf Mexico, is “artificial” tropical island paradises, but even off the coast of New York State could be warmer. So let’s have low income housing and with living on a beach]]
gbaikie said: CO2 levels is increasing amounts Earth is removing CO2 from Atmosphere. Or if making CO2 is money, Earth making more money and is spending more money.
Yeah. That’s right.
gbaikie said: And related is CAGW idea, that Earth will at some point stop spending as much money. That’s the doom.
I’m not sure what CAGW is. But that is an AGW idea as well based partially on Henry’s Law and the fact that biomass cannot increase forever. I don’t see any doom here though.
gbaikie said: This might seem crazy, but Earth at moment is CO2 poor, and has been poor for tens of million of years. Earth used to have fat bank account of CO2 and then it become poor.
Yeah. This partly explains why there has a long term secular decline in temperatures over million year timescales even though the Sun has become more luminous. CO2 is an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem.
gbaikie said: In terms global temperature, the bank account way of looking at it, is what I call illusion of warmth.
Warmth is relative just like the perceived value of the bank account. Some might think you’re rich while others think your poor. Both concepts are anchored to how the beholder perceives them. But at the very least everyone an agree that $400 is more than $280 and 15C is higher than 14C so at least we have that to work from.
Billy Bob
This comment sounds good to me, from start till end.
” Thus, in my opinion, the linear trend since 1979 is not very useful. ”
Linear trends mostly aren’t.
That is the reason why I don’t show them when posting graphs: over the satellite era, for example, a 36 month running mean tells us way more than a linear estimate, especially when you compare different time series.
J.-P. D.
The major parameters show quadratic fits as their rates of change are accelerating over time.
Sea level
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
CO2
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Temperature
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
I would have to agree with Bindidon on using 36 month running mean is useful. Entropic, as far as quadratic, maybe useful in short term as well. My point, however, sediment cores show a different picture longer term. Cycle length has increased to 100,000 years and global temperatures now fall in a larger range albeit lower than 3M years ago.
But I do not doubt that if we had accurate data 100,000 years ago for a 100 year period that you could find similar quadratic fits (positive or negative) for these parameters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
barry
I didn’t see Anderson’s brazen reaction to your comment on polar sea ice.
Typical Pavlovian reflex of a person manifestly much more interested in political polemic than in simply looking at numbers.
*
Here they are, top 10 for each pole (NSID-C at colorado.edu, Mkm^2), averaged out of their monthly data.
Arctic
2016 10.16
2020 10.18
2019 10.21
2018 10.35
2017 10.40
2012 10.42
2007 10.50
2011 10.51
2015 10.59
2010 10.73
Antarctic
2017 10.70
2019 10.78
2018 10.89
1986 11.04
2002 11.18
2016 11.18
1980 11.21
1997 11.34
1983 11.34
1990 11.37
I’m more interested in the sum of the polar areas:
2019 20.99
2017 21.10
2018 21.24
2016 21.34
2020 21.69
2011 21.96
2007 22.14
2006 22.21
2012 22.40
2002 22.56
The sum shows the influence of the Arctic: while e.g. 2012 belongs to the best Antarctic sea ice years (position 36 of 42 in the sort), in the sum it moves up to position 9.
*
That’s all, no need for any polemic, let alone for me correcting you!
*
Yearly averages are always better: they help in avoiding the
‘ Woaah! Look at the 2012 melting! ‘
Most alarmists namely don’t even know that in the same year, the ice rebuild during the winter was excellent, what is best shown when superposing the years (here the HadISST1 ice data for the Arctic, with 2012 in red):
https://tinyurl.com/f47t9uc5
*
This brings me back to OWilson’s comment above:
” Fortunately we have benchmark satellite data now and can track the daily average temperature and ice data with more accuracy than ever. ”
Da muss ich wohl ein wenig schmunzeln! Look at the comparison:
https://tinyurl.com/y35h2p86
I’m not sure OWilson is aware of the fact that while satellite data shows, for 1979-now, a trend of -0.55 Mkm^2 / decade, the ‘bad’ surface observations by Hadley show only -0.34 for the same period, and thus look quite a lot less ‘alarmistic’, he he.
J.-P. D.
For Willard:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comments
“What you present is not a model. It’s a series of calculations to hide that you’re stuck with a division by 2.”
They are a series of calculations that prove the 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out. What more do you need?
If you want his equations that lead to an estimate of the effective temperature of the Earth, see equations 1-10 from what you call his “Magnum Opus”. There you go, that’s a citation. So you should let this comment stand.
Other than that, I have no idea what you could possibly mean by “Joe’s model” so of course I am unable to provide for you that which you will not specify.
I agree, kiddo: you have no idea what’s Joe’s model.
Interactional expertise has limits.
You will not specify what you are after, which allows you to avoid confronting the fact that the 480 in and 240 out balancing energy in and energy out demolishes your article.
You’re playing dumb, kiddo. I’m looking for Joe’s model. A hemispherical model isn’t enough.
Diagrams ain’t no real models. When will Joe write on his that on the other side where it’s supposed to be 30C it’s -273C?
Besides, rotation also applies to the 30C figure. Has Joe ever tried to include any kind of dynamics to his “second by second” model?
I bet not. His diagram is fit for only one purpose: con gullible people like you.
You will not specify what you are after, which allows you to avoid confronting the fact that the 480 in and 240 out balancing energy in and energy out demolishes your article.
You can keep repeating your pet line until the end of your life, kiddo, it won’t make it relevant.
A model has a formal meaning. Look it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_methods
You are a manipulative sociopath who lost an argument to a better person.
OK, kiddo.
Yep.
DREMT, would you please produce the monthly graphics for the South Pole? It would be nice to have a link to reference in these discussions. Also, I would think NASA would want to publish and highlight that data as much as the evidence for warming. People have no idea there are areas that are showing no warming.
People who take an interest are fully aware that while most large-scale regions of the globe have warmed over the last 40-50 years, there are some places which haven’t.
Parts of Antarctica havent warmed, and there is a zone in the North Atlantic that hasn’t warmed.
There are also plenty of individual locations (on the scale of towns/cities) that cooled or haven’t changed.
UAH6.0 has the ocean around Antarctica cooling at -0.01 C/decade, a figure that is not statistically significant (ie, it is not sure if there has been cooling, warming, or no trend for the satellite recording period).
Otherwise, UAH6.0 data record warming for all other large-scale zones, including the South Pole.
You can see the decadal trends for all those zones near the bottom of this UAH data page:
https://tinyurl.com/x9jnrzyd
If you know how to plot a graph from text values, this page provides plenty of zones to plot.
Here is one my prediction posts from a year ago, replies are fun to read now
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-459206
Fun indeed:
I wonder who that might be.
You do realize UAH-TLT is +0.07 wrt to the 1981-2010 zero line right?
What replies? The ones letting you know that your prediction hasn’t materialized yet, as you made it on the old baseline? Or were you thinking of something else?
CO2isLife,
“Barry you have to have been living under a rock to believe that I dont understand that other factors affect temperature.”
Then why the do you claim that with CO2 warming every month should be warmer than the last?
Why do you think that these other factors should cease to function?
Can you not imagine that there could be underlying, long-term warming (from ANY cause), and we would still see the monthly ups and downs?
If we controlled the sun and set it to increase by 0.1% every year, we would still see the monthly up and downs, and we would KNOW that the system was getting more energy and generally warming up.
But as soon as it becomes CO2 warming, you – for a reason I absolutely cannot fathom – seem to believe that all the other factors should cease, and only CO2 warming would exist.
You would not believe that the monthly variability would cease if the source of warming was something other than CO2.
But you believe monthly variability would cease if the cause WAS CO2.
Why?
Please explain.
Where do you find the monthly, TLT absolute values needed to calculate the anomaly WRT the old baseline?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-605765
If you just want the difference between the old baseline and the new for each month…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-605751
March Hare
In fact, this absolute data is not directly available.
Even the 2.5 degree grid data you can find for LT here:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
is available in anomaly form only.
Same for the three other atmospheric layers (MT: mid troposphere; TP: Tropopause; and LS: lower stratosphere), stored in similar directories one level above.
*
To obtain absolute data out of these anomalies, you have to process, e.g. for the LT,
– all monthly anomaly data stored in grid form in the year files ‘tltmonamg.1978_6.0’ till ‘tltmonamg.2021_6.0’
and
– the climatology ‘tltmonacg_6.0’, which contains the baseline average for each cell in each month (now for the period 1991-2020).
The monthly grids (anomalies and clim) all contain no data for the three southernmost and northernmost latitude bands; i.e., available data spans from 82.5° S up to 82.5° N.
By combining that data, you can then reconstruct absolute values.
That is a somewhat tedious work.
The result looks like this (April 21 still isn’t available yet):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zSeCRCE3nP3X_mEWZTNC2F4RalkjJNi5/view
*
Average of the monthly clim data over the entire grid:
Mon Kelvin / °C
Jan 263.179 -9.97
Feb 263.269 -9.88
Mar 263.427 -9.72
Apr 263.843 -9.31
Mai 264.448 -8.70
Jun 265.099 -8.05
Jul 265.418 -7.73
Aug 265.233 -7.92
Sep 264.637 -8.51
Oct 263.945 -9.20
Nov 263.406 -9.74
Dec 263.191 -9.96
*
The same job can be done for the three other layers using their respective data directories.
J.-P. D.
Will this be the last wave of Arctic air over the northeastern US?
https://i.ibb.co/cCZBST9/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
Above, Entropic man and bdgwx got twisted up again, trying to discuss energy. The discussion started with CiL mentioning that CO2 infrared does not raise ocean temperatures. Ent tried to use the example of money flow in a bank account. Energy flow and money flow are analogous. Both are scalar quantities.
But infrared flux is NOT a simple scalar quantity. Flux will not always “add up”. The example of a cone-in-space demonstrates that flux is not conserved. With the entire cone surface area 5 times the base area, 900 W/m^2 into the base would result in 180 W/m^2 being emitted from the cone, at equilibrium. “900” does NOT equal “180”. Flux-in does NOT equal flux-out.
Confusing flux with energy is prevalent within the “climate science” cult. That’s one of the reasons the “Earth Energy Imbalance” is such nonsense. And they add to the confusion by believing an infrared flux always results in a temperature increase. After all this time, they still believe they can boil water with ice cubes!
Their confusion is likely to continue because they are unable to learn. That’s why this is so much fun.
-273C.
That is all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-685944
Grrrrrand Coooooling ahead!
Today, 20 min snowfall near Berlin, Germoney. One more time, we have more Aypril than May.
I guess that’s the price we’ve to pay for April’s begin: while in South Germany they had up to 50 cm snow, there were here 5 cm at best.
And these poor Frogs had on April average their lowest TMIN temp since 50 years. Duh. (But the TMAX there was quite OK.)
J.-P. D.
Sound familiar?
When reality matches your beliefs, you’re on fairly safe ground.
But when you have to pervert reality to match your beliefs, you are in a cult. We see a lot of cult behavior here — passenger jets fly backwards, ice cubes can warm beyond the temperature of the ice, etc. It’s a long list.
If you think that is weird … come to the land where people get rather good educations and still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that an increase in a trace gas like CO2 can cause climate to change.
How come what you dismiss as a “trace gas” be the source of life on Earth, Ken?
Yes CO2 is necessary for life to exist on earth. There is evidence we’d be better off with more of it in the atmosphere.
One does not simply claim both that CO2 is essential to life and dismiss it as a trace gas, Ken.
It’s one or the other. Which one do you pick?
So this trace gas is so impactful that without it there would be no life on Earth, but you’re incredulous regarding its impacts on the climate?
It doesn’t surprise me that Willard and bdgwx are so confused about CO2. They know so little about science because their only source is the “papers”.
To have a “food chain”, you must first have “food”. CO2 is where it starts. Plants feed on CO2, providing food for animals. This used to be taught early in the school systems.
Real science teaches us that CO2 is the end result of combustion of a fuel. And then, it becomes food. When then CO2 becomes a fuel, carbohydrate, hydrocarbon. It’s all very confusing for Willard and bdgwx, who only know the “papers”.
PS Paper is made from cellulose which is made from CO2!
PPS Papers make very good liners for bird cages.
Clint,
Youre sure doing a lot of ankle-biting. It must be so frustrating for you, now knowing anything about the topics here.
Thats why the simple number -270 upsets you so much. Just such a simple number shows how Sky Dragons are silly.
Willard, the 3 K you are thinking of would only apply to the “dark side” of a sphere that was permanently lit only on one side, and which never received light over its whole surface…in other words a sphere that does not rotate at all…and even then the sphere would have to have no atmosphere.
Cope.
Willard, I know you have nothing original, and you don’t understand any science.
So keep confirming that as often as you like.
Clint,
You’re just trying to start a food fight.
That’s because you have nothing against this:
-270
Sky Dragons are running a con.
Writing the word “cope” isn’t a rebuttal, Trollard.
Cope, kiddo.
So you’ve got nothing.
Neither do you have Joe’s model, kiddo.
I’m sorry you got pwned.
Our argument was over whether or not 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere, in real time, balances energy in and energy out. I won that argument.
> Our argument was
No it wasn’t. You just can’t talk about anything else than what you want to repeat over and over again until the end of times.
You have one move and it’s the ad nauseam.
Where’s Joe’s code?
That was our argument, clown, before you even wrote your incoherent mess of an article. I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
Joe doesn’t need “code” to balance the 480 in with the 240 out, Trollard. It’s just basic physics and math.
No it wasn’t, Half Earther.
Has Joe built a dynamic vegetation module yet?
You’re like a child.
Not a rebuttal, kiddo.
Is there an ocean carbon cycle in Joe’s model?
What “model”, child?
Good question, kiddo.
So you don’t know what model Joe keeps harping about?
I wasn’t aware he was harping on about any “model”, child.
That’s because you only read what you want to read, kiddo.
“If you were to compare my model and the climate science model side-by-side, which one would you pick?”
Oh, you’re talking about the 480 in 240 out again. Well, we know how that turned out…
I’m not talking about your pet topic, kiddo.
You have no idea what’s a model and it shows.
When he said:
“If you were to compare my model and the climate science model side-by-side, which one would you pick?”
He was referring to his diagram, the numbers for which come from the 480 in 240 out concept.
A diagram ain’t no model, kiddo. In this case, the diagram is meant to *represent* a model. Where’s Joe’s model that the diagram is meant to represent?
You know where I checked.
Meanwhile, if Joe could clarify on his diagram that the other side of his 30C it’s -273C, that’d help readers decide how much realness there is in his “model.”
“…the numbers for which come from the 480 in 240 out concept…”
> for which
Finally! You said it!
We can now agree that numbers ain’t no model.
Thank you!
Sure, Willard. Everything both is, and isn’t, a model, as you require it to be or not to be to avoid acknowledging that the 480 in and 240 out debunks your article.
> both is, and isn’t, a model
So numbers and models are, and aren’t, models.
You’re doing great.
You don’t even have the wits to realize when you’re being mocked, Willard.
Let’s take stock on what has been established, kiddo:
You haven’t read Joe as well as you pretend. You can’t read equations. You have no idea what’s a climate model. You have no idea what’s a model. You can’t even do basic algebra operations. You still haven’t realized what Joe is doing in his Mad Hat post.
You don’t pay attention to anything else that what makes you peddle your pet lines. In fact you can’t read any other way than like a guided missile on a mission to reach one and only one target.
You’re a one-trick pony. That makes you the perfect mark.
Joe is conning you.
Willard, you did not even realize that multiplying by 0.5 is the same as dividing by 2.
You are in no position to criticize others. More or less everything you applied to me actually applies to yourself.
I wasn’t sure to what you were referring, kiddo, whereas you still don’t know *what* Joe is multiplying by 0.5. If you did, you’d see I was right. But who cares. I prefer the current paragraph.
The “TOA solar flux” so 1370 W/m^2, corrected for albedo so 960 W/m^2. That is what is being multiplied by 0.5, as I said at the time.
“TOA” does not identify *what* Joe multiplies by 0.5, kiddo.
TOA only means Top Of the Atmosphere.
I just told you what gets multiplied by 0.5 you ridiculous troll.
You still don’t get it, kiddo: flux isn’t *power*. They don’t have the same units.
How delicious to see how Joe keeps whining about the confusion between energy and flux when his diagram conflates them!
Troll, irradiance (flux) has units of W/m^2 and power units of watts. It is the irradiance (flux) that gets divided by 2, moron, not the power.
You still don’t get it, kiddo:
What’s the *energy* that comes into the system in Joe’s universe?
We have already been through that.
Total power absorbed = Total power emitted = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts
The 1.22 x 10^17 Watts comes from taking the solar constant (Joe typically uses 1,370 W/m^2) and multiplying it by the surface area of the disk (pi x r^2) intercepting the Sun’s energy, then multiplying the result by 0.7 to factor in albedo.
So, it is 1,370 W/m^2 x pi x 6,371,000 meters x 6,371,000 meters x 0.7 = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts.
That is the total power that the Earth absorbs, so it must be the total power that the Earth emits. In any one second, the Earth absorbs over the lit hemisphere. The area of the hemisphere is 2.55 x 10^14 square meters.
1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 2.55 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 480 W/m^2.
In any one second, the Earth emits over the entire sphere. The area of the sphere is 5.1 x 10^14 square meters.
1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 5.1 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 240 W/m^2.
At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, because the area the Earth absorbs the energy over is half that of the area that the energy leaves from.
> We have already been through that.
No we haven’t, kiddo, and it’s about time we do, since you still don’t get it:
Check Joe’s freaking diagram.
Tell me where the energy is.
All that there is on Joe’s diagram is flux and temperatures, moron. But if you read his “The Fraud of the AGHE Part 18: Conserving Wattage does not Conserve Physics – Rant Free Version”, you will see the 1.22 x 10^17 Watts (Joules/sec) figure mentioned.
That is “the *energy* that comes into the system in Joe’s universe”. 1.22 x 10^17 Joules every second is absorbed by the Earth. I answered your question. Will you eventually make your point?
> All that there is on Joes diagram is flux and temperatures
You still don’t get it, kiddo:
Joe presents his diagram as a model. He presents it as an alternative to the “climate science model,” whatever that is. It’s not balancing energy at all.
If Joe misspoke and his diagram isn’t a model, where’s his model? Here’s my review of Joe’s mentions of his “model”:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190967
It does balance energy, moron. It shows a real time input of 480 W/m^2 (equating to a potential temperature of 303 K) over the lit hemisphere balancing an output from the entire sphere of 240 W/m^2 (equating to the Earth’s effective temperature of 255 K).
> It does balance energy
You still don’t get it, kiddo:
What Joe presents as a model is a mere diagram with flux and temperatures.
It does not even contain the proper things on the input side.
I just explained how energy in and out is balanced, moron. Your problem is you do not even understand the most basic of things. Stop trolling me and write your next stupid article.
No you did not, kiddo, and you won’t unless and until you produce a model.
We’re talking about Joe’s diagram right now. What should it include to show what’s on the input side?
Stop trolling me and write your next stupid article. Nobody is this slow at getting to the point.
You still don’t get it, kiddo:
You’re the one who responded to me.
Again, what’s on the input side in Joe’s diagram: flux, albedo, and… 0.5?
You are as thick as pig shit. Stop wasting my time.
Joe’s a conman and you’re a tool, kiddo.
Be seeing you.
OK, Willard.
<3
🍟
Willard, yes CO2 is a trace gas, yes it is the source of life on Earth, and yes life itself is but a trace component of Earth.
Not sure I see where you are making any kind of point.
When contrarians say “but trace gas,” Richard M, they’re not just simply asserting a true fact.
They’re implying that a trace gas cannot have such an effect as to drive AGW.
It’s really not that complex.
But do continue to feign ignorance.
When contrarians rely on “but trace gas,” Richard, they’re not just simply stating a chemical fact. They’re implying that it can’t be the driver of AGW. In fact they often say it outright. Examples on demand.
Once “but trace gas” is on the table, it’s a bit harder to then claim that CO2 is plant food and to imply it’s essential to life on Earth, don’t you think? Either being a trace gas implies it’s insignificant, or it does not.
Hope this helps.
Isn’t that trace gas the source of life?
Willard, please stop trolling.
May 2021
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas and cannot have any effect on Earth’s climate.
Carbon Dioxide is indispensable to life on Earth.
Edit
Margareth is a good counterexample to Bill’s suggestion that politicians are science dummies.
She worked as a research chemist before becoming a barrister.
Anyone who things politicians are dumb should try to sustain their week load for a month.
Argh. Margaret.
Sorry Miss Maggie:
https://youtu.be/v28HCO71AxQ
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you Barry and Bindidon.
Does anyone doubt that the N Hemi Measurements are impacted by the UHI and changes in Water Vapor due to the Greening of the Globe?
No. Everyone knows those effects cause warming, and aren’t the result of CO2, unless you think higher CO2 causes more Cities, Roads and Buildings to be built.
If everyone accepts that we have data sets corrupted by the UHI, Water Vapor and El Nino/La Nina, and no one has been able to control for those factors in their models, how can anyone claim to be able to model the climate using that data? Yes, it may show some warming, but no CO2 based model even comes close to being accurate.
Given the above undeniable fact. Dr. Spencer routinely published updates as to just how awful the IPCC CO2 based models are. Given that situation, why doesn’t climate science do what every other science would do? Identify non-corrupted data sets. That is exactly why Identical Twins and Cloans are so important to Science. They are carbon copies with everything controlled for except the administered drug or other variable.
If Climate Science was a true science, the only data set they would use would be the S Pole. It may not be perfect, but no on in their right mind would claim that it has more corruption that the other available data sets. I would recommend that as much attention is directed to the S Pole and the entire Globe, N Hemi, or the Continental US.
The focus should be to try to explain why CO2 isn’t causing the S Pole to warm. That is the question, the 800lb Gorrilla in the living Room, that needs to be asked. You will never be able to model CO2’s impact on temperature unless you use the S Pole Data and regress it against CO2. That is your model, and that model will show CO2 doesn’t drive temperatrues.
CO2IsLife
” If Climate Science was a true science, the only data set they would use would be the S Pole. ”
” The focus should be to try to explain why CO2 isn’t causing the S Pole to warm. ”
Here again, you give us the definite proof that you simply, stubbornly keep on your ignorant level, and discard ALL arguments contradicting your egocentric visions.
*
1. Neither did you understand let alone accept what you were explained, namely that the Antarctic (and Eastern Siberia) are EXACTLY the places on Earth where the analysis of anhy CO2 effect leads to wrong results.
2. Neither did you understand let alone accept what you were explained, namely that all known GHCN V3 stations located in desertic areas show on average a higher trend fror the last century than do stations located in the Tropics, what clearly contradicts your meaning solely based on single station data analysis.
*
The point here is NOT whether or not CO2 plays a role in climate!
The point here IS your unablility
– to accept that you lack (like me) ANY scientific education allowing you to discard its role
– to accept that your trials to discard its role are all incredibly superficial and useless.
*
You are exactly the same kind of Pseudoskeptic as are Robertson, Clint R and a few others, who claim that
– Einstein was wrong concerning relativity, the speed of light etc etc,
– all astronomers were wrong when calculating Moon’s rotational axis inclination and speed
– viruses do not exist
and so on and so on.
J.-P. D.
CiL said: Does anyone doubt that the N Hemi Measurements are impacted by the UHI and changes in Water Vapor due to the Greening of the Globe?
None of those impact individual temperature measurements.
Only UHI has the potential to impact the spatial averaging of those measurements. It’s impact has been considered, quantified, and handled.
CiL said: Given the above undeniable fact. Dr. Spencer routinely published updates as to just how awful the IPCC CO2 based models are.
And he does so with egregious errors like his previous post in which he compares the modeled TAS field with the observed TOS field and which he significantly overweights the CanESM5 model which is known to be a hot outlier.
CiL said: If Climate Science was a true science, the only data set they would use would be the S Pole.
I realize cherry-picking data that supports your position is morally acceptable, but for the rest of us we have to put our skeptical hats on and consider all data points and lines of evidence.
CiL said: You will never be able to model CO2s impact on temperature
YOU might not be able to do it. However, the scientific community has had no problem with it. Our most advanced GCMs can simulate the global mean surface temperature with remarkable skill from 1880-present (https://tinyurl.com/yr893sp7).
CiL said: That is your model, and that model will show CO2 doesnt drive temperatrues.
The consensus models shows CO2 is an essential piece of the puzzle that affects the global mean temperature. No other model even comes close to the skill the consensus models demonstrate. In fact, some of these alternatives are so astonishingly bad they can’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct.
wtf is a consensus model? Sounds positively Madison Avenue trying to sell you something. . . .like cleaner than clean. LMAO!
Does anybody really believe this BS? Oh says bdgwx I bought the soap because it was going to make me cleaner than clean. ROTFLMAO!
Pray do tell what glorious attributes the consensus models have that the others don’t?
bdgwx,
Are you aware of any models that don’t use CO2 as a primary component and make worse projections that the current models?
> any models that dont use CO2 as a primary component
Which ones do you have in mind, Chic?
Easterbrook’s model would be an example that ignores CO2 and which makes terrible predictions.
It was an honest attempt on my part to find out if you were aware of any models from the powers that be, not by individual skeptics. Although, point to you anyway.
bdgwx how many years is Easterbrook off compared to say the model with the worst record of being off used by CMIP6. Perhaps Easterbrook deserves a slot.
CMIP6’s 140 year prediction starting from 1880 and ending at 2020 is an annual mean anomaly of 1.31C. The observed value is 1.19C. (https://tinyurl.com/yr893sp7)
In 2008 Easterbrook predicted cooling of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0C for 3 different scenarios by 2020. It actually warmed 0.4C. He was off by 0.5-1.4C depending on the scenario in only 12 years. https://tinyurl.com/6veu2x6c
thats not what i was asking bdgwx. I was asking if the IPCC booted its hottest model and substituted Easterbrook would the IPCC’s accuracy get better or worse?
Additionally Easterbrook is only estimating natural influences. This has been a major failure of the IPPC with its modeling having been incapable of reproducing the 1920 to 1945 warming surge and instead has focused on minimizing it in order to make the modeling look more competent.
So Easterbrook laid out 3 scenarios each of these scenarios can potentially be traced to a significant potential EEI arising from the LIA recovery which could well have begun in 1700. The depth of those 3 cooling periods could be indicative of the oceans and ice coverage catching up. Throw in a solar grand maximum and a logical case can be made for natural variation, where all the criticisms of it our contrary to well accepted science regarding the relationships between EEI, the deep ocean temperatures, and ice coverage momentum. It is interesting to note that he has the smoothed temperature line around 2023 about the same as 1998. You know about where the anomaly is at this month.
bill said: thats not what i was asking bdgwx. I was asking if the IPCC booted its hottest model and substituted Easterbrook would the IPCCs accuracy get better or worse?
I think I understand what you’re asking. First, the IPCC does not run models. They use models independently developed by the community like those from the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). One such effort is the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
So I think the question is if the IPCC omitted the CanESM5 member (hottest outlier) from CMIP6 and replaced it with Easterbrook’s model would the ensemble mean skill in reproducing the observed global mean surface temperature get better or worse. I can’t say for sure due to the fact that Easterbrook’s model starts in 2008 whereas the rest of the CMIP6 suite starts in 1880. The only way to do an appropriate comparison is to initialize the CMIP6 suite at 2008 instead of 1880 and let it project forward from there. But we can probably at least make some educated guesses in lieu of not having the CMIP6 initialized and ran from 2008. It looks like the CanESM5 member shows about +0.7C of warming from 2008 compared to the observed +0.5C. That is a difference of +0.2C. Easterbrooks equally weighted mean shows -0.5C of cooling. That is a difference of -1.0C. So it looks like Easterbrook is 5x worse than the CMIP6’s worst performing member. Keep in mind that the comparison here is still with CanESM5’s 140 year prediction vs Easterbrook’s 12 year prediction which means Easterbrook has a 128 year handicap to his advantage on this comparison.
That is true about the 1920-1945 warming period. Both CMIP5 and CMIP6 underestimate the warming during this period. They are still infinitely better during this period because Easterbrook does not attempt to model this era at all.
bdgwx, first you are choosing the standard of measure.
second easterbrook predicted from 1998 .3-.5 cooling by 2035 beginning in 2007 +or-3to5yrs.
there was zero expectation this cooling would be linear and is depicted as non-linear on his graph with zero cooling being present in 2023.
So the only way you get any warming since 1996 is via the most recent ENSO event.
Easterbrook still has 15 years for a cooling trend of a total of .3C to emerge. . . .and if indeed it took a major La Nina at the end of that to make it work, I wouldn’t be harping success like you are.
Bindy, I’m not trying to convince you. You believe everything the Media and Democratic Party tells you to think. I’m appealing to scientists that actually understand the importance of controlled experimentation.
Michael Mann creates a nonsensical graphic that erases the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period, and you worship it. There is no way to convince someone that will simply believe what they want to believe because it supports their desired position. YOu are a believer, I get it. You believe a science that can’t model observed data. That is who you are.
Any real scientist knows that when you have a complete data set that refutes other data sets, that this “science” isn’t settled. You have by far the least corrupted data set in the S Pole, and it shows no warming. That is a problem that simply won’t go away.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein
I’ve found that one experiment with the S Pole and over 500 stations that show no warming.
You provide nothing but research done by people that create failed models.
CO2IsLife
You are doing in the CO2 discussion the same as Robertson, Clint R, DREMT & alii when trying to deny lunar spin by use of trivial examples like coins, ball-on-a-string, merry-go-round etc etc.
One day we will read you explaining us that they are right.
And I think that people like you really should avoid invoking Einstein.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you’re sure doing a lot of ankle-biting. It must be so frustrating for you, now knowing anything about the topics here.
That’s why the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string upsets you so much. Just such a simple analogy proves your entire cult wrong.
> a nonsensical graphic that erases the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period
You may not want to go there:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html
Willard, from your source:
Nick,
You’ve missed 100% of the important points.
1) Mann’s method required a data set to be present at the start of a period to be used in that period. Thus this data set should have been completely excluded from that period according to Mann’s own methodology.
2) Even more important: The early data was ALL inadmissible. One or two tree samples do not make a valid data set. And that’s all that was there in those early years. Go look what the originators of that data set did. They excluded everything before 1601.
You’re only proving what M&M showed, but don’t understand the results of your own analysis enough to recognize it.
If you believe the nonsense that Michael Mann created, simply ask yourself, “If Donald Trump and created the exact same reconstruction, what would the leftist be doing?” They would be losing their minds.
Independent reproducibility is required for real science. No real science would ever re-create “Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline.” That is basic fraud.
> from your source:
People say lots of things in comment threads, Life. And if you can’t quote properly, you should refrain from quoting.
Also, check who replied to MrPete.
Willard, please stop trolling.
CiL said: Michael Mann creates a nonsensical graphic that erases the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period
No he didn’t. The MWP, LIA, and temperature reconstructions including MBH98/99 consistent with each other.
CiL said: Any real scientist knows that when you have a complete data set that refutes other data sets, that this science isnt settled. You have by far the least corrupted data set in the S Pole, and it shows no warming. That is a problem that simply wont go away.
It is a problem for YOU because YOU don’t understand modern climate science theory. YOU come up with strawman hypothesis that modern climate science theory does not posit and then are incredulous when the data does not support those hypothesis. If you want to challenge AGW then you must first understand it and what hypothesis it posits. We’re all clustered around the pitchers mound debating the hypothesis that matter while you’re off in right field trying falsify hypothesis that have long ago been abandoned at best or just simply have never been entertained in the first place at worst.
bdgwx: No he didnt. The MWP, LIA, and temperature reconstructions including MBH98/99 consistent with each other.
GIGO. Do you honestly think any honest scientist would recreate “Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline?”
It is a fraud, accept it.
CiL,
It’s been corroborated many times via many different techniques and even many different kinds of proxies. It is a whole hockey league of hockey sticks now.
And the MWP and LIA have always been known among scientists to be most acute in the periphery of the North Atlantic. The guy who did the pioneering research on the matter, Hubert Lamb, even said this was a regional phenomenon that was not globally synchronous. It’s not clear how the blogosphere morphed this into the cesspool of misinformation that it is today.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
> Its not clear how the blogosphere morphed this into the cesspool of misinformation that it is today.
My guess would be the Deming Affair:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffair
Most contrarians don’t realize that a bigger MWP implies a bigger climate sensitivity.
bdgwx: Its been corroborated many times via many different techniques and even many different kinds of proxies. It is a whole hockey league of hockey sticks now.
You clearly don’t understand modeling. Running identical bad data through bad code will give you identically bad results.
There is no way in Hades that independent researchers would ever independently use “Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline.” Also, if you believe that no Little Ice Age or Medieval Warming occurred, then you are archeological evidence and History denier.
> You clearly dont understand modeling.
The MWP was before 1400, and MBH’s series go 1400 onward.
CiL said: You clearly dont understand modeling. Running identical bad data through bad code will give you identically bad results.
MBH98/99 has been corroborated by completely different kinds of data. I posted the link to Kaufman 2020 which uses a completely different approach from MBH98/99.
CiL said: There is no way in Hades that independent researchers would ever independently use Mikes Nature Trick to Hide the Decline.
“Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” are in reference to two different things. In other words “Mike’s Nature trick” is NOT used to “hide the decline”. Your placement of the quotes isn’t even right. Anyway, scientists in a wide array of disciplines use “Mike’s Nature trick” because it is a rather obvious approach to merging two or more time series into a single composite.
CiL said: Also, if you believe that no Little Ice Age or Medieval Warming occurred, then you are archeological evidence and History denier.
I never said that I didn’t believe the LIA or MWP occurred. Neither did Mann. In fact, Mann himself accepts that the LIA and MWP occurred. He even discusses it and presents a plausible cause (which is well accepted today) in his MBH99 publication. Remember…the MWP and LIA are primarily North Atlantic phenomenon which is but a small subset of NH or global temperature reconstructions.
Bdgwx, let me reword your comment for effect:
The existence of God has been corroborated many times by many different Priests, Rabbis and IMAMs and even many different kinds of clerics.
Ergo, God must exist.
Richard, let me generalize:
X does not imply Y unless X logically entails Y.
That’s what I call the X-does-not-imply-Y trick.
Hope this helps.
bdgwx the ‘hide the decline’ was the truncation of the tree ring proxy where overlapped the instrument record but was indicating cooling in the opposite direction of the instruments.
What truncation of which data for which graph in what context and by whom, Bill?
bdgwx says:
”I never said that I didnt believe the LIA or MWP occurred. Neither did Mann. In fact, Mann himself accepts that the LIA and MWP occurred. He even discusses it and presents a plausible cause (which is well accepted today) in his MBH99 publication. Rememberthe MWP and LIA are primarily North Atlantic phenomenon which is but a small subset of NH or global temperature reconstructions.”
The problem is you guys can never keep your story straight on this one. The usual line is the world was cooling from the MWP until Industrial age happened along.
Then somebody points out the instruments in England show rising temperatures with rising solar activity 150 years before the industrial age Was that then just a North Atlantic warm period? or was it uh a cool period mostly?
Talking about the tanglefoot express!
Always an explanation, always and excuse, 20 years observation data adjustments to make the pause disappear. Its like the Keystone Kops around here.
Its like politics. . . .its not ok if you do but its fine if i do. Sure CO2 can’t warm anything at the surface because of convection but you get high enough then if you go higher it gets colder and it will do something. OH MY GAWD!!!!!
The secret sauce is to run off somewhere where nobody can do a
an experiment and gee maybe there convection stops working even though the same gas laws are in effect and there is still more atmosphere higher and soon not to get colder.
if a client gave me such a lame story, i’m calling in the forensics team to find the buried body.
bdgwx, do you live in an alternative world?
“NIt is a problem for YOU because YOU don’t understand modern climate science theory. YOU come up with strawman hypothesis that modern climate science theory does not posit and then are incredulous when the data does not support those hypothesis.”
The Hypothesis is that CO2 drives temperatures. That is proven 100% by the construction of the climate models and their overreliance on CO2. That is the undeniable fact.
What evidence do you have to support your belief?
1) Models that fail miserably to prove that theory
2) Peer review articles that create those failed models
3) Democratic Party activists
4) Universities that have discriminated to the extreme level and purged any common sense conservative from the staff
5) Organizations that don’t debate and rely on censorship and canceling to keep the lie alive
What evidence do I have?
1) Over 500 stations that show no warming chosen because they are shielded from the UHI and Water Vapor Effects
2) An entire data set cover a huge amount of area that shows 0.00 warming due to CO2
In real science, you identify data sets that are uncorrupted. You rely on data sets known to be corrupted, and I use data sets that remove the corruption. I do real science, you spout nonsense that isn’t supported by your own models. Don’t you understand how insane that is? It as if you live in Stalinst Russia and believe the Lysenko Agracultural Theories or Eugenics.
The hypothesis is that CO2 and other GHGs influence the global heat uptake over long period time. It most certainly not that CO2 is the only thing that influences the climate, or that CO2 causes weather to stop happening, or the many other strawman that you have injected into the discussion over the last several months.
If you don’t understand what modern climate science theory says then ask questions before you needlessly create and attempt to test strawman hypothesis. It’ll save you a lot of time and hopefully help you better understand the climate system too.
None of your tests actually falsify any hypothesis modern climate science theory makes.
bdgwx: The hypothesis is that CO2 and other GHGs influence the global heat uptake over long period time. It most certainly not that CO2 is the only thing that influences the climate, or that CO2 causes weather to stop happening, or the many other strawman that you have injected into the discussion over the last several months.
The reports full name is Global Warming of 1.5C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5C would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
Limiting warming to 1.5C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes, said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or overshoot 1.5C would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5C by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/
Everything about the IPCC is about controlling CO2, and using Climate Change as a guise to redistribute wealth.
The long-term record of the S Pole shows no warming. Archeological records show it was warmer earlier in the Holocene. Just look at where Thermopyle is now. Hannibal crossed the Alps with an army and Elephants.
Switching to “but politics” does not rebut bg’s claim that the hypothesis is that CO2 and other GHGs influence the global heat uptake over long period time.
You’re citing a special report about trying to keep under 1.5C. If you want the real thing, go to the real source:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Michael Mann creates a nonsensical graphic that erases the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period, and you worship it.
Let’s be more direct:
The MWP was before 1400.
MBH’s series go 1400 onward.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency “Moderation?” Team
Again: you identify the wrong troll here.
The real troll, endlessly writing unscientific nonsense concerning CO2’s possible effect (or the lack of it), is CO2isLife.
J.-P. D.
Growers will need to take extra precautions for their sensitive plants as the risk of a frost or even a freeze in some locations persists across the eastern U.S. for the next few days.
A melted glacier in Northern Italy has uncovered a trove of World War 1 treasures.
A cave shelter in Mount Scorluzzo housed 20 Austrian soldiers in the war, and has now revealed food, dishes, jackets, and other items.
The cave was first entered by researchers in 2017, when the surrounding glacier had melted – explained historian Stefano Morosini to CNN.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/melting-glacier-stelvio-pass-italy-ww1-b1842360.html
Ren, there are many examples of glaciers exposing forests.
3000-Year-Old Trees Excavated Under Glacier
https://www.icelandreview.com/news/3000-year-old-trees-excavated-under-glacier/
The archeological records favors much warmer periods earlier in the Holocene. You may find one of two examples, but the evidence on the other side is overwhelming.
BTW, your WWI evidence doesn’t prove much other than that Glaciers expanded AFTER WWI when CO2 was increasing, and is just now getting back to where it was in 1917. That isn’t too frightening.
Just think about every nonsensical climate reconstruction you have seen. None of them would justify a glacier growing since 1917, and only now receding back to the 1917 level. Think about the evidence you have provided. The glacier grew after WWI. That means temperatures COOLED after WWI. Go look at the Hockeystick. That didn’t happen…yak.
NH temperatures peaked around 9000 years ago, when orbital variation brought stronger insolation to the NH. Temps in Greenland, particularly in Summer, may have been warmer than today, as evidenced in ice cores from the region.
From then, a long, slow cooling, punctuated by warming/cooling departures has been seen in the lower Arctic region, now being reversed by AGW, where we see ancient trees emerging from ice that lived thousands of years ago.
https://sci-hub.do/10.1002/jqs.2780
https://sci-hub.do/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.04.009
https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/31875/1/Master%20ritger%C3%B0%20-%20Sigurveig%20Gunnarsd%C3%B3ttir.pdf
Barry: glacial advance and retreat is from what I’ve read also a phenomenon of recent times – for example the Schnidejoch Pass:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274462590_Archaeological_Discoveries_on_Schnidejoch_and_at_Other_Ice_Sites_in_the_European_Alps
Dr Spencer has also written about the Meldenhall glacier in a post on this site. Tree stumps that are around a thousand years old are being revealed.
Well, you’ve changed the topic to recent glacial advance/retreat.
For the last 100 years or so, 85% of the world’s glaciers have been losing mass balance, and the trend appears to be accelerating.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/mass-balance/introduction-glacier-mass-balance/
More recent trends are corroborated by satellite-era data.
CO2isLife
I wanted to correct you use of the MODTRN model in this post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-680809
The Model
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
You are using the Tropical Atmosphere to determine your numbers. I am thinking the 1 in the Water vapor column is for that atmosphere. The tropical atmosphere holds much more water so the effects of CO2 will be less in this atmosphere. If you want a global average use the 1976 standard atmosphere and you will get much different values.
If you go from 0 to 180 PPM CO2 in the standard atmosphere you get a change in DWIR of 27.1 W/^2. If you go from 280 to 415 the change is 2 watt/m^2 considerably more than in just the tropical region.
Hope this clears it up for you.
Norman, simply set it to looking up from the surface. That is the radiation that comes back and can warm the oceans. That is what matters. I don’t care what data set you use, you can use anyone you want, and when you change water vapor or add clouds, the impact will dwarf anything CO2 could ever dream of doing. CO2 is a complete joke. You are talking 0.62 W/M^2 for CO2, and 88+ for a layer of Clouds.
CO2iaLife
The cloud effect is only DWIR, it does not model the loss of Solar input so you can’t really use this model to figure out the effect of clouds. Also I did clouds but is that for total coverage of the Earth? I am not sure and I did not find what the cloud cover means.
So you are wrong to conclude that clouds dwarf CO2. You need all the data to correctly attribute effects. I think the type of clouds we now have (average) have a cooling effect but that can change depending upon the types of clouds and locations. This is so complex that it is still not determined with any scientific evaluation.
It would actually be more like 2 W/m^2 and not 0.62. That is only for a tropical atmosphere which the Earth does not yet have. The surface temperature for the tropical atmosphere is 299.7 K which is much above the Standard atmosphere of 288.2 K.
If you add 2 watts/m^2 of energy it will have an effect. What you see in temperature graphs is a result of many factors. Some things cool the globe (like cloud cover which varies globally from year to year but no noticeable overall change).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/18/15/i1520-0442-18-15-3021-f04.gif
In the long run the cloud amount is fairly constant on global scales but it does vary considerably in smaller cycles.
That is why your proclamation that the current temperature matches 1980 proves CO2 does nothing is very limited in understanding climate.
2 W/m^2 will cause a long term warming if all the other effects remain relatively constant. The doubling of CO2 in standard atmosphere (280 to 560) will increase DWIR (that is with no water vapor increase) by 3.55 W/m^2. The Plank Climate Sensitivity is 1 K change for a 3.3 W/m^2 change.
https://tinyurl.com/39dekd7k
CO2 has an effect. How large is the primary reason for this debate. Only a few contrarians do not accept the physics of the GHE.
Again the DWIR is not what is “warming” the ocean. The DWIR lowers the NET radiant heat loss of the water surface, this allows the solar input to reach a higher steady state temperature.
I hope you really think on that. If it clicks you will understand the GHE and how it works to make a hotter surface than without this effect.
Norma parrots: “The DWIR lowers the NET radiant heat loss of the water surface, this allows the solar input to reach a higher steady state temperature.”
I know that’s what your AGW “papers” claim, but that ain’t science.
A surface emits based on its temperature. Any incoming flux has NO effect on the emitted flux.
Clint R
I do not think you are clearly reasoning this out. You are making some assumptions that were not stated.
You must not understand the word NET at all. I do not know if it is worth my time explaining it to you.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Actual science, real physics. Deny it if you must.
The 2nd equation covers NET radiant loss by a hot object. The NET power lost by the hot object is how much energy it emits MINUS the energy it receives from the colder surroundings. As the surroundings increase in temperature the NET loss decreases!
I have not claimed the DWIR effects the emitted flux. It changes the NET energy lost. Can you understand that? I hope so but it is not likely. Can you just go away. I am trying to see if CO2isLife is an honest researcher or just a contrarian like you.
Norma, a link that you don’t understand ain’t science.
For that “2nd” equation to be valid, both emitting surfaces have to be the same emissivity and area. AND, all flux must be absorbed. That situation does NOT happen with ocean and sky. You’re trying to make up your own version of physics, again.
We know you can’t understand the physics, but if you were able to think for yourself, you could figure it out. Here are some things to think about:
1) Do oceans remain at the same temperature all night?
2) Are oceans always warmer in the morning than they were the previous morning?
See if you can figure it out.
Clint R
The second equation is the simplest version of heat transfer. There are modifiers so View Factors that are added to get a version useable in real world applications.
With solid object all that matters is the emissivity of the heated object. Transparent objects would have to have an additional modification. The reason that the emissivity is all that matters is because for the cold object, if it has a low emissivity and reflects most the light that reaches it, then that energy will be absorbed by the hot object upon return (the equation in that form assumes a View factor of 1 like a sphere surrounded by a shell or two very large plates close to each other) and it will only emit small amounts of radiation based upon its temperature. It works, you can test it.
For your questions:
1) Depends if it is cloudy or not. Thick clouds and the surface will not cool. Clear sky and it will cool off.
2) No
Norma, all your blah-blah can’t change physics. For that “2nd” equation to be valid, both emitting surfaces have to be the same emissivity and area. AND, all flux must be absorbed. That situation does NOT happen with ocean and sky.
As to the things for you to think about:
1) Clouds are not CO2.
2) Your answer “No” correctly invalidates what you were parroting: “The DWIR lowers the NET radiant heat loss of the water surface, this allows the solar input to reach a higher steady state temperature.”
Norman,
“The DWIR lowers the NET radiant heat loss of the water surface, this allows the solar input to reach a higher steady state temperature.”
Has anyone done experiments even remotely close to what is needed to prove your claim?
Chic,
What would you need to consider Norman’s claim proven?
There is no “proof”.
Believing CO2 can warm the oceans is required of the cult. No “proof” need apply.
I like this one: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
In contradiction to Norman’s claim, solar inputs don’t result in steady state temperatures.
“…we expect an isothermal mixed layer beneath the TSL, i.e. no solar heating, since our data are confined to nighttime conditions.”
DWIR at night does what it is supposed to do, keep surfaces from cooling off as much. The effect of changes in DWIR over periods longer than days can hardly be expected to affect long-term global temperatures. Controlling for all the confounding factors and limiting measurement errors to show otherwise would be improbable if not impossible.
“No ‘proof’ need apply.”
Good one, ClintR.
If we accept falsifiability as a criteria for scientific theories, proofs don’t exist anymore.
So what Clint says, but unironically.
Chic Bowdrie
You do not seem to be the mindless contrarian who disagrees just to disagree or make lots of unfounded claims. From what I read from you posts you seem to be an honest skeptic demanding proof of claims.
This would not be so much an experimental item (which have been done on other materials and things to establish the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiant heat transfer) as it would be observational. Science relies on both, many things are outside the reach of experimental testing but can be proven valid by observations.
Here is an article where the Tropical oceans radiant energy is explored. It is done with actual measuring instruments on buoys.
https://tinyurl.com/963svvd3
Within the article are links to different ocean’s fluxes. This one is of the Tropical Pacific.
https://tinyurl.com/3rmr9bnc
The Mean solar flux is 227.27 W/m^2 (this would be the 24 hour average).
The DWIR is 408.15 W/m^2
If the Tropical Ocean is around 30 C would continually radiate away 459 W/m^2. If you think about it you will see that the solar input could not keep the sea surface at a temperature that emits 459 W/m^2. With both the Solar input and the DWIR water surface receives a mean of 635.42 W/m^2 that makes for the rest of the loss via convection and evaporation of around 176 W/m^2.
The observational evidence of measured values basically proves that DWIR is necessary to keep the tropical water able to maintain its temperature.
Even with the DWIR the water would still lose a NET 51 W/m^2 via radiant loss. The DWIR is still not warming the water, it is allowing the solar input to increase the steady state temperature of the sea surface.
Norma, you keep making the same mistakes.
You can’t average flux, and flux is NOT energy. That’s why you believe the surface is emitting more than it absorbs from Sun. You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R
Flux is energy per unit time for a given area (generally in square meters). Yes flux is input energy per time. Similar to flow of water in gallons per minute. You can say water flow is not gallons but you can certainly derive gallons from the flow rate in a given period of time. You can actually get gallons input just as well in a cycle. If water flows 100 gallons a minute for 12 hours and then no flow for the next and then cycles with this pattern you can determine how many gallons will go into a tank in a period of time.
You can determine the amount of energy a square meter can absorb in a 24 hour cycle. You can also determine the amount of energy this same area will radiate away.
Chic Bowdrie
Since you don’t like my choice of words (steady state temperature) for the effect of DWIR on sea surface temperature maybe I could state as a higher cyclic steady temperature. The tropical ocean temperature is fairly stable but does cycle within a range. So it is not the same as a constant steady temperature (which may be your complaint). Maybe steady state mean temperature will work for you. This will have peaks and valleys in the actual temperature but the mean will be steady.
Don’t tell Clint where I got this, Norman:
“the reason why we’re interested in the integrated average projection factor is because we can then multiply that by the top-of-atmosphere solar flux in order to get the integrated average flux on the input hemisphere.”
You’re babbling again, Norma. Gallons of water are scalar quantities. Flux is NOT a scalar. You can’t understand any of this so you keep abusing your keyboard.
A chicken rotating on a rotisserie would cook in a reasonable amount of time, if it received 1600 W/m^2 from only one side. But, if radiated from all sides by 400 W/m^2, the chicken would never cook.
Now, it’s time for you to find some more links you don’t understand and then abuse your keyboard again. Because that’s all you can do. You can’t learn.
http://hydrologie.org/redbooks/a267/iahs_267_0220.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
Norman,
Your second reply to me deserves an in-kind response. Maybe you should throw some more spaghetti at the wall and see if it sticks. There are no steady-state ocean temperatures, means or otherwise.
The first reply on May 8, 2021 at 10:27 AM is very misleading and shows you have little appreciation for the vagaries of climate measurements. You will never get energy balance in a 24 hour period. So forget the numbers.
The sun only shows up half the time and during that time it does not need DWIR to warm the ocean. It needs evaporation and the atmosphere to cool it. The DWIR keeps it from getting too cool at night. If you are trying to prove DWIR does more than that, you need some serious data. Handwaving arguments don’t cut it. (BTW, I’m guilty of that too, but I think my arguments trump yours.)
For a good scientific approach to what you are trying to argue, check this out:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/surface-response-to-increased-forcing/
Look at the inflections in the data the occur between 200 and 300 W/m^2. What does that tell you?
Norman, I changed it to SubArctic Winter to magnify the effect of CO2. Changing CO2 from 270 to 400ppm, and you get 1.85 W/m^2. While it isn’t perfect, but the evidence is that the Antarctic has had 0.00 warming over the past 120 years, so that additional 1.85 W/m^2 simply didn’t do anything. Add clouds and that increases to 90.84 W/m^2.
Thanks for making my point. Your “correction” made my argument even stronger.
CO2isLIfe
Again you are using data that you do not understand. What does the cloud cover mean? I tried to discuss this issue with you but you unfortunately did not even wish to consider it.
Here, this one should help.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068025
With this image:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/6cb7499c-a5c2-4d6e-a5d3-ef64b6013c35/grl54282-fig-0004-m.jpg
This gives the effect of albedo changes for Earth. It rises to 2 W/m^2 but that is about all. NOT 90 W/m^2 on a global scale. I think you should do more research on what the cloud increase means before drawing conclusions.
“the evidence is that the Antarctic has had 0.00 warming over the past 120 years”
Where are you getting this evidence from?
Antarctica Has Been COOLING Over The Past Quarter Century, NASA’s Surface Station Data Show
New Study: East Antarctica Was Up To 6°C Warmer Than Today During The Medieval Warm Period
Scientists: Antarctica Ice Sheet Thinned 400 Meters 5000 Years Ago, And Natural Oceanic Cycles Drive Climate
12 New Papers Affirm A 21st Century Cessation Of Arctic Warming And A Rapid Cooling Across Antarctica
Greenland, Antarctica And Dozens Of Areas Worldwide Have Not Seen Any Warming In 60 Years And More!
New Paper Indicates Antarctica Has Been Gaining Mass Since 1800
German Climate Experts Conference: Antarctica Temperatures Show No Warming Trend In 20th Century!
Greenland Fall Temperatures Unchanged. Proxy Data Show No Warming At 8 Of 9 Antarctic Peninsula Sites Since 1830!
Do you know how to copy and paste a link? These are all assertions.
And some of them have nothing to do with the topic!
“the evidence is that Antarctic has had 0.00 warming over the past 120 years”
… is what you are going to provide evidence for. I don’t think this 120 year record for Antarctic-wide temeratures exists.
CO2isLife
Antarctica cooling or staying the same temperature would not nullify Global Warming or CO2 influence. With a complex system as Earth, energy moves around in complex patterns around the plaent.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Global_temp_trend_1990-2019_620.jpg
This image link is for the temperature anomalies for the Earth from 1990 to 2019
You can see that some areas are actually cooler and some have not changed much (what you are finding in your temperature research). You can see some areas that show pronounced warming. Overall the Planet has warmed in this time period but in no way does that indicate it will be a uniform warming. Hopefully the image helps you see this reality.
CO2isLife
This video presentation starts at 1880 and goes to 2014. It also shows how different regions are warmer or cooler over time but shows a clear overall warming with fewer cooler areas as time advances.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-temperature-1880
CO2isLife,
Antarctica – the continent – is warming, according to UAH data, at 0.09 C/decade.
https://tinyurl.com/x9jnrzyd
Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the trends for various latitude zones.
The region marked ‘SoPol’ covers 60S to 85S, land AND ocean. The combined trend is 0.02 C/decade – warming, but not a statistically significant trend. You will find exactly one region with a cooling trend at that UAH data page, and that is the Southern Ocean from the edge of Antarctica to 60S. The rate is -0.01 C/decade – also not statistically significant.
Simply create the charts and run a regression. If you think there is an uptrend in any of those charts you will believe anything. Give it a few months of continued cooling and those statistically insignificant coefficients will become (-).
If I plot the data with Exel I get the same results. Done it many times.
But I don’t have to do that because Roy Spencer, who runs this blog, and his colleague John Christy with whom he compiles the UAH temp record, can be trusted to get the trends right.
The data is there for you to check. Do let Dr Spencer know if he has the trends wrong.
Here you go – I plotted the data for UAH Antarctica (labeled ‘SoPol Land’ in the UAH data page).
https://i.imgur.com/JGBX0Zf.png
I’ve also calculated what it would take in the coming months for the trend to go negative.
For the trend to go negative by the end of 2021, the average of every monthly anomaly in Antarctica from May to December would have to be at least -4.4 C.
Yes, the decimal point is in the correct place.
As the monthly departures for Antarctica have never neen cooler than -3 C, we can say with supreme confidence that the trend is not going negative any time soon.
So how long would it take if every monthly anomaly for Antarctica was -1 C from now on (April anomaly is currently -0.05)?
The trend would go negative April 2024.
That is not going to happen either.
“Give it a few months of continued cooling and those statistically insignificant coefficients will become (-).”
If Antarctica now cooled twice as fast as it has warmed since 1979, then you’d need 20 years to get a negative trend in the UAH Antarctica data.
barry
Your imgur link gives a 404 exception in the http server corner. That seems to happen sometimes.
What about using
https://postimages.org/
instead? It’s even more simple than Google Drive.
J.-P. D.
Correction: the April 2021 anomaly for Antarctica is -0.59 C.
There are several fairly unique factors that influence temperature at the South Pole (other than the obvious lack of sunlight and elevation). These include:
– The Antarctic Oscillation
– Changes to the ozone hole
– A reverse GHE during winter months.
So the notion that the South Pole is somehow a controlled experiment WRT CO2 and temperature change? Not even close.
Don’t forget Lenin’s bust:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/mini-stories-volume-11/2/
Funny, it looks like Antarctica is gaining snow, not losing it. Funny for a warming area isn’t it?
Most of the pedestal had been buried under decades of accumulated Antarctic snow, making the Lenin at the pole of inaccessibility slightly more accessible. Visitors could now walk right up to it.
The atmosphere must contain moisture to generate snow, Life.
Have you ever heard of “it is too cold for snow”?
‘it is too cold for snow’?
???
Never heard of that one. I’ve lived in some cold places where it snowed regardless of how cold it was.
Derp.
C’mon, Ken:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-meaning-of-th/
Heat pumps become less efficient past -12C because there’s less humidity in the air. Less humidity, less chances of snow.
Your government might offer electricity rebates if you use dual energy.
CO2isLife
“Funny, it looks like Antarctica is gaining snow, not losing it. Funny for a warming area isnt it? ”
Perhaps you should learn a bit about Antarctica before you make foolish comments.
That bust is at 12,000 ft in the centre of the ice sheet.
Snow falls on the surface, so anything on the surface is gradually buried.
The weight of the overlying snow gradually compresses the snow into ice.
The ice flows slowly downhill into glaciers and ends up melting into the sea.
This pattern of mass gain on top and mass loss around the edges of the continent has been going on for 35 million years.
Warmer world = more water vapour in the air = more snow in areas where it snows instead of rains.
I’m not saying that is the case for Antarctica, just that your ‘model’ of what you see going on seems to be a little naive.
Willard, please stop trolling.
March Hare
CO2IsLife’s rule number zero is the same as Clint R’s and Robertson’s:
KISS: Keep it simple, stupid
J.-P. D.
Yes Bindidon, I try to keep it simple so even idiots can understand. But the problem is, they reject reality.
It’s probably due to their obsession with their cult….
March, then build a model that demonstrates that. Unless you have a factor with a 40 year cycle that exactly counterbalances CO2, then you have to rule out CO2 as a cause of warming.
You didn’t understand.
The Antarctic has local effects that are perculiar to it. The depleted ozone layer, which has a fairly strong radiative effect (cooling). The circumpolar winds and ocean currents, that keep Antarctica relatively thermally isolated from the rest of the planet. And, of course, surface temperatures there are going to be bound to an upper limit of the temperature of frozen ice – unless the weather station is situated where there is no ice. The presence of the ice will depress any positive trend, especially compared to global, where the freezing point of water is not the upper temperature limit.
One can’t to a straight experiment for CO2 over Antarctica without factoring these other effects in.
Any case, Antarctica has warmed slightly over the satellite period (UAH data), and also for the last 50 to 60 years, though the warming is only slight.
Reminds me of another golden idol –
https://tinyurl.com/pr5w8h6w
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679401
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team April 30, 2021 at 4:32 PM
…I’m not a real moderator…I’m just having a bit of fun. When I write “please stop trolling”, it doesn’t actually have any effect…I think what people are really upset about by the “please stop trolling” is…they don’t get to have the last word.
Exactly.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-684921
Indeed.
Here’s the kind of fun kiddo has in mind, Tyson:
Yep.
Be careful what you wish for folks. Delayed planting, reduced crop production, feeds fewer people. That is happening now, this year.
A warmer world may not exactly be what those who live in the tropics need, Stephen.
When those in the tropics start feeding the rest of the world, I’ll worry about them.
Stick to political propaganda, Stephen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropics
I don’t need to stick to anything. The rest of the world can’t live off of coffee and bananas. It needs the agricultural production of the US.
> I dont need to stick to anything.
You certainly don’t need to stick to anything that makes you look half competent.
Your caricature omits staple crops like rice, maize, cassava, beans, yams, plantains, etc:
https://www.nap.edu/read/1985/chapter/2
OK, so here you go with your idiocy. Do you contend that Africa, India, and Brazil are going to feed the World? Most of the rice is grown in China. Most of the maize is grown in the US. Are you saying Africa and India will feed the rest of the World when they can’t even feed themselves? Who’s going to feed the World with Casava and Plantains? Go ahead with your Google searches. Let’s hear it.
Also, if it cools in the US and China, don’t you think it will affect India and Brazil’s food production? You don’t think we can better feed ourselves with a warm planet? The planet has been greening during this warming period, and world food production has increased. Please explain your logic? You’re not making any sense.
> Do you contend that Africa, India, and Brazil are going to feed the World?
I only contend that a warmer world may not exactly be what those who live in the tropics need, Stephen. If Africa, India, and Brazil start having problems with too much heat and humidity, that’s a problem *for them*. If you think that’s a business opportunity, then you’re an asshat.
Local agriculture still dominates everywhere, at least most balance or not far from being neutral. That should increase the more sustainable we become: less kilometer per calorie means less fossil fuels burnt. The US of A certainly won’t feed the world unless they start to eat less, starting with meat.
I’d rather keep the fossil fuels left to produce cement and plastic than to burn it because we’re too dumb to organize ourselves properly. What about you?
WillarDDDDD!,
Intentionally obstinate quip master. So you’re worried that this warming period has been bad for the tropics, but then you point out how many people live in the tropics and all the food the tropics have produced during this warming period. And, then you bring up fossils fuels and concrete and plastics. So, shorter planting and growing seasons and less food production is nothing to worry about, and you’ve decided cooler Tropics are a good thing. So, what temperature do we need to be? What temperatures do the tropics need to be? How much cooler?
> So youre worried
You should read my words instead of trying to read my mind, Stephen.
As you can see, I can do more than quip. I hope you like it.
Well, you’re not making a whole lot of sense. We need to cool down although the food production is well balanced everywhere.
Good talk.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yeah, there are some rather alarming reports about crops due to the La Nina induced drought.
One interesting story is from Paraguay where there isn’t enough water to float the barges that would otherwise be transporting the crops to market.
USA is selling soy to China and US meat producers are paying high prices for soy from Brazil. Markets are really screwed up due to pandemic induced supply chain disruption.
The scary thought is that part of the climate change/green agenda is really about population reduction and there are rumors the supply chain disruption is deliberate.
Certainly, food prices are going to continue rising.
Bindy Says: CO2IsLifes rule number zero is the same as Clint Rs and Robertsons:
KISS: Keep it simple, stupid
Actually I think that is Okum’s Rule #1. Anyway, here is how Captain Obvious would build a KISS Climate Model.
1) Start with Antarctica. Model the Climate there because it has the fewest exogenous variable. CO2 would have a 0.00 Coefficient in the model, and I would imagine the Sun would explain almost all of the temperature variation. ΔT = 0.0xCO2 + 100xSun
Then go a little N and model the S Hemi Ocean. You would end up with ΔT = 0.00xCo2 + 30xH2O + 70XSun
Then go and model the S Hemi Land and you would get ΔT = 0.00xCO2 + 40xH20 + 20xUHI + 40xSun
And so on and so on.
The problem with Climate Science is that not all climates are the same, and yet these Einsteins try to great a single aggregate temperature. That proves how truly ignorant they are of modeling, and why current climate models will always fail. Dr. Spencer make a sport out of highlighting just how laughable these models are.
Each region is impacted be a different and often unique set of variable, so many that you will never be able to model them all. Nobel Prize-winning statisticians can’t model the Stock Market, and there are fortunes to be made there. Do you honestly think someone on a Professor’s salary will be able to crack the forecasting and modeling methods Wall Street hasn’t? If they could and have, every Climate Scientist would be working on Wall Street.
Anyway, the very fact that they model the aggregate instead of modeling the individual climates pretty much proves to anyone familiar with modeling that Climate Scientists are more about producing research to promote public policy then they are about getting to the truth. This isn’t science, it is propaganda.
BTW, watch how the Alarmists will respond to my common sense Captain Obvious post above. They will go ballistic and attack me. Then take the above post over to the Mathematics, Econometrics, or Statistics Department. Ask them what they think of the approach. The answer you will get is “Duh, how else would you do it?”
Funny how climate alarmists fail at even the basics of multi-variable modeling. Don’t take my word for it, go over to a real science department and ask them how they would solve the problem of modeling multiple data sets impacted by different factors.
> Dont take my word for it
OK.
Like Clockwork, the alarmists have no rebuttals, only idiotic comments. Willard, didn’t they make a movie about you in the 1970s?
Be the change you want to see, Life.
Show everyone the way.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> And so on and so on.
You’re not doing what you claim should be done.
Why is that?
Like Clockwork, the alarmists have no rebuttals, only idiotic comments. Williard, do you have an intelligent comment to make?
You have no clothes, Life.
Willard, go back and read your posts. You don’t bring anything to the conversation. You aren’t doing the alarmists any favors exposing that you have no intelligent positions. You are like a petulant child. Simply go back and read your posts. Ask yourself, “are these posts consistent with someone with a mental age over 12?”
Williard fancies himself the Master of Quips. He lobs dud hand grenades.
> go back and read your posts
Good idea. Here’s one:
You have no clothes, Life.
> go back and read your posts
Done. Here’s a list of my contributions:
– showing the tension between proof and falsification;
– citing a guide to falsify AGW;
– clarifying that EMBs are all about steady state temperature;
– spotting some contrarians’ burden of proof reversal;
– citing b-ok dot cc, a useful resource;
– introducing the concept of High Expectation Auditor;
– asking for the alternative theories to AGW;
– citing when Galileo went ballistic;
– showing that “contrarian” is a fairly neutral term;
– showing that models indeed take ENSO into account;
– quoting the IPCC’s claim about AGW;
– identifying the incompatibility of “but trace gas” and “but plant food”;
– recalling Nick’s work on Gaspe’s series;
– reminding that there’s a relationship between humidity and snow;
– quoting Joe averaging fluxes;
– citing a story about Lenin’s bust;
– quoting kiddo’s intention to keep sock puppeting the rest of his life;
– clarifying that Joe’s model hides a -270 on the other side of his half Earth model;
I think this compares well to Life’s vigorous armwaving.
It’s OK to forget that the MWP was before 1400. After all, our Beloved Bishop forgot too, and he’s an expert.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–1) Start with Antarctica. Model the Climate there because it has the fewest exogenous variable. CO2 would have a 0.00 Coefficient in the model, and I would imagine the Sun would explain almost all of the temperature variation. ΔT = 0.0xCO2 + 100xSun
Then go a little N and model the S Hemi Ocean. You would end up with ΔT = 0.00xCo2 + 30xH2O + 70XSun
Then go and model the S Hemi Land and you would get ΔT = 0.00xCO2 + 40xH20 + 20xUHI + 40xSun
And so on and so on.–
How about start with warmest Earth.
How warm could any planet get at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
I think Venus at Earth distance, would be colder than Earth.
And Earth at Venus distant from the Sun, much cooler than Venus.
It seems if Earth and Venus were to switch position {magically}
Venus would absorb 1/2 much sunlight at Earth distance and Earth would absorb twice as much at Venus distance.
And then because they switch position one expect both would change over time. But at moment of switched, the difference is just 1/2 as absorbed and twice as much absorbed.
How long would it take for Venus to change due to getting 1/2 as much sunlight {and emitting as much as did, when it was closer to the Sun?
I would say, probably thousands years. Or thousand year rather than a day or a month.
Should expect a quicker change with Earth with it getting twice as much sunlight? I would say quicker but maybe 100 years. There is the immediate effect to intense sunlight killing life and making sidewalks very hot and etc. But life didn’t evolve with such intense sunlight. Though how would fish fare if in ocean, say tropical ocean. It doesn’t seem like would much of immediate effect upon fish. But lot’s of problems life on Land, in terms of immediate effects.
Now, I say global climate is about the ocean temperature and global air temperature is mostly about ocean surface temperature.
Does tropical ocean surface temperature change much in month or a year.
Average now, is about 26 C, does average increase to over 30 C.
I don’t it change as much a +4 C within a year. But tropics gets a lot more cloudy. But beaches and coastal water would significantly get warmer. And sunlight in terms supporting plant life should get to a deeper depth. So around 100 meter, now, and should change to about 150 meter depth. Water 50 meter or less, might add 10 C, unlike deep ocean where should be less 5 C and perhaps less than 3 C. Anyhow within 1 year, global ocean average starts at about 17 C, and could increase by 2 C.
Land going get more rain, but land going to dry out quicker. Some land going to rain every day, and other land not see rain in months. But talking about 1 year, and Earth climate {the ocean temperature of 3.5 C] hasn’t changed much.
So one ask a question within a year, how much does change in terms of how much does Earth emit. Well within 1 year, Sahara desert will remain a desert, and surface is going to get very hot in day time. But roughly speaking Earth just going absorb more energy than it emits.
And with Venus for first year {or 1000 thousand years}, it’s going emit about the same, and absorb 1/2 as much sunlight. And possible it absorbs much less than 1/2.
So, in terms of less than year, and in terms of global climate nothing much happens to Earth at Venus distance and Venus at Earth distance.
What happens immediately at 1 atm at Venus.
So as it is, Venus at 1 atm has temperature of about 70 C and if Sun suddenly become 1/2 of intensity, that region of the atmosphere cools.
So, if you are at 1 atm at Venus and sun is at zenith the sunlight will be bright, and when sun is 1/2 intensity it will become a lot less bright, but compared to when sun when is 30 degree above the horizon, the 2600 watt per square meter sun is just as not bright.
So the immediate flipping to Earth distance would be similar a change in time from noon to late after noon or early morning.
And if you happen to on nightside, with the immediate switch, you notice nothing happening.
So, could say the change that happens, occurs every “day” on Venus,
and 1/2 of sunlight likewise has same “change” on “every day” on Earth.
And on every “day” of Venus, the sky falls. So immediate effect having 1/2 of intensity of Sunlight is slightly more, falling sky.
When sky falls, the pressure remains the same and the air density increases, or you fall within the atmosphere.
So the 1 atm doesn’t change much in temperature, but air density increases.
So, in year of time. 1 atm pressure, has increased in air density, and during daytime the sunlight is less bright. If measure the day from dawn and dusk set amount of sunlight, the day gets a bit shorter- and twilight and night gets longer.
And in 1000 year, one has the 1000 years of the sky falling, and predictably, the sky will continue it’s falling for another 1000 years.
But one say, that like measuring the bottom waters of Earth, the measure of Venus “climate” is the surface air of it’s rocky surface, and within 1000 years, it doesn’t change much. Or climbing a mountain would be as large or larger change.
Of course at rocky surface, currently it’s mostly darkness, and immediate effect is a lot more darkness. And sunlight at zenith on rocky surface is a lot more dimmer.
So, from the above, one say what happens when Earth pops into Venus distance and gets twice as much sunlight, instead of sky falling, the sky in general rises.
As a general matter, a higher sky creates a more uniform global temperature. So, anytime, Earth’s atmosphere for whatever reason gets a more uniform global air temperature, that’s just another word for global warming. Or because we don’t have an uniform global air temperature, we should say Earth is colder.
Earth is colder, it’s in friggin Ice Age {with a cold ocean}.
Now, as saying having twice as much sunlight certainly counts as emergency, or very transformational.
But it’s seems to be what is more “shocking” is how little Earth changes, at least in terms of within 100 years. Also, due to human limitation, the news couldn’t get much more hysterical. And out of desperation they might find something more exciting stuff to talk about other than the weather.
Another aspect of the “News” is that the news creature, tend to hide was is important and sun becoming twice as bright counts as important. But solar energy, would still not work.
But one could easily boil water with sunlight, and that would probably make a difference.
So other than causing global warming- a more uniform global air temperature, what does a rising sky do?
So, going to have lower air density at sea level and lower air density at mountain level. And pressure roughly staying the same.
And one going to increase global water vapor- that small amount of add atmosphere, will slightly effect air pressure.
The sun currently burns off morning clouds, and twice as strong sunlight, will cause more burning off of clouds. But one also imagine more clouds would be made. And we can’t even figure out clouds now, but I am going guess it’s very likely we are get much larger net of global clouds.
Or presently, water vapor, or global water vapor is a very dominative aspect of Earth climate, it’s going get to be more of dominative aspect of climate.
I am going to return to idea, I mentioned long time ago, what if Mercury had a global ocean but just had water vapor as it’s atmosphere. Or water vapor is the only atmosphere, or very, very dominative aspect of Mercury’s climate.
The first thing one keep in mind is, that Mercury ocean could not boil. You have been brainwashed to imagine Venus non-existing as ocean boiling in some distant time in past. So, I think important to mention this.
One could get lost with idea that Mercury ocean would not last for millions of billions of years. And let’s get pass that by saying an ocean was put on Mercury and it was only 1000 years ago.
So Mercury is a world with some islands, but we say 95% is ocean surface. And natural human creature, cools by evaporation, so that presents a problem for humans running around like a caveman- but there no oxygen to breath either. So that rapidly is a mute point.
Anyhow, it seems like it would be similar world to Venus, except it’s got a thin atmosphere {so not like Venus at all}. But the clouds would have act like a surface- so similar to Venus in that way.
The ocean is going to evaporate until something stops it, and seem clouds are going to to be, a large part of what stops it.
Let’s imagine the ocean average surface temperature of 40 C, that gives the atmosphere a pressure of 0.0728 atm {or about 1 psi].
And assume warmer surface water at equator, say 50 C or 0.1218 atm {1.79 psi}. So denser cooler water at poles, falls. And warm tropical surface water goes to poles.
Like any planet most of it, has little sunlight reaching the surface and warmer spot where sunlight is closer to zenith.
Model that.
Oh, one more thing, our clouds in our tropic has ice particles, if we have twice the amount of sunlight, will our tropics no longer have clouds with ice particle, anywhere, within the tropics?
Anyways, if added this ocean to Mercury, you make Mercury more habitable {and less habitable}. You make it more habitable in that 1 trillion humans could live on Mercury {assuming they wanted to live there} and/or grow food for 1 trillion people.
Mercury is currently habitable by humans.
Most of Mercury is cold, but it’s vacuum and a vacuum has no temperature, so isn’t actually cold nor hot. It’s no sunlight and a lot sunlight.
Like the Moon- the lunar polar region of the Moon, one have grid encircling the polar region and get constant electrical power from the sunlight. So got lots of energy to make enclosed environments with pressurized air, have a room temperature.
But Mercury, like the Moon is not very good place to grow food.
But Mercury with a ocean, would be a very good place to grow food- so Mercury with ocean, being more habitable with this ocean.
Mercury with an ocean has greenhouse effect. And greenhouse effect in the sense that the average temperature of the surface of the planet increases. Let’s see:
Christos Vournas says:
“Mercury 340 K”
Not sure that’s correct but 340 K = 66.85 C
Does ocean make warmer than 66 C?
It might be, I tried 50 C as example of tropical ocean surface and kind of have doubts it would + 70C
70 C is 0.3077 atm vapor pressure [4.52319 psi}
And if added oxygen to atmosphere then one could run around the surface and have pressure to breathe the oxygen.
But it’s trillions and trillion of tons of atmosphere one would have add.
But without added atmosphere, the global average ocean surface could have lower temperature than 66 C.
But another part of global warming means less high temperature- and definitely does that.
But if Christos number is correct the ocean should lower the global average temperature to about 55 C, but there not much atmosphere, and need pressure suit to run around on the surface, and you need just more cooling than what normally need when running around with a pressure suit in a better vacuum. And under ocean surface it would be cooler than average global surface temperature.
But it’s “interesting” that having global ocean can/might cool the average surface temperature.
LOL So much for the Global warming boogieman considering we are now at the same temp globally as 1980?!😂 Here in NYC this year has been way below average my daffodiles bloomed 2 weeks later than normal as well as Tulips, trees are just getting leaf growth and some are still just flowering. Going to be interesting to see how these fear porn media morons try to spin the current global cooling era we have now entered into and will continue for the next 30-50 years.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. I don’t know if we can say there is a trend change yet. And if there is, we won’t know how long it will last. We don’t even know what causes the trend changes. Let’s not be like the alarmists.
Stat Speaking, assuming that you have a background in Statistics, I’d appreciate your comments regarding this Stepwise approach to building a Climate Model.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-686464
I wouldn’t count on Statistically Speaking for expertese. He made the same mistake you did.
“LOL So much for the Global warming boogieman considering we are now at the same temp globally as 1980? ”
Remember your mistake, comparing the top of the 1980 El Nino with the bottom of the 2021 La Nina?
ET Says: Remember your mistake, comparing the top of the 1980 El Nino with the bottom of the 2021 La Nina?
Mistake? Facts are, using your theory that I agree with, that La Ninos can cool the globe and erase 40 years of alleged warming pretty much proves CO2 can’t cause warming. It may increase the frequency of El Ninos and La Nina’s, but it can’t cause warming. El Ninos and La Ninas are the pressure valves of the climate system that prevent run away warming. Mistake? Nope, you just made the point I’ve been making all along. Thanks for making my point, and debunking your beliefs.
“La Ninas can cool the globe and erase 40 years of alleged warming pretty much proves CO2 can’t cause warming.”
La Ninas don’t cool the globe. They cool surface temperatures, which is a very thin slice of the whole system that represents the global energy budget.
La Ninas do this by sequestering atmospheric heat into the oceans. And that is why we are seeing some cooler anomalies right now.
So, of course, la Ninas don’t remove 40 years of warming at all, they just move it around the climate system, as do el Ninos.
This has been explained to you for months. It is really basic. When are you going to understand it?
Volcanic ash causes global cooling, it’s not rocket science it’s actual factual science. And we’ve had a record number of volcanic explosions over the past two years. One can and should only speak about the actual climate where they live and keep track of seasonal blooms, as a lifelong gardener and farmer I’m actully aware of weather patterns and changes in my region that effect my plants and my annual yields.
“weve had a record number of volcanic explosions over the past two years”
I don’t find that credible.
The largest eruption of the satellite era was Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991 during a strong El Nino.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_eruption_of_Mount_Pinatubo
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
UAH temperature dropped from 0.2C to -0.6C in six months and stayed low well into 1994.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2021_v6.jpg
The current minimum is at the end of a a La Nina which is sufficient on its own to explain the observed temperature drop with no need to invoke vulcanism.
I’m not sure where you got two years of record volcanism from. Nobody else seems to have noticed.
I personally live by the K.I.S.S. theory and have found it to be the best way to deal with most people who think they are smarter than they actually are!😂 But then again I’m also direct descendant of John J. Dalton for which the Dalton minimum is named after and find that when attempting to discuss matters of weather and climate history most people are quite ignorant and only make their conclusions based on the last 100 years of U.S. record keeping, the real dummies only use the last 50 years as proof of runaway global warming.
It’s no wonder why the covid fear porn has surpassed the global warming boogieman in the mass media? Pre covid according to the media and 90% of so called climate scientists global warming was the number one issue facing the planet and our survival, then covid came along and the media quickly jumped onto the covid train predicting millions of deaths and sent media darling gem Z bat shit cra cra Greta Thunberg packing.🤣 Even as covid subsides the American media still refuses to talk about the actual global temp drop over the past year and instead wants to focus on India’s covid crisis?! 230,000 deaths out of 1.4 billion people I’d say they’re doing pretty dam good for a population that 60% of lives in squalor with little to no healthcare.
India has lost 243,000 deaths to covid. The US has lost 595,000.
India has lost 174 deaths per million. The US has lost 1789.
India seems to be handling Covid-19 much better than the US.
Data from the Worldometer Covid page, but this site won’t accept the link.
Use tinyurl to convert links into smaller links, and also avoid the booby-traps on this site.
https://tinyurl.com/app
EM, bookmark that website, please.
And here is the resulting tinyurl for the Worldometer site.
https://tinyurl.com/478dby8u
ET 95% of covid deaths in the US was people over 50.
In the US 34% of the people are over 50.
In India 2.9% of the people are over 50.
Goofed, grabbed wrong column. India over 50 is about 15%
We know that older people are more susceptible to COVID19, as they are to most diseases. What is your point, bill?
(We really are off-topic now)
https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_currenteruptions.cfm
Thank you.
Now let’s take it to the next level.
The average VEI of your 42 volcanoes is VEI 1.4. Each would emit about 0.05 cubic km of material, giving a total emission of 2.1 cubic km.
Pinatubo was VEI 6 on the logarithmic scale and erupted 10 cubic km.
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/volcanoes_explosivity/
Your 42 small eruptions together are only ejecting 20% of Pinatubo and are unlikely to have a significant effect on the climate.
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/volcanoes_explosivity/
“K.I.S.S”
There is a difference between simple and simplistic.
Raise your game, please.
Ent, your “game” is to claim passenger jets fly backwards.
Not to mention your other nonsense.
Raise your game, please.
Clint,
You might like:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1247.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
The sun’s solar output and sun spot count in cycle 22 especially in the highest point of the 11 year cycle from 1990/1991 was expendetially much higher then cycle 24 which just ended. Comparatively the amount of debris from the 42 volcanic explosions over the past two years doesn’t have to be as much as what Pinatubo put into the atmosphere to have a similar cooling effect with a much lower output from the sun. Solar Cycle 25 will be just as low as 24 if not lower as well as the following solar cycles. If we were to have a Pinatubo sized eruption again during this current cycle it would have a devastating effect on the planet many times worse than in 1991.
The difference in absorbed radiation between the peak and the minimum for a solar cycle is 0.25W/m^2.
1C warming would require a difference of 3.7W/C.
The 11 year cycle would produce a differential of 0.25/3.7=0.07C. That is too small to detect above the internal variability.
Pinatubo caused UAH to drop by 0.8C, equivalent to blocking 0.8*3.7=3.0W/m^2.
I doubt that the phase of the solar cycle would have much effect on the cooling due to a VEI 6 eruption.
Ent, are you confused by your cult’s nonsense?
Maybe it’s time you started to face reality.
SS,
The min-to-max change in TSI is about 1.5 W/m^2 on the high side. This is an RF = 1.5 / 4 * 0.7 = +0.26 W/m^2. The max-to-min value is -0.26 W/m^2. The change from max-to-max or min-to-min is close to 0 W/m^2 though. Long term solar forcing is driven by the grand cycles which operate over long periods of time. This grand cycle forcing is still pretty low though. For example, the RF from the Maunder Minimum to the Modern Maximum is on the order of about +0.25 W/m^2
It usually takes a VEI 5+ eruption to loft enough material in the stratosphere to have a measurable effect. And even then a VEI 5 eruption is not always detectable in the temperature record. The last VEI 5 eruption was in 2011. Aerosols definitely have a cooling effect though. In fact, it is believed that waning anthroprogenic aerosol emissions account for about 20% of the planetary energy imbalance in the last 15 years (Kramer 2021).
That’s because India doesn’t have a population with 60% obesity and 30% morbid obesity rate like we do here in the good old USA!😂
80% of all covid related deaths were people that were obese and had 2 or more pre existing conditions due to obesity.
So you did it to yourselves!
What if Covid was a common affliction in a population where everyone was skinny, then along came an epidemic of obesity?
Which would the deaths be attributed to?
What if people believed they were smart because they went along with the majority. But, then the majority were proved wrong, by reality.
What would the people do?
What if a conman tried to present a flux diagram as a “climate model” and concealed that it produced -273C over half of its side?
What would Sky Dragons do?
1) “Sky Dragons” do not equal “Postma”. He is just one person with his own ideas. He is not the mouth-piece for all of the “Slayers”. He is certainly not the mouth-piece for all of the people that don’t think there is a GHE. And no, they are not the same thing.
2) The “dark side” is not at -273 C.
Reread what I wrote, kiddo, this time slowly.
And you’re right: it’s -273,15C.
The “dark side” is not at -273.15 C. The entire Earth is emitting 240 W/m^2. Therefore the effective temperature of the Earth (including the “dark side”) is 255 K. He writes 303 K on the “lit hemisphere” side to remind you that 480 W/m^2 input has the potential to heat a blackbody surface to 303 K. He’s not saying the “lit hemisphere” is at 303 K.
> The “dark side” is not at -273.15 C.
So you say. If you had a model, you would not need to argue by assertion.
Spin it, kiddo, spin it!
Willard, please stop trolling. You are just embarrassing yourself.
Joe’s conning you, kiddo.
I’m sorry you got pwned.
The 480 W/m^2 absorbed over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere, in real time, does balance energy in and energy out…and that debunks your article.
> in real time
Saying so does not make it so.
For how many seconds have you run Joe’s model?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The 444 W/m^2 absorbed over the lit hemisphere and 111 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere…
The basic formula:
for energy in = energy out
0,47(1-0,3)1361 = 444 W/m^2
444 W/m^2 /4 = 111 W/m^2
A real planet doesn’t emit 111 W/m^2 uniformly from the entire sphere…
A real planet emits strongly from the sunlit side, and very weakly from the dark side.
It is more like 400 W/m^2 from the sunlit side, and only about 44 W/m^2 from the dark side…
In general, Planet emits in total:
Jemit = 4pi*r^2*sigma*Τmean^4 /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
Jabsorb = Jemit = pi*r^2*444 (W)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Willard is a young troll-in-training.
He has no education, no awareness of reality, and nothing to offer.
Try not to laugh, as he struggles to compete with the other trolls.
Clint, Clint.
Joe is a coward.
Willard, Willard.
I don’t think Clint R gives a flying f*ck about Joe.
Prove it, kiddo.
I’m not sure Joe is a coward. Likely he’s just incompetent and senile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fd9zQjYaUs
Prove that he cares.
It’s easy to prove that Joe is a coward, kiddo.
Thanks for the clarification, Clint – who’s your Sky Dragon guru?
Did you click on the link, Willard?
Yes, kiddo. I did.
Well done, child.
Where’s Joe’s model, kiddo?
Where’s Joe’s model, child?
I have half of it, kiddo.
Do you have the other one?
Oh, you have half of it, now? That’s new. Good for you. Keep on searching.
I will. Promised.
And I know who can help me find it.
Willard, please stop trolling..
To be honest: I ask me sometimes why people who don’t have any knowledge about atmospheric data, nevertheless feel the brazen need to nickname themselves
‘Statistically Speaking’
To the one person doing that here, I propose to adapt his pseudonym to what he really does here, namely ‘Insignificantly Speaking’.
*
Now let us have a closer look to the data he manifestly hasn’t the least clue of, namely a comparison of UAH anomaly data for
– the lower troposphere (LT)
– the lower stratosphere (LS).
This comparison is helpful when looking at volcanic fingerprints in the atmospheric layers.
The stronger the eruption, the higher the temperature (here: anomalies wrt 1991-2020) in the LS, – and correspondingly – the lower they are in the LT.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qZX7wJQwavMbcBsY6IjAhwAOpAkSY8Rf/view
Here we see the difference between
– the volcanic eruption periods 1982-84 and 1991-93
and
– the alleged 42 eruption volcanic period of the last two years.
I say ‘alleged’, because the LS peak in Feb/Mar 2020 had very probably few to do with eruptions: this global 0.50 C peak was due, if I well remember, to a huge 15 C anomaly peak in the East Antarctic.
Moreover, its volcanic origin (e.g. Taal, Jan 2020) is very improbable, because the usual LT reaction to eruptions – a lowering of temperatures – did not happen at the time of the LS peak.
And as Entropic man perfectly explained
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-686830
the effect of solar irradiance over such a small period is, compared with a huge VEI 6 eruption, simply negligible.
J.-P. D.
Let’s Not get Distracted: No one has addressed this “Stepwise” Approach to Climate Modeling.
Bindy Says: CO2IsLifes rule number zero is the same as Clint Rs and Robertsons:
KISS: Keep it simple, stupid
Actually I think that is Okums Rule #1. Anyway, here is how Captain Obvious would build a KISS Climate Model.
1) Start with Antarctica. Model the Climate there because it has the fewest exogenous variable. CO2 would have a 0.00 Coefficient in the model, and I would imagine the Sun would explain almost all of the temperature variation. ΔT = 0.0xCO2 + 100xSun
Then go a little N and model the S Hemi Ocean. You would end up with ΔT = 0.00xCo2 + 30xH2O + 70XSun
Then go and model the S Hemi Land and you would get ΔT = 0.00xCO2 + 40xH20 + 20xUHI + 40xSun
And so on and so on.
The problem with Climate Science is that not all climates are the same, and yet these Einsteins try to great a single aggregate temperature. That proves how truly ignorant they are of modeling, and why current climate models will always fail. Dr. Spencer make a sport out of highlighting just how laughable these models are.
Each region is impacted be a different and often unique set of variable, so many that you will never be able to model them all. Nobel Prize-winning statisticians cant model the Stock Market, and there are fortunes to be made there. Do you honestly think someone on a Professors salary will be able to crack the forecasting and modeling methods Wall Street hasnt? If they could and have, every Climate Scientist would be working on Wall Street.
Anyway, the very fact that they model the aggregate instead of modeling the individual climates pretty much proves to anyone familiar with modeling that Climate Scientists are more about producing research to promote public policy then they are about getting to the truth. This isnt science, it is propaganda.
CO2IsLife
I repeat:
CO2IsLife’s rule number zero is the same as Clint R’s and Robertson’s:
KISS: Keep it simple, stupid
What you just wrote is a perfect confirmation.
J.-P. D.
binny…”CO2IsLife’s rule number zero is the same as Clint R’s and Robertson’s:
KISS: Keep it simple, stupid”
***
We like to vary our rules. CO2 doesn’t agree with Clint and I on lunar local non-rotation and he gets excited when I talk about curvilinear translation.
Oddly, CO2 agrees with you on lunar local rotation, so please try to be kinder to him. That’s kinder as in nicer, not kids.
“1) Start with Antarctica. Model the Climate there because it has the fewest exogenous variable.”
Fail at step one. Antarctica has a depleted ozone layer – the most signficant in the world. It produces a cooling effect.
It’s not the only local factor.
No, Antarctica is not a pristine environment to test the EGHE.
Also, perennial ice means land surface temps are upper-limited to the freezing point of water. So you’re not going to see as much warming there as elsewhere on the globe, particularly in Summer.
barry…”Antarctica has a depleted ozone layer the most signficant in the world. It produces a cooling effect”.
How, pray tell, does it cause cooling when it lets more, high energy UV through? And, how does it cool Antarctica any cooler than it gets from lack of solar energy.
“perennial ice means land surface temps are upper-limited to the freezing point of water”.
Wouldn’t have anything to do with a lack of solar input for much of the year and a lowered solar input for the rest of the year, due to the tilt of the planet’s axis?
Barry Says: Fail at step one. Antarctica has a depleted ozone layer the most signficant in the world. It produces a cooling effect.
Let me get this straight, O3, a greenhouse gas at 50km is cooling the surface of the earth. Care to explain how? O3 also absorbs near 10&;micro;, way above the Temperatures of the S Pole.
Anyway, please explain how a GHG at 50km can warm the surface of the earth.
CO2isLife,
Depleted ozone cools the lower stratosphere, which changes wind currents and where they are located. The change in wind currents and position of jet streams (Southern Annular Mode) produces cooling over East Antarctica.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp%20/paps/previdi+polvani-QJRMS-2014.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.7132&rep=rep1&type=pdf
به قیمت کارخانه از بازار لوله و اتصالات خرید کنید
Well this looks legit. Pity there isn’t a link I can click to be the millionth customer or something.
Pipe Fittings Market says:
Buy pipes and fittings at the factory price
Yeah…
J.-P. D.
Floating an idea.
Comments welcomed.
…………………
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, produced an Annual Climate Statement for year 2020.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2020/annual-summary-table.shtml
From its Table of annual rainfall, temperature and sea surface temperature this graph was prepared.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/temp_rain.jpg
The graph shows an inverse statistical relation between annual land temperature and annual rainfall. In short, rain cools, as expected from known physics oif evaporation, latent and sensible heat, etc..
For example, wet bulb thermometers and conventional dry bulb temperatures produce correlated, but dissimilar measurements at the same place and time. Climate analysts have uses for both. Both temperatures are affected by water. Yet, for expression of temperatures, climate analysts have concentrated mainly on near-surface temperatures from dry bulb thermometers in surrounds like Stevenson screens, while disregarding the effects of water.
For an analogy, a surveyor can run a metal tape between 2 points to measure their separation. The metal tape is known to expand with heat. Therefore, a correction is applied after measuring the surrounding temperature, otherwise an error happens.
Several questions arise.
Should climate analysis continue to be based on this dry bulb temperature or on a more fundamental version of it corrected for the effect of rainfall? Should rainfall be regarded as a forcing or a feedback that affects the customary temperature?
With regard to physics, The Stefan-Boltzmann law is expressed as W = σT4, where W is the radiant energy emitted per second and per unit area and the constant of proportionality is σ = 0.136 calories per metre2-second-K4. Which is the appropriate temperature to represent T in this equation, the measured-in-practice T or that T corrected for the variable, rainfall? There are significant differences between these, when raised to the power of four.
With regards to measuring temperatures, it is often shown that satellite methods like those of UAH do not match in detail the near-surface reconstructions like GISS. Maybe the match would improve if a rainfall-corrected temperature was used for the near surface measurements over land. Geoff S
Geoff, welcome to the party. What you will find when dealing with the climate alarmists is that if you find a data set that gives you the answer you want, you ignore all other data sets and problems. There are differentials all over the place in Climate Science and the “experts” doesn’t even try to explain them. I just wrote a post on how to address such issues statistically and all you get are childish comments by people like Willard.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-686982
There are dirrerentials between Wet and Dry Bulbs, Satellite and Ground Measurements, N and S Hemi, N and S and Equator, Land and Ocean, Deserts and Cities, Antarctica and the N Pole. Climate science just ignores all those differences, doesn’t even try to explain them, and throws everything together to create a meaningless but scary chart showing warming.
Ancient sites like Thermoplye are 2km inland as are most other ancient coastal sites, yet Alarmists will claim we are warmer than that period. I guess the land mass moved instead of the sea level falling in their theory. Also, CO2 only absorbs and radiates 13 to 18µ LWIR. Run those numbers through a black body calculator adn do your SB Calculation and you will see that there isn’t a whole lot of energy there, and it certainly isn’t enough to warm the oceans.
> I just wrote a post on how to address such issues statistically
You just waved your arms, Life, and you are still naked.
The “wet-bulb” temperature is used to ascertain the relative humidity. The wet-bulb temperatures is the result of evaporative cooling. The dry-bulb temperature is the actual temperature. At 100% relative humidity, wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures would be the same.
A surface emits based on its temperature (S/B Law), which would correspond to the dry-bulb temperature.
Clint, this is really interesting.
” The dry-bulb temperature is the actual temperature. At 100% relative humidity, wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures would be the same.”
Do climate models have Relative Humidity as a variable in their models? The Wet Dry Differential would be a useful variable in explaining the differences between deserts and rain forests.
Do climate models have the differential as a variable?
The differential is the basis for the “heat index”, which is often used (misused) to make headlines. Heat index temperatures can easily be 30F higher than actual!
No, Clint,
The wet bulb is cooled by the water held next to the bulb.
The normal weather station is cooled by the nearby water in the ground.
Both effects happen
Both affect the ‘true’ temperature.
Which one is theoretically correct to use?
Neither?
Geoff S
Hi Geoff,
“Should climate analysis continue to be based on this dry bulb temperature or on a more fundamental version of it corrected for the effect of rainfall?”
I think the ‘correction’ may have more interest for meteorologists who focus on weather. Seems like an interesting idea, though, even if it adds another layer of complexity and uncertainty to already imperfect data.
“Should rainfall be regarded as a forcing or a feedback that affects the customary temperature?”
I don’t think rainfall can be considered a forcing. It is a quantity that absolutely responds to local conditions. Whether it amplifies or suppreses a given quantity, (such as temperature) I don’t know. It seems like the factors surrounding rain (wind, evaporation, cloud type and radiative effect etc) are quite variable, so I would guess any amplifying or suppressive effect it might have is essentially random.
Water vapour/humidity and how temperatures relate over the long term is very much assessed from a climatological viewpoint.
From a human viewpoint humidity can be important.
You can survive air temperatures above 50C in dry air because your sweat evaporates easily.
As humidity increases your sweat is more reluctant to evaporate, so the maximum temperature you can survive decreases.
The limit is 35C wet bulb. Beyond that temperature/humidity combination you can’t evaporate enough sweat to maintain your body temperature.
Some areas have long been uninhabitable because they get too hot/humid every year.
The worry is that some inhabited areas are starting to go above 35C wet bulb on a regular basis. The most noticeable are some cities in India whose pre-monsoon heat waves are bumping up against the limit. At present you see increasing heat related deaths among the young and old. When it gets bad enough to kill healthy adults you could lose whole cities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_heat_wave_in_India_and_Pakistan
Sadly, some of you are missing the main point.
Climate analysts are widely using a temperature value when it is easily shown that it has an error. Same as the surveyor error example I gave.
What is the scientific value of spending billions of $$ analysing data with a known and reasonably large error?
Why should we believe and act on the recommendations that flow from faulty data? Geoff S
When average temperatures increase, absolute humidity increases but relative humidity stays about the same.
Wet bulb bulb temperatures are depressed in inverse proportion to the relative humidity.
This the relation between wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures will remain the same as average temperatures rise.
There is no reason to prefer wet bulb temperatures over dry bulb temperatures and reason to prefer dry bulb because you don’t have to adjust every measurement for relative humidity.
“Climate analysts are widely using a temperature value when it is easily shown that it has an error.”
If you can show that this ‘error’ has a trend that could impact on climatological scales, then you have a point.
Otherwise it would be like subtracting the effect of wind direction/speed on temperature – which does matter for any individual location. I would guess the assumption would be that these, too, are essentially random, and that over the long term these factors even out: long-term is what climate analysts are looking at, not daily weather.
If any trend were to be found in changes in wind direction and speed for a given location, then it is more straightforward to substract the trend than try to create a daily offset to account for it.
So, if there is a trend in the ratio of wet bulb/dry bulb days for temperature measurements, then that can be subtracted from the temperature trend, rather than add a layer of complexity and uncertainty to temperature measurements.
As an aside, can you imagine the ‘skeptic’ response to adding another fiddle to raw temperature data? “They’re doing WHAT now??! Oh sure, another parameter they can use to fudge the results. RAW TEMPS or nothing!!”
Barry,
Thank you for the comment.
It goes beyond ignoring the measurement error if it cancels.
Think again about the surveyor with the heat-sensitive tape.
For a start, he will find it hard to get closure.
Then, his measurements will not match those made by others.
Last, if he persists in avoiding the correction, he will be asked to hand in his badge.
Same applied to this problem of temperatures affected by rainfall.
I am looking at the effects of annual rainfall on annual temperatures from 2 sets of Australian station data, one from stations island far from the sea and one from island stations. The mathematical effect of rain is an order of magnitude greater for the inland sites, around a 5C change per century for each metre of rainfall, compared to 0.4 C per century for island sites. Consistently.
So the problem is large enough to warrant some thought and experiments. Geoff S
Geoff, if you can demonstrate than increased rainfall over the poeriod of a century is responsible for a 5C temperature increase then you have something. A mechanism connecting the two would be a good start.
The next step is to figure out what caused the increasse in rainfall. If the cause is an increase in local temperatures – which could work depending on the location – then things may not be as straightforward as you suggest.
What “2 sets of Australian data?” are you referring to? ACORN-SAT and raw, or GHCN? Or something else?
Re your analogy – the surveyor is measuring weather, not climate.
This is the unfortunate truth:
Eating Insects and ‘Climate Lockdowns’: What the Outrageous ‘Green New Deal’ Means for Your Future
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/may/eating-insects-and-climate-lockdowns-what-the-outrageous-green-new-deal-means-for-your-future
400k N Koreans died fighting to empower the communists. How many of those people do you think understand the hell they were inviting on their families and future generations. Once these people take power, the world will never know freedom again.
How did you like the book? Did you think it verified these announcements convincingly?
> 400k N Koreans died fighting
So far 581K Muricans died from COVID.
That’s 18% of the overall deaths.
Not bad for a country who only has 4% of the global population.
Go team!
Williard, COVID is a disease increasingly becoming evident was created by China. People didn’t choose to have and die from COVID.
400k N Koreans signed up to fight for the communists. They won. Do you think they are happy about dying for that cause? How about those Cubans that died fighting for Fidel? How about those Vietnamese that died fighting for Communism over Freedom?
People like you fight to empower the government over the individual thinking that the Government will always work in their best interests.
Progressives use the symbol of a Fist. Do you want to empower these people? Their symbol says what you can expect, Brutality.
Life,
I’m not interested by that kind of conspiracy ideation.
Seriously, I’m not.
https://youtu.be/lLCEUpIg8rE
Conspiracy? Not according to NPR.
Theory That COVID Came From A Chinese Lab Takes On New Life In Wake Of WHO Report
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983156340/theory-that-covid-came-from-a-chinese-lab-takes-on-new-life-in-wake-of-who-repor
You’d have to be a complete gullible fool to trust the media after the last 4 years. One lie after another. Clear bias, and active participation in spreading fake news.
1) Trump colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election.
2) Hunter Biden Laptop
3) Police murdered by rioters on Jan 6th
4) ANTIFA doesn’t exist
5) Russia paying bounties
6) Kids in cages
7) Cops are disproportionately killing unarmed black people
8) There was no corruption if the 2020 Election
9) Domestic Terrorism by White Supremacists is our greatest threat
And the list goes on and on and on.
If anyone has time:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/michael-ofallon-the-jacobins-are-back-to-reset-everything-dun-dun-daah
CO2isLife
1. The points (1) to (6) you caught from a dumb pro-Trump corner.
2. These points below
7) Cops are disproportionately killing unarmed black people
8) There was no corruption i[n] the 2020 Election
9) Domestic Terrorism by White Supremacists is our greatest threat
simply reflect a reality which is denied by all Trump lovers.
J.-P. D.
The interesting bit is how the statistics showing all-cause mortality rate doesn’t indicate even a blip deviating from normal.
That must explain why you don’t point to any statistics, Ken.
Ken
” The interesting bit is how the statistics showing all-cause mortality rate doesnt indicate even a blip deviating from normal. ”
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count
Do you need some more sources, e.g. from Europe?
Who are you today, Ken – really? A wicked little manipulator?
J.-P. D.
Gaseous Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune T1bar mean temperatures 165 K, 134 K, 72 K comparison
All data are satellites measurements.
R semi-major axis in AU (Astronomical Units)
a planets average albedo
N rotations /day planets spin
T1bar planet atmosphere at 1 bar average temperature in Kelvin
Planet.Jupiter..Saturn.Neptune
R….5,2044..9,5826..30,33
1/R.0,03690,010890,001087
a0,5030,342.0,290
1-a..0,4970,658.0,710
N.2,41812,2727.1,4896
T 1 bar…165 K.134 K72 K
Coeff…0,388880… 0,3062640,170881
Comparison coefficient:
[ (1-a) (1/R) (N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
Lets compare
Jupiter coeff. /Saturn coeff. =
= 0,388880 /0,306264 = 1,2698
T1bar.jupiter /T1bar.saturn = 165 /134 = 1,2313
Jupiter coeff. / Neptune coeff. =
= 0,388880 /0,170881 = 2,2757
T1bar.jupiter /T1bar.neptune = 165 /72 = 2,2917
Saturn coeff. /Neptune coeff. =
= 0,306264 /0,170881 = 1,7923
T1bar.saturn /T1bar.neptune = 134 /72 = 1,8611
Conclusion:
Gaseous planets Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune average T1bar temperatures relate the same way as the rocky inner planets Mercury, Moon and Mars average surface temperatures, and also as the Earth with Europa average surface temperatures.
The comparison coefficient is the same:
[ (1-a) (1/R) (N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
The planets are being separated in groups (Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune – H2, He), (Mercury, Moon and Mars – regolith), and (Earth with Europa – H2O) only by their similar specific heat.
Notice:
The observed Jupiter and Neptune having the closest coefficient vs planet’s temperatures at 1 bar level comparison rates, can be explained by the fact that Jupiter and Neptune have the closest the H2% and He% atmospheric gases content.
Thus, everything else equals, Gaseous Planets’ average at 1 bar level Temperatures relate to Planets’ Rotational Spins fourth root [ (N∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction: Instead of fourth root
It should be:
sixteenth root [ (N¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴.“
Vournas
Will you stop one day showing that stuff?
Nothing else to offer?
J.-P. D.
Barry, the greatest threat to the US and the Free World is China. Do you agree or disagree?
The Green New Deal greatly strengthens China vs the US. Do you agree or disagree?
China is building Nuclear and Coal Power, highly reliable sources. The US is going to build wind and solar, homes with no windows, etc etc.
China is buying up DNA data on individuals and using TicTok to gather facial recognition data. What are we doing? Arguing about climate change and bankrupting America so we can’t fight the coming future Cold War.
You’ll lose it.
China is already ahead on GDP (PPP) and catching up fast on the other economic indicators.
Militaril, their army is three times larger than yours and their hypersonic missiles have rendered your carriers obsolete.
Politically they have boosted their soft power enormously, especially in the last four years. You would find it hard to win against China in any of the major international voting forums.
Technically they are on a par with you. Most countries seeking a 5G network buy from Huawei.
Those studying global power reckon that you’ll be overtaken in 2028.
ET says: You’ll lose it.
And when we do, then what? Do you think China will be fighting climate change? How? Sterilizing Uyghurs and Capitalists to control the population. You Progressives had better be careful what you wish for, you just might get what the Cubans, N Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians, and Venesualians got.
Facts are, Climate Changes is nothing more than a ruse to empower totalitarian thugs that have no interest if the environment or fighting climate change.
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov’s warning to America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
“And when we do, then what? ”
Get used to being a second rate country.
The French aristocracy didn’t see it coming either.
Has the US of A ever been first rate?
Finnish folks wonder:
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/the-nordic-exceptionalism-what-explains-why-the-nordic-countries-are-constantly-among-the-happiest-in-the-world/
As long as Freedom Fighters will get brainwashed by Newscorp, the US of A won’t be happy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–Entropic man says:
May 9, 2021 at 9:35 AM
Youll lose it.
China is already ahead on GDP (PPP) and catching up fast on the other economic indicators.–
What difference between Mexico and China?
In Mexico, Mexico city is sinking.
It’s doomed, they say.
But it’s less pollution than China.
People are free.
Mexico has higher average temperature:
Mexico, yearly average: about 21 C
China: about 8 C
Total land area of Mexico:
1,943,950 km
With total population: 127.6 million
China land area: 9,596,960 square km
So China has almost 5 times as much land area
If Mexico had as much land, pop would be: 629.9 million people
China has 1.398 billion people.
More people per square km than Mexico, about twice.
[India is about 25 C, about 1/3 land area as China
and pop around same as China.
Mexico probably has more indoor plumbing per captia
then China or India and certainly less poor people.
Per capita Communist China has 10 times more billionaire as compared to Mexico.
So, what is Mexico problem, not gone communist enough, maybe Mexico mistake is it allows them to flee to another country. Or what else could it be?
China started out much poorer than Mexico.
To encourage children eat their dinner, parent didn’t mention Mexico, instead they said children in China were starving.
Maybe Nixon should have went to Mexico, instead of China.
Of course the pollution of China is pretty far away.
I wonder if Japanese say anything about the Chinese pollution.
It seems Japanese care a lot about pollution.
Air pollution apparently ranked 82 vs US of 84 {higher number is better- Mexico is 45:
https://www.iqair.com/us/world-most-polluted-countries
India is 3. And don’t see China. Here something:
“In 2019 China ranked as the 11th dirtiest country in the world.”
Bangladesh is suppose to be worse. It seems China about same as India- but as I saying China more land area for it’s entire population. And Bangladesh is quite crowded in it’s small area and has spots which are double India or China highest recorded spots.
Or there are some small regions in the world which even worst than China {according to CCP- but don’t know if they alter the satellites measurements. Also California had quite bad air quality while our governor burning down our forests. One advantage of China is they probably have to burn coal rather do something stupid like burning wood and have the best coal plants in the world- at least in terms of energy efficiency}.
> So, what is Mexico problem
Check who’s the neighbor.
–Is it safe to visit Guatemala?
Avoid areas outside of major roads and highways in the Guatemala Department and listed zones in Guatemala City. Visit our website for Travel to High-Risk Areas. Violent crime, such as armed robbery and murder, is common. Gang activity, such as extortion, violent street crime, and narcotics trafficking, is widespread.–
One could say something similar about some US cities- but people from all over world are pouring thru the Southern Border, though northern border has much smaller scale problem.
Guatemala average temperature is about 24 C
Population: 16.6 million
Faster growth than El Salvador which I have heard mentioned having a lot problems- and lower population growth is not helping with these problems. And I think our Queen is planning some kind of visit there. I have much confidence this will resolve something.
I wonder how Belize is doing.
“Belize is considered an upper-middle-income country with a GDP per capita of $4,806.50. Despite this, a 2009 study revealed that 41.3 percent of the population of Belize lives at or below the poverty line. … In 2016, 49 percent of the children in Belize lived in poverty.” And small population which seems to growing a bit faster than Guatemala. It’s average temperature of about 26 C.
It seems El Salvador, and what once richest nation, Venezuela are doing much to help things. Of course Cuba, has train wreck for quite awhile, but I think Mexicans were to blame for Cuba.
The French were worse than the Spaniards, but, not by much.
“Barry, the greatest threat to the US and the Free World is China. Do you agree or disagree?”
The GREATEST threat? I don’t know if that’s true or not. I’m also not sure why you set the US apart from the Free World.
Sound familiar?
Tyson, let’s get more contemporary:
1) Trump colluded with the Russians
2) Russia paid bounties
3) China didn’t create the COVID Virus
4) Don Jr colluded with the Russians
5) Increasing US Corp Tax Rates will me Corporations more competitive
6) The Infrastructure Bill is focused on Infrastructure
7) Free education, paid leave, universal healthcare, free child care is infrastructure spending
8) Office Swetnick was killed by a fire extinguisher
9) FB and Twitter don’t discriminate against COnservatives
10) NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN aren’t biased
11) Police are disproportionately killing unarmed black people
and the list could go on forever
Climate Change Alarmists side with China over the US. They Hate Trump and Love Biden.
Chinas Emissions Exceeded Those Of All Other Developed Nations Combined: Report
https://www.dailywire.com/news/chinas-emissions-exceeded-those-of-all-other-developed-nations-combined-report
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenovs warning to America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
Empower Communism over Freedom at your own risk. ET and Williard are sure to love the dystopia they have been wishing for.
CO2islife
Are you all right?
You’ve just argued that we should support the US over China because the US is doing more to mitigate climate change.
When did you start believing in climate change?
Seems a clear case of the online equivalent of diarrhea of the mouth.
Next Ice Age Soon Coming Near YOU:
https://nbcmontana.com/weather/forecasts/near-record-warmth-showers-and-cooldown-on-the-way
Williard,
Maybe you and your buddies at the Center for Sustainable Development should go live in Finland? Sounds like your perfect utopia. However, I suspect you’ll soon find enough wrong there too. I’ll stay here in the deficient US of A with our Bill of Rights and everything.
Stephen,
Maybe you should go first:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prospectus-on-prospera
If that’s too much regulation for you, there’s always Sierra Leone.
The idea behind charter cities is: Shenzhen, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the rest of the rich world aren’t rich because their citizens are morally superior to those of their poorer neighbors. They’re rich because they have better legal systems, less corruption, stronger rule of law, and more competent administrators….And poor countries don’t have corruption, crime, and incompetence because they choose to. They have those things because vested interests, zero-sum games, and poor education make it hard to improve things. If you could get part of a poor country to be under a rich-country-style government, it too could get rich the same way all those other places did.
That second part think South Chicago or any inner-city and think Democratic Totalitarian Control. That is the Democratic Utopia most people think are Dystopias. Democrats want to make all of America the South Side of Chicago.
It’s simpler than that, Life:
The idea behind charter cities is to dump your problems elsewhere.
The trick has been known at least since the Medieval Anomaly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I like it here.
It does not show.
Again, you don’t make any sense. I’m not the one longing for the cradle to grave socialism of the Nordic countries. That’d be you.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you’re back to quips.
You also forget that it’s possible to comment here and not be a Murican, Stephen.
QED.
Is that a quip?
Willard, please stop trolling.
What good is a Bill of Rights which only applies to those who are white, male and wealthy?
Not to mention a political system which would make Gerry Mander blush and a gun culture which allows a mass shooting most days.
Thank you, but even with all its faults I’m better off in Northern Ireland than in the US.
ET and Willard have shown their Marxist roots. They hate America, individual freedom and free markets.
Civilization starts 12,000 years ago. Slavery starts shortly after that period. 1776 Slave Owners write “All Men are Created Equal.” 80 Year later Slavery is effectively ended. America ends the most horrible institution man has even known, and Progressives Hate America as a systematically racist Nation. They ignore the genocide of the Uyghurs, forced abortions and sterilization of women to implement the 1 child policy, and the lack of any bill of rights in any communist state. Progressives hate America and turn a blind eye to China.
Marxist- anyone with political views to the left of CO2isLife.
End of slavery coincides with the widespread harnessing of fossil fuels.
It makes me wonder what will happen if the anti-science crowd gets their way and we lose access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels. Will there be a return to slavery? Someone is going to have to do the stoop labour currently done by machines.
There is no country that has a bill of rights that applies only to wealthy white males. Sure there may be problems in getting justice if you are not wealthy white male but the bill of rights still applies. Definitely having a bill of rights is far ahead of places that don’t have a bill of rights at all.
End of piracy as a lifestyle coincides with increasing temperature.
It makes me wonder if contrarians know that correlation seldom replaces mechanism.
Piracy as a lifestyle is halted only by massive worldwide control of the sea by countries that value rule of law. Most of the ships are powered by fossil fuels.
History is more complex:
“The phrase in Latin is “hostis humani generis” which means, the enemy of the humankind or race. It means that maybe there’s things that are so heinous, you don’t have to pass a law to make them illegal and you don’t have to be empowered to stop or punish the perpetrator of such crimes because they’re just so bad. Piracy was the classic example.”
Check for Radiolab’s episode “Enemy of Mankind.”
By some serendipity, that law has been curbed when used to target corporations and dictatorships on friendly terms with corporations.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Progressive Utopias in reality (Dystopias)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E00AF6TWEAEBzmY?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
140 murdered and counting (Not including abortions and forced sterilizations)
https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1391233769001168897?s=20
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1390619708295204868?s=20
1000 comments already, time for a little climate shystering update segment
https://youtu.be/YFKQBQNoXdw?t=1810
“2 degrees away from Science.”
That about sums it up.
Very simple. But like to talking about the nutty religion, which I
call a cargo cult.
I think religion is important. There is better religion and worse religion. The cargo cult is stupid and evil.
Is Scott Adams a narcissist?
Yeah, but also probably was beaten out of him, also.
Do I have Asperger syndrome?
Maybe as natural thing, but I think when a kid, I mostly
“solved it”. But as a habit, maybe “a bit of the case”.
I would say my Asperger syndrome involved a compulsion to do
sports.
But one sport the kiddie like was war, and I wasn’t fond
of that sport. In beginning it seems ok, but the kids got too emotional connected with “winning”. And winning or losing was not much fun. Whereas winning say football was as fun whether win game or not. Losing makes you try harder next time.
Mr Musk:
— To anyone Ive offended, I just want to say I reinvented electric cars and Im sending people to Mars on a rocket ship. Did you think I was also going to be a chill, normal dude?–
I wondering if there is anything more progressive than that?
Is there anyone one on this board, more progression than Elon Musk?
Because I want your opinion on the topic of what is more progressive.
Now, perhaps you are progressive but you feel the word progressive
has been, somewhat polluted or devalued over the years. Or maybe never liked it because of the word’s history.
I willing to say I am libertarian, but it’s mostly cause I score that way when I take political test, and I am willing to follow such authority, for the sake of some kind of agreements of definitions.
And I think Elon probably would agree he is libertarian and/or progressive.
So, could make it, anything more, libertarian and/or progressive- to be more inclusive- than what Musk says?
I think we should make low income beach property- which could be more libertarian and/or progressive than fast electric cars and sending people to Mars.
So that’s one example of what could be more progressive.
I could give another examples.
But voting for Joe Biden would not be a reasonable example of something more progressive. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if Musk did vote and voted for Joe Biden.
Newsflash, Socialism isn’t Progressive. Marxism isn’t Progressive. Elon succeeds because of individual freedom and free markets. If Elon was living in the Progressive Marxist Utopia in China he would be in hiding like Jack Ma, and all his profits would be going to the Party.
The strange case of Alibaba’s Jack Ma and his three-month vanishing act
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/23/the-strange-case-of-alibabas-jack-ma-and-his-three-month-vanishing-act
The ebullient tech tycoon embarrassed China’s leaders and went missing. Now he’s back, but seems far less outspoken
Freedom is the most progressive movement there is. Progressives of the left use Fists as symbols. A fist is a symbol of Fascism, abuse, oppression, violence, and brutality.
“Elon succeeds because of individual freedom and free markets. ”
Well, Elon moved from California to Texas.
You can’t say that he a stupid progressive.
Meanwhile, I still live in California.
I like the weather.
Please don’t we have enough Politics with Facebook. I thought this was a science oriented Climate blog. We can’t even agree on science (which is evidence based) this makes it impossible to agree on politics which is opinion based. Everyone has their political views, but none of these opinions will help solve the issue of climate science.
Norman, Please dont we have enough Politics with Facebook.
Climate Science is Politics. Green New Deal ring a bell? Totalitarian control of our lives ring a bell?
This entire fraud was created by the Government as a way to win some political positions.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/great-global-warming-swindle/
Co2isLife
Since you hold that view it will interfere with your ability to look at evidence that may go against your prevailing opinion.
You already believe climate science is a fraud so it distorts any view you might have at looking at evidence. You will believe the evidence is bad or false or intentionally deceptive when it may not be.
I already answered your points on locations showing no warming. I gave you two links to view. Global warming is not a uniform occurrence. There are areas that warm more than others and some places are colder than others.
Lori, do the experiment.
Learn some physics.
Norma, are you back trying to fake it again?
You thought this was a “science” blog? Did you do the hammer/hand experiment yet?
You’re avoiding science like you avoid reality.
Clint R
I have already discussed the hammer/hand experiment with you multiple times. I have linked you to physics sites discussing this issue.
In a collision you need to take the whole system into consideration not just one component. Your limited thought on this issue is a problem you seem to have.
When an object collides with another, if the collision is perfectly elastic no momentum changes for the system. I changes for parts of the system but not the whole system. If the collision is not elastic than some force is present that changes the momentum. Them momentum is still not a force. A change in momentum determines a force is present. I doubt any rational debate on this or presenting you with real physics will alter you limited thought process.
I have not seen any hope for a “light” to shine in your dark and empty mind. I think Tim Folkerts has tried (bless his heart) to educate you and teach you some physics. Your ignorant attacks on his sound points proves you are too stupid to learn.
Norma, if you didn’t understand, then you didn’t hit your hand hard enough.
Try it again. Hit your hand with a hammer as hard as you can.
It’s all about science.
Clint R
With you it is only about trolling and peddling contrarian opinions.
Don’t even try to pretend you deal in any science. I kind of think you have run the course with your Hammer/hand point. You do get very repetitive.
Climate change claptrap is all politics. There is no science to be found that supports any of the AGW hypothesis that is driving so much of the climate policies that do nothing but take away your access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels.
> There is no science to be found that supports any of the AGW hypothesis
Sure, Jan:
ipcc.ch
UN IPCC is a political body. It is not a science body.
Anything from UN has an agenda. Don’t EVER forget that.
I will NEVER forget you’re a troglodyte, Ken.
Yet here I am, responding to you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Final Nail in the AGW Coffin:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/video-global-warming-from-1880-to-2020/
The final nail in the coffin might have been when Gavin ran from Spencer, on the Stossel Show. Gavin, the bully, folded under pressure. It was much like the scene from Tombstone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXgVcrcyWM
Clint,
By your logic, Sky Dragons died when Joe did not come at AT’s to defend his silly idea that fluxes don’t add:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190536
Will you step up to the plate, my little sock puppy?
Clint,
By your logic, Sky Dragons died when Joe did not come at AT’s to defend his silly idea that fluxes don’t add:
“The latest argument on Joe’s blog seems bizarre. He seems to be suggesting that you can’t add energy fluxes.”
I think you know where to find that comment.
Will you step up to the plate, my little sock puppy?
Willard, if you can’t make sense after two attempts, maybe try for a third?
Clint,
Why the hell do you share Joe’s belief that fluxes can’t add?
I’ve seen lots of contrarian crap while playing Climateball, but I’ve seldom seen something that silly.
Maybe you just are unable to make sense, Willard.
It happens. Just ask Lori or Bended.
Let me try again, Clint.
You say that we can’t add fluxes.
That’s a claptrap that I’ve seen at Joe’s:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fclimateofsophistry.com+%22adding+fluxes%22
And sometimes I see stuff about ice cubes:
“They’re writing the equation in such a way that says that if you are in the Sunshine, adding some icecubes around you will make you hotter!”
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/08/25/the-problem-with-climate-alarm-skeptics/#comment-30320
Isn’t that an amazing coincidence?
I’m not sure anything will work.
Maybe get an adult to help you?
I’m afraid gaslighting won’t work.
Enjoy your evening, silly pully.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you like blue, and being colder, 1880 was a better world.
But Earth is naturally much cooler than normal.
And currently colder than than in warmest periods of past interglacials.
And certainly cooler than earlier times in our Holocene- when Sahara desert was green grassland and trees were growing closer to the North pole- will far more forests land than have presently.
But there been has a slightly amount of global greening lately.
I thought greening stopped 20 years ago, bg:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
What’s your source?
Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/eabb1981
Don’t be so hard on yourself, Stephen.
Something tells me the only word you understood from that study is “greening.”
stephen…worse than deception, they are using a model.
“Here, we quantify the biophysical impacts of Earth greening on LST from 2000 to 2014 and disentangle the contributions of different factors using a physically based attribution model”.
Models need to be banned as being representative of science. They are not scientific till they are validated.
You’re not helping Stephen, Gordon.
The paper is actually about studying the interplay of two estimators, i.e. the Leaf Area Index and the Land Surface Temperature. If you know how to study that kind of thing without using a model, more power to you.
Also note that you’re commenting on a blog of a guy who spent his life developing models to calibrate and interpret satellite data.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Apr 26, 2016
“From a quarter to half of Earths vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
I take Nature and NASA over some other magazines.
But obviously, all media generally, sucks! But I am finding Scientific American has fallen slightly worse the everyone else, other than MSM- which has never really even pretended, much, to give much effort in getting anything correct.
That’s Matt King Coal’s favorite paper, gb.
I should have emphasized the sentence I always do from my piece:
“Its largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. Rising CO2 does benefit plants, at least up to a point, but its just one factor. Plants are also affected by many other symptoms of climate change, including rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, shifts in water availability and so on.”
Most don’t read and still blame the media.
“Thats Matt King Coals favorite paper, gb.”
I think the greening is proof of global warming.
As is the highest air temperature ever recorded being from over a hundred years ago.
It seems there wasn’t higher CO2 levels when the Sahara desert was grassland during warmest period of the interglacial periods.
It seems you kind of missing the obvious, here.
> you kind of missing the obvious
You’re right, of course. Let me add this immediately:
https://climateball.net/but-life/
In return, here’s a review I just found:
“Land ecosystems remove about 30% of the CO2 emitted through fossil fuels and land-use change (LUC) emissions, an ecosystem service referred to as the (natural) land sink (see Figure 3; Friedlingstein et al., 2019). This serves to slow the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, and consequently reduces the rate of climate change. The amount of CO2 absorbed by the land has also increased rapidly over the past few decades, likewise to anthropogenic CO2 emissions it has more than doubled since 1960 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019) with extensive greening reported (Piao et al., 2020) as well as large associated changes in the effect vegetation has on local and global climate (Forzieri et al., 2020). The increased land sink has occurred despite an increased prevalence of large-scale natural disruptions to ecosystems (McDowell et al., 2020) and evidence that some of the largest carbon sinks of the planet have already saturated (Hubau et al., 2020). Its increase is stronger than changes in emissions from LUCs (Friedlingstein et al., 2019) but largely undermined by the impact of LUC on tropical ecosystems (Tagesson et al., 2020). The natural land sink is not constant, however, and responds directly to environmental changes, such as heatwaves and droughts (Bastos et al., 2020), and anthropogenic interventions such as deforestation and LUC (Brando et al., 2020). The dynamic nature of terrestrial carbon uptake makes understanding the regional hotspots of source or sink potential and the processes that dictate the likelihood of continued increased uptake in those regions essential for adequate policy design. ”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/10-new-insights-in-climate-science-2020-a-horizon-scan/02F477AAABBD220523748C654EBD6F15
I like terseness.
There’s a subtext behind the article you provided, but that can wait.
Funny that Willard left off his list that more CO2 makes plants more drought resistant.
Actually funny not just the typical one-sided viewpoint Willard has bought into.
Funny you have not quoted anything, Bill.
Here’s the paragraph that follows:
It’s a harder paragraph to read, however.
Please help me out with the emphasized sentence: do you know what it means?
it means scientists have the legal rights to deceive you while operating with the widely accepted label of expert. its illegal for even a plumber to do that.
No, Bill.
It means that more more CO2 alone does not tell you if the plants will suck it all up.
For that they need enough nutrients.
Willard,
Cite?
Willard says:
No, Bill.
It means that more more CO2 alone does not tell you if the plants will suck it all up.
For that they need enough nutrients.
——————-
thats what fertilizer is good for willard.
> Cite?
Beautiful.
willard…”So far 581K Muricans died from COVID”.
***
Not a shred of scientific evidence to support those numbers.
Fact 1…covid has not been physically isolated so no one knows anything about its genetic makeup. That has been confirmed in the first paper on covid by Wuhan researchers who did not claim a physically-isolated virus but only an association. The researcher who immediately produced the covid PCR test based on the Wuhan ‘association’, Christian Drosten, admitted he had not physically isolated a virus.
Some researchers have claimed they have the covid genome, meaning they have the full set of RNA strands describing the virus. That is nonsense as revealed by Stefan Lanka. The genome has been created on a medical computer model where known strands of RNA have been inserted into a repository. All these clowns are doing is piecing together strands of DNA that ‘should’ fit together…on a computer model.
As Lanka pointed out to a German court, researchers have been arguing over the genome of the measles virus for 50 years because they don’t have the actual, physical virus with which to compare their theoretical genome. The court agreed.
Fact 2…the initial PCR test alleged to identify a virus was for HIV because no one could physically isolate HIV. In a 60 minutes interview, which I have posted here in the past, Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted he could not see HIV on an electron microscope and inferred its existence based on strands of RNA BELIEVED to be from HIV.
Fact 3…the PCR test was developed to amplify the inferred strands of RNA by converting them to DNA and amplifying the DNA using the PCR method for DNA amplification. The inventor of PCR, Nobelist Kary Mullis, immediately jumped on the test claiming PCR could not be used diagnostically to amplify a virus that could not be seen in the unamplified state.
Fact 4…ultimately, based on Koch’s Postulate, Montagnier had to prove his inferred virus could kill uninfected cells. He claimed to have done that by infecting normal cells with a sample cell culture from a person with AIDS.
Unfortunately, as revealed circa 2016 by viral expert, Dr. Stefan Lanka, he did not not run a control test to see if the normal cells would have died anyway. Lanka knew the uninfected cells would die anyway due to pre-treatment aimed at weakening the cells to make them more vulnerable to an infecting agent and making them resistant to bacteria by treating them with antibiotics. He had an independent lab confirm that then presented it to a German court where his evidence was accepted.
Fact 5…Montagnier, who inferred HIV, now claims HIV does not cause AIDS and is harmless to a healthy immune system. Based on the data we have world-wide on the current contagion, it is behaving in exactly the same way. It is simply not harming people with healthy immune systems.
Fact 6…we’ve been had by epidemiologists, who have no precedent for an alleged virus like covid and who know nothing about it because it has not been physically isolated. The epidemiologists have created unvalidated models which they peer at like a charlatan peering into a crystal ball, and we have utterly naive and stupid politicians globally accepting this pseudo-scientific nonsense, ramping up death counts with no evidence.
Because these idiots have gone out on a limb and accepted the predictions of theorists, they are now stuck with those figures. They are now changing the protocols normally followed by pathologists to determine the cause of death and in some countries like Bulgaria, they have forbidden autopsies to determine the real cause of death.
In countries like the US, a death can be claimed as being caused by covid even though the deceased did not test positive. All that is required is the association of the deceased with someone who had tested positive. But what does that mean when a positive test is based on a faulty testing process?
We are living in scary times.
> Not a shred of scientific evidence to support those numbers.
I simply searched “covid global deaths,” Gordon.
I can’t recall the last time you provided any evidence.
Shouting at clouds won’t give you any.
It won’t solve your reactance problem either.
willard…”I can’t recall the last time you provided any evidence. Shouting at clouds won’t give you any”.
Shouting at clouds??? I just supplied you direct evidence from Dr. Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV. He admits he could not see HIV using an electron microscope, so he inferred it using pure theory. That is the same method used today to infer covid, pure theory.
The word isolation, which in this case means to separate a virus physically from a host, has been changed to mean ‘inferred’ by consensus. If that satisfies you, what can I say?
So, you looked up the numbers on the Net and took them to be based on scientific fact. Not even close, they are based on inaccurate tests and fraudulent declarations of death.
> direct evidence from Dr. Luc Montagnier,
First, you did not for there’s no cite.
Second, that’s testimony.
Third, that’s about HIV.
“Not a shred of scientific evidence to support those numbers.”
Yes, there some very good data to support those numbers.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count
Mortality rates in the US are significantly higher in 2020 and early 2021 than previous years – more than enough to account for oficial COVID estimates.
Nomran, aka Norma, aka Lori, aka Norman, aka ???, loves abusing his/her keyboard. So when he/she retreats, I know I was over the target with my facts drop.
Then, when young Willard jumps in to distract, it serves as additional evidence that I hit the target.
Here’s a more detailed version of what so upset them:
One of the many mistakes in “climate science” is dividing Earth’s incoming solar flux by 4. That division reduces the temperature of the target. In the case of Earth, the average temperature would be only 255K (-18.1C, -0.5F). By claiming Earth should be that cold, they can then claim CO2 must be supplying the extra warming.
So I presented an example of cooking a chicken on a rotating spit. One side of the chicken is always heated by a flux of 1600 W/m^2. The chicken slowly rotates, so that all sides are exposed to the flux, which has a corresponding BB temperature of 137C, 278F. The chicken would cook in some reasonable time.
But, if the 1600 W/m^2 source were replaced be 4 sources, each supplying 1600/4 = 400 W/m^2, so that both sides, and top, and bottom of the chicken were equally irradiated as it rotated, then the BB temperature would only be 16.7C, 62F. The chicken would never cook.
Dividing the incoming flux by 4 ain’t science!
> dividing Earth’s incoming solar flux by 4
Wrong.
Revise and resubmit.
“Then, when young Willard jumps in to distract, it serves as additional evidence that I hit the target.”
Nice kafkatrap, puppy. Here’s a hint: the left side of the equation refers to the *energy* in.
Best of luck!
Oh, and if your chicken is always heated from one side the same way, how does it relate to the Earth?
“…is always heated from one side the same way…”
Poor young Willard doesn’t even know what a rotisserie chicken is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
The cult idiots have been trained to use a keyboard, but are useless after that.
I know what’s a rotisserie, puppy. What you still fail to specify how you can calculate the blackbody temperature of your chicken if you don’t specify how it gets rid of its energy.
If you could tell me where you get dimensionless chickens, that’d be great. I could sell it as a new kind of paleo diet for vegans.
–
Wrong again, young Willard.
You didn’t understand “rotisserie”.
Now, you don’t understand the process of “cooking”.
Youngsters have so much to learn.
Thought experiments are supposed to make you think, puppy:
“Roasting is a cooking method that uses dry heat where hot air covers the food, cooking it evenly on all sides with temperatures of at least 150 C (300 F) from an open flame, oven, or other heat source.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roasting
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”You say that we cant add fluxes.
Thats a claptrap that Ive seen at Joes:”
You can’t add a flux because it doesn’t exist. A line of flux is a human depiction of a field, like a magnetic field. You can visualize a flux field by placing a magnet under a piece of paper then pouring iron filing on top of the paper. The filings will align themselves with the field but claiming the lines formed by the filings is a line of flux is not correct.
You can also place a permanent magnet against the screen of an old colour TV and it will cause a similar ‘Gaussian’ effect on the TV screen. This time it is diverting the electrons hitting the phosphors on the other side of the screen to diverge based on their interaction with the magnetic field. The divergent electrons hit the wrong colour dots in the phosphor field and produce, producing the equivalent of the magnet-under-paper on the iron filings in hues of red, green and blue.
Still, what would you be adding? Newton initially defined the word fluxion from which our modern flux is descendent. He meant a variation in a field that was the first derivative of the equation of the field. SO, flux, based on his definition, is an instantaneous rate of change of a field at some point in the field. The only way to sum those fluxions is to integrate them over the area of the field.
When I studied basic electronics theory, we were taught that a flux field was made up of so many thousand lines of flux per unit area. So, how would you add those lines to make the field stronger? You can’t, you have to add more lines of flux to the field area and you’d have to use a stronger magnet. Or, with an electric motor or transformer, you use a higher current through the coils or add more coils. Or maybe vary the permeability of the core on which the coils were wound.
If you are talking electromagnetic theory, it’s the same thing. Now, of course, they talk about imaginary photons per unit area. However, as Einstein pointed out later in his life, no one knows if EM is composed of individual particle called photons or a wave.
One thing I know for sure is that a particle cannot have a frequency. Therefore a photon, if it exists, would have to be a quantum of EM large enough to have a vibrating field.
It makes sense, that at the atomic level, the electron, which absorbs and emits EM, could not emit/absorb an entire wave. Perhaps the electron just absorbs/emits part of the wave field but that would mean all electrons would have to emit synchronously so the EM wave would have a definite frequency/wavelength. Therefore, if EM is made of photons, all emitted photons by all electrons would have to somehow join together to form a coherent waveform.
You’re ranting again, Gordon.
I skip rants.
Sorry.
You just didn’t, so maybe you lie.
Maybe you don’t exist, Minny.
I stopped at “electrons” – Gordon is not talking about the same units as Clint does.
willard…”Youre ranting again, Gordon”.
What you are really saying is that you lack the basic understanding of physics and your come back is to ad hom/insult the messenger.
I am talking about exactly the same science as Clint, you simply cannot recognize it.
SI units have algebraic properties, Gordon. You really don’t need to QM this and QM that to adjudicate most if not all of them.
If you really dispute that we can add Watts per square meter, try to live in your house with only one light bulb.
Willard,
If you concentrate the Watts per square meter from a big block of ice, you could get 10,000 Watts per square meter.
Try to light your house with 10,000 Watts per square meter, or 20,000 Watts per square meter if 10,000 isn’t enough for you. Twice as bright?
Minny,
If you concentrate, you can answer the question directly.
That you can pluck a chicken does not mean chickens have no feathers, quite the opposite.
Willard,
What question was that? You might be lying to someone else. Try to concentrate.
willard…”SI units have algebraic properties, Gordon. You really don’t need to QM this and QM that to adjudicate most if not all of them”.
Your problem, Willard, is that you lack the insight to go deeper into these problems, hence you think the numbers alone mean something. Algebra is about numbers, not physics.
If you don’t understand flux at a base level, as required in the electrical/electronics field, you fool yourself into thinking you can add quantities that don’t exist in the direct human experience.
If you care to read Planck on heat, he explains how we humans invented temperature, distance, time, and density, basing them on natural phenomena like the freezing/boiling point of water, the distance between the Equator and the North Pole, etc.
EM has no measurement, it cannot be detected like an energy like heat…directly. It can only be measured by converting it to another form of energy, like heat, and measuring how much heat is produced. We cam only see it when it is converted to biochemical energy in the eye. We cam only feel it when it is converted to heat in the skin, or when UV burns the skin.
You can talk about adding flux all you want but first you have to find it to add it. Where do you find it directly as EM?
If you don’t read the problem, Gordon, your insights are worse than worthless.
Minny,
I did not ask a question, but if you want one:
Do you think that an oven that balances the energy in and out can cook anything?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie
Up above somewhere you replied to my post with this one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-687454
If you keep your mind open and just look at the evidence. DWIR does not just work at night it is a continuous process of reducing the amount of NET energy the surface loses via radiant energy.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60989ac57f18a.png
With these measured values you can see for yourself the impact of DWIR even during the day. The NET solar reaches 800 W/m^2 for a few hours (downward solar minus upward solar, light that is not absorbed but reflected). Since the Earth rotates rapidly there is not enough time for the surface to reach a temperature that emits at the rate of peak solar input. However it still reaches a temperature that it emits 600 W/m^2. The DWIR is a little less than 400 W/m^2 but is fairly consistent. During peak solar input the NET surface radiant loss is only about -250 W/m^2. Without the DWIR the surface radiant loss would be the full 600 W/m^2. This would lower the peak net gain from 600 W/m^2 to around 250 W/m^2. The surface would still warm up but not as much and the night would get much cooler.
I am not sure why you do not think mean sea surface temperatures exist. There are cycles, increase in temp during day, loss of temp at night but it is within a range so you can find the middle point of that range. That is why people use averages and means, they are valid to use.
Maybe explain why you think there is not a mean sea surface temperature or that this is misleading. I am not following your logic on that point. Provide more information, thanks.
Norma, I’ve explained to you that you’re misinterpreting that data. But, you refuse to learn. Just like you refuse to do the hammer/hand experiment.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say….
“I am not sure why you do not think mean sea surface temperatures exist.”
That is a low blow. What I wrote was, “There are no steady-state ocean temperatures, means or otherwise.”
Your Desert Rock data is all you need to see what I mean. There are no steady-state temperatures that can produce those drastic changes in flux during that 24 hour period or vice-versa as the case may be. Changes in ocean fluxes will be less pronounced, but still no steady-state temperatures could be possible other than for a few hours at night.
As you point out, while DWIR is extremely constant, the UWIR is quite variable. It represents the diurnal temperature variation. Why is that?
You explained it nicely, “The surface would still warm up but not as much and the night would get much cooler.”
That’s what the atmosphere does to make temperatures bearable to support human flourishing over most of the planet.
norman…”DWIR does not just work at night it is a continuous process of reducing the amount of NET energy the surface loses via radiant energy”.
There that fictitious ‘NET energy again. If you convert NET energy to the active energy, which is heat, your argument falls apart.
You see, Norman, the 2nd law as stated by Clausius is this: Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a warmer object. In this case DWIR is coming from the colder object therefore no heat is transferred to the surface.
There is no mention in the 2nd law about a net generic energy, the focus of the 2nd law is heat, aka thermal energy. It’s a ploy used by alarmists to create a transfer of heat from a colder region to a warmer region in a direct contravention of the 2nd law.
“Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a warmer object.”
Exactly.
That is why the warm surface film generated by DWLR makes it harder for heat to transfer from the bulk ocean to the atmosphere.
Thought experiment. The temperature 10cm below the ocean surface is 10C. The surface film is at 10.1C and the atmosphere at 9.9C.How does heat escape from the ocean when it cannot move from 10C to 10.1C?
entropic…”That is why the warm surface film generated by DWLR makes it harder for heat to transfer from the bulk ocean to the atmosphere”.
Heat has no problem transferring to air molecules directly via conduction, or being transported through the atmosphere via convection, as long as it is transferring from a hotter surface to a cooler atmosphere.
Convection saves the day. Air heated at the surface rises, allowing cooler air from above to replace it via convection. As Lindzen pointed out, without that convection, the Earth’s surface would heat to 70C.
You talk about how water transfers from the surface to the atmosphere. I’ve no problem with that. It is where most of the heat absorbed by the 1mm surface film from the DWLR ends up.
The problem is that according to Clausius it is impossible for heat absorbed by the ocean from sunlight to get through that 1mm warm surface film to the cooler atmosphere . To do so requires heat to flow from the cooler subsurface ocean through the warmer surface film.
Ent, you’ve made up a scenario that does NOT match reality. You’ve invented a situation where the oceans can not cool.
That ain’t science.
“The problem is that according to Clausius it is impossible for heat absorbed by the ocean from sunlight to get through that 1mm warm surface film to the cooler atmosphere.”
Rubbish. Heat from any surface film warmer than an adjacent layer will radiate, evaporate, conduct any which way it wants until the adjacent layers are warmer.
You kids spend way too much time sweating the small stuff. How about working on the problem of finding data that shows how any further increases in CO2 will have any measurable effect on global temperature?
“Heat from any surface film warmer than an adjacent layer will radiate, evaporate, conduct any which way it wants until the adjacent layers are warmer. ”
Indeed it does. Energy dissipates from the surface film as fast as it comes in from the DWLR, but the heating effect of the DWLR still makes the surface film warmer than the bulk ocean below it and the atmosphere above it.
It’s not the DWLR which is the problem. The bulk ocean is heated by sunlight, which penetrates mostly to 200m. That heat then has to dissipate from the surface, which the warm surface film makes more difficult.
It is like when you want to descend from your terrace to your garden but have to climb over the wall between them.
“You kids spend way too much time sweating the small stuff. ”
The devil is in the detail. The DWLR induced reduction in heat loss from the ocean is the main reason why the oceans are heating and takes place over 70% of the Earth’s surface.
I understand your unwillingness to go into detail. It makes your unscientific beliefs easier to sustain.
“Youve invented a situation where the oceans can not cool. ”
Not me. You sceptics are the ones who keep telling me that Claudius allows no heat movement from colder to warmer.
“Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a warmer object.”
By your own rules that means that heat delivered by sunlight to the ocean cannot escape by crossing the warmer surface film.
“The DWLR induced reduction in heat loss from the ocean is the main reason why the oceans are heating and takes place over 70% of the Earths surface.”
Main reason, my arse! If you were interested in detail, you would know the ASR – OLR is positive because of excess solar insolation, not because DWIR has ocean heat captive.
Clint,
> One of the many mistakes in “climate science” is dividing Earth’s incoming solar flux by 4. That division reduces the temperature of the target. In the case of Earth, the average temperature would be only 255K (-18.1C, -0.5F). By claiming Earth should be that cold, they can then claim CO2 must be supplying the extra warming.
Exactly!!! And they do that mistake – dividing the solar flux by 4 – for every planet and moon in the solar system. The solar flux division by 4 is a first-step very primitive theoretical approach for the planet’s average temperature very approximate estimation.
By basing the entire climate science on the solar flux’s division by 4 the +33oC non existing Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect was established. And the non existing +33oC number haunts the climate science since 1981!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also they ignore smooth surface planets reflect not only diffusely, but they also have very strong specular reflection.
Another very important issue they ignore is the existence of the solar irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We divide by 4 since the solar energy is spread over the surface of the planetary sphere. The Earth intercepts a circular area of incoming sunlight, and this area is spread over a sphere with the same radius as the circle (area of circle / area of sphere of same radius = 0.25).”
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-global-climate-system-74649049/
You have to divide by 4, otherwise you are calculating as if solar radiation is illuminating the entire sphere at the same intensity it illuminates one side. You will have added energy that isn’t there.
The total energy received on one side of a blackbody sphere in space is equivalent to the amount received on a disc one quarter of the sphere’s surface area (some small-change in the decimals).
There is no question of this.
Calculating other factors in play absorbing, reflecting, or adding to solar energy and changing the global energy budget is not a reason to forego first principles.
barry, you’re not even trying to understand the basic science.
Dividing by 4 reduces the temperature of the surface. 240 W/m^2 can NEVER raise the temperature above 255K. 960 W/m^2 corresponds to a max temp of 361K. It should be obvious that 361K doesn’t need any extra warming to get to 288K. No GHE needed. Your cult is based on nonsense.
> Dividing by 4 reduces the temperature of the surface
Dividing by 2 reduces the temperature of half of the Earth at -273C, puppy.
Wrong.
So the temperature rises to 88C each day and drops to -273C each night.
Why haven’t I noticed?
What you are not noticing is your ignorance of science, Ent.
Also, passenger jets do not fly backwards. Again, your ignorance shows.
“We divide by 4….”
You divide by four, because the average person you are trying to deceive is not knowledgeable enough about calculus, radiation, diffusion, thermodynamics and most other math and physics required to understand why the planet remains temperate both day and night.
The planet remains temperate day and night because the atmosphere reduces the amount of sunlight hitting the surface in the day time, and slows the escape of heat accumulated in the soil and oceans through the day when the sun goes down.
This is 101 stuff. How can people possibly not know this?
You still need to divide by four to correctly get the amount of sunlight that hits the total surface of the Earth.
Shine a sun on a sphere and its total surface will not get as hot as the surface of a disc of the same radius at the same distance. That should be patently obvious to the dumbest dullard.
the activity that happens in the Earth’s climate system thereafter does not change one bit this first principle. You can account for heat storage, rotation, or whatever else you think is important after you properly account for how much incoming solar radiation is hitting the surface of the sphere.
Christos,
Diving by 4 is an acknowledgement that the Earth has spherical geometry. Nothing more.
There are two ways to calculate the total amount of energy Earth receives.
The formal way:
E = T * integral(0, pi/2, 2pi*r^2*cos(t)*S*sin(t), dt)
T is the time in seconds, S is the solar constant, little t is theta or the angle from the equator, and r is the radius of the spherical body. The idea is that the radiation spreads out as the spherical body curves away in proportion to sin(t), but that the rings around the spherical body get larger in proportion to cos(t). And when we integrate wrt to dt from 0 to pi/2 we get the total amount of energy.
The shortcut way:
E = T * S/4 * 4pi*r^2
Here we exploit the fact that the cross section area is 1/4 of the spherical area.
Both methods yield 5.48e24 joules of energy for Earth over one orbital cycle.
bdgwx, you’re STILL trying to treat flux as energy. It doesn’t work that way You can’t divide flux. 240 W/m^2 is BELOW the freezing point of water, idiot. You’re trying to claim Sun can’t melt ice!
Idiot!
I’m converting the solar constant S to energy E. Nothing more.
At no time did I plug 240 W/m^2 into the SB-law to calculate the amount of energy Earth receives in one orbital cycle. I didn’t even use the SB-law nor do I have need for its use here.
I’m not claiming the Sun can’t melt ice. I’m claiming that the Earth receives 5.48e24 joules of energy during one orbit. I’m claiming that this can be calculated via E = T * S/4 * 4pi*r^2.
Agreed bdgwx, at no time did you use any science. If you’re claiming that Earth should be at 255K, then you’re claiming Sun cannot melt ice.
I don’t think you even know what you’re claiming.
I’m not nor have I ever claimed the Earth as-is has a global mean surface temperature of 255K. Nevermind that the temperature of the Earth is completely irrelevant to the question of how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun or the fact that you must divide TSI by 4 if using the shortcut method to calculate the amount.
bdgwx, if you now reject the 255K, that’s progress. Just be aware that by throwing out the 255K, you also throw out the 33K nonsense.
Are you prepared to be thrown out of your cult?
Joe does not reject 255K, puppy.
Check the diagram he presents as a model and where he conceals that his unlit hemisphere is -273.15K.
Just to be clear what I said was that I have never claimed the Earth as-is has a global means surface temperature of 255K. I am not rejecting the 255K figure in reference to a thought experiment where a hypothetical Earth has the GHE magnitude and only the GHE magnitude reduced from ~155 W/m^2 down to 0 W/m^2 such that instead of the surface emitting an average of 395 W/m^2 it emits an average of 240 W/m^2 and where everything else remains equal.
None that has anything to do with the amount of energy Earth receives in one orbital cycle or why we must divide TSI by 4 if using the shortcut method to calculate the amount.
Of course, in real time the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 over the lit hemisphere whilst at the same moment it emits 240 W/m^2 from the entire sphere. Right, bdgwx?
bdgwx, the 255K comes from your cult’s GHE nonsense. First you appeared to want to disown the nonsense. Then when I reminded you is was where the 33K nonsense came from, you wanted to cling to it.
So, what is clear is that you’re an idiot, and you don’t understand any of this.
You can model it that way.
480 W/m^2 absorbed over 1/2 area lit side.
0 W/m^2 absorbed over 1/2 area unlit side.
240 W/m^2 emitted over 2/2 area lit+unlit sides.
Note that (0.5*480 + 0.5*0) = 240 so at least ASR and OLR are balanced with this approach. There will be substantial error in trying to estimate the global mean surface temperature via the SB-law with this approach though.
Why? Temperature relates to the output. The output from the entire sphere is 240 W/m^2. The effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K. No problem.
> There will be substantial error in trying to estimate the global mean surface temperature via the SB-law with this approach though.
Of course there will:
“BTW, all this nonsense about heat flow, cold objects affecting temperature of a warmer object etc. How do people think a thermos works? Having designed a refrigerator that operates at mili-Kelvin, I guarantee that Elis plate model is real, and that operating at mili-Kelvin requires multiple plates to cut heat flow between room temperature and the cold plate.”
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
Sky Dragons do purely performative science.
ClintR,
The 255K temperature is irrelevant. My positions 1) that the Earth as-is is not 255K and 2) that I do not reject 255K for the said thought experiment has no bearing on the fact that E = T * S/4 * 4pi*r^2 and that the S term requires the divide by 4. Temperature is neither an input nor output from this formula. I can literally divide flux can get exactly the same answer as doing the full integration.
DREMT,
The surface temperature is actually at 288K though. Plugging 240 W/m^2 into the SB-law results in a -33K error.
A better estimate using the SB-law would be to plugin the average surface emission energy flux of 396 W/m^2 which yields 289K. Note that there is a 6 W/m^2 and +1K rectification error here.
“the Earth as-is is not 255K”
Of course it is. The temperature of the Earth as measured from space is 255 K.
> The surface temperature is actually at 288K though. Plugging 240 W/m^2 into the SB-law results in a -33K error.
Keep repeating that one, bdgwx.
That should make our in house Sky Dragons reflect on their silliness to interpret flux directly into temps, like we can see in one of the diagrams Joe tries to sell as a model.
It is only a “33 K error” if you choose to believe the 255 K temperature is supposed to apply to the surface.
If the 240 W/m^2 and SB-law value of 255K isn’t supposed to be a proxy for the surface temperature in the model you described then what are the parameters for the surface in that model?
The 255 K does not apply to the surface in any model, bdgwx.
> what are the parameters for the surface in that model?
First, take a chicken.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well…240 W/m^2 and 255K are certainty not parameters for the surface for the real Earth that any climate scientists seriously consider the least of which is Trenberth 2009.
My question is…what does the 480 W/m^2 absorbed on the lit hemisphere model say abut the surface emission and global mean surface temperature? How do you get those values from the 480 W/m^2 absorbed on the lit hemisphere?
None of these models tell you anything about the surface emission and global mean surface temperature. The global mean surface temperature is measured.
The Trenberth 2009 model tells us that to comply with the 1LOT the average surface radiant emission must be 396 W/m^2. That is an SB temperature of 289K. It’s not bad for a first order approximation. And when factoring in the 6 W/m^2 of rectification effects you get a second approximation of 288K which is pretty close to the observed value.
OK, bdgwx.
> youre STILL trying to treat flux as energy
So says our puppy who STILL wants to cook his chicken with flux alone.
this needs to be explained to Willard as he is having a great deal of difficulty in acknowledging that there are different ways of calculating this.
I can grant you an infinity of ways to calculate this, Bill.
You got to grant me that they all give the same answers.
Trust your inner High Expectation Auditor on this.
“Exactly!!! And they do that mistake – dividing the solar flux by 4 – for every planet and moon in the solar system. The solar flux division by 4 is a first-step very primitive theoretical approach for the planet’s average temperature very approximate estimation.”
I would say basic rather than primitive.
It’s by chance that it works, but Earth is about 5 C.
Or ideal thermally conductive sphere at Earth distance from
the sun will have uniform surface temperature of about 5 C.
And Earth does have temperature of it’s surface, if you talking about it’s “rocky” surface. Ocean rocky surface and land rocky surface.
Or you define it the rocky surface in which geothermal heat and surface meet or where have fairly stable temperature- and above it, temperature vary due to night and day and weather and etc.
Or could call basic in terms accounting for Sunlight intensity at it’s distance. Plus allowing any geothermal heat of a planet having any effect.
It seems Earth is particularly active in terms geological activity and volcanic activity has effected it’s global surface air temperature. And gas giants generate a significant heat and as do the moons of Gas giants due tidal energy. Ie Europa is thought to have a huge liquid ocean- due to tidal energy with Jupiter. Small planets like Mercury and Mars don’t seem to have much geothermal energy.
But it basic or primitive because allows a starting point.
One could say the average temperature of the ocean [which is about 3.5 C] is sort of starting point.
The oceans as compared to atmosphere has enormous amount energy.
One say it this way, the sunlight can warm the atmosphere up in a week of time, the energy the sun warms the ocean by 1 C, over time periods of thousands of years.
Or if turn off the sun {blink it out of existence} it take days to cool down, but it take thousand year to cool down the ocean by 1 C. But due to geothermal energy a thousand meter under rock, will also take forever to cool down.
The difference of rock and ocean, could be said that the entire ocean interacts more with the atmosphere than 1000 or more meters of rock. The ocean not interacts, but controls the polar regions.
One could say ocean surface water controls polar region regions, but there not much to talk about in terms of surface water near the polar regions- or in the summer time there is some. But if entire ocean is cooler, polar waters frozen during the summer, and if ocean is warmer, polar waters are liquid during the winter.
Too many choke points in our civilization.
More resilience and backups required.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57050690
Entropic Man,
Competent sys admins. No problems. Incompetent management blame their employees.
Doesn’t matter who you blame. The weaknesses are there.
In the current climate there are always agents, weirdos or ransomware hackers looking to exploit such weaknesses.
Even cockups can have serious consequences. One jammed container ship in the Suez Canal disrupted trade between Asia and Europe for a week.
It is said that any country is five meals from revolution. Somehow that five meals barrier doesn’t look as high as it used to.
Entropic Man,
Yeah, and world peace would be good. Get real.
Such naive optimism.
Perhaps you should change your username to Pangloss.
“More resilience and backups required.”
As incompetent Biden shuts down a major pipeline.
The other Joe still cons Sky Dragons with a fake model.
Obsessed.
Vintage 2018:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/2018-6th-warmest-year-globally-of-last-40/#comment-335329
Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 6:54) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 8:16) Obsessed.
Yes, you are obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 6:54) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 8:16) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:04) [O]bsessed.
Mental note: there is no point talking to Willard.
(Kiddo, after his 20th spam comment at AT’s) I can do this for the rest of my life, if necessary.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 6:54) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 8:16) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:04) [O]bsessed.
Your problem is, what I wrote at AT was not spam. I was simply trying to ask you if you agreed, or did not agree, that the 480 W/m^2 absorbed over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 emitted from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out. Everybody else commenting there seemed to agree that it does balance energy in and energy out, but you never actually said what you think. You just deflected onto asking for a model, and used your moderation skills to hide.
(Kiddo, after his 20th spam comment at AT’s) I can do this for the rest of my life, if necessary.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 6:54) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 8:16) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:04) Yes, you are obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:18) Mental note: there is no point talking to Willard.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:39, about his 39 spam comments) what I wrote at AT was not spam.
{Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:43} More gibberish from Willard.
Answer the question, clown.
Give me Joe’s model and we’ll talk.
That is a dodge. Answer the question, clown.
Give me the model you pretend to defend, kiddo.
Ask Joe. He should know where it is.
Another dodge. Answer the question, clown.
Unless and until you produce a model that manages your division by two properly, kiddo, no sale.
You *could* find it in Joe’s model of the Earth, if it exists.
Does it?
More dodging. Just answer the question, clown.
(Kiddo, after his 20th spam comment at AT’s) I can do this for the rest of my life, if necessary.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 6:54) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 8:16) Obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:04) Yes, you are obsessed.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:18) Mental note: there is no point talking to Willard.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:39, about his 39 spam comments) what I wrote at AT was not spam.
{Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 9:43} More gibberish from Willard.
(Kiddo, for the third time, 10:34) dodge
Another way for you to avoid answering the question. Answer the question, clown.
(Kiddo, after his 20th spam comment at AT’s) I can do this for the rest of my life, if necessary.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 6:54) Obsessed.
(At 8:16) Obsessed.
(At 9:04) Yes, you are obsessed.
(At 9:18) Mental note: there is no point talking to W
(At 9:39, about his 39 spam comments) what I wrote at AT was not spam.
(At 9:43) More gibberish
(For the third time, 10:34) dodge
(At 10:54) Another way for you to avoid answering
OK, you are obsessive and evasive.
(Kiddo, after his 20th spam comment at ATs) I can do this for the rest of my life, if necessary.
(Kiddo, 2021-05-10 at 6:54) Obsessed.
(At 8:16) Obsessed.
(At 9:04) Yes, you are obsessed.
(At 9:18) Mental note: there is no point talking to W
(At 9:39, about his 39 spam comments) what I wrote at AT was not spam.
(At 9:43) More gibberish
(For the third time, 10:34) dodge
(At 10:54) Another way for you to avoid answering
(At 11:30, in response to the geometrical fact that the disc is all we need for the flux to fall on a hemisphere) stop trolling.
(At 11:33) OK, you are obsessive and evasive.
Moron, multiplying the solar constant by the disk surface area and correcting for albedo gives you the total power (watts) that the Earth absorbs. But this has to be spread over the surface area you want to apply it to, to get the flux. If you divide the total power by the surface area of the whole Earth, you get 240 W/m^2. If you divide the total power by the surface area of the lit hemisphere, you get 480 W/m^2. Understand?
> If you divide the total power by the surface area of the lit hemisphere
Then what corresponds to the left side of the equation does not represent input energy anymore. It’s something else. Why is that so hard to understand: you don’t know type theory?
Besides, why the hell would you do that? You’re trying to find the effective temperature for the whole planet! That silly division by 2 isn’t fit for purpose, and its realness disappears as soon as we observe that the other hemisphere receives 0 energy.
We both know that you can’t work you way out of discharging that 2 properly while preserving the steady state equality. It’s not impossible to do. It only happens that you can’t.
Forget about your equation for a minute. It’s confusing you beyond belief.
This isn’t about finding the effective temperature of the Earth. That’s 255 K. Postma is not disputing that.
Please answer this question:
Do you, or do you not agree, that the 480 W/m^2 absorbed over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 emitted from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out?
–Please answer this question:
Do you, or do you not agree, that the 480 W/m^2 absorbed over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 emitted from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out?–
It seems everyone should agree that the sunlit side of Earth absorbs all the sunlight.
> It seems everyone should agree that the sunlit side of Earth absorbs all the sunlight.
It also seems that everyone should agree that the hemisphere, when corrected for zenith angle, is the disc:
“{7} See AT’s proof that illustrates how the light already falls on the equivalent of a hemisphere.”
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
Not that it matters much for the steady-state equation.
Answer the question, Willard.
Give me Joe’s model, kiddo.
Answer the question.
This is Clive Best’s comparison of 100 CMIP6 model runs with observed temperatures.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CMIP6-compare.png
When one sceptic says that CMIP6 is a poor predictor of temperature and another’s ways that CMIP6 is a good predictor; who do you believe?
Who are the two skeptics, Ent? And where did they say what you are saying?
When your imagination lacks details, how can we believe you?
The first sceptic is Clive Best here.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9941
The second sceptic is Roy Spencer here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/
Always glad to help.
Ent, Roy Spencer describes himself as a “Lukewarmer”. Why do you claim he is a skeptic?
Are lukewarmers not sceptics?
Not exactly. They’re contrarians, first and foremost. They’re not Sky Dragons, however, for at least they know how cooking works.
Skepticism does not belong to anyone.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint,
> Dividing by 4 reduces the temperature of the surface. 240 W/m^2 can NEVER raise the temperature above 255K. 960 W/m^2 corresponds to a max temp of 361K. It should be obvious that 361K doesn’t need any extra warming to get to 288K. No GHE needed.
Exactly, Clint!
When the planet cross-section disk receives on average 960 W/m^2, it corresponds to the average cross-section disk’s Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody mean surface temperature of 361K.
When the 960 W/m^2 is averaged on the solar lit hemisphere dividing by 2. the 480 W/m^2 corresponds to the average solar lit hemisphere’s Stefan-Boltzmann black body mean surface temperature of 303K.
And that’s it! We are not justified to continue with the dark hemisphere’s radiative behavior, because the dark hemisphere does not interact with the solar flux in real time…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
dark hemisphere does not interact with the solar flux in real time…
When we averaged the 960 W/m^2 over the solar lit hemisphere dividing by 2 we already did two major assumptions:
1). We assumed the hemisphere as being a flat surface of the twice the cross-section disk’s surface area.
2). We assumed the solar flux’s rays hitting perpendicularly on that the twice the cross-section disk area (the flat hemisphere’s area).
The solar lit hemisphere is neither flat surface, nor the solar rays are perpendicularly oriented towards the hemispheres surface…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> The solar lit hemisphere is neither flat surface
“If you do the integral over the hemisphere and take the solar zenith angle into account, you recover that the energy intercepted per unit time is the incoming flux times the cross-sectional area of the Earth.”
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190372
ATTP uses a slightly different approach than myself.
He derives…
E = 2 * T * S * r^2 * integral(-pi/2, pi/2, cos^2(t), dt)
Whereas I derive…
E = T * S * integral(0, pi/2, 2*pi*r^2*cos(t)*sin(t), dt)
Compared to the shortcut…
E = T * (S/4) * 4pi*r^2
Note that all 3 are equivalent. ATTP and myself used different techniques, but still arrived at the same place in the end.
https://i.imgur.com/nJBemeK.png
bdgwx, there are often many ways to be wrong.
You should try to get something right.
If you are anyone feels that 5.48e24 j is the wrong then please submit your calculation for review.
Our puppy can’t deny that Joe’s model does not generate more energy, bdgwx. If he does not concede that point, he should consult with kiddo, who conceded that point a while ago, which was to be expected as Joe already did before him.
Joe’s a chicken.
bdgwx, you’re STILL hung up with energy. You can have all the energy you want, but if it is the WRONG energy, it won’t warm a surface. Ice emits 300 W/m^2. You can have all the ice you want, but you can’t raise a surface above the temperature of the ice.
All of the energy in the ocean, and it’s a lot, couldn’t cook a chicken with its emitted infrared.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
> you’re STILL hung up with energy
Energy balance models are meant to balance energy, puppy.
That’s in the name.
You might have missed it.
ClintR,
You keep saying that the amount of energy Earth receives in one orbit as calculated from TSI via the formulas above including the one where we divide TSI by 4 and which have wide acceptance by scientists is wrong, but you won’t submit an alternative calculation for review. You won’t even describe how it is wrong. Your comments amount to what I call a “nuh-uh” argument except in this case not only is it devoid of evidence or calculation of any kind it is devoid of any meaningful or relevant commentary altogether.
Willard,
Joe had the opportunity to respond to questions from us on neutral grounds here on Dr. Spencer’s blog. He posted I think 2 comments directing readers to his youtube channel. That was it AFAIK.
Have you worked out why Postma refers to “dividing by 4” as “flat Earth”, yet, bdgwx?
Willard said: Energy balance models are meant to balance energy, puppy.
This poster rejects the 1LOT so models that conserve energy like the 3 layer energy budget from Trenberth 2009 or the like are immediately rejected as well. I have thus far been unable to convince this posters and others with similar arguments that the 1LOT is, in fact, an unassailable physical law of reality.
Here’s where Kiddo spilled all of Joe’s beans, bdgrx:
> Total power absorbed = Total power emitted = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190696
He had to fall for a Spanish Prisoner, but that worth it.
Since he falls for Joe’s con, it was to be expected.
More gibberish from Willard.
bdgwx is practicing his typing, again. No truth, no reality, just blah-blah.
I NEVER said anything about calculating energy. What I’ve said is you can’t divide flux. You can’t average flux. Flux is NOT energy.
The idiots don’t have an “energy balance”. They’ve got a “flux balance”. But, flux does NOT balance.
They don’t understand ANY of this.
> What Ive said is you cant divide flux
That’s false, but more importantly irrelevant. What is being divided by 4 isn’t flux. It’s the Energy in!
You’re confusing flux and energy. They don’t have the same units.
All this because of Joe’s con.
What is divided by 4 is the flux, moron, not the energy!
Yeah DREMT, I think young Willard is even dumber than Norman.
I didn’t think that was possible….
The result of the left side isn’t flux, dummy.
It’s power.
You keep forgetting the damn disc.
God you’re dumb.
ClintR said: I NEVER said anything about calculating energy.
I did. I gave 3 different but equivalent formulas for calculating it. You said they were wrong at May 10, 2021 at 8:19 AM.
ClintR said: What Ive said is you cant divide flux. You cant average flux.
And you are wrong. I literally divided S by 4 and got the exact same answer as doing the full integration just like what ATTP did.
Yes, you can average flux. You just can’t use the average inappropriately or without the consideration of rectification effects when used in the SB law.
ClintR said: Flux is NOT energy.
Duh. But flux multiplied by time and area IS energy. E = F*T*A.
ClintR said: The idiots dont have an energy balance. Theyve got a flux balance. But, flux does NOT balance.
And as I’ve proved mathematically multiple times now if fluxes are in reference to the same time (T) and area (A) then like energy they too are conserved and must balance.
Here is the proof again.
From the 1LOT…
dE = Ein – Eout
Dividing both sides by time (T) and area (A)…
dE / (T*A) = (Ein – Eout) / (T*A)
dE / (T*A) = (Ein / (T*A)) – (Eout / (T*A))
And because…
F = E / (T*A)
It follows that…
dF = Fin – Fout
So if you accept the 1LOT and dE = Ein – Eout and if Fin and Fout are in reference to the same time (T) and area (A) then you must accept that dF = Fin – Fout as well.
We get it. You don’t accept the 1LOT so naturally you won’t accept dF = Fin – Fout either. The rest of though do accept the 1LOT and go on with our analysis a such.
> flux multiplied by time and area IS energy. E = F*T*A.
Bingo.
One week on this and Kiddo *still* does not get it. It took bdgwx an hour or so. And he replicates AT’s point about the hemisphere, when corrected, is a disc.
Is that the best Sky Dragons we can get?
I think we need better ones.
Willard, it is flux that is divided by 4.
Power is divided by area, to get flux. But the shortcut of dividing by 4 is applied to flux.
You’re STILL not getting it, bdgwx.
1) Algebra is NOT physics.
2) Flux can NOT be divided without losing its heat capability. 240 W/m^2 could never raise the temperature above 255K. 960 W/m^2 corresponds to 361K.
3) One ice cube could warm a surface to the temperature of the ice. A million more ice cubes can not raise the temperature any higher.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
Clint,
> …you can’t divide flux. You can’t average flux…flux does NOT balance
Clint, in a few words you said so many!
Thank you!
> Power is divided by area, to get flux
Better. There’s always hope.
You’re almost there. Interpret “area” as coming from *the emitting side* and Joe’s con disappears.
“That’s false, but more importantly irrelevant. What is being divided by 4 isn’t flux. It’s the Energy in!”
Willard, all this time you have thought the energy should be divided by 4, not the flux. No wonder you have been so confused. Jesus wept.
Not only you’re an idiot, kiddo, but you’re a bad scholar of Joe:
“Out of the mathematical convenience of not having to treat the system in real-time, and with the real power of sunshine, climate scientists average the real-time power of sunshine over the entire surface of the Earth at once […]”
That’s the very first quote I have in my post.
God you’re dumb.
> Flux can NOT be divided without
Wait, puppy: are you FINALLY conceding that flux can indeed be divided?
Clint,
I think they consider Earth having an inner source of energy 240 W/m^2 covered with a blanket (atmosphere).
The exactly opposite they do:
They irradiate Earth above the blanket (atmosphere) with 240 W/m^2…
How do they expect Earth’s surface will emit at uniform 288K the 398 W/m^2 then?
It is a mystery…
Loose terminology from Postma. He means flux. The flux is divided by 4, not the power, I can assure you.
> Loose terminology from [Joe]. He means flux.
And when Joe speaks of “how solar radiation reaches the Earths surface,” is it loose terminology too?
We already know that a hemisphere, when corrected for zenith angle, gives us the disc.
A disc that is abstracted from Joe’s calculations in his diagrams, by some coincidence.
Can you not just admit you were wrong? It is the flux that is divided by 4. OK?
I wasn’t, kiddo, an you still don’t get it:
The disc is all we need for the flux to fall on a hemisphere.
Joe is pwning you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The disc is all we need for the flux to fall on the hemisphere, kiddo. I read you the post where it is shown that Joe does not get that.
He’s running a con and you’re a mark.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Chistos said: I think they consider Earth having an inner source of energy 240 W/m^2 covered with a blanket (atmosphere).
Yes and no. Of the 5.48e24 joules of energy the Earth receives each orbit only about 3.84e24 joules enter the climate system. This energy is converted eventually converted into thermal IR via several mechanisms. It’s not that the energy source is internal, but the conversion of that energy into heat is internal.
The best analogy here is your oven. Electricity is allowed to the enter the oven system. It is then converted to heat via the heating elements that are inside the oven. In the same manner the energy source is external, but the conversion of that energy into heat is internal.
Chistos said: The exactly opposite they do:
They irradiate Earth above the blanket (atmosphere) with 240 W/m^2
Of the 5.84e24 joules that Earth receives above the blanket about 1.64e24 joules is reflected and 3.84e24 joules is allowed to penetrate. 3.84e24 joules in one orbit represents an average of 240 W/m^2.
Chistos said: How do they expect Earths surface will emit at uniform 288K the 398 W/m^2 then?
It is a mystery
No mystery. Review Trenberth 2009 (https://tinyurl.com/7eafzwmj) for an energy perspective (using the more convenient energy flux formulation) on how this happens. Also, note that it is acknowledged that the Earth does not emit at 398 W/m^2 (or 396 W/m^2 using Trenberth 2009) uniformly. It is an average energy flux with a rectification effect of 6 W/m^2 that needs to be considered before plugging the value into the SB law.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
This won’t go away. People can argue all they want about the minutia, but there are complete data sets that show no warming. It is hard to claim CO2 causes warming when the entire S Pole isn’t warming with an increase in CO2.
KISS: Keep it simple, stupid
Actually I think that is Okum’s Rule #1. Anyway, here is how Captain Obvious would build a KISS Climate Model.
1) Start with Antarctica. Model the Climate there because it has the fewest exogenous variable. CO2 would have a 0.00 Coefficient in the model, and I would imagine the Sun would explain almost all of the temperature variation. ΔT = 0.0xCO2 + 100xSun
Then go a little N and model the S Hemi Ocean. You would end up with ΔT = 0.00xCo2 + 30xH2O + 70XSun
Then go and model the S Hemi Land and you would get ΔT = 0.00xCO2 + 40xH20 + 20xUHI + 40xSun
And so on and so on.
The problem with Climate Science is that not all climates are the same, and yet these Einsteins try to great a single aggregate temperature. That proves how truly ignorant they are of modeling, and why current climate models will always fail. Dr. Spencer make a sport out of highlighting just how laughable these models are.
Each region is impacted be a different and often unique set of variable, so many that you will never be able to model them all. Nobel Prize-winning statisticians can’t model the Stock Market, and there are fortunes to be made there. Do you honestly think someone on a Professor’s salary will be able to crack the forecasting and modeling methods Wall Street hasn’t? If they could and have, every Climate Scientist would be working on Wall Street.
Anyway, the very fact that they model the aggregate instead of modeling the individual climates pretty much proves to anyone familiar with modeling that Climate Scientists are more about producing research to promote public policy then they are about getting to the truth. This isn’t science, it is propaganda.
CiL said: People can argue all they want about the minutia, but there are complete data sets that show no warming.
No there isn’t. I’m not aware of even a single dataset in which a global mean temperature is published and which shows no warming from 1979-present.
On the other hand, all of these datasets show different amounts of warming and even some cooling in specific regions and localities.
The global mean temperature can increase even when select regions or localities are cooling. If you don’t understand why this can happen then ask questions. We’ll try to explain the concepts to you. We can start with the basics if needed.
CiL said: It is hard to claim CO2 causes warming when the entire S Pole isnt warming with an increase in CO2.
UAH-TLT shows +0.02C/decade in the SoPol region. SoPol is warming; just not as much as at the global scale.
This is not inconsistent with an increase in CO2. If you do not understand why this is then ask questions. We’ll try to explain the concepts to you. We can start with the basics if needed.
bdgwx No there isnt. Im not aware of even a single dataset in which a global mean temperature is published and which shows no warming from 1979-present.
Yes there is, download the data from this blog and generate the monthly charts. You will see there there is no warming in the S Pole. If you want to argue that there is, you simply don’t know what an uptrend is. People can either believe their eyes or you. My bet is most people beyond Williard, Bindy and ET, will believe their eyes.
CiL,
First…SoPol != Globe
Second…I DID download the UAH-TLT data. I get +0.02C/decade at SoPol just like Dr. Spencer does.
I’ll repeat my statement…
Im not aware of even a single dataset in which a global mean temperature is published and which shows no warming from 1979-present.
bdgwx, as I’ve pointed out 1×10^1000, the Global data is corrupted with many exogenous factors. That is why it can’t be modeled with CO2 centric models. That is modeling 101.
There is a relatively non-corrupted data set, the S Pole and over 500 desert and low BI locations. You have to explain how I can identify what locations won’t show warming with an increase in CO2.
Please tell me and everyone else, why are the S Pole and Desert Locations both hot and cold not warming with an increase in CO2? BTW, the regression is over the entire period merging months. That allows events like El Nino to generate artificial non-CO2 driven warming. Look at the month graphics and there clearly is no warming.
CiL said: Ive pointed out 110^1000, the Global data is corrupted with many exogenous factors.
Have you notified Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy regarding your concerns that their data set is corrupted?
CiL said: You have to explain how I can identify what locations wont show warming with an increase in CO2.
Are you asking which locations will not sure warming with an increase in CO2? The answer to that question is the stratosphere. Check the global mean temperature in that layer and let us know what you find.
CiL said: Please tell me and everyone else, why are the S Pole and Desert Locations both hot and cold not warming with an increase in CO2?
The south pole and many desert locations ARE warming. If you want to find a surface location that is not warming I recommend you check out the region of the North Atlantic south of Greenland.
CiL said: BTW, the regression is over the entire period merging months.
I always do my linear regression over the entire period. I never cherry-picking a subset of months in the given period.
CiL said: That allows events like El Nino to generate artificial non-CO2 driven warming.
Absolutely. El Nino does provide a mechanism by which the atmosphere warms. Likewise La Nina provides a mechanism by which the atmosphere cools. Clearly CO2 is not the only mechanism in play.
CiL said: Look at the month graphics and there clearly is no warming.
Either you are looking at something different or you have a cognitive bias that does not allow you to see the warming.
Most of us can look at the UAH-TLT graph at a glace and estimate both the linear warming trend and the variability of the monthly anomalies.
bdgwx loves algebra, but hates reality. Let’s see if we can get him to accept some reality, by using algebra.
a = b
2a = 2b
He can’t argue with that algebra.
a = CO2 atmospheric concentration
b = energy radiated to space by CO2
Algebra proves a doubling of CO2 will cool Earth!
All you’ve shown is that if a = b then 2a = 2b. Nothing more. CO2 atmospheric concentration has units of ppm while energy radiated to space has units of joules. They don’t even have the same units so a cannot possibly equal b. I therefore reject 2a = 2b as well.
No problem, bdgwx. If units concern you, just use proportionality in place of “=”. The algebra is the same.
a ~ b
2a ~ 2b
That assumes a and b are linearly related. If a and b are non-linearly related such that the output of the function that maps a to b is itself modulated by a then 2a !~ 2b.
The problems don’t stop there though. Your statement “Algebra proves a doubling of CO2 will cool Earth” assumes 1) CO2 concentration is linearly related to the energy radiated to space by CO2 and 2) that CO2 is the only mechanism that contributes and modulates Eout and 3) that Ein does not change. The evidence clearly shows that all 3 are bad assumptions.
The point…algebra is but a tool to do analysis. If the assumptions built into your algebra is wrong then your conclusions are going to be wrong too. That rule holds for my analysis above. If the 1LOT is wrong then my statement that flux is conserved when those fluxes are in reference to the same time (T) and area (A) such that dF = Fin – Fout is also wrong. That’s why you reject dF = Fin – Fout. You think the assumption that the 1LOT is true is wrong.
bsgwx says: Have you notified Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy regarding your concerns that their data set is corrupted?
Dr. Spencer himself labels some graphic for EL Ninos and La Ninas. Those are outside/exogenous variables or corrupting factors for a data set intended to highlight the effect of CO2 on temperatures.
If this was a real science, anything having to do with CO2 would simply use the S Pole and the Desert Locations I’ve identified. ANy other measurement has factors that aren’t accounted for in the models.
Now bdgwx admits that algebra is not physics.
He tries so hard to avoid reality, but it always runs over him.
bdgwx, you’re one of those idiots that just starts massaging your keyboard and can’t quit.
“That’s why you reject dF = Fin Fout. You think the assumption that the 1LOT is true is wrong.”
There is NO “assumption” that 1LoT is true. 1LoT is a well-established LAW of physics/thermodynamics. 1LoT is NOT wrong, you idiot. Try to think before you start slapping those keys.
ClintR,
If you want people to think you accept the 1LOT then you’re going to have to stop rejecting that fluxes are conserved with they are in reference to the same time and area, the heat transfer equation, and the concept of the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). Until you stop rejecting these concepts we have no choice but to think you reject the 1LOT. And any argument you make based on this rejection will be rejected as well.
bdgwx, since you are talking about emitted fluxes, you must also consider the temperature of the surface. So, you have to coordinate area with temperature with time. For example, what area of an ocean is at the same temperature, at the same time?
You don’t know crap about any of this.
How many keyboards do you wear out in a month?
For how long will you continue to play the Riddler, puppy?
These tights might not suit you like in the good ol’ days.
Looks like I’m right on target again. Young Willard is trying to distract attention away from bdgwx’s latest failure.
But the tactic only draws more attention. bdgwx hasn’t answered my question: “So, you have to coordinate area with temperature with time. For example, what area of an ocean is at the same temperature, at the same time?”
That’s why this is so much fun.
> Looks like Im right on target again.
Our Texan Sharpshooter strikes again!
The answer to his riddle is: no, we don’t. The sammich he’s requesting is for another kind of model.
Let him try this one:
(ESTR) So, basically Joe struggles to divide by 2? Thats a bit embarassing.
(VLAD) Quick question, Pozzo: in Joes diagrams, there is an equation at the top right. Do you know what it means? I only found it at one place in his work.
(POZZO) No, you will have to ask Joe on that one.
(VLAD) That will be hard. Send him this for me:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog_held/2-linearity-of-the-forced-response/
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191003
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
> the energy intercepted per unit time is the incoming flux times the cross-sectional area of the Earth
No, the incoming flux is not intercepted on the smooth spherical surface… times the cross-sectional area of the Earth.
The flux is: So = 1.361 W/m^2
(1-a)So = 960 W/m^2 (accounts only for hemisphere’s diffuse reflection)
There is also the spherical surface specular reflection should be taken in consideration.
Thus we shall have
Φ(1-a)So = 444 W/m^2 (is the intercepted on the cross-section disk, when the cross-section disk is covered by the hemisphere)
where Φ = 0,47 the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> the incoming flux is not intercepted on the smooth spherical surface
You should not try to fight geometry, Christos. You will lose.
AT already told you to use Bond Albedo.
Can we all agree that the difference between the average energy entering and exiting the planet has been relatively constant within measurement error for at least a couple millennia?
For those that do agree, who would NOT also agree that our conceptions of how solar insolation is distributed (dividing by 2 or 4) will not change actual measured global temperatures by the slightest amount?
More important issues are what causes changes in the EEI and most importantly how much difference a change in CO2 or any other IR absorbing gas makes. I abhor the food fights that detract from mature discussion of the issues Dr. Spencer brings to the table.
Zero-dimensional energy balance models for the effective temperature of the Earth are meant as teaching aids and are included in sanity checks, Chic.
Blame Joe and other Sky Dragon freaks to portray it as some kind of full-fledged climate model.
Yous guys’ silly games aren’t teaching anything. I think you know that and, therefore, are just as much to blame.
Pay me and I’ll teach you, Chic. Meanwhile, here’s a free lesson: falsification is meant to replace the idea that there are proofs in empirical sciences.
CB, you’re trying to bring some level of maturity to the discussion. But, if you are here long enough, you will see the cult rejects reality. They are so obsessed with protecting all the nonsense, they will pervert science. Several have claimed that a passenger jet circumnavigating Earth will be flying backwards. Several have claimed that two ice cubes will make something hotter than one ice cube. There are many such examples.
They apparently have no regard for truth, or reality.
I agree with you, but I think trolls feast on the leftovers. I may be naive, but if only serious questions and responses were discussed, they would lose interest.
Chic Bowdrie
” Can we all agree that the difference between the average energy entering and exiting the planet has been relatively constant within measurement error for at least a couple millennia? ”
This is the very first problem I have when reading such comments.
Chic Bowdrie, this is NOT a point on which to agree!
This difference HAS to be zero, not only since ‘a couple of millenia’, but since all times; otherwise, the planet either would become constantly warmer or constantly cooler.
J.-P. D.
That is exactly my point. We don’t know the difference to any more accuracy than zero. So let’s discuss measurement accuracy and why it is zero. Or isn’t zero. Stuff like what really matters.
Afraid not
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Over the last five thousand years global temperature dropped by almost 1C. That is a cooling rate of 0.02C/decade.
Cooling indicates an EEI, that the outward radiation exceeded the incoming radiation.
There was a brief pause around 1000AD and the MWP when the planet was in equilibrium.
Then in the latter 19th century the outward radiation dropped below the incoming radiation. Since then the EEI has produced warming.
OK, you brought game. Now read Bindinon here…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-688898
…and tell us how you know the average EEI is anything but zero? Two significant figures should do it.
Over longer temporal scales and during periods where temperature is relatively stable the EEI tends to hug zero as part of mean reversion.
Over shorter temporal scales and when temperatures are increasing or decreasing the EEI can be perturbed significantly.
See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) for how the EEI over the contemporary era is measured and what the uncertainty on the estimate is.
Note that EEI can be measured in a lot of different ways. Dr. Spencer has made misleading statements that imply that it is done by identifying and quantifying every heat transfer mechanism in the climate system and then summing them up. And while that is a valid approach it leads to an extremely high uncertainty; like 10’s of W/m^2 in some cases. It can also be calculated via EEI = ASR – OLR. But ASR and OLR can themselves have large uncertainty. Instead what most scientists do is measure the EEI directly by monitoring changes in the heat content of the land, air, ocean, and cryosphere. This approach yields a much smaller uncertainty on the order of +/- 0.1 W/m^2.
Conveniently we can rearrange EEI = ASR – OLR to ASR = EEI + OLR or OLR = ASR – EEI. Now we can use the precision from the direct EEI measurement to constrain the more difficult to measure ASR and OLR values.
What are the uncertainties of measuring the change in heat content of each of the and, air, ocean, and cryosphere?
“Now we can use the precision from the direct EEI measurement”
bdgwx, there is NO “direct EEi measurement”!
You’re so far from reality.
This went to the bottom, but I’ll duplicate it here.
tell us how you know the average EEI is anything but zero?.
From the back of my envelope.
We know the amount of energy accumulating in the oceans. Whether you calculate from temperature change or thermal expansion you get 3*10^21 joules/year. Add another 10% from latent heat of ice melt, warming land and a warmer atmosphere and you get 3.3*10^21 Joules/year. That is the amount of energy coming in due to the EEI.
Now to turn it into a flux. One Watt is one Joule/second.
The flux becomes 3.3*10^21/60*60*24*365 = 1.04*10^14W
Divide by the surface area of the Earth and you get the EEI.
1.04*10^14 / 5.1*10^14 = 0.20 W/m^2
Ent, what is the error in your “surface area of the Earth”?
Chic, interesting, thoughtful post. A few questions/comments.
1) I would take your statement one step further and say “the difference between the average energy entering and exiting the planet has been relatively constant, where that constant is zero.” The two quantities (Energy in) and (energy out) are each separately close to constant. The difference is close to zero.
2) What timescale are you envisioning? From the data in the top post, we see that temperatures go up and down considerably from month to month. So on timescales less than a year, we can be pretty sure that there ARE variations between energy in and energy out that are real.
3) Actually measuring (energy in) and measuring (energy out) could only be done with any degree of certainty over the past few decades using satellites. So “within measurement uncertainly” is a huge error bar for about 99.9% of “the last few millennia.” On the other hand, from temperature *changes*, we do know that the *difference* must (on average) be close to zero over the pass millennia, since temperatures have been close to constant.
4) For the past few decades, it is my understanding that (energy in) and (energy out) are slightly out of balance and that the measured differences are significantly different from zero. Trenberth puts the number around 0.9 W/m^2. I can’t independently confirm this, but it seem reasonable, given the observed rise in temperatures.
Tim,
May I return the compliment?
1) Good addendum.
2) I don’t know that we have enough data to say there are energy differences when we don’t know temperature changes from all relevant reservoirs. What about all the places we can’t measure universally?
3) To within realistic measurement uncertainty, I agree. I think.
4) I agree with those who say currently ASR > OLR, because ASR is increasing while OLR is more constant. I have not seen any evidence that the imbalance is statistically significant, however.
Will there ever be enough temperature data confirmation, because ocean seems impossible to account for sufficiently.
The most comprehensive study to date puts the EEI at +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) for details.
Thanks for the info.
A hemisphere plus the other hemisphere = sphere
“More important issues are what causes changes in the EEI and most importantly how much difference a change in CO2 or any other IR absorbing gas makes.”
Clouds?
I think the entire ocean temperature has not varied much over 2000 years. And sun’s output is fairly consistent- though Earth’s yearly change in distance from Perihelion to Aphelion has much greater change in sunlight reaching the Earth than a change in the sun itself over at least 2000 years.
It seems to me that last 5000 years of our Holocene period has been slowly cooling, or was warmer more than 5000 years ago.
Or to make a phrase, we have past our peak.
But what about NASA’s claim:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean”
It seems from Chic Bowdrie posting in above thread, Chic not buying the idea of heat being lost in the ocean.
I think our ocean of 3.5 C determines our global climate. and 1 degree change either direction has huge effect.
But it seems we have seen .5 C change within last 2000 years- Little Ice Age seems to me it could been around .2 C drop.
And over the centuries we have roughly, recovered.
And I don’t know why or when we could have another Little Ice Age.
Though tend to think it won’t happen within century.
I think LIA is dangerous, and somehow returning to Holocene Optimum conditions, as, not as dangerous.
{and I can’t imagine anyone having different opinion}
How Earth cools, seem more important than how it warms.
What causes the cooling?
Why are in this 34 million year Ice Age?
Or if like, this icehouse global climate.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
Christos has brought up something that nobody here has been able to explain –
Why is Earth albedo defined as a function of diffuse reflection? For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Why not total reflection (diffuse + specular)? Why the distinction?
And what is the percentage of reflected light at TOA, diffuse compared to specular?
“Surface albedo is defined as the ratio of radiosity Je to the irradiance Ee (flux per unit area) received by a surface.[1] The proportion reflected is not only determined by properties of the surface itself, but also by the spectral and angular distribution of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.[2] These factors vary with atmospheric composition, geographic location and time (see position of the Sun). While bi-hemispherical reflectance is calculated for a single angle of incidence (i.e., for a given position of the Sun), albedo is the directional integration of reflectance over all solar angles in a given period. ”
Note “Albedo is the directional integration of reflectance over all solar angles in a given period”.
That would include specular reflection and what we would normally think of as diffuse radation.
Perhaps this is where Christos has gone astray. He has come to regard specular reflection as separate from albedo. The rest of us regard it as part of the albedo.
You can measure albedo in two ways.
1) You can measure and integrate the amount of shortwave energy reflecting off the planet using satellite data or earthlight and subtract it from the solar insolation to get the albedo.
2) You can measure the outward longwave radiation. Once again albedo= solar insolation – OLR (except for a bit of EEI).
1) would require considerable sampling. You’ll get specular reflection anywhere the Sun shines on water at a solar angle less than the angle of total reflection. IIRC that is less than 37 degrees above the horizon.
An exact calculation is above my pay grade but perhaps 1/3 of the albedo is specular reflection. The snag from a measurement point of view is that the spacecraft will only detect the specular radiation reflected in its direction.
2) Measuring albedo using OLR is probably more accurate since it measures total reflection, with no need to distinguish whether the reflection is specular or diffuse, nor which direction it emerges to space.
Both methods give the same result, albedo slightly below 30%.
The agreement suggests that the satellite measurements are sufficiently comprehensive.
This seems to be a case of overly trusting Wikipedia for a scientific definition. Pretty much every other source from a quick Google search confirms that “albedo” refers to ANY reflection, not just diffuse reflection.
Furthermore, this definition of “all reflection” makes more sense. For both of these reasons, it seems logical to conclude that all reflections — diffuse and specular (mirror-like) are indeed included in the definition.
This one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
Is re-radiated count as part of “all reflection”.
Also with water droplet most reflection going to more horizonal rather vertical ish. Or vertical only favored in sense it’s shortest path out the maze
“Is re-radiated count as part of all reflection. ”
No.
Reflected radiation is shortwave, not absorbed and part of the albedo.
Re-radiated radiation is longwave and was initially absorbed. It will be part of the OLR.
Vertical is too precise. In practice both albedo and OLR can be reflected or emitted at any angle which reaches space.
Is wrong to say that lightning is re-radiated?
I was disappointed to see the brush-off replies by otherwise impressive commenters. Basically –
> I am sure scientists has considered specular reflection
> you should send an email to NASA
March,
Christos has spent a day at AT’s on this. He has been told many times to use what is called Bond Albedo:
“What youre suggesting is just simply wrong. I suspect this has been pointed out to you before.”
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190794
That said, AT is just an astrophysicist. Christos probly knows better.
Willard, please stop trolling.
EM
I have read the article. But why then is albedo so commonly defined specifically in terms of diffuse reflection if this is not really the case?
(Sorry,
I am unable to quote anyone or anything – the quote disappears after sending, even though my own words show up fine. Also unable to properly place comments. No problem whatsoever on other blogs)
The discussion I’ve seen and the calculations I’ve done over the years all assumed that, as Tim Folkerts suggested, albedo is the total reflected radiation. That is everything, specular and diffuse from the atmosphere and the surface.
Since the calculations usually gave sensible answers “albedo=total reflection” seems a reasonable axiom.
One commentor used to complain that posting from his mobile device always went to a new thread. I never use my phone for that reason.
“why then is albedo so commonly defined specifically in terms of diffuse reflection if this is not really the case? ”
In scientific discussion there are two modes.
The first is conversational, over a beer or on a thread like this. Under these circumstances scientists waffle, generalise and armwave just like the rest of us.
The second is formal communication, a lecture or paper for the record. The language is much more concise and each word has a precise meaning.
When you look for definitions of albedo, be aware which mode you are reading.
“Id rather keep the fossil fuels left to produce cement and plastic than to burn it because were too dumb to organize ourselves properly. What about you?”
Yes that seems to be the dumb idea being sown to bambaoozle the masses..
Burning fossilfuels is much less of a problem than all our waste plastic…
Now if we put all the resources being wasted to get to ‘carbon zero’ into cleaning up our plastic pollution we’d be far bettet off.
So called GHGs cool the atmosphere!
+10.
I think you’re conflating serious comments with comments with which you agree, Chic.
Partly true, I’m afraid.
But I’m sick and tired of having to collect stuff thrown out the window on my front yard!
Fair.
You guys are reading the entire message board. I don’t know if that’s impressive or sad.
why-not-both.png
phil…”Burning fossilfuels is much less of a problem than all our waste plastic”
It’s the eco-solution that is dazzling. They are in the process of burning up our forests as biofuel. Put a ‘bio’ in front of it and it’s alright, even though it’s insanity.
Eco-weenies rush to buy ‘organic’ food, as if all food is not organic.
“tell us how you know the average EEI is anything but zero?”.
From the back of my envelope.
We know the amount of energy accumulating in the oceans. Whether you calculate from temperature change or thermal expansion you get 3*10^21 joules/year. Add another 10% from latent heat of ice melt, warming land and a warmer atmosphere and you get 3.3*10^21 Joules/year. That is the amount of energy coming in due to the EEI.
Now to turn it into a flux. One Watt is one Joule/second.
The flux becomes 3.3*10^21/60*60*24*365 = 1.04*10^14W
Divide by the surface area of the Earth and you get the EEI.
1.04*10^14 / 5.1*10^14 = 0.20 W/m^2
Thanks to all for the comments regarding albedo.
My thinking: taken as a whole the Earth surface (especially the ocean) scatters specularly reflected light in every conceivable direction, mirroring (pun intended) the definition of diffuse reflection. Maybe this explains the confusing definition in Wikipedia and other sources?
Like here –
Literally, scattered equals diffuse, but probably not what the author intended.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
(BTW, I had to hand type the above quote. If copy and paste then it disappears)
March, thank you for your interest regarding albedo.
Thank you March, and thank you all other commenters who responded to my pointing out of albedo being only a diffuse reflection.
The albedo measurements are being very precisely performed not only for Earth’s case, but also for every planet and moon in solar system.
Not every planet is a smooth surface planet. Not every planet has a significant specular reflection. Therefore, there are planets with diffuse plus specular reflection.
And there are planets with diffuse reflection only.
Smooth surface planets without-atmosphere
Φ = 0,47 ( the planets having diffuse + specular reflection )
1). Mercury….0,068
2). Moon…….0,11
3). Earth……..0,306…….without clouds open ocean a = 0,06
4). Mars……..0,25
5). Europa (Jupiter’s moon) … 0,63 (ice crust planet)
Europa (Jupiter’s moon) … 0,63 (ice crust planet) Φ = 0,47 (…Its surface is striated by cracks and streaks, but craters are relatively few….
Europa has the smoothest surface of any known solid object in the Solar System.
6). Ganymede (Jupiter’s moon) …..0,43 (surface consists of water ice crust)
Heavy cratered planets without atmosphere
Φ = 1 (only diffuse reflection)
1). Io (Jupiter’s moon)……..a = 0,63 (Most of Io’s surface is composed of sulfur and sulfur dioxide frost.)
2). Calisto (Jupiter’s moon)….a = 0,22 (Calisto is an ice-crust planet )
Calisto (Jupiter’s moon)….a = 0,22 (Calisto is an ice-crust planet )
The surface of Callisto is the oldest and most heavily cratered in the Solar System.
3). Enceladus (Saturn’s moon) ….. a = 0,85 (Enceladus is mostly covered by fresh, clean ice, making it one of the most reflective bodies of the Solar System.)
4).Tethys (Saturn’s moon)………a = 0,70 (Tethys’ surface is ice crust)
5). Rhea (Saturn’s moon)………a = 0,949 (geometric) Rhea’s surface is ice crust
6). Pluto….a = 0,49 …0,66 (geometric) Pluto is a nitrogen ice crust surface planet
7). Charon….a = 0,2 to 0,5 at solar phase angle of 15° (Charon is an ice crust planet)
Planets with opaque atmosphere and gaseous.
Φ = 1 (only diffuse reflection)
1). Venus…..a = 0,76
2). Titan…….a= 0,22
3). Jupiter……a = 0,503
4). Saturn …. a = 0,342
5). Uranus…… a = 0,300
6). Neptune…..a = 0,298
From the above 19 planets and moons in solar system only six (6) of them have diffuse and specular reflection.
The rest thirteen (13) have only diffuse reflection.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In the page I have linked below, I have several schemes/images describing the incident on a planet SW solar flux energy division to the SW reflected (diffusely + specularly) and “absorbed”= IR emitted… these schemes/images cover all the diffuse-specular-IR emitted possible cases.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
tim…”1) I would take your statement one step further and say the difference between the average energy entering and exiting the planet has been relatively constant, where that constant is zero. The two quantities (Energy in) and (energy out) are each separately close to constant. The difference is close to zero”.
Then why is the planet a guestimated 33C warmer than it is guestimated to the average temperature it ‘should’ be. If you pour boiling water into a hot water bottle and tuck it under the sheets to prevent a rapid release of heat to the air via conduction, it remains warm for a relatively long time. That refutes the energy in – energy out principle which suggests an instantaneous transfer of heat in and out.
That is a theory put forward by a frequent visitor to Roy’s blog, Stephen Wilde.
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
“Thus a net warming effect from the sun, even if it is in the form of a steady flow of energy from the sun over a few decades will cumulatively warm the Earth until the radiation of heat from the Earth rises to match the excess heat being received. As a result of oceanic time lags that could take some time. There is the mechanism.
Stephen’s explanation is a little too simplistic for me. It does not account for heat that is dissipated due to natural expansion of gases heated near the surface and convected to higher altitudes. In other words, the heat out part does not have to be due to radiation only.
Heat in versus heat out for the Earth is a highly complex problem with an unknown time factor. It is not instantaneous, otherwise the planet would never have heated up.
It has taken the planet 170 years to re-warm from the Little Ice Age and the re-warming is still happening. How long would it take to lose that heat?
Gordon, there seem to be two different issues you bring up. And for the most part, I agree with you.
First let me say that I did not intend to imply that (Ein – Eout) was exactly zero, just that it was relatively close to zero. Ein and Eout are on the order of 240 W/m^2, and are both fairly constant. The difference is close to zero, but can easily vary up or down by a few W/m^2 over the course weeks or months or years. Trenberth lists 0.9 W/m^2 as the net imbalance for the surface, but that is, yes, subject to a bit of uncertainty.
The equation should be more like (Ein – Eout) = mc Delta(T)
Second, the time-constant is indeed long, as you noted. The bulk of the oceans can take up huge quantities of heat and still only change temperature slightly. And the thermohaline cycle apparently has cycles on the order of 1000 years, so heat that went into the oceans 1000 years ago could be coming out now.
**************************
I question Stephen’s theory for a different reason. The ‘hot water bottle’ needs to be made hot somehow! 240 W/m^2 of sunlight cannot – by itself – get the ‘water bottle’ any warmer than ~ 255 K. Moving around a 255 K ‘water bottle’ will never help warm anything to ~ 288 K. Oh, some parts could he warmer than 255K, but other parts would necessarily be colder than 255 K. Moving 300 K water to even larger regions at 200 K is also not going to get the globe to 288 K. The water bottle needs the greenhouse effect to warm up in the first place.
TF, 240W/m^2 incoming solar flux will NEVER get Earth warmer than 255K. You can add all the CO2 you want, but Earth will NEVER exceed 255K. To get above 255K, more of the “right” energy is required. 960 W/m^2 will work, for example. That’s why Earth is above 255K. It receives WAY over 240 W/m^2 peak incoming. Averaging flux is anti-science.
Flux can NOT be averaged. The “peak temperature potential” is lost by averaging. 240 W/m^2 corresponds to a maximum temperature of 255K. 960 W/m^2 corresponds to a maximum temperature of 361K.
Believers in the GHE nonsense rely on an imaginary object, the “blackbody sphere”, for their Earth “model”. That model gives unrealistic results.
Tim,
These greenhouse discussions are pointless. Comparing planets with and without atmospheres is pointless. If this planet was once a great ball of fire, where did all the water come from?
No water, no clouds, no ice, and much less albedo makes for a much warmer planet than 255K temperature.
So we are stuck with a planet covered 70% by water with an atmosphere that avoids extremes keeping temperatures mild. The only issue that matters is how much more CO2 is going to raise temperatures, if at all.
bdg…”From the 1LOT dE = Ein Eout”
That’s not the 1st law. It’s dU = dQ – dW. I have no idea why they are trying to claim it represents a conservation of generic energy when it plainly is a conservation of heat in relation to work.
Clausius, who added the U to the 1st law, claimed further than internal energy U = Qint + Wint. That is when you add heat to atoms in a solid, they vibrate harder producing more internal work. So, as heat goes up, the atoms work harder, and the internal energy rises.
The 1st law is a law from thermodynamics, a science that deals with heat. It does not apply to electrical energy, nuclear energy, chemical energy, etc., even though it can be claimed that energy must be conserved. Or when those forms of energy produce heat and work. Even at that, to claim a conservation of energy there must be a reference to only heat and work.
Why do people confuse the 1st law with the law of conservation of energy?
“when it plainly is a conservation of heat in relation to work.”
Gordon, Just a suggestion, but your writing would be clearer if you moved out of the 19th century. The current terminology is
* Q is “heat”
* U is “internal energy” (or sometimes “thermal energy”)
* Qint and Wint are not part of physics.
For “dE = Ein – Eout” I would say this represents a generic statement of conservation of energy. The change in energy of a system, dE, is equal to the energy added to the system minus the energy removed. For the system of interest, the only change in energy is the change in internal energy, so dE = dU. And the only transfer is heat: Ein = Qin and Eout = Qout (and Q = Qin – Qout). So the generic
As for Qint and Wint, here is one problem with those concepts. Consider two processes.
1) a gas in a cylinder is compressed by doing work, which raises the temperature. Then the gas is slowly expanded, keeping the temperature constant by adding heat.
2) the gas in a cylinder is heated at constant volume.
In the first case, you might think there is some extra Qint and some extra Wint in the gas. In the second case, you might think there is only extra Qint. But the state is exactly the same. There is no way to distinguish Qint from Wint. Both are simply U at this point.
GR,
First…it’s not normally written as dU = dQ – dW. It’s typically written as dU = Q – W. U is the internal energy, Q is heat transferred to the system, and W is the work done by the system.
Second…I’m just using a more modern notation that more clearly expresses the idea of conservation of energy. This also removes some confusion as what constitutes heat transfer (Q) and work done (W) and how we map energy inflows and outflows to those traditional concepts. In other words…dE = Ein – Eout is just a more intuitive form that is more amendable to working with energy flows in the context of the climate system. You can certainly use the 19th century formulation but I think you’re going to generate a lot more confusion.
Gordon Robertson –
What was the Goldilocks global temperature from which you believe the LIA was a departure and to which the Earth needs to return before warming stops?
The planet doesn’t have a goldilocks temperature.
Most of the last 10,000 years was at an absolute annual global average of 14.3C.
Most of the last 2 million years was around 9C.
Most of the last 65 million years was around 19C.
Most of our 20th century civilization was built when temperature was around 14.0C, so that is probably our civilization’s goldilocks temperature.
We are currently at 14.9C and rising.
Interestingly, economically there is an optimum average temperature. The most productive countries have an annual average temperature of 13C.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/is-there-an-optimum-temperature-for-the-global-economy/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725
This makes global warming good or bad news, depending where you are. The US and China were on the 13C sweet spot and are now drifting off it into higher temperatures.
The UK, Canada and Northern Europe were too cold and are now drifting towards the sweet spot. Interesting times.
https://youtu.be/9EkKsuCmdpw?t=1496
If you don’t divide the energy from the sun by four, then you are assuming that the energy hitting the Earth on one side is in fact hitting the Earth on every side to the same intensity.
So let’s put another sun on the other side of the Earth, same distance and intensity as ours. It’s not perfect, but we’re getting closer to having our sun’s W/m2 hitting every square metre of the surface.
So there is no night time now, both sides always illuminated.
Those who won’t divide by 4 must hold that there is no difference in total surface temperature between a sphere receiving x W/m2 on both sides, and a sphere receiving the same x W/m2 on one side.
If you can’t see why that is bonkers, you are lost without hope.
“If you don’t divide the energy from the sun by four, then you are assuming that the energy hitting the Earth on one side is in fact hitting the Earth on every side to the same intensity”.
No barry, that is not an assumption that is made. The flux from the Sun should be divided by two, to represent the reality that the lit hemisphere is receiving all the sunlight, in real time. The incoming flux from the Sun is then 480 W/m^2 over the hemisphere. At the same moment, the outgoing flux leaves from the entire sphere. That is the 240 W/m^2.
480 W/m^2 input balances with 240 W/m^2 output, because the input is over half the surface area that the output leaves from.
barry, you don’t understand physics, and you’ve never cooked on a rotisserie.
One of the many mistakes in “climate science” is dividing Earth’s incoming solar flux by 4. That division reduces the temperature of the target. In the case of Earth, the average temperature would be only 255K (-18.1C, -0.5F). By claiming Earth should be that cold, they can then claim CO2 must be supplying the extra warming.
So I presented an example of cooking a chicken on a rotating spit. One side of the chicken is always heated by a flux of 1600 W/m^2. The chicken slowly rotates, so that all sides are exposed to the flux, which has a corresponding BB temperature of 137C, 278F. The chicken would cook in some reasonable time.
But, if the 1600 W/m^2 source were replaced be 4 sources, each supplying 1600/4 = 400 W/m^2, so that both sides, and top, and bottom of the chicken were equally irradiated as it rotated, then the BB temperature would only be 16.7C, 62F. The chicken would never cook.
Dividing the incoming flux by 4 ain’t science!
Actually, that chicken would NOT cook in any reasonable amount of time. It would not really cook at all!
We can take two limits for what happens when we put a frozen chicken in the ‘one-sided 1600 W/m^2 over’/
* with no rotation, the ‘side’ with the heater would approach 137 C and the other 3 ‘sides’ would approach -273 C. Depending on the thermal conductivity (and other geometric details) of chicken, the hot side would be a little less than 137 C, and the other sides would be a little warmer than -273 C. A thin layer would get cooked and the bulk of the chicken would remain frozen solid! The ‘average’ surface temperature would be WAY below 16.7 C.
* with rapid rotation, then we just have the equivalent of 400 W/m^2 on all sides, and the chicken approaches 16.7 C on all sides. So at least it thaws out now.
The originally hypothesized intermediate rotation will give an intermediate result. Parts of the surface will temporarily warm between 16.7 C and 137 K; other parts will temporarily cool between 16.7 C and -273 C. A thin layer would again cook slightly, but the interior of the chicken will freeze solid!
> It would not really cook at all!
That might explain why Minny disappeared when I asked:
This is not simple, but it is also not all that difficult. I think one big problems is that people too easily get duped by their experience that ‘ambient temperature’ is around 20 C, so their intuition is that this is the ‘natural’ state. That the other sides of the chicken will be room temperature and one side and just be able to warm up without worrying about how the rest will cool.
But a “400 W/m^2 heater” in this context is actually a 16.7 C panel, ie a *cooler* in many situations. A “200 W/m^2 heater” is actually a -29.4 C panel. A “200 W/m^2 heater” in this is NOT “200 W/m^2” above room temperature background.
The “oven” here is really a deep freeze with a heater on one side. (and for some reason it has 4 sides, not 6, but we can imagine a tetrahedron shape with 4 walls).
We could have
* 4 walls at 17 C
* 1 wall at 60 C and 3 walls at -3 C
* 1 wall at 91 C and 3 walls at -29 C
* 1 wall at 116 C and 3 walls at -68 C
* 1 wall at 137 C and 3 walls at -273 C
None of these are going to “cook a chicken”!
> we can imagine a tetrahedron shape with 4 walls
Tim, never stop geeking.
TF “proves” that a chicken can not be cooked on a rotisserie!
What he actually proved is that he’s a colossal idiot.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint,
A peddler from Sky Dragon Inc just knocked at my door. He sold me a stead-state oven. His explanation of BBQ chicken was mesmerizing: the energy that gets in and out of the chicken always cancelled each other!
He forgot to tell me how long to cook my 510 cm^2 chicken. All I know is that the oven can go at 970 W/cm^2, but only from one spot, the size of a quarter of a chicken.
Do you know how long I should wait?
Clint proves that he talks a big game, but can’t actually address the issues in a meaningful, mathematical way.
Bluster can’t counteract physics.
Rotisseries can work just fine, with sufficient power.
What I actually proved is that your “rotisserie” is a small, low temperature heater inside a freezer.
Now TF appears to be backing away from his “proof” that you can’t cook with rotisseries.
He’s as good at back-tracking as he is at perverting reality.
Space is not an oven, puppy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The amount of sunlight hitting the Earth is greater in the centre of the sunlit side than at the poles, owing to the curvature of the Earth. We know this from experience, as it is generally cooler when the sun is low to the horizon than at its zenith, whether morning or late afteroon.
Rather than try to calculate the diminishing solar intensity across latitude bands, we can very simply account for the solar radiation hitting a blackbody sphere if we treat the lit side as a disk of the same radius of the sphere. Using a disc neatly circumvents this complexity, while catching all the incident radiation that the hemisphere does.
Basic geomotry:
Area of a disc is πr2
Area of a sphere is 4πr2
The area of a sphere is not 2πr2 , which is what you seem to be saying.
Total solar constant at the top of Earth’s atmohpere is 1360 W/m2.
That is the energy hitting a disc the same radius as the Earth, at the same distance to our sun.
Because a disc is one fourth the area of a sphere, divide by four to calculate the amount of insolation received by the total surface of the sphere.
After you have properly accounted for the blackbody budget in this scenario, you can now start calculating all the other factors that contribute to the average surface temperature of the Earth.
You’ve got the “anti-science” correct, barry. But the REAL science is wrong.
You’re treating flux as energy. Flux is NOT a scalar quantity. Dividing flux reduces the maximum temperature possible, thereby reducing the average temperature. Dividing by 4 gives the blackbody sphere an average temperature of 255K. The less you divide flux, the closer you get to reality. That’s why only dividing by 2 gives more realistic results than dividing by 4.
I don’t like my wording. I meant to say “But your REAL science is wrong.”
barry gets the REAL science wrong, but the REAL science is correct.
> The less you divide flux, the closer you get to reality.
I agree.
To divide by 4 is a simple way to get the temperature at which the Earth reaches a steady state.
To divide by 2 is way to swindle Sky Dragon enthusiasts such as puppy and kiddo.
To divide by 1 is the closest one can get to reality.
To divide by 0 is &c.
No barry, this is what I am saying:
Total power absorbed = Total power emitted = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts
The 1.22 x 10^17 Watts comes from taking the solar constant (Postma typically uses 1,370 W/m^2) and multiplying it by the surface area of the disk (pi x r^2) intercepting the Sun’s energy, then multiplying the result by 0.7 to factor in albedo.
So, it is 1,370 W/m^2 x pi x 6,371,000 meters x 6,371,000 meters x 0.7 = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts.
That is the total power that the Earth absorbs, so it must be the total power that the Earth emits. In any one second, the Earth absorbs over the lit hemisphere. The area of the hemisphere is 2.55 x 10^14 square meters.
1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 2.55 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 480 W/m^2.
In any one second, the Earth emits over the entire sphere. The area of the sphere is 5.1 x 10^14 square meters.
1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 5.1 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 240 W/m^2.
At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, because the area the Earth absorbs the energy over is half that of the area that the energy leaves from.
DREMT said: At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2.
I know what you mean, but it is important to be precise here. It would be better to say Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 over half its area and emits 240 W/m^2 over all of its area. If you leave out this crucial detail readers will assume the 480 and 240 figures are both in reference to the full sphere and they will calculate 480 W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 = 2.44e17 W for incoming power which is obviously 2x higher than it really is. I also like Tim Folkes suggestion of always specifying that the 480 and 240 figures are average energy fluxes instead of radiant exitance that way no one tries to erroneous plug them into the SB law without first considering rectification effects.
> it is important to be precise here
Very.
So kiddo should always make very clear that by his own logic, the unlit hemisphere absorbs no energy.
That way, it’s easier to spot that when he appeals to the Earth’s rotation, he forgets his own logic.
If they read my post carefully then they would know I meant the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 over half its area and emits 240 W/m^2 over all its area.
If they read kiddo’s post even more carefully they’ll realize that the other half of Earth he’s not talking about absorbs no energy.
Correct.
They they’ll realize that to divide by 2 is no more realistic than to divide by 4.
Agree to disagree.
https://cheezburger.com/4921595392/nodding-off
OK, Willard.
You and Barry can relax. You are both describing the same energy budget for the same planet. Your numbers agree.
You are just describing the process in slightly different ways. DREMT is thinking in hours, suitable for weather forecasting. Barry is thinking in years, more suitable for studying climate.
I am thinking of reality, in which the incoming flux from the Sun has the power to create the Earth’s climate, rather than a diluted average of 240 W/m^2 which equates to a blackbody temperature below zero.
> I am thinking of reality
Indeed. It’s very important to think of the reality where the unlit hemisphere is -273.15C.
The unlit hemisphere is not -273.15 C, any more than the lit hemisphere is +30 C. You keep bashing that straw man, though.
> any more than the lit hemisphere is +30 C
Here’s Joe’s diagram:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/zoomed-in-reality.jpg
We can clearly read a +30C.
Yes, but he is not actually saying that the lit hemisphere is +30 C.
In the diagram, we can read that +30C corresponds to the continuous hemispherical solar input.
In the text we can read:
So at the very least we can say that Joe portrays his +30C as more realistic. But in fact we can do more:
Anyone who read Joe’s magnum opus should know that.
Exactly. So he is not saying that the lit hemisphere is +30 C.
True.
Joe does not say that the lit hemisphere is 30C, he’s just holding that the average solar radiative input heating of the lit hemisphere has a temperature equivalent value of +30C.
I duly submit that “the lit hemisphere is 30C” is loose terminology for “the average solar radiative input heating of the lit hemisphere has a temperature equivalent value of +30C.”
Submit what you want. He is not saying the lit hemisphere is +30 C.
What I see missing is “one hemisphere has a temperature equivalent value of +30C AND THE OTHER HANF AS A TEMPERATURE EQUIVALENT OF 0 K.”
Joe is right to say it is not “physically justifiable” to say actual sunlight is 240 W/m^2 everywhere and the temperature is -18 C everywhere. It is ALSO not “physically justifiable” to say actual sunlight is 480 W/m^2 on one half and 0 on the other half for an average temperature of (303 + 0)/ 2 = 152 K.
What *is* physically justifiable is to say that the *highest* average temperature you can get with an average input of 240 W/m^2 is -18 C with uniform illumination. You can’t play game and say “well this sunny side will be justa little cooler than 30 C, and the other side will ‘retain heat’ and stay warm over night’. That simply cannot work.
Joe is still attributing to climate scientists the thought that “the power of sunshine is far too cold to heat anything by itself because it is only as strong as -18C.”
Yeah, lots of people seem to think that if you are a ‘climate scientist’ then you can’t think beyond “the whole earth receives a uniform 240 W/m^2 of sunshine. They are arguing from their own ignorance/
Then stop dividing by 4.
Where’s Joe’s model, again?
Where you left it.
Ah, I think I found it:
A new three-dimensional energy balance model for complex plant canopy geometries: Model development and improved validation strategies
https://baileylab.ucdavis.edu/publications/Bailey_etal_2016AFM.pdf
Is this the one?
Yep.
Postma’s diagram makes more sense once you realise that you are looking down on the North Pole of a planet rotating anticlockwise.
The terminator on the left is the sunset line. The terminator on the right is the sunrise line.
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/zoomed-in-reality.jpg
Pity he didn’t make that clear.
Thanks!
Here could be other versions:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/ATOC5560_2002/Lec25.pdf
Which one is Joe’s?
Em,
My “thanks” was in response to kiddo’s “yep,” not your comment.
But you make me realize one thing: does it mean that according to Joe’s diagram it’s 30C on the North pole?
They are all Joe’s, and none of them are Joe’s, as you need them to be, or not to be, in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that the 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out.
> the […] input over the lit hemisphere and […] output from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out.
That’s loose terminology, kiddo.
Inputs or outputs are not things that balance energy.
Models do.
Another excuse for you to avoid acknowledging that the energy in and out does balance.
Exactly:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190912
Willard, do you or do you not agree that the energy in and energy out balances?
No energy balance model, kiddo, no balance to speak of.
Why the hell do you think I’m asking for Joe’s model?
To avoid acknowledging the fact that the 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out.
> To avoid acknowledging the fact that
That presumes a very strange conception of factiveness.
The answer to your rhetorical question is: no, to make everyone realize that they’re dealing with a Sky Dragon who can’t deal with a silly division by 2.
It’s not that hard. Check Joe’s equation (23) and those that follow it:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
That should at least get you at the same place where Joe gets stuck.
More misdirection and sophistry from Willard, to avoid acknowledging the simple fact that the 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out.
> to avoid acknowledging the simple fact
“Snow is white” is a fact. “The Calgary Flames won’t be making the playoffs in 20-21” is another kind of fact.
The simple point kiddo is evading is that he can’t read Joe’s equations. If he did, he’d have realized long time ago it’s a con. Another point kiddo is still missing is that he’s still driven by XKCD 386. That makes him the perfect mark.
There is another point that he still fails to appreciate, but one thing at a time.
DREMT: ” … and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere ”
FYI, you are acknowledging that the whole sphere is 255 K if there is 240 W/m^2 from the entire sphere.
If you simply mean that the AVERAGE output is 240 W/m^2 from the entire sphere, then you are acknowledging that the average temperature is LESS than 255 K. A bit warmer than 255 K on average on the sunny side, and quite a bit cooler than 255 K on the dark side.
I do agree that absorbed 480 W/m^2 averaged over the lit and 0 W/m^2 averaged over the unlit hemispheres and emitted 240 W/m^2 averaged over both lit and unlit hemispheres is in energy balance. That is definitely one thing going for it. In that respect we should not immediately dismiss it.
I think my biggest issue with it is that if we try to do a first order approximation of the global mean temperature with that model using the absorbed figures we get (sblaw(480) + sblaw(0)) / 2 = 152K. That is a much larger error than the model that shows absorbed 240 W/m^2 averaged over both hemispheres which is sblaw(240) = 255K.
You might argue that JP did not intend for us to compute the GMST with the absorbed fluxes in this manner. And it is good point. The SB law only works with radiant emission not radiant absor.p.tion. But I point out that he shows sblaw(480) = 303K for the lit hemisphere in his diagram so I have no choice but to apply sblaw(0) = 0K to the unlit side to complete the symmetry which yields a global mean of (303 + 0) / 2 = 152K.
Willard
“But you make me realize one thing: does it mean that according to Joes diagram its 30C on the North pole? ”
No.
Just like the rest of us Postma is averaging over the dayside instantaneously (What DREMT calls -in real time-) to get 480 W/m^2. He is ignoring the effect of latitude.
Over periods longer than one day he is averaging over the whole surface to get 240W/m^2.
By dissembling about rotation and sub-solar points he gives the illusion that his figures are different from the consensus, but it’s a bait-and-switch. His basic energy flow numbers are the same as Trenberth’s and his imaginary temperatures are bullshit.
“I do agree that absorbed 480 W/m^2 averaged over the lit and 0 W/m^2 averaged over the unlit hemispheres and emitted 240 W/m^2 averaged over both lit and unlit hemispheres is in energy balance. That is definitely one thing going for it. In that respect we should not immediately dismiss it.”
Another thing going for it is, it better represents the physical reality of what is actually occurring.
“I think my biggest issue with it is that if we try to do a first order approximation of the global mean temperature with that model using the absorbed figures we get (sblaw(480) + sblaw(0)) / 2 = 152K. That is a much larger error than the model that shows absorbed 240 W/m^2 averaged over both hemispheres which is sblaw(240) = 255K. You might argue that JP did not intend for us to compute the GMST with the absorbed fluxes in this manner. And it is good point.”
Yes, it is a very good point.
“The SB law only works with radiant emission not radiant absor.p.tion. But I point out that he shows sblaw(480) = 303K for the lit hemisphere in his diagram so I have no choice but to apply sblaw(0) = 0K to the unlit side to complete the symmetry which yields a global mean of (303 + 0) / 2 = 152K.”
He also includes the area receiving 90% or more of the full zenith flux and the temperature that the 960 W/m^2 could induce in a blackbody surface. He includes those temperatures to remind us that the Sun has the power to heat the surface to a much higher temperature than an average of 240 W/m^2 would imply.
> its a bait-and-switch
You mean it’s a bait-and-switch in REAL TIME ™.
Everyone should agree with, EM, as everyone should. A more interesting question to me is would anyone fall for Joe’s con. We know at least one mark who has a soft spot for 386. It’s so strong that he spent a week improving my argument against Joe.
But that’s not enough to explain how he got red pilled.
Sorry Willard, your article was debunked:
“I do agree that absorbed 480 W/m^2 averaged over the lit and 0 W/m^2 averaged over the unlit hemispheres and emitted 240 W/m^2 averaged over both lit and unlit hemispheres is in energy balance. That is definitely one thing going for it.”
Which sentence, kiddo?
It is all generally an incoherent mess, Willard…but nobody reading your article will understand that energy in does balance energy out. In fact parts of your article seem designed to give the opposite impression…
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-where-youre-wrong-kiddo
Willard, please stop trolling.
barry,
In Clint’s model, the size of the chicken is immaterial. Take an ordinary 3-4 pounds chicken, an imaginary 100 lb chicken, a 510,1 millions km^2 chicken, or a chicken the size of Jupiter, they all will cook the same. Clint has no idea how cooking works.
As for kiddo, he still does not get that the disc represents the hemisphere that receives all the sunlight. He has no idea how geometry works.
I just used the disk, moron. Your continued point about “the hemisphere is the disk” is a complete red herring. You only get power (watts) from multiplying the disk surface area by the solar constant. What we are debating is what is the correct flux to use for the incoming solar radiation over the Earth. So you have to divide that power (watts) by the surface area you wish to apply it to, in order to get that flux (W/m^2).
Here’s what you said, kiddo:
> The flux from the Sun should be divided by two, to represent the reality that the lit hemisphere is receiving all the sunlight, in real time.
That shows you still don’t get that the lit hemisphere is represented by the disc.
I just used the disk, moron. Your continued point about “the hemisphere is the disk” is a complete red herring. You only get power (watts) from multiplying the disk surface area by the solar constant. What we are debating is what is the correct flux to use for the incoming solar radiation over the Earth. So you have to divide that power (watts) by the surface area you wish to apply it to, in order to get that flux (W/m^2).
Heres what you said, kiddo:
> The flux from the Sun should be divided by two, to represent the reality that the lit hemisphere is receiving all the sunlight, in real time.
That shows you still dont get that the lit hemisphere is represented by the disc.
I know what I said, I know what I meant, and there is nothing you understand about this that I do not.
I know what you said, I know what you didn’t say, and I have a fairly good idea as to why you still play Joe’s red shirt.
Grow up, Willard.
Joe’s not running a model, kiddo.
He’s running a con.
You do go on.
You can be sure I will move on before iterating as many times as you said “stop trolling” on this site, kiddo.
At least n-1 times less.
Blah, blah, blah…
Barry, I am not sure I follow the central point of your comment. The usual argument tends to be that if you DO divide by 4, you are assuming the sun light is hitting the earth on every side with an intensity of ~ 240 W/m^2 (after accounting for albedo).
And now to everyone … I also think this is all ‘making a mountain out of a mole hill’. Sunlight at the surface varies from well over 1000 W/m^2 at high elevations at noon on a cloudless day to 0 W/m^2 at night. Variations in clouds, dust, elevation, latitude … all impact climate and temperature.
“Dividing by 2” or “dividing by 4” does nothing to change the actual distribution of sunlight or the actual impact on temperatures. Finding an average is simply calculating a statistic — a number that in some way summarizes a set of data.
Now the flip side is that you can make calculations where you assume that the various averages were actually occurring uniformly. This is an academic exercise to get a handle on how the calculations work. Much like the exercises in a freshman physics class. If there truly were 240 W/m^2 all over the earth (and albedo was 0.3 all over the earth, and emissivity were 1 all over the earth, and there were no GHGs) then the temperature would be 255 K all over the earth. If there were a constant 480 W/m^2 on one half and 0 on the other half, the one half would be 303 K and the other half 0 K (or a little higher due to CMBR or geothermal heat).
You can continue to refine such calculations to include time of day and latitude and clouds and rotation rate and ….
But all those more detailed calculations do not change the fact that there is …
* 240 W/m^2 averaged over the whole earth.
* 480 W/m^2 averaged over the sunny side.
* 960 W/m^2 averaged over the cross-section.
> Dividing by 2 or dividing by 4 does nothing to change the actual distribution of sunlight or the actual impact on temperatures.
Of course it does not, Tim.
Sky Dragons make the same mistake kids do when they encounter an equation for the first time. They read it from left to right instead as reading it as a symmetric statement. They project into the equality sign a dynamic that isn’t there. Which is why they sucker people with no formal background, like Joe did with Clint and kiddo.
You might be right in suggesting that we should bear in mind that all these numbers are averages, but I’m not holding my breath:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191102
In a nutshell, kiddo can always retreat to success words like “second by second” and “in reality.” The only way to get him out of it is to make him realize that his metaphysics sucks. Good luck with that.
I don’t think adding averages into the mix will help, but it’s worth the try. I predict you’ll get is more baiting from Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo is just having a bit of fun. When he writes “PST”, it doesn’t actually have any effect…
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim,
“Barry, I am not sure I follow the central point of your comment. The usual argument tends to be that if you DO divide by 4, you are assuming the sun light is hitting the earth on every side with an intensity of ~ 240 W/m^2 (after accounting for albedo).”
I started with the notion of not dividing by anything because it appeared some people were saying this should be done: maybe the result of the usual short-hand and omissions after the conversation has gone on a while. I haven’t been following it, really, till just today. I’ve also been working with a blackbody sphere/disc.
Now I see the idea is to account for one hemisphere for incoming energy and divide by two only for total outgoing. But this still treats the whole surface as receiving 480 W/m2 (accounting for albedo) instead of half that for the whole surface.
I suppose you could try to balance the budget in this strange way:
Outgoing 240 W/m2 = Incoming 480 / 2 W/m2
But that’s just:
Outgoing 240 W/m2 = Incoming 240 W/m2
No barry. In real time, half of the Earth’s surface receives 480 W/m^2 from the Sun whilst, at the same moment, the entire Earth’s surface emits 240 W/m^2.
This seems like a distinction without a difference!
Half of the world receives an average of 480 W/m^2. Half of the world receives an average of 0 W/m^2.
The since these are just averages, it is perfectly legit to say the overall average is 240 W/^2. Sure this glosses over some details, BUT SO DOES SAYING THAT HALF RECEIVES 480 W/m^2.
Silly Tim, you don’t average irradiance over surface area that does not receive it.
You can average things however you like! I can find the per capita income in the US, but this includes people who don’t work. I can find the average rainfall in my state yesterday, but that includes the areas that received no rainfall.
For some purposes, 480 W/m^2 over half the earth is more useful.
For some purposes, 240 W/m^2 over the whole earth is more useful.
Use whichever is useful for the purpose at hand. (just be clear which you are using!)
You don’t divide power over surface area which is not receiving said power when you calculate irradiance.
> This seems like a distinction without a difference!
It’s more than that:
There can’t be any difference or else Joe is not getting the inputs and outputs right.
Besides, all the earth DOES receive sunlight over the course of a year. Yet another reason why averaging over the whole earth makes sense when talking about climate (= 30+ year time frames).
> You can average things however you like!
Here might be a strong argument, Tim:
How can the unlit hemisphere emit anything if it receives no energy?
That should help kiddo realize the power of averaging.
That’s why I was talking about "in real time", Tim.
It’s REAL TIME ™, kiddo.
The other aspect of this is whether you use 240, 480, or 960 it is all based on the TSI of 1360 W/m^2 which is itself an average over one orbit. I suppose you could claim it is the instantaneous value at 1 AU which occurs two days out of the year as well. My point is let’s not pretend the perpendicular solar input is exactly 1360 W/m^2 either.
Then the precise numbers change, bdgwx, but proportionally they stay the same. It is still the Earth absorbing double the flux over the lit hemisphere that it emits from the whole sphere.
> the precise numbers change, bdgwx, but proportionally they stay the same
Kiddo is slowly but surely discovering why I am asking for Joe’s model.
Success!
More manipulative drivel from Willard.
How can the unlit hemisphere emit anything if it receives no energy, kiddo?
The Earth rotates, clown.
When the Earth rotates a whole day it has made one rotation, kiddo.
Which should tell you something about how the precise numbers change, but proportionally they stay the same.
#2
More manipulative drivel, from Willard.
Have you ever considered that the Earth rotates for the lit side too, kiddo?
Yep.
Even in REAL TIME ™?
“the entire Earths surface emits 240 W/m^2.”
Uhm, no!
That is a false statement.
OK, bob. “The entire Earth emits 240 W/m^2”.
“You don’t divide power over surface area which is not receiving said power when you calculate irradiance.”
If you want to calculate the average temperature of the whole surface, yes, you do.
DrEMPTY,
Good,
Now how much does the surface emit?
barry, the only part of your comment you got right was where you quoted me.
bob, the correct answer is, we don’t know. We don’t actually measure the temperature, or the radiant exitance, from the physical surface of the Earth itself. We measure the temperature of the atmosphere near to the surface.
Actually we do. ERA5 is but one example of a source for all of these parameters on a 3D grid mesh covering the globe. Parameters include skin temperature (surface), 2m temperature (near surface), downward/upward/net radiation fluxes at the surface, downward/upward/net radiation fluxes at TOA, latent and sensible fluxes at the surface, integrated energy fluxes at both surface and TOA through time, and many more.
https://confluence.ecmwf.int/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=82870405#ERA5:datadocumentation-Parameterlistings
If you say so, bdgwx.
DrEMPTY,
Who is that we, do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I remain skeptical that the temperature of the actual ground surface is measured and monitored at enough locations around the Earth to provide any meaningful estimate of the average temperature of the physical surface itself.
That very well could be true DREMT. The skin temperature and the various soil temperatures at different depths almost certainly have a higher uncertainty than the 2m temperature.
Same for our puppy’s chicken, when you think about it.
bobdroege says:
Who is that we, do you have a mouse in your pocket?
=======================
seems obvious he was speaking for both of you.
> I started with the notion of not dividing by anything
It’s a very good idea, barry, and bdgwx shows how to do it without any division at all. Another related argument:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190698
> You can continue to refine such calculations to include time of day and latitude and clouds and rotation rate and .
Imagine when Sky Dragons will discover one-dimensional models:
http://physics.gac.edu/~huber/envision/instruct/ebm2doc.htm
Imagine when you get over your obsession with "Sky Dragons".
Imagine when Sky Dragons will discover two-dimensional balance models:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2017.07.003
Imagine when you get over your obsession with "Sky Dragons".
In order to investigate the effects of solar radiation management (SRM) technologies for climate engineering, an analytical model describing the main latitudinal dynamics of the Earth’s climate with closed-loop control has been developed. The model is a time-dependent Energy Balance Model (EBM) with latitudinal resolution and allows for the evaluation of non-uniform climate engineering strategies. The resulting partial differential equation is solved using a Green’s function approach. This model offers an efficient analytical approach to design strategies that counteract climate change on a latitudinal basis to overcome regional disparities in cooling. Multi-objective analyses are considered and time-dependent analytical expressions of control functions with latitudinal resolution can be obtained in several circumstances. Results broadly comparable with the literature are found, demonstrating the utility of the model in rapidly assessing new climate engineering controls laws and strategies. For example, the model is also used to quickly assess the trade-off between the number of degrees of freedom of SRM and the rms error in latitudinal temperature compensation. Moreover, using the EBM the dynamics of the ice line can be investigated and a Lyapunov stability analysis is employed to estimate the maximum reduction of solar insolation through climate engineering before the current climate falls into an ice-covered state. This provides an extreme operational boundary to future climate engineering ventures.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-018-4474-y
You didn’t mention “Sky Dragons”! Well done.
I would agree that Joe and his fellow Sky Dragons are best ignored, at least as far as science is concerned. And that includes you, kiddo, of which you know very little. However, my overall point is more about Climateball decorum.
Perhaps I should have emphasized The model is a time-dependent Energy Balance Model (EBM) with latitudinal resolution and allows for the evaluation of non-uniform climate engineering strategies so that you don’t miss it. Do I need to put time-dependent (EBM) in bold?
Put what you want in bold. Just try to get over your obsession with your superiors.
You’re too kind, kiddo.
Joe won’t discuss matters with AT. That means he’s a coward. That also means he prefers to protect his con by hiding away from a real astrophysicist.
That is not getting over your obsession.
You’re like a monkey trapped with a caged banana, kiddo.
Let go of the banana. Be free.
I am free, weirdo.
Yet here you are, kiddo.
Through choice.
So says the monkey.
Willard, please stop trolling.
– kiddo, an epitaph
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo:
It’s “please stop slaying.”
Or, with a less loose terminology:
“Please stop slaying in REAL TIME ™.”
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Imagine when you get over your obsession with “PST”.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim insolation exceeds 1200w/m2 at noon on clear days. and this can be obtained through substantial portions of the day by tipping collectors on automated systems to track the sun. high elevation helps but the above can be acheived at sealevel.
CO2isLife,
You have been saying that Antarctica has not warmed according to the UAH data posted above. You say that the link to the data won’t post.
It won’t post because of the leters D and C in succession is rejected by this website. So you have to convert the link to a different string to post it here. Here it is.
https://tinyurl.com/x9jnrzyd
Now anyone can fetch up UAH data for Antarctica and plot it, which I did upthread for you.
https://i.imgur.com/JGBX0Zf.png
That is UAH data for the lower troposphere over Antarctica.
Warming.
You don’t even have to plot it, because at the UAH data link itself, it has the decadal trends for all the regions listed at the bottom.
You keep telling us Antarctica hasn’t warmed. You keep telling us to refer to UAH data and plot using that.
Well, I’ve done it, it shows warming of Antarctica.
Before you ignore this, which is totally against what you said, and start banging on about causes….
Can you just admit you are wrong about Antarctica not warming?
Or if you can’t admit it, where are you getting the data from? Point me at the data and I will plot it to check if it shows no warming.
Otherwise, UAH confirms Antarctic warming over the satellite period. Deal with it.
Barry Says: CO2isLife,
You have been saying that Antarctica has not warmed according to the UAH data posted above. You say that the link to the data won’t post.
What are you talking about? The link is at the top of this page.
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:
For some reason I have to remove the link, but it is right at the top of this page.
That is the link that I have used to get the data to plot the chart!
Click on the tinyurl – it converts to the very same link!
And if you scroll ot the bottom of the page, you will see, where it says ‘SoPol, and then ‘Land’, the decadal trend for the lower tropospheric temperature anomalies over Antarctica.
It says 0.09.
That is 0.09 C/decade.
Not 0.00 C/decade, as you keep saying.
Dr Spencer says you are wrong on his own data page.
I have corroborated the trend in Excel. You can see the graphic in my post above. Taken from that very same link, and plotting SoPol Land data. All of it. THAT is Antarctica.
You are simply wrong, and Roy Spencer and I and Bindidon and a bunch of others above who know how to plot data, are right.
Same. I just plugged the SoPol and SoPol-land data into Excel. I get +0.02C/decade for SoPol and +0.09C/decade for SoPol-land.
Barry just posted this as evidence of warming at the S Pole:
https://imgur.com/JGBX0Zf
I would encourage everyone to go visit a real science department like Mathematics, Econometrics, Physics, Statistics and other departments that are familiar with higher-level statistics and mathematics and ask them if there is any validity whatsoever to the regression that Barry created. That pattern looks exactly like the pattern used in teaching statistics of a “shot gun” pattern used to identify data that has no trend.
Here is an example of a data set with no trend:
http://maps.unomaha.edu/Maher/GEOL2300/week3/strikevselevation.jpg
Here is data with a tight trend:
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11631-019-00392-4/MediaObjects/11631_2019_392_Fig7_HTML.png?as=webp
Barry and others always fail to publish their R-Squared, they only report their nonsensical trends.
So now we are arguing about whether Antarctica is warming at a rate of 0.09C/decade?
No wonder climate science has no credibility.
Ken, and that 0.09C/decade slope is supported by a 0.00 R-Squared, and a standard deviation that far exceeds 0.09 on an annual basis.
That is +0.095C/decade +/- 0.038. That means the trend is statistically significant at 2-sigma of at least +0.02C/decade. It could be as high +0.17C/decade though. Antarctica is definitely warming per UAH-TLT.
I have no idea where you are getting that the “standard deviation that far exceeds 0.09 on an annual basis”. The 0.09 figure is a trend with units of C/decade. Annual (or monthly) means have units of C. You cannot take the SD of the individual samples which have units of C and compare it to the overall trend which has units of C/decade. The standard error of the trend is what I listed above. It is 0.038 C/decade. You can verify this with Excel’s LINEST function.
bdgwx believes “the trend is statistically significant at 2-sigma of at least +0.02C/decade”
Wow, 0.02C/decade. That would be hard to detect with a thermometer!
But, if it’s actual, it just means natural variability is more robust than the cooling from CO2.
“So now we are arguing about whether Antarctica is warming at a rate of 0.09C/decade?”
No, Ken, CO2isLife keeps saying that Antarctica has a warming trend of 0.00 C/decade.
When asked which data give him that answer, CO2IL points us to data that gives a different answer (0.09).
Instead of just agreeing that yes, there is a slight warming trend – the decadal trend is published on the same UAH data page that he can see with his own eyes – he tells us we’re being hucksters.
If he wants to be taken seriously – and it’s probably too late – he needs to accept the error and move on.
It’s not about the degree of warming, it’s about being credible or not.
CO2isLife,
You have access to the same data I do.
Plot the data yourself.
The linear regression function in Exel averages the data for each year (because I select the year column which states the same year 12 times, once for each month of that year) and runs the linear regression based on the annual averages.
The purple diamonds (could be blue – I’m colour blind) are each monthly value, and they appear in the same ‘column’ above each year.
You get the same result if you use all the months individually – a positive trend.
No, my graph is not a scatterplot, which is what you’ve shown above. Mine is a time series, which we commonly use here.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-differense-between-a-time-series-plot-and-a-scatter-plot
If you don’t know how to run a linear regression, I can walk you through it if you have Exel. Or you can ask someone else, like maybe bdgwx, who looks to be patient enough to help (sorry if I dobbed you in there, b).
But you don’t have to do that. You can go to the very linkl that you keep pointing to, scroll down the bottom, look up ‘SoPol’ and to the right of it ‘Land’, and voila, you can see the decadal trend for Antarctica worked out by Roy Spencer’s colleague John Christie.
0.09 C/decade
bdgwx has already given you the uncertainty, and the trend is statistically significant.
The continent of Antarctica has warmed over the satellite period, according to the UAH6.0 satellite data.
Period.
When finding some planets, including Earth, have Φ = 0,47 it became possible to have a correct the Energy in = “absorbed” (not reflected) portion of incident solar flux.
Thus, the energy intercepted by the cross-section disk for smooth surface planets is:
Φ(1-a)S πr² (W) it is the energy in (for Earth it is 444 πr² (W) perpendicular to the cross-section disk – for smooth surface only the perpendicular to the surface portion is fully “absorbed”)
When integrating the outgoing from every infinitesimal spot the entire planet IR emission energy we shall have the following:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W) it is the energy out from the entire sphere surface.
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
While waiting for Mike, more cooling:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/weather-news/125094432/weather-record-high-temperatures-about-to-be-blown-away-by-cold-blast-moving-north
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s pretty obvious how desperate the idiots are to defend this important part of their nonsense — A blackbody sphere receiving Earth solar results in peak temperature of 255 K.
That’s important to them because they can claim 255K is the hottest Sun can heat Earth. Then they compare that to Earth’s actual average 288K, and claim “See, CO2 is heating the planet!”
They use an imaginary concept, and violate the laws of physics, to “prove” Earth needs CO2 to be as warm as it is.
Next year to Flames will do better, puppy.
“A blackbody sphere receiving Earth solar results in peak temperature of 255 K.”
It is fascinating that no matter how many times you correct Clint, he always comes back with the same nonsense (or occasionally new nonsense). Confusion about the models; confusion about ‘effective BB temperature’ and ‘average temperature’ and ‘peak temperature.
The sun provides ~1370 W/m^2 to earth. After correcting for albedo, this is reduced to ~ 960 W/m^2.
Averaged over the cross-sectional disk, that is 960 W/m^2
Averaged over one hemisphere, that is 480 W/m^2
Averaged over the whole sphere, that is 240 W/m^2
960 W/m^2 gives a “peak temperature” of 361 K = 88 C
480 W/m^2 gives a “peak temperature” of 303 K = 30 C
240 W/m^2 gives a “peak temperature” of 255 K = -18 C
No one disputes these numbers. No one says the ‘peak temperature’ is 255 K.
Since the average input over the whole sphere is 240 W/m^2, the average output over the whole sphere is 240 W/m^2. This gives us the ‘effective blackbody temperature’ of 255 K — the same no matter how the 240 W/m^2 are distributed over the surface. Even with GHG.s the “effective BB temperature” as measured from space is 255 K.
The finale piece of the puzzle is “average temperature”. measure the temperature for every square meter and average all the numbers. It turns the average temperature for an average flux of 240 W/m^2 is always 255 K or smaller.
RECAP:
PEAK TEMP….. >= 255 K
EFFECTIVE TEMP. = 255 K
AVERAGE TEMP.. <= 255 K
Silly, Clint.
The claim that the Earth emits 240W and should therefore be at 255K is a simplified average.
The OLR is a mixture. Longwave radiation between wavenumbers 800 and 1200 leaves the surface through the atmospheric window was emitted at the surface temperature, some 288K.
The rest comes from the tropopause. Water vapour emits at altitudes giving temperatures between 220K and 240K.
CO2 emits at a higher altitude equivalent to 220K.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Willard, TF, and Ent, nothing you stated refutes my statement: “They use an imaginary concept, and violate the laws of physics, to ‘prove” Earth needs CO2 to be as warm as it is.”
But, you did remind me of that famous reminder: “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Nothing you said supports your claim, puppy.
Do tell! What “law of physics” have I violated?
You can’t get the physics right because you can’t deal with reality. I can’t teach physics to someone that rejects reality. That’s why I can’t teach physics to idiots.
Learn to accept reality and I can help you with physics.
The language of an abuser.
So pure, so perfect.
Clint R
“That’s why I can’t teach physics to idiots.”
Because you are not qualified to teach physics!
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Why DrEMPTY,
You are not qualified to be a hall monitor, much less a blog moderator.
bob, please stop trolling.
I could give you tips about moderation if you want, kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Sun is not enough.
Even Joe Postma and DREMT agree that the Earth is is almost in balance, receiving and radiating an average of 240W/m^2.
Plug that into the SB equation and it predicts an average surface temperature of 255K.
Since the Earth’s surface temperature is at an average of 288K, something else must also be heating the surface.
Consensus members like myself, of course, regard 330W/m^2 of back-radiation due to GHGs as providing the extra energy input.
If you have a better hypothesis, it would be interesting to hear and critique it.
Ent, you don’t need a “better hypothesis”. All you need is to strip away all the layers of nonsense. Once your head is clear, you will realize “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Is the Earth radiating an average of 240W/m^2, Clint?
“Even Joe Postma and DREMT agree that the Earth is is almost in balance, receiving and radiating an average of 240W/m^2.”
The lit hemisphere receives 480 W/m^2 and the entire Earth radiates 240 W/m^2…but that 240 W/m^2 and 255 K temperature isn’t tied to the surface.
“The lit hemisphere receives 480 W/m^2 and the entire Earth radiates 240 W/m^2but that 240 W/m^2 and 255 K temperature isnt tied to the surface.”
About 17% of the OLR, 40W/m^2, is radiated from the surface through the atmospheric window at an surface average temperature around 288K. The other 83%, 200W/m^2, is radiated by GHGs at the tropopause, at temperatures between 220 and 240K.
Overall 255K is probably what you’d get as an average radiating temperature for the Earth.
That’s all wrong, Ent.
If Earth’s average emitting temperature is 288K, then the surface is going to be emitting according to that temp and emissivity.
Your numbers aren’t real. They’re all conjectures. There is insufficient data for what flux leaves Earth.
The surface is radiating 390W/m^2 But only part of it reaches space. 333W/m^2 is recycled as back radiation.
Goodnight.
Much better, Ent. Surface averages close to 400 W/m^2, not 240.
And, as I stated, there is insufficient data for what flux leaves Earth.
Flux does not leave Earth, Clint.
Energy does.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Above Tim said:
I disagree: in REAL TIME(tm) it can.
Let’s try again:
REAL TIME ™.
That sounds rather boring.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Willard, please stop trolling.
So I was reading through JP’s post here.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/
Towards the bottom he does the full integration of the SB law to get the mean temperature of the lit hemisphere. I decided to see if I can replicate his work.
https://i.imgur.com/NcYzf6v.png
f(x) is my derivation and g(x) of his. We have similar formulas. They differ mainly in the fact that he uses the convention of 0 degrees being the pole and 90 degrees being the equator whereas I do the opposite. I also leave the 2pi*r^2 stuff in mine for clarity even though it does cancel out.
We both get the same answer though. His model predicts 288K for the lit hemisphere. He ignores the unlit hemisphere in the post though. When I include it you can see that his model predicts a global mean temperature of 144K. This is even worse than just using the average 480 W/m^2 for the lit and average 0 W/m^2 for the unlit hemispheres and getting 152K.
So, go leave a comment to that effect at CoS. I would be interested to hear what he says in response. I think mainly it would be that the Earth is rotating, but I would still like to see it.
> go leave
Go leave the comment yourself, kiddo.
You could even copypasta his response here!
Why isn’t Joe here?
Why is Joe hiding behind his red shirt?
Get a grip, clown.
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Every time you say that you’re telling me I’m slaying well, kiddo.
So that’s another place you’re wrong.
No, I would just like you to stop trolling.
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo:
“OK, I will just “PST” all your comments tomorrow. Bye for now.”
Boring.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Yep. That is how it works for the sunny side. It is a pretty standard sort of surface integral.
For the night side there is usually some ‘hand waving’ that the night side will just slowly cool and stay near 288 K. Never acknowledging that the sunny side would similarly slowly warm. Never acknowledging that the average temperature will actually end up well BELOW 255 K.
The cult is so desperate. Now they are all certain that a rotisserie doesn’t work. Tim believes he has “proved” such nonsense.
Once again, we see how they will quickly deny reality to protect their cult.
That’s why this is so much fun.
I’m just pointing out the logical conclusions of Clint’s own example — conclusions he seems incapable of grasping. The latest incarnation is his ill-defined ‘rotisserie’.
A freezer with one warm wall emitting an average of 400 W/m^2 is not a ‘rotisserie’ and a freezer with one warm wall will not cook a chicken. Cranking one side up to 1600 W/m^2 and cranking the other 3 sides down to 0 W/m^2 results in a frozen chicken with one mildly cook side. Letting all sides emit 1/4 of 1600 W/m^2 will give you a thawed, cool chicken.
We can all already predict the nature of Clint’s response.
“More manipulative drivel” might be kiddo’s response.
A debate between puppy and kiddo would be a thing of beauty.
TF, no one but an idiot would use a rotisserie in a freezer. You’re so desperate to pervert reality, you just prove you’re an idiot, EVERY TIME!
What’s neat is you’re so far down you can’t come back.
> no one but an idiot would use a rotisserie in a freezer.
Space is cold, puppy.
“No one but an idiot would use a rotisserie in a freezer” … and yet you did!
You offered two options:
A) 4 ‘sides’ as the surroundings @ 400 W/m^2 (16.7 C). As you correctly deduce, this would produce a 16.7 C chicken, using the SB equation. To get your answer, the 4 ‘sides’ would surround the ‘chicken’ (like 240 W/m^2 surrounding the earth).
B) 1 ‘side’ @ 4×400 = 1600 W/m^2 (137 C) and 3 ‘sides’ at 0 W/m^2 = 0 K to provide the same total power to the ‘chicken’. Freezing most of the surface, and cooking a small bit on one side. (like 960 W/m^2 over 1/4 of the earth and 0 W/m^2 of sunlight on the the other sides.
This is the guts of the ‘divide by 4’ issue. The same total power, just with the flux stronger in some areas and correspondingly weaker in others. Side of the chicken receives 1600 W/m^2; the other 3 sides receive 0 W/m^2.
We could also do the ‘divide by 2’ analogy. 2 sides at 800 W/m^2 = 73 C and 2 sides at 0 K = -273 K. This would be warmer on average than 4x on 1/4 of the surface, but colder than 16.7 C.
That’s correct TF. No one but an idiot would assume my comment referred to a freezer, or deep space.
Here’s my exact words:
“So I presented an example of cooking a chicken on a rotating spit. One side of the chicken is always heated by a flux of 1600 W/m^2. The chicken slowly rotates, so that all sides are exposed to the flux, which has a corresponding BB temperature of 137C, 278F. The chicken would cook in some reasonable time.
But, if the 1600 W/m^2 source were replaced be 4 sources, each supplying 1600/4 = 400 W/m^2, so that both sides, and top, and bottom of the chicken were equally irradiated as it rotated, then the BB temperature would only be 16.7C, 62F. The chicken would never cook.”
There’s no mention of any abnormal conditions or locations. You just had to pervert reality.
See what an idiot you are?
I CAN HELP YOU
You can’t get the cooking right because
you can’t deal with reality, puppy.
I can’t teach cooking to someone
that rejects reality.
That’s why I can’t teach how to cook to idiots.
Learn to accept reality and
I can help you with cooking a chicken.
Tim Folkerts
I greatly appreciate you post. You have much patience to take the abuse from the ignorant Clint R. He doesn’t know any actual physics, and he will not accept anyone telling him he is wrong on any issue. I think he comes here to troll. He thinks he is funny or something. Your points on the chicken cooking are excellent.
People can learn good physics from your posts.
> I think [Clint] comes here to troll.
Impossible.
Our in-house never tells him to stop trolling!
Our in-house kiddo, that is.
Clint, you need to apply some critical thinking skills.
With all sides at 400 W/m^2, the temperature is 16.7 C for the walls and 16.7 for the chicken. we all agree.
For an ‘apples to apples’ comparison, we need to compare the same total power to the ‘chicken’ If 1/4 of the surroundings increase by 1200 W/m^2, then the other sides must decrease correspondingly, ie to 0 W/m^2 and 0 K.
If you do an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison with “three warm walls emit more than 400 W/m^2 already AND the 4th hot wall emits 1600 W/m^2, then of course the chicken will get warmer than before. This seems to be what you have been imagining.
****************
Now if you want to change the situation and avoid the inescapable conclusion of a ‘deep freeze rotisserie’ we could do something like …
The rotisserie is sitting outside on a cool day and the ‘4 sides’ are 16.7 C (radiating 400 W/m^2). This this initial condition we ADD either
1) 400 W/m^2 to all sides (800 on each side)
2) 1600 W/m^2 to one side (2000 on that side)
That would also be an equal comparison. Of course, now the temperature would be warmer. 71 C for the uniform heating. A rapidly rotating rotisserie would also be 71 C on all sides. A slooowly rotating rotisserie would approach 160 C on one side, but approach 16.7 C on the other sides. Basically, you would have to hold the chicken still and cook one side, then rotating to cook the next side, etc.
Norma, it’s so cute how you idolize TF. Did you send him a Valentine’s Day card, back in February?
Have you done the hammer/hand experiment yet?
When you finish the experiment, you will learn the connection between momentum and force. (It’s called “Newton’s 2nd Law”.) You will still have one good hand left. I will give you another experiment for your remaining good hand, and a rotisserie. You will learn that a rotisserie can indeed “cook”.
Let me know when you’re ready to continue with the experiments. Learning is fun, huh?
Tim, how many times will you attempt to pervert the simple analogy. You have no problem dividing solar by 4, to support your cult nonsense. But when I give you a simple analogy of a chicken on a rotisserie, you realize you can’t divide flux by 4. So, you have to pervert the simple analogy.
The chicken-on-a-spit destroys your GHE nonsense just like the ball-on-a-string destroyed the Moon nonsense.
No wonder you cult idiots hate simple analogies.
> simple analogy
With special thanks to Brian H:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/07/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-3-in-pictures/#comment-93
Willard, please stop trolling.
> He ignores the unlit hemisphere in the post though.
Joe’s con would be harder to pull if he did.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/795/wrongkiddoorigin.jpg
OK, I will just “PST” all your comments tomorrow. Bye for now.
(Kiddo) I’just having a bit of fun. When I write “please stop trolling”, it doesn’t actually have any effect¦
(Also kiddo) OK, I will just “PST” all your comments tomorrow. Bye for now.
Willard, please stop trolling.
. “The hot water bottle needs to be made hot somehow! 240 W/m^2 of sunlight cannot by itself get the water bottle any warmer than ~ 255 K. Moving around a 255 K water bottle will never help warm anything to ~ 288 K. Oh, some parts could he warmer than 255K, but other parts would necessarily be colder than 255 K. Moving 300 K water to even larger regions at 200 K is also not going to get the globe to 288 K. The water bottle needs the greenhouse effect to warm up in the first place.”
Here is demonstrated the fundamental flaw in the whole ‘GHG’ paradigm..
The Earth is not a cold BB that has been heated up to its current temp.. It is a hot ball of molten rock, metals and gases that has been COOLING for 4+ billion years and MUST continue to do so as entropy demands..
Because all the models are built on this fundamental flaw, they are doomed to continue to fail regardless of how many ‘epicycles’ are added to the model..
Put the bottle in a car on a sunny day. It gets warmer, even if you’re only getting 255 K worth of sunlight.
Why?
Because the solar energy in the car doesn’t exit the car as fast as it goes in.
Convection is suppressed in the car.
Yes, physics allows things to become warmer when there is a continuous source of energy, and something slows the rate of heat loss from the object receiving that energy.
Sweaters work. Blankets work. Your house insulation works in Winter. Your car overheats on hot days, even though the ambient air is much cooler than the engine.
If the environment changes to slow the rate of heat loss from an object receiving energy, that object warms.
That’s what the ‘greenhouse’ effect does. A stronger greenhouse effect is like putting on another layer of clothes, the only difference being that with clothes it is convection being suppressed, and with GHGs it is radiative escape from the surface to space that is being slowed.
barry, “255 K worth of sunlight” would be below the freezing point of water!
I love it when idiots attempt science, don’t you?
Is the Earth radiating an average of 240W/m^2, Clint?
Willard,
You do realise that ice can radiate 300W/m2 don’t you?
Are you claiming that the Earth is really colder than ice, on average? As PhilJ pointed out, “It is a hot ball of molten rock, metals and gases that has been COOLING for 4+ billion years and MUST continue to do so as entropy demands..”
Do you have some peer reviewed evidence to show that PhilJ is wrong? Maybe you are confused.
Is the Earth radiating at 240W/m^2 on average, Minny?
The Earth’s surface is 15C on average.
Without an atmosphere and at roughly the same albedo it would be about -18C.
The average surface temperature of the moon [ (nightside + dayside)/2 ] is also well below freezing (215K at the equator), To give an idea of what the Earth would be like without an atmpsphere.
No barry. That “-18C” is for an imaginary blackbody sphere.
And average temperature of Moon is not known. But, it doesn’t matter because it has a different heat capacity than Earth. Apples to oranges comparison.
But at least you’re not claiming a rotisserie can’t cook food….
Willard,
Don’t you know? What do you think?
Is the Earth radiating at 240W/m^2 on average, Clint?
As for cooking, first lesson:
“Roasting is a cooking method that uses dry heat where hot air covers the food, cooking it evenly on all sides with temperatures of at least 150 C (300 F) from an open flame, oven, or other heat source.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roasting
> Dont you know? What do you think?
A “yes” or a “no” would do, Minny.
You also forgot to tell me if you think that an oven that balances the energy in and out can cook anything.
Willard,
You could likewise just answer my question. You do realise that W/m2 does not measure temperature, don’t you?
You mention cooking and W/m2 in the same comment, but you obviously realise that cooking depends on temperature, as you mention the temperature of hot air in degrees not W/m2.
Even that may not have much to do with the temperature of the heat source. As you say, a flame may heat the air. A flame might more than a thousand degrees C, and W/m2 would be irrelevant.
So I really have no idea why you are talking about ovens which apparently use no energy at all. Or are you confused about energy being converted from electricity or something into heat? Do you think electricity or gas is measured in W/m2?
Maybe you could try reading up a bit. Some of the other commenters might be able to help you to understand the differences between heat, power, temperature, energy, etc. You are mixing the wrong sorts of units, and just getting confused.
Minny,
If interject without reading, like when you asked me for the cite that I gave one comment above the one to which you replied, don’t complain if you don’t have any idea about anything.
Is the Earth radiating an average of 240W/m^2?
A simple “yes” or “no” would do.
Willard,
What do measurements show? That is your answer.
I’m asking you because you replied to a comment in which I asked Clint. But he’s too busy playing the Riddler and won’t answer that question.
Even Joe answers “yes” to that question.
One Riddler ought to be enough, don’t you think?
Willard,
I don’t understand what a Riddler is, or why I should care what “Joe” thinks.
What is wrong with measuring the radiation? If it disagrees with a calculation, then either the calculation is wrong or the measurement is. Which is more likely?
What do the measurements say? You are being a bit coy, so I suspect the measurements don’t support whatever idea you are trying to push.
You know that W/m2 is not a measurement of temperature, so I don’t understand why you keep referring to it. Are you confused, or just trying to confuse other people? You aren’t making much sense.
Minny,
You are starting to sound like Mike Flynn out of a sudden.
Are you his new puppet?
Willard,
What is the measured radiation of the Earth in W/m2? Why don’t you believe it?
Minny,
There’s only one Climateball player I know who insists on observations (without ever really paying any kind of due diligence to it) and appeals to the (mostly irrelevant) fact that the Earth is cooling. That player is Mike Flynn.
While I appreciate your effort in the way you voice your contributions, it’s the third time now in a row that you end your comments with mild forms of mistreatment.
So one could say that your falls have been your fall.
Enjoy your afternoon.
Willard,
What is the measured average radiation from the Earth?
How do you measure an average, Minny?
Willard,
Are you saying that average radiation is just an imaginary quantity?
Surely it can be measured! Otherwise, why mention it?
No, Minny.
I’m saying that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Not unlike Mike Flynn did before you appeared.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I didn’t come up with 255K and the water bottle, and was it supposed to be filled with water? The point is the same regardless.
–Put the bottle in a car on a sunny day. It gets warmer, even if you’re only getting 255 K worth of sunlight.
Why?–
255 K worth of sunlight is well beyond Mars,
So say at Vesta.
4 Vesta, wiki:
Aphelion: 2.57138 AU
Perihelion: 2.15221 AU
How much sun get at 2.15221 AU?
“Temperatures on the surface have been estimated to lie between about −20 °C with the Sun overhead, dropping to about −190 °C at the winter pole. Typical daytime and nighttime temperatures are −60 °C and −130 °C respectively. This estimate is for 6 May 1996, very close to perihelion, although details vary somewhat with the seasons.”
But let’s do the math:
“The distance from the Sun to the spacecraft would be 2 AUs so… d = 2. If we plug that into the equation 1/d^2 = 1/2^2 = 1/4 = 25% The spacecraft is getting only one quarter of the amount of sunlight that would reach it if it were near Earth.”
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/9-12/features/F_How_Far_How_Faint.html
1/4 of 1360 watts is 340 watts but 2.15221 times 2.15221 is 4.6320078841
1360 / 4.6320078841 = 293.609 or call it 293.61 watts per square meter.
So at 4 Vesta at Perihelion one get more than 255 K worth of sunlight. or 255 K is the temperature a blackbody surface facing the Sun which is 239.742 watts per square meter in a vacuum.
Or if put it in a greenhouse with 255 K worth of sunlight shining into the greenhouse it temperature it’s maximum temperature is likewise 255 K
At Aphelion distance from the Sun: 2.57138 x 2.57138 = 6.6119951044
1360 / 6.6119951044 = 205.68678 watts per square meter
So it goes from 293.6 watts to 205.7 watt per square meter
And they say -20 C or 253.15 K
A perfect blackbody at 253 K radiates 232.3 watts
A non perfect blackbody at 253 K radiate less than 232.3 watts per square meter.
A perfect blackbody radiate the most about energy at sun distance- and non blackbodies can hotter than a perfect blackbody, as they could absorb more energy than than can emit at given temperature. But say got surface painted black flat paint and the surface a surface painted white glossy- the white glossy painted surface with be much cooler in vacuum than black flat painted surface. And if indicate that temperature difference- they indicate the brand name of paint, as paints are made differently- and will affect the temperature- Dupont typical brand name given. On earth surface, there isn’t such a wide difference in temperatures, but black or carbon soot, tends to absorb the most amount of energy from Sunlight. But since earth surface is dominated with convection heat loss, a greenhouse or insulate box with transparent window blocking convectional loss achieves highest temperature which around 80 C.
Well you went this distance on that. Not sure if the numbers check out.
But would you agree, gbakie that an object receiving continuous energy gets warmer if the rate at which it loses heat is slowed?
barry, to make something warmer, the energy added must be the “right stuff”. For example, you can add another ice cube to a glass of water, and that adds energy, but does NOT raise the temperature.
It’s the same for photons. That’s why a cold sky cannot warm a hotter surface.
> to make something warmer, the energy added must be the “right stuff”
Exactly, puppy.
Sleeping pills work because they contain virtus dormitiva.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Phil, ancient history and the interior of the earth are interesting points and worthy of discussion, but they are not the fundamental flaw that you think they are.
The *interior* of the earth is really of little concern for determining current *surface* conditions (land, ocean and lower atmosphere). Yeah, there is ~ 0.1 W/m^2 of geothermal energy coming up, but this has minimal impact on the surface temperatures.
50,000 years ago the surface was *colder* than now. The continued monotonic cooling of the interior clearly does not translate to a continued monotonic cooling of the surface. The surface and warm and cool without violating conservation of energy or the tendency toward increased entropy in the universe.
We need to explain how the surface at some earlier time (50,000 years ago) was above 255 K, and how it then got even higher above 255 K. There is no “300 K global-scale water bottle” available to globally warm the surface.
We are left with the fact that sunlight by itself simply cannot hold the earth’s surface to current levels, let alone warm it from previous cooler temperatures.
“We are left with the fact that sunlight by itself simply cannot hold the earths surface to current levels…”
TF, that is NOT fact! You know so little science that your cult has completely bamboozled you.
Which reminds me of the phrase “There’s a sucker born every minute”.
Is the Earth radiating at 240W/m^2 on average, Clint?
Earth is sphere, and sphere area is 4 times of energy from a star.
Or a sphere radiating 4 times what got. 4 x 240 = 960 watts got from the star. Or on average from sunlit 1/2 of sphere got average per square meter area 480 watts.
But anytime the sun is highest in the sky, the providing most amount of sunlight. And measure that temperature air, and average it with night time lower air temperature.
The average ocean surface air temperature of Earth is 17 C and average land surface air temperature is 10 C, which when averaged gives 15 C.
But Earth surface temperature isn’t really 15 C, it’s mostly related to human bias- and is arbitrary. But if concerned about the air temperature 5 feet above the ground in a “nature setting, in the shade of a white box- it’s “roughly” an average somewhere around 15 C.
For instance it human were living on Venus, they might decide 1 atm of pressure is average global surface temperature. And think Earthling were stupid to imagine that Venusian would live on the land, like they do {or did}.
Go ahead, Clint. Show us your brilliance.
The earth receives receives from the sun approximately (1360 W/m^2 * A). It reflects about (400 W/m^2 * A) of that back to space leaving a total of approximately (960 W/m^2 * A) watts absorbed.
Where A = cross-sectional area of earth.
How would YOU distribute that power over the earth to get a temperature above 255 K on average. Make any assumptions you want about thermal conductivity, heat capacity, rotation rate, etc. You can even add in 0.1 W/m^2 for geothermal energy.
The one think you cannot do is use “back radiation” and/or “the greenhouse effect.”
Again TF, you can’t understand physics until you can accept reality. When I see that you accept reality, rather than avoid, deny, or pervert, than I’ll help you with physics.
Tim Folkerts,
Maybe I can help. PhilJ pointed out that the Earth was molten at one time. It has now cooled to what it is at the moment.
It was much hotter previously. You wouldn’t be saying that GHGs made the surface molten, would you? Or when the first water appeared, the minimum temperature was more than 100 C, obviously. You wouldn’t say that was due to GHG’s either, I hope.
Just like a hot potato, I suppose. Even if you put it in the Sun, it just keeps cooling until it warms during the day, and cools at night. The Earth is like a hot potato, still very hot inside, sitting in the Sun.
The skin is quite cool by comparison. I believe that the Sun can only keep such a potato at an average of 255 K, but this can’t happen until the potato has cooled until the inside is 255 K also.
All these silly W/m2 calculations are pointless. The surface warms during the day, and cools at night. Averages are pointless. If an iron bar has an average temperature of 25 C, it may mean that one end is red hot, and maybe the other end is in an ice bath. Grabbing the red hot end will make you rethink about averages, I think.
Finally, you mentioned geothermal. You are quite right, the Earth is losing energy. That means it is cooling, doesn’t it? Fast or slow, cooling not heating.
Again Clint, show us your reality. Show us your physics. Show us your calculations.
TF, you are awfully antsy. Let’s see if you can accept some reality.
If you swing a ball on a string around you, is the ball rotating about its axis?
Yes or No.
Tim Folkerts,
You asked ClintR to show their reality. That’s a good idea. All the calculations in the world mean nothing, if measurements say differently.
Like with the Earth or a hot potato. If you want to know how hot it is, use a thermometer.
Pretty simple, really. If your calculations give a different answer, they are wrong.
Yeah, I’d like to see what other posters on here come up with too.
Let’s take stock of the energy based models we’ve seen so far.
1. JP’s full SB law integration model yields 144K.
2. An average of 480 and 0 W/m^2 on lit and unlit hemispheres respectively yields 152K.
3. An average of 240 W/m^2 on the full sphere yields 255K.
4. Trenberth 2009 estimates 396 W/m^2 for 289K with 6 W/m^2 of rectification error that when considered yields a final value of 390 W/m^2 for 288K.
I think Trenberth 2009 is the bar to beat. Remember…whatever model you come up with must be consistent with the law of conservation of energy.
Minny, you are mixing up many different ideas.
“You are quite right, the Earth is losing energy. That means it is cooling, doesnt it? Fast or slow, cooling not heating.”
“Global warming” means “global surface warming” not “global interior warming. Yes, the earth AS A WHOLE is cooling. It is losing ~ 0.1 W from every square meter. Some bit of the core might cool from 6000 C to 5999 C in the next 10,000 years, but that is really not germane, since we live on the surface.
The surface can and does warm up and cool down on many time scales. That does not violate and laws of physics or reverse the cooling of the interior.
“You wouldnt be saying that GHGs made the surface molten, would you? “
Correct! The kinetic energy of infalling asteroids and radioactive decay made the early earth hot.
“I believe that the Sun can only keep such a potato at an average of 255 K, but this cant happen until the potato has cooled until the inside is 255 K also.”
Not really. We are not really interested in what happens inside. So while it is true that the sun cannot keep the core at 6000 C, not doesn’t matter. The sun can currently keep the *surface* at 255 K and that is all we are really concerned about.
“Just like a hot potato, I suppose. “
Well, sort of. A potato cools in a time measured in minutes. The earth cools in a time measured in billions of years. So any analogy would run a zillion times faster. Its not really worth going into all sorts of ‘what ifs’ about an analogy.
“All these silly W/m2 calculations are pointless” … only if you don’t care to understand the temperature of the surface.
OK … i have other things to do!
“If your calculations give a different answer, they are wrong.”
Exactly. Calculations WITHOUT the greenhouse effect give a surface temperature around 255 K — and definitely not around 288 K as is measured. Therefore leaving out the greenhouse effect is wrong.
Tim Folkerts,
If calculations give 255 K, but measurements give 288 K, I believe the measurements. Reality, if you will.
If you think that calculations outweigh reality, you might be in for a shock or two. Why invent a greenhouse effect when it is obvious your calculations are incorrect?
Minny,
Let me try to clarify.
Calculations WITHOUT the GHE using energy budget models tend to cap out at 255K.
Calculations WITH the GHE using energy budget models arrive at 288K.
The measured value in 2020 is 288.3K +/- 0.037 according to Berkeley Earth (https://tinyurl.com/3jcutohd).
Consideration of the GHE is necessary to get a calculation that agrees well with observations.
bdgwx,
If the calculations show 255 K, but the measured temperature is 288 K, then your calculations are wrong.
If the surface of the Earth was hot enough to prevent liquid water forming, your calculations would still show 255 K, wouldn’t they? Obviously incorrect calculation.
Why go out of your way to disbelieve a measurement?
“When I see that you accept reality, rather than avoid, deny, or pervert, than I’ll help you with physics.”
Ha ha Ha Ha….riiiight!
“If the calculations show 255 K”
That is the calculation of the Earth’s surface temperature without an atmopsphere.
“but the measured temperature is 288 K”
That is the neasured temmperature of the Earth WITH an atmosphere.
“then your calculations are wrong.”
Both calculations are fine.
People who don’t believe the atmosphere has any warming effect on the surface will have trouble understanding this.
Barry,
Get with the program. You aren’t seriously trying to suggest that when the surface was at least 100 C, it was due to the atmosphere?
Don’t you know anything?
Wrong barry. The “255K” is a calculation for an imaginary blackbody sphere. It has ZERO connection with REAL Earth. That means the 33K is nonsense.
You’ve been duped by your cult.
bdgwx, you cannot actually be serious with your 8:24 PM comment, can you?
bdgwx, 1 and 2 are your incorrect interpretations. 3 is for an imaginary blackbody sphere. And 4 NOT an energy budget. Your cult hero Trenberth is attempting to balance flux, which is anti-science.
If you want to see a correct energy balance for Earth, can you face reality? Let’s see if you can pass the simple reality check.
If you swing a ball on a string around you, is the ball rotating about its axis? Yes or No.
Minny, barry and Clint, have you read the Earth’s mean surface temperature calculations I demonstrate in my site?
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443850706
Yes CV, I’ve seen it.
You’re definitely on the right track — your results match reality.
Thank you Clint, it is very encouraging!
Also I have yesterday posted above here in this thread about the different albedo the planets have and about the six planets having strong specular reflection Φ = 0,47
May 11, 2021 at 12:20 AM
Christos Vournas says:
May 11, 2021 at 12:20 AM
Please visit and tell me what do you think.
“If you swing a ball on a string around you, is the ball rotating about its axis? Yes or No.”
From the point of view of the ball or the point of view of the center?
That’s the great thing about this simple analogy, RLH. It can’t be complicated by “point of view” or “reference frame”.
If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string will wrap around it. If it is not rotating, then the string will not wrap around it.
Obviously the orbiting ball is NOT rotating about its axis. It always has the same side facing the inside of the orbit. The motion is sometimes referred to as “pure orbital motion”, meaning that it has no axial rotation.
It’s the same motion we see with Moon.
Minny ponders: “If the surface of the Earth was hot enough to prevent liquid water forming, your calculations would still show 255 K, wouldn’t they? Obviously incorrect calculation.”
You are mixing in a new idea. The calculations for “255 K without greenhouse gases” or “288 K with greenhouse gases” are the steady-state temperatures — the temperatures that the surface will approach (averaged over suitably long times and averaged over the whole earth).
Objects can be warmer or colder than this for lots of OTHER reasons. Seasons or day/night cycles for example. I could buy some dry ice or pull a glowing horse shoe from a forge. OR the whole earth could be warmer due to radioactive decay and in-falling asteroids.
All the “255 K” or “288 K” calculations tell is is that
* if the surface as a whole is hotter than 255 (or 288) it will cool.
* If the surface as a whole is cooler than 255 (or 288) it will warm.
* If the surface as a whole is around 255 (or 288) it will stay the same.
So having a surface that is warmer than 255 K does not invalidate the calculations. The surface was warmer and cooled to the expected value. The calculations worked!
Tim,
There is a strong possibility that our two puppets are just playing dumb. But in case they’re just ignorant, here would be an empirical argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Here would be a logical argument: they should apply their denial of SB to how the Sun’s temperature is being estimated.
Minny said: If the calculations show 255 K, but the measured temperature is 288 K, then your calculations are wrong.
Correct. The calculation without the GHE is 255K. The observation is 288K. That falsifies the no-GHE model.
Minny said: If the surface of the Earth was hot enough to prevent liquid water forming, your calculations would still show 255 K, wouldnt they?
No. Model’s advocated by scientists correctly show 288K.
Minny said: Why go out of your way to disbelieve a measurement?
I do accept the measured value of ~288K. That’s why I have to reject no-GHE models.
Does anyone know where the average earth’s surface temperature 288 K number comes from?
Yes.
Ask Clint. He’s the only one to whom you listen.
Willard, there were times I listened to you too…
Strictly speaking, you’re right since you’re here because I told you to come.
But I was more thinking of scientific matters like Bond albedo.
Bond Albedo is planet surface diffuse reflection ratio coefficient.
There are planets which reflect only diffusely…
Also there are planets which reflect diffusely and specularly…
Earth is one of them – Earth reflects both diffusely and specularly, that is all.
See?
Ask Clint. He’s your new guru.
And I met wonderful people here to discuss interesting matters. Things I am very interested in…
I have my views, and I tell them freely…
Also I like to listen to the opposite opinions. I am explaining the ways I see things, some agree, others not.
I am willing to know why, I am willing to understand other people.
Wanting to understand different opinions does not mean necessarily to agree with.
Yes, I agree with Clint on a very important issue…
Solar flux cannot be averaged!
Unfortunately some people average solar flux.
By averaging solar flux the entire Greenhouse Warming Theory emerges from nowhere…
That’s pretty cool, Christos.
There’s no place like Roy’s to peddle calculations over and over again.
Welcome aboard!
Yes, I like it here!
The people…
> Solar flux cannot be averaged!
Even the solar constant is the energy density at the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, Christos:
https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/class/ess200a/lecture.2.global.pdf
Here’s a pro-tip: when your new guru relies on a philosophical argument, that usually means he lost. And by “usually” I mean every time I saw him doing that.
Intriguingly, your new guru uses the same philosophical arguments as Joe. He also uses the same analogies, but that everyone knew.
Christos said: Solar flux cannot be averaged!
I know you don’t believe that. You use S (solar flux) = 1361 W/m^2 all over your website. S is itself an average!
Good!
I visited the pdf:
https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/class/ess200a/lecture.2.global.pdf
It is very well illustrated and very much comprehensive…
Does not mean I agree with.
In my view there is not any Greenhouse Warming Effect on the Earth’s surface because atmosphere is very thin for something like that.
It is very basic, that is why I point it out first.
Next I disagree with is the concept of the by surface absorbing radiative energy first, getting warmed, and only after being warmed enough surface starts emitting IR out.
It is also very basic. Surface emits IR instantaneously!
And, what amount of energy surface IR emits is the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
Here, once again, some planets reflect only diffusely…
Some others, Earth included, reflect both, diffusely and specularly.
bdgwx,
1361W/m^2 is an average over year (over time, or over the average distance from the sun). It is not average over planet surface…
> I visited the pdf
Good!
Have you looked at the slide called Solar Energy Incident on the Earth?
It’s the third one.
I checked all the slides. The slides are perfectly imaged. And all the slides are very much comprehensive.
The FAQ file may be of help.
“Does anyone know where the average earth’s surface temperature 288 K number comes from?”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
From those uber alarmists at NASA.
But who can you trust?
That pdf just makes the same mistake as many others. It treats Earth as a black body. That’s where they get the 255K. It’s from an imaginary blackbody sphere.
They are trying to compare Earth to a frozen object. 255K is 18 degrees C BELOW the freezing point of water!
The plan is to make everyone believe that CO2 adds 33C. They treat CO2 is some kind of magic heater.
It’s all nonsense.
Yes, Clint.
And they do not know some planets reflect not only diffusely but also specularly…
When planets reflect also specularly the “not reflected” portion of the incident solar flux, which is the available amount of energy for the planet to emit IR… the “not reflected” potion becomes even less.
Thus the planet effective temperatures should be corrected.
Planet…. Te…..Te.correct
Mercury…440 K….364 K
Moon……270 K….224 K
Earth…..255 K….210 K
Mars……210 K….174 K
Christos,
It doesn’t matter if you’re averaging a population of samples from a spatial dimension or time dimension. It’s still an average all the same.
You can average any population of samples. Mathematics does not stop you from doing it.
What you can’t do is use the average inappropriately. For example, you can compute a spatial average of a radiant exitance field. What you cannot do is plug that average into the SB law and assume the resulting temperature will accurately reflect the true value of the spatially average temperature field. The difference between the temperature computed from the SB law using the average radiant exitance and the average of the temperature field itself is what Trenberth calls a rectification effect. This occurs regardless of whether the radiant exitance is average spatially or temporally.
I understand what you mean…
Maybe not, please correct me if I am wrong.
Imagine we have four cycles of the same radius.
We have a radiative SW energy flux incident on a cycle.
Then we have four cycles each of them IR emitting the 1/4 amount of energy that has been fallen on one of them.
By doing so, we should assume the incident solar flux’s energy has been instantly distributed evenly on the four cycles.
What I think is when solar irradiated, the sunlit hemisphere interacts with solar energy instantaneously.
When interacting the solar lit surface does the following:
1). Reflects SW diffusely, or diffusely and specularly.
2). Emits some amount of energy as IR.
3). Accumulates some energy in form of heat.
The dark hemisphere at the same instant only emits some of the previously (during the day-time) accumulated heat as IR radiative energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas
> Thats where they get the 255K.
That’s where our puppy reveals he has not read the PDF.
bdgwx says:
The difference between the temperature computed from the SB law using the average radiant exitance and the average of the temperature field itself is what Trenberth calls a rectification effect. This occurs regardless of whether the radiant exitance is average spatially or temporally.
———————
Indeed bdgwx. What do you expect the rectification effect to be in the calculation you made at 8:24pm last night?
“If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string will wrap around it. If it is not rotating, then the string will not wrap around it.”
From the point of view of the center, the ball rotates around its axis once per revolution. From the point of view of the ball, it does not rotate at all.
The ball is rotating about the center point, not on its own axis.
Let’s try it again, RLH. This time with bold, for emphasis:
That’s the great thing about this simple analogy, RLH. It can’t be complicated by “point of view” or “reference frame”.
If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string will wrap around it. If it is not rotating, then the string will not wrap around it.
See, the “wrapping of the string” is the indicator. “Point of view” is the distraction.
Our puppet presents a string theory of gravity.
At least it’s within character.
“The ball is rotating about the center point, not on its own axis.”
Try that from the point of view of the Sun then.
The Moon has night and day on it like all planets/moons.
How does it do that if there is no rotation about its axis?
You are correct RLH.
DREMT and Clint R are strictly here for entertainment not science. Those two make up part of the blog’s 3ring circus and don’t care to understand the sciences of astronomy, relativity of reference frames in kinematics, and, of course, climate.
RLH, from any point of view, the ball is rotating about the center point, and not on its own axis. It is "rotating about an external axis" or "revolving", without rotating about its own center of mass. That is what that motion looks like. When an object is "rotating about an external axis", without rotating about its own center of mass, it keeps the same side always oriented towards that center point – the external axis.
When an object is “rotating about an external axis”, without rotating about its own center of mass as observed from the object, it keeps the same side always oriented towards that center point – the external axis.
DREMT simply reveals the location of the observation.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes Ball4’s response and eternally settles the issue in the “Non-Spinners” favor.
Great comedy DREMT 1:21pm & not accurate science.
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
“RLH, from any point of view, the ball is rotating about the center point, and not on its own axis. It is “rotating about an external axis” or “revolving”, without rotating about its own center of mass.”
What you are saying is that the axis of rotation of the ball is moving around the center. And that the ball is rotating once for each rotation.
In any case, libration of the Moon shows that this is not a ‘ball on a string’ example.
No, RLH. Re-read my previous comments until understood.
RLH, you are correct. Upon re-reading DREMT’s earlier comments find an understanding that DREMT observes from the ref. frame of the ball rotating on its own axis once per center revolution.
Think what you like, I will always know that I am correct.
“I will always know that I am correct.”
In your own mind for sure.
The Moon travels in an orbit, not a circle and, if like many other moons, it DID have a rotation instead of being tidal locked, then the situation would be unchanged. It would still be rotating about its own axis.
We are certainly not ready to discuss the moon. I am simply talking about a ball on a string. The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, and it is at the center point, in other words it is at the other end of the string to the one that the ball is attached to. There is no axis of rotation in the ball itself. If the ball was rotating on its own axis as well as revolving about the center point, it would have to be wrapping itself up in the string.
Those are simply facts about rotation. That I am correct is 100% certain.
“We are certainly not ready to discuss the moon. I am simply talking about a ball on a string.”
Others use your words to talk about the Moon.
So what is the point in talking about a ball again?
I can change your words to describe a rod. What is the point then? Does a rod have an axis of rotation at its far end?
A rod being swung around, like the ball on a string, of course has only one axis of rotation. How anyone could think it has two axes of rotation is beyond me.
Sure, quite a lot of the science in relativity of motion (and climate) is beyond DREMT as displayed in DREMT’s comments.
Sorry for your argument loss, Ball4.
“A rod being swung around, like the ball on a string, of course has only one axis of rotation. How anyone could think it has two axes of rotation is beyond me.”
Agreed. But objects in orbit are not balls or rods.
If you are saying you now understand that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, then that is good enough for me.
I am saying that an object in orbit is not like a ball on a string.
Objects in orbit may, or may not, have an axis of rotation
Yes…and a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. That motion, where the same face of the object is always oriented towards the center of revolution, is “pure orbital motion” or “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
…as observed from the ball.
“is “pure orbital motion” or “orbital motion without axial rotation”.”
As I said, a ball on a string is NOT an example of an orbital body.
Those DO have an axis of rotation about their center mass. Some rotate. Some do not. Some are tidal locked to their companions.
RLH, an object – any object, whether orbiting or otherwise – only has an axis of rotation in its center of mass if it is rotating about its center of mass. An orbiting object can be rotating or not rotating about its own center of mass whilst it orbits – no disagreement there.
An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, moves like the ball on a string (roughly), with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
“An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, moves like the ball on a string (roughly)”
Now roughly has crept in
“pure orbital motion” and “orbital motion without axial rotation” should not imply ball-on-a-string has any relevance then.
Yes, RLH, DREMT reveals a location roughly observing from the accelerated frame attached to the ball.
I say roughly because most orbits are elliptical whereas the ball on a string moves in a circular orbit, but the general principle remains the same. An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, moves with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit, like a ball on a string. Axial rotation is then separate from this motion.
DRsEMT, All orbits are ellipses, the circular case is just a degenerate ellipse. But, the Moon absolutely does not orbit “with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit, like a ball on a string”. This should be obvious from THIS GRAPH, as the view from the Earth changes as the Moon orbits.
Hope you can figure it out…
Yes, Swanson, that is why I said, “roughly”. Sorry, pedantry won’t change anything.
“An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis”
Few objects are tidally locked to their neighbor either. Those that are not rotating at all are at rest with the universe, not with their local neighbor.
I suppose you think that an object that is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, moves through its orbit with the same face always oriented towards the same distant star. That is not what “pure orbital motion” is, but never mind. I can see that we will get nowhere, so forget it.
“I suppose you think that an object that is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, moves through its orbit with the same face always oriented towards the same distant star.”
It does. That is what orbit means.
A google search for “pure orbital motion” turns up no appropriate reference so that must be your definition (alone?)
“It does. That is what orbit means”
Incorrect.
So how do you define orbit then? What reference frame do you use?
I already explained, RLH. Revolution is a movement like a ball on a string.
The ball revolves once on its own axis per revolution of the central axis in order to keep the string from wrapping, or, for DREMT observing on roughly the ball, it only revolves about the central axis ie. from where the ball must be seen so that “there is no axis of rotation (revolution) in the ball itself”.
We were talking about orbits, not rotation. Or at least you were, with the word ‘orbit’ scattered throughout your claims.
Go away, Ball4. Nobody asked you to chip in. I am trying to talk to RLH.
Scroll back up to the beginning, with Clint R, and read through until understood.
Ball is cool, kiddo, and this ain’t your subthread.
Come back when you got Joe’s model.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Denying Newton will not get you far
OK, RLH.
Well your orbital claims ignore Newton
I have made no claims, I have simply stated facts.
A ball on a string does not rotate on its own axis.
Orbit = revolution = rotation about an external axis = movement like a ball on a string.
Eventually you will stop responding.
An orbit consists of at least 2 objects rotating about a common center, each of which is in itself rotating about their own center.
According to Newton and many, many other folks.
Well, if you think an orbit is a rotation of any kind, then you are in agreement with me, and the rest of the “Non-Spinners”. Whether you understand that or not.
You will not be able to back up your definition of orbit including rotation of the object about its own axis, though.
If you don’t get that using the word ‘rotation’ in 2 places means that what I said completely refutes what you have said and that what you are saying completely refutes Newton, et al. then there is little hope for you.
“Imagine a line passing through the center of Earth that goes through both the North Pole and the South Pole. This imaginary line is called an axis. Earth spins around its axis, just as a top spins around its spindle. This spinning movement is called Earths rotation. At the same time that the Earth spins on its axis, it also orbits, or revolves around the Sun. ”
The same goes for anything that is in orbit around any other object.
The Earth and the moon rotate about the Earth/moon barycenter. The Earth also rotates on its own axis. The moon does not.
If you make the mass m1 and the mass m2 equal, then the barycenter is 1/2 way between the 2.
Either body is free to rotate about their own Axis (or not). They will both rotate/orbit around the barycenter.
The Earth and the moon rotate about the Earth/moon barycenter. The Earth also rotates on its own axis. The moon does not…
“Orbit = revolution = rotation about an external axis = movement like a ball on a string.”
RLH, don’t bother.
The DREMT troll’s made-up definition has been debunked at least 47 times.
The guy has no shame nor integrity whatsoever.
If the Earth and the Moon were the same size, what would you say then? Which axis are they orbiting around then?
You are hopelessly confused, RLH.
“You are hopelessly confused, RLH”
And you are the sort of troll who makes claims for which there is no science to back them up.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
From the same paper
“For the kinds of objects discussed in astronomy, rotation is used to describe an object rotating about an axis.”
and
“However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
You never answered about if the masses are equal. Is the barycenter in the middle that axis or rotation and do the 2 bodies themselves have axis about which they can then rotate?
The ultimate authority has been announced, and it is…………ThoughtCo.
Who’da thought?
RLH, what are you having trouble understanding?
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
“RLH, what are you having trouble understanding?”
How you can deny Newton as that is what you are saying. Nothing revolves about anything if no energy is put in the system. Explain where the energies came from (if you can)
You seem to be thinking I am arguing something other than what I am saying.
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
Conservation of energy trumps all
How you can deny Newton as that is what you are saying. Nothing revolves about anything if no energy is put in the system. Explain where the energies came from (if you can)
#2
You seem to be thinking I am arguing something other than what I am saying.
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
What, still with the ball on the string?
You told me wo months ago every question had been asked and answered and you were done talking about it.
Sorry for your argument loss.
“Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?”
Why these non-sensible questions. Tell me where the energy for these rotations came from and we can have a scientific discussion.
#3
You seem to be thinking I am arguing something other than what I am saying.
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
“You seem to be thinking I am arguing something other than what I am saying.
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?”
Repeating non-sensical questions doe not make them any less non-sensical.
If any rotation is occurring the it must have had some energy input to create that rotation. If that rotation was to be stopped likewise some emerge would be required to stop it.
So I repeat for those who are not scientists. where did the energy come from and what energy would be required to stop it?
Without the spelling mistakes that occurred (hopefully)
“You seem to be thinking I am arguing something other than what I am saying.
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
Repeating non-sensical questions does not make them any less non-sensical.
If any rotation is occurring then it must have had some energy input to create that rotation. If that rotation was to be stopped likewise some energy would be required to stop it.
So I repeat for those who are not scientists. where did the energy come from and what energy would be required to stop it?
#4
You seem to be thinking I am arguing something other than what I am saying.
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
“#4”
Round and round you go in your delusional world that does not relate to anything real. At all.
Lol, I am just asking you to confirm what your actual position is on three simple statements. I have no idea what you are actually arguing with me about because your recent line of questioning is so completely off the wall and nothing to do with what I thought we were discussing.
#5
You seem to be thinking I am arguing something other than what I am saying.
Do you agree:
1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
“1) That a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis?
2) That an orbit is a rotation about an external axis?
3) That the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?”
1) Depends on where you consider the location of the axis to be
2) The axis can be either internal or external
3) No
How would you define an orbit?
1) The axis referred to is the center of mass of the ball. The ball on a string is not rotating about that axis. It is revolving only about an axis at the other end of the string. The ball itself is not rotating about its own center of mass, as well.
2) Right, but we are talking specifically about orbit/revolution. The axis for revolution is external to the object.
3) Well if you accept that an orbit is just a rotation about an external axis, then that is what the moon is doing. So the moon is only orbiting. If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis (about its own center of mass) then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
1) The axis referred to is the center of mass of the ball. The ball on a string is not rotating about that axis as observed from the ball. It is revolving only about an axis at the other end of the string in that accelerated frame. The ball itself is observed not rotating about its own center of mass, observed as well in that same accelerated frame.
2) Right, but we are talking specifically about orbit/revolution. The axis for revolution is sometimes external to the object.
3) Well if you accept that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis, then that is what the moon is doing. So the moon is only orbiting Earth as observed from the moon. If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis once per orbit (about its own center of mass once) then we would not see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Ball4, the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” positions transcends reference frames. I know that you will never understand this, so I am not really writing this comment for your benefit. Just for anyone reading, that is curious. The “Spinners” see the motion “orbiting without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right” in the below gif, and the “Non-Spinners” see the motion “orbiting without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the left”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“1) The axis referred to is the center of mass of the ball. The ball on a string is not rotating about that axis. It is revolving only about an axis at the other end of the string. The ball itself is not rotating about its own center of mass, as well.”
I can walk down the string and have a perfectly correct view of the system rotating about the point I am standing on. I can even move the center of the ball and conclude that everything is moving round me. Not done much Newton have you?
“2) Right, but we are talking specifically about orbit/revolution. The axis for revolution is external to the object.”
Orbital things move round a barycenter. The position of that barycenter depends on the ratio between the 2 masses that are orbiting.
“3) Well if you accept that an orbit is just a rotation about an external axis, then that is what the moon is doing. So the moon is only orbiting. If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis (about its own center of mass) then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
As you definition of what consists of an orbit is wrong, the rest is wrong also.
1) “I can walk down the string and have a perfectly correct view of the system rotating about the point I am standing on. I can even move the center of the ball and conclude that everything is moving round me. Not done much Newton have you?”
You can delude yourself with different viewpoints, but the reality remains that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis (about its own center of mass). It is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball.
2) “Orbital things move round a barycenter. The position of that barycenter depends on the ratio between the 2 masses that are orbiting.”
Sure, and for the moon the barycenter is external to the object.
3) “As you definition of what consists of an orbit is wrong, the rest is wrong also.”
My definition of what consists of an orbit is correct, and I have provided support for it. You have not.
I’ll just go with NASA
“NASA website today:
Q: Does the Moon rotate?
A: Yes. The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.”
I am well aware that the prevailing opinion is that the moon rotates on its own axis. What I asked you to support is your idea that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same distant star whilst it moves.
What you will find are lots of definitions of an orbit simply being a path or trajectory that an object follows, and no mention of its orientation whilst it moves.
“What you will find are lots of definitions of an orbit simply being a path or trajectory that an object follows, and no mention of its orientation whilst it moves.”
Well, according to Newton, it will be facing some point in the Universe. Unless you know different.
You keep saying that is what Newton said, and then not backing it up.
“You keep saying that is what Newton said, and then not backing it up.”
Newton’s first law states that, if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force. This postulate is known as the law of inertia.
That includes rotations.
So you cannot support the idea that “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves the orbiting object remaining oriented towards some distant star.
“So you cannot support the idea that “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves the orbiting object remaining oriented towards some distant star.”
What part of an object will remain pointed at a distant star unless acted on by a outside force did you not get?
Non-sequitur. Orbital motion is not motion in a straight line.
” Orbital motion is not motion in a straight line.”
Indeed it is not. But the axis and an orientation to it is.
That appears to be nonsensical.
so the take home is RLH must also believe a ball on a string being spun in a circle also rotates on its own axis as well as the particles in within the moon itself rotate on their own axes as well.
Once one bites the axis rotation apple one is bound to be consistent in its application.
“That appears to be nonsensical.”
Because your position is nonsensical? Probably.
Take a stick/rod and replace your ‘ball on a string’ with that. It is the same thing after all.
If that rod is rotating. Tell me how you determine, from on the stick, where its axis of rotation is?
“Once one bites the axis rotation apple”
How do you determine where the axis of rotation is? See my other comment about replacing the ‘ball-on-a-string’ with a rod which it also resembles.
“Once one bites the axis rotation apple”
How do you determine where the axis of rotation is? See my other comment about replacing the ‘ball-on-a-string’ with a rod which it also resembles.
If the rod is being swung around from one end then obviously it has only one axis of rotation at that end of the rod. It does not matter how it may appear from different viewpoints such as if you were located at the other end of the rod. The rod has only one axis of rotation in reality.
It is like if you were on a merry-go-round horse that was firmly bolted to the floor of the rotating platform. You would be rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, not rotating on your own axis.
For a reference frame stationary to the axis of rotations sure.
For frames that are ON the rod, then the universe will rotate about them with them as the center.
Another one that’s lost in “reference frames”. Oh well.
“What you will find are lots of definitions of an orbit simply being a path or trajectory that an object follows, and no mention of its orientation whilst it moves.”
So true. And yet DREMT continues to use his own different, and completely made-up definition.
Weird.
“Another one that’s lost in “reference frames”. Oh well.”
As opposed to one who is lost in his own delusions. Oh well indeed.
If you say so, RLH.
“If you say so, RLH.”
Why is it that you disagree with Newton, NASA, just about everybody else, but still persist in your rather idiotic position?
I’m right.
“Im right.”
In your own mind I’m sure you are.
In the real world then others beg to differ
#2
OK, RLH.
Logically it seems that in terms of angular momentum the axis has to be the COG of earth as the very definition of angular momentum involves an object on a string or rod or gravity with a radius from the center where the axis is.
I think the concept of it rotating on its own axis derives from the ‘easy’ mathematical way to describe the motion that includes rotation around its own axis. But thats just a simplification of a much more difficult math problem of turning a point mass into something with dimensions and extracting a sphere from a rotating disk like a merry-go-round disk.
The fact the problem can be reduced to a sphere rotating on its own axis and a point mass rotating around an external axis is just the nature of angular momentum in general.
So when you calculate the angular momentum of the moon around the earth’s COG it necessarily includes a number identical to the moon rotating on its own axis added to an impossible mass occupying a space of zero dimensions rotating around the earth’s COG.
Then you acknowledge that angular momentum is a pseudovector.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector#:~:text=Angular%20momentum%20is%20the%20cross,a%20pseudovector%20or%20polar%20vector.
Being a pseudovector it can never have a negative value. Thus you cannot subtract the angular momentum of the moon revolving around its own axis to get to an angular momentum of the moon traveling around the earth. Thus its inseparable. QED.
Vectors can be added or subtracted, Bill. Even angular momentum. None of that makes much sense.
Nate is obfuscating again. Yes in general vectors can be subtracted. One polar vector can be subtracted from another. Polar vectors can be positive or negative.
Pseudovectors though cannot be negative. And it makes no sense whatsoever a disk could have angular momentum and an orbit not so. But that is exactly what you do when you advance your claim Nate that an orbit is merely a translation.
Uhhh…
Orbits do have angular momentum. Its called orbital angular momentum . Ive discussed it here many times, even with you.
A planet in orbit can also have Spin angular momentum.
Spin Angular Momentum can ADD to its Orbital Angular Momentum to give the Total Angular Momentum, even though it is angular momentum is a pseudovector.
So again, what you said makes little sense…
Nate what is called orbital anglular momentum is only for a ‘point mass’ the moon isn’t a point mass and there is no such thing as a point having a mass.
“Nate what is called orbital anglular momentum is only for a ‘point mass’ ”
Bill gives birth to a new ‘alternative fact’.
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/angular_momentum.html
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch2.htm
Nate makes a desperate attempt at obfuscation substituting the earth for the moon knowing full well that the earth does have an independent spin on its axis.
The point mass calculation for an orbiting body is really just a convenient shortcut using an imaginary point mass orbiting an object combined with spin angular momentum of a single rotation.
But being a guy with just book learning and no real world experience Nate’s immature brain imagines life emerging out of the imaginary inculcations of his education and doesn’t understand real world conditions.
Society for some strange reason has found some advantage in keeping partially developed minds in its employ. I wonder if Nate can imagine what that advantage is.
“he point mass calculation for an orbiting body is really just a convenient shortcut using an imaginary point mass orbiting an object combined with spin angular momentum of a single rotation.”
As my two sources show (and many more), orbiting bodies have Orbital angular momentum and Spin angular momentum.
You got caught trying to make up a ‘fact’ that is not a fact.
Nothing you can do to Spin it, Bill.
nate you can bring to life mathematical concepts as reality if you wish. But the bottom line is you can’t have an object in orbit that doesn’t have both aspects, orbital momentum and spin momentum.
You cannot subtract from it you can only add to it.
So its unclear. You are now disavowing your original post?
“what is called orbital anglular momentum is only for a point mass “
No backtracking.
The fact that the mathmatical component of orbital angular momentum for a real orbiting object cannot stand alone without a spin angular momentum component. . . .that means a spin is an integral component of the angular momentum of a real object. One cannot just consider it as zero because you are then saying the moon is a point mass which it is not.
“One cannot just consider it as zero because you are then saying the moon is a point mass which it is not.”
Nope, you are still making up your own physics without evidence.
Just stop.
As the two credible sources show, orbiting objects have orbital angular momentum, as long as they have mass and velocity.
The pointiness requirement is all in or on your head.
It may help you to think of a planet as a collection of points.
Nope you are confounding a mathematical shortcut for reality. An object in orbit has have mass, velocity, and radius of orbit.
The particles in the moon have different radii and velocities.
They orbit in concentric circles around an external axis as outlined by Dr. Madhavi.
A point mass has only one radius in an orbit.
Using the mathematically derived orbital angular momentum for every individual particle in the moon and adding them up would result in a larger angular momentum for the moon orbiting than if you used the COG earth/COG moon radius.
This is an undeniable fact Nate. You want to treat it as independent but there is no way for it to be independent.
A non-rotating orbiting Moon or planet all points have the same velocity.
Here’s another clue, Bill. What does Center of Mass mean?
Nate they have different velocities. They have the same ‘angular velocity’ but that’s in radians. Velocity is different because different distances from earth makes for different radii. Thus the longer the radius of the orbit for each particle given the same angular velocity requires a higher velocity.
center of mass is the center of mass. So what is your point?
Once again for the kinematically impaired: just orbiting means TRANSLATION without spin.
Translation-all parts have the same velocity (Mahdavi)
For a Moon orbiting without spin, all of its points have the same velocity.
Center of Mass is the Average position of all mass. We can thus find the average radius from the orbit center of all of this Moon’s mass, and it is simply the radius of the COM.
We have velocity (all the same), we have average radius of all mass, m.
We can find the orbital angular momentum L = mvr.
Planets and Moons have orbital angular momentum and if they are spinning they have also have Spin angular momentum, as my links show, and no links provided by you contradict this.
Nate the moon does not follow a straight line. It is rotating around the earth.
The particles further from earth thus have to travel a longer circumference circle in the exact same time, thus they must travel faster. Thus their velocity is faster.
A 3rd grader would not be confused about this. Why are you?
Also since the path is curved, a curved line goes through the center of the moon rather than a straight line. Since this line is curved there is more mass outside the line than inside the line, this is additional angular momentum missing in the point mass calculation using the moon’s center of mass.
“Nate the moon does not follow a straight line. It is rotating around the earth.”
Non sequitur. No one is claiming it does…
It is doing curvilinear translation. See Madhavi.
“The particles further from earth thus have to travel a longer circumference circle in the exact same time”
Not true for what I clearly stated was “For a moon orbiting without spin”
Just stop getting confused.
Find a source that agrees with you.
Nate says:
May 27, 2021 at 7:28 PM
Nate the moon does not follow a straight line. It is rotating around the earth.
Non sequitur. No one is claiming it does
It is doing curvilinear translation. See Madhavi.
The particles further from earth thus have to travel a longer circumference circle in the exact same time
Not true for what I clearly stated was For a moon orbiting without spin
Just stop getting confused.
Find a source that agrees with you.
————————————–
Boy are you ever screwed up Nate. Go put a red flag marker on the backside of the moon and a green marker on the front side of the moon and the red marker is going to ascribe a concentric ellipse larger than the one on the front side around the earth.
Clearly the red marker has to travel further in the same period of time as the green marker. They have different velocities.
And Madhavi doesn’t agree with you as the ellipses are concentric where as a curvilinear translation has particles moving non-concentrically.
“Go put a red flag marker on the backside of the moon and a green marker on the front side of the moon and the red marker is going to ascribe a ”
Bill,
We were discussing whether an object orbiting without spin (not our Moon) has orbital angular momentum. I showed you that it Certainly Does. Thus your original post is FALSE, and your further pointy headed claim about it only working for point masses is also FALSE.
I showed you two sources that concur. Where are yours?
Now you try to pretend we were discusing The Moon. We were not, as I made absolutely clear.
We can try to now apply these angular momentum principles to The Moon.
But its impossible to have a coherent discussion with someone who changes the subject willy nilly.
Focus on one topic at a time!
You mean that the idea the red flag is moving faster than the green flag is BS? Pointy headed? You are really a basket case Nate.
And you didn’t even address the issue of adding up all the angular momentums of all the individual particles in the moon being larger than the point mass imaginary mathematical concept of orbital angular momentum. Thats the key issue Nate, pointy headed or not.
Bottom line here is, and you would have to be an idiot to deny it, is that there are many ways to estimate the angular momentum of the moon.
You seem to want to treat the mathematical tools you have been taught as immutable physical facts. Do you have any argument beyond that? Its like treating photons as particles. There is no scientific basis for either extrapolation.
This is clearly beyond your comprehension, Bill.
I DID show you adding up all the parts of a non-spinning, orbiting Moon or planet, will still have orbital angular momentum, MVR.
With added SPIN in the same direction as our Moon has, it will have a bit larger angular momentum, because Spin and Orbital angular momentum ADD.
Considering that we are discussing angular momentum of orbiting objects, which IS a mathematical construct, your ongoing protestations that using math, physics and equations somehow leads one astray, is quite bizarre!
Why don’t you ask some engineers preparing to build something big whether using math, physics equations and experience might be better then just going with their gut?
“Clearly the red marker has to travel further in the same period of time as the green marker. They have different velocities.”
Yes for our Moon this is true, because in addition to orbiting, OUR Moon is also rotating on its axis. It has Spin.
Suppose someone discovers a new asteroid. The difference in velocity of opposite sides, is precisely how they tell if the new object is rotating, which has nothing to do with its orbit around the sun.
Nate that would be absolutely incorrect. You have not come up with a single science-based proof the moon has independent spin separate from its orbital motion. Not one you merely rely upon declaratory statements and your chosen interpretation of imprecise statements of others.
Madhavi and kinematics defines a special case for a rotation around an external axis where the particles travel concentric paths. . . .not to be confused with curvilinear translation which involves non-concentric paths.
You wrongly claimed all the particles in the moon move with the same velocity. The red flag/green flag observation proves that to be incorrect.
You want to claim you have proof of an orbital angular momentum of a moon or planet around another celestial body. But all you produce for that is a mass traveling with zero dimensions around another object which is only part of the angular momentum held by and object with dimensions as explained by the fact if you add the orbital angular momentum for every particle in the moon you come up with a larger number than the orbital angular momentum of a moon of the same mass with zero dimensions.
You have lost this argument so badly and just sit there exposing what a fraud you are by trying to obfuscate yourself around those facts and all the other ignorant arguments you have raised like every particle in the moon having the same velocity.
While you know how to calculate the angular momentum of the moon by adding the pointmass orbital angular momentum to the spin angular momentum, in the case of the moon that just two parts of the mathematical formula for a single motion in compliance with Dr. Madhavi’s lecture on kinematics.
You say:
”Suppose someone discovers a new asteroid. The difference in velocity of opposite sides, is precisely how they tell if the new object is rotating, which has nothing to do with its orbit around the sun.”
You got that wrong. You want to calculate it without dimensions so you aren’t talking about moons and planets. Put the dimensions in and calculate the individual orbital angular momentum of each gram of the moon, add them up, and you will be getting real close to the correct answer for the moon’s angular momentum. . . .and would be adequately close to your orbital angular momentum plus spin angular momentum.
Which means of course since the moon IS NOT all compacted into to a point mass orbital angular momentum is just a mathematical construct to which you must add the angular momentum of its dimensions and is equal to spin angular momentum.
Hopefully you have enough vision to see why thats the case and is why you cannot physically subtract the spin angular momentum from the total angular momentum of the moon as that would be nonsense.
Since angular momentum has to always be positive you cannot subtract the spin angular momentum out of the equation for the moon’s angular momentum.
So to make the moon appear as not turning from a distant star you need to add angular momentum.
“You wrongly claimed all the particles in the moon move with the same velocity. ”
Nope
I never did!
Ive explained it several times, several ways. That was for an orbiting object without spin! Not our Moon.
Your confusion never ceases.
“You want to claim you have proof of an orbital angular momentum of a moon or planet around another celestial body. But all you produce for that is a mass traveling with zero dimensions around another object”
Nope this is, again, you not reading what I posted, being confused, and instead substituting your own twisted idea.
It is thus impossible to have a sensible discussion with you.
What I clearly showed you was NOT for a zero-dimensional point mass. It was for a planet or moon orbiting without SPIN. All of its mass has the SAME velocity, V because it is in curvilinear translation. Ask Maahavi.
It has a COM, which is the average position of all its mass. We can use the radius, R, of the COM to calculate is angular momentum, MVR.
This is a simple calculation. We are using COM in the calculation, but that does not mean the object IS A POINT MASS. Learn.
“You say:
“Suppose someone discovers a new asteroid. The difference in velocity of opposite sides, is precisely how they tell if the new object is rotating, which has nothing to do with its orbit around the sun.”
You got that wrong. You want to calculate it without dimensions so you aren’t talking about moons and planets. Put the dimensions in and calculate the individual orbital angular momentum of each gram of the moon, add them up, and you will be getting real close to the correct answer for the moon’s angular momentum. . . .and would be adequately close to your orbital angular momentum plus spin angular momentum.”
This is gibberish and seems unconnected to my asteroid rotation quote.
“Which means of course since the moon IS NOT all compacted into to a point mass orbital angular momentum is just a mathematical construct to which you must add the angular momentum of its dimensions and is equal to spin angular momentum.”
Again this is based on your erroneous ‘point mass’ confusion.
Look, last try. If you can’t respond to WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE then it is pointless to continue.
The point about the asteroid is that astronomers observe whether it is rotating or not, around which axis thru it. Simple. KISS principle at work.
But according to the logic that you are applying to the Moon, it is NOT that simple. The Moon’s observed rotation rate is 1 rev/29 days. It’s orbital period is observed to be 1 rev/29 days. You subtract them (even though axes are different!) and ‘find’ that the Moon has True Spin rotation rate of 0!
So back to our asteroid. You think astronomers must figure out whether the asteroid is also orbiting something (eg the sun), find the orbital parameters and subtract them from whatever rotation rate they observe to figure out what its TRUE Spin rotation rate is.
Of course the asteroid, in addition to orbiting the sun, it could be orbiting another planet or the Milky Way. You think astronomers should subtract those orbital rates as well?
Of course this is nonsensical, way too complicated, and not what astronomers do. They simply observe whether an object is rotating or not, around which axis thru the object. This is considered an independent motion from any orbital motion.
For our Moon, a distant astronomer would observe it is rotating, determine the period 1 rev/29 days, and its axial tilt. And, just as for any other celestial object, that rotation will be considered an independent motion from its orbit around the Earth or the sun or the Milky Way etc. KISS.
Nate says:
So back to our asteroid. You think astronomers must figure out whether the asteroid is also orbiting something (eg the sun), find the orbital parameters and subtract them from whatever rotation rate they observe to figure out what its TRUE Spin rotation rate is.
——————————
Why figure out what the true ‘spin rotation’ is? What practical value does that have?
“Why figure out what the true ‘spin rotation’ is? What practical value does that have?”
Ha! Maybe you can tell me why you guys have argued endlessly about the true spin rotation rate of the Moon, as you continued here???
But accurately landing things on the Moon, eg the planned mission to land at its South Pole is a practical reason.
If the Moon’s spin rate is actually 0, then it is unclear how they are even going to find an undefined South Pole???
Nate says:
”Ha! Maybe you can tell me why you guys have argued endlessly about the true spin rotation rate of the Moon, as you continued here???”
——————————-
Because of the endless nonsense you have been spewing the entire time!
————–
————-
————
————
————-
Nate says:
”But accurately landing things on the Moon, eg the planned mission to land at its South Pole is a practical reason.”
—————————
I don’t understand why you continually fail to recognize that an orbit around the earth is in fact a rotation.
————–
————-
————
————
————-
Nate says:
”If the Moons spin rate is actually 0, then it is unclear how they are even going to find an undefined South Pole???”
———————-
Good just continue to spew out your ignorance Nate and keep proving that you continue to fail to understand that a rotation around an external axis is in fact a rotation from which one can define a South Pole. Sheesh!
No actual response to the facts and logic I posted.
Just repeated belief!
“you continue to fail to understand that a rotation around an external axis is in fact a rotation from which one can define a South Pole, in fact a rotation from which one can define a South Pole.”
Nope, that’s called an Orbital Pole, but nice try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_pole
“An orbital pole is either point at the ends of an imaginary line segment that runs through the center of an orbit (of a revolving body like a planet) and is perpendicular to the orbital plane. Projected onto the celestial sphere, orbital poles are similar in concept to celestial poles, but are based on the body’s orbit instead of its equator.”
As opposed to a Pole of an Astronomical Body which is what the Moon’s South Pole is.
“Poles of astronomical bodies
From Wikipedia
The poles of astronomical bodies are determined based on their axis of rotation in relation to the celestial poles of the celestial sphere. Astronomical bodies include stars, planets, dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies such as comets and minor planets (i.e. asteroids), as well as natural satellites and minor-planet moons.”
While you’re at it, define Axial Tilt please.
Make sure it can work for our Moon which, according to your beliefs, can’t have a rotational axis!
“Moon
“Axial tilt
1.5424 to ecliptic[8]
6.687 to orbit plane[2]
24 to Earth’s equator [9]”
Nate says:
“you continue to fail to understand that a rotation around an external axis is in fact a rotation from which one can define a South Pole, in fact a rotation from which one can define a South Pole.”
———————————
Nate I didn’t say the moon’s internal rotational axis was real I said you can define it.
Any object that is rotating around an external axis can appear to be rotating around an internal axis if you select an external frame of reference that ignores its orbital motion.
And of course you want me to also explain the moon’s tilt. . . .you expect that because I cannot completely explain it you ignorantly believe that supports your viewpoint despite you also being unable to explain it.
Your arguments are weak, fallacious, and totally without any support for your viewpoint. Where as kinematics establishes the reality of rotation around an external axis that simply nobody heretosofar has found a need to apply to astronomy. But all the elements are there, orbital rotation and gravity forcing a tidal lock.
The funny part is you see to ignorantly think that if I can’t explain something you also can’t explain it will support your argument. . . .ROTFLMAO!
“you expect that because I cannot completely explain it you ignorantly believe that supports your viewpoint ”
I do, and it does.
It should bother you that your theory can’t explain it.
Thats what normally leads to revision of a theory.
Indeed Nate and since it could be a dependent tilt related to the gravitational string or an independent tilt due to an independent internal axial spin. . . .its theory neutral.
“dependent tilt related to the gravitational string”
Huh???
Look any 6th grader can understand what the axial tilt of Earth’s rotational axis means. Except of course Flat Earthers among them.
Again, if you think Axial Tilt for the Moon has this strange different definition from all other celestial objects, show us a link to the evidence!
Of course you wont, because it is obviously just made up.
Yes Nate the moon rotates around the earth like a ball on a string because of . . . . wait for it. . . . GRAVITY!
If you need some reading material to get on board with that idea I will be happy to oblige. In the meantime I wouldn’t be taking some 6th grader’s viewpoint that it isn’t.
So your definition of axial tilt is ‘like a ball on a string because of ….Gravity’ ???
Naturally this evades the issue at hand of defining AXIAL TILT.
When you have no answers, you reflexively regress back to trying to sell us your NON-FALSIFIABLE religion.
“I won’t be taking the 6th graders viewpoint”
The 6th grader’s viewpoint is basic geometry and science facts.
What is your alternative to that?
They understand that the AXIS is defined by rotation of the planet around it. It is the internal ROTATIONAL AXIS. They understand that it passes thru the POLES of the planet. They can understand that the axis points to a specific place in the sky, Polaris for Earth. They can understand that the TILT is relative to its Orbit, the angle between its Rotational axis and its Orbital Axis which is 23.5 degrees for Earth, and that it explains the seasons.
This is how AXIAL TILT and POLES are defined by Astronomy for all planets and moons.
Again, if you believe these have DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS FOR THE MOON show us a source!
You get no credit for declaring ALTERNATIVE FACTS.
Or, you can be straight-shooter and admit you have no fact-based alternative definition.
Nate some of us here consider science to be more than 6th grader intuition.
If you have a source explaining the moon’s axial tilt you should refer to that instead.
As I see it the moon’s axial precession is identical to its nodal precession. Nodal precession of a satellite is caused by gravitational dissymmetry. Satellites around earth have a nodal precession due to the oblateness of the earth and a variable gravitational field.
The moon having an orbit tilted to the ecliptic by ~5 degrees has a nodal precession of 18.6 years. The moon’s axis also has precession of 18.6 years. That suggests the moon’s tilt is related to its orbit which has nothing to do with an independent spin.
So can you top that with something other than 6th grader intuition?
“As I see it”
is not a source of facts, unless you show sources that agree with ‘how you see it’.
How AXIAL TILT is defined is not an opinion thing, just as 11 > 9 is not.
“the moon’s axial precession is identical to its nodal precession.’
For a rotational axis to precess, it needs to exist. So good, it seems you agree it EXISTS.
“Nodal precession of a satellite is caused by gravitational dissymmetry. Satellites around earth have a nodal precession due to the oblateness of the earth and a variable gravitational field.”
Interesting , but off-topic. We are not talking about the causes of precession.
Look, just stop throwing out chaff.
The AXIAL TILT of the Moon exists. The Moon’s POLES exist. And those facts require an internal rotational axis to exist. And the axis precesses, just like the Earth’s axis does.
That means the Moon rotates around an internal axis.
Any 6th grader can understand it with basic geometry. The point being that it is BASIC and undeniable.
Nate says:
Interesting , but off-topic. We are not talking about the causes of precession.
————————————
Hmmmm, so after you bring up the moon’s tilt everything related to it is off topic?
Nate you are either really stupid or you just get a kick out of being a jerk.
You go ahead and stick with the dumb half of the sixth grade class and I will stick with Kinematics and Dr. Madhavi’s viewpoints on rotation. And from that we can agree to disagree.
“Nate you are either really stupid or you just get a kick out of being a jerk.”
I guess I am stupid for ever expecting you to back up your claims with real sources of facts, that are external to your thick skull.
I guess I am stupid for ever expecting to get an honest fact-based debate from you.
I’ll try to learn this time.
Last word, that settles the issue. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Ha! DREMT, swears he’s ignoring me, and yet here he shows up to troll me.
And he’s continuing his make-up-your-own-definition ways:
When your theory fails to explain the available facts, so you just post gobbledegook, deflect, distract, toss ad-homs, and finally claim it doesnt matter.
= ‘That settles it’ somehow in favor of your theory!
The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Religions declare ‘truths’, as you do there.
Science discovers it.
And the bad boy is still responding to me!
No Nate you are simply deluding yourself.
Dr. Madhavi establishes that your idea that the moon’s orbital motion is a curvilinear translation.
”2. Rotation about a Fixed Axis. ….
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. ”
https://tinyurl.com/2n4nhjfx
I am sticking with Dr. Madhavi. . . .apparently you are content to align yourself with the dumber half of the 6th grade class. Unless you come up with some real support for your point of view we will have to agree to disagree.
Once again, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Here are the Monthly Charts for the South Pole. You will see that if you identify locations that are shielded from the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor, you get no warming even though CO2 has increased from 336.84 ppm in 1979 to 414.24 ppm today, a 23% increase.
Here are the charts and undeniable evidence CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
CiL, I saw your comment last night, but the link didn’t work for me.
Maybe that’s why you didn’t get any flak from the cult….
Clint, please try this link. If it doesn’t work please let me know.
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
CO2isLife,
Which data have you used? If it is the UAH SoPol Land data (ie, Antarctica), the linear trend is 0.09 C/decade.
As you’ve seen from a number papers supplied here, Antarctica temps are strongly influenced by many factors. Much as you would like to imagine it is a pristine test bed for CO2 warming, it isn’t so. Nevertheless, it has wartmed, on average, since 1979, at least according to UAH6.0 data, as you’ve been shown numerous times.
Here is the link you keep pointing to, for the UAH data, (converted so that this website will let us post it):
https://tinyurl.com/x9jnrzyd
Click on it. Scroll to the bottom. Look for SoPol, and immediately to the right, Land. That is Antarctica, and underneath the final anomaly you will see the decadal trend. 0.09 C/decade.
If you doubt my link, go to the top of the page and click on the link there. It’s the same webpage.
Here it is plotted again, using the annual averages for each year. You see the values of all the months for each year in each yearly column – the diamond shapes.
https://i.imgur.com/DvBkYxG.png
I’ve included the value of the slope of the linear regression on the right. The regression in Excel gave an output slope of y=0.0093x, which means that for every step (every year), the slope increases by 0.0093 C, or 0.093 C/decade.
That’s the data YOU are telling us to use. That is the result.
Or go to the webpage yourself and look at the trend given by John Christie and Roy Spencer, who compile the data.
Confounding variables:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0031-y
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data/aao/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shrinking-ozone-hole-climate-change-are-causing-atmospheric-tug-of-war/
Do you people ever even bother to check the actual data backing these nonsensical articles? Here is the data on the Ozone hole.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_01_SH.html
Unless my eyes are lying to me, the holes look a lot bigger today than in the past.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_08_SH.html
Anyway, there are enormous differences month to month, and all months in the S Pole show no warming.
Keep trying.
CO2 is Life
There is a seasonal cycle in the extent of the ozone hole, with the maximum in September.
This is why the hole is larger in August than in January.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/25TOMSAGU.html
CO2isLife,
Just pick one of the months that the web page you are showing gives you – I took your first link, January – and scroll down just a little to see how Januaries have evolved over the years.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_01_SH.html
You’ll see there is less ozone in recent times, and more in the past.
To welcome Mike Flynn’s new puppet, more cooling:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/first-month-northern-hemisphere-spring-2021-was-warmer-average
Willard, please stop trolling.
Does this Link Work?
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
If yes, pass it on to everyone you know.
The link works, Life.
Tell me if this one works too:
https://tinyurl.com/4px2b2uc
Willard, thanks for posting that link. Everyone can now compare by graphics and your nonsensical trends and decide for themselves if they should trust their eyes or your nonsensical trend. You clearly have no background in statistics or science.
> Everyone can now compare
I doubt it, Life. Like, srsly.
First because there’s a word that should jump at you when you look at this:
https://imgur.com/DvBkYxG
The word is “anomaly.”
You know what’s a temperature anomaly, right?
Willard, an anomaly of 0.00 or (-) means what to you when CO2 has increased over that time period? There are no trends to the anomalies, and if you work backward and add those anomalies to the normal/mean, you will get an identical conclusion. In fact, using the anomaly magnifies the visual effect of what is actually happening. That anomaly is a very very very small fraction of the total temperature, especially when put in terms of K°.
Life,
An anomaly is not a temperature. It’s a temperature anomaly. That’s how Climateball people start to model some kind of trendology.
You should know by now that you have no model to speak of. Your eyeballing is only good to fool people who know nothing about temperature anomalies. If you can pull it off, more power to you!
Caveat emptor.
In statistics, one important concept is that the more data you have, the smaller signal you can detect. So looking at individual weather sites or even individual regions from the satellite record may not show a statistically significant trend. But when you aggregate the data, more robust trends can be extracted. Random noise gets averaged out and the signal can be teased out.
So, for example, individual months in one region (Antarctica) (CiL link) may well not show statistically significant trends. 7/12 months have a positive trend; 5/12 have a negative trend.
Even aggregating the data for one region (Antarctica) (Willard link) may not show a significant trend. (Especially when you happen to chose the one region with the smallest trend.) The net trend for all months together is slightly upward, but the noise is large.
But look more broadly yet, and you will see the upward trend strengthen. You will see that there is not a single month in any other region that shows a downward trend (which actually rather surprised me!). Winter in Antarctica (May – Sept) is the only time anywhere that shows a downward trend.
So the two takeaways are:
1) There is a clear, statistically significant upward trend over all.
2) What is special about Antarctic winters that makes them have an opposite trend to ALL other regions and ALL other seasons.
Tim, what I performed was a controlled experiment.
1) I stated a Hypothesis that if you control for the UHI, Water Vapor and choose low BI Weather Stations, you will find no warming.
2) I then identified the locations that according to the stated in advance hypothesis should show no warming.
3) I then collected the data and organized it in a manner for analysis.
4) I analyzed the data to see if the data supported the hypothesis.
5) The Hypothesis was not rejected.
Facts are, no one has an explanation as to why I was able to choose specific climate data that would show no warming. There are plenty of sites out there that share similar characteristics and they show no warming. What that proves to a real science is that the warming that you are observing is due to something other than CO2. If CO2 was the cause, all stations should show warming.
CiL,
Regarding #1:
UHI is a real effect. It is part of the global mean temperature. If you control or remove it you are removing part of the warming however small of an effect it has. Note that areas effected by UHI are small relative to the rest of the globe so we do expect the contribution to be small. The problem with UHI is not that it isn’t real (it is) or that it affects individual temperature measurements (it doesn’t). The problem is that it can bias a spatial average calculation if not handled properly. This bias actually cuts both ways. It can bias a spatial average calculation too high or too low depending on how the spatial average is performed, the timing of the UHI, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and many other factors.
Water vapor does not affect dry bulb temperature readings in any significant way. Nor does it affect the spatial averaging calculation. Therefore there is no need to control for it.
Regarding #2:
If you are selecting specific locations then either your hypothesis in #1 is not global or your test here is inadequate since the hypothesis of concern is global.
Regarding #3 and #4:
Base on prior comments your analysis is inadequate. It is inadequate because you cherry-pick two endpoints to draw your trendline and ignore everything in the middle. You also make no attempt discerning a signal (trend) from the noise (variability).
Regarding #5:
Based on my comment regarding #3 and #4 that is questionable. But it is moot because the hypothesis you are testing is NOT relevant to AGW. In that regard it does not matter if you can reject it or not. It has no impact on whether we should reject AGW or not.
bdgwx says:
” The problem with UHI is not that it isn’t real (it is) or that it affects individual temperature measurements (it doesn’t). The problem is that it can bias a spatial average calculation if not handled properly. This bias actually cuts both ways. It can bias a spatial average calculation too high or too low depending on how the spatial average is performed, the timing of the UHI, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and many other factors”
Yes that is the problem. Though biasing too low is almost certainly not a problem.
Further it is a problem that could be well addressed. Instead all we ever see are half-hearted attempts that appear either designed by an idiot or is an effort to intentionally not find the error.
This is an issue that could be addressed and perhaps gaps between records reduced. the problem is whoever is running the government at any given momment in time resists taking any risk of a government snafu being discovered under their watch
bill,
At least we can both agree that UHI and any potential impacts on the spatial averaging process should be researched further. It is never a bad thing to try different approaches to isolating the effect. And I do have to concede that you bring up good criticisms of Berkeley Earth’s approach. I too would like to see them use other methods.
Tim Folkerts says:
In statistics, one important concept is that the more data you have, the smaller signal you can detect.
———————-
Well actually Tim far more important than that is that you have a representative sampling of data. . . .not just by way of location but also in degree of accuracy.
CiL, do you have a link to a more complete description of your methods? It would be interesting to see how you ‘control’ and how you ‘select sites’.
Tim, please stop trolling.
This guy nicknamed ‘CO2isLife’ is either dishonest, or ignorant, or both.
*
1. Commenter barry shows us that according to UAH, the land parts of the Antarctic region show, since 1979, a trend of 0.09 C / decade.
A fact that anybody can see when looking at the bottom of the file regularly updated at UAH, and presented each month by Roy Spencer himself:
https://tinyurl.com/2h5w8uy5
There you clearly can see, among other trends (all expressed in C / decade):
SoPol Land Ocean
0.02 0.09 -0.01
*
2. Commenter Willard shows, in a discussion with CO2isLife, a link to barry’s comment:
https://tinyurl.com/4px2b2uc
*
3. Answer of this ‘worldwide renowned CO2 specialist’:
” Willard, thanks for posting that link. Everyone can now compare by graphics and your nonsensical trends and decide for themselves if they should trust their eyes or your nonsensical trend. You clearly have no background in statistics or science. ”
*
4. In other words: the ‘worldwide renowned CO2 specialist’ CO2isLife indirectly claims that
– the trend for the Antarctic land part (0.09 C / decade), published by Roy Spencer and his UAH team, is a nonsensical trend;
– Roy Spencer & team clearly have no background in statistics or science.
Yeah.
J.-P. D.
As life began for Flynn’s sockpuppets ‘Amazed’ and ‘Swenson’, it took us a bit of time to discover the puppetry.
Mais…les habitudes sont les habitudes, n’est-ce pas?
And after some dozens of comments, the good old stuff came up again (e.g. ‘putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer’ and the like, wording never used by anyone else before), not to forget Flynn’s permanent references to Lindzen and Tyndall.
It was easy to discover that: you need no more than to search, within Roy Spencer’s blog pages, for the appropriate keywords…
I guess it won’t take much time, and Minny will unveil his true origin.
J.-P. D.
You really have to be completely dense to believe that just because a trace gas like CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere, its effect there is also uniform, and is, by magic, completely independent of decisive factors, such as the latitudinal temperature gradient between the earth’s surface and its atmospheric layers.
Completely dense.
J.-P. D.
Bindy Says:
This guy nicknamed ‘CO2isLife’ is either dishonest, or ignorant, or both.
He posts the regression stats, statistically insignificant coefficients, as evidence.
I post the graphics so you can see with your own eyes who is dishonest, or ignorant, or both.
Here, I’ll post them again.
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
Who do you trust? Bindy or your eyes?
He continues on about these statistically insignificant trends.
“the trend for the Antarctic land part (0.09 C / decade), published by Roy Spencer and his UAH team, is a nonsensical trend;”
Once again, a trend for this kind of data is nonsensical. The R-Squared is 0.00, the variability dwarfs the size of the coefficient. Uptrends are a series of higher highs and higher lows. You can’t find that anywhere in most of these charts. You only get that is when you create a composite corrupted by the UHI and Water Vapor.
Simply take this chart over to a statistician and show them my and Bindy’s comments. Bindy most likely has a degree in modern art, and simply doesn’t understand math.
CO2isLife
Maybe you try to learn about statistics, before you arrogantly write about R^2 values.
R^2 is a measure of how good or bad a linear estimate is to predict values, nothing else.
And… to speak of a
‘composite corrupted by the UHI and Water Vapor‘
in the context of a time series resulting from the evaluation of O2’s microwave emission some kilometers over the Antarctic: that is really the dumbest blah blah I have ever read.
OMG…
Give it up, you make yourself more and more ridiculous.
J.-P. D.
Hall Monitor Bindidon continues his incessant Jr High level chanting role here of: move along folks nothing to see here.
I read upthread:
” An anomaly is not a temperature. Its a temperature anomaly. ”
One hardly could write something more evident: anomalies are numbers, departures from means of measured temperature (or sea level, sea ice extent, solar flux, etc etc) over a given period.
But nevertheless, anomalies keep some sort of correspondence to the values they were computed out.
This is best demonstrated by comparing UAH’s absolute temperatures with the anomalies such that both are relative to the same reference period (here for example: 1981-2010).
Starting from absolute values
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EbBQi-znfR5ywqScG3BOxGh2dPTL-rPb/view
we can display them as relative to their 1981-2010 mean (what only displaces each point by 263.96 K) and compare them with the anomalies published by Roy Spencer, where the annual cycle has been removed:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HXA8DeVKAuU_o2bpWcn1fYOKwWipZlvh/view
We clearly see that yes, anomalies aren’t temperatures, but that they very well keep in correspondence to them.
And we see also, that – oh surprise – the absolute temperatures and the anomalies constructed out of them have the same trend in the UAH data set (the difference is at the third place after the decimal point).
This clearly contradicts the stoopid claim that anomalies are a Warmista trick to make temperature trends higher than they are in reality.
That anomaly trends indeed are often higher than the absolute temperatures is due to the fact that when you remove the annual cycle (i.e., the seasonality) out of e.g. a monthly time series, all months have the same weight.
If now e.g. the winter months become increasingly warmer over time, you won’t detect that easily using absolute data; but you see it immediately in the anomalies.
J.-P. D.
This series of charts is a great spotlight for the truth:
South Pole Monthly Temperatures
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
1) No one with an ounce of common sense and honestly would argue that those charts are trneding up
2) The Kool-aid drinkers rush to discredit your eyes
3) The problem the world faces is that the people that can be convinced that those charts are in up-trends and prove CO2 causes warming are now in power
4) What good do you think people that can’t read a simple chart will be at making critical decisions
400k North Koreans died fighting to empower the government to solve all their problems. They fought and died so Kim Il Sung
https://external-preview.redd.it/XIxtu8pRtqbdOqGokKuQJHH_0lJucsTokN_jDvA1Y8w.jpg?auto=webp&s=b4d72d890984d8f9e76e9afd684954f8765ec4fe
Once people like that take power, we all pay the price. If you can convince people that 2 + 2 = 5, you can convince them of anything.
“There was never a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusade.”
– Sir Steven Runciman, 1954
Please show the data link for these values, CO2is Life.
How do we know it is South Pole data? Is it meant to be Antarctica, or a small area where the Pole actually sits? Or is it ‘SoPol’ per UAH 6.0, which is the land+ocean area between 60S and 85S?
You have castigated others for not showing enough work, and you show us a series of images with labels, no data provenance, and no clear idea of what the data actually encompass.
Please link us to the data so we can check what it is, and if the charts accurately relfect.
It is less than you have demanded of others, so I expect no less from you.
Let’s talk about religion.
The cargo cult religion called, greenhouse effect theory, purports
that Earth reflects about 30% of sunlight and emits like a blackbody
in a vacuum, giving the planet uniform or average temperature of about -18 C {255 K}.
It’s unclear to me whether it’s uniform or average temperature.
If it was an average temperature, then one have warmer tropics and very cold polar region.
It seems to me, no such planet could exist, but such a planet would quite useful to spacefaring civilization.
If you believed in a good/nice God that wanted humans to be spacefaring civilization such planet might be created.
But I believe there other ways to give planet which would be as useful.
The believers seem to regard it as an uniform temperature of 255 K seem to imagine a ocean would freeze in the tropics. This seems to be sympathetic to notion that without CO2 there could not be water vapor. But as mentioned before, one still has water vapor even if a H20 surface is -18 C.
I think in their hearts, they know it would have to average temperature rather than an uniform temperature, but due emotional reasons they can’t admit it.
And if it was average temperature rather than uniform temperature then their mental work of determining what tropical temperature would be. And rather people scoff at them for imagining the tropics would as cold as the poles.
But anyhow in such a fantastic world, what would the temperatures be in the polar region?
But such world is not meant to be, and one quickly proceeds to adding greenhouse gas, which changes to world into another world.
This world doesn’t have surface radiates like a black body into space.
But it seems radiate like blackbody surface somewhere up into the atmosphere. Obviously there isn’t blackbody surface somewhere in atmosphere. It suppose to be very difficult to explain in any speaking language but better if you follow the math. Or the common public must be given analogy for them to “understand”. Basically the analogy is it radiate higher in the atmosphere when the air is colder. But anyhow in the atmosphere is where Earth cools the most but in addition gases cooling, it’s accepted that clouds and particles of dust, also cool in the upper atmosphere. But the surfaces [land and ocean surface] only radiate about 40 watt per square meter on global average, directly into space.
Now cargo cult doesn’t explain anything important about world we are living in. Doesn’t address glaciation and interglacial periods or that we have be in an Ice Age from 34 million year and last couple million year have the coldest part of the 34 million year Ice Age.
We in an Ice Age because the entire ocean has average temperature of about 3.5 C, and this cold ocean has made world have low level of CO2. And that during last glaciation period the CO2 level fell to “dangerously low levels”. The cult was start before Plate Tectonics theory was widely accepted, that theory has useful in terms of understanding Earth climate.
Anyhow the cold ocean was counted as the surface of Earth or having any connection to “the greenhouse effect theory”.
A lately it’s been said that “more than 90% of all “global warming” has been warming this cold ocean”.
> Lets talk about religion.
From the hammer perspective, everything looks like a nail. From MC Hammers perspective, nothing can be touched. From all the hammers perspectives I know, everything is a nail one cant touch.
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sure, Mister “The cargo cult religion called, greenhouse effect theory.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
This evidence won’t go away. There is no way you can claim CO2 is causing warming.
South Pole Monthly Temperatures
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
CO2 is causing warming.
Willard says the laws of physics cease to exist in the S Pole.
https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8
This will be the legacy of the Green New Deal, a repeat of the 1930s when progressives turned a blind eye.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/kerry-admits-slave-labor-fuels-chinas-green-energy-supply-chain/
Progressives never learn.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6253002427001#sp=show-clips
Obama administration scientist says climate emergency is based on fallacy
https://nypost.com/2021/04/24/obama-admin-scientist-says-climate-emergency-is-based-on-fallacy/
> Willard says
No he does not.
You’re falling for the meteorological fallacy, Life.
Please desist.
No, Salby has shown that CO2 follows temperature in both short and long time scales. Bart keeps posting the evidence, crickets.
If CO2 was all there was in the atmosphere, Murry and Bart would have a point. Science is about correlation, but about explanation, and CO2 is the best explanation we got:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
> Science is about correlation
Not or not only about correlation.
There’s something with Roy’s parser that sucks.
“Bart keeps posting the evidence, crickets.”
You can see the rebuttals upthread. I think you have, and now you are fantasizing that nobody dared speak to Bsrt, who acquitted himself vacuously.
Roy’s parser sucks and CO2 is causing warming. Couldn’t be anything else.
If only Roy’s parser could suck CO2.
Willard, please stop trolling.
How many people will join Willard in denying the laws of physics?
https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8
Add your name to the list if you think these charts show an uptrend.
South Pole Monthly Temperatures
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
Are you a lack of warming denier? If you think there is an uptend, please explain why you see an uptrend, and just what you would need to see to say there is no uptrend.
Also, even if you believe there is warming there, why has the warming been so much less than the areas corrupted by the UHI and Water Vapor? No matter how you cut it, this evidence is catastrophic for the CO2 drives temperatures believers.
> even if you believe
Who you’re talking to, Life?
Hey, I can count bodies too:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human
Williard, I’m talking about those gullible fools that surrender their freedoms to totalitarian government believing they can make money grow on trees and control the climate. They empower fascists believing they are anti-fascists, which are one and the same.
Life,
I suppose it depends what you mean by totalitarian regime:
https://www.se.edu/native-american/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2019/09/A-NAS-2017-Proceedings-Smith.pdf
Tim F. –
“The *interior* of the earth is really of little concern for determining current *surface* conditions (land, ocean and lower atmosphere). Yeah, there is ~ 0.1 W/m^2 of geothermal energy coming up, but this has minimal impact on the surface temperatures”
Hi Tim,
If .1 w/m2 that actually HEATS the surface is insignificant,
How much less DWLWIR that doesnt?
If you can heat the surface with backradiation, you have just solved the worlds energy needs and will surely win a nobel prize..
Water, the so called ‘greatest greenhouse gas, COOLS the surface to the atmosphere, and COOLS the atmosphere to space.
Most IR leaving the Earth comes from h20 at the tropopause..
Water acts as a heat pump COOLING the surface..
PhilJ
” If you can heat the surface with backradiation… ”
The planet (and not: its surface) is heated because less of the energy it obtains from the Sun is directly redirected to space.
J.-P. D.
Hello Bindion,
As I pointed out earlier, the ‘planet’ is a hot ball of molten rock, metals and gasses, that has been cooling for 4+ billion years despite solar input, and that MUST continue to cool as entropy dictates..
thinking that the Sun has warmed up planets like Earth and mars to their current temps is ludicrous!
Hello Bindion,
As I pointed out earlier, The planet is a hot ball of molten rock, metals and gases that has been cooling for 4+ billion years despite solar input.
To assume that the Sun has warmed up planets like Venus and Earth to their current temps is ludicrous
> The planet is a hot ball of molten rock
That’s one theory. Alternative theories include: a hot potato, and a chicken.
We need a gravy theory.
Willard, please stop trolling…
“If .1 w/m2 that actually HEATS the surface is insignificant,
How much less DWLWIR that doesnt?”
You are correct that SWLWIR does not heat the surface. Heat, Q, is a process by which net thermal energy is transferred spontaneously from warmer areas to cooler areas. Back radiation does not do that. (And now I am pretty sure someone will quote that part without the next paragraph.)
What DWLWIR does is reduce the heat loss from the the surface. And this is a huge effect — 100’s of times bigger than geothermal input. And since temperatures rise and fall due to imbalances between (heat in) and (heat out), reducing (heat out) by 100+ W/m^2 is MUCH more significant than increasing (heat in) by 0.1 W/m^2.
“Most IR leaving the Earth comes from h20 at the tropopause..”
There is very little H2O as high up as the tropopause. So very little of the IR leaving the earth comes from water at the tropopause.
Some comes from the ground. some comes from H2O droplets in clouds. Some comes from H2O vapor well below the tropopause. Some comes from CO2 near the tropopause. (and then some assorted bit from dust, O3, CH4, etc)
Water, the so called greatest greenhouse gas, COOLS the surface
Water does many things. It cools the surface by evaporation. It warms the surface by DWLWIR. It warms the atmosphere by condensation of water vapor. It cools the atmosphere by emitting LWIR to the surface and to space. It warms the atmosphere by absorbing LWIR from the surface.
It’s always fun to see Folkerts arguing with himself.
First, TF says:
1) “Heat, Q, is a process by which net thermal energy is transferred spontaneously from warmer areas to cooler areas.”
TF got that correct. He should have stopped there. But, he’s addicted to his cult nonsense:
2) “What DWLWIR does is reduce the heat loss from the the surface. And since temperatures rise and fall due to imbalances between (heat in) and (heat out), reducing (heat out)…”
By 1), there is NO “heat in”. So TF is arguing with himself.
This concept of radiatively “slowing the cooling” is just more anti-science that originated with the AGW nonsense. As TF does above, they confuse “energy flow” with “heat transfer”. They confuse “conduction” with “S/B emission”.
Conduction involves the temperature of the “target”. S/B emission does NOT involve the temperature of the “target”.
They can’t understand, and they reject simple ice cube analogies. They reject reality. That’s why they’re idiots.
“S/B emission does NOT involve the temperature of the ‘target’.
Net emission DOES involve the temperature of the target.
Nate don’t be extrapolating physical properties from an equation to reality.
SB equation mathematics is solid but can be explained in multiple ways including the concept of aether whereby energy only flows in one direction via a difference in potential as does electricity. . . .another form of electromagnetism.
Photon theory was looked upon in an askance manner by Einstein saying:
“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Nate, do you realize how stupid that sounds?
There is NO “net emission” in the S/B Law.
As usual, you have no clue.
Once again our puppy gets refuted by the first paragraph of thy Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Hopeless Clint again needs to drop the class.
Clint proclaims: “There is NO ‘net emission’ in the S/B Law.”
Nate never mentioned S/B Law. He was actually juxtaposing S/B Law and net emission [of thermal radiation]. So he was contracting the two ideas, not equating them.
Now, it turns out there is a clear connection between the two ideas. The emission from a surface is given by the S/B equation
P/A = (sigma)(epsilon) T^4.
But if the surrounding are some temperature Ts, then the surroundings provide an incoming absorbed flux of
P/A = (sigma)(epsilon) Ts^4.
The net emission is
P/A = (sigma)(epsilon) (T^4 – Ts^4)
And exactly as Nate said, the net emission DOES depend on the temperature of the surroundings.
Clint says: “1), there is NO heat in. So TF is arguing with himself.”
(Heat in) is from the sun. And yes, it is real.
“S/B emission does NOT involve the temperature of the “target”.”
So you are agreeing that the emission from the atmosphere does NOT involve the temperature of the ground, so that emissions from the atmosphere are indeed absorbed by the ground, regarless of its temperature? Great — you are now well ahead of many of the ‘skeptics’!
Tim, please stop trolling.
A little bit about linear estimates, their statistical significance and their usefulness in prediction (what we could name their ‘predictivity’)
Of course: Roy Spencer has it plain right with an estimate of 0.09 C per decade for the land part of the South Pole area, even if the R^2 value associated to the estimate is at a horrifying level of… 0.012.
This simply means that you cannot predict anything out of the trend you compute for that region.
Note that UAH’s R^2 for the Globe is at 0.46: better, but nothing to be delighted of.
The difference between the two has much to do with the deviations from the mean, which are much higher at the Poles than for the Globe as a whole. The same holds for the standard error was well.
*
If we now compare the Arctic sea ice extent data in absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KpyoyUJGo_P9sUnj5jRzaao97iwRROvM/view
versus anomaly form
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BwaIAZDAG96tMZ8NupH-jCQx7pTUZnF1/view
we wonder how alarmistic the anomalies look compared with their absolute data origin.
But… like for UAH, they have the same trend: -0.55 Mkm^2 / decade.
What we see, however is that
– the standard error is much higher for the absolute variant:
(+- 0.12) than for the anomalies (+- 0.02)
AND that
– its R^2 value (0.05) is much lower than that of the anomaly variant (0.72!).
And it is in both cases the same data…
*
Moreover, the lower the observed period, the higher the difference in standard error and R^2.
For the period 2011-now, the absolute data has no statistically significant trend anymore (-0.71 +- 1.07) because the standard error is higher than the estimate itself; the R^2 value is ten times lower.
But for the anomaly variant, a reduction of the period also has similar consequences.
The trend is now -0.53 +- 0.17 Mkm^2 / decade, still OK; but the R^2 value is also divided by ten, with 0.07.
*
UHI? Water vapor?? Hmmmh.
Don’t trust too quick in the KISS method…
J.-P. D.
Dr. Spencer, you aren’t doing anyone any favors by publishing linear trends with R-Squareds of such low level. It allows deceitful people to make baseless claims using your numbers. Here is an example.
Of course: Roy Spencer has it plain right with an estimate of 0.09 C per decade for the land part of the South Pole area, even if the R^2 value associated to the estimate is at a horrifying level of… 0.012.
No real science would put any validity in such numbers, and it only serves to proves that dishonest people will grasp at any straw to keep their lie alive.
Once again, these facts aren’t going away.
South Pole Monthly Temperatures
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
No one can explain why I was able to easily identify the data sets and stations that would show no warming. I’m up well over 500 and adding to the list frequently.
“Of course: Roy Spencer has it plain right with an estimate of 0.09 C per decade for the land part of the South Pole area”
At last you clicked and saw the value.
Unfortunately, you don’t understand R2 and statistical significance.
R2 “indicates the proportion of variance in the dependent variable (Y) that is explained by the independent variable (X).”
This does not tell you if the slope is statistically significant, just how well the slope fits the variables. If the data is hihgly variable, it will have a poorer R2 value. A pefect R2 (a regression slope fit to a perfectly straight line of data points) will have a value of 1.
The F significance and the p-value tell you if the line is statistically singificant, as well as the upper and lower 95%.
I’ve marked all these on the regression chart in Excel in blue, including the value for the slope (which is per year, so multiply by 10 to get the per decade trend).
https://tinyurl.com/3bphu9yb
Not only is the F significance and the p value less than 0.05 – statistically significant – the upper and lower 95% are both positive (again multiply by 10 for decadal trend).
The regression output tells us that there is a 95% chance that the trend is between 0.01 and 0.16 C/decade.
There is a very small chance the slope is flat or negative, but the very low p value and F significance speak against that chance.
You can read up on how to intepret those statistics here. You don’t have to take my word for it.
https://tinyurl.com/uchuu69k
We can’t say what the trend is for sure, but we can say with good confidence that the trend is positive for the UAH6.0 Antarctic data from January 1979 to April 2021.
I admit to teasing Nate for some of his misleading comments by calling him the King of Obfuscation. I’m beginning to wonder if he is paid by Big Climate to monitor this blog and prevent the unwashed from abandoning the AGW cultists. His recent response to me provides an opportunity to point out how he does it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-690954
The background for that thread began here…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-681233
… and revived an ongoing debate involving the degree to which fossil fuel (FF) emissions are responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2. Drs. Berry and Harde published papers detailing the physics and math behind that hypothesis. Murry Salby is well known for ferreting out the supporting data. My contribution is a model that demonstrates how non-FF emissions, increasing in proportion to population growth, could be supplementing and complementing the rising CO2 along with the long term effects from global warming.
Nate’s first point is to claim that a relationship between temperature and CO2 is “Not JUST a correlation. It is a quantitative match, within uncertainty, when CO2 in atm, ocean, and land is tracked.” In an earlier comment he wrote, “The T causing CO2 has no identified plausible quantitative mechanism, while the reverse does. Emissions causing CO2 rise is a quantitative match.”
So far no explanation how the alleged quantitative match between emissions and CO2 rise becomes a quantitative CO2 causes temperature relationship, but not the reverse.
We’ll have to wait and see if Nate will come through with data to back it up.
His next point asserts temperature cannot drive CO2 because the “mechanism is completely unspecified.” What about outgassing as temperature increases? Nevertheless he claims the weakest type of correlation, two variables rising, is a quantitative match one way and JUST a correlation the other way.
The next obfuscation involves my observation that extreme variations of annual atmospheric CO2 concentrations easily contradicts the “Emissions causing CO2 rise is a quantitative match” meme.
“Sorry you cannot debunk conservation of mass. You are mixing up natural transfers between the reservoirs with ADDITIONS from an external source, which adds to all reservoirs.”
That is another head scratcher. Conservation of mass is a little hard to account for when those natural transfers are 20 times greater than FF emissions.
Lastly, Nate posts a Woods for Trees plot of smoothed temperature vs unsmoothed yearly increases in CO2. The correlation is there, but not readily obvious to the untrained eye. That’s obfuscation. Well done, Nate. Unfortunately for you, I didn’t ignore it.
> My contribution is a model
I too would welcome a model, Chic.
Where is it?
Nate has proven himself to be an idiot. He rejects reality. You can’t argue with an idiot without making yourself look like an idiot. They bring you down to their level. Consequently, I seldom even respond to them anymore. If I respond, it is only once or twice, to correct them, then I ignore them. Readers that are aware can figure it out from there.
Keep contributing, CB. But don’t waste your time trying to educate idiots and trolls. They can’t learn.
Clint R.
Maybe they can’t or won’t learn, but I try not to be that way.
Some of my time is wasted, yet studying the arguments here helps me learn and that’s my goal.
Chris Bowdrie
Several identified mechanisms by which increasing temperature can increase atmospheric CO2.
The first is solubility. The amount of gas dissolved in water decreases with increasing temperature. Thus as the ocean temperature increases, the amount of CO2 it can store decreases. The excess transfers to the atmosphere.
Cool the climate and CO2 goes the other way. A cooling ocean stores more CO2 and takes it up from the atmosphere.
Another is permafrost. In cool climates peat bogs take up CO2 as they grow. The mosses maintain an acid environment which discourages decay, so the bogs become carbon sinks. This decreases atmospheric CO2 in the run up to a glacial period. When it gets cold enough the bogs freeze and you get peat permafrost.
When you move into an interglacial the permafrost thaws, the peat decays and the carbon it stored becomes atmospheric CO2.The
Another is clathrates. Methanogenic bacteria make methane from CO2 in anaerobic environments such as tundra marshes. In a cooling climate it forms deposits of a methane/ice compound at low temperatures, another carbon sink.
When clathrates thaw, the methane is released and ultimately oxidized to CO2.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-advanced.htm
Thanks for your feedback as I will need to consider the ocean/atmosphere relationship to improve my CO2 model.
“Thus as the ocean temperature increases, the amount of CO2 it can store decreases.”
This holds for the ocean/air relationship, but maybe solubility of carbonate and bicarbonate may compensate. Don’k know offhand.
I appreciate your points on permafrost and clathrates. But why the link? I didn’t find any about those topics there.
“His next point asserts temperature cannot drive CO2 because the ‘mechanism is completely unspecified.’ What about outgassing as temperature increases? ”
Sure please go ahead and use outgassing to make a QUANTITATIVE prediction. You guys are never able to do that, because when you go thru any calculation (eg T-dependence of Henry’s Law) you will find that it is WAY WAY TO SMALL.
But do show us the calculation please.
“Nevertheless he claims the weakest type of correlation, two variables rising, is a quantitative match one way and JUST a correlation the other way.”
Yep exactly. When doing the comparison between T and rate-of-rise of CO2, you guys have nothing to offer but an arbitrary scaling factor.
ARBITRARY. Do you understand what that means? That means there is NO QUANTITATIVE prediction to match with observation. It is purely a correlation, and yes two things vaguely rising is a WEAK correlation. Because there is no sensible mechanism proposed.
Do you understand that is a problem?
Conservation of mass, on the other hand, provides a QUANTITAIVE prediction that can be compared to observation. When the comparison is made, again within uncertainty, the emitted mass is accounted for in the atmosphere, ocean, and land. And the increases match decade by decade for the full 60 y of Mauana Loa.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1959:2021corr13527.png
This is a non-trivial quantitative match, that again, is an key fact that you try to ignore.
Why?
” You guys are never able to do that, because when you go thru any calculation (eg T-dependence of Henrys Law) you will find that it is WAY WAY TO SMALL.”
Henry’s Law underestimates the effect of temperature on CO2 storage in the oceans because it only considers dissolved CO2.
In practice dissolved CO2 is only the first step. Much of the dissolved CO2 is converted by reversible equilibrium reactions to carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions.
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+
HCO3- = CO3– + H+
When you increase atmospheric CO2 the ocean takes up more CO2 from the atmosphere than Henry’s Law predicts.
When you increase ocean temperature the ocean loses more CO2 to the atmosphere than Henry’s Law predicts.
ET says: When you increase ocean temperature the ocean loses more CO2 to the atmosphere than Henry’s Law predicts.
To make that kind of claim you would need accurate data of ocean temperatures and there is no data set to complete your claim. If you go back and look at the ice core data, you will see that Henry’s Law does impact the atmospheric CO2, but it doesn’t explain all of the CO2 because sometimes CO2 looks to lead temperature, but rarely.
> there is no data set to complete your claim
Where have you checked?
And what does Henry’s Law have to do with ice?
There is much data available and ongoing research on the temperature ocean/air relationship as Willard’s comment implies.
“CO2 looks to lead temperature, but rarely.”
Agreed. In the paleoclimate record temperature usually leads CO2. The last 2 million years show CO2 changes following temperature changes as we move in and out of glacial periods.
There are some examples of CO2 leading temperature. They include Snowball Earth events, the Permian extinction, the PETM and the last 140 years.
Entropic,
The issue is that only the mixed layer, ML, of the ocean ~ 200 m thick, can reach equilibrium with the atmosphere quickly. This layer has much greater total carbon concentration than the atm, but only ~ the same total carbon mass as the atmosphere.
Thus only ~ 40 % of added atm CO2 ends up in the ocean on short time scales.
The ML carbon takes centuries to equilibrate with deep ocean.
Data and or model, please. Otherwise you are just obfuscating.
Nate is relying on the usual story:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
There’s a list of references at the end of the page.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Data and or model, please. Otherwise you are just obfuscating.”
This is what carbon cycle researchers have found.
For some reason you choose not to learn about it, while given many opportunities.
Where is your evidence they have it all wrong.
If I researched every one of your obfuscatory assertions, I’d have to quit my day job.
Then you are jumping the gun in claiming they have it all wrong.
Nate says:
The issue is that only the mixed layer, ML, of the ocean ~ 200 m thick, can reach equilibrium with the atmosphere quickly. This layer has much greater total carbon concentration than the atm, but only ~ the same total carbon mass as the atmosphere.
Thus only ~ 40 % of added atm CO2 ends up in the ocean on short time scales.
The ML carbon takes centuries to equilibrate with deep ocean.
===========================
This science is being contradicted more almost every day.
It may in fact take millennia for the deep ocean to ‘equilibriate’ via temperature or anything else with the ML.
However, in search of missing heat the mixing equation of the ML with the deep ocean becomes more robust almost daily. But even with that the deep ocean is such a huge carbon repository, making the mixed layer and the atmosphere appear to be in extremely short supply (due to biological activity despite human emissions).
So as more heat is deemed to move ever faster into the depths that means massive amounts of carbon laden water is exchanged.
The deposition of carbon into the layers of sediment at the bottom of oceans is largely due to biological activity. With human emissions biological activity is exploding and unfortunately due to a lack of human management of resources many stocks of important fish have been overfished world wide.
However, over the past 20 years that problem has transitioned from a huge amount of depletion and pinch on ocean biological activity has started to ease as conservation leaders and management has been making improvements. In this game excess CO2 is a blessing. The US is leading the world in resource management and pollution prevention. Huge improvements would be noted if the rest of the world were to catch up.
However, still other means of pollution have created dead zones in areas previously known to be of highest productivity. Managing industrial, agricultural, and residential run off of pollutants. This remains a big US problem, and the rest of the world is mostly worse and further behind.
Trying to manage CO2 is a huge waste of resources in comparison to the work that would provide the greatest rewards.
The only real arguments for containing the use of fossil fuels is to ensure the lowest level of non-CO2 pollutants and ultimately that it may be a finite resource.
Dirty coal burning and burning of natural vegetation that is predominate in the 3rd world are the biggest remaining energy producing fuel pollution problems.
Evidence to back up any of this wacky, wildly waving of hands?
Nate,
“…WAY WAY TO SMALL. But do show us the calculation please.”
I would like to see that calculation, because I can use it to improve my model. Nevertheless, temperature’s influence on ocean outgassing is not the only influence on rising CO2 other than FF emissions. Forest fires, deforestation, and vegetation decomposition contribute to CO2 growth and are to some extent affected by temperature and population growth.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oc6awoxoi3iztte/CO2%20vs%20population%20and%20ocean%20heat%20growth.png?dl=0
Your next point is about the problem of correlating temperature versus CO2 concentration. Correlation is not a useful measure of causation, but very useful for obfuscation as you well know. AFAIK “we guys” are not proposing the data that is available indicates a relationship other than the obvious vague tracking over long periods of time down to a few decades. But it is also obvious that temperature is not at all sensitive to CO2 on short time periods. But CO2 IS sensitive to temperature as the derivative of CO2 vs temperature shows.
Next you finally show a graph explaining what you mean by a conservation-of-mass, non-trivial, QUANTITATIVE match! What a fantastic correlation. Did I say correlation? Oh, you say it’s actually a…match?
This match, which BTW doesn’t have anything to do with CO2 driving temperature, is just a correlation. The FF emissions are twice the rise of total CO2, which includes the effects of non-fossil fuel emissions 20 times as much. So to give you homework, if there were no additional non-FF emissions, why not present a model like I have that matches the Mauna Loa data? This should help:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ocmvbbo71fplkr0/Modified%20Spencer%20model.xls?dl=0
Caveat: please don’t bring up the paucity of evidence for non-fossil fuel emission growth. My model simply shows that something other than FF emissions is needed to make a physically and realistically accurate correlation with the Mauna Loa data. Help me find the data and I’ll cite you as contributor to my paper!
“I would like to see that calculation, because I can use it to improve my model. Nevertheless, temperatures influence on ”
“AFAIK ‘we guys’ are not proposing the data that is available indicates a relationship other than the obvious vague tracking over long periods of time down to a few decades. ”
Bart says T explains everything. You said ‘Yes Bart; and proceeded to promote the idea for the next several days.
Why? Just to be a contrarian, I guess.
Again you guys have no sensible quantitative mechanism that you have proposed.
You continue to ignore the fact that natural emissions are 20
times greater than FF emissions. No correlation between FF emissions and CO2 rise can obscure that fact no matter how loudly you claim it is quantitative. Conversely, failure to show that natural emissions are quantitatively mostly responsible for the rise in CO2 does not make it untrue.
Ironically, by your own testimony, the evidence you need to show any effect of FF emissions on total CO2 in the last year due to the pandemic is obscured because of those natural emissions.
Bottom line, I agree with Bart that T explains everything. It is pointless for you to claim otherwise without evidence more convincing than our evidence that the derivative of CO2 tracks with temperature.
“Bottom line, I agree with Bart that T explains everything.”
Huh???!!! then what’s the point of your ‘population driven’ model??
Whats this supposed to mean?
“‘we guys’ are not proposing the data that is available indicates a relationship”
You are all over the place.
You got me there. Population is the human contribution to CO2 that can’t totally be attributed to temperature.
Good thing CO2 has little to no influence on temperature rise.
“You continue to ignore the fact that natural emissions are 20
times greater than FF emissions.”
And, honestly, I fail to see the logic that having 20x larger natural flows than FF emissions somehow proves that FF emissions cannot be responsible for rising CO2 levels.
What is the logical argument here?
Again, many counter examples found in nature.
Every day there is a LARGE natural flow of thermal energy into and out of my region, that causes the temperature to vary by ~ 30 degrees F.
But yet ALSO in the background the temperature is getting slightly warmer every day, by perhaps 0.25 degrees F, due to additional incremental energy input, as we approach summer.
The two effects are independent. The large daily natural fluctuation in temperature does not affect the small daily additions that cause the change of seasons.
You might be on the verge of a breakthrough. Keep reasoning with an open mind along these lines.
The temperature analogy you raised has ONE driving factor, solar input, causing diurnal variation caused by Earth’s rotation and seasonal variation caused by Earth’s revolutions around the sun.
Atmospheric CO2 has multiple inputs or driving factors. The one known the best quantitatively is FF emissions. We need better data on the others to make more definitive claims as to what is going on. Take off your blinders and help look for the additional evidence that will clear up the conundrum.
> Atmospheric CO2 has multiple inputs or driving factors.
Then why all this curve fitting, Chic?
Chic said: Bottom line, I agree with Bart that T explains everything.
Chic said: Good thing CO2 has little to no influence on temperature rise.
In your and Bart’s model what explains T?
ASR – OLR, at least for my model.
To a first approximation, isn’t that it for everyone’s model? Although, I can’t speak for everyone, let alone Bart on that.
I can’t speak for Bart, let alone everyone.
Right…but then what explains changes ASR and OLR?
https://okulaer.com/2021/03/27/testing-and-refuting-the-central-prediction-of-the-agw-hypothesis/#more-7212
“Taken together Id say this is evidence for some natural warming process contributing to warming since 2000, with enhanced LW loss due to a Lindzen-type Iris effect. Just my opinion.” Dr. Roy Spencer commenting on March 31, 2021 at okulaer.com
“The surface/troposphere temperature (Ts/Ttropo) should be observed to rise consistently over time”
I don’t think that’s true, Chic, and it’s quite clear that your source expects linearity.
Besides, imagine how contrarians would react if real climate scientists did something like this:
https://okulaer.com/2021/03/27/testing-and-refuting-the-central-prediction-of-the-agw-hypothesis
I predict we’d hear about it for at least two decades!
Willard, please stop trolling.
“My model simply shows that something other than FF emissions is needed to make a physically and realistically accurate correlation with the Mauna Loa data.”
Again, conservation of mass is satisfied already.
You have a desire that something other than FF emissions is NEEDED, but you havent SHOWN that.
I don’t think your conservation of mass argument counts for anything. Maybe you should reference where you made it before more convincingly or try again.
I don’t expect you to see how my model shows why FF emissions alone are inadequate to fit the Mauna Loa data. Either you don’t know spreadsheets or don’t understand the math or just plain don’t want to admit it is evidence that goes against the AGW cult dogma.
“admit it is evidence that goes against the AGW cult dogma.’
I use Excel A LOT in my work, making models of my own regularly.
But a model is a model. It is NOT evidence.
You need to try to emulate Copernicus and Galileo. First master the existing paradigm, in order to understand what its flaws are, then fix the flaws with a new model.
You are trying to skip the first and second steps. You need to learn more about the existing carbon cycle data and models. Only then can you point out what the flaws are, and attempt to fix them.
To my knowledge, which may be limited since I don’t spend all day here, you have never posted your own model. If a model is not evidence (and I agree they are not definitive), then wht other evidence do you have that 1) the rise in CO2 is caused by FF emissions and 2) the 60-year rise in CO2 caused the rise in temperatures?
Where is your mastery of any paradigm that has fixed any flaws?
Does anyone have a CO2 model better than the one Dr. Spencer posted, which I fixed?
Lots of citations in that piece:
https://eos.org/features/the-future-of-the-carbon-cycle-in-a-changing-climate
It mentions Fluxnet:
https://fluxnet.org/
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The FF emissions are twice the rise of total CO2”
Yes, as you know very well, a portion of it must go into the ocean, and land. The rise in the ocean is well documented.
“which includes the effects of non-fossil fuel emissions 20 times as much.”
Nope. These are not ADDITIONS from an external source. These are just cyclical transfers between the reservoirs.
The rise in CO2 concentration is documented, but where it came from is not. If there isn’t data already showing non-FF emission rise or studies ongoing, there will eventually have to be. Any honest scientist, with an open mind would agree.
All your recent posts confirm my earlier assessment:
Lets just stop pretending that facts actually matter to you guys.
“Any honest scientist, with an open mind would agree.”
Your idea of an open mind, is being open to things similar to Astrology and Flat Earthism, things that are neither fact-based nor logical.
Honest scientists are led by evidence and logical reasoning to the truth.
“If there isnt data already showing non-FF emission rise or studies ongoing, there will eventually have to be.”
This illustrates that you guys are led by BELIEF, and need no evidence or logic to continue to believe it.
Without model data that contradicts my hypothesis, you are simply obfuscation seasoned with blah, blah, blah.
“Without model data that contradicts my hypothesis”
Just as I don’t need to refute that the standard model of the spherical Earth is all wrong, I don’t need to refute your belief that standard carbon cycle science is wrong.
Because Im waiting for YOU to show that it has flaws, and what they are. You havent done that.
As discussed above, the fact that natural flows are larger than anthro inputs, is not an actual flaw.
Nate I understand how science works. An example might be some scientists look at the stars and form an opinion that the universe is timeless and infinite and thus there was no creation. That information spreads like wildfire through the science community.
Then some enterprising scientist discovered the red shift and the Big Bang Theory was created. However the does fall a little short of proving that God created the Universe.
What we have seen from the changes occurring in estimates of deep ocean exchange that high uncertainty exists both for heat transiting into the deep ocean and the obvious acceleration of carbon release into the atmosphere that would accompany that higher level of exchange.
But there are a lot of political scientists posing as climate scientists who want to have their cake and eat it too.
I understand your ‘science’, Bill. Like Flat Earthers,
flimsy contrarian ‘evidence’ is accepted on faith, as if it is certain.
While you have a very high barrier to accepting evidence in support of the standard Earth model. There is always some excuse given to dismiss it. The photos are fake, NASA is lying, it’s politics, high uncertainty exists,..
The carbon cycle was studied and understood over > 60 y of research quietly done in background. There was no Fox News or blogs telling people to politicize it before the 1990s. So your imagined political influence over it has a causality problem.
“Im waiting for YOU to show that it has flaws, and what they are.”
The flaw is that the appearance of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be modeled without additional input from natural sources OR, as I have just discovered, without a change in the retention time from 3.6 to 4.5 years. This flaw has to be investigated experimentally. Unless you have better data and models, you are up a river without a paddle.
Nate says:
I understand your ‘science’, Bill. Like Flat Earthers,
flimsy contrarian ‘evidence’ is accepted on faith, as if it is certain.
————————–
Your credibility has dropped zero Nate as your strawman building has turned into an obsession. . . .to a point of being a bald faced liar.
You start to redeem yourself if you state what flimsy contrarian evidence I accepted on faith. But you won’t as liars seldom have an excuse.
——————————
—————————–
—————————–
——————–
Nate says:
While you have a very high barrier to accepting evidence in support of the standard Earth model.
—————–
Ha ha ha! What is a ‘standard’ earth model. Is that something determined by fiat?
——————————
—————————–
—————————–
——————–
Nate says:
There is always some excuse given to dismiss it. The photos are fake, NASA is lying,
———————–
What photo did I say was fake Nate. Can you answer that one? Usually liars can’t answer.
NASA lies? NASA is a government agency it doesn’t speak.
30 years of working as a private contractor tells me that it has to be a rare event for a career civil service employee to lie. I say rare because it has never happened in my dealings which are extensive.
I can’t say anything even remotely close to that about those with dual loyalties filling decision making positions while maintaining a non-independent loyalty to another organization. Here lying is profuse as these persons are under peer and job pressure to say what is beneficial to the institution they work for.
But I don’t consider that NASA lying thats a non-independent 3rd party politically put in place through some kind of appointment process or earmarked special interest legislation.
——————————
—————————–
—————————–
——————–
Nate says:
it’s politics,
————————-
Indeed where ever decisions are made by non-independent persons put in place via appointment or earmarked special interest legislation. . . .yes politics is dominant. If you doubt that you must have been asleep during history classes.
——————————
—————————–
—————————–
——————–
Nate says:
high uncertainty exists,..
——————-
If you are unaware of that fact Nate, quite simply you don’t know shiit about climate.
Uncertainty has the main focus of my entire career. But don’t take if from me. As Dr Curry, Lindzen, Happer, or any of dozens of other highly acclaimed climate scientists.
——————————
—————————–
—————————–
——————–
Nate says:
The carbon cycle was studied and understood over > 60 y of research quietly done in background. There was no Fox News or blogs telling people to politicize it before the 1990s. So your imagined political influence over it has a causality problem.
——————————
Now you are really parading out your naivete. FF emissions have been a political issue for far longer than 60 years.
For any science issue where high levels of uncertainty exists by the time papers start proclaiming the science is settled the political coup has already been accomplished.
“The flaw is that the appearance of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be modeled without additional input from natural sources OR, as I have just discovered, without a change in the retention time from 3.6 to 4.5 years.”
You keep stating this desire, hope, wish, as if it is already a fact. Its not.
It HAS been modeled, and unlike yours, the models are informed by observations.
Your ignorance of how that is done is a choice, it is willful ignorance.
Again, more evidence that facts simply don’t matter to you guys.
Bill revises history to suit his beliefs, and his credibility sinks to new lows.
Ed Berry and Murry Salby explain how IPCC models fail. Can you explain why not?
> Ed Berry and Murry Salby explain how IPCC models fail.
Wut.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Ed Berry and Murry Salby explain how IPCC models fail. Can you explain why not?”
Salby is an expert obfuscator and fraud.
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
Berry and Salby erroneously assume that the carbon cycle must be SIMPLE, with a single reservoir model. Berry fails to understand the BASIC difference between adjustment time and residence time.
They failed to learn about the previous 60 years of Carbon Cycle research, that shows the its complexity, and need for multi-box models.
Just imagine SpaceX starting up their rocket company by failing to learn what others had figured out about rocket science in the previous 60 years!
More Salby deception explained:
https://skepticalscience.com/salbyratio.html
https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
Don’t forget:
http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/08/salby-demolishes-agw-theory.html
That does it. Now I’m convinced that you are a paid troll as well as as a deceiver par excellence. That link has been rolled out so many times, I could cite its talking points from memory. It’s perfectly ok when you pull the same time dissembling tricks, but not when Salby does it.
Seriously, nothing written there invalidates Salby’s arguments to anyone understanding them.
The King of obfuscation, have you no shame?
You’re peddling Murry’s crap, Chic.
So I duly submit you’re in no position to whine about shilling.
“Seriously, nothing written there invalidates Salbys arguments to anyone understanding them.”
So, straight up fraud right in front of your nose is perfectly ok with you, as long as it works in your favor???
Further evidence that your doing fundamentalist religion, not science.
Or maybe you are just a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry?
“That link has been rolled out so many times”
Just as many times as you have brought up Salby and his fraudulent, crappy analysis!
Seriously, you guys place a very high added value on anyone being a contrarian, who STICKS IT to the IPCC, regardless of the poor quality of their arguments.
There is no fraud when some unremarkable blogger obfuscates a legitimate scientific argument and another nincompoop doubles down on the obfuscation in a comment on another blog. To show fraud, you need to indicate how the data has been tampered with, not just presented in a way you don’t like. I have no problem with the way Had-crut plots data, only the way the data is fabricated.
The difference between what you roll out and what I bring up is that I have a model which corroborates Salby’s analysis along with references of similar work done by Berry, Harde, and others. All you got is kiss-ass regurgitation of AGW talking points.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you appear blind in comparison.
> some unremarkable blogger
TomC knows how to make an argument, Chic.
You don’t.
” blogger obfuscates a legitimate scientific argument”
Obfuscate means – point out the flaws in??
They are very clear.
He shows actual C14 data, but misrepresents the equilibrium level as occurring in 1962. He then finds that the Bomb C14 has essentially reached equilibrium in 15 years, which agrees with his premise that e-time is short.
But the actual equilibrium is much lower, and occurs in the mid 50s. And this level has still not been reached yet in 60 years!
His premise is not supported, as he claimed.
He is giving scientific talk, and he completely misrepresents the data!
You may be unaware that that is a big NO-NO in science.
That should bother you. Why doesn’t it?
The other important point being that 14C ratio depletion times are not equivalent to mass depletion times. Salby criticizes the Bern model’s prediction that CO2 mass sticks around for a long time by showing how fast the bomb spike decays. He seems to be completely unaware that the Bern model results he’s seeing are for mass depletion and not for 14C ratio depletion which are two completely different topics with very different timescales. Berry and Harde seem to be equally confused in this regard as well. Nevermind that I don’t understand the focus on the Bern model since it is but one of several carbon cycle models.
“I have a model which corroborates Salby’s analysis along with references of similar work done by Berry, Harde, and others.”
Here is another big problem with this analysis.
You guys believe the e-time for a disequilibrium of CO2 to relax, is short ~ 4 years.
Suppose the disequilibrium is driven by temperature and out-gassing as you and Salby suggest. The temperature rose to a plateau that was present from 1940s to 1970s.
With the warming in the 1930s, the land-ocean reservoirs were knocked out of equilibrium. What is the e-time of the resultant outgassing? It should be the same as the e-time for any disequilibrium, 4 years.
Thus after a decade, emission of CO2 from these warmed reservoirs, will have ceased!
Of course the CO2 rise did not cease in 1950, rather it accelerated its rise thru the 60s and 70s.
Thus the temperature-driven CO2 rise makes no sense.
I’ll get to your Salby disinformation in a new thread. But first, e-time has nothing to do with reservoirs ceasing to do what they do. E-time is level/inflow which is about 420ppm/100ppm/yr or 4 years.
“You guys believe the e-time for a disequilibrium of CO2 to relax, is short ~ 4 years.”
Disequilibrium means a loss or lack of equilibrium or stability. That does not mean e-time. Relax is what I do when I read Swenson’s replies to Willard. Stop using vague and unscientific terminology. Otherwise you are obfuscating.
“Suppose the disequilibrium ….”
Suppose you quit inventing stuff.
“Thus after a decade [of outgassing during the 1930s], emission of CO2 from these warmed reservoirs, will have ceased!”
No, the rate of CO2 appearance (deltaCO2/dt) should slow, but outgassing continues because temperatures were continually increasing since 1910. Remember, temperature drives CO2.
What is deltaCO2/dt during these years? Because we have no CO2 data until 1959, we need my model and some common sense to answer that question. There was an increase in deltaCO2/dt from 1959 to 1980 and then almost no change to slightly negative deltaCO2/dt up to the present. This can be interpreted as a delayed long-term effect of temperature on CO2 of at least 20 years. But I cannot fathom any CO2 scenario causing temperatures corresponding to Had-crut data.
“But first, e-time has nothing to do with reservoirs ceasing to do what they do.”
Doesnt sound like anything I claimed.
“Disequilibrium means a loss or lack of equilibrium or stability. That does not mean e-time. Relax is what I do when I read Swensons replies to Willard. Stop using vague and unscientific terminology. Otherwise you are obfuscating.”
I never said disequilibrium ‘means e-time’.
Nothing vague about what I said, if you understand the meaning of chemical equilibrium.
If you want the e-time for CO2 added to the atmosphere to reach equilibrium with the ocean in an e-time of 4 years, then the reverse is also true.
If the ocean is in disequlibrium because its T rose by say 0.2 C, then it has extra PCO2 relative to its new equilibrium. It will also take 4 years to outgas this excess into the atmosphere.
“No, the rate of CO2 appearance (deltaCO2/dt) should slow, but outgassing continues because temperatures were continually increasing since 1910. Remember, temperature drives CO2.”
No T were NOT continually increasing since 1010. All data sets show the plateau from 40s-70s.
Sorry, you dont get to change the data to suit your hypothesis. Like everyone else you have to live with the reality that we have!
Besides, skeptics like Bill constantly harp on this plateau.
“This can be interpreted as a delayed long-term effect of temperature on CO2 of at least 20 years.”
Again with no specified mechanism or theory, you can conveniently think it will do do whatever you want!
“What is deltaCO2/dt during these years? Because we have no CO2 data until 1959, we need my model and some common sense to answer that question.”
“There was an increase in deltaCO2/dt from 1959 to 1980”
Yep with no corresponding increase in T.
“then almost no change to slightly negative deltaCO2/dt up to the present. ”
Not seeing anything like that,
except Pinaatubo
1991 -1993
https://tinyurl.com/4ewn2y97
“Sorry, you dont get to change the data…”
No need for me to change the data. But I need to walk this back “then almost no change to slightly negative deltaCO2/dt up to the present.” No change in acceleration doesn’t mean the deltaCO2/dt isn’t still increasing.
“Not seeing anything like that….”
Try this: https://tinyurl.com/ekdj9tvz
The period of a slight drop in temperatures between 1945 to 1975 separates two periods of increasing temperature. Meanwhile atmospheric CO2 rise (deltaCO2/dt) increased (accelerated) between 1959 and 1980 while temperatures dropped, decelerated and remained flat (no acceleration) until 1990 while temperatures rose, and accelerated again to its 1975 rate. Increasing deltaCO2/dt has been relatively constant since 2005 during a periods of steady temperature rise and escalating burning of fossil fuels.
The long-term data is only logically explained by a delayed temperature effect on CO2. IOW, the only explanation for the hiatus in deltaCO2/dt acceleration between 1980-1990 is the cooling period prior to 1975.
The short-term correlation between deltaCO2/dt and temperature indicates temperature drives it.
If anyone wants to refute that analysis, they need to come up with better arguments than Nate, Willard, Curtis, and Marsupial.
“I never said disequilibrium means e-time.”
I was going to ignore it, but I cannot pass up pointing out another of your obfuscations. Doesn’t dishonesty bother you?
You wrote, “You guys believe the e-time for a disequilibrium of CO2 to relax, is short ~ 4 years.”
Now you could “say” that you never “said” it, because you only wrote it. I wouldn’t put it past a deceiver like you.
To be clear, disequilibrium is any loss of equilibrium or stability. Use of e-time requires some context unless you would be doing it for the purposes of obfuscation.
bdgwx your reply is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-702029
Two more replies to Nate here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-701995
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-702024
“Meanwhile atmospheric CO2 rise (deltaCO2/dt) increased (accelerated) between 1959 and 1980 while temperatures dropped, decelerated and remained flat (no acceleration) until 1990 while temperatures rose, and accelerated again to its 1975 rate. Increasing deltaCO2/dt has been relatively constant since 2005 during a periods of steady temperature rise and escalating burning of fossil fuels.”
At least a more honest assessmemt.
“The long-term data is only logically explained by a delayed temperature effect on CO2.”
Or even more logically, by anthro emissions, not by temperature.
“IOW, the only explanation for the hiatus in deltaCO2/dt acceleration between 1980-1990 is the cooling period prior to 1975.”
Hiatus? All I see is lots of noise on an other wise linear rise, but for the 1991-1995 period of Pinatubo.
A cooling or plateau period of 30 y, then a 10 y hiatus in acceleration?
Thats quite a stretch, but try to show it in a spreadsheet. What model would you use?
“The short-term correlation between deltaCO2/dt and temperature indicates temperature drives it.”
And why don’t short-term effects show any delay whatsoever??
Consistent with short e-time, eg 4 y, for any out-gassing caused by Temperature.
‘I never said disequilibrium means e-time.’
“I was going to ignore it, but I cannot pass up pointing out another of your obfuscations. Doesnt dishonesty bother you?
You wrote, ‘You guys believe the e-time for a disequilibrium of CO2 to relax, is short ~ 4 years.'”
Now you could ‘say’ that you never ‘said’ it, because you only wrote it. I wouldnt put it past a deceiver like you.”
This is absurd. Im talking basic chemical equilibrium, and you seem to be working overtime to be confused about it. I don’t know if you are being a moron, or simply trolling.
A ‘disequilibrium’ in my usage means ‘an out of equilibrium situation’, eg. an excess of CO2 in a reservoir above its equilibrium level. Could be caused by an input of CO2, or a T jump of the reservoir, shifting the equilibrium level.
Make sense? Yes/No. Why not?
That excess of CO2 in the reservoir will relax to the equilibrium level with an exponential decay with a time constant (e-time) of say 4 years.
Make sense? Yes/No. Why not?
If I’m a moron, why are you spending so much effort obfuscating to avoid accepting the reality that your AGW paradigm is flawed.
You can define disequilibrium any way you want, you DIDN’T! So don’t try to make sense of anything retroactively and call me a moron or a troll.
Start a new thread with your last two paragraphs. Otherwise, let’s close this thread.
Chic,
You are now acting like a moron who does not understand basic chemical equilibrium concepts, e-time, relaxation, outgassing, etc that have been discussed here countless times.
If you understood any of these things then this post
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-698699
should have been absolutely clear. By now it has been clarified several more times.
Now you are clearly just trolling.
Basically you are frustrated that have no good arguments to defend the indefensible T-driven CO2 rise, and thus nothing left to do but deny, toss ad-homs and troll.
Pathetic.
You know what’s pathetic?
Rather than improving your effort to resolve the CO2/temperature problem like a stand-up scientist, you resort to doing what you are accusing me of.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-704952
bdgwx,
Your last post was a good starting point for discussing atmospheric carbon cycle issues. You accepted my model and the classic RT and AT definitions inherently contained within.
We agree on the roughly four year RT for CO2, but I wouldn’t extend that any further than the atmosphere. At this point I would consider that an average RT for the atmosphere only. We also agree that human fingerprints would drop out relatively fast given an end to FF consumption. That leaves at least the following issues to resolve.
1) Are there multiple ATs?
2) What data supports multiple ATs?
3) What is the % CO2 rise that humans are responsible for due to the production of FF emissions?
Anything else?
1. Probably yes. There are 3 big factors in play. 1) The timing of the carbon release, 2) the size of the carbon release, and 3) different carbon reservoirs have different equilibration times. For 1 the paleoclimate record suggests that slow releases eventually lead to slow adjustment times and vice versa. The PETM release is thought to only last a few thousand years while the glacial releases lasted tens of thousands of years. For the contemporary release about 50% is being scrubbed out which likely means the adjustment time is relatively fast. For 2 it is believed that small releases adjust out quickly while large releases adjust out slowly. This is likely due to the bottleneck effect where fast uptakes saturate and have to wait for the slow uptakes. For 3 biosphere uptake is 1-100 years, ocean uptake is 10-1,000 years, sea floor uptake is 1,000-10,000 years, and igneous rocks uptake is 10,000-1,000,000 years. See box 6.1 in IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 6 for details.
2. IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 6 box 6.1 lists several references.
3. Per the Global Carbon Project from 1850 to 2019 about 68% of the rise is due to FF emissions while 32% is due to land use changes. From 2010-2019 it is 85% and 15% respectively.
> Per the Global Carbon Project from 1850 to 2019 about 68% of the rise is due to FF emissions while 32% is due to land use changes. From 2010-2019 it is 85% and 15% respectively
It should be noted that the uncertainties lead us above 100%, for it’s clearly possible that anthropogenic contributions overcompensates for the natural trend:
https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-than-all.html
Da Paws is a clear example of that phenomenon.
Whoa! hold on there Willard!! how have you accounted for the approximate 800 year delay from peak warming to peak carbon? What did you do? Squash 800 years into one month?
Here’s a pro-tip, Bill:
If you’re to JAQ off, try to make sense.
Pro tip for you Willard, if you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Whataboutism leaves me cold, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
Didn’t mean to ignore you. So many projects, so little time.
So you and Willard are claiming zero % of the CO2 rise is from temperature’s affect on outgassing and the extraneous influence of population growth not accounted for in land use changes?
What model(s) correlates with Mauna Loa data using only FF and land use change CO2 emissions? Use as many adjustment times as necessary.
Correct. 0% of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is caused by outgassing. We know this because both the biosphere and hydrosphere are net sinks. They are taking extra carbon mass; not giving it away.
There is no model that correlates well with CO2 concentration that uses only FF emissions and land use change emissions. To correlate will observed concentrations models must consider both the net uptake by the land and net uptake by the ocean.
Refer to https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3269/2020/ for details. Per table 8 the mass budget is within 20 GtC for the cumulative changes in all reservoirs from 1750-2019. And it has a near perfect balance from 1959-2019. And per figure 3 you can see that the timing matches very well too.
“We know this because both the biosphere and hydrosphere are net sinks.”
We do not know that. It is a circular argument. And, one of the dumbest to ever come down the pike.
> It is a circular argument.
Show me.
The simplistic argument is that, since the sum total of all anthropogenic inputs since the industrial age began is greater than the observed rise, the rise must be due to them.
Implicit in this argument is that all other inputs are in steady state, neither rising nor falling. But, that is where the circularity arises. The rise is due to anthropogenic inputs because other inputs are in steady state, and other inputs are in steady state because the rise is from anthropogenic inputs.
There is no basis for the steady state assumption except for absolute faith in unverifiable ice core records which appear to indicate a steady state prior to the industrial revolution.
Obviously, A) records which cannot be verified should not be accepted as absolute proof, and B) past performance is not indicative of future results.
Moreover, other CO2 proxies indicate greater variability. The ice cores are chosen as authoritative because they support the narrative. More circularity.
The atmospheric level of CO2 is established by a dynamic balance between sources and sinks. The sinks become more active when the level rises, and less so when the level falls. That is how the equilibrium level is established. It doesn’t just happen.
In such a situation, an observed rise will always be less than the sum total of all additional inputs. If the sinks are very active, then inputs are promptly removed, and the only thing left is a small residual. In this case, the FF inputs can only account for a very small portion of any observed rise, and the rest of it must necessarily come from the other inputs.
Bart said: We do not know that.
Yes, we do. Don’t assume your own lack of information on the topic is equally matched by the rest of us.
Bart said: In such a situation, an observed rise will always be less than the sum total of all additional inputs. If the sinks are very active, then inputs are promptly removed, and the only thing left is a small residual.
In this case sources (including Efos and Eluc) are +10 GtC/year while sinks are only +5 GtC/year now. Therefore Gatm is +5 GtC/year.
Bart said: In this case, the FF inputs can only account for a very small portion of any observed rise, and the rest of it must necessarily come from the other inputs.
Because sink rates are a substantial fraction of the mass in the atmosphere this means the transit/exchange/residence time of molecules in the atmosphere is small at about 4 years. This means specific molecules drop out of the stock. But since source rates are equally substantial this means those molecules are simply exchanged. The result is that molecular fingerprints deplete quickly without significantly changing the total mass.
Efos + Eluc accounts for 700 GtC of mass added to Gatm, Socean, and Sland.
If you think X% of the 700 GtC did not go into Gatm, Socean, and Sland then 1) tell us where you think that X% went and then 2) tell us which source reservoir you think X% came from to account for the mass increase in Gatm, Socean, and Sland.
No, you don’t. You do not have full information, just selected bits, and you fill in the rest with assumptions.
“But since source rates are equally substantial this means those molecules are simply exchanged. The result is that molecular fingerprints deplete quickly without significantly changing the total mass.”
Let’s consider an analogy. Go to your kitchen sink and partially close the drain so that when you turn on the faucet, the water level starts rising until it reaches an equilibrium level such that pressure drives the water out at the same rate it is coming in.
This is the same situation in kind.
Now, turn the faucet up just a bit, say increase the flow by 3%. Wait a few hours. Has your sink overflowed? Has the level risen anywhere near the sum total of all the extra water you put in?
The answer is, no. The sensitivity of this particular system is 2, i.e., if you increase the input flow rate by 3%, you will increase the steady state level by 6%, and no more.
So, if you see that the level has increased by 50%, you can be assured that something changed, e.g., the drain got clogged. It did not come about because you increased the input flow by 3%.
Bart said: The answer is, no. The sensitivity of this particular system is 2, i.e., if you increase the input flow rate by 3%, you will increase the steady state level by 6%, and no more.
In that case the reservoir above the kitchen sink in which the facet is connected to will start losing mass since its outflow rate increased due to opening the facet valve below.
Bart said: So, if you see that the level has increased by 50%, you can be assured that something changed, e.g., the drain got clogged. It did not come about because you increased the input flow by 3%.
In that case the reservoir below the kitchen sink in which the drain is connected to will start losing mass since its inflow rate has now decreased due to the clog in the drain above.
“No, you dont. You do not have full information, just selected bits, and you fill in the rest with assumptions.”
This is exactly opposite the case.
We have a physical source for the excess CO2 that explains the rise.
You have no physical source at all that explains the rise. No source you can identify that is losing CO2.
You reject the piece of the puzzle that explains twice the amount of the rise, and conjecture that some other, unknown source is responsible.
Not the ocean because they are gaining CO2. Not the biota because the Earth is ‘greening.’
The physical evidence supports anthro rise.
And then we get to isotopes and other corroborating lines of evidence. Tabled together, they support fossil-fuel burning, not volcanoes, not ocean outgassing, not dying biota, as the source.
No, you’ve got it exactly the wrong way around.
“Implicit in this argument is that all other inputs are in steady state, neither rising nor falling.”
No, this is not an implicit assumption at all. It is a tested proposition.
Ocean CO2 measurements, isotopoic ratios etc etc.
Why would you construct a false narrative about circular reasoning, as if whole branches of research don’t exist?
Whatever the motive, it is no doubt the same one that leads you to reject all that research when you remember it exists.
> The rise is due to anthropogenic inputs because other inputs are in steady state, and other inputs are in steady state because the rise is from anthropogenic inputs.
Citation needed.
This is pathetic. I might as well spend my time arguing with nutballs about whether the Moon spins on its axis.
I notice those guys aren’t around anymore.I suppose Dr. Spencer kicked them off. Good move.
Your emoting is duly noted, Bart.
Please provide a citation so we can trace back your strawman.
The law of CoM is as powerful as the law of CoE. It forces us to consider but only a narrow subset of possibilities for how the climate system works. The hypothesis that the atmospheric increase in CO2 is due to a clogged drain so to speak can be tested by measuring carbon mass changes in the reservoirs connected to the other end of that drain. If we observe that the mass is increasing in those reservoirs then we know the clogged-drain hypothesis won’t work.
“Implicit in this argument is that all other inputs are in steady state, neither rising nor falling. ‘
Nope. Strawman.
Easy to find papers analyzing how the effects of changes in the ocean temperature, cycles, upwelling, the thermohaline current, on atm Co2.
Of course, if you don’t bother to look, they are never seen.
bdgwx,
“Don’t assume your own lack of information on the topic is equally matched by the rest of us.”
That seems a bit arrogant of you to be speaking for the rest before any of your cases has been proved.
I don’t see a model associated with the Global Carbon Budget 2020. However, I don’t contest the numbers. In fact, within experimental error, my numbers are the same as theirs.
I also discovered the exact same numbers can be generated by two extreme model assumptions. My current model assumes that the removal rate constant (1/RT) remains constant forever and that natural emissions gradually increase with time. The other extreme assumes that natural emissions remain constant while the rate constant gradually decreases (increasing residence time). It could easily be a combination of the two. I’ll post the spreadsheets after cleaning them up.
I still think Salby, Harde, Berry, Bart and I are right. All I can say is “you guys” don’t have a good enough model or enough supporting data to prove us wrong. More good science and data needs to be done along the lines of what Salby did and Ed Berry is doing. Their work goes beyond simple correlations and mass balance arguments by using proper physics.
barry.
“You have no physical source at all that explains the rise.”
This is a non-starter. Our whole argument is based on the hypothesis that the sinks are also sources that have not been constant as your ilk keeps asserting without evidence. Those sources can increase with time without violating conservation of mass.
“Why would you construct a false narrative about circular reasoning, as if whole branches of research dont exist?”
Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Bart’s accusation is correct. Without evidence that natural sources remain constant is the only way you can argue that all CO2 rise is from anthropogenic input.
> Without evidence that natural sources remain constant is the only way you can argue that all CO2 rise is from anthropogenic input.
That argument presumes that 100% means all.
It does not:
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
Is it just Willard or are the rest of yous conflating temperature rise with CO2 rise?
“Nope. Strawman.”
Dope, obfuscation man.
Bart means over the long haul. “You guys” are arguing that natural sources haven’t increased since caveman days. We are simply arguing there have been increases contributing the FF emissions.
> We are simply arguing there have been increases contributing the FF emissions.
Arguing is a strong word here, Chic.
All we got so far is some curve fitting over a shorter period than the one you’re alluding to right now and a screenshot of a spreadsheet that you somehow portray as a model.
Nate says:
Easy to find papers analyzing how the effects of changes in the ocean temperature, cycles, upwelling, the thermohaline current, on atm Co2.
Of course, if you dont bother to look, they are never seen.
————————-
Thats really a moronic response Nate. Of course there are a lot of papers speculating and offering evidence of variable rates of deep ocean/ML exchange written over a long period of time whereby thinking has changed. Why not provide a link to a paper that brings upwelling high mineral content water to the surface that is consistent with warm water going down into the deep ocean to account for the missing heat.
Presumably ocean belching of CO2 is going up in a rate consistent with warm water going down, ya think?
Chic,
“Our whole argument is based on the hypothesis that the sinks are also sources that have not been constant as your ilk keeps asserting without evidence.”
You’ve got it completely arse up.
The ocean has not been constant – it has been GAINING CO2.
The difference between your view and the mainstream is that the mainstream view is buttressed by physical observations of CO2 reservoirs.
The mainstream view has evidence that the oceans are gaining CO2. That would be a major source for your view.
Land biota can’t be responsible, because we haven’t lost enough of it to account for the rise. Also we’ve seen periods in recent times of GREENING, so the land biota has been a net sink over those periods while the atmospheric rise continues.
The difference between your view and the mainstream is NOT that the mainstream makes assumptions, but that they go out and take measurements – they get physical evidence of what is happening in carbon reservoirs.
This is entirely lacking on your side of the argument, which is why you rightly call it a hypothesis.
It is a hypothesis that flies in the face of the physical evidence – the isotopic evidence, too.
The mianstream tests the assumptions. You and your “ilk” do not.
barry,
I don’t question that the ocean gains CO2. I think it will continue to do so as long as emissions and temperature increase. The future may reverse that but not soon. I don’t see any measurements that conflict with my view that both FF emissions and non-FF emissions contribute to rising CO2.
Both our views remain a hypothesis until measurements indicate exactly how much of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to FF emissions. Your view, that it is all FF, is short-sighted and unscientific. There. I said it.
bdgwx @ May 14, 2021 at 3:02 PM
“Refer to https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3269/2020/ for details. Per table 8 the mass budget is within 20 GtC for the cumulative changes in all reservoirs from 1750-2019. And it has a near perfect balance from 1959-2019. And per figure 3 you can see that the timing matches very well too.”
This is a rather meaningless exercise. It is akin to having an equation:
z = x + y
We have no idea of y, but z = 3, and look how x = 3 perfectly balances the equation!
And, if someone is impertinent enough to suggest that perhaps they should consider the possibility that y is not zero, they call him a denier, and assert that he has no proof that y is not zero.
It is a very foolish game.
It is actually…
Bim = Efos + Eluc – (Gatm + Socean + Sland)
Dumb denialism.
Given the historically unprecedented rise in CO2 in the 20th century, and the historically unprecedented 20th century rise in anthro emissions, and a known causal mechanism that can link them, it is not foolish at all to make, as a first approximation, the assumption of y = constant.
Then of course to study and model the (smaller) effects of non-constant y, which are being done.
“It is a very foolish game.”
And I would add childish. Nate weighs in with his usual obfuscation as if vague historical references prove anything. He’s been criticizing my much more meaningful model for the exact same reason.
You don’t have a model, Chic.
Get over yourself.
Chic definitely has a model.
Where?
Chic has posted spreadsheets of his model. He also advocates for models proposed by Salby, Harde, and Berry as well.
I saw screenshots of Chic’s spreadsheet, not the functions.
If he works like Bart does, you should ask for the specification.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx – you wrote, “There is no model that correlates well with CO2 concentration that uses only FF emissions”
– First off, how is CO2 factored into a climate model?
– Second- a side question – How do we know fossil fuels are from fossils- maybe they were created by abiotic processes.
i.e., Saturn’s moon Titan is basically a hydrocarbon planet. Were there dinosaurs previously living there? lol
Joe,
Maybe this isn’t your question, but the issue we are discussing involves a model for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Nothing to do with a general circulation climate model that predicts temperatures influenced some alleged factor related to CO2. Estimates of that factor range from zero to more than 5K.
bdgwx,
“0% of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is caused by outgassing.”
You have no evidence of this.
Yes there is. Land and ocean reservoirs are net sinks right now. They are not giving mass to the atmosphere. They are taking it. The law of conservation of mass says in no uncertain terms that a reservoir cannot both be net outgassing and a accumulating mass at the same time.
Dum, dum, dum, dum…
With my model, I can calculate the average GtC/year contribution of alternative combined land and ocean sources as from 192 to 235 depending on whether I use a decreasing sink rate (no change in natural flux) or constant rate with increasing natural sources. Either way your Bim balances perfectly. 192 – 187 or 235.3 – 230.6, respectively.
You won’t get this unless you let go of closed mind thinking. Confirmation bias is keeping you from learning.
Sorry. The balance, within estimation error, comes from 5.0 GtC/year CO2 rise, 9.5 GtC/yr FF, and 4.5 GtC/yr net (sink – source) contribution from land and ocean.
The net positive sink value does not rule out a source contribution as you keep on positing.
Yes it does. You cannot be a net giver and net taker at the same time. Since the land and ocean reservoirs are net takers they cannot possibly be net givers as well. What this means is that contrary to the claim that nature is contributing mass to the atmosphere they are actually taking mass and suppressing the increase instead.
What these mass observations tell us is that the atm-to-land and atm-to-ocean drain valves opened up while the ff-to-atm facet opened up as well. And since the mass in the atm is increasing that means the facet opened up more than the drain valves.
The first thing going for this explanation is that it complies with the law of CoM. The second thing going for it is that it is consistent with declining 14C ratios prior to the bomb spike, declining 14C ratios after the bomb spike, declining 13C/12C ratios, declining O2 ratios, the timing and magnitude of these isotopic changes, and the timing and magnitude of the mass transfers.
bdgwx says:
Yes there is. Land and ocean reservoirs are net sinks right now. They are not giving mass to the atmosphere. They are taking it. The law of conservation of mass says in no uncertain terms that a reservoir cannot both be net outgassing and a accumulating mass at the same time.
—————————
Hmmmm, if I recall correctly that the deep ocean concentration of carbon is saturated. Thus I recall an issue about 15 years ago of the saturated deep ocean front being suspected as rising toward the surface. The issue was part of an effort on special interests to get a huge amount of compensation from the government from lost income by a variety of business entities.
Anyway while I didn’t directly work on this it was sort of overflowing into other issues I was working on being a bit of a distraction as literally no science existed to support the idea other than carbon increasing in the atmosphere.
It is actually a very complex issue. First you have to recognized the photic zone of the ocean where nearly all ocean productivity takes place. Thus in the photic zone carbon is heavily depleted by biological activity sucking up those life giving gases and increasing ocean productivity.
Meanwhile the deep water carbon saturated part of the ocean moves up and down like a yoyo because of ocean currents. It can also move up or down with variable ocean turbidity that blocks deep penetration of light into the ocean, thus disrupting the photosynthesis necessary to form the bottom of the food web for the oceans.
Now the only way I can imagine that this has now been measured would be through the ARGO float program. So I would be interested in a paper that sums up what you just said bdgwx.
Before getting into the isotope evidence, just respond first to this hypothetical scenario.
Imagine initially there are no FF emissions and that temperature rose steadily causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to outgassing. The ocean is a net source to the atmosphere. Now FF emissions are added to the rise and the ocean becomes a net sink with respect to the combined emissions. But the oceans are still contributing to the rise as a source same as prior to the addition of FF. Get a spreadsheet and see it for yourself.
bdgwx,
Is it possible that the conservation of mass considerations are troubling you? It seems you may think that once absorbed, a net CO2 cannot re-emerge from the sinks without violating CoM. To simplify the logic as much as possible, assume that land sources and sinks are equal. The temperature effect forces more CO2 from the ocean than would otherwise be the case. That is where the extra CO2 comes from.
Chic,
Let’s say that every year for the past 30 years humans have pumped 30Gt CO2 per year into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
Let’s say the atmospheric concentration CO2 has risen by an average of 15Gt per year over the same period.
Now subtract all the anthropogenic input over the 30 years.
What affect does this have on the yearly and cumulative change?
Chic said: Before getting into the isotope evidence, just respond first to this hypothetical scenario.
Ok, yeah, that scenario definitely muddies the water.
Let’s put some hard numbers on the scenario to see how things play out. These numbers are completely made up here and only used for illustration.
Assume the ocean was losing 1 GtC/yr while the atmosphere was gaining 1 GtC/yr BEFORE any fossil emissions occur.
Now turn on fossil emissions of 5 GtC/yr. Obvious the fossil reservoir is losing 5 GtC/yr, but the picture in the atmosphere is more complicated. Let’s say the extra partial pressure in the atmosphere switches the ocean from a net source to net sink at a rate of 3 GtC/yr (+1 GtC/yr to -3 GtC/yr). The atmosphere will now accumulate 2 GtC/yr.
How do we do the attribution now? I think you can make an argument that nature is responsible for 50% and humans the other 50% in this scenario. The reason is because it was +1 GtC/yr in the atmosphere before human influence and +2 GtC/yr after human influence.
So yes, that is an interesting scenario.
Chic said: The temperature effect forces more CO2 from the ocean than would otherwise be the case. That is where the extra CO2 comes from.
Ok, I see what you’re getting at here. The key phrase is “than would otherwise be the case”. What you are saying is that even though the ocean is a net sink the comparison should actually be made with the state if the temperature did not rise. If the temperature did not rise then ocean would be even more of a net sink than it is right now. The difference between the net sink rate now and the net sink rate without the temperature change is expected to be net positive towards the atmosphere. That net positive towards the atmosphere difference is the amount one could reasonably attribute to a change in temperature.
There are two important questions now.
1. What is the magnitude of this difference in GtC/yr?
2. If the temperature change is caused by human influence then this amount goes into the anthroprogenic bucket. If the temperature change is caused by something other than human influence then this amount goes into the natural bucket. So what is causing the temperature change?
The answer for #1 using the Takahashi 1993 equation dln(pCO2)/dT = 0.042 seems to suggest a difference of 18 ppm @ 410 ppm. Therefore we might expect atmospheric CO2 to be 392 ppm vs 410 ppm if SST had been 1C cooler. The answer for #2 is then 100% and 85% of the 130 ppm increase is anthroprogenic if the temperature rise was human caused and nature caused respectively. I’d like to see other pCO2 to temperature relationship equations though before drawing any conclusions.
barry,
Let’s say in addition to the facts you present that the contributions from non-FF emissions were 600 GtCO2/yr and the CO2 sink rate from the atmosphere was 615 GtCO2/yr.
Now do the math: 15 Gt/yr = 30 + 600 – 615 and answer your own question.
bdgwx,
I replied here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-696568
Chic,
“contributions from non-FF emissions… 600 GtCO2/yr
CO2 sink rate from the atmosphere… 615 GtCO2/yr”
Then the atmosphere would be losing 15 Gt of CO2 per year, because the biosphere is absorbing faster than the natural output.
Now add back in the 30 Gt per year from FF, and we get our 15Gt per year addition back.
You’ve been saying therer is no evidence that the biosphere is a net sink, but there is, and it is hard to credit you are unaware of that evidence, such as:
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/LeQuere_2014_GlobalCarbonBudget2014.ESDD-D.pdf
Whereas the hypothesis you are advancing is countered by the available empricial evidence, including isotopic.
I can’t square your view with conservation of mass, as bdgwx is saying. If the drain were clogged then we should be getting anthro contribution + natural, but we’re getting half the value of anthro contribution remaining in the atmosphere, so the biosphere must be a net sink for the addition. Which is buttressed by the physical evidence.
barry,
If I ever said that the biosphere was not a net sink, I was wrong.
bdgwx keeps saying the biosphere cannot be both a source and a sink. That is where the confusing comes in. It is both a source and a sink, but a net sink when FF emissions are factored in. I cannot respond to any references to drains. Too unphysical.
But thanks for the citation which I will have a look at later.
Ok, Chic, looks like we’re on the same page then.
Chic said: bdgwx keeps saying the biosphere cannot be both a source and a sink.
What I said is that biosphere and hydrosphere cannot be both a net source and sink at the same time.
I posted this already, but it is worth repeating.
– The land reservoir is gaining mass. It is a net sink.
– The ocean reservoir is gaining mass. It is a net sink.
– The air reservoir is gaining mass. It is a net sink.
…but…
– The fossil reservoir is losing mass. It is a net source.
…and…
– The mass loss in the fossil reservoir is equal to the mass gain in the land+ocean+air reservoirs.
bdgwx,
Of course you are right. Are we too on the same page now?
What your true statements obscure, is that land, ocean, and air reservoirs all are both sources and sinks. I guess technically the FF reservoir is still, hasn’t stopped being, a sink too?
Failing to acknowledge the strength of a source just because it is a net sink is what leads to obfuscation.
All reservoirs have source (outflow) and sink (inflow) components. Nobody is challenging that. In fact, if you look at figure 6.1 in the IPCC AR5 WGI report you’ll see many of these inflow and outflow components illustrated.
tim…”4 ‘sides’ as the surroundings @ 400 W/m^2 (16.7 C). As you correctly deduce, this would produce a 16.7 C chicken, using the SB equation”.
****
The S-B equation has nothing to do with heat transfer, it is strictly a measure of the intensity of EM given off by a surface over a specific area with a specific temperature and emissivity. It’s wrong to confuse EM with heat.
The temperature of the chicken would depend on the environment. If the chicken was in a freezer, with ice completely surrounding it, the chicken would not reach a temperature greater than the ice, at something like -18C.
When you place a freezer thermometer in a freezer, you are hopefully measuring the air temperature. Air temperature in a freezer is around -18C so a chicken turning on a rotisserie in a freezer would be at around -18C, even though it’s surrounded by ice.
If it was in a room with ambient temperature 20C, the ice might cool it to 16.7C but that temperature is in no way due to EM radiation.
This is a 2nd law problem, not S-B. To see that, you need to understand the derivation of the S-B equation. It was Stefan who came up with the T^4 relationship after studying an interpretation of an experiment performed by Tyndall.
Tyndall heated a platinum filament electrically till it glowed. He noted the red/orange colour at around 700C then the changing colours from 700C onward. Another scientist worked out the relationship of the colours to frequency and Tyndal found the T^4 relationship from that. He was measuring the change in frequency/wavelength of the EM given off by different frequencies of EM.
The point that I think is essential here is to note that the heat transfer obeys the 2nd law. Heat is transferred from the heated filament at upwards of 700C to the room air, probably at around 20C.
It’s ridiculous to apply S-B to ice transferring heat to a warmer object. S-B says nothing about heat transfer from a colder object to a warmer object. It does not apply in such a situation.
Gordon, I think the heated filament cools out mostly by IR emission from its very high temperature
700oC + 273K = 973K or Jemit = σ*973^4 ΅/m^2 = 50820 W/m^2 =
= 50.82 kW/m^2
“The S-B equation has nothing to do with heat transfer”
Ok, I guess radiative heat transfer is NOT actually a thing, even though there are many textbooks and courses on it, and rotisserie chicken appliances based on it… not to mention toasters…Oh, and those IR bulbs used to heat pet reptiles.
“. Another scientist worked out the relationship of the colours to frequency and Tyndal found the T^4 relationship from that.”
OMG, No.
There was no relationship between EM frequency and energy yet, that came with later from Planck and Einstein.
Tyndall simply measured the heat flow.
A machine to make the Moon have higher average temperature.
There does not seem to be any particular advantage to increasing the Moon’s average temperature.
But one think of it as model of global temperature.
Put a 100 meter cube of water [in a pool} at the lunar equator, at perimeter outside of cube pool, put solar panels. The solar panels will power pumps which draw warmer water at the surface and force water to bottom of cube. Or pump will overcome the buoyancy of warmer water. The Moon has low gravity the force of buoyancy will be 1/6th as compared to Earth gravity. Also pump water can also be use to keep solar panels at low temperature, where there are more efficient {and they could last longer, perhaps}.
The specific heat of water is 4.1955 kJ per kg per 1 K.
100 meter cubic has 100 x 100 x 100 = 1 million cubic meter of water. To heat 1 cubic meter of water [1000 kg] at 10 C by 1 K is
4195.5 joules times 1000 = 4,195,500 joules
And for 1 million cubic meter, 4,195,500 million joules or 4.1955 x 10^12 joules per 1 K.
And sun at or near zenith gives average of about 1360 watts per square meter
4,195,500 million joules to warm to 1 K / 1360 is 3,084.92647 million seconds per square meter.
And have 10,000 square of area of 100 by 100 meter area.
Or 3,084.92647 hundred or 308,492.647 seconds or 85.6924 hours or
3.5705 earth days.
The lunar day is 29.5 earth days, lunar daylight hours is 1/2 so,
14.75 earth. And in terms of lunar “peak hour about 1/2 the daylight, 14.75 / 2 = 7.375 earth day of lunar peak hour,
Or roughly lunar sunlight could warm all the water by about 2 C per lunar day.
How much could lunar night night cool it.
Say night fall the water is 4 C or 277 K.
Now could cover it with reflective insulation. Or not.
We probably don’t want to run the pumps at night, and we assume 4 C water [freshwater] does not fall when cools.
Apparently water is suppose to be close to black body- something like .97 or something. What’s ice?
Hmm. Let’s first pretend we will run the pumps to see what happens.
277 K black body emits 333.8 and times .97 = 323.8 watts.
I don’t have the numbers as it “looks” should lose less than it gains. Ice, google:
Water: distilled 0.95
Water: ice, smooth 0.96
Water: frost crystals 0.98
Water: snow 0.85
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table
It didn’t have seawater. Which probably the .97 number, that was lodged in my mind.
So that increases global average temperature of the Moon- because I am making the Moon absorb more of energy of sunlight- making the Moon more like Earth.
Now, if moon had faster rotation, I wouldn’t need as much water depth {and/or have less time to heat 100 meter cube of water]
But insulated lunar surface would absorb less heat than Earth sand. Or with faster rotation the 100 meter would work as well [or better] but it involve a small fraction of a number rather simple round numbers.
I assume it model it over hundreds of year, the water at equator should be able to be warmer than 5 C. And being encased in lunar insulation it warm larger area the 100 by 100 meters area. It make the ground warmer than water {because ground surface has great insulation].
Yes, Moon is warmer than Earth at day-time, and Moon is colder than Earth at night-time.
Also, because of having a lower Albedo (a = 0,11), Moon has 30% more solar energy available to accumulate… than Earth (a = 0,306).
Nevertheless, Moon’s average temperature is lower than Earth’s.
“Nevertheless, Moons average temperature is lower than Earths.”
Smile. That’s what the lack of an atmosphere and GHGs does for you.
Oceans and atmosphere increase heat capacity (thermal mass) providing a warmer temperature. Also, Moon has longer periods of nighttime. So even if everything else were equal, Moon would still be a little colder than Earth.
” Oceans and atmosphere increase heat capacity (thermal mass) providing a warmer temperature. ”
That turns out not to be the case.
A larger thermal mass takes longer to reach an equilibrium temperature, but does not increase that equilibrium temperature.
“Moon has longer periods of nighttime. ”
Once again, a longer diurnal cycle allows temperatures to vary further from the average, but does not increase the average temperature.
You’re confused on both points, Ent.
“A larger thermal mass takes longer to reach an equilibrium temperature, but does not increase that equilibrium temperature.”
I won’t bother to correct you on that because you’re just disproved the GHE.
“Once again, a longer diurnal cycle allows temperatures to vary further from the average, but does not increase the average temperature.”
Everything being the same, objects cool slower than they warm. So more time without sunlight, the more cooling can occur. Less time without sunlight, less cooling. When the surface starts with a higher temperature, it is better able to reach the maximum temperature for the insolation.
> youre just disproved the GHE.
Joe wouldn’t have said it better, puppy. Easier to assert it than to argue for it, but baby steps.
“So even if everything else were equal, Moon would still be a little colder than Earth. ”
“Moon has available 30% more solar energy in than Earth.
for every Earths 100 W/m^2
Moon receives 130 W/m^2
30% is a big difference! ”
But if the Moon absorbs more energy than the Earth, why does the Moon have a lower average temperature?
Entropic man says:
May 13, 2021 at 10:15 AM
“But if the Moon absorbs more energy than the Earth, why does the Moon have a lower average temperature?”
Because the Moon has long night. Also long mornings and late afternoons. The hot surface will be 0 C before the sun sets and remains pretty cold in the early mornings.
Or it not 50% day and night. 75% non peak solar hours, and 25% peak solar hours.
Same reason solar energy doesn’t work on Earth.
With the moon and solar energy, one could point at the sun and get peak solar hour or you get 50% solar peak hours rather than 25% solar peak hours that level surface get.
With Earth pointing at sun doesn’t work due to Earth’s thick atmosphere. And less important Earth, also has clouds.
I should add lunar solar energy doesn’t work well on most of the Moon, but in lunar polar region you can get peak solar hours 80% of the time. And lunar polar region is small, and can encircle this small region so can peak solar hours 99.9 % of the time- or don’t need much battery power.
And if making rocket fuel, you are making chemical energy which can used as battery power.
Solar energy works best in high earth orbits or somewhere where the Earth is not blocking the Sun. Earth blocks sunlight for the Moon, and why only get 99.9% of time with the polar grid.
But “ocean without the atmosphere” adds around 80 K to Moon’s current average temperature.
But I am not saying Earth’s ocean adds this much and our cold ocean does not add as much as compared when the Earth’s ocean were over 10 C.
But I am saying Earth’s ocean temperature is the control knob.
So say instead having our cold ocean of 3.5 C and it was 10 C ocean, instead of around say + 15 C it becomes around + 20 C.
Or as far cargo cult numerology, 33 C – 15 leaves 18 C to be counted as greenhouse effect. As lukewarmer believing that greenhouse cause some warming and the water vapor is major greenhouse gas, and so this mean large portion of the 18 C is from water vapor. And warmer ocean allows/adds a lot to global levels of Water vapor.
A warmer earth has more uniform average temperature and far less deserts.
The Moon way “below average” because it’s slow rotation and it’s surface which is well insulated but likewise does not absorb much energy from the Sun. Solid rock or rubble pile would absorb more energy. Or Mars surface is different enough to have surface which absorbs more sunlight. But Mercury {also with good vacuum} is similar to Our Moon.
Moon has available 30% more solar energy in than Earth.
for every Earth’s 100 W/m^2
Moon receives 130 W/m^2
30% is a big difference!
On the sunlit side Earth develops lesser temperatures than Moon.
Thus Earth’s surface accumulates more energy in form of heat, regardless having less solar energy in available.
“Moon has available 30% more solar energy in than Earth.
for every Earth’s 100 W/m^2
Moon receives 130 W/m^2
30% is a big difference!”
In terms of direct sunlight zenith sun gives 1050 of direct sunlight
but it give 70 watts of indirect sunlight. A flat surface temperature is affected by direct sunlight, but our ocean 1 mm deep surface is not warmed much by direct or indirect sunlight but rather direct and indirect sunlight is roughly 1/2 absorbed with the top 1 meter of the ocean. Or in terms of ocean absorbing the heat of sunlight, the sunlight at zenith is 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight. And when considering warming a cloud, one also use the 1120 watts when sunlight near zenith.
Since 1/2 of all sunlight hits our tropical ocean {which is about 40% of total Earth surface area:
One could say:
for every Earth 110 W/m2 the Moon has 130 watts per meter or
about 20% difference.
But in the supposedly “cold vacuum of space” {not true- as the vacuum has no temperature}. Lunar surface is heated to more than 120 C, and Earth natural dry ground if air is warm enough can reach about 70 C. If prevent convectional loss to cooler air- use insulated box with window allowing sunlight thru {or acting kind of like a actual greenhouse or inside of parked car with windows rolled up] the surface temperature can reach about 80 C. Or parked car can get quite hot.
One also get about 80 C temperature from a solar pond due salt gradient stopping convectional heat transfer.
But any the different between 80 C and 120 C is difference between “hot” and death by cooking.
The Finns brave sauna temperatures of 100 C, but they don’t try for 120 C- as it’s basically a quick death. Or safe enough temperature to cook anything. Save pork.
Entropic man,
> …a longer diurnal cycle allows temperatures to vary further from the average, but does not increase the average temperature.
If I understood correctly, you are saying that the planet diurnal cycle, no matter how fast or slow it is, does not affect the planet average surface temperature?
“If I understood correctly, you are saying that the planet diurnal cycle, no matter how fast or slow it is, does not affect the planet average surface temperature? ”
That would be my intuition. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’m glad to listen.
Found this.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
From the article.
“any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation.”
It makes a sensible argument, so I’m quite happy to accept that, all else being equal, slower rotating bodies have a lower average temperature.
The same article also notes that
“The effect is muted the greater the surface bulk heat capacity, since that also reduces the diurnal temperature range. ”
So, all else being equal, a planet with a large bulk surface heat capacity such as an ocean will have a higher average temperature than one without.
Clint R said “Oceans and atmosphere increase heat capacity (thermal mass) providing a warmer temperature. ”
He’s right.
Entropic man
>If you have evidence to the contrary, I’m glad to listen.
Yes, and I would like to discuss it with you. I think it is a very important issue…
Well, what we have to observe is the planets’ mean surface temperatures vs their rotational spins…
Let’s see. Moon gets 30% more radiative energy on its solar lit hemisphere than Earth.
Moon gets much hotter on the solar lit hemisphere than Earth.
Thus we have two planets at the same distance from the sun.
One rotates faster, so it develops on the sunlit hemisphere lower temperatures.
The other one rotates slowly, so it develops on the sunlit hemisphere higher temperatures.
Assuming both planets have the same albedo, and both planets do not have atmosphere… the only difference they have is that the first rotates faster, and therefore the second is hotter on the sunlit hemisphere.
The planet with the hotter hemisphere will emit IR radiative energy more intensively than the planet with the cooler hemisphere.
So there will be more energy left for the faster rotating planet to emit during the night.
Why the faster rotating planet has a higher average surface temperature then?
Let’s see.
Assuming the slow rotating planet develops an average sunlit surface temperature T.slow.sun = 300 K
Assuming the fast rotating planet develops an average sunlit surface temperature T.fast.sun = 299 K
What happens on the dark hemisphere then?
The fast rotating planet has to get rid of the additional energy accumulated on the sunlit hemisphere…
Assuming now, the slow rotating planet has dark hemisphere average surface temperature 250 K
The additional amount of energy Δ the fast rotating planet has to get rid of is calculated then as:
Δ = Jemit.slow.sun – Jemit.fast.sun = σ*300^4 – σ*299^4 =
= σ*8.100.000.000 – σ*7.992.538.801 = σ*107.461.199
Δ = σ*107.461.199
The slow rotating planet from the dark hemisphere emits:
Jemit.slow.dark = σ*250^4 = σ*3.906.250.000
The fast rotating planet from the dark hemisphere emits then:
Jemit.slow.dark + Δ
or
Jemit.fast.dark = σ*3.906.250.000 + σ*107.461.199 =
= σ*4.013.711.199
What is the fast rotating planet dark hemisphere average surface temperature:
(4.013.711.199 )^1/4 = 251,7 K
Conclusion:
We have found that the faster rotating planet has
1 oC lower temperature on the solar lit hemisphere, but it should have
1,7 oC higher temperature on the dark hemisphere when compared with the slow rotating planet.
Consequently the average surface temperature of the faster rotating planet appears to be higher.
(300 K + 250 K)/2 < (299 K + 251,7 K) /2
Entropic & Christos, consider Dr. Spencer isn’t specific but he’s discussing brightness temperature calculated from S-B & measured by radiometer. The celestial object global multiannual brightness temperature measured by radiometer and computed will depend in a nonlinear way on rotation rate, heat capacity, and emissivity at least.
Then consider thermometer temperature which is not from S-B & radiometers. The global multiannual equilibrium thermometer temperature measured will only depend on the stable thermodynamic internal energy in the control volume from say for Earth ~240in and ~240out at long term steady state & not the other items.
Entropic man says:
”any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation.”
It makes a sensible argument, so Im quite happy to accept that, all else being equal, slower rotating bodies have a lower average temperature.
——————–
Note that the divide by 4 estimation is an estimation of zero diurnal day-night temperature range and thus would represent the very smallest of small possible temperatures for a planet.
The Planet N*cp product IMPORTANCE
Lets proceed the syllogism.
N is the planets rotational spin
cp is the planets average surface specific heat
N*cp is the product of planets N and cp
Now, lets have two identical planets, but with different rotational spin N1 and N2, and with different average surface specific heat cp1 and cp2. Which planet has the highest mean surface temperature Tmean ?
Of course, since every planet has its own unique rotational spin (diurnal cycle) and every planet has its own unique average surface specific heat we should compare for the two planets N*cp the product of N and cp.
Consequently, the planet with the highest N*cp product should be the planet with the highest mean surface temperature Tmean.
Example:
Earths N.earth = 1 rot /day
Moons N.moon = 1 /29,5 rot /day
Earths cp.earth = 1 cal /gr.oC (watery planet)
Moons cp.moon = 0,19 cal /gr.oC (regolith)
For Earth the (N*cp) product is:
(N.earth)*(cp.earth) = 1*1 = 1 rot.cal /day.gr.oC
For Moon the (N*cp) product is:
(N.moon)*(cp.moon) = (1 /29,5)*0,19 = 1 /155,3 rot.cal /day.gr.oC
Lets compare the products:
(N.earth)*(cp.earth) / [(N.moon)*(cp.moon)] = 1 / (1 /155,3) = 155,3
What we see here is that the Earths N*cp product is 155,3 times higher than the Moons N*cp product.
And the satellite measured mean surface temperatures are
Tmean.earth = 287,16 K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Tmean.moon = 220 K
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
It is obvious that Earths higher rotational spin and Earths higher surface specific heat make Earth on average a warmer than Moon planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, your 220K for the moon is the lunar surface equatorial mean brightness temperature from radiometers while your 287.16k is for earth global mean temperature.
Our moon surface is directly exposed to the deep cold sink of space so its equator mean deserves to be cooler even though our moon reflects significantly less sunlight than Earth.
Lunar thermometer measurements are way too sparse to do much with globally. The global lunar brightness temperature though has been measured by Diviner radiometers, computed with some reasonable assumptions, and does indicate a globally multiannual cooler celestial object in essentially the same solar orbit as Earth.
What you’ve done so far is consistent with the hypothesis that higher rotation rate and highe surface specific heat correlate with higher average temperature.
Long way to go yet. You need to be able to quantify the temperature difference between Moon with no atmosphere and Earth with no atmosphere.
The effect of Earth’s atmosphere is a separate problem, so it is not meaningful to apply actual surface temperatures yet.
Test
Sorry it is getting very late in Athens, Greece where I am. I have to go now. Shall we continue tomorrow…
Yes, I have quantified the difference in my site…
A very long way to go yet, EM, as there is no pressing need to fund a lunar surface global equilibrium thermometer field (LGHCN) to be installed anytime soon to settle any debate.
What Dr. Spencer has shown so far is consistent with the hypothesis that higher rotation rate and higher surface specific heat modulate average surface brightness temperature.
Ball4
There is a certain amount of data. The 4th Earl of Rosse was measuring lunar surface using a bolometer attached to a 36″ telescope. temperature as far back as the 1860s.
Entropic man,
>You need to be able to quantify the temperature difference between Moon with no atmosphere and Earth with no atmosphere.
I have derived a formula calculating planets’ mean surface temperatures…
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man, Ball4
When deriving the planet mean surface temperature formula I intended exactly what you said – to quantify the temperature of Moon with no atmosphere and Earth with no atmosphere… And then to compare the results with the actual Earth’s surface temperature… and Moon’s.
The results I came up with were beyond any expectations!
So, the first thing I did was to check the formula on every planet and moon in our solar system.
Again the results were very much close to those measured by satellites…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For most of the last 10,000 years global temperature has been about 287C.
For most of the last 2 million years the temperature was 283K.
For most of the last 65 million years the temperature was around 292K.
Can you account for the tendency of your formulae to underestimate the long term average temperature?
This is the Earth’s temperature record for the last 600 million years, most of it considerably warmer than the present.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File%3AAll_palaeotemps.svg
You need to be able to account for all of it, because the close match between your calculated temperature and current temperatures looks more like coincidence rather than determinism.
Entropic man
The formula is developed from:
Te = [(1-a)S/4σ ]¹∕⁴
Te.correct = [Φ(1-a)S/4σ]¹∕⁴ (by adding for smooth surface planets the Φ = 0,47)
Tmean = [Φ(1-a)S(β*N*cp)¹∕⁴/4σ]¹∕⁴ (by adding (β*N*cp)¹∕⁴ which accounts for Planet surface rotational warming phenomenon)
The wonderful thing is formula “works” for all planets and moons in solar system…
https://www.cristos-vournas
Entropic man
You need to be able to account for all of it, because the close match between your calculated temperature and current temperatures looks more like coincidence rather than determinism.
Yes, I understand that. It is so strange for me too… I always questioning the how it is possible for a theoretical formula I derived to be able to match so very much closely to the Earth’s mean surface temperature?
The theoretical formula I derived is based on the solar flux interaction with a rotating planet surface… It is a pure theoretical formula.
And it happens the formula to “work” successfully for every planet and moon in the solar system…
So it cannot be a coincidence here…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface. There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.”
Christos 6;40am, your calculations are known to be faulty by satellite radiometer and surface thermometer measurements. You need to read up on the satellite era observations to find:
1) In the thermodynamic control volume at TOA orbits current (thru 2015) satellite radiometers measure earthshine (or outgoing long wave radiation) with a global multiannual median of ~238W/m^2
2) Satellites also measure ~340W/m^2 incoming solar sunshine net of 102W/m^2 outgoing solar radiation (albedo) resulting in a close balance of ~238W/m^2 into, & out of, the control volume of interest.
3) This reasonably computes to a planetary global median brightness temperature of ~255K vs. a thermometer measured global median near surface BOA temperature ~288K, a difference mainly due to IR active atm. gas.
If you are interested enough to want to learn the appropriate first course surface energy balance physics calculations for the global ~288K, I’ll refer you to Dr. Craig Bohren’s 2006 text p. 33.
NB1: Recent (Loeb 2018) reports put the measured earth energy imbalance (2000-2016) at 0.35 +/- 0.24 W/m^2 mainly attributed to ENSO weather and changes in sea ice coverage during the period.
NB2: Your Tmean is a curve fit from known measurements. You have missed atm. opacity first principle physics which you can start to learn about in Dr. Bohren’s book.
Not only was the Earth considerably warmer in the past, but it was so with considerably less solar radiation. The Sun was 5% dimmer 600 MYA so we’ll set S = 1292. Of course, it rotated faster too so let’s set N = 1.1. I’m assuming B and cp do not change. That yields 286.3K. If we adjust albedo down to 0.13 we can get the +14C temperature 600 MYA from Christos formula. That requires a pretty big drop in albedo to get there though. I’m just not sure albedo changes that much especially on the shorter time scales required to explain the Permian period, PETM, other ETMx events, glacial cycles, etc.
Entropic 5:37am, the lunar brightness has been noticed for eons from when creatures first developed eyesight.
Lunar thermometer temperatures have been noticed only since the Apollo landings.
Ball4,
>Your Tmean is a curve fit from known measurements. You have missed atm. opacity first principle physics
Why do you say so? Please demonstrate here how it is possible to fit every planet measured temperatures in a single formula by fitting…
If there is a formula which is capable to closely calculate the planets surface temperatures, then there something else should be happening…
The formula describes a physical relation… an observed physical relation between the planet (N*cp) product and planet mean surface temperature.
I have demonstrated in my site there is (everything equals) planet mean surface temperatures relate as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
bdgwx,
Not only was the Earth considerably warmer in the past, but it was so with considerably less solar radiation. The Sun was 5% dimmer 600 MYA so well set S = 1292. Of course, it rotated faster too so lets set N = 1.1. Im assuming B and cp do not change. That yields 286.3K. If we adjust albedo down to 0.13 we can get the +14C temperature 600 MYA from Christos formula. That requires a pretty big drop in albedo to get there though. Im just not sure albedo changes that much especially on the shorter time scales required to explain the Permian period, PETM, other ETMx events, glacial cycles, etc.
I agree with your thoughts. Thank you.
600 MYA – what I think there was a smaller albedo at the time. Just a thought…
The Sun was 5% dimmer 600 MYA so well set S = 1292. Of course, it rotated faster too so lets set N = 1.1. Im assuming B and cp do not change. That yields 286.3K.
Well, since it was 600 MYA, the Earth’s atmosphere also was different. Earth had ocean at the time and a somehow more dense atmosphere then we have currently.
A denser than 1 bar at the sea level atmosphere results to the lesser evaporation intensity – lesser clouds cover, lesser Albedo.
I am guessing that, because of Earth’s continuous atmospheric gasses escape in the space. 600 MYA is a long time during which an enormous quantities of atmospheric gasses could be lost in the space.
Christos 9:49am, if there is a formula which is capable to closely calculate all the measured planets surface temperatures, then there is something else that should also be happening and your task, Christos, is to learn about the “something else” first principle physics namely: atmospheric IR opacity.
Here is another Tmean formula (10a) that also curve fits the celestial object instrumentally measured data quite well (Fig. 4):
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574
Ball4,
Thank you for the interesting LINK.
> The hereto reported findings point toward the need for a paradigm shift in our understanding of key macro-scale atmospheric properties and processes. The implications of the discovered planetary thermodynamic relationship (Figure 4, Eq. 10a) are fundamental in nature and require careful consideration by future research. We ask the scientific community to keep an open mind and to view the results presented herein as a possible foundation of a new theoretical framework for future exploration of climates on Earth and other worlds.
Ball4,
In the article you mentioned there is nothing said about the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Also authors do not consider smooth surface planets having not only the diffuse but also a strong specular reflection…
And – very important – Earth’s atmosphere is very thin… Therefore Earth’s atmosphere is not opaque for IR radiation. In Earth’s very thin atmosphere the greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are considered as trace gases.
Earth does not emit IR radiation according to the perfect blackbody curve. Satellites do not measure certain frequencies’ bands not because they were “absorbed” by trace atmospheric gases content in a very thin Earth’s atmosphere…
Satellites were not able to detect those IR frequencies’ bands because they were never emitted!
In addition to Bohren 2006, a paper by Robinson & Catling 2014 will help Christos learn about that something else (atm. IR opacity) from first principles; study especially the supplemental information.’
This site wont let me post another link at the moment.
Earth’s atm. is only partially opaque in the IR bands with a global emissivity measured about 0.8 looking up from surface as our atm. has limited transmissivity and reflectivity. This is unlike Venus where the surface atm. is opaque in the IR bands of interest.
Ball4
> Earth’s atm. is only partially opaque in the IR bands with a global emissivity measured about 0.8 looking up from surface as our atm. has limited transmissivity and reflectivity. This is unlike Venus where the surface atm. is opaque in the IR bands of interest.
Do you mention this formula:
Tmean = 0,8[(1-a)So /σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 287,5 K ?
See Bohren 2006 p.33 eqn. 1.72 for the correct version of that effective surface brightness temperature formula along with the symbols being earlier well defined and its application to Earth system.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Science” is not a thing.
https://youtu.be/ZC8YibvxmtY?t=864
Agreed. We Are Science:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/we-are-science/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dear Roy,
I read all your blog since 2009 and I have one question and one suggestion.
The question:
The CMIP6 models are based on a CO2 emission scenario. When you compare with observations, do you use runs with the real CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or runs that has been made in the past with a projection ? If the latter, it can explain some more warming than measured as the chosen CO2 emission scenario is chosen so that models give 4.5 deg C as an output.
The suggestion:
You have been working relentlessly to prove feedback in the satellite data. What I see is that the slope of a cloud of point is generally much lower than the real feedback, for reasons you explained at length, so measuring the slope is misleading.
However, as you have models yourself, you can easily build a correlation between the perceived slope and the real feedback you are looking for. You might be able to prove a constant factor 2 to 3 between the 2 parameters, or maybe a more subtle correlation, with an error band.
Rgds
Fabrice
Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that an entire data set shows no warming over the past 40 years, even though CO2 has increased by about 25%.
Here is the evidence that the alarmists will never be able to explain.
South Pole Monthly Temperatures
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
As I’ve predicted and proven, if you remove the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor, you get no warming. I’ve demonstrated that with both Hot and Cold Deserts, but also the Satellite Data.
That evidence won’t go away, and unless someone can explain how an amateur like me can easily identify locations that should no warming, and the experts create models that don’t even stay in the ball park, this “settled science” has real problems.
In Ice Age News:
https://bnn-news.com/warmer-than-in-60s-tallinns-may-temperature-record-has-fallen-after-for-58-years-224780
Alright. The first paragraph could be the culprit. Let’s reverse-engineer the problem:
“In Estonia, this week”
Alright. The first paragraph could be the culprit. Let’s reverse-engineer the problem:
“the warm weather temperature has exceeded”
“the May temperature record after 58 years”
Hmmm. I then encounter an “unused” error.
Let’s test it:
Tallinn is the capital of which country?
Estonia.
With a small e the word seems to trigger an internal error.
eston
estonia
Alright, it’s not a blacklist thing.
Boring.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Willard, please stop trolling.
Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that “an entire data set” is actually less than 7% of the globe. Finding which regions have large warming and which have small warming is not really a big challenge. What *would* be surprising is if all the regions DID show nearly identical warming!
Yesterday I tried to explain, by using as example the Arctic sea ice
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-691010
how wrong it is to claim that a linear estimate over a time series becomes de facto nonsensical just because its R^2 is very low.
The reaction was quite interesting:
” Dr. Spencer, you aren’t doing anyone any favors by publishing linear trends with R-Squareds of such low level. It allows deceitful people to make baseless claims using your numbers. ”
*
I continue this little explanation today, by using sea ice extent time series again, this time from the Antarctic corner.
Here too, we have absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cScZaVMUyA0ypPl5N5DxaGejk5kRfAJb/view
as well as anomaly data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FSYpl622yqa9qk-zedzfPJ-o2rJkY_TS/view
which as expected looks a lot more dramatic than its absolute origin.
So one would think that since the trend situation for 1979-now
– absolute: 0.09 +- 0.20
– anomalies: 0.07 +- 0.02 (C / decade)
looks quite similar to the Arctic trends, one could expect a similar correspondence for the R^2 of these two estimates.
But… while in the Arctic, we had for the R^2
– absolute: 0.05
– anomalies: 0.72
nothing the like happens with the R^2 factor in the Antarctic:
– absolute: 0.0004
– anomalies: 0.022
what, according to the worldwide renowned CO2 and statistics genius, would be equally unacceptable.
*
But wait! While for the period 2011-now, everything went worse for Mr R^2 in the Arctic, we see that for the trends in the Antarctic:
– absolute: -0.93 +- 1.75
– anomalies: -1.26 +- 0.22 (C / decade)
the R^2 factor suddenly moves up for the anomalies:
– absolute: 0.002
– anomalies: 0.22 Ooops?!
And that exactly for the period showing the most irregular behavior in the Antarctic since 1979: a look at the anomaly graph for 2011-now tells us everything.
Hmmmh.
I could show much more, e.g. the strange R^2 discrepancy between the GHCN daily trends for 1900-2020 in CONUS and Europe, etc.
*
I am not at all a specialist in this statistics domain. But when I see on the very first page I searched for concerning R^2
” For instance, small R-squared values are not always a problem, and high R-squared values are not necessarily good! ”
I would say: before he tries to teach Roy Spencer about which trends he has to publish or to hide, genius CO2isLife should better learn what R^2 really means, how it has to be used and, above all… when its use is inappropriate.
” How To Interpret R-squared in {Simple Linear} Regression Analysis ”
Yeah.
J.-P. D.
Bindy posts about “How To Interpret R-squared in {Simple Linear} Regression Analysis ”
Is that a joke? Hey Bindy, what are the R-Squares supporting your trend coefficient? Why would CO2 and Temp be linearly related when W/m^ is logarithmically related to CO2?
If you understood regression metrics you would understand how idiotic your arguments are.
CO2isLife
” … what are the R-Squares supporting your trend coefficient? ”
Sorry: unlike you, I’m not inexperienced let alone stubborn enough to spend any time in searching for the Inexistent…
You are so tremendously fixated in teaching us (Roy Spencer included) about your egocentric CO2 nonsense, that you didn’t understand why I wrote the comment you just replied to.
Give it up, you become really, really BORING.
J.-P. D.
binny…”how wrong it is to claim that a linear estimate over a time series becomes de facto nonsensical just because its R^2 is very low”.
You’d b better served dumping the statistical bs and LOOKING at the data visually and trying to equate what you see to what is calculated stistically.
For example, Roy claims in his monthly updates that the trend is still 0.14C/decade. Over 4+ decades that is about 0.56C total warming. The UAH graph is not showing over half a degree true warming, if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline.
In fact, for a decade and a half, there was no warming, between about 1998 and 2015. Between 2016 and present, the trend has flattened again, around 0.25C. Therefore, number-crunching does not tell the real story.
Is there any reason to wonder about the temperature in Tallinn two days ago?
https://tinyurl.com/26yxvwr8
Not sure.
And here, it was nicely warm too:
https://tinyurl.com/44panbu6
J.-P. D.
It is perhaps worth clarifying Clint’s ‘rotisserie’. Start with the second scenario he describes.
“But, if the 1600 W/m^2 source were replaced be 4 sources, each supplying 1600/4 = 400 W/m^2, so that both sides, and top, and bottom of the chicken were equally irradiated as it rotated, then the BB temperature would only be 16.7C, 62F.”
What we have described here by Clint are ‘4 sources’ (that are each 1/4 of surroundings) that completely surround the ‘chicken’. In other words, all directions are at 16.7 C and ‘supply’ (ie emit) 400 W/m^2 of thermal IR. The chicken consequently receives a uniform 400 W/m^2 (‘equally irradiated’) and will be 16.7 C — exactly as Clint deduced.
We know this is the correct interpretation, since it matches what Clint concluded.
To now get back to the *first* scenario, we will replace the 4 ‘sources’ with other ‘sources’ with the same total amount of power. For each Watt we reduce one source, we will increase another source by a watt. So we replace three of the sources with new sources that emit 0 W/m^2 (ie 3 sources @ ~ -270 C) and replace the 4th panel with one that emits 1600 W/m^2 (ie 1 source @ 137 C.).
Viola’! To match the power of the second scenario, the walls of the ‘rotisserie’ in the first scenario must be -270 C for 3/4 of the ‘oven’, and 137C for 1/4 of the ‘oven’. Clint has (almost certainly inadvertently) proposed a ‘deep freeze rotisserie’.
There is no way around this and still …
1) keep a total power constant between the two scenarios, and
2) get his answer for the 2nd scenario.
Perhaps, Tim.
But Joe has a YT video:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/06/18/culinary-arts-debunks-climate-change/
Therefore your argument is invalid.
Just for funsies, I looked at the video. It makes a few major mistakes. The same sort of mistakes Clint makes.
They make Clint’s mistake of ignoring the other sides. ‘4 sides’ at 130 F provides 650 W/m^2 from all sides.
If 1/4 is 375 F = 2600 W/m^2 and the ‘other 3 sides’ are 70F = 420 W/m^s, then then you have to add that power, resulting in an average of 1/4*(2600) + 3/4*(420) = 965 W/m^2. The surroundings have boosted the power by nearly 50%! They would also need 0 K surroundings to have an equal power input.
Also, you don’t roast a pig over 375 F coals (and you don’t roast a chicken with a 130 C = 270 F heating element in a rotisserie). Roasting meat like that on a spit requires MUCH hotter coals. You can roast meat in an oven at that temperature, but then you get heat from all sides, not just one. Charcoal burns up to 2000 F, but lets call it 1000F. This provides about 10x as much radiant power as they estimate!
So they underestimate the input from the coals on the hot side, and ignore the input from the cool sides, and compare this overestimate to a uniform 130F.
So much bad physics!
*****
And then he makes a whole series of strawman arguments, stating what *he* incorrectly thinks that physicists and climate think. Some day he should actually listen to climate scientists.
> The same sort of mistakes Clint makes.
I am shocked!
How can it be possible?
TF, are you now returning to your nonsense that a rotisserie can’t cook?
I thought you backtracked from that. But you’ve backtracked so much I can’t keep up.
The fact that you claim a chicken can’t be cooked on a rotisserie is a perfect example of you avoiding reality.
Is that working for you?
Second cooking lesson, puppy:
https://tasteofartisan.com/rotisserie-chicken/
For science’s sake, buy yourself a thermometer.
No, I am claiming (again) that a chicken can’t be cooked in the rotisserie you described. And I showed that it can’t.
If you want to design a new, better, hotter, more powerful rotisserie … well then you might be able to actually cook a chicken.
Or if you want to actually discuss *numbers* we could do that. But your bluster and insults just show everyone that you can’t actual engage with the science.
Okay TF, I just wanted to make sure I understood your stance.
You’re now confirming that a chicken properly cooked on an infrared rotisserie could not be cooked by the same infrared divided by 4.
I think you now agree with me.
Does that mean you actually learned somethihg?
[TIM] I am claiming (again) that a chicken cant be cooked in the rotisserie you described.
[PUPPY] Youre now confirming that a chicken properly cooked on an infrared rotisserie could not be cooked by the same infrared divided by 4.
How Puppy tries to gaslight Tim with words that will remain online forever remains fascinating.
I will agree with you when you can show the actual numbers you plan to use and that they support your claim.
You failed miserably the first go around.
1600 W/m^2 on ‘one side’ and 0 W/m^2 ‘on threes sides’ won’t cook a chicken.
400 W/m^2 ‘on four sides’ won’t cook a chicken, either.
You could up the ante.
9000 W/m^2 on ‘one side’ and 0 W/m^2 ‘on threes sides’ would be 675 F on ‘1 side’ (and ‘frigid’ on the other 3 side.) That is much cooler than coals and much cooler than the heating element of a broiler in an over, but I bet you could cook a chicken with that — even in a deep freeze.
Let’s see … 1/4 of that would be 2250 W/m^2 on all sides. That works out to … hmmmm 345 F! You could definitely cook a chicken with 345 F. Oops!
Perhaps you have some other special numbers you would like to propose?
TF, I’ve already addressed your incompetence here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-689975
[PUPPY] One side of the chicken is always heated by a flux of 1600 W/m^2. The chicken slowly rotates, so that all sides are exposed to the flux, which has a corresponding BB temperature of 137C, 278F. The chicken would cook in some reasonable time. But, if the 1600 W/m^2 source were replaced be 4 sources, each supplying 1600/4 = 400 W/m^2 […]
[TIM] 1600 W/m^2 on one side and 0 W/m^2 on threes sides wont cook a chicken. 400 W/m^2 on four sides wont cook a chicken, either.
Wee Willy Weasel attempts to play his “silly semantic games.”
He loses, because Nature can’t be fooled.
Wee Willy is an idiot, but at least he’s stupid.
No, Clint I exposed your incompetence there.
Your continued unwillingness and/or inability to deal with the numbers and calculations reveals that you really don’t understand.
Your words tell of two scenarios:
A – the ‘rotisserie’: 1600 W/m^2 over 1/4 of the surroundings (and 0 W/m^2 for 3/4 of the surroundings)
B – the ‘oven’: 1/4 the power = 400 W/m^2 over 4/4 of the surroundings.
Neither of these will cook a chicken.
We can up the ante by a factor of 5 or 6 … and then both the ‘rotisserie’ and the ‘oven’ will cook the chicken. The ‘rotisserie’ could give a crispier skin to the chicken, but the ‘oven’ will cook it through faster.
You can’t come up with any numbers (because they don’t exist!) that will support your hypothesis that 4x power over 1/4 of the surroundings is more effective at cooking your chicken than 1x the power over 4/4 of the surroundings. You just declare that a real rotisserie works, so yours must also work (even though is has completely different temperatures and powers).
I think the error that both you and Joe make is to focus on the improved heating on the ‘day’ side without recognizing the simultaneous improved cooling on the ‘night’ side. You can see this in Joe’s diagram: (https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14897539_f496.jpg)
The warm side simple *is* instantly at the warm temperatures, but the cool side has a slow cooling rate. In reality, there must be a similar slow heating rate on the sunny side, but that is somehow ignored. Heck the diagram even has the slow cooling highlighted with slowly changing colors, but the sunny side ‘magically’ shows the warm temperatures the moment after dawn.
TF, the example is very clear. You are desperately trying to pervert it to protect your cult beliefs. ¥ou’ve done this kind of thing before. bdgwx tried to pervert the cone example. That’s all you idiots can do — twist, distort, and pervert.
You have no problem dividing solar by 4, to support your cult nonsense. But when I give you a simple analogy of a chicken on a rotisserie, you realize you can’t divide flux by 4. So, you have to pervert the simple analogy.
If you don’t believe 137C/278F will cook meat, try it on your arm. Rotate your arm back and forth in front of an IR lamp providing 1600 W/m^2 to your skin. Do the experiment and report back. 1600 W/m^2 will definitely burn you, but 1600/4 = 400 W/m^2 will not. You lose.
Or, you can increase the flux arriving the chicken to 1800 W/m^2, which corresponds to 149C/300F. Dividing by 4 is 450 W/m^2, 25C/78F. You still lose.
The chicken-on-a-spit destroys your GHE nonsense just like the ball-on-a-string destroyed the Moon nonsense.
No wonder you cult idiots hate simple analogies.
Now twist, spin, and pervert some more. Get some help from your sucky trolls. You’ll still lose. Reality always wins.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> the example is very clear
For someone who never cooked it is, Pup. Write it like it’d be a recipe. You’ll see it’s not that you’re missing all kinds of details, e.g.:
https://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/chicken-recipes/perfect-roast-chicken/
What’s the room temperature of a planet with no atmosphere?
“If you don’t believe 137C/278F will cook meat, try it on your arm. Rotate your arm back and forth in front of an IR lamp providing 1600 W/m^2 to your skin. Do the experiment and report back. 1600 W/m^2 will definitely burn you, but 1600/4 = 400 W/m^2 will not. You lose.”
I can create a simple “1600 W/m^2 IR lamp” by setting my oven to 137C / 278 F and leaving the door open. I can mimic the lack of radiation from other directions by putting the oven outside on the coldest winter day. If my arm was at the plain of the door, it wold get the 137 radiation from half of the directions, so I would need to hold my arm a few inches outside the door to only get the radiation from 1/4 of the directions. You are claiming that I could rotate my bare arm a few inches OUTSIDE that oven in the middle of winter, and my arm would burn? I think that radiation would actually feel quite pleasant in the circumstances you describe! (an effective BB temperature for my arm of about 100 F).
TF, since you don’t understand physics you overlooked “to your skin”. You’ve likely never heard of the Inverse-Square Law.
But, you lose anyway. A room temperature kitchen is emitting about 450 W/m^2. So just hanging the chicken from the ceiling, it is getting 450 W/m^2 from all sides. But, it will never cook.
Put it on a rotisserie where it receives 1800 W/m^2 (4 * 450 = 1800) from one side, and it will cook nicely.
You must enjoy losing.
““Put it on a rotisserie where it receives 1800 W/m^2 (4 * 450 = 1800) from one side… AND 450 W/m^2 FROM THE OTHER THREE SIDES “and it will cook nicely.”
There. Fixed it for you. (And that STILL will not effectively cook a chicken all the way thru if you can actually run the numbers, but it could slowly cook one side at a time at least. )
You are comparing 450 + 450 + 450 + 450 to 450 + 450 + 450 + 1800
and thinking they are somehow the same. Really you need to compare 450 + 450 + 450 + 450 to 0 + 0 + 0 + 1800.
That would be like claiming 240 W/m^2 on all sides of the earth is like 960 W/m^2 on ‘1 side’ and still 240 W/m^2 on the other ‘3 sides’.
That sort of magical thinking would actually keep a rotating earth at about the right temperature and would keep a rotating chicken warm (about 160 F average on the surface). But both of these only work with magical warming of the far sides.
> You are comparing 450 + 450 + 450 + 450 to 450 + 450 + 450 + 1800
Our puppy is also comparing a planet to a chicken. To understand how silly it is, compare and contrast a potato and a chicken:
“Potatoes are roughly spherical and have thermal properties that are more or less constant over the temperature range of interest, and the heat of the gel transition is small enough to be ignored so that these properties can be readily modelled using straightforward thermal diffusivity. Other foods are not so simple. Consider a piece of meat; a steak, for example. The structure of meat is complex; therefore, as well as diffusion of heat, there is mass transport within the meat as it is cooked (we can see and hear water being expelled from the meat as it is being cooked).”
https://tinyurl.com/557p8tx6
Just wait until he realizes what kind of outfit astronauts wear to go on spacewalks.
There is no “0 W/m^2” in the example, TF. That’s just your feeble and desperate attempt to pervert reality.
And 149C/300F on the surface of the chicken will most definitely cook it all the way.
You lose again.
> There is no “0 W/m^2” in the example
You hid it, puppy. Like Joe does.
What a pathetic puppy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
CLINT: “One of the many mistakes in “climate science” is dividing Earth’s incoming solar flux by 4. That division reduces the temperature of the target. In the case of Earth, the average temperature would be only 255K (-18.1C, -0.5F). By claiming Earth should be that cold, they can then claim CO2 must be supplying the extra warming.
So I presented an example of cooking a chicken on a rotating spit. One side of the chicken is always heated by a flux of 1600 W/m^2. The chicken slowly rotates, so that all sides are exposed to the flux, which has a corresponding BB temperature of 137C, 278F. The chicken would cook in some reasonable time.”
The analogy of a rotisserie was presented to try to explain heating of the earth and the ‘mistake’ of ‘dividing by 4’.
For the earth we can compare [240 W/m^2 from all directions] with [960 W/m^2 from one direction and 0 W/m^2 from the other directions].
So either …
A) we also use 0 W/m^2 for other directions in the analogy (in which case the rotisserie fails to cook the chicken, just like 960 W/m^2 from one direction fails to warm the earth to 288 K)
B) we use 400 W/m^2 for the other directions in the analogy (and Clint just admits that this analogy is nothing like the actual earth).
Puppy should also admit that he has no idea how fire pits work.
Tim, Willard, please stop trolling.
Says the troll
RLH, please stop trolling.
“Moon has available 30% more solar energy in than Earth.
for every Earth’s 100 W/m^2
Moon receives 130 W/m^2
30% is a big difference!”
In terms of direct sunlight zenith sun gives 1050 of direct sunlight but also gives 70 watts of indirect sunlight. A flat surface temperature is affected by direct sunlight, but our ocean 1 mm deep surface is not warmed much by direct or indirect sunlight but rather direct and indirect sunlight is roughly 1/2 absorbed with the top 1 meter of the ocean.
Or in terms of ocean absorbing the heat of sunlight, the sunlight at zenith is 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight. And when considering warming a cloud, one also use the 1120 watts when sunlight near zenith.
Since 1/2 of all sunlight hits our tropical ocean {which is about 40% of total Earth surface area:
One could say:
for every Earth 110 W/m2 the Moon has 130 watts per meter or
about 20% difference.
But in the supposedly “cold vacuum of space” {not true- as the vacuum has no temperature}. Lunar surface is heated to more than 120 C, and Earth natural dry ground if air is warm enough can reach about 70 C. If you prevent convectional loss to cooler air- use insulated box with window allowing sunlight thru {or acting kind of like a actual greenhouse or inside of parked car with windows rolled up] the surface temperature can reach about 80 C. A parked car can get quite hot.
One also get about 80 C temperature from a solar pond due salt gradient stopping convectional heat transfer.
But any the different between 80 C and 120 C is difference between “hot” and death by cooking.
The Finns, brave sauna temperatures of 100 C, for short periods, but they don’t try for 120 C- basically a quick death. Safe enough temperature to cook anything. Save pork.
Though I guess 80 C water kills enough of harmful biological agents in water- or it warm enough that it can purify water to make drinkable water if heated to 80 C.
Or humans are pretty tough predator. Though it needs to able to evaporate it’s heat- as all warm blooded mammals do. Though it’s thought some dinosaurs or all birds also do this. Really it’s just just mammals and birds are more warm blooded, and say with the sloth:
“Their metabolism is half that of mammals of a similar size and although they are warm-blooded they keep themselves warm by basking in the sun like lizards do. Sloths do everything upside down – eat, sleep, mate and even give birth.”
We are energized bunnies to live more successful into a cold world that we evolved into.
But don’t go swimming in 80 C water. Hmm:
“The water from your hot water tap should be 49 degrees Celsius (120 degrees Fahrenheit). Water hotter than this can cause severe burns to a child’s skin in less than one second. Seniors, people who can’t escape the hot water quickly and people who can’t feel the heat are also at risk.”
Don’t go swimming in 60 C water.
People run across “fire” and jump into water colder than 15 C, don’ know if people like to go into 60 C water.
I wonder if it’s something used in torture.
Yes, apparently, the Chinese:
“Pouring hot water over the head: Extremely hot water is poured over the victim’s head in order to scald him/her.
Infusion of boiling water: Very hot or even boiling water is forced into the victim via tubes through the nose or mouth. Inner scalding is the result.
https://ishr.org/torture-methods-in-the-peoples-republic-of-china/
I would think pouring hot water on head, would make one stupid.
With permanent effects.
I don’t like very hot baths.
tim…”Heat, Q, is a process by which net thermal energy is transferred spontaneously from warmer areas to cooler areas”.
***
Tim…heat ‘IS’ thermal energy, not a process related to the transfer of itself. The energy transferred from hot to cold is heat.
Clausius defined heat back in the mid-19th century as the kinetic energy of atoms. No one to this day has any idea what energy is, never mind thermal energy. All we know is that ‘something’ causes atoms to vibrate more when there is more of that energy around.
Kinetic energy is energy in motion and somehow that energy in motion causes atoms to vibrate in a solid or become very energetic in a gas. We have no idea what causes that in atoms but we call it energy, in this case, thermal energy, or heat.
Atomic vibration is also mechanical energy and that’s why there is an equivalence between heat and work. The scientist, Joule, was able to measure the equivalence of the mechanical energy driving a paddle in water to the rise in heat of the water, measured in calories.
Gordon,
Heat *was* the thermal energy of a system = U (once upon a time).
Heat *is* the transfer of energy between two systems = Q (as defined by everyone everywhere now).
Science does not stay fixed in time — neither for knowledge nor for terminology. If you don’t like that people have built on — and improved on — the work of Clausius, then you can continue to use your archaic terminology. Just know that you will confuse people.
Or just use “U” (for “the thermal energy within a system”) and “Q” (for “the amount of thermal energy transferred between two systems”). Then there can be no confusion.
eben…science is not a thing.
Here you go, a scientist who is also a historian, writing about science.
https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf
Thomas was actually a philosophy professor. A professor who never had any PhD student, but a professor nevertheless.
Here’s what Thomas says about science, btw:
Incidentally, I suggested to Matt and Chris to pay due diligence to teh Dilbert’s guru style:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/scott-adams-chris-and-matt-go-to-hell
Notice the title. I get a shout out at the end.
The Structure has aged a bit more than teh Dilbert, but it’s better to read it than to listen to teh Dilbert.
Boring.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Idiotic Wee Willy,
Still desperate to get people to follow your pointless links?
How do I know they are pointless?
Because you provide them, you fool!
Good afternoon, Mike Flynn.
Minny says hi.
As Ken said.
Do you think Ken is a chemical engineer too?
As Ken said. Which of those three words don’t you understand, witless Wee Willy?
There’s nothing boring about your illustrious career, Mike Flynn.
As Ken said, dimwit.
Thank you for your concerns, Mike Flynn.
Wee Wayward Willy,
I’m sure Mike Flynn cares as much about your faux thanks as do I.
Which is to say, not at all!
You’re an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Thanks again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
In credible but true: this dumb Robertson is back again with the same stuff as months and months ago:
” For example, Roy claims in his monthly updates that the trend is still 0.14C/decade. Over 4+ decades that is about 0.56C total warming. The UAH graph is not showing over half a degree true warming, if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline.
In fact, for a decade and a half, there was no warming, between about 1998 and 2015. Between 2016 and present, the trend has flattened again, around 0.25C. Therefore, number-crunching does not tell the real story.
*
Oh no. That’s really too much. I get sad of this endless, brainless, reckless nonsense.
Bindidon, if you “get sad of this endless, brainless, reckless nonsense”, then maybe you should stop commenting. Because that’s all you offer.
Have you considered returning at Joe’s, Pup?
Whickering Wee Willy,
Have you considered returning to the village which has found itself missing its idiot?
Mike Flynn,
Aren’t you supposed to be a an energetic, positive, self-motivated leader with an entrepreneurial spirit?
Woebegone Wee Willy gongbeater,
You seem to be demanding that I use the name “Mike Flynn”, for some bizarre reason. Why not Attila the Hun, Karl Marx or Napoleon? Sorry, Witless Wee Willy, I choose my pseudonym, not you.
Have you not realised that you are completely powerless and impotent to determine what pseudonyms are used here?
A rhetorical question of course. Obviously, you are so full of yourself that you do not realise just how powerless and impotent you are! The result is, of course, that any small child seeing you in public will ask his parents “Why does that person have his head so far up his ass that he looks like he is wearing his ass as a hat?” A caring parent will respond “Because he is an asshat, dear.”
You demand a sammitch, I give you one, and then you complain you don’t like the taste! What a whiner you are!
Stick with your boyz. Maybe you can join the world of menz one day, when Hell freezes over.
You could always try to explain where Trenberth’s missing heat is. That would provide a few laughs.
What about it?
The word “sammich” might not mean what you make it mean, Mike Flynn. You were doing so well with Minny.
So here’s the deal. You keep being the abusive asshat we all know and love, you get called Mike Flynn. For everyone here knows it’s you. You start showing some manners, and you get to be named any sock puppet name you like.
Manners maketh the Climateball player.
Woeful Wee Willy with a wee willy,
Here’s the deal. You’re an asshat. I do as I wish.
You can’t even win at climateball – how pathetic is that! Your own silly attempt at a game, and you still lose to me!
Maybe you should try competing at an asshattery event. If you can get your head out from under your hat far enough to see the light, that is!
What particular form of insanity leads you to think that I value your opinions? For that matter, can you name one rational person who does?
Ho, ho, ho!
Mike Flynn,
So be it.
Enjoy your evening.
Wee Willy Idiot,
What a foolish asshat you are! I!m sure Mike Flynn would concur.
So be it.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you speak of yourself in the third person?
Wee Willy Wanker,
Why do you boast about being a delusional dimwit?
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
That you distance yourself from your Climateball past is of course quite understandable. Your voice remains. Cherish it.
Waffling Wee Willy,
I find your delusional obfuscation intensely humorous. You may be able to convince a so-called “climate scientist” that you are not suffering from delusional psychosis, but not any normal person.
You appear to think that your opinions are somehow important, for reasons which exist only in your fantasies. Some self styled “climate scientists” provide the same unintended laughter inducing pomposities!
It’s worse than we thought!!! Only . . . weeks or months or years . . . to save the World!!!! Stop the climate changing!!! – and all the other laughable nonsense these dimwits spew forth.
So carry on, laddie. I do precisely what I want, you may do as you wish, and between us, many people should have the opportunity for a good laugh. No adverse affects from laughter – well, most of the time anyway!
I’m sure Mike Flynn enjoys a good laugh at your expense. Wouldn’t you agree?
Keep it up!
Mike Flynn,
Magnificient!
Minny should be proud of you!
Boring.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ever since that big temperature drop Bidendon is going out his mind throwing tantrums in here
Binny wrote –
“I get sad of this endless, brainless, reckless nonsense.”
Boo hoo. Poor, sad, dejected Binny!
Where will he find the will to carry on? And carry on he will, I have no doubt.
” … big temperature drop”
What drop, Eben?
Die Eisheiligen sind seit Jahren völlig zahnlos.
And how will you react when the big temperature drop is followed by the big temperature rise?
A big temperature drop would be something to get upset about, but it seems as far temperature goes, we aren’t really going anywhere, lately.
I expect it, to roughly continue, not going anywhere, as been doing for decades.
It’s a cold ocean, and it’s possible, it could get cooler in next couple of decades. But unless get something big happening, it’s roughly going to be about the same. And the same could include just, more of the Pause.
“if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline…”
Yep, that is galactically stupid. Do ‘skeptics’ revel in their ignorance?
barry
Did you really write ‘skeptic’? I see only Pseudoskeptics at work.
*
Btw: here are even more of these ‘positive anomalies above the baseline’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_g0W7CnY4TTqSEzAiwZokj0PKjMn9JW/view
Means more ‘true warming’ I guess…
And… what does the dumbest under the Dumbs say when looking at this graph below?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZAQzHc0B-YBkKL3O6rbKfZQcMVxKVJOq/view
Ooops?! Still 0.14 C warming per decade, 0.56 C in 4 decades, but… no baseline, thus: no true warming at all!
OMG.
J.-P. D.
Oh no, Bindidon, the baseline is always zero, so for the scale in Kelvin, every single month has been warmimg, because they are all positive! True warming indeed!
And isn’t it fascinating to think that just by changing the metric from Kelvin to Celcius, the warming disappears!
Climate Science by Gordon: a statistical marvel, to be sure.
barry…”“if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline…”
Yep, that is galactically stupid”.
***
Both NOAA and John Christy must be pretty stupid then, they both called it that.
What else could it be? You have a 30 year average and you are comparing anomalies to that average. Either they are warmer than the average or cooler than the average. Eight true warming or true cooling.
To be fair to John Christy, he seemed to regard the 18 year period from 1979 – 1997 as an enforced cooling, due to volcanic aerosols. But he did call the breach of the baseline ‘true warming’.
I have said this to both you and Binnay, you are both number cruncher who fail to grasp the physical reality behind the numbers.
barry [quoting Gordon] “if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline…”
Yep, that is galactically stupid.
Gordon replies:
“Both NOAA and John Christy must be pretty stupid then, they both called it that.”
No they didn’t. Your deranged view of statistics has possibly mangled something you read, but more likely you just made it up.
But please provide a link. Please provide two: one for each source. This should be good…
Gordon provides some references here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-693310
binny…”Oh no. Thats really too much. I get sad of this endless, brainless, reckless nonsense”.
As Clint pointed out, try rebutting with some science. You are still raving about Meier, you did a statistical analysis of the Moon’s orbit and got it completely wrong. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
In his previous thread
” An Earth Day Reminder: ‘Global Warming’ is Only ~50% of What Models Predict ”
Roy Spencer presented a graph:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
Here we see another graph:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CMIP6comparison-2048×1205.png
presented by Clive Best in a thread entitled: “Do CMIP6 models match the data?”
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9955
*
The discrepancy between the accuracy of Best’s work and the superficiality of some of the comments is amazing.
I especially loved:
” Prophesy: A change is gonna come, and it ain’t warming. ”
*
Like always: those I name the ‘Pseudoskeptic’s never prove those wrong they reply to.
Instead, they simply say:
” I think you are wrong; prove me wrong. ”
J.-P. D.
Binny,
You do realise that the future is unknowable, don’t you?
Even the IPCC says that the prediction of future climate states is impossible. If somebody claims that they can predict the future, you can!t prove they are wrong!
The future hasnt happened yet – don’t you realise that?
You might as well keep playing with your pencil, if it keeps you happy. It certainly won’t allow you to see the future.
Bindidon – Do you have something to which you refer similar to the “Texas Sharpshooter’s Fallacy” there in France?
The original Hansen prediction is the best match
https://i.postimg.cc/mgbMJdbY/predictions.png
Eben
It is not improbable that somebody compared here
– surface data with LT data
– probably using different reference periods.
Thus, you are a dishonest person – unless you show
– the original graph without the red colored annotations;
– the real source of its modification.
J.-P. D.
In case anyone missed it, based on the red running-average curve on the UAH graph, we’ve had a flat trend since 2016.
Not the first one, Gordon:
https://youtu.be/xWdJuNYLTLs
Weird Wee Willy,
Not the first what, kiddo? Certainly not the first link you have posted.
What does it link to? Too coy to say? I’ll guess it’s not worth wasting time on.
Am I right, kiddo?
Mike Flynn,
Had you read the comment to which I respond, you would not ask that silly question.
Minny had the same problem.
Remember?
Wily Wee Willy,
Reverting to obscurity again, are you kiddo? I did ask the question. As usual, you weaselled out of an answer.
Maybe you could start speaking English when you respond to comments, instead of climatespeak! Oh well, you strive for inscrutability, incomprehensibility and idiocy.
You’re getting there. What has happened to your demand that I use the pseudonym Mike Flynn? Got sick of me laughing at your impotence, did you? Trying to force me to do what you want, using a different demand?
Here’s the deal, kiddo. I choose what I do. You don’t! How’s that for a deal? Can’t beat it, can you?
You are an impotent idiot, kiddo.
Mike Flynn,
Which part of “Minny had the same problem” you do not get?
Thanks again!
Weary Wee Willy,
Don’t you get tired of losing all the time, kiddo?
Repeating a fantasy, hoping it will become reality, is what “climate scientists” do.
And some idiots like you.
Thank me at your leisure – make sure to thank Mike Flynn, Minny, and all your other fantasy figures too. Fake thanks for non-existent people? That seems appropriate.
[ Chortle ]
Please stop this. It doesn’t add anything to the discourse.
Bart,
Please let Mike Flynn have a little fun. Working for a fossil fuel company is very stressful. He has to be a dynamic and positive leader all day!
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Not the first one, Gordon:”
Your link points to an amateur analysis by someone who is imbued with climate psychosis. I based my flat-trend analysis on an instant visual of two near sine waves on the red running average, from 2016 till now, which average visually to zero.
This nonsense about noise on a graph with real data points is a load of alarmists hooey. Noise is a reference to data that does not belong in the database. There is no noise on the UAH graph.
Gordon,
I’m glad you speak of noise.
Perhaps you can tell me how you calculate “a flat trend since 2016”?
After all, you’re the engineer guru around here.
willard…”Perhaps you can tell me how you calculate a flat trend since 2016?
After all, youre the engineer guru around here.”
I already told you, LOOK at the UAH graph. Between 2016 and now you will see near back-to-back sine waves on the red running average curve. The average of a sine wave, even with anomalies, is zero, meaning flat. Two of them back-to-back is still zero.
We studied this stuff in engineering math. By the time you get through engineering math, over a period of two years, you have covered essentially everything you need to know in basic university math. Unfortunately, over the years, without applying the math, one tends to forget much of it.
One of the techniques they pushed was solution by inspection. If you were on an exam, and you remembered that certain shapes produced a zero, due to symmetry, you could simply write, ‘zero…by inspection’ and get full marks. Otherwise you’d have to wade through pages of a possible triple integral solution to get the zero.
> LOOK at the UAH graph
That’s *not* how trends are established, Gordon.
Oh so silly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Thats *not* how trends are established, Gordon.”
Maybe you prefer the Binny method? Adopt that one, and the seas boil dry in less than 10,000 years! Now, that’s how to establish a trend!
Completely pointless, of course, as is most alarmist nonsense pretending to be science.
What sort of trend establishment do you prefer, Wee Willy? Come on now, puppy, try and bark – at least mewl a bit. Or just fly off at a tangent, and repeat some of your stock diversionary nonsense – complain that commenters are using pseudonyms without your permission, perhaps?
Off you go now, kiddo. Show us your bark is at least as ineffective as your bite.
Mike Flynn,
My favorite way to establish a trend is this one:
You respond to my comments with a flurry of abuse.
I say “Mike Flynn” and thank you.
Thank you, Mike Flynn!
Willard, please stop trolling.
“This nonsense about noise on a graph with real data points is a load of alarmists hooey. ”
Well, I believe the global temperature of Earth is the average temperature of the entire ocean {though also could include all the glacial ice or ice in general}.
So in that sense atmospheric surface temperature or temperature of entire atmosphere, is roughly, noise.
It’s noise that could give a clue, or it acts as proxy.
Gordon says:
“In case anyone missed it, based on the red running-average curve on the UAH graph, weve had a flat trend since 2016.”
The “trend,” which starts with a very strong al Nino 5 years ago, is not flat, but -0.19 C/decade.
Here’s the kicker – the uncertainty: (+/- 0.99)
So there is a 95% chance that the trend lies within the range of
-1.18 C/decade
to 0.80 C/decade
In other words we can’t say whether there is a trend or not.
But here we go again, with ‘skeptics’ by amazing coincidence, beginning their trend ‘analysis’ by selecting the highest temperatured year as the starting point. This was predicted as soon as it was known 2016 was going to top 1998 in all data sets.
So, let’s see what happens if we move forward and backward a year.
Start in 2015, and the trend is positive: 0.06 C/decade.
Start in 2017, and the trend is positive: 0.19 C/decade.
Neither, of course, are statistically significant.
But how did this ‘skeptioc’ manage to pick the correct year to get a negative slope?
Wonder of wonders!
And when we top 2016’s temperature in all data sets, you will see the same trick a few years later.
barry…”So there is a 95% chance that the trend lies within the range of …-1.18 C/decade…to 0.80 C/decade”
Barry…put away your calculator and just look at the graph. Look at the red running average curve and it’s plain the trend is flat enough to be declared flat from 2016 – 2020.
You are using the word “trend” in a qualitiative sense, not in its scientific sense.
Just above you demanded,
“try rebutting with some science.”
Which is breathtakingly ironic, since you have never, in all the years you have posted here, produced a trend with uncertainty, either in graphical form or just plain text.
So now is your chance.
What is the trend with uncertainty for the period you have selected?
And what does it mean when the sign of the trend changes just by adding or subtracting a year from the period?
Let’s have your quantitative analysis, not your eye-cromoter, thanks.
Try rebutting with some science.
For the number-cruch twins, Barry and Binny, a definition from NOAA.
“The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value”.
In the case of the UAH graph to which I have been referring, there is a slightly different problem. The range of anomalies from 1979 – 1997 represented anomalies cooled by volcanic aerosols, therefore, when the 1998 El Nino produced a major anomaly above the baseline, it shifted the anomalies above the baseline, where they have remained to this day on average.
My apology to John Christy for misquoting him, he said, ‘clear net warming’ in reference to the 1998 El Nino driving anomalies well above the baseline. I interpreted that to mean ‘true warming’.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
Gordon, this is fascinating:
In the case of the UAH graph to which I have been referring, there is a slightly different problem. The range of anomalies from 1979 – 1997 represented anomalies cooled by volcanic aerosols, therefore, when the 1998 El Nino produced a major anomaly above the baseline, it shifted the anomalies above the baseline, where they have remained to this day on average.
I’ve always been describing the pattern as a step, not a trend, and you just gave the explanation as to why. Thanks for filling in that piece of the puzzle. Of course, none of the alarmists ever even try to explain how CO2 can cause a step in temperatures, but then again, they aren’t looking for the truth.
Yep, as I knew, you mangeld the reading entirely.
You’ve already admitted you misunderstood Spencer.
And to complete the set, nothing that is in the NOAA quote says anything about “true warming.” They just describe what anomalies are – correctly.
“True warming” occurs when there is a statistically significant rise in temperatures. A trend. The trend is the same no matter where you put the baseline, as long as the anomalies all have the same quantitative relation to each other.
Let me show you the UAH data with the anomalies as is, and with 2 other plots of the same data but shifted down to be all negative, and shifted up to be all positive.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/offset:-1/plot/uah6/offset:-1/trend/plot/uah6/offset:1/plot/uah6/offset:1/trend
They all have exactly the same trend.
and they are all statistically significant to exactly the same degree.
The baseline is irrelevant to the trend.
The warming is just as true if the anomalies are all positive, all negative, a bit of both, and even if some of the anomalies have a value of zero.
Gordon: “if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline..”
You are a fecking idiot.
“Of course, none of the alarmists ever even try to explain how CO2 can cause a step in temperatures, but then again, they arent looking for the truth.”
Which idiots are saying that CO2 can cause a “step” in temperature data?
Are they the same idots that say a “step” in temperature data refutes CO2 warming?
Let’s see what Dr Spencer has to say.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
CO2isLife
“The range of anomalies from 1979 – 1997 represented anomalies cooled by volcanic aerosols, therefore, when the 1998 El Nino produced a major anomaly above the baseline, it shifted the anomalies above the baseline, where they have remained to this day on average.”
“none of the alarmists ever even try to explain how CO2 can cause a step in temperatures,”
Straw man alert.
In your last post you mentioned four variables which affect global temperature.
Albedo,volcanic activity, ENSO and CO2.
We are both aware that the climate is affected by many variables. So why do you expect to explain everything using CO2?
You will not find anyone in climate research saying that CO2 causes rapid changes in the rate of warming, what you call steps.
Those steps reflect short term variations.in other variables, such as those you mention; not CO2.
CO2 only explains the long term warming trend.
Ent, CO2 does not cause a warming trend. It’s the other way around. A warming trend causes more CO2.
Clint R
Actually both are right.
1) Change global temperature and you then see a change in CO2 concentration.
Example – glacial cycles.
2)Change CO2 and you then see a change in temperature.
Examples- snowball Earths, Permian extinction, PETM, AGW
“Snowball Earths, Permian extinction, PETM, AGW” are all based on assumptions, estimates, and opinions. AKA, “consensus”. That ain’t science.
Science shows us that adding more CO2 means more energy is emitted to space. But, more emission back to the surface has no impact. Atmospheric CO2 can not raise the temperature of a surface at 288K.
” Atmospheric CO2 can not raise the temperature of a surface at 288K.”
Already has.
Ent, this is where we started!
“CO2 does not cause a warming trend. It’s the other way around. A warming trend causes more CO2.”
If you are certain that the 1.2C increase in global temperature since 1880 is not due to CO2, then you must know the cause.
Please explain the mechanism, including data, evidence and equations.
Show your working.
We know it’s not CO2 because of the law of physics.
Any perceived warming is therefore due to natural variation.
“Natural variation” is a copout.
Describe your mechanism, with evidence and calculations.
Explain why Earth’s surface is at 288K and why it has risen by 1.2C in the last 140 years.
No Ent, “natural variation” is not a copout. It’s reality.
“Natural variation” happens all the time, every where. Just because you can’t predict when a cloud will move over you doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
But, we know that cloud is obeying the laws of physics.
Everything follows the law of physics, Puppy. Except perhaps Mike Flynn, who does what he wants all the time. And Chuck Norris, who leads the law of physics.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I have lost count of the ‘unprecedented since’ type comments in the news and elsewhere. Most of them quoting things from some 60 years ago.
Until we have at least 60 years of good data, any comments about trends are futile.
Global records since 1880.
Central England temperatures from 1659.
Proxies for 600 million years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record
Thermometers on the ground are within the chaotic boundary layer.
Satellite measurements are above the boundary layer
There is a loose coupling between boundary and above the boundary measurements.
It depends, apart from other things, on the height of the boundary layer, the time of day, the difference in humidity, the pressure differences, and a host of other things.
Quoting somethings that are in the boundary layer says very little about the temperature of the atmosphere.
“The planetary boundary layer (PBL) height is a fundamental parameter characterizing the vertical extent of atmospheric mixing near the surface. It is critical for understanding the PBL process and low cloud evolution and its feedback on the climate system, which remains a key uncertainty in climate modeling. The PBL height is generally defined as the altitude of a transition layer where air temperature or humidity gradient are significant within the lowest 1-5 kilometers above the surface. Numerous thermodynamic parameters, including temperature, humidity (specific/relative humidity) and their derivatives (e.g., potential/virtual potential temperature etc.) have been widely used to define the PBL height. Advances in satellite remote sensing technique allow novel ways to detect the PBL heights from space.”
If Mars and Moon had the same exactly albedo, their satellite measured mean surface temperatures would have been exactly the same.
And this is very interesting !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How a professional modeler would address Climate Change. A “Stepwise” approach to building a robust, serious, professional Climate Model. If you are building a pregnancy test model, you don’t include men, pre-pubescent children, post-menopause women, sterile, and other populations because they make the results nonsensical. The data sets chosen have to be relevant to the questions being asked. Imagine how idiotic the results would be if we included men in pregnancy tests? That is what an aggregate climate model is. AN idiotic construction of dissimilar data sets all put in a blender. Their results are nonsensical and effectively meaningless.
How then would a professional modeler create a climate model?
1) Start with a data set that has as many exogenous and/or variables as possible.
2) Antarctica and cold and dry deserts are ideal for controlling for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor. The only real variables are CO2, Clouds, air currents and Sun.
3) Run a regression of temperatures and CO2 using the data from Antarctica or a composite of desert locations. https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS#BLncbpV
4) The Error you get is due to Clouds, Sun, and air currents, and the coefficient on CO2 is the relationship and CO2 and Temperature. Most likely, you will get a 0.00 on CO2, even when CO2 increases by 25%.
5) Take the error of the regression, and use that at the data for normal variation or temperature due to exogenous factors.
6) The next model would use the data set right above Antarctica. That data set is close to Antarctica, but has more exposure to the oceans.
7) Run a regression using the Antarctica Error, CO2, and Temperature. The error you get from this model is the variability due to adding the effect of oceans to the data set.
8) The next model uses the data set next higher up on the latitude that would include Land.
9) Run a regression using CO2, the Antarctica Error, the Ocean surrounding Antarctica error against temperature. The error you get is due the impact of adding land. (Yes, I know if isn’t perfect, but it is infinitely better than the nonsense being created today) The current models are a joke.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
By using a stepwise approach of using similar data sets, and using the error to explain the exogenous variable, and using that exogenous variable as an indigenous variable in the new model, climate modelers would be able to slowly build more accurate climate models. Because each region of the globe has different indigenous variables, an aggregate model is a 100% complete joke.
Climate models should be done by regions to isolate the impact of the known indigenous variables on temperature.
Publishing trends on data sets that don’t have linear trends is pure nonsense. ANOVA Table statistics should be published. That would give you model R^2, variable coefficients, and the significance of those variables. That is how a professional model is built. Show me any real field of science that doesn’t produce ANOVA Tables? Linear trends are nonsensical when applied to temperatures. They literally tell you nothing about what is causing the warming.
What makes you think that ANOVA is not used in climate research?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/statistical-analysis-in-climate-research/analysis-of-variance/A6F4E6ADFEFBB9D7A0ADF91D194398A5
Show me an ANOVA Table for a climate model, and I will show you insignificant variables and adjusted R-Squads of less than 10.
Please publish a climate model AVOVA Table.
Start with a data set that has as many exogenous and/or variables as possible.
should say
Start with a data set that has as few exogenous and/or variables as possible.
Earth’s atmosphere has only traces of carbon dioxide CO₂ gas content
CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere is measured to be some 400 ppm.
400 parts per million is one part per 2.500 (1.000.000 /400 = 2.500)
So we have one molecule of CO₂ for every 2.500 molecules of air.
Or to make it even more clear: 1 /2.500 = 0,0004 or 0,04 %
Now let’s compare the 0,04% CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere with the water vapor content of about 1% on average.
0,04% CO₂ /1% H₂O = 0,04
or one molecule of CO₂ for every 25 molecules of H₂O in Earth’s atmosphere.
One may say there are still too many CO₂ molecules.
But Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, it is an almost transparent atmosphere in both ways – in and out.
It is not only the CO₂% content in the Earth’s atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earth’s atmosphere in total.
If Earth’s atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
Please add 120 parts per million of arsenic to your blood stream and let us know if you feel any effects.
It’s a small number, so should be quite safe.
If that seems a little dangerous, try the same proportion of lysergic acid diethylamide. Report your findings.
Did you know that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by changes in ozone detroying gases on the order of parts ber billion? That’s 3 orders of magnitude less than CO2 changes.
The “it’s only a small amount” argument was scuttled a long time ago.
Planet Earth has a very thin atmosphere…
What???
Yes, that is exactly what we said. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
But how? We are accustomed to the opposite opinion.
What it is we believe about Earth’s atmosphere thickness? Does anyone think the Earth has a thick atmosphere? A very thick, maybe?
No, but we think our atmosphere is not thin. It is not very thin.
What we think about the Earth’s atmosphere is that it is just all right. The Earth’s atmosphere is just the way a planet’s atmosphere should be.
The Earth’s atmosphere pressure at the sea level is 1 bar. It consists mainly of 79% N2 and 21% O2, and water vapor 1%, and CO2 0,04% and the other trace gasses.
Let’s compare Earth’s atmosphere with Venus’ atmosphere. Venus is almost the same size planet as Earth is. That is why Venus is called a sister planet.
The Venus’ atmosphere pressure at the ground level is 92 bar. It consists mainly of 96% CO2 and 4% N2, and other trace gasses. And Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
For someone living on Venus the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be thin. It appears to be very thin, very-very thin.
Compare the figures:
1 bar with 0,04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2.
How much more CO2 Venus has?
Let’s calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0,04% =
92*96*25 = 220.800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere has compared to Earth’s.
So what we compare is 1 to 220.800 !
For someone living on the Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesn’t have any CO2 in its atmosphere…
Imagine Venus is a jug of arsenic. You wouldn’t want to drink it!
But it should be ok to get a syringe and inject 1/220th of the arsenic into your body, right?
Because the amount is TINY compared to the jug!
The “it’s only a small amount” argument was scuttled a long time ago.
Chris, don’t be silly.
barry
But it should be ok to get a syringe and inject 1/220th of the arsenic into your body, right?
Not 1/220 but 1/220000
And it is not arsenic anymore, it is a pure water…
Don’t you believe that CO2 is the source of life, Christos?
Willard,
>Don’t you believe that CO2 is the source of life, Christos?
Everyone believes CO2 is the source of live.
When burning fossil fuels though, CO2 is captured in ocean. Then it is captured in the rocks.
There is a continuous CO2 depletion process in the earth’s system.
The crust’s degassing leads CO2 in atmosphere. Ocean captures in rocks, vegetation in coal deposits…
In the future, when there would be very little CO2 left in atmosphere, humans will be desperately in need for fossil fuels to produce CO2 which would be very much in demand for food production at the time.
The photosynthesis for the food production cannot be replaced with electricity.
The use of solar and wind renewables is an important step towards the fossil fuels conservation for the future generations well being.
Christos,
Thank you for your reply. One more question:
How can CO2 be the source of life is it’s only a trace gas?
Willard,
Thank you too.
>How can CO2 be the source of life is its only a trace gas?
I think CO2 first dissolves in plant’s water. A volume of water may dissolve 1000 volumes of CO2 at sea level atmospheric pressure.
Christos,
If a trace gas can be the source of life, it can be the source of an effect that changes temperature.
Basic logic.
could is the operative word but the mass of the atmosphere is about 10,000 times greater than all the worlds biomass.
so warming the atmosphere is a much bigger job than being the source of life
“Not 1/220 but 1/220000”
Thank you, Christos!
Your hold about 5 litres of blood in you. One 1/220,000th that amount of arsenic injected into that amount should be safe, right?
Inject the same amount of LSD into your body and the transcendent experience would loft you into places no one has gone before, unless your heart siezes up first.
Your argument is crass. Small amounts can have a large effect. Which is why adding CFCs on the order on a few hundred parts per billion caused a noticeable thinning in ozone in the polar atmosphere, with an attendant change in international policy on antrhopogenic emissions.
> could is the operative word but
And “but” is your operative word, Bill.
10,000 times is a might big butt.
Barry Says: Please add 120 parts per million of arsenic to your blood stream and let us know if you feel any effects.
That comment is truly idiotic and shows just clueless the alarmists are. H2O and CO2 absorb the absolutely same wavelengths of LWIR, only H2O absorbs far far far more. Using your arsenic analogy, H2O is already adding all the arsenic to kill the patient if arsenic truly killed the patient. H2O can add 80+ W/m^2 to the climate, CO2 adds about 0.67 W/m^2. You could X CO2 effect by 10 and not reach 1/10th the effect of a simply cloudy day. There is a problem of multi-collinearity that you just don’t seem to grasp. You don’t grasp it because you want to believe what you have been told over what the data says. Modeling CO2 doesn’t work, that has been proven. CO2 isn’t the cause of warming. It it were, you wouldn’t have to adjust the data.
“H2O and CO2 absorb the absolutely same wavelengths of LWIR”
Unfortunately, that is bullshit.
Also, water vapour drops off at the tropopause, while CO2 continues up into the mesosphere.
So even if CO2 gets saturated at 1 metre, the next layer up is still getting IR, absorbing it, and re-emitting it up and down and sideways.
CO2’s effect is additional, and you have to have a mighty fat head to believe that you have the spectroscopic minutia worked out better than thousands of actual researchers on the topic.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1
Well you can ignore that reference entirely, unless you are interested in calls for COVID source to be investigated. The link was for another website, and I clicked on this post, which I meant to delete, after dumping the link here.
> Earth’s atmosphere has only traces of carbon dioxide CO₂ gas content
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Willard, please stop trolling.
The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by the French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.[2] Its properties were explored in detail by the British meteorologist G. M. B. Dobson, who developed a simple spectrophotometer (the Dobsonmeter) that could be used to measure stratospheric ozone from the ground. Between 1928 and 1958, Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day. The “Dobson unit”, a convenient measure of the amount of ozone overhead, is named in his honor.
The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength), which otherwise would potentially damage exposed life forms near the surface.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
Good. Keep learning.
…the intensity at the top of the atmosphere is 350 million times stronger than at the Earth’s surface.
The ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone, while the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million. The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth, although its thickness varies seasonally and geographically
Ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone
…approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth…
Let’s see 10 ppm at 15 to 35 kilometers (what is the atmospheric density above 15 km?)
Well, I do not accept the thesis 10 ppm at 15 to 35 km above Earth Ozone layer being capable to capture ultraviolet radiation intensity 350 million times stronger than at the Earth’s surface !
“Ozone layer being capable to capture ultraviolet radiation”
The Greenhouse gas effect has absolutely nothing to do with Untraviolent radiation, absolutely none. The earth does not radiate UV light, if it did, we would be the sun.
Ozone is created by incoming UV Light. I don’t think you are understanding the impact of ozone, or its relevance to the issue of warming.
I’m sorry, I don’t share you fascination with disputes about what ozone does radiatively, but it seems like a diversion from the point I made about parts per BILLION of CFCs noticeably thinning the ozone layer.
You could say that a flea won’t kill you, and then argue that tiny things don’t necessarily have a major effect (unless the flea gives you bubos, of course), and I would agree.
But that would still leave you original argument sadly watning, and you possibly looking for other orthogonal arguments try to buttress it.
What some unskeptical ‘skeptics’ do at this point is to actually deal with the rebuttal, rather than sidestep it.
I’ll help.
Removal of ozone by CFCs and the like is a catalytic operation.
I’m sure this argument has teeth, somehow, which is why I’ve heard it, no doubt. I submit it to your arsenal of soundbytes for use in the enlightening debate.
Lovely. And what is your point?
” And Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect ”
More fantasy.
Venus, having never had its surface cooled by h20, and thus having only a thin crust, has outgasssed far more than the Earth.
The sun has been cooking off its h20 for billions of years.. What happens when it runs out and the induced magnetic field around it collapses?
Will the solar wind quickly scrub away the rest of its atmosphere?
That would be my guess..
Scientific modelling is pretty cool beyond chickens and potatoes:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/
Ha ha,
More fantasy. modeled on, you guessed it, the non existent GHE..
No, rather, Venus’ atmosphere never cooled enough for h20 to precipitate out at the surface..
It’s sulfur thus never precipitated out and the sulfuric acid clouds grew more and more concentrated as h20 was cooked off by the Sun..
Like thin slag over a molten cauldron of ore, the surface of Venus remained thin and volcanic activity and overturning occured frequently and on massive scales.
Hence far more outgasing than Earth. Lighter and IR active compounds would quickly rise to the upper atmosphere..
co2 being heavy and a weak absorber/emitter sinking
no need for 2LOT shenanigans to explain it…
All you got is guesses, PhilJ. No, that’s not accurate. You also got lolz.
I doubt lulzing can help you produce science, but who knows? Keep at it!
what is a hypothesis but an educated guess?
Mine of course, does not require massaging the 2LOT and claiming that ‘slower cooling is warming’.
I do not assert that the polar ice cap warms the oceans… again.. ludicrous.
What is a model if not a way to see where our educated guesses go?
There’s no need to massage any law to observe that you’re switching between frames of reference. All this to support contrarian incredulity.
That’s underwhelming, to say the least.
“What is a model if not a way to see where our educated guesses go?”
Models based on a fundamentally flawed premise are doomed to fail no matter how many ‘epicycles’ they are tweaked with…
What premise are you talking about, Phil?
The model you’re sneering at is based on the Pioneer mission’s measurements.
The premise that the planets are cold rocks have been warmed UP to current temps by the Sun.
““Many of the same tools we use to model climate change on Earth can be adapted to study climates on other planets, both past and present,” said Michael Way, a researcher at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “These results show ancient Venus may have been a very different place than it is today.” ”
These models, based on fantasy, produce the fantasy that Venus once had oceans of h20.. preposterous!
Easy (?) way to falsify: large deposits of sulfur (or lack thereof) on Venus
> The premise that the planets are cold rocks have been warmed UP to current temps by the Sun.
I’m quite sure that scientists know about the temperature at the center of the Earth, Phil.
So citation needed.
citation needed?
Are not the models built on a BB warmed up by solar input, the ‘255 K’ that the supposed GHE warms us up from?
Is not reality that the Earth is FAR warmer than 255K and that far from needing a ‘GHE’ to warm it, the Earth is continuing to COOL towards that 255K?
regarding my last post, perhaps I should have said anhydrous sulfates rather that ‘sulfur deposits’.
As for scientists being aware of the hot interior, I have seen it maintained many places that the HEAT coming from the interior is insignificant… how much less significant then is energy that does NOT HEAT the surface?
Wee Willy wrote –
“Im quite sure that scientists know about the temperature at the center of the Earth, Phil.”
Wee Willy’s sureness is neither here nor there. Any calculation purporting to show the Earth’s surface temperature as 255 K or so, explicitly ignores the reality that the Earth is mostly molten.
Maybe Witless Wee Willy can provide a surface temperature calculation citation which acknowledges that the mostly molten Earth must have a surface temperature somewhere between say >5000 K, and say 4 K. It cannot be otherwise, as the thermal profile proceeds from hottest to coldest – that is, from the hot molten core, to the almost absolute zero of the farthest reaches of the atmosphere.
Now ignoramuses of the Woeful Wee Willy persuasion simply ignore the fact that if the surface of the Earth cools from, say, >1500 K, then all intermediate temperatures to 288 K have been passed through. Unfortunately for self proclaimed “climate scientists”, their foolish calculations involving sciency sounding things like Planck’s Law, the Stephan-Boltzmann equation, energy flux densities and all the rest, ignore the fact that the actual surface temperature of the Earth has varied from >1500 K to 288 K or so.
The pointless “equation” used by delusional “climate scientists” ignores reality, and keeps mindlessly repeating “255 K”, whether the surface is 1500 K, 500 K, 300 K, or even 288 K!
Ah well, that’s what happens when you involve people like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones – just to mention a few. Bumbling buffoonery personified.
Posturing asshatted idiots like Wee Willy are so busy with their lulz, lolz, menz, sammitches, and all the rest of their nonsensical jargon, that they don’t realise how looney and illogical some of their pronouncements appear – to any rational observer, that is.
Poor Wee Willy – so deluded he has convinced himself that his fantasy is reality.
Ho, ho, ho!
> Are not the models built on a BB warmed up by solar input
Which models, Phil?
philj…”As for scientists being aware of the hot interior, I have seen it maintained many places that the HEAT coming from the interior is insignificant”
There may not be much of it per second per square metre at the surface, but that heat at the core is being dissipated throughout the planet. Since the Earth’s surface is 70% ocean, that means the oceans have been warmed by that heat over a long, long time.
There is a presumption that the current surface temp is due to solar energy alone but the core of the Earth is at a similar temperature to the solar surface. So, how much of the Earth’s current temperature can be attributed to each?
We know that the deeper we dig into the Earth the hotter it gets. That heat is not coming from solar energy. In fact, there is magma from the Earth’s interior contacting the ocean base. I cannot buy the argument about this heat being insignificant.
Perhaps the Earth is hollow.
Lots of theories.
Willard, please stop trolling.
PhilJ
” As for scientists being aware of the hot interior, I have seen it maintained many places that the HEAT coming from the interior is insignificant… ”
Why should geothermal below 1 W / m^2 be significant when compared to 240 W / m^2 of solar irradiance?
J.-P. D.
Boring.
–Scientists long have theorized that Venus formed out of ingredients similar to Earth’s, but followed a different evolutionary path.–
But what were Earth’s early ingredients?
Anyone know?
Also some think Earth was hit by Mars size rock.
If so, which earlier, before or after being hit by a Big
Rock.
Some opinions:
” New research led by the University of St. Andrews with contributions from the University of Maryland, NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the University of Leeds and the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science suggests that long ago, Earths atmosphere spent about a million years filled with a methane-rich haze” …
“Their results suggest that ancient bacteriathe only life on Earth at the timeproduced massive amounts of methane that reacted to fill the air with a thick haze, resembling the modern-day atmosphere of Saturns moon Titan. ”
Resembling Titan?? Titan has more atmospheric thickness than Earth, Wiki:
Surface pressure: 146.7 kPa (1.45 atm)
Titan’s gravity: 1.352 m/s2
{our Moon’s gravity is 1.62 m/s/s
So less gravity than our Earth and atmosphere with more atmospheric pressure than Earth}
“Recent observations have shown that Titans atmosphere is denser than Earths, with a surface pressure of about 1.469 KPa 1.45 times that of Earths. It is also about 1.19 times as massive as Earths atmosphere overall, or about 7.3 times more massive on a per-surface-area basis.”
https://www.universetoday.com/15429/saturns-moon-titan/
Another one:
“Meanwhile geologically based arguments, which treat the atmosphere as outgassed from the solid Earth, were taken as strongly suggesting that Earths original atmosphere was composed mostly of H2O, CO2, and N2, with only small amounts of CO and H2, and essentially no CH4 or NH3”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944365/
Let’s speculate that Venus had life like Earth had life and Earth life makes methane.
Methane is quickly destroyed by sunlight and makes CO2.
Venus has a larger atmosphere than Earth {3 times as much nitrogen}.
Say like Earth, it starts with 1% methane, and life make more of it. Say Venus life makes make methane the Earth life has ever made methane. And then when sun gets hotter, the life dies.
We can’t model the earth’s climate, what makes you think we can model or explain the climate on Mars or Venus? You don’t seem to understand the need for credible data sets in creating valid models.
…except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere.
Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body
It is an assump-tion – the radiation “absorbed” by ozone layer was never emitted by the sun!
Except we now have satellites above the ozone layer that can indeed measure the UV emitted from the sun. And yes, it is really there, as expected.
(And even in the early 1900’s, scientists understood perfectly well what was going on.)
Spectral Irradiance W/(m^2 nm)
It is a link to Graph of Extraterrestrial Solar Spectral Irradiance compared to Blackbody Spectrum curve for 5777 K
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png/1280px-EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png
Both causes are true.
The sun puts out a bit less UV than might be expected based on its blackbody temperature.
The earth’s surface receives even less UV, due to blocking by ozone.
Very interesting !
Mars and Moon satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparison:
210 K and 220 K
Let’s see what we have here:
Planet or Tsat.mean
moon measured
Moon 220 Κ
Mars 210 K
Let’s compare then:
Moon:
Tsat.moon = 220K
Moon’s albedo is amoon = 0,11
What is left to absorb is (1 – amoon) = (1- 0,11) = 0,89
Mars:
Tsat.mars = 210 K
Mars’ albedo is amars = 0,25
What is left to absorb is (1 – amars) = (1 – 0,25) = 0,75
Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison:
Tsat.mars /Tsat.moon = 210 K /220 K = 0,9545
Mars /Moon what is left to absorb (which relates in ¼ powers) comparison, or in other words the Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorp-tion ability:
( 0,75 /0,89 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,8427 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9581
Conclusions:
1. Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison
( 0,9545 ) is almost identical with the
Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorp-tion ability
( 0,9581 )
2. If Mars and Moon had the same exactly albedo, their satellite measured mean surface temperatures would have been exactly the same.
And this is very interesting !
Of course, Mars is 1.5 times farther from the sun, and receives less than 1/2 as much power from the sun. This should make the mars ~ 22% cooler than the moon.
The warmth of Mars can be attributed to 3 things I can think of.
1) Mars has a much faster rotation, which smooths out temperature swings.
2) Mars has an atmosphere that also smooths out temperature swings.
3) Mars has at least a small green house effect.
Mars also snows a lot in the poles- CO2 and H20 snowing is warming effect.
The global dust storms, probably, also effects global temperature.
Woebegone Wee Willy asked –
“Whats the room temperature of a planet with no atmosphere?”
Wee Willy can’t tell the difference between planet and a room! Obviously a wannabe “climate scientist”. The sort of dimwit who tries to convince people that temperatures are measured in W/m2, so if he adds temperatures, nobody will realise the trick. He just claims he is “adding fluxes” – to get increased temperatures of course!
What an idiot!
Mike Flynn,
Another master stroke of ignorance!
You haven’t followed the chicken thought experiment, haven’t you?
Read back that comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-692615
Also read to what it responds.
Best of luck!
Wayward Wee Willy attempts to justify his idiocy with more idiocy.
The contents of your fantasy are not experiments, nor are they strong evidence of thought.
I have no intention of following your stupid link, if all it leads to is more of your fantastic nonsense. Rooms? Chickens? Planets?
Maybe you should learn some physics.
Mike Flynn,
Aren’t you supposed to be a proven leader of people and process?
The link leads to the comment you quoted.
And either Mike Flynn or myself are supposed to care because . . . ?
If someone quotes something, what insanity would prompt you to provide them with a link to something you know they know?
Are you completely bereft of sense, or just suffering from a peculiar mental defect?
Maybe you need to pray to Mike Flynn for guidance!
Mike Flynn,
Had you read the exchange, you would know why I asked the question. So either you’re dumb or you’re dishonest. It could be both, of course. It probly is.
The only mystery is how this should indicate extensive hands-on experience of strategy development.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Somebody tried to build the back radiation energy amplifier based on the green house effect, Where warmer ground eats back its own radiation from cooler air, ads it up to itself and increases its own temperature that way. It was a no go, But I bet if they take it to the Bizarro Planet where the laws of fizzix work backwards it would work there for sure.
https://bit.ly/33JXR2M
We already talked about the Siem and Olson paper in the March post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-661197
Thanks for that link, bdgwx. I missed that entire discussion, fortunately.
Since I have so little time, I review a “paper” like that by first reading the intro, then the conclusion. If neither makes sense, or is ambiguous, I’m gone. They are on the right track. There are many ways to debunk the GHE nonsense. But the intro was ambiguous and the conclusion was pathetic.
But, I wonder if “Nor on” was another silly attempt by our well-known idiot to hide his/her identity.
Nor on says:
April 11, 2021 at 12:31 PM
eben…from the link…
“The authors built an amplifier with a voltage gain of 120 to raise the sensor signal to a level reasonably read with a voltmeter; and they calibrated their instrument by using it to measure blackbody radiation emitted by a blackened iron pan. They describe the process thusly.
We used a black iron pan, filled with water of temperature 100C and allowed to fall to 15C. We measured temperature of the iron pan with a Fluke 62 Max IR thermometer, and the voltage output of the detectors was measured with a digital voltmeter.We computed the IR energy output using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. [emphasis is mine]”
***
Re part 1…it’s not good enough to amply a voltage with a calculated amplification, you need an oscilloscope to compare the amplitude of the input signal to the output signal, and to check for distortion. Measuring with an RMS voltmeter alone is not adequate. No one who understands electronics would ever compare voltages without an oscilloscope to verify the voltmeter reading.
As for part 2, they claim to have measured the temperature of the iron pan using an IR thermometer. An IR thermometer does not measure temperature, it measures the frequency of IR radiation. The so-called thermometer is calibrated in a lab to detect IR of a certain frequency and correlate it with brightness temperatures stored in the device’s memory.
If the IR thermometer is not used as specified, it is useless for accuracy. In other words, the authors are amateurs playing with tools they do not understand.
Gordo, I thought you claimed to be an electrical engineer. Surely, you understand the difference between Direct and Alternating current voltages. These guys were taking a small Direct signal and amplifying it, presumably using an op-amp, to increase the voltage to enable the use of a volt meter to make measurements. Don’t need an oscilloscope to measure Direct current.
And, yet again, you display your ignorance of the standard equipment used. A typical IR thermometer doesn’t measure frequency, it measures IR intensity and then calculates temperature, assuming some emissivity at the emitting surface.
Well, the debunk of the Green Plate Effect and Hughes’ experiments there already confirmed there is no back-radiation GHE so the Siem and Olson result comes as no surprise to most open-minded realists.
You might want to read through their paper again. Siem and Olson found that the GHE in their experiment was -29.8 W/m^2 at the top and +17 W/m^2 at the bottom.
Here comes the master of spin.
indeed! bdgwx is well aware that Elvis left the room and measured only one of three door out of the room and is in here now claiming Elvis must still be in the room.
The -29.8 W/m^2 figure is on page 175 under section 3.2.
The +17 W/m^2 figure is on page 178 under section 3.5.
Siem and Olson also say in regard to the 29.8 W/m^2 figure that “This is close to what we find from the HITRAN data-base, i.e. 11.6% for a 70 cm long tube.” in their WUWT article.
You are still only monitoring one of three doors bdgwx. That door is the only door that must be monitored it establishes those figures with unsubstantial warming resulting from back radiation in a gaseous environment. Perhaps a different result would be seen with one of the chambers evacuated.
I have said that its possible if one of the chambers were evacuated you might see a single layer greenhouse effect. Thus the way to pin it down further would be a four chamber model and experimenting with from the back (heated element chamber) co2, then air, then co2 again, then an evacuated chamber.
But if that worked why hasn’t anybody published the results? And why the reliance on an untestable lapse rate effect theory that gives a Twilight Zone character to the whole idea?
So many theories, Bill.
The truth is out there.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about bill. I’m not monitoring anything. I’m just reading from the S&O publication. They found the GHE radiation backscatter and it agrees with prediction.
What they didn’t find is warming as a result of that increase in GHE radiation backscatter. That means either the 1LOT was violated or their setup was inadequate to capture a temperature response.
Or, it means that the people who have been patiently explaining to you for months that back-radiation has no heating ability were correct.
There’s quite a bit of discussion on that link, in addition to S & O’s reply to the previous critique. I had worked up several comments which I had thought to post on the April blog, but, while we are at it, consider these comments:
1. In their paper, S & O describe initially heating the rear metal plate (or foil) using a 500 watt halogen lamp. They set the plate/foil temperature at about 100C, adjusting the distance between the plate/foil to achieve that temperature. What happens as the temperature in the first chamber heats up, do they move the lamp further away from the plate/foil to maintain a constant 100C? If they do this, wouldn’t that also compensate for any temperature increase from “back scatter”, as they call it?
2. They give no indication that they conducted two base cases without heating, against which to compare things. Their IR2 detector views the IR entering the tube from the room and the intensity of that radiation would be expected to exhibit some reduction with CO2, just as they found for the outgoing emissions at the IR1 detector for the CO2 case as compared with air. I submit that they should add that reduction into the IR2 measurements for the CO2 heating cases, else they will be under reporting the actual increase.
I think their work is seriously flawed and thus doesn’t support their conclusions
Excuses, excuses.
Facts, facts, no BS…
Excuses, excuses.
swanson obviously they didn’t do that as that was the initial setup. get over it Elvis left the room.
B Hunter wrote:
Didn’t do WHAT?? I have no clue from your comment. Obviously, they needed to run a “control case” and present the results, just as is common for most experiments. They could have taken the initial conditions before starting heating, but we can’t see that from their graphs, which appear to begin after the halogen lamp is switched on and temperatures begin to increase.
Their extended comments on WUWT don’t help much either. For example, they add some discussion about using the thermistor inside the case of their IR detectors, but don’t say whether they actually used measurements therefrom to correct the IR detector data for case temperature. If they had recorded the resistance along with the detector voltage, they could have easily used a spread sheet to correct the IR reading. Of course, they would also have needed to use that data for their calibration process too.
On WUWT, they wrote:
This isn’t mentioned in the paper. Where’s that temperature data? Hey guy, you are the auditor, ask them to provide the data.
the data is all there, the data you want is just a figment of your imagination.
this experiment has been performed many times for over a hundred years and never ever has the data you imagine that should be there been there. wake up and smell what real science is.
B Hunter wrote:
Over a hundred years? Are you thinking of Woods experiment, which didn’t have anything to do with CO2?
I’m not interested in your unreferenced experiments. I just think these guys have messed up and want some answers. For example, in their “published” report, Figure 9 displays “IR backscatter radiation”, which does show an increase for CO2 compared with air. They commented:
That result obviously provides support for the theory of CO2 induced warming. But, the initial data for the start of operation is hard to see. With their WUWT post, they present a modified version of that Figure in which they add a line connecting the air data to the two points at zero time. It would appear from eye balling the data that the CO2 case exhibits more absorp-tion than that for air, as would be expected, though it’s hard to see from the graph.
The only data from their experiments which might provide answers is the case with the plate heated by electrical resistance. All we know from that case is their comment:
That’s not what I call “data”, that’s BS.
bill,
They report a -30 W/m^2 change at the “top” and +17 W/m^2 change at the “bottom”. They even said this is consistent with HITRAN modeling.
So the big rub is…what kind of work did the 30 W/m^2 do upon the apparatus if not to raise its temperature? That’s what we want answered.
BTW…the fact that -30 W/m^2 was record at the “top” isn’t surprising. But the fact that it stayed -30 W/m^2 is odd. If that apparatus was thermally isolated and was composed of materials with common specific heat capacities we expect the energy to have raised the temperature of the materials within thus increasing the radiation directed “upward” via the T^4 law and eventually restoring the radiative balance of the apparatus. In other words the IR1 detector should have recorded a 0 W/m^2 anomaly before CO2, -30 W/m^2 with CO2, and eventually back to 0 W/m^2 once radiative balance was restored. The fact that IR1 stayed at -30 W/m^2 and no temperature increase was observed is probably a good clue that energy was leading from the apparatus possibly through convective movement out the holes for maintaining pressure balance or via conduction through the EDTA film. We cannot eliminate other possibilities though.
E. Swanson says:
‘B Hunter wrote:
”..this experiment has been performed many times for over a hundred years…”
Over a hundred years? Are you thinking of Woods experiment, which didn’t have anything to do with CO2?’
————————-
So lets be clear here. Wood’s greenhouse experiment was an experiment of whether backradiation can warm anything which it didn’t. The experiment was repeated by many with same results.
So your claim is that CO2 has some kind of extra special magic backradiation that does something none of the other glass based experiments. Those greenhouse experiments block much more IR than CO2 does. If anything their results should have been far more lurid than a few degrees if backradiation could warm anything.
B Hunter wrote:
I gather that you are ignoring my two demonstrations, the last of which used glass, ice, plastics and metal. Of those materials, only the food wrap, which transmits IR just like the S & O experiment, produced minimal effect. Not to mention that S & O did detect “back scatter”, though they didn’t report any significant effect attributed to it.
bdgwx says:
So the big rub iswhat kind of work did the 30 W/m^2 do upon the apparatus if not to raise its temperature? Thats what we want answered.
———————-
Bdgwx, if you review carefully window technology you can find the answer and confirm it for yourself. there is no mystery of what is going on in this box. It is easily verifiable. What you need to get beyond is the theoretical pieces you have learned academically and learn to apply them correctly to the real world.
The results of this experiment is completely consistent with the findings of Dr. R.W. Wood over a hundred years ago. Its simply a matter of how engineers must reform their thinking and learn more deeply how things work in the world of physics. Obviously theoretical physics is way beyond engineering and have latched onto stuff that engineers have not needed to as of yet, but that is quite simply not the case with this little simple box experiment.
Atmospheres are different. They are held in place by gravity rather than a cellophane barrier beyond which is more air at the same pressure. But if you don’t understand what is happening in this box you have no concept of what might be happening in the atmosphere. But if you study your history you would learn science is always changing for this very reason.
In fact the standards in existence today for window technology make it illegal sell window products the same way that CO2 is being sold to the public without a product. And it wasn’t until the late 1970’s that window technology standards were developed.
E. Swanson says:
I gather that you are ignoring my two demonstrations.
———————————
I will rate that response as a lie.
I addressed the paper you wrote with your upside down experiment to eliminate convection. It doesn’t apply to a multi-layered atmosphere that allegedly prevents the movement of heat upwards.
The results of your demonstration is especially deadly to the theory of a multi-layered greenhouse effect where heat might be trapped at the top of the atmosphere and prevented by your demonstration from returning to the surface.
bill,
So what was happening in the box? What happened to the extra 4.5 watts that was not escaping through the “top” window?
B Hunter wrote:
Oh? As your comment continues, you suggest that my experiment was an attempt to model the atmosphere and the GHE. You continue to be wrong, indicating that you still didn’t understand both of my experiments, which were only intended to demonstrate the effects of back radiation, aka, the Green Plate Effect.
But, weren’t we discussing the S & O paper and their follow on post on WUWT? Perhaps you don’t want to do that because you also don’t understand what they did either.
E. Swanson says:
I gather that you are ignoring my two demonstrations
——————————
Before you bother sending me a link, are they upside down as the one you previously sent?
bdgwx says:
So what was happening in the box? What happened to the extra 4.5 watts that was not escaping through the top window?
———————————
Why in the world you believe it wasn’t escaping out the top window? Because you monitored one of three doors out that window?
bill asked: Why in the world you believe it wasn’t escaping out the top window?
That’s what S&O said. That’s what they measured. That’s what is documented in figure 6.
bill asked: Because you monitored one of three doors out that window?
First…I’m not monitoring anything. I’m only reading their publication. Second…I have no idea what you mean by “three doors”. The publication says nothing about their being doors. In fact, I searched the publication for the word “door” and found nothing.
B Hunter continues to post absurdities about my experiments, specifically the Ice Plate Demo, in order to move away from considering the problems with S & O’s experiment. I didn’t post another link to my experiment, since you have repeatedly ignored it, trollishly repeating your comment about it being “upside down”, as if that geometry invalidated my results.
bdgwx says:
First…I’m not monitoring anything. I’m only reading their publication. Second…I have no idea what you mean by “three doors”. The publication says nothing about their being doors. In fact, I searched the publication for the word “door” and found nothing.
———————————
Three doors is conduction, convection, and radiation. All I see set up for monitoring is one taking radiation readings.
What happened to the heat is as simple as running a few window technology equations bdgwx, something neither you nor S&O did.
So you can sit there with a stupid expression on your face if you choose, but the answer is simple, easily calculable, and specified in US Bureau of Standards.
bill,
OMG. I and others have already criticized their experiment for not tracking conduction losses through the EDTA film or convection losses through the holes among other possible loss points. The 30 W/m^2 probably leaked out of the system in a way that was not detectable due to S&O’s inadequate setup. Don’t blame me for S&O’s failings in this regard.
bdgwx says:
OMG. I and others have already criticized their experiment for not tracking conduction losses through the EDTA film or convection losses through the holes among other possible loss points. The 30 W/m^2 probably leaked out of the system in a way that was not detectable due to S&Os inadequate setup. Dont blame me for S&Os failings in this regard.
———————————
And exactly how would you go about monitoring these doors bdgwx?
You do realize that this can be done with the information already available and the correct formula don’t you?
No, I don’t know how you would calculate conduction and convection losses in this experiment.
all you need is the temperature of the barriers.
The temperature of the barriers will be half way between the temperatures of the spaces they separate.
Since the barriers have negligible resistance to the passage of heat via conduction (unlike the foil lined/styrofoam walls) there temperature ‘floats’ in a way to ensure input equals output.
If they can’t do anything different that passively float to the tweener temperature. If the barrier leans to the cold side then heat being absorbed on the warm side would be higher and the heat lost on the cold side would be less. That would heat the barrier back to the tweener state. If the barrier temperature leaned to the hot side then less heat from the warm side would be transferred and more heat lost to the outside by the cold side pushing it back to the halfway between state.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/82/jresv82n2p97_a1b.pdf
B Hunter wrote:
Sorry Hunter, you still don’t get it. What we have with S&O’s experiment isn’t a problem with the “barriers”, such as the plastic film or the Styrofoam walls of the tube. From their Figure 5, the temperatures they found in the two chambers is essentially the same for the case with air as with CO2 while using the AL plate. That implies that in both cases, energy leaves the tube at the same rate thru the front and the side walls.
The reported increase in IR measured at detector IR2 for the foil case isn’t going to exit thru the walls of the tube, which are covered with IR reflecting foil, thus that extra quantity must “exit” thru the rear wall. But, conduction and convection thru the rear wall would be the same, if the two chamber temperatures are also similar to that of Figure 5.
I suggest that the only remaining explanation is their procedure to control the temperature of the rear blackened Al foil, forcing it to maintain a constant 100C. This approach would mask the effects of the detected “back scattered” IR radiation, which would also warm the blackened foil. I think proper way to run the S&O experiment would be the last one, using a plate heated by a fixed electrical supply while measuring the plate’s temperature. Unfortunately, they haven’t provided the full set of data from that effort.
Swanson,
FYI, I had an email Q and A with the authors awhile back:
“Hello Nathan
Some answers to your questions:
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.
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”
Then i asked him about the power input.
‘I just wonder, when you used the electrical heating instead of the light source, whether you could better measure the total heat input, and compare this to the radiative heat output. In this case you should better be able to calculate the expected temperature rise.’
Hello Nathan
The use of an electric heated metal plate inside the rear chamber,
connected to a variac, was heated by an input energy close to 45 Watts.
This indicates that most of the output at the end of heating left
through the front window as radiation (and some convection), not through the styrofoam walls.
Regards,
Thorstein”
Then I pointed out that 45 W input was < the 107 W radiated power quoted in the paper.
His answer:
"Nathan,
The missing point is how much heating of the plate was
obtained with 45 Watts input. I do not remember
at the moment but I seem to remember something
between 75 to 85 degrees…..
I have to look through my files to find the correct value,
but I have to finish some other work first.
Regards,
Thorstein"
That was as far as we got. They seem confused.
Nate, I had seen their response, which you posted previously.
I agree that they to be seem confused about what they were doing.
The only problem here is Swanson and Nate would fail the Title 24 exam. And that might be the case for S&O as well.
You need to study this. If this is too difficult for you to understand I think I have a simple guide to aid you in working your way through it.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/82/jresv82n2p97_a1b.pdf
B Hunter wrote:
Hunter, I don’t know why you want to make this into an exercise of mathematical excess. As soon as S&O reported no temperature differences between the two cases, all that’s left is the energy transfer thru the rear wall. That can’t be calculated, given S&O’s failure to provide the necessary information about what they did. the final result is that the S&O experiments can not disprove CO2 warming.
Of course, nothing prevents you from attempting to perform the calculations you demand, to validate their results. Aren’t you the auditing expert? Or, have you been too busy recently working for the Trumpians on their Arizona election “audit”?
Swanson I gave you the US Bureau of Standards methodology of calculating how that heat was departing the box. You simply choose to ignore it. One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. You are just an example of a stubborn creature.
The only reason IR1 sees more radiation is it is looking through the EDTA windows and air at CO2 in the back chamber in one case of higher readings and is looking through the front window at CO2 in the front chamber. That reading is not registering the temperature of the front chamber when the CO2 is in the back chamber. This is such a simple mistake its almost hilarious. I would actually have to believe that S&O were jerking Nate’s chain.
So the only mistake here is you, Nate, and BDGWX in believing its measuring the energy departing the front window. Obviously there is no ‘convection detector’, thus the temperature of the EDTA windows follows from the US Bureau of Standards methodology of calculating results. These standards were created because of all the false advertising from ‘folks like you’ who tried to sell ‘IR insulation’.
> These standards were created because of all the false advertising from ‘folks like you’ who tried to sell ‘IR insulation’.
Big if true, Bill.
Is it?
True! But it doesn’t prove that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. It just throws a big monkey wrench into how the theory is being sold to the public. I agree with Vaughn Pratt’s comment on it in a previous Roy post.
B Hunter wrote:
No, I didn’t ignore it, it’s just that there isn’t enough information from S&O’s paper and comments to accurately calculate “how the heat was departing the box”. Besides, the Styrofoam tube isn’t a building and the forced convection inside would be much different than a window with natural convection on both sides. Instead, I offered that you, who claims to be some sort of expert, should do the math and report back to us.
But Hunter isn’t an engineer and probably has not heard of “perturbation analysis”. We don’t need to calculate every micro watt to understand that the temperature data for the two cases for which data is presented have identical values and thus equal energy flow rates. The walls of the tube have the same IR emissivity in both cases. We are left with the conclusion that the extra IR radiation found with the IR2 detector must be striking the rear wall and then exiting thru it, or, more likely, S&O are adjusting the heating rate is between the Air and the CO2 cases, which would distort the results.
BTW, as for mistakes, you have reversed the names of the chambers and detectors. The front chamber is the long one which is switched between air, CO2 or Argon. The IR2 detector is said to be (somehow) viewing thru the rear wall of the back chamber and that’s the one which indicates an increase in IR with the CO2 case.
Swanson you are just throwing stuff at the wall praying something will stick.
I explained why you misjudged what is happening in this box. If you actually go through the processes of the National Bureau of Standards you will see these same formulas are used for a whole variety of purposes such as the passage of energy through a dual glazed window, which this box actually most closely resembles.
As R.W. Woods found the energy transport from inside a greenhouse to the outside is not significantly affected by whether the glass is IR transparent or opaque. Fact is energy loss calculations can be accurately made completely ignoring radiation even when the glass is IR transparent and for decades that has been the standard approach used for literally millions of homes and probably hundreds of millions of window assemblies.
Fact is you, Nate and many others have been induced to believe in a canard.
B Hunter, I know that there’s been considerable work done to understand heat transfer thru windows, though I can’t say I’m aware of all the results. The combination of convection on each side, conduction thru the glass and IR radiation effects all add together and modern windows, like the ones I installed in my house almost 20 years ago, have detailed specifications derived from this research. And, maybe there is “IR transparent” glass available to builders, though I doubt it. But, that isn’t the issue with the S&O experiment.
You also wrote:
No, this setup in no way resembles a dual glazed window, where the distance between the panes is typically no more than 3/4″ or about 20mm.
Their experiment has a tube with 4 walls and 2 ends, one of which is a plastic film with high IR transmission the other end being Styrofoam with a couple of holes, one filled with a metal plate (or foil) the other for the IR2 detector. The middle of the tube is divided into two chambers, so there are in effect 8 walls. This system is tested under two conditions, one with air in both the front and rear chambers and another with CO2 in the front one and air in the rear.
S&O found that the temperatures in the two chambers are essentially the same for the two test cases. That result means that the energy flow thru the 8 wall sections can be ignored. The convection and conduction energy flow thru the front cover film and the rear Styrofoam will also be identical, for the same reason. But, the IR exiting thru the front window was found to be reduced for the CO2 case and the IR received by the second IR detector has increased. From this, we must conclude that this must be the result of a change in the energy passing thru the heated plate (or foil) and thru the 6×6 cm window for the detector. But,this can not be analyzed mathematically, as S&O did not provide enough detailed information.
I agree with Vaughn Pratt when he wrote:
BTW, my reading of Pratt’s experiment is that he debunked the R.W. Woods’ result.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, I know that there’s been considerable work done to understand heat transfer thru windows, though I can’t say I’m aware of all the results.
———————-
Well then you might be advised of wording your responses as questions rather than statements.
—————————–
—————————–
——————————-
——————————–
——————————–
E. Swanson says:
You also wrote:
the passage of energy through a dual glazed window, which this box actually most closely resembles.
No, this setup in no way resembles a dual glazed window, where the distance between the panes is typically no more than 3/4″ or about 20mm.
—————————–
Yes that is to ‘reduce’ convective effects by crowding the space in which a convective loops forms as I am sure you know convection involves heat rising and cool air falling. So wider spaces will equalize quickly. Windows are thinner to improve their insulation value.
—————————–
—————————–
——————————-
——————————–
——————————–
E. Swanson says:
Their experiment has a tube with 4 walls and 2 ends, one of which is a plastic film with high IR transmission the other end being Styrofoam with a couple of holes, one filled with a metal plate (or foil) the other for the IR2 detector. The middle of the tube is divided into two chambers, so there are in effect 8 walls.
———————
LOL! thats a weird way to count walls.
Think of a room with a dual glazed window. Isn’t that 8 walls also? One compartment being the room with the opposite (heated) wall radiating at the window and a space between glazings with 6 sides?
You should type more slowly so your brain can catch up with your panic.
—————————–
—————————–
——————————-
——————————–
——————————–
E. Swanson says:
This system is tested under two conditions, one with air in both the front and rear chambers and another with CO2 in the front one and air in the rear.
—————————
Yes and it shows that what gas is in the chambers changes nothing. There is no explanation beyond that as there is no further explanation beyond that. If you believe there is you need to run the experiment correctly yourself of find some scientist somewhere in the world who has managed to do that or simply accept the findings.
—————————–
—————————–
——————————-
——————————–
——————————–
E. Swanson says:
S&O found that the temperatures in the two chambers are essentially the same for the two test cases. That result means that the energy flow thru the 8 wall sections can be ignored. The convection and conduction energy flow thru the front cover film and the rear Styrofoam will also be identical, for the same reason.
———————–
Thats not true Swanson!
Energy lost from the back chamber directly through the front chamber and out of the box without absor-ption will change the process occurring in the second chamber.
If you look at all the equations involved in calculating this stuff its a case of either/or for convection and radiation, but both only in that case where the flow is cut in half by a barrier for one or the other or both.
A divide by 4 world which is identical to uniform radiant heating would have zero convection and an atmosphere without a lapse rate with the air the same temperature as the surface.
If you would just take the time to read and understand the National Standards I linked to you would note that has to be a fact.
So all your responses at the moment are simply telling me you haven’t done that yet.
—————————–
—————————–
——————————-
——————————–
——————————–
E. Swanson says:
BTW, my reading of Pratt’s experiment is that he debunked the R.W. Woods’ result.
——————————-
No he got the same results that Roy did. Insignificant heating. Keep in mind here the process is complicated and affected by how fast the heat can travel by conduction through glass, saran wrap, and rock salt. Vaughn Pratt’s Saran wrap will also stretch thus not allowing as much heat from expansion of gases. But it result was miniscule when you consider how much heat should have been trapped by a complete absorp-tion of the entire IR band.
Also some of these experiments are flawed by having two different structures, though the S&O effort eliminated that problem. Roy noted that problem in his experiment and made efforts to correct for with partial success.
So the results of both experiments were flawed. Though the flaws were slight they were likely sufficient to account for the insignificant results.
Roy’s was also flawed by having a heat source that wasn’t the primary heat source that was warming the room.
One has to be totally anti-science to look at multiple experiments and get something not said in any of them and still deny the results simply because you have been so heavily inculcated to believe something else will happen. Thats how people choose to use religion to trump science.
B Hunter wrote:
Sort of right, but thinner spacing (less than ~3/4″) will result in increased conduction across the gas layer. Continuing:
No, you can’t count the spacer between the window panes as a “wall” in the same sense as the larger area of the tube walls. You continue:
No, you are ignoring the data from the two IR detectors, which do indicate a difference in IR radiation even though the respective chambers are said to exhibit the same temperatures, which leads to another confusing claim:
That’s where the IR detectors come into play. With CO2, less IR leaves the front chamber thru the plastic film while more IR is said to leave the front chamber toward the rear one. Lastly, commenting about about Roy’s version of R.W. Woods experiment, you wrote
Looks wrong to me. Looking back at Roy’s post, he found:
Maybe you are thinking of some post(s) which appeared in the 287 comments? Lots of fun was had by all.
Swanson none of your reply speaks to establishing a CO2 warming effect from back scatter.
You continue to poke at all the experiments that can find none and have nothing to offer suggesting you can get a greenhouse effect with a greenhouse gas.
Thus you are merely mounting a religious argument here with zero scientific support. Are you really that anti-science?
Your entire problem circulates around the fact that the IR detectors cannot measure the temperature of the EDTA films. However, the link to National Standards has formulas that from the information given by S&O you can estimate the temperatures of the EDTA films. All that the IR detectors and the thermopiles on the rear wall tell you is no significant greenhouse effect arises out of substituting CO2 for common air or argon.
If you have an experiment that says otherwise then offer it up and just give up on all the obfuscation because truthfully all it is doing is showing your lack of credibility.
B Hunter, the temperatures of the two films is rather easy to calculate. For the film between the rear and front chambers, it’s the average of the two chamber temperatures. For the front film, it’s the average of the room and front chamber temperatures. Those temperatures are the same for both cases because the chamber temperatures are the same.
OK, so tell us what that has to do with the energy flow rate thru the films. While you are at it, what happens to the increased IR back radiation which the IR2 detector found?
You are starting to get it Swanson thats exactly what I told you here 3 days ago.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-699015
As to the back radiation its just doing the same job of warming the air in the back chamber as it would do it were intercepted in the back chamber before going through the EDTA barrier. It doesn’t heat the back panel because convection is cooling that panel. This is just the basic rule of warm objects heating cooler objects.
Understand Swanson the experiment is real. The results are definitive and any leakage is inconsequential. This is as it would be in buildings where you can have cracks such that if there isn’t a lot of wind outside the heat loss is minimal. When the wind blows the cold air outside whistles through the cracks and venturi effects can create a large rate of air turnover.
Its all detailed in the computations of the National Standards I linked you to. Work your way through them slowly for comprehension and what is going on will be something you can learn.
B Hunter, You still don’t understand that the heat transfer across the films involves convection at each side of the film and, as your reference notes (Section 3):
The convection transfers within each chamber are strongly influenced by the “small fans” which stir the gasses, making analysis extremely difficult or even impossible. Convection cooling of the rear wall moves energy from the rear heated plate/foil into the rear chamber’s air mass, but it also exchanges energy with the Styrofoam portion of the rear wall, simultaneous transfers which may also be impossible to calculate.
You claim that the experiment is “real”, but that also includes the measurements of IR back radiation for the CO2 case. The back radiation doesn’t “warm the air” in the rear chamber, the air temperatures are the same (?) for both cases. That there is insufficient data to determine the effects of that IR back radiation doesn’t imply there’s no effect, as you conclude.
E. Swanson says:
They should
be considered as only approximate solutions.
————————————-
Approximate solutions are fine Swanson.
—————–
—————–
—————–
—————–
E. Swanson says:
The convection transfers within each chamber are strongly influenced by the “small fans” which stir the gasses, making analysis extremely difficult or even impossible.
—————————-
Hey don’t be ridiculous. Forced air indoor systems have circulating fans and variable winds on the outside. . . .and yet the calculations are proven accurate enough to keep homes adequately warmed or cooled with minimal inside/outside temperature gradients.
—————–
—————–
—————–
—————–
E. Swanson says:
The back radiation doesn’t “warm the air” in the rear chamber, the air temperatures are the same (?) for both cases. That there is insufficient data to determine the effects of that IR back radiation doesn’t imply there’s no effect, as you conclude.
————————–
Indeed thats the key point proven by the experiment Swanson. It completely destroys your arguments. There is no significant leak or there would be no greenhouse effect in the box.
But the experiment shows an insulating effect as it should. However it shows CO2 adds nothing of consequence to it despite its radiant qualities.
You have no argument, you have no hypothesis, and you have no experiment.
Advice is when you have dug yourself into a hole. . . .stop digging!
B Hunter wrote:
Yes, I think so. Continuing
Sorry, I do have a hypothesis, which you continue to ignore. S&O’s presentation lacks the necessary data regarding what they did, so they may have screwed up somewhere. Without a full description and details of their experiment, an unbiased analyst could not conclude that the experiment produced “nothing of consequence”, especially given their measurements of increased IR radiation at detector #2. That’s your biased claim, as you refuse to discuss the problems I’ve presented. And, yes, lest you forget, I’ve done experiments demonstrating heating effects of back radiation.
E. Swanson says:
Sorry, I do have a hypothesis, …. so they may have screwed up somewhere.
———————————–
Your attempts to blame it on leaking has been shown to be complete nonsense.
National Standards for calculating this stuff disagrees with you and you have zero sources backing up your claim.
Any knowledgeable scientist would readily admit that the reason they show a radiant greenhouse effect is because they want to treat convection as feed-back.
But this is a feed-back that occurs simultaneously with any radiant effect as it starts with a delta between the surface temperature and the atmosphere temperature exactly as does radiation. . . .it doesn’t need to wait for the backscatter to warm anything.
Once you understand how it works it is relatively easy to calculate. You really should fully read the resource I provided you.
B Hunter, You want to use standard calculations for building energy accounting. That’s what your reference relates to and the calculation techniques have been used for energy audits since the ’70’s, as well as for designing the HVAC systems for new construction. But, any calculation is impossible, since S&O don’t provide the relevant information to perform it.
Are you really so clueless that you can’t understand that the S&O experiment does not reflect CO2’s roll in the Greenhouse Effect? The atmosphere isn’t a mass of gas at constant pressure with a small temperature differential across it. And where did you get your crap about calling convection a “feedback”?? GCM’s model vertical as well as horizontal circulation, just like weather models. FYI, vertical circulation within the atmosphere is convection.
Swanson you just a huge egotistical ff.
I have explicitly said multiple times in the past two months that the S&O experiment does not prove that CO2 has no role in climate. Vaughn Pratt replied last month pointing out that fact and I agreed with him. One cannot use S&O to prove CO2 has a minimal effect on climate. . . .all it does is punch a hole in the only expressed theory of how that impact is created.
So now to preserve your viewpoint of your omniscience you are now embarking on strawman building to protect your fragile view of yourself.
And yes S&O provides all the relevant information necessary not contained in standard tables for different materials.
All you really need to know for a rough calculation is the inside and outside temperatures and how many EDTA barriers there are.
If you want to pin it down more closely you need to know the distances between the barriers, which are given and the types of atmospheres and their thermal qualities which are given in available engineering and chemical tables.
So you claim they don’t tell you something but all you have pointed to is what the fate is of the backscatter measured.
But that is a minor issue that will manifest itself as a difference in measured temperatures in the various compartments and does not come anywhere near the total amount actually backscattered because convection blows virtually all of it away.
But you are so married to the 1 for 1 backscatter temperature impact deceptively sold by a ‘trailer trash’ insulation commercial you think S&O made a mistake despite you being totally incompetent in pointing out what that mistake is.
And are you so ignorant you have to ask where convection is considered a feedback? The 1c warming from the CO2 doubling is purely the radiant effect in the absence of convection. After that a sensitivity factor is calculated which is commonly referred to as feedbacks and whether they are negative or positive. These are all points I have made. Convection is a negative feedback. Most clouds are negative feedbacks. So the propaganda arm of AGW warming loves to sell feedbacks keeping all the existing negative feedback as a fixed value.
An accountant employing that technique without strong evidence of it being a fact would soon be sued, broke, delicensed, and out of business. . . .if not also in jail.
I have explicitly said multiple times in the past two months that the S&O experiment does not prove that CO2 has no role in climate.
Vaughn Pratt replied last month pointing out that fact and I agreed with him. One cannot use S&O to prove CO2 has a minimal effect on climate. . . .all it does is punch a hole in the only expressed theory of how that impact is created.
So now to preserve your viewpoint of your omniscience you are now embarking on strawman building exercise to protect your fragile view of yourself.
And yes S&O provides all the relevant information necessary not contained in standard tables for different materials.
All you really need to know for a rough calculation is the inside and outside temperatures and how many EDTA barriers there are.
If you want to pin it down more closely you need to know the distances between the barriers, their transparencies, and to a lesser extent their flexibility as a barrier. You need to know material facts about the atmospheres. These are all given in standard engineering and chemical tables.
So you claim they don’t tell you something but haven’t said what data is missing.
But you are so married to the 1 for 1 backscatter temperature impact deceptively sold by a ‘trailer trash’ insulation commercial you think S&O made a mistake despite you being totally incompetent in pointing out what that mistake is.
Where does the idea of convection being feedback come from? The 1c warming from the CO2 doubling is purely the radiant effect in the absence of additional convection. This is implemented in the experiment with substituting CO2 for air and argon.
It is not detailed in the experiment because it arises out of the standard calculations of heat transfer.
B Hunter wrote lots of stuff, mostly pointless ad hominem attacks about me, while claiming:
Yes, there’s lots of detail there about their experiment’s details. But, the one most important detail is a precise description about the rear wall, in particular, how it is heated and with what accuracy is the energy supply and resulting temperature measured. The experiment is attempting to determine a relatively small difference in the energy flows due to the IR radiation changes, so the “rough calculation” which you propose is worthless.
You are the one prancing around on your high horse, so you should be the one doing those calculations. I’m not holding my breath for your reply.
Swanson says:
But, the one most important detail is a precise description about the rear wall, in particular, how it is heated and with what accuracy is the energy supply and resulting temperature measured.
————————-
Thats not true they give more than adequate information Swanson. They give the dimensions of the rear wall, the dimensions of the heating plate, the temperature it is heated to and the temperature of the rear wall. What else do you want?
The add a bunch of stuff not necessary to calculate the results like the heat capacities of the various elements and their masses for the purpose of determining if losses were occurring due to these items operating like a heat sink when all you need to really do is wait until all temperatures measured were straightlined, like you do when taking your temperature.
B Hunter wrote:
1. They give the area of the heated plate (0.036m^2), not the dimensions. They don’t offer the dimensions of the foil, whether it’s mounted inside or outside or how it’s attached to the Styrofoam wall.
2. Their rear wall temperature is from a black painted thermocouple, which they admit is influenced by IR radiation. We don’t know whether it is in thermal contact with the wall or how they shielded it from the metal plate. They claim to have shielded their air temperature sensors from IR, but don’t give details, other than the fact that they used a “polished tube”. They claim the rear thermocouple shows the same temperature as their air temperature thermocouple (Fig 6), but the temperatures in Fig 6 are still increasing, so it’s not at steady state.
3. They first state: “The IR source is a metal plate, heated to 100˚C.“. In the caption to Fig 3, they state that “The distance to the lamp was adjusted to warm the plate to about 100˚C.”, then later state: “The average temperature of the Al-plate is close to 100˚C”. Was that temperature set at the beginning, during or at the end of the run, i.e., did they change the distance during each run to maintain that 100˚C temperature? If so, that would tend to hide the effects of back scatter, which would tend to increase the temperature of the plate.
4. Note that they later admit in Section 3.4.3 that: “In order to be able to measure and control the input heating energy a new heating plate, consisting of an black painted Al plate and power resistors, was mounted on the inside of the rear Styrofoam wall”. They do not give any details of the operation of this heated plate, only mentioning that: “the heating curves were again found to be close to identical for both gases”. there’s no mention of measurements of the temperature of the plate. One might think that this result would be of particular interest, given the improved measurement of the temperature and control of the energy supplied to the plate.
Have you finished those heat transfer calculations yet??
E. Swanson says:
1. They give the area of the heated plate (0.036m^2), not the dimensions.
————-
You think thats a big deal? Why?
1a. They dont offer the dimensions of the foil, whether its mounted inside or outside or how its attached to the Styrofoam wall.
———————
You think thats a big deal? Why?
2. Their rear wall temperature is from a black painted thermocouple, which they admit is influenced by IR radiation. We dont know whether it is in thermal contact with the wall or how they shielded it from the metal plate.
——————–
Wrong
‘The rear wall of the box, surrounding the heated metal, consists of white Styrofoam. In order to check if the rear Styrofoam wall was heated by IR backscatter, a small, black-painted thermocouple was mounted on the wall (screened
from radiation from the metal plate)’
2a. They claim to have shielded their air temperature sensors from IR, but dont give details, other than the fact that they used a polished tube. They claim the rear thermocouple shows the same temperature as their air temperature thermocouple (Fig 6), but the temperatures in Fig 6 are still increasing, so its not at steady state.
———————–
Why do you think its increasing beyond 46.5degrees. The experimenters simply plotted their results and the 46.5 was simply the highest number obtained. You are being ridiculous here.
3. They first state: The IR source is a metal plate, heated to 100˚C.. In the caption to Fig 3, they state that The distance to the lamp was adjusted to warm the plate to about 100˚C., then later state: The average temperature of the Al-plate is close to 100˚C. Was that temperature set at the beginning, during or at the end of the run, i.e., did they change the distance during each run to maintain that 100˚C temperature? If so, that would tend to hide the effects of back scatter, which would tend to increase the temperature of the plate.
——————–
LOL!
4. Note that they later admit in Section 3.4.3 that: In order to be able to measure and control the input heating energy a new heating plate, consisting of an black painted Al plate and power resistors, was mounted on the inside of the rear Styrofoam wall. They do not give any details of the operation of this heated plate, only mentioning that: the heating curves were again found to be close to identical for both gases. theres no mention of measurements of the temperature of the plate. One might think that this result would be of particular interest, given the improved measurement of the temperature and control of the energy supplied to the plate.
————————–
Simple solution here Swanson redo the experiment, do something nobody has been able to do with the billions allocated to proving all this and heck dude you could win a Nobel Prize!
5.Have you finished those heat transfer calculations yet??
——————–
I never said I would do your homework for you.
B Hunter wrote: “LOL”
I’m glad to learn that you agree with my assessment. The entire experiment hinges on their technique, operation and measurements of the heating of the flat plate/foil.
Of course, I agree that the experiment could be redone with improvements, particularly the use of a internal plate heated by a precisely controlled electrical resistance. Making said plate (or foil) large enough to cover the entire rear wall, except for a small port to mount the IR2 detector, would be much better, as there would be no confusion from measurements of the Styrofoam. Measuring the temperature of the plate would demonstrate the impact of back radiation.
Absent such improvements, calculating the heat transfer thru the “system” would be of no value. That said, you can do all the mathematical calculations you want, but that’s not my problem.
I would suggest Swanson if you think a different result should have been obtained you replicate the experiment with the improvements you think it should have. Prove your theory and win a prize.
B Hunter, I’ve already shown that back radiation can result in warming with two experiments, first in a vacuum environment and second with suppressed convection using different solid materials at freezing temperatures. If you won’t accept my previous results, why should I waste my time building an experiment using gasses when you will again ignore my results if they don’t fit your unscientific mind set?
LOL! Now you are making up strawmen as an excuse for not doing the experiment you so vociferously believe in and would win you a Nobel Prize if you proved what S&O did wrong to not get a greenhouse effect.
The only thing I have said is a gas cannot stop the upward flow of heat.
Fact is Swanson with all your complaining you actually have some doubts or you would be working on your experiment already. Heck if I believed what you are saying you are believing I sure would.
B Hunter wrote:
I think it’s you who just tossed a strawman into the ring. No one I’m aware of has claimed that CO2 “stops” the upward flow thru the atmosphere. Are you really that ignorant, or are you intentionally trolling for fun and profit?
Who knows, I may even try to make a small tube version of the S&O experiment without the IR detectors. Those detectors are expensive plus one needs to build the op-amp circuits too. I haven’t put together a circuit for about 3 decades, so I would spend more time doing that than just the basic tube, etc.
S&O simply shows what Window technology has had in National Standards now for almost 50 years regarding horizontal travel of heat.
Since you think they are wrong. . . .isn’t a Nobel Prize worth the cost of a few high quality IR detectors Swanson? You could show how screwed up all the other folks who haven’t found an IR backscatter effect on absolute temperature.
B Hunter, “National Standards” again? Can’t you make any effort to reference your Red Herrings? Or, am I supposed to know whether you are referring to Title 24 CCR instead of Title 24 CFR or some other “standard”? Besides, who ever heard of windows with 70 cm spacing between the panes?
So, for your other Red Herring troll, are you giving out your own worthless Nobel Prizes now, rather like a diploma from Trump University?
I gave you the link to the National Standards involved upstream in this topic. You claimed to read it and complained about all the mathematics. Don’t pretend it doesn’t exist. It was created in the 1970’s to put a damper on all the fake claims by merchants selling insulation to unsuspecting home owners.
Now we have a whole cottage industry pounding that fake drum with millions of diagrams of backscatter threatening to destroy the world. . . .something even you seem to have bought into.
So you don’t think with all the interest in it and Al Gore getting a Nobel Prize for merely claiming the fact without proof another Nobel Prize would not be in the offing for actually proving it?
We have top scientists like Kevin Trenberth promoting this nonsense! Do they know better or are they confused like you?
Hunter, The paper you repeatedly reference is a paper written by an employee and is not a “National Standard”. It’s just a detailed summery of then current engineering technology for calculating building heat transfer. Your description of that paper’s focus is grossly incorrect.
You mention “backscatter”, as did S&O, when the problem is back radiation. The difference would appear to be that backscatter is a form of reflection whereas back radiation is temperature dependent emissions, the two having different spectral characteristics.
Recall that:
The Peace Prize is NOT one of the scientific prizes, it’s a politically motivated award.
the political motivation to give Al Gore an award was and is obvious.
And as far as standards are concerned its not possible to standardize every situation. Thus before one can claim any insulation value they must submit the test data. If one submitted the test data for the atmosphere you would be barred from making the claims that science makes. Simple as that. The only saving grace for science is they really aren’t charging anything for their advice. . . .which promptly brings us to the old adage that you get what you pay for.
co2…”Ive always been describing the pattern as a step, not a trend, and you just gave the explanation as to why”.
It’s definitely a step. A similar step occurred circa 1977 and it too was related to an oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which was discovered by that step. In fact, I think we may be witnessing another step produced by the 2016 EN.
Don’t know what it all means except, generally, what goes up must come down. It also means that since 1977 we’ve had about 0.5C unexplained warming created by ocean oscillations. As you know, the different oscillations interact in the long term to produce warming/cooling and we happen to be in the middle of interactions between ENSO, the PDO and the AMO.
EM wrote –
“”Natural variation” is a copout.
Describe your mechanism, with evidence and calculations.
Explain why Earth’s surface is at 288K and why it has risen by 1.2C in the last 140 years.”
Easy peasy.
Earth’s surface is 288 K because it has cooled from its initial molten state to that temperature.
Nobody has accurately measured the Earth’s surface temperature over the last 140 years, but if the temperature has risen, it is due to increased heat reaching the measuring instruments. That is what thermometers do.
Some fools apparently believe that the CO2 emitted by fires makes thermometers hotter.
Silly, isn’t it?
Nobody has accurately measured the initial molten state of the Earth.
Amazing, isn’t it?
Stupid Wee Willy,
Still playing “silly semantic games”, are we?
Prove you are not an idiot asshat. Provide citations.
Oh, Mike Flynn.
Whickering Wee Willy,
Praying to Mike Flynn is unlikely to prove efficacious. You may need to grovel more.
Mike Flynn,
What if I want to have a better service from my gas utility company?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I repeat –
Praying to Mike Flynn is unlikely to prove efficacious. You may need to grovel more.
Mike Flynn,
I’m not praying to you.
But keep repeating!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wriggler wrote –
“If a trace gas can be the source of life, it can be the source of an effect that changes temperature.”
Or it can be the source of an effect that transmutes lead into gold?
Or maybe it can be the source of the Elixir of Life?
Certainly not the source of any rational thought for Whining Wee Willy.
Pity.
Don’t be sad, Mike Flynn.
You’ll get it one day.
Willard, please stop trolling.
don’t know if this posted…
philj…”As for scientists being aware of the hot interior, I have seen it maintained many places that the HEAT coming from the interior is insignificant”
There may not be much of it per second per square metre at the surface, but that heat at the core is being dissipated throughout the planet. Since the Earth’s surface is 70% ocean, that means the oceans have been warmed by that heat over a long, long time.
There is a presumption that the current surface temp is due to solar energy alone but the core of the Earth is at a similar temperature to the solar surface. So, how much of the Earth’s current temperature can be attributed to each?
We know that the deeper we dig into the Earth the hotter it gets. That heat is not coming from solar energy. In fact, there is magma from the Earth’s interior contacting the ocean base. I cannot buy the argument about this heat being insignificant.
“The researchers found that the uncorrected temperature data correlated strongly with data on movements of Earth’s core and Earth’s length of day until about 1930. They then began to diverge substantially: that is, global surface air temperatures continued to increase, but without corresponding changes in Earth’s length of day or movements of Earth’s core. This divergence corresponds with a well-documented, robust global warming trend that has been widely attributed to increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases.”
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-goes-to-earths-core-for-climate-insights
Amongst reams of nonsense promoted by NASA, this one is pretty typical.
Quite apart from anything else, “the researchers used results from computer climate models of Earth’s atmosphere and ocean to account for temperature changes due to human activities. ”
Computer climate models? Just make stuff up to justify NASA fantasies, and hope nobody notices!
Very clever? Not so much.
Good for sucking in the gullible and simple-minded, I suppose.
Suckers like Wee Willy.
> Computer climate models?
Perhaps Mike Flynn has measurements of the Earth’s core?
Endlessly Diversionary Wee Willy,
Although computer climate models have nothing to do with with the science of geophysics, I’m sure Mike Flynn does have measurements of the Earth’s core.
Why do you ask, idiot? Just attempting to troll, perhaps?
You need to learn some subtlety, otherwise people might form the conclusion that you are not just an idiot, but an incompetent idiot, at that.
Here’s where we were, Mike Flynn:
“There is a presumption that the current surface temp is due to solar energy alone but the core of the Earth is at a similar temperature to the solar surface.”
Keep going all in with “but modulz”!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard Says: This divergence corresponds with a well-documented, robust global warming trend that has been widely attributed to increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases.
Willard, unless you were born yesterday, every unexplained variation will be attributed to CO2. That is the entire foundation of this Climate Science. You have to indoctrinate enough people to make them gullible enough to support a carbon tax. That is the only way Socialism Works. The wealthy pushing this nonsense don’t want a Wealth Tax, they want the proletariat to pay for their Dachas.
If you haven’t learned this, if you try hard enough, and manipulate the data enough, you can get a computer model to tell you anything you want it to. That is why I spend my efforts looking for the data set they haven’t thought to adjust yet, of they haven’t understood how that data set debunks their theory. I think of myself as Winston in 1984, catching all the errors of the Ministry of Truth.
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
CiL said: every unexplained variation will be attributed to CO2. That is the entire foundation of this Climate Science.
Patently False.
It’s patently false that it’s patently false, bdgwx.
Your cult deals in nonsense, so you have zero credibility.
Clint R 7:15 AM
Hey man, HS graduation season is just around the corner and judging by the content of your comments it looks as if you’ll be repeating the seventh grade… again.
TM, your irrelevancy is not my fault.
Wrong bdgwx. There are shysters and special interests on both sides of the aisle here. The only real argument is how to get the public to pay off the claims of both sides. they nearly pulled it off with cap and trade. here calif we pay an extra buck a gallon for a c&p jr. program that will ultimately only hurt those who can lest afford it..
Climate science does NOT attributed variation to CO2. It does NOT even attribute long term trends solely to CO2.
sure bdgwx. do you actually think you can have politics without a disagreement?
> Willard Says: This divergence
I quoted John Nielsen-Gammon, Life.
You know Texas State’s Meteorologist?
> I quoted John Nielsen-Gammon,
Erm. In this case it was Alan Buis from NASA.
Here’s where I quoted NG:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-695398
Willard, please stop trolling.
“We know that the deeper we dig into the Earth the hotter it gets. That heat is not coming from solar energy. In fact, there is magma from the Earths interior contacting the ocean base. I cannot buy the argument about this heat being insignificant.”
One way to look at it, is there a warming effect from cold water falling {and being replaced with warmer waters}.
Our ocean is cold, because cold water has fallen. And it’s warmed by warm water pushed into the depths of the ocean. And it’s warmed by Earth interior heat.
It said by some, that more 90% of global warming in last 50 years has been warming the ocean. Or more 90% of global warming has warmed the ocean which has been cooled by falling cold water.
But since the cargo cult ignores Earth’s interior heat, they probably aren’t allowing how much of the “more 90% of global warming” is from Geothermal heat.
Also no one measured the amount falling cold water and it’s not consider by the cargo cult as a “warming effect”. As their religion tells them the only warming is caused by “greenhouse gases”- as the cult leaders couldn’t imagine anything but greenhouse gases causing warming.
Tyndall 1861:
>“Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galvanometer was observed with all possible care. Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not detect the slightest change of position. Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, subjected to the same test gave the same negative result. The temperature of the water was subsequently lowered so as to produce a deflection of 20º and 10º; but in no case did the admission of air, or any of the above gases into the exhausted tube, produce any sensible change in the position of the needle.”
Tyndall (1861, p. 172)
http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/
What we read here is that Tyndall in his 1861 work says dry air:
Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galvanometer was observed with all possible care. Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not detect the slightest change of position.
Tyndall could not detect the slightest change of needle’s position… when measuring dry air IR absorp-tion …
Dry air consists of N2 O2 and CO2 (0,04 % or 400 ppm). CO2 is a trace gas in dry air, that is why Tyndall,
“Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not detect the slightest change of position. “
I am not sure what your point is. Could you clarify?
From the paper, the tube of gas used was only 4 feet long. 4 feet of 400 ppm CO2 would not have much impact. A longer tube would be needed for the sensitivity that he had.
He *did* however measure other pure gases, including CO2 (although the nomenclature is archaic). Pure CO, CO2, N20 and other gases did have measurable effects.
Tim,
A little clarification. Tyndall was aware that CO2 intercepted some IR. This is why “the first filled with fragments of pumice stone moistened with a solution of caustic potash, and intended to intercept whatever carbonic acid may be contained in the air.” appears.
I invite you to read the observations which led Tyndall to realise that his instrumentation was sensitive enough to detect CO2 in “dry air”, and why it was necessary to remove the CO2.
An interesting side-note.
By the end of the nineteenth century, similar instruments to Tyndall’s could measure temperature changes to about one millionth of a degree. Measured. Not modelled.
Tim Folkerts says:
I am not sure what your point is. Could you clarify?
From the paper, the tube of gas used was only 4 feet long. 4 feet of 400 ppm CO2 would not have much impact. A longer tube would be needed for the sensitivity that he had.
————————-
You have a source for that. I have heard almost all IR is absorbed in the first meter of the atmosphere from surface emissions.
That is much to short of a distance.
Here is one reference. Look at Figure 10. It gives the emissivity of CO2 at various tempreatures and concentrations.
The line for “1 bar m” would be 1 bar = 1 atm of CO2 for 1 meter. Or 400 ppm for 2500 m.
The bottom line for “0.001 bar m” would be a partial pressure of 0.001 atm = 0.1% = 1000 ppm for 1 meter or 400 ppm for 2.5 m.
So a few meters @ 400 ppm will only have a small impact.
You forgot the reference.
But looking up through a column of air one meter tall and one square millimeter as its base would have at 400ppm about 10 quadrillion CO2 molecules packed into that column that was 1 millimeter wide.
Where Does the Atmosphere Get Its Energy?
Large-scale energy sources that act continuously or quasicontinuously in the atmosphere and at its boundaries
Heat Source and Flux in W/m^2
Solar Irradiance= 340.25
Heat Flux from Earth’s Interior= 0.0612
Radioactive Decay= 0.0480
Geothermal= 0.0132
Infrared Radiation from the Full Moon= 0.0102
Sun’s Radiation Reflected from Moon= 0.0034
Energy Generated by Solar Tidal Forces in the Atmosphere= 0.0034
Combustion of Coal, Oil, and Gas in US (1965)= 0.0024
Energy Dissipated in Lightning Discharges= 0.0002
Dissipation of Magnetic Storm Energy= 6.8E-05
Radiation from Bright Aurora= 4.8E-05
Energy of Cosmic Radiation= 3.1E-05
Dissipation of Mechanical Energy of Micrometeorites= 2.0E-05
Total Radiation from Stars= 1.4E-05
Energy Generated by Lunar Tidal Forces in the Atmosphere= 1.0E-05
Radiation from Zodiacal Light= 3.4E-06
Total of All Non-Solar Energy Sources= 0.0810
Heat Flux from Earth’s Interior= Radioactive Decay + Geothermal
It would be interesting to see an update on the combustion numbers. This list says “US (1965)”. The US consumption has gone way up, and the rest of the world uses quite a bit too. That would suddenly put fossil fuels in the same order of magnitude as earth’s interior.
Tim Folkerts 8:07 AM
Here’s Professor Criswell’s view on the magnitude of the numbers for Combustion https://youtu.be/8lA-z-FCDLA?t=334.
At about 7:00, one idiot claims a Terawatt is a “billion-billion Watts”. The other idiot “corrects him stating its a “million-billion”!
In reality, a Terawatt is a million-million Watts!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Do you mean right after he says “10^12 Watts?.”
As I said before, it’s no wonder you are still stuck in the seventh grade.
Yes, right after he said “10^12 Watts”. He believed that means a “million-billion” Watts.
He was one of your cult’s “authorities”, as in “appeal to authority”.
Yes, you are right in saying Professor Criswell was an authority in his field. He will be sadly missed; however I am heartened to see his ideas taking root in the emerging Lunar Economy.
> as in “appeal to authority”.
You keep using that expression, Puppy. It might not mean what you make it mean. In fairness, it is hard to say if Climateball contrarians misrepresent more the ad hominem or the ad verecundiam.
Oh My! Some one misspoke once during a live discussion! If that makes a person an ‘idiot’ then everyone alive is an idiot. Clearly he knows the value of a terawatt, since all the actual calculations are correct.
Tyson, Willard, Tim, please stop trolling.
TM and Willard, it’s always nice for you to confirm I’m on target.
Thanks!
So says every Alberta Sharpshooter, Puppy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
TM and TF, flux is NOT energy. You keep getting it wrong.
It’s like you can’t learn….
Why do you keep repeating Joe’s crap, Puppy?
I should be curious to know what ClintR calls the specific rate of energy transfer through a surface, but I really don’t care. Is that bad?
Something something the “intensity projection.”
Yes TM, “area” must be taken into account, or it’s not energy. That’s just one of many mistakes in the AGW nonsense.
Energy is conserved, flux is NOT conserved.
> area must be taken into account
Which Joe does not do it with his diagram does.
And in fact you’re pulling a similar trick with your chicken.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Power = (area)*(flux) summed over all the areas.
Or Power is (total area)*(average flux).
The numbers above are “average flux”. They are all over the same (total area). Therefore Power and average flux are proportional. I know the total area of the earth’s surface, so I know the total power. (and I could add that up to get total energy in a day or month or decade).
People with a little bit of mathematical intuition can mentally switch back and forth. Like if someone said the AVERAGE rainfall in the US went up last year, I would automatically know that the TOTAL rainfall also went up.
It’s as if Sky Dragons did not realize that energy balance models are meant to balance energy.
TF confirms his misunderstanding of physics, again.
1) Power is NOT conserved.
2) Flux is NOT conserved.
3) TF does NOT know the emitting surface of Earth. He can’t even do a proper energy balance of Pike’s Peak.
4) Flux can NOT be averaged, except in very special cases.
All he really has is the incompetent support from the sucky trolls.
That’s why this is so much fun.
That’s where you’re wrong, Puppy:
Energy_In is *defined* as power times albedo correction.
Power is *defined* as flux times area.
Joe *does* average flux all the time.
The emitting surface of the Earth is *defined* by the Earth area, because it gets the job done of balancing energy.
No wonder he keeps returning to steady state BBQ.
Willard again confirms his ignorance of physics:
“Energy_In is “defined” as power times albedo correction.”
Even Norma knows better.
The trolls just get dumber and dumber.
Clint confirms his misunderstanding of both physics and English.
1) I never said “power is conserved”. I don’t think I ever implied it.
2) I never said “flux is conserved”. I don’t think I ever implied it.
3) The “emitting surface” is pi * (Radius of earth)^2. Or use the area of an ellipsoid to be a little more accurate. Local topology doesn’t matter on global scales.
4) Flux can certainly be averaged. Averaging is a simple, well-defined mathematical operation. Some times the average may not tell you what you want (like “average temperature of a surface ” is not the same as “effect black body temperature of a surface”). But the integral of (flux)⋅(dA) does indeed give the total power out through a surface.
This is why this is NOT so much fun. Clint mis-interprets just about everything and never engages with verbal or mathematical or physical details.
TF, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t pretend you know physics and still cling to the “Energy Balance” nonsense, where they are trying to balance flux.
To leave your cult nonsense, you must realize:
1) Power is NOT conserved.
2) Flux is NOT conserved.
To leave your cult nonsense, you must admit both 3) and 4) are true:
3) TF does NOT know the emitting surface of Earth. He can’t even do a proper energy balance of Pike’s Peak.
4) Flux can NOT be averaged, except in very special cases.
Which way will you jump — cling to your cult, or face reality?
“where they are trying to balance flux.”
You have this backwards. People like Trenberth are not “trying to balance [average] flux” or equivalently, “trying to balance average power.” They are trying to determine average fluxes of various sorts and then to use that information to see *if* [average] fluxes in and out of various subsystem of the climge system actually do balance.
We can discuss separately whether they do a good job with that or not, but [average] flux balance is not the STARTING assumption. Approximate flux balance is an END result. (It is an expected end result, because we know the global temperatures do not change drastically over the source if years or decades, but that simply confirms they are on the right track.)
******************
Simply repeating something over and over does not make it true. Where have I said “flux is conserved”?
If we know a priori that a system is in a radiative steady-state condition, then [average] (flux in) must equal [average] (flux out). But this is not the same as a generic statement of ‘conservation of flux’.
“4) Flux can NOT be averaged, except in very special cases.
I’m curious. What are those “very special cases” that allow flux to be averaged? Be specific!
> again confirms his ignorance of physics
Even Joe knows how energy balance models usually define their stuff.
Tim Folkerts says:
4) Flux can NOT be averaged, except in very special cases.
Im curious. What are those very special cases that allow flux to be averaged? Be specific!
————————-
For planets those cases would be planets without atmospheres and planets with uniform source of radiation (probably non-existent)
Clint, you are sounding like a broken record
>>> 1) Power is NOT conserved.
>>> 2) Flux is NOT conserved.
>> 1) I never said “power is conserved”.
>> I don’t think I ever implied it.
>> 2) I never said “flux is conserved”.
>> I don’t think I ever implied it.
> To leave your cult nonsense, you must realize:
> 1) Power is NOT conserved.
> 2) Flux is NOT conserved.
Either:
A) Point to a specific instance where I espoused the idea that “power is conserved ” or “flux is conserved”.
or
B) Admit you are barking up the wrong tree here.
**********************
There are a few times upstream where *others* have been sloppy when talking about conservation laws. For example, there are some things that bdgwx said that should be clarified or corrected. Like
“dF = Fin – Fout”
First, those fluxes should be read as average fluxes over an entire closed surface (for example, a surface that completely encloses the earth at the top of the atmosphere). That is implied, but not ever clearly stated.
More critically, just like there is no heat, Q, ‘in’ an object, there is no flux, F, ‘in’ an object. So “dF” is nonsensical. He should have left it as dE/(A*t), where E is the thermal energy within the system. This would be akin to writing dQ = Qin – Qout, rather than dE = Qin – Qout (where is is assumes that the only energy transfers happening are heat).
Tim, please stop trolling.
With all the smoke screen coming from TF’s keyboard, I would say he answered the question — He’s going to cling to his cult.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-695572
I apparently missed an option.
Clint could:
A) Point to a specific instance where I espoused the idea that power is conserved or flux is conserved. Thereby proving himself correct. Thereby settling the issue (or at least taking a step forward).
or
B) Admit he is wrong about what I think, and accept my very clear statement about what I actually think about “conservation of flux”. (Also settling the issue.)
C) Double-down on empty, false accusations and continue attacking strawmen.
I’ll definitely accept that I should have left the left-hand side as dE/(A*t).
It’s possible to manipulate the terms on the two sides, but when we do the sides stop being energy in and out.
That’s probly the source of Joe’s mistake.
TF, you can’t change reality with your keyboard, no matter how much smoke you put out.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-695572
And again, we have the broken record.
“2) Flux is NOT conserved.”
I never said is was.
“4) Flux can NOT be averaged, except in very special cases.”
What are those “very special cases”?
If you actual have something, then say it, rather than linking to empty statements!
Tim, please stop trolling..
TM,
At night, Solar Irradiance = 0.
Surface cools. No GHE.
> Surface cools. No GHE.
Global warming is heating up nights more quickly than days – with ‘profound’ effects on wildlife
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/global-warming-day-night-cloud-wildlife/
Wacko Wee Willy,
At night, solar irradiance = 0.
The surface cools. If your link indicates otherwise, it is flying in the face of experience.
So sad. Too bad. Cooling is not warming.
No GHE, kiddo.
Mike Flynn,
“In most of the world, the average nighttime temperature increase has outpaced daytime rises in the 35 years to 2017, according to a new study. Given that different animals and plants carry out different activities and processes depending on the time of day, unequal temperature rises may have a skewed impact, the researchers say.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/global-warming-day-night-cloud-wildlife/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint, can we write the following:
total planet IR emission, for every homogenous planet surface
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ (W) ?
or the same, in case it does not show clearly:
Jemit = 4*pi*r^2*sigma*T^4 (W) ?
Joe did, so Clint has little choice than to say yes.
Clint, I wanted to say
total planet IR emission, for every homogenous planet surface
Jabs = Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ (W) ?
or the same, in case it does not show clearly:
Jabs = Jemit = 4*pi*r^2*sigma*T^4 (W) ?
I know what you mean, CV. And you’re on the right track. I would be more specific and say that equation relates to a black body, in one second. If you leave any room for the idiots to pervert your message, they will take advantage.
Show some courage, Puppy.
Say yes. Even kiddo would.
Yes, Clint
The equation relates to a black body…
Tim, I mean total planet IR emission.
And, Tim “3) Tmean should actually be Teffective.
I would say Tmean should be Tuniform, which I think comes from the definition of Teffective.
“I would say Tmean should be Tuniform, which I think comes from the definition of Teffective.”
That is a reasonably re-statement of the same idea. We just need to be careful. Your “Tuniform” and my “Teffective” are the same idea == the temperature that would emit the same total power as some actual object with varying temperatures.
The ‘trick’ is that this is NOT the same as a simple weighted average of the temperatures over the surface of the object.
Thank you, Tim
>That is a reasonably re-statement of the same idea. We just need to be careful. Your Tuniform and my Teffective are the same idea == the temperature that would emit the same total power as some actual object with varying temperatures.
The trick is that this is NOT the same as a simple weighted average of the temperatures over the surface of the object.
Yes, it is not the same…
I am sorry, it is getting very late in Athens, Greece were I am.
Shall we continue tomorrow?
1) Presumable you mean “average planet IR emission” not “total planet IR emission”. *Total* IR emissions would need to include surface area.
2) Clint doesn’t ‘believe in’ averaging fluxes, so he will disagree automatically.
3) “Tmean” should actually be “Teffective”. As an extreme example, a planet that is 300 K on one half and 100 K on the other half should use T = 253 K in the equation, not 200 K.
(At some point the emissivity of the surface needs to be considered, but we can skip that at an initial level, since it is close to 1.0 for many real surfaces. )
Yes Clint,
>“Energy is conserved, flux is NOT conserved.”
What does “flux is NOT conserved” mean, Christos?
It means the not reflected portions of fluxes do not get accumulated in total… (only a small part of the not reflected portion is accumulated on the solar-lit hemisphere ground, the rest – the big part, is instantaneously IR emitted)
You only replaced “conserved” with “do not get accumulated in total,” Christos. Not being able to add flux would make light design quite difficult. Do you have any dimmer in your home?
In fact, it’s hard to tell how you can claim that light is accumulated in any way (over whatever area you please) but not in total.
Including your incorrect pet topic does not clarify the matter.
Willard,
>“In fact, it’s hard to tell how you can claim that light is accumulated in any way (over whatever area you please) but not in total.
Is the reflected light first accumulated, and only then re-emitted (reflected) at the same as the incident light spectral frequencies? No.
What makes you think the IR emitted solar energy (which also is a kind of light-matter interaction has to be accumulated first?
Read this entry, Christos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
This time, slowly.
A simple dimmer refutes any point you think Clint might have.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Read this entry, Christos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
This time, slowly.
A simple dimmer refutes any point you think Clint might have.”
A typical nitwit alarmist response. Patronising, condescending, irrelevant and nonsensical, as it stands.
Asshattery, anyone?
Mike Flynn,
That’s where we recognize true leaders.
Had you read anything about my interaction with Christos, you’d know how silly is your concern trolling.
But keep trying. One day you’ll get it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Today it’s time to reply to dumb trash posted a few days ago:
” For example, Roy claims in his monthly updates that the trend is still 0.14C/decade. Over 4+ decades that is about 0.56C total warming.
The UAH graph is not showing over half a degree true warming, if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline. ”
*
If he had been an attentive observer, Robertson would have noticed that the situation wrt the baseline has changed significantly since January 2021.
No wonder: the 30-year average difference in UAH’s absolute temperatures between 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 is 0.14 C. That’s a lot which in fact any professional eye-baller easily should have noticed.
*
But I’m no fan of this eye-balling, and prefer a closer look to data, in order to show how nonsensical this ‘true warming’ idea really is.
Till around 2012 or so, UAH used for anomalies the same reference period as still does RSS: 1979-1998.
If Spencer & Christy never had had the intention to adapt their reference period to WHO’s recommendation for a 30-year period, they could have decided to choose for now the 1999-2018 period, for example.
*
Chart 1 shows in the following the global absolute temperatures, together with the 20-year averages of the for these two 20-year periods (263.87 resp. 264.11 Kelvin):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19tr5uxfkGgk7uXC0JESlUGDTqTFidrsw/view
*
Here is chart 2 with the anomalies wrt 1979-1998:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10oHl_Kv8tOaDMHXc298msslLS3RV0sEx/view
and chart 3 with those wrt 1999-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZFode2Y8NluY395Hbfp7XG4R4fmv-oMg/view
Now everybody can see Robertson’s nonsense about ‘true warming’ above the baseline (and conversely, ‘recovery from cooling’ below it).
Though chart 2 and 3 reflect exactly the same data shown in chart 1, the ‘true warming period’ is, in chart 2, far greater than in chart 3; dito conversely for the alleged recovery.
The one and only difference between charts 2 and 3 is the 12-month vector used to construct the anomalies they display.
*
It is amazing to see Robertson feeling the need to teach others about anomalies, like
” For the number-cru[n]ch twins, Barry and Binny, a definition from NOAA.
The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value. ”
And that though he still doesn’t understand how they really work…
*
Last not least: does Robertson have the slightest idea how many ‘number crunchers’ it takes at UAH for him to see all the graphs they make each month?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
> “Chart 1 shows in the following the global absolute temperatures, together with the 20-year averages of the for these two 20-year periods (263.87 resp. 264.11 Kelvin):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19tr5uxfkGgk7uXC0JESlUGDTqTFidrsw/view
*”
Very interesting !
Please comment, the 20-year averages of the for these two 20-year periods (263.87 resp. 264.11 Kelvin)
When comparing with the 30-year average 1951-1981 (288 Kelvin) what should we think?
If I do not understand, please help me.
Christos Vournas
Perhaps you didn’t pay attention that while you mention the average surface temperature, my comment has to do with temperatures measured in the lower troposphere at an average altitude of around 4 km.
So all what we can say is that in the lower troposphere, it is (mostly) colder than at the surface (except in very cold regions, where the surface is colder than the atmosphere, e.g. Antarctica or Northern Siberia during the winter).
But though their absolute temperatures differ by about 25 C, comparisons of anomalies between surface and lower troposphere, wrt the same period, show sometimes an interesting similarity:
https://tinyurl.com/5dmrj6n9
(all anomalies plotted wrt the mean of 1981-2010).
J.-P. D.
Thank you, Bindidon.
ET Says: What makes you think that ANOVA is not used in climate research?
The moment ET produces an ANOVA table from a climate model is the day the world has all the evidence if needs to prove this is nothing but a hoax. There is a reason the alarmist rely on slopes of a regression instead of an ANOVA table. Once they produce an actual ANOVA table the entire house of cards collapses. ET doesn’t have a clue what an ANOVA table it or else he wouldn’t have said Climate Models have them. If they do, they aren’t well published for a reason.
I’m going to give you one chance, Life:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=climate+model+anova
Use it well.
Wee Willy Laughter Machine,
Is that the last “chance” you are going to give?
Or have you got a big bag of “chances” to give away? Can the recipient give it back if it’s defective?
Thanks for the lolz (“laughs” for anyone not as Woke as Wee Witless Willy.
Mike Flynn,
A simple search can show how silly was Life’s challenge.
Keep amplifying it!
You’re the best.
Wriggly Wee Willy,
Better at posing questions than answering them, are you?
Onlookers might well think you are an idiotic asshat, reduced to talking gibberish because your pathetic attempts at trolling aren’t succeeding too well.
Mike Flynn would no doubt thank you for your encomium. He appreciates the flattery – who wouldn’t?
Thank you for appointing me Mike Flynn’s emissary on this blog. In matters pertaining to Mike Flynn, am I infallible, as the Pope is for Roman Catholics?
You have assigned me an awesome responsibility. Which characteristics of Mike Flynn do you particularly admire, and in what areas do you consider him to be omniscient? As Mike Flynn’s exemplar, I need to know your reasons for worship.
Magnificient Mike Flynn,
Why should I answer your questions exactly?
Why should I answer your rhetorical questions?
Do you know the difference between “Oh” and “O”?
Keep trying!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You are free to do as you wish. Just like me or Mike Flynn.
Obviously, you either choose to be an idiot, or you have no choice in the matter.
I neither know nor care. Mike Flynn may share my opinion, but once again, I neither know nor care. I can’t be bothered asking, either.
Feel free to carry on being an idiot, if that is your desire.
Mike Flynn,
There’s only one Mike Flynn who plays Climateball the way you do.
Even Minny would agree.
Woeful Wee Willy Asshat,
Why do you mention a game where you even get a flogging from a creation of your own fantasy?
The problem with playing with yourself is that you always lose, even if you think you are winning!
Unless you play for the draw, of course. At least you won’t lose.
Mike Flynn,
You might need to use a different name to comment here, but you’re not a dead horse.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m sorry Willard, is this making the case for CO2 driving temperatures:
“We show that the dominant contributions to the total variance of seasonal mean sea level pressure arise from between-model differences (the bias term) and internal noise (the noise term). However, which term is most important varies from region to region.”
First, that abstract is making my points about the variation between regions. So thank you for proving my point.
Second, where is the ANOVA Table in the abstract? I’m not going to pay for the article, so why not put it up front for all to see.
Third, without reading a single research report, you will never, and I mean never, find a valid coefficient on CO2 is the model included proper factors that actually contribute to warming.
I’m still waiting on someone to show a ANOVA Table demonstrating that CO2 is a significant contributor to warming.
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Don’t be sorry, Life. Be relevant:
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html
Which abstract?
Williard, again, where is the ANOVA table demonstrating that CO2 has a significant positive coefficient. Just show me an ANOVA table of at least 5 factors that shows CO2 is significant.
Just prove what you have been claiming. It is that easy.
Life,
If I spoonfeed you this time, do you promise not to comment before next September?
Your contention that climate scientists don’t know ANOVA is utterly ludicrous. That you can’t find these tests does not bode well on your research skillz. Ask a young nephew.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Maybe I can help clarify a couple things:
– A flux, which is a rate, not a quantity, need not be conserved. For example, if 1000 w/m2 is incident on an area of pavement with a temperature of 50 K,
the emitted flux will at least initially be much less.
– The energy from a flux need not be accumulated even when absorbed. For example if the pavement was already at a temperature where it emitted 1000 w/m2, then even a fully absorbed incident flux of 1000 w/m2 would not result in any additional accumulation.
Obvious stuff, just a communication failure.
(And I may have given Christos bad information when I said the term instantaneous emission could perhaps be thought of as the rate at a given moment or instance.)
March,
> ” The energy from a flux need not be accumulated even when absorbed.”
March, thank you. I use the word “absorbed” in brackets… I also add the (not reflected portion).
The not reflected = IR emitted + accumulated.
S = reflected + emitted + accumulated (at any given moment)
At daytime the accumulated is positive.
At nighttime it is negative.
A good, comprehensive article showing the use of ANOVA for detection and control of uncertainty:
Partitioning uncertainty components of mean climate and climate change in a large ensemble of European regional climate model projections
Ole B. Christensen & Erik Kjellström (2020)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05229-y
J.-P. D.
Another possibly interesting article showing ANOVA use, this time focusing on the analysis of station data uncertainty (which I did not read yet)
On the reduction of trend errors by the ANOVA joint correction scheme used in homogenization of climate station records
Ralf Lindau, Victor Venema (2018)
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/object/1434/download/3212/
(free preprint of a paywalled article)
J.-P. D.
It’s amazing the bs people will come up with to justify a funding grant. There is no need to use ANOVA between surface stations up to 1200 km apart. They could simply install thermometers at those locations to measure the temperatures.
Why don’t they? Because it’s not conducive to falsifying the temperature record. It’s much easier to fudge it if you can eliminate certain stations showing cooling and homogenize stations showing warming to replace the station showing cooling.
Stinking cheaters.
Gordon, one of your cronies despaired the lack of ANOVA analysis is climate studies. These posts are pointing out that that sort of analysis is indeed used by climate researchers.
Will you be lobbying for all these new weather stations to be installed? And do you kknow if we can get a time machine to have them installed in 1850? That would obviate the need for all these pesky analyses.
I have lost count of the unprecedented since type comments in the news and elsewhere. Most of them quoting things from some 60 years ago.
Until we have at least 60 years of good data, any comments about trends are futile.
Thermometers on the ground are within the chaotic boundary layer.
Satellite measurements are above the boundary layer
There is a loose coupling between boundary and above the boundary measurements.
It depends, apart from other things, on the height of the boundary layer, the time of day, the difference in humidity, the pressure differences, and a host of other things.
Quoting somethings that are in the boundary layer says very little about the temperature of the atmosphere.
The planetary boundary layer (PBL) height is a fundamental parameter characterizing the vertical extent of atmospheric mixing near the surface. It is critical for understanding the PBL process and low cloud evolution and its feedback on the climate system, which remains a key uncertainty in climate modeling. The PBL height is generally defined as the altitude of a transition layer where air temperature or humidity gradient are significant within the lowest 1-5 kilometers above the surface. Numerous thermodynamic parameters, including temperature, humidity (specific/relative humidity) and their derivatives (e.g., potential/virtual potential temperature etc.) have been widely used to define the PBL height. Advances in satellite remote sensing technique allow novel ways to detect the PBL heights from space.
rlh…”Quoting somethings that are in the boundary layer says very little about the temperature of the atmosphere”.
It all an exercise in futility. Temperature is a human invention, based on the boiling/freezing point of water and it measures relative heat levels. We all know, from experience, how heat can vary at one location throughout a day yet it can be hotter or cooler a few miles away based on altitude, cloud cover, etc.
Although your point is well-taken about the difference between satellite and surface thermometers, the sats are measuring a viable heat source, atmospheric oxygen, and they cover 95% of the planet. The thermometer data set covers barely 30% and very poorly, and the record has been fudged by climate alarmists.
The arguments/debates here are not so much about the veracity of a temperature record as much as they are about the existence/non-existence of AGW and the fabled greenhouse effect. Many of us simply refuse to accept that a trace gas comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause warming, let alone the proposed catastrophic warming.
I might add that although the sats receive temperature data via radiation from oxygen molecules, the surface thermometers are housed behind Stevenson screen to prevent radiation from affecting them. Therefore, surface thermometers are influenced by the 99% nitrogen/oxygen mix in the atmosphere. The N2/O2 mix get their heat from the surface via direct conduction then the mix is convected to the level of the housings.
Then modelers take those temperatures, developed from N2/O2, and claim CO2 is the warming factor, via radiation. There is absolutely no way of verifying that pseudo-science via surface thermometers. Furthermore, I don’t see them using AMSU units in sats to measure radiation from CO2?
“the sats are measuring a viable heat source, atmospheric oxygen, and they cover 95% of the planet.”
But they are only covering a section of the vertical atmosphere.
The planetary boundary layer is very difficult to see inside from above or distinguish from the rest.
That is the layer that contains thermometers, proxies, et al.
rlh…”But they are only covering a section of the vertical atmosphere”.
Not true. The AMSU telemetry receiver channels can receive radiations from oxygen right to the surface and Roy explained they don’t use all channels because those that can detect to the surface are affected by noise produced by other surface radiation. However, the AMSU units are divided into receiver channels tuned to centre frequencies. The channel used may be viewing O2 radiation from its centre frequency at a higher altitude, but that channel can also receive O2 radiation right to surface altitudes.
The receivers cannot simply zone in on a radiation frequency near the surface, the data received needs to be calibrated to known temperatures at various altitudes. Therefore the data has to be averaged to get the surface temperature. Obviously the averaging is accurate because the sat data agrees with radiosonde data and its close to the surface station data.
“The AMSU telemetry receiver channels can receive radiations from oxygen right to the surface and Roy explained they don’t use all channels because those that can detect to the surface are affected by noise produced by other surface radiation.”
Try that inside a fog bank.
The results are discarded because of noise. Says all about the problems of seeing inside the boundary zone.
You miss-understand my points (which agree mostly with you)
Thermometers at 2m are only loosely coupled to the average temperature of the atmosphere TOA to surface. That depends on a lot of other factors that climate models are poor at providing.
Satellite measurements are very good TOA to a few 100’s/1000’s of meters above the surface as I’m sure Roy will confirm.
rlh…”Satellite measurements are very good TOA to a few 100s/1000s of meters above the surface as Im sure Roy will confirm”.
That’s what I am trying to say. Some surface stations are at 30 metres altitude and the rest are at least a metre altitude. All of them are detecting atmospheric temperatures, just like the sats.
Some alarmists have argued that the sats are measuring temps at 4 kms altitude. They don’t understand how a sounding unit works. Its centre frequency may be receiving data at the 4 km altitude area but the receivers can detect frequencies from O2 near the surface as well.
I liken the telemetry to that of an octaves equalizer in sound systems. A typical octave in music is a doubling or halving of frequency. The A note above middle C is 440 hz, therefore an octave up is 880 hz and an octave below is 220 hz, and still an A, albeit higher or lower in pitch.
An equalizer is like a tone control in that it filters out certain frequencies by attenuating them. An octave equalizer would zero in on a finer frequency range such as the 440 hz range representing the A above middle C. However, you cannot simply attenuate a flat range of one octave since any filter circuit is shaped like a Bell curve. Therefore an octave equalizer set to a middle frequency of 440 hz, would also attenuate, to a lesser degree, a middle C at 262 HZ.
Parametric equalizers can vary the Q of the filter, meaning they can make its bandpass narrower or broader. Therefore you can dial is a parametric EQ to a certain frequency, say 440 hz, and vary the bandwidth to narrow down the attenuated frequencies. It would be nice if they had those on sats. You could zoom in on the surface frequencies to confirm temperatures directly.
The bandpass of any filter is rated at 3 db down from the highest amplitude of the filter response curve. If the highest amplitude passed by the filter at a certain frequency is 1 volt, then the bandpass level is at 0.707 volts. A line through that point parallel to the x-axis will intercept the curve at two points and any frequencies represented along that line is within the bandpass of the filter.
However, Any frequencies along the curve below that line will still be attenuated but to a lesser degree. They are said to ‘roll off’ at so many db per octave.
That’s how I see AMSU units behaving, although Roy is likely laughing at my stupidity. A response curve for a channel will have a Bell-shaped response curve and the bandwidth of the channel will likely have the same 3 db rating. The centre frequency representing the bandwidth centre may be receiving O2 emission frequencies at 4 km but that channel will be capable of receiving O2 transmission frequencies over altitudes from 4km right to the surface.
That’s just one channel. There are channels that will receive mainly surface level signals, but they are apparently not used.
Re your fog banks. Apparently the frequencies radiated by oxygen will penetrate cloud therefore they should penetrate fog as well. Does your local FM stations go silent on foggy days? Or your cell phone?
No but my GPS signal does become inaccurate if it rains heavily.
The point that I am making is that the surface boundary layer considerably effects the temperature profile TOA to surface, and who knows, the thickness of that layer could explain ALL of the temperature difference 1880 to now.
And my cell phone stops working in forests of trees.
All the talk of fluxes is just stupid. For example, from Wikipedia (the goto authority of some dimwitted alarmists), re Radiative Flux –
“Longwave flux is a product of both downwelling infrared energy as well as emission by the underlying surface. The cooling associated with the divergence of longwave radiation is necessary for creating and sustaining lasting inversion layers close to the surface during polar night. Longwave radiation flux divergence also plays a role in the formation of fog.”
Well, that was informative – not!
Maybe the entry for Shortwave Radiation Flux might be more informative –
“Shortwave flux is a result of specular and diffuse reflection of incident shortwave radiation by the underlying surface.[3] This shortwave radiation, as solar radiation, can have a profound impact on certain biophysical processes of vegetation, such as canopy photosynthesis and land surface energy budgets, by being absorbed into the soil and canopies.[4] As it is the main energy source of most weather phenomena, the solar shortwave radiation is used extensively in numerical weather prediction.”
So the longwave flux is a product, and the shortwave flux is a result? Anybody who appeals to the authority of this sort of useless garbage is suffering from a severe mental defect – or is possibly a believer in “climate science”.
For example, direct two equal fluxes at a sheet of germanium – one from a visible light source, one infrared. Measure what gets through. The fact that you could “add” two fluxes is meaningless, as germanium is almost completely opaque to visible light, but almost completely transparent to infrared. Hence, the “energy out” is nothing like the “energy in”, as far as transmission goes.
Can’t find a sheet of germanium? Ordinary window glass will do, by reversing opacity of the incident wave bands. Still no “energy in” equals “energy out”!
Basic physics, a deep mystery to climate cultists.
I think this is good article
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/16/the-greenhouse-effect-in-a-water-world/
Interesting stuff:
PWV has not increased in any significant way since 1979 according to the ECMWF. Without the Mt Chichon eruption in 1982 it is likely that, according to the more accurate ECMWF model, PWV would have fallen over the period 1979 to 2014.
{{PWV is Global Precipitable Water Vapour & ” European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)}}
And:
“Figure 6. Convection has kept the tropics approximately the same temperature for many millions of years. There is no significant change in tropical temperatures from a severe icehouse earth to an extreme hothouse earth.”
And apparently extreme hothouse has 13 C temperature at pole.
And “greenhouse” global climate is -7 C and we haven’t had greenhouse climate in last 34 million years, since we are in the Antarctic Glaciation or Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
So that idea of starting with uniform ocean temperature of 5 C, would mean “leaping” out of our ice house climate into something warmer than greenhouse climate- at least for period of centuries.
I thought it would be dramatic effect- but not quite that much.
barry …”Gordon: if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline..
You are a fecking idiot”.
Ingenuous, Barry…ingenuous.
All we have to work with these days are anomalies. I am aware that warming can occur outside of the parameters presented by a 30 year average baseline, but we are discussing systems that all use the anomaly/baseline system. Therefore, true warming is represented by anomalies above the baseline.
I explained that I had misquoted John Christy and I apologized (to John) for that. The term he used was ‘clear net warming’. However, in the article to which I linked, John was comparing that clear net warming to the period before it when, as he explained, there was artificial cooling from volcanic aerosols wherein most anomalies were below the baseline.
After the 98 El Nino, the majority of anomalies had suddenly moved above the baseline. We know that is an untenable position unless you keep raising the baseline. If UAH had stuck with the 1970 – 2010 baseline, it would not have been possible to have all anomalies remain above the baseline forever. Even you should know that a baseline requires a significant number of anomalies to be below the baseline, otherwise it cannot be an average.
Obviously, something shifted after the 98 EN and after the 2016 EN, thus far. As I pointed out in another post, this is not unprecedented. It happened circa 1977 at which time a 0.2C shift suddenly appeared. Some scientists wanted to erase it but its occurrence lead to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal oscillation.
We know dick-all about what is causing the current warming. We simply have not observed it long enough to even guess at what is going on. The closest explanation we have is the study done by Tsonis et al in which they concluded that ocean oscillations lime ENSO, The PDO, the AMO, the AO, etc., operated in different phases, producing warming when in phase and cooling when out of phase.
I don’t agree with the anomaly system and if you want to argue true warming, pro or con, you need an absolute temperature average for a baseline. If you do that, all warming we have experienced since 1850, will be essentially invisible based on a Y-coordinate scale in degrees C, measuring up to 15 degrees and beyond. The current UAH graph would be essentially indistinguishable from the x-axis.
You have never explained your understanding of this, leading me to conclude you are nothing more than a number cruncher who abuses statistical theory.
“Therefore, true warming is represented by anomalies above the baseline.”
This is just as asinine a comment as when you first made it.
The baseline is irrelevant to whether warming is true or not.
Only a few months ago UAH changed their baseline, with the result that some anomalies which were once positive are now negative.
If UAH eventually decide to up their baseline so that all the anomalies are negative, then “true warming” would not exist according to you, even though it is the exact same data the anomalies are based on, the same real-world phenomena being mearued.
Your idiocy on this is breathtaking and it is clear you are incapable of comprehending your primary school error.
https://youtu.be/dylxs9wzPk0?t=812
https://youtu.be/Bl2gg7lT7OM?t=2390
Measuring flux using watts.
It’s not clear what it means to measure solar flux, or surface IR flux in W/m^2. What about EM? Where are its basic units?
If we consider Stefan-Boltzmann we get Stefan’s simple relationship derived from Tyndall’s experiment,
j = sigma.T^4. He claimed the intensity of the EM given off, j, by a body of temperature, T, is equivalent to T^4. But to get that equivalence he had to include sigma, the constant of proportionality.
Sigma = (2pi^5.k^4)/(15c^2.h^3)
the units are W/(m^2.k^4)
Huh??? Where did he get the W/m^2? Seems obvious it was presumed from the conservation of energy principle but how can EM be presented with units of heat or mechanical energy when it is neither?
There are other units in there like h and c that lend a certain fudge factor to the equation. The h came from Planck who admitted he fudged the math to arrive at h and his Bell shaped EM spectrum.
This smacks of Feynman’s observation about quantum theory, that it works but no one knows why. I have no real objection to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation when correctly applied, usually theoretically. My objection is to the way the relationship between EM and heat is being misinterpreted by climate alarmists to create a pseudo-scientific theory that allows heat to be transferred from cold to hot, by its own means.
Stefan got the W/m^2 from Tyndall’s experiment. Tyndall heated a platinum filament wire with an electric current until the current heated the wire till it began to glow an orangy-red colour. That’s the source of the watts but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the emitted EM. The emitted EM has no temperature because it has no heat.
Still, we must remember that the watt is a measure of mechanical work and not heat per se. The actual measure of heat is the calorie and although it does no harm to use the equivalence wattage of the calorie, we must keep clearly in mind that the watt is an equivalence, not a measure of heat. Therefore, when we convert heat to EM and automatically transfer the watt equivalent to EM we must be hyper-vigilant not to make assumptions about what it means.
We must not confuse EM converted from heat at an interface with heat. Heat is lost completely in the conversion. Heat rays do not exist nor does IR as heat. However, at the time Stefan derived the relationship, everyone believed that heat was transferred through space as rays. That error still persists among certain scientists to this day. It’s even taught in modern textbooks.
At the time Stefan made the equation, nothing was known about electrons or their relationship to EM. The electron was not discovered till 1898. It took another 15 years for Bohr to come up with the relationship between the electron and EM emission/absorp-tion. Now we know that EM fields are produced by the electric field of an electron and the magnetic field it produces when it moves.
Therefore, the EM we are discussing from sources like the Sun were produced by bazillions of electrons boiling in the solar plasma. That emitted EM has no heat, it cannot be measured by any instrument. It can only have an effect when it is absorbed by mass at a lower temperature.
Finally, when such EM from a cooler source contacts a warmer surface, it has no effect. That satisfies both the 2nd law and Bohr’s model.
Gordon,
> “The emitted EM has no temperature because it has no heat.
That is right! Very well described. I will archive yours entire comment. It is a clear vision of the physics of phenomenon.
Thank you for your work!
May I add… Does Tsunami has temperature?
Christos, be careful with Gordon’s posts. He presents thermodynamics from the 19th century (mixed with his own misunderstandings).
Go to a university and take a good thermodynamics course if you really want to understand. A few things you might focus on:
* The difference between Q (heat) and U (internal energy). Gordon usually means “U” when he says “heat”. In a casual conversation that is not a problem, but in technical conversations, it can lead to confusion.
* radiative heat transfer (yes it is a real thing).
* photon gases and their temperature. There is a fundamental difference between 960 W/m^2 of photons from the sun and 960 W/m^2 of photons from a 361 K heater. That difference can be summed up as ‘the difference in temperature of their photons’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas
* photons have an effect when they are absorbed. Period. The object absorbing the photon gains an energy E = hf. The temperature of the absorbing object makes no difference.
* the fact that ALL energy is measured in joules in the metric system. There are not different units of energy for heat and mechanical energy and nuclear energy and …
Tim,
> * photon gases and their temperature. There is a fundamental difference between 960 W/m^2 of photons from the sun and 960 W/m^2 of photons from a 361 K heater. That difference can be summed up as the difference in temperature of their photons.
Agreed!
tim…”* The difference between Q (heat) and U (internal energy). Gordon usually means “U” when he says “heat”. In a casual conversation that is not a problem, but in technical conversations, it can lead to confusion.
* radiative heat transfer (yes it is a real thing)”.
***
Starting with the last comment, no, there is no heat transferred radiatively. Heat is lost in the radiating body and gained in the absorbing body, but no heat is exchanged between bodies. Heat is converted in the radiating body to EM, therefore that heat is lost. At the absorbing body, if it is cooler than the radiating body, EM is converted back to heat, hence heat is gained and the EM is lost. It all happens locally.
****
Don’t know how you got so confused about internal energy, Tim. If internal energy is not heat plus the work created in atomic vibration by heat, then what is it? Name the energy if it is not heat and work.
Why is it, when you add heat to a solid its temperature rises and its atoms vibrate harder? Or, when you remove heat, the temperature drops and the atoms vibrate less? Internal energy is that vibration plus heat.
It is useless to talk about adjectives for energy without describing the energy. Kinetic energy tells you nothing about the energy it describes, only that it is in motion. Internal energy means nothing unless you specify the energy. Talking about internal energy as an entity unto itself is nonsense.
In the first law, U is related to Q and W. Therefore U cannot describe any other energies than heat and/or work, as mechanical energy. That’s what Clausius so carefully specified in the 18th century and it still holds. Internal energy, U, = Q internal + W internal, and there is no way around that. The electrostatic energies that bind the atoms, both internally and externally, are not included in U, nor should they be since they are internal to the atoms themselves.
***
“* photon gases and their temperature. There is a fundamental difference between 960 W/m^2 of photons from the sun and 960 W/m^2 of photons from a 361 K heater”.
Why do you have this fetish for photons? What is a photon gas? A photon is defined as a particle of EM that has momentum but no mass. How can a bunch of mass-less particles form a gas? This is an example of modern scientists being unable to help their stupidity.
When you state so many W/m^2, you are not specifying a bandwidth. A tungsten filament radiating 960 W/m^2 at a certain distance from the filament is radiating in a very narrow band of frequencies in the IR spectrum. If the filament gets very hot it might glow red or white, meaning it is radiating above the IR spectrum. The Sun is radiating over a vast range of frequencies from the IR spectrum to the ultra-violet spectrum and at very high intensisties.
There is no comparison.
However, you insist on seeing the content of solar radiation as a photon gas, which is absurd. Why can’t you see it as Planck saw it, and Einstein, as a series of tiny oscillators comprised of individual EM waves. Why photons? They are useful for visualizing something like the photoelectric effect but not much else.
A particle cannot vibrate at such frequencies and over the range from IR to UV, you’d need bazzillions of particles all vibrating at different frequencies? All with no mass.
Seriously, can you not see the absurdity in this analogy?
Gordon, read any good, modern textbook on thermodynamics. It will answer all your question more completely than I could do in a blog post.
“Seriously, can you not see the absurdity in this analogy?”
That sounds so much like asking “Cant you not see the absurdity in
… the world being round?”
… the earth going around the sun?”
… continents moving?”
… tiny invisible life forms making people sick?”
… the existence of more than 4 elements?”
… 99% of the mass on an atom concentrated in a tiny nucleus?”
…
Many theories may ‘seem absurd’ to those who don’t have the background to evaluate the theories. The information is all there for you to make an informed decision. Read. Study. Ponder. Ask experts. Or continue to assume that you are smarted and better informed than generations of scientists who literally spent their lives pursuing these topics.
Gordon,
You said above May 16, 2021 at 9:57 PM
> “Temperature is a human invention, based on the boiling/freezing point of water and it measures relative heat levels.
And I would add, water at, say, 20 oC emits sigma*(293 K)^4
and, water at, say, 90 oC emits sigma*(363 K)^4
christos…”> Temperature is a human invention, based on the boiling/freezing point of water and it measures relative heat levels.
And I would add, water at, say, 20 oC emits sigma*(293 K)^4
and, water at, say, 90 oC emits sigma*(363 K)^4″
***
I understand you relating temperature to radiation intensity but I was trying to illustrate how the temperature scale was invented by humans. The scale developed by Celsius was based on the properties of water at the freezing point and at the boiling point.
By placing 0C at the freezing point of water, which needs further specification, and 100C at the boiling point of water (STP), then dividing the range into 100 divisions (centigrade), Celsius created a means of measuring the relative heat content of water.
Obviously this was done initially using a column of mercury and observing its expansion factor between the freezing point of water and the boiling point. It is heat that causes the mercury to expand although time will insist it is a mysterious internal energy. All the same. they called the measuring devices thermometers and I’m sure you could explain the derivation of ‘thermos’ better than me. They did not call them ‘internal energy’-ometers.
The Kelvin scale was developed from the centigrade scale by extending it toward absolute zero. Not sure how the Fahrenheit scale was developed, but it’s still used in the United States to this day.
“Therefore, the EM we are discussing from sources like the Sun were produced by bazillions of electrons boiling in the solar plasma. That emitted EM has no heat, it cannot be measured by any instrument. It can only have an effect when it is absorbed by mass at a lower temperature.”
Well most things cooler than the surface of sun.
But in term of heat, the light of sunlight at 1 AU heats blackbody surface to about 120 C. Or the heat of Sun at 1 AU is about 120 C, as you get closer to the Sun it’s hotter.
Or spreading out of sun heat at 1 AU is roughly equal to 120 C if striking a blackbody surface {in a vacuum}, but sunlight at 1 AU distance doesn’t heat all surface to 120 C, and a blackbody flat surface facing sun, reaches this temperature. I am not certain that this was known about before we reached earth orbit and actually measured how hot it got.
Though before this sunlight at Earth surface was measured and at zenith it’s about 80 C. Though perhaps it measured by knowing spectrum of heated lunar surface. But I am sure we knew how black the lunar surface was before going there.
gbaikie…”But in term of heat, the light of sunlight at 1 AU heats blackbody surface to about 120 C. Or the heat of Sun at 1 AU is about 120 C, as you get closer to the Sun its hotter”.
How you doing down there in Californie??? Any word yet of the concentration camps for those of us who refuse to be vaccinated?
The key word in your quote is ‘heats’. The EM does not heat anything because it’s not carrying heat. It excites electrons in a mass to higher orbital energy levels hence a higher state of kinetic energy, in this case, heat. The heat is caused by the electrons and the EM is lost during conversion.
That same high intensity SW EM from the Sun should also be absorbed by nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. I don’t see how N2/O2 could not be heated somewhat by incoming solar, considering the broad range of frequencies available. There has to be frequencies in the spectrum that excite the electrons in N2 and O2, even though alarmists claim that’s not possible.
BTW…solar EM does not carry colour either. Colour is created when various reflections of solar EM contact the human eye. There are cells in the human retina for converting various frequencies of EM to colour. EM has no colour and no heat.
“The key word in your quote is heats. The EM does not heat anything because its not carrying heat. It excites electrons in a mass to higher orbital energy levels hence a higher state of kinetic energy, in this case, heat. The heat is caused by the electrons and the EM is lost during conversion.”
The atmosphere, ocean, ground has capacity to absorb and retain heat and the sunlight doesn’t. Or matter has a certain amount of specific heat. Air per kg/gram/lb or whatever measure of mass requires a certain amount joules of heat to be gained or lost to change it’s temperature by 1 K degrees. Sunlight does not “have this” rather sunlight energy is related to it’s intensity which has ability to to change the temperature of matter.
Sunlight in vacuum at Earth distance can heat a surface of matter which can absorb all sunlight reaching it {or convert that Shortwave radiation into heated matter] and if that heated surface can emit in full blackbody spectrum it’s temperature will reach about 120 C and not get hotter. This is model or it’s theory or if one has ideal qualities of this matter. But roughly speaking the sunlight intensity at 1 AU heats a surface which is in vacuum to about 120 C. Or if starts at lower temperature it heats up, and without facing the sun, it cools down.
“That same high intensity SW EM from the Sun should also be absorbed by nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. I dont see how N2/O2 could not be heated somewhat by incoming solar, considering the broad range of frequencies available.”
Gases don’t have a surface.
Gases which interfere/interact with sunlight can be effected by it. But gases have a temperature related the “average velocity of gases”. Gas can glow, but gas temperature is the velocity they travel at. If gas has low enough density the gas temperature does not warm [or cool} liquid or solids, and when gas has higher density it transfer it’s heat quicker {it’s warms or cools liquids and solids, faster}.
My view about the Earth atmosphere is that it’s mostly warmed by Earth ocean surface water. That one can change the temperature of the atmosphere by changing the top 1 mm of surface water’s temperature.
Or I would say, ocean surface temperature has largest effect on the temperature of the entire atmosphere, which is measure at global surface air temperature which is said to be about 15 C.
It is also assumed that average global Ocean surface is about 17 C and average global land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
And most significant ocean surface temperature in the warmer region of Earth, the tropics. And average tropical ocean surface temperature is about 26 C.
Or Tropical ocean is about 40% of ocean it’s about 26 C, and 60% of the rest of the ocean is about 11 C. With the 60% of rest of ocean, the average volume temperature of ocean which about 3.5 C, has large controlling factor of it’s surface temperature.
Or Tropical ocean surface is not much effected by the average temperature of the entire ocean. If entire ocean were 10 C instead of 3.5 C, then doesn’t effect the tropical ocean surface temperature, but greatly effect, the remaining 60% of the ocean.
And other aspect is that the warm tropical surface water is not isolated from the rest of the world, but rather is the heat engine of entire world, and driving force of the engine is water vapor. Or tropical land is not significant part of global heat engine.
The tropical ocean doesn’t change in terms glaciation and interglacial periods OR Icehouse global climates or Hothouse global climates. What changes is the 60% of the rest of the ocean which is effect by average temperature of the entire ocean.
The ocean is control knob. The ocean always warms, and land cools. The land and Atmosphere are warmed by the ocean.
“BTWsolar EM does not carry colour either. Colour is created when various reflections of solar EM contact the human eye. There are cells in the human retina for converting various frequencies of EM to colour. EM has no colour and no heat.”
Well, colour or color is the story humans and other creature tell.
But it relates to reality, as most stories do {and why creatures create stories}.
In the story of science, color, exists.
The blinding bright sunlight in space, makes the most dull/dark lunar surface looks a lightbulb with darker “seas” on it.
In terms of La-la Land, the grand plan is keep the Mask Mandate for another month.
Another climateball contrarian who is also a covidball contrarian.
What are the odds?
Another climateball contrarian…
I quote PBS NOVA:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
“Changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a strong candidate to explain the overall pattern of climatic change. Carbon dioxide influences the mean global temperature through the greenhouse effect. The globally averaged surface temperature for the Earth is approximately 15 degrees Celsius, and this is due largely to the greenhouse effect. Solar radiation entering earth’s atmosphere is predominantly short wave, while heat radiated from the Earth’s surface is long wave. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation. Because the Earth does not allow this long wave radiation to leave, the solar energy is trapped and the net effect is to warm the Earth. If not for the presence of an atmosphere, the surface temperature on earth would be well below the freezing point of water.”
How so?
binny…”Last not least: does Robertson have the slightest idea how many number crunchers it takes at UAH for him to see all the graphs they make each month?”
***
The numbers UAH use comes from real data collected by real instruments. Your number crunching comes from fudged and fictitious data from climate alarmists/cheaters.
Robertson
The UAH data I present comes from the UAH site itself, for the lower troposphere:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
The difference between you and me is simply that you are absolutely unable to process the data stored there.
You try to hide your inabilty and your lack of knowledge behind ridiculous polemic.
You are and keep an ignorant and pretentious boaster.
J.-P. D.
Thermometers at 2m are only loosely coupled to the average temperature of the atmosphere TOA to surface. That depends on a lot of other factors that climate models are poor at providing.
Satellite measurements are very good TOA to a few 100s/1000s of meters above the surface as Im sure Roy will confirm.
RLH
I fully understand what you mean, but… what the heck does that have to do with my comment?
J.-P. D.
I thought you were discussing UAH and climate models
RLH
” I thought you were discussing UAH and climate models ”
Hopefully you manage to find for yourself how you came to such a strange thought.
I’m discussing here about Robertson’s incompetence, his inability to learn, and his resulting propensity to distort, discard, discredit, denigrate, and lie.
No one uses name calling like ‘stinking cheaters’, ‘cheating SOB’, like he regularly does – cowardly hidden behind a faked identity.
*
Now, back to your comment above: some satellites indeed do observe near surface temperature.
But… they do not at all belong to UAH’s sources, let alone would their data have anything in common with UAH6.0 LT.
UAH5.6 LT was quite a bit nearer to that. That probably was the reason why this version was abandoned in July 2017.
J.-P. D.
No satellite measures down to 2m above the surface
RLH
Aha.
And what does this one?
Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS
J Susskind, G A Schmidt, J N Lee1, and L Iredell
” This paper presents Atmospheric Infra-Red Sounder(AIRS) surface skin temperature anomalies for the period 2003 through 2017, and compares them to station-based analyses of surface air temperature anomalies ”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafd4e/pdf
J.-P. D.
Interesting
Surface is not 2m so they are not measuring air temps but surface ones in that regard.
They do measure the air column though.
Only been up since 2002/3 though, so a short history.
So IR from the surface goes straight through the atmosphere? No blocking?
Don’t alarmists claim the GHE depends on IR from the surface not being radiated to space?
I thought Gavin Schmidt (self proclaimed climate scientist) supported the following from NASA –
“As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heatequivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow, then, is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).”
Maybe the IR satellite sensors only detect the 100 percent of solar energy released by the surface as IR. The other 17% magically created from nothing (probably Trenberth’s missing heat), must be the “blocked” IR, and does nothing, because it doesn’t exist except in the minds of NASA true believers and their mentally deficient acolytes.
Maybe it is time to ask what makes thermometers hotter. Pretty simple, it’s due to heat. There is obviously more of it about than there was 100 years ago.
As usual, dumb stuff produced by the Swenson genius, who deliberately distorts the discussion, and by the way discredits and denigrates what other people do, instead of scientifically contradicting them.
Are you dense, Swenson aka Flynn?
Did you never hear about the atmospheric window around 10 micron, without which we simply would cook here?
The AIRS IR sensors of course can’t measure what is absorbed by trace gases and is not redirected to space, but back to Earth.
But they indeed manage to measure all the IR passing thru the atmospheric window.
*
You always present yourself on this blog with what you think is “subtle”, but which in fact can hardly be surpassed in terms of superficiality.
J.-P. D.
RLH
” Surface is not 2m so they are not measuring air temps but surface ones in that regard. ”
Thanks, I really know the difference between scanning the surface skin and measuring at 2 m above ground.
*
” Only been up since 2002/3 though, so a short history. ”
Is such a condescending reaction helpful, RLH?
Would you have said the same about O2’s 60 GHz scanning in 1979 + 17 years = 1996?
Jesus.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
You should look at more than the first piece of internet rubbish you find.
Infrared photos from satellites are taken using a wide range of frequencies. From NASA –
“Thermal or longwave infrared (TIR or LWIR) light includes wavelengths between 8,000 and 15,000 nanometers. Most of the energy in this part of the spectrum is emitted (not reflected) by the Earth as heat, so it can be observed both day and night. Thermal infrared radiation can be used to gauge water and land surface temperatures; this makes it particularly useful for geothermal mapping and detection of heat sources like active fires, gas flares, and power plants. Scientists also use TIR to monitor crops. Actively growing plants cool the air above them by releasing water through evapotranspiration, so TIR light helps scientists assess how much water the plants are using.”
Thermal infrared. Longwave infrared. Includes.
Now you are expecting people to believe that the warmth of the Sun (infrared, in the main) does not really exist? Solar hot water systems don’t really make water not? Or are you claiming that the atmosphere has magical one way insulating properties?
You are not just dense, you are delusional or otherwise mentally impaired. You just refuse to believe that the surface cools at night, in the absence of sunlight. It doesn’t heat up, it cools, you ninny!
Even radiation from the surface absorbed by clouds, or aerosols, is almost immediately re-emitted – usually at longer wavelengths, never at higher ones! Of course, in accordance with physical laws, radiation proceeds from hotter to – cooler! And thus, at night, the surface cools. No heat trapping or accumulation. No 100% insolation magically becoming 117% heat!
You are obviously as dense as Christine Lagarde who said “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”
According to you, the seas will boil dry in less than 10,000 years, unless you have had an attack of common sense, since your last stupid infinite trend projections! Or have you suddenly realised that trends often stop, or reverse?
Try learning some physics.
binny…”Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS
J Susskind, G A Schmidt, J N Lee1, and L Iredell”
All you need to do is look at the second name and you know the paper’s source is alarmist nonsense. He runs NASA GISS and very poorly. It’s in his interest to discredit the sats, which make his fudged data look bad.
swenson…”As solar heating and back radiation from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heatequivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow, then, is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).”
Confirms my suspicion that Schmidt does not have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. He is describing a heat circulation in which the heat is amplified with no means of doing that. He also talks about a net upward heat flow which is impossible using radiation.
Besides there being no such thing as a net heat flow via radiation he describes a heat flow upwardly with no convection, the only means by which heat could flow significantly through atmospheric gases. Heat can flow up hill by conduction in a solid mass, but not in a gas, without convection.
Schmidt is confusing radiation with heat, and he leads NASA GISS.
binny…”Did you never hear about the atmospheric window around 10 micron, without which we simply would cook here?”
Only an idiot, who believes the Moon rotates about a local axis, based on a statistical analysis by a German mathematician, would believe that.
It’s a model, stupid, and it’s wrong. CO2 has nothing to do with warming.
I stand by my previous comments about all temperatures, both 2m ones and satellite ones, depend on a lot of other factors that climate models and pure temperature measurements are poor at providing when calculating what average air temperatures TOA to surface are.
” Only been up since 2002/3 though, so a short history.
Is such a condescending reaction helpful, RLH?”
Just a factual observation.
There is a well know and acknowledged 60 year cycle in atmospheric air temps so anything that is shorter than that tells us very little about long term trends. Only quite short term ones.
binny…”The difference between you and me is simply that you are absolutely unable to process the data stored there”.
Have no interest in processing it, I prefer leaving that to the experts like Roy and John Christy. You, on the other hand, specialize in misrepresenting their data to make it appear as if there is no difference between the UAH temperature data set and those of surface stations.
Don’t know how you manage to mess the data up so badly.
All temperatures, both 2m ones and satellite ones, depend on a lot of other factors that climate models and pure temperature measurements are poor at providing when calculating what average air temperatures TOA to surface are.
Gordo, your affection for Roy and John is touching, but you are ignoring the fact that there are other groups which analyze the MSU/AMSU data. RSS says that their global TLT exhibits a trend of 0.215 K/decade and their NH trend is 0.263. The UAH global data is only 0.14 and the NH is only 0.16. There’s no way I know to pick one result as better than the other, though the fact that UAH requires much more obtuse computation to produce suggests that they are more likely to be incorrect.
So do you think that AIRS (or any one else including GIS) is any better at determining all the other parameters that allow their temperature measurements to be converted into something that holds true for average air temperature TOA to surface?
For instance, is the height of the surface boundary layer included in their calculations? That effects the turbulent layer which in turn effects temperatures.
Who knows, the thickness of the surface boundary layer could alone explain the differences from 1800 to now.
RLH,
Here is something to ponder…
The UAH-TLT weighting function is as follows.
LT = 1.548*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
You can actually download the MT, TP, and LS series from this blog, plug them into Excel, replicate this formula, and derive LT on your own to prove it out.
Start playing with the weighting function. You will observe that the TLT warming trend is hypersensitive to the parameters in the weighting function.
Furthermore this weighting function is applied globally. But the atmosphere has different lapse rates and thicknesses throughout. I wonder what the result would be if UAH used a weighting function specific to each grid cell instead of assuming a one-size-fits-all approach.
Give credit where credit is due…Swanson brought this point up about a one-size-fits-all weighting function up earlier. I do have to echo this point because it is a good one.
The weighting function would have to be variable for the last 2000m or so. The boundary layer moves at least that much
The weighting function essentially combines the temperature products over a huge depth of the atmosphere. Sure, the PBL may be important, but it is not the only layer of the atmosphere that must be considered here.
“Sure, the PBL may be important, but it is not the only layer of the atmosphere that must be considered here.”
I know. And you appear to make assumptions that none of that matters. And that you do not take it into account when measuring temperatures.
That’s because it doesn’t affect most datasets. The depth of the PBL does not in any way I can think of alter the way a thermometer reads a temperature. It may modulate the temperature, but it does not affect the precision or accuracy of the measurement. Like I said satellite datasets are an exception due to the way the temperature is measured. In this case the PBL might be influencing the measurement itself. But I suspect the affect is rather small compared to all of the other things satellite datasets must contend with.
“It may modulate the temperature, but it does not affect the precision or accuracy of the measurement.”
You conflate instrument accuracy with measurement accuracy and accuracy of that measurement to the temperature of the 3m cube of air surrounding the thermometer.
If there are unrecorded errors, such as the environment around the measurement point, then the reading will be in error. If the person taking the reading does it in a way that causes systematic errors then there will be systematic errors.
All of these will bring uncertainty of the measurement into the system.
Regardless of how accurate the thermometer is on the side of the box it came in.
> If there are unrecorded errors, such as the environment around the measurement point, then the reading will be in error.
Have you ever read Tony’s, RLH?
Tony has been harping about that for almost 20 years.
He never was able to prove anything.
Nate continues his habit of obfuscation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-696261
“The plot shows STRONG agreement between the cumulative rise of CO2 and anthro emissions, decade by decade, over all 6 decades of careful observation.”
This is the plot Nate is referring to:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1959:2021corr13527.png
“This alone, addresses the often heard criticism from blogs that they are NOT tracking each other.”
This is the reason “blogs” say they are NOT tracking each other:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfalyx7pww1r873/FF%20vs%20CO2.png?dl=0
The cumulative data camouflages what would otherwise be an ambiguous correlation.
“But there is a constant multiplicative factor between them that can be understood simply with CONSERVATION OF MASS. The cumulative additions of CO2 to the atmosphere, together with that in the land and ocean, altogether, is in QUANTITATIVE agreement with CO2 emissions (within uncertainty of the measurements).
Again, the uncertainty of the measurements leaves plenty of room for the twenty times more natural emissions to explain all of the conservation of mass measurements.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2019_620.gif
“The cumulative data camouflages what would otherwise be an ambiguous correlation.”
Nope. Strawman. The plot shows exactly what is expected for the relationship between emissions and CO2 concentration.
The Earth can walk and chew gum at the same time.
NO ONE has claimed that emissions need to explain BOTH the long term rise AND the short-term wiggles driven by natural fluctuations in sources and sinks, that are emphasized in Derivative data.
As discussed but ignored repeatedly, ENSO driven noise (and for that matter seasonal variation) are well understood, and has no relationship to long-term rise.
BTW the line you draw thru the data is obviously not a fit.
“Again, the uncertainty of the measurements leaves plenty of room for the twenty times more natural emissions to explain all of the conservation of mass measurements.”
Sure vague cries of ‘uncertainty!’ can leave plenty of room for a Flat Earth or anything you desire.
‘Explain all’
C’mon Chic, you need to get back to dealing with the facts as they are not as you wish them to be.
“NO ONE has claimed that emissions need to explain BOTH the long term rise AND the short-term wiggles driven by natural fluctuations in sources and sinks, that are emphasized in Derivative data.”
But I do claim that need, otherwise the Mauna Loa data can’t be reconciled.
You don’t get to decide that ENSO noise and seasonal fluctuations don’t contribute to long-term rise.
“BTW the line you draw thru the data is obviously not a fit.”
According to your obfuscatory nature or your lying eyes??
Probably both are reasons why you cannot provide any data or models to back up your criticisms of mine.
“But I do claim that need, otherwise the Mauna Loa data can’t be reconciled.”
Ok, so you want anthro CO2 emissions to explain the effects of ENSO, rather than ENSO explaining the effects of ENSO??
Then you are moron.
How bout the effects of volcanoes, solar cycles, droughts? Anthro emissions need to explain them too?
To account for all the wiggles and the long term rise a model needs to ACCOUNT for ENSO, volcanoes, solar cycles, AND anthro emissions.
“You don’t get to decide that ENSO noise and seasonal fluctuations don’t contribute to long-term rise.”
Me no. The data yes. ENSO data show no long term rise. Seasonal fluctuations are seasonal.
“why you cannot provide any data or models to back up your criticisms of mine.”
Actually I did, quite a bit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-696331
Which specifically refutes your claims that “Bottom line, I agree with Bart that T explains everything.”
“Ok, so you want anthro CO2 emissions to explain the effects of ENSO…??”
No, that is an obfuscatory premise.
Let me try again to explain the concept. If you had a model or knew how anybody else’s model worked, you would check to see how the model compared to the data. Since I have a model, I evaluated two conditions. One keeps the removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere constant. This does not work without a significant growth in natural emissions going from around 87 ppm to over 113 ppm.
The other condition keeps natural emissions constant. In this case, the removal rate has to decrease from 0.28 to 0.22 yr-1. That seemed unlikely to me until I found out that ocean absorp.tion goes at a slower rate than outgassing.
The rest of your comment is just your usual obfuscation. Can anyone explain what Nate is getting at?
From your “Actually I did [provide any data or models], quite a bit” reference,
“The long-term effect of Non ENSO-related T change on CO2 is much smaller (different scale factor)….”
What is your problem? That ENSO drives temperature? The derivative of CO2 correlates closely with temperature over the long term whether there is an active El Nino or not. and there is a gradual rise in cumulative CO2 along with the more variable temperature rise, but a gradual rise nonetheless. It all fits the meme of Bart, me, Salby, etc.
If you want to challenge that meme, you have to up your game. Try being less obfuscatory, please.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-697339
Are you complaining about the scale factor? I think that is the usual result when you take the derivative.
I noticed the curves diverge with time. Probably the result of Had-crut cooking the books.
Flat Earther talk.
Feynman’s response:
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, dont laugh, thats the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesnt make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesnt matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. Thats all there is to it.”
Nate uses an irrelevant Feynman quote to suggest a scale factor difference invalidates the correlation between temperature vs time and derivative of CO2 vs time. It would be a major coincidence if those units did NOT need a scale factor adjustment to show the correlation visually on the same graph.
This guy could not avoid obfuscation if his life depended on it.
Feynman is responding to your lame excuse for data not agreeing with your theory “I noticed the curves diverge with time. Probably the result of Had-crut cooking the books.”
If your theory doesnt work, its wrong. He says its that simple.
That doesnt apply to religion, of course, which seems to be what you are practicing.”
a scale factor difference invalidates the correlation between temperature vs time and derivative of CO2 vs time. It would be a major coincidence if those units did NOT need a scale factor adjustment to show the correlation visually on the same graph.”
First of all, if the scale factor can vary, then that allows the predicted relationship to be violated without the relationship being invalidated. Which is ridiculous.
Both Salby and Bart have claimed the scale factor should be a constant.
Meanwhile, I showed you Salby’s clear-cut fraud, and you have no response?
I showed you why the temperature model makes no physical sense, and you have no response?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-698699
> If your theory doesnt work, its wrong. He says its that simple.
Richard is only right if he had perfect instruments, pristine data, and knock-out observations, and no way to build distinct but equivalent theories.
Real scientists seldom have that. In the end, holism wins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism
Feynman died ten years before my first look at climate data. He never responded to me. You responded to me by taking my joke seriously. But many a true word are spoken in jest.
I was not joking about scale factors. And of course you are not either, just obfuscating by discussing them without context. The scale factor we adjusted was the T vs time and deltaCO2 vs time plots to get them on the same plot. This is a standard presentation technique which you have used many times. The first thing one does when presenting a new graph to an audience is to explain the axes. You abused the technique to obfuscate no correlation between deltaCO2 and temperature.
What scale factor have Salby and Bart claimed constant? Inquiring minds want to know.
I tried debunking your libelous complaint against Salby here…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-698498
…but the obfuscation is strong in you. I will deal with it again in a new thread.
> will deal with it again in a new thread.
[NARRATOR] Chic did not.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-701995
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-702024
Tim, you said in several occasions that planet (N*cp) product modifies the planet mean surface temperature. The higher is planet (N*cp) product the higher is the planet mean surface temperature.
N – is the planet rotational spin (rot/day)
cp – is planet average surface specific heat (cal/gr.oC)
What I would like to demonstrate here is that planet (N*cp) product not only is capable to modify the planet mean surface temperature…
Planet (N*cp) product is one of the major parameters determining the planet mean surface temperature.
The other parameters are
1).The solar flux (distance from the sun).
2).The planet solar irradiation accepting factor Φ (the planet surface spherical shape and smoothness coefficient).
3).The planet surface average Albedo.
Mars and Moon have two major differences which equate each other:
The first major difference is the distance from the sun both Mars and Moon have.
Moon is at R = 1 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is So = 1.361 W/m ( it is called the Solar constant).
Mars is at 1,524 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is S = So*(1/R) = So*(1/1,524) = So*1/2,32 .
(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth and Moon have.
Consequently the solar flux on the Mars top is 2,32 times weaker than that on the Moon.
The second major difference is the sidereal rotation period both Mars and Moon have.
Moon (diurnal cycle) performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days.
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot /day.
Consequently Mars rotates 29,531 *0,9747 = 28,783 times faster than Moon.
So Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
And for the same albedo, Mars and Moon have the same satellite measured mean temperatures.
Lets make simple calculations:
The rotation difference’s fourth root is
(28,783)∕ ⁴ = 2,3162
And the irradiating /rotating comparison
2,32 /(28,783)∕ ⁴ = 2,32 /2,3162 = 1,001625
It differs only 0,1625%
It is obvious now, the Mars 28,783 times faster rotation equates the Moons 2,32 times higher solar irradiation.
That is why the 28,783 times faster rotating Mars has almost the same satellite measured mean surface temperature as the 2,32 times stronger solar irradiated Moon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Notice
I was operating with Mars’ and Moon’s (N) rotational spins only.
The planet (N*cp) product also includes the cp – planet average specific heat.
Moon’s and Mars’ average surface specific heat is almost the same.
For Moon cp = 0,19 cal/gr.oC (regolith)
For Mars cp = 0,18 cal/gr.oC (Fe2O3 iron oxide)
Tim
In NASA Technical Memorandum:
A good estimate of the Earths annual average albedo constant is 0.3″
Page 15
Conclusions
This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected…”
Tim, NASA says only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected…
Thus, for NASA Technical Memorandum the Earths annual average albedo constant 0.3 is a diffuse reflection…
Albedo from its first definition is defined as diffuse reflection only.
Albedo = whiteness.
Planet spherical shape does not permit the smooth surface planet specular reflection to be seen by spacecraft sensor.
Albedo for planets always had been the diffuse reflection.
Planets and moons with smooth surface also have a significant specular reflection.
These planets and moons are Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa and Ganymede.
Let s calculate the specular reflection for Europa. Europa Albedo is a = 0,63.
Europa is known to be the smoothest celestial body in the solar system.
Energy in = Φ(1 -a)S = 0,47(1 -0,47*0,63)S = (0,47 -0,296)S=
= 0,174*S
Total reflected:
(1 -0,174)S = 0,826*S
Specularly reflected:
0,826*S – 0,63*S = 0,196*S
or
almost 20% of the incident on Europa solar flux is specularly reflected.
Christos
Increasing either N or Cp increases the average temperature, by making the temperature more uniform (ie the hottest temperatures are not as hot, and the coldest temperatures are not so cold). I won’t specifically confirm your functional form, but I agree the *direction* of the change is correct.
I still think that (2) and (3) are not two separate factors. The “Bond Albedo” is defined as the ratio of energy reflected to the energy received. As such, there is no need for an additional “acceptance factor”.
You left off the atmosphere as a factor in surface temperature. The atmosphere evens out the temperature due to its own ‘thermal inertia’ and it affects IR radiation (the greenhouse effect).
Tim
>…I wont specifically confirm your functional form, but I agree the *direction* of the change is correct.
I will demonstrate today planet mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
I still think that (2) and (3) are not two separate factors. The Bond Albedo is defined as the ratio of energy reflected to the energy received. As such, there is no need for an additional acceptance factor.
There are smooth surface planets (Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa, Ganymede) for which Φ = 0,47
Φ accounts because of for the smooth surface planets the existence of a strong specular reflection. The planet surface specular reflection is not included in Bond Albedo.
In the Earth case the Bond Albedo is a = 0,306. The 0,306 number is due to the strong diffuse reflection from clouds.
Open ocean has Albedo a = 0,06…
If not for clouds diffuse reflection Earth would appear as a rather dark planet, like Moon or Mercury (a=0,068)
You left off the atmosphere as a factor in surface temperature. The atmosphere evens out the temperature due to its own thermal inertia and it affects IR radiation (the greenhouse effect).
Yes, I do not use a factor “atmosphere” in calculations. What I would like to demonstrate is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
I have calculated for planets Venus, Earth and for Titan the mean surface temperatures, when including the factor “atmosphere” with very much satisfying results.
I do not demonstrate these calculations here, but they also include (as a part) the planet Rotational Warming phenomenon (which is always there… always present).
I have included in the initial equation the atmospheric terms.
It is the greenhouse gases’ partial density… which does the work!
In this separate page in my site I have demonstrated how much the greenhouse gases partial density affects planet mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Tim
Theoretical evaluation of the impact of finite intervals in the measurement of the bidirectional reflectance distribution function
Published: 01 July 2019
Alejandro-Ferrero
“However, there are some aspects of the BRDF that are difficult to understand. Perhaps the most obvious is why the BRDF can reach any positive value, even an infinite value for perfectly specular reflectors. The reason is that fr is defined as a division by a solid angle element [equation (5)]. The magnitude of these solid angle elements must be small enough to contain only directions at which the involved quantities (radiance or bidirectional reflectance) do not change significantly. For glossy surfaces, for which the reflectance changes rapidly approaching the specular peak, dωr needs to be very small in order to meet this requirement, resulting in very high BRDF values near the specular peak [equation (5)]. This partial reflectance is a Dirac delta in the case of perfectly specular reflectors, so the BRDF has no defined value in specular directions.”
Link:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11998-019-00241-2
Theoretical evaluation of the impact of finite intervals in the measurement of the bidirectional reflectance distribution function | SpringerLink
“In the Earth case the Bond Albedo is a = 0,306. ”
Which, by the definitions I have seen, means it reflect 30.6% of incoming sunlight. This should include both specular and diffuse reflection. If the measurements are done correctly, then there should be no need to include a separate term for specular reflection. Certainly not a term that means specular reflection accounts for half of all reflection.
“The 0,306 number is due to the strong diffuse reflection from clouds.”
That number is due to ALL reflections. Clouds happen to be one of the main contributors.
“There are smooth surface planets (Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa, Ganymede) for which Φ = 0,47”
Why would you call Mercury, Moon, or Mars “smooth” or “reflective’? If there was noticeable specular reflection from smooth, shiny surfaces of the moon, then we should see glare from some areas when the sun is at the correct angle. Like the one bright spot on this sphere that actually DOES have specular reflections from a smooth surface.
http://barronsrental.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/mirror-ball-2.jpg
Even earth, with ‘smooth’ oceans and icecaps does not have huge amounts of glare from specular reflection.
> If the measurements are done correctly
I suppose contrarians could trust Peter Webster on this:
https://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf
Tim
When we have an ordinary mirror in front of us on the ground, and the sun behind our back, the mirror appears to be a dark surface.
When we have the mirror in front of us, and we facing sun, the specular reflection from the mirror is blinding.
The windows from the street look darker then walls. But when we are at the right for specular reflection angular, the reflection is blinding.
Christos,
Here is a wikipedia article I just ran across about reflection from planets, moons, etc. I think it would be informative for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_surge
Tim
> “Why would you call Mercury, Moon, or Mars “smooth” or “reflective’? If there was noticeable specular reflection from smooth, shiny surfaces of the moon, then we should see glare from some areas when the sun is at the correct angle. Like the one bright spot on this sphere that actually DOES have specular reflections from a smooth surface.”
> “Even earth, with ‘smooth’ oceans and icecaps does not have huge amounts of glare from specular reflection.”
Yes, we do not see the planets surface glare from the space. But we see glare on the mirror ball.
Planets are under the parallel beams flow. When specularly reflected it cannot be seen.
The mirror ball is illuminated by a lamp. Lamp does not provide a parallel beams flow towards the mirror ball surface.
The solar specular reflection from the smooth surface planets can be seen when observer is on planets surface. Or when observer is on the elevated place on planets surface for smaller angular…
To witness the specular reflection observer should look at the sun direction, like when we look on the sunsets. Then we witness the solar specular reflection coming towards us from the surface from the same direction solar beams are coming.
When turning our back to the sun, we see on the surface only the diffuse reflection…
It cannot be seen or photographed from some distance from the space.
Even asphalt cover road does reflect specularly. Surface does not have to be polished on microscopical level to specularly reflect.
The planet spherical shape and the planet surface roughness together determine this phenomenon.
By roughness I mean (example the dense urban area, where solar beams are specularly reflected from the walls of buildings in general direction downwards to the bottom of the streets, till the energy is either multiple diffusely reflected, or “absorbed” – IR emitted.
When we see a polished metallic ball, out in the sun having glare, this glare we observe is from the ball illumination by the reflected from some object solar light. The metallic ball does not glare from the direct solar beam falling upon it.
But we see solar glare from the cars surfaces…
Christos 10:58 am, that’s a rather confused comment. Here is an example of specular reflection that can’t be seen by your own eyes: look in a mirror and your pupil centers are observed black. That’s because your head is blocking the light rays that would specularly reflect back to your eyes to give the red pupil dot seen in flash pictures.
The sun’s rays do arrive at earth parallel (look up collimated) so it is true the satellite’s structure does block these parallel light rays that would specularly reflect off the earth surface right back to the instrument. Thus these rays can’t be seen by the instrument. It seems, in your opinion, these blocked & unseen rays are material but they are not.
Ball4
We see the World in the diffuse illumination… The specularly reflected solar light is blinding…
What you refer to is the diffuse illumination specular reflection…
So do the relevant satellites, they see both specular and diffuse light looking down less the sunlight beams hitting the back of the instrument.
Sure, lots of surfaces reflect at glancing angles. Transparent surfaced like glass and water reflect almost perfectly as the angle of incidence goes to 90 degrees.
But rough asphalt or marble doesn’t reflect much at any angle (unless it is polished). Asphalt get reflective at glancing angles when it is wet (but that is because of the water). It gets ‘reflective’ in hot weather (but that is the layer of hot air above the asphalt, not the asphalt itself).
In “dense urban areas”, specular reflection is from glass and smooth metal and polished rock. None of which occur in nature.
Also, if the argument is that the specular reflection can be seen at low angles “like at sunset” then that only involves a small bit of the surface. A ring where the sun is maybe 0-5 degrees above the surface. Even if that part was perfectly reflective, it could not lead to 53% correction to albedo. That area simple is not large enough.
Tim
> If the measurements are done correctly, then there should be no need to include a separate term for specular reflection.
The measurements are done correctly. But what they measure is the surface diffuse reflection.
I found the NASA statement, about the satellite measured planet albedo being a diffuse reflection only.
NASA Technical Memorandum 104596 An Earth Albedo Model
NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
An Earth Albedo Model
A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below
Thomas W. Flatley
Wendy A. Moore
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
1994
(NASA-TM-IO459&) AN EARTH ALBEDO MODEL: A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE RADIANT ENERGY INPUT TO AN ORBITING SPACECRAFT DUE TO THE DIFFUSE REFLECTANCE OF SOLAR RADIATION FROM THE EARTH BELOW (NASA) 33 p
Page 1
“With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.
Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.”
Page 2
“According to Wertz, Fsun, the solar constant in the vicinity of the Earth, is approximately 1358 wad/m2. The sunlight strikes the Earth with this intensity at point B. At locations away from this point, the intensity of the incoming sunlight decreases proportional to cos_, so that the solar flux reaching any given incremental area is:
Fin = Fsun(ne’,S) wa_/m2
This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo constant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3″
Page 15
“Conclusions
This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected. For an elliptical orbit, the unit vectors associated with the incremental areas should change direction with altitude; instead, this algorithm assumes a circular orbit. The albedo constant is set to the annual global average for the entire Earth; Appendix II illustrates how the percentage of light reflected truly varies with geographical features. The Earth is considered a perfect sphere which does not rotate; it was unnecessary to model rotation since the albedo constant was not varied.”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
Christos, today the actual satellites measure both specular and diffuse radiation from the chosen field of view. It is only their 1994 model needed for sun sensors that chose to neglect specular reflection as an unneeded complication to model & not the actual relevant satellites.
Ball4
“…Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here…
Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word albedo in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.
A good estimate of the Earths annual average albedo constant is 0.3
Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected…”
Ball4
It is only their 1994 model needed for sun sensors that chose to neglect specular reflection as an unneeded complication to model & not the actual relevant satellites.
Ball4, in 1994 they neglected specular reflection… but the diffuse reflection they did not neglected was at the year 1994 the same as we know it now at the year 2021,
Back then, at the year 1994, the Earth’s average diffuse reflection <i"A good estimate of the Earths annual average albedo constant is 0.3".
27 years have quickly passed by since 1994. But still – the Earth’s Albedo, as we know, is a = 0,3
This paper specifically addressed the use of sensors to detect the direction of the sun and hence to orient the satellite. Other light (from the earth, the moon or teh spacecraft itself) needed to be considered, but only as it affected the overall light falling on a sensor with a hemispherical field of view.
For this specific purpose (and not as a general principle) they can ignore specular reflection because they anticipated so little of it!
They even acknowledge that this is a limited, non-standard definition for albedo. “[We] will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.”
Tim
Specular reflection from metal spheres
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Heart_of_the_City_water_feature_Sheffield_-_geograph.org.uk_-_618552.jpg
We observe in the above image a specular reflection from a metal sphere. This specular reflection is not sun parallel beams specular reflection from a spherical surface…
What we see is specular reflection of a diffuse light from the illuminated ground, building, clouds…
Diffuse reflection from a marble ball
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Marble_ball_-_Kongens_Have_-_Copenhagen_-_DSC07898.JPG/1024px-Marble_ball_-_Kongens_Have_-_Copenhagen_-_DSC07898.JPG
We see a marble ball illuminated by diffuse light. When the marble ball will be illuminated by direct solar beams, the marble ball will also reflect both – the diffuse and the specular reflection.
But this particular marble ball cannot mirror houses, ground and clouds, because it cannot reflect specularly the incident on its surface diffuse light from the surrounding objects.
This particular marble ball surface is not smooth enough for that. This marble ball is not microscopically smooth. It is not polished enough for that.
Nevertheless, when it is illuminated by direct solar flux parallel solar beams, this marble ball is capable to reflect the parallel solar beams both, diffusely and specularly.
Specular reflection Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection
Tim
The 0,53 specular reflection from smooth planet surface occurs only in the case of a dark planet. It occurs only in the case planet has Albedo a = 0
Energy in = Φ(1- a)S
when a = 0
Energy in = Φ*S
for Φ = 0,47 the specularly reflected portion for dark planet is 0,53*S
In the Earth case Albedo = 0,306
Energy in = 0,47(1 – 0,47*0,306)So = (0,47 – 0,1438)So =
= 0,3262*So
Total reflected for Earth is (1 – 0,3262)So = 0,6738*So
Diffusely reflected is 0,306*So
Specularly reflected is 0,6738*So – 0,306*So = 0,3678*So
Nate continues here,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-696331
Did you even read the paper? Nothing there conflicts with any argument I have made. The data comes from 1991 and earlier. I found no information on the growth in net natural CO2 (total source – total sink) with respect to time.
Do you obfuscate for a living or just to keep me from making a living?
“This is consistent with the 7 ppm drop from MWP to LIA, and NOT NEARLY enough to explain the 100 ppm rise of the last century.”
Again, stop comparing ice core and preindustrial data with contemporary data. It’s apples and oranges comparisons only useful for obfuscation. This is especially important if you allow for the likelihood that the ocean outgassing rate is greater the rate the oceans absorb CO2.
“These [biological pump] processes, coupled with slow air-sea CO2 transfer rates, are responsible for the high degree of CO2 disequilibrium between the oceanic surface layers and the atmosphere and for the large geographic and seasonal variabilities over the global oceans.”
> I found no information on the growth in net natural CO2 (total source total sink) with respect to time.
Have you checked here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf
“Nothing there conflicts with any argument I have made.”
OMG. It just conflicts with what you have been saying for the last week or so about temperature, “Bottom line, I agree with Bart that T explains everything.” and “What about outgassing as temperature increases?”
“Again, stop comparing ice core and preindustrial data with contemporary data. Its apples and oranges comparisons only useful for obfuscation.”
Oh Pullleez..
IOW
‘Stop showing data that thoroughly demolishes my claims, because thats very annoying!’
Look, the facts are not on your side. Oh well.
Rather then losing all credibility by continually denying or dismissing all facts, just MOVE ON and learn what is actually known about the carbon cycle.
Can you actually stop obfuscating for just once and make a logical argument that can be responded to in kind?
Brace yourselves, global cooling is coming:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/april-2021-ninth-warmest-april-on-record-noaa-and-nasa-report/
willard…”NASA also rated the month as the ninth warmest April on record”.
This is the same NASA that declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 38% probability. They did not want to be outdone by their parent authority, NOAA, who used a 48% probability.
Shysters!!! Not all of NASA, just GISS.
I double checked their probabilities. NOAA and NASA were right. Can you present a calculation that comes to a substantially different result than the 38% and 48% values?
bdgwx,
Back here…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-696421
…you wrote, “2. If the temperature change is caused by human influence then this amount goes into the anthropogenic bucket. If the temperature change is caused by something other than human influence then this amount goes into the natural bucket. So what is causing the temperature change?”
This swerves into a completely different topic to which I always ask where the data is that conclusively indicates how much an incremental change in CO2 makes a change in global temperature. Go there if you want, but that is the reverse of what causes the rise in CO2.
In your next comment based on dln(pCO2)/dT = 0.042, I would have written that CO2 should be only 328 ppm now, up from 315 ppm after a 1K temperature increase. Either way, I agree with your inference that more data is needed before judging what percentage of 130 ppm is anthropogenic.
Back of the envelope.
As Earth emerged from the last glacial period into the Holocene temperature rose by ~5C from 9C to 14C and CO2 rose by 80 ppm from 200ppm to 280ppm.
That was 80/5=16ppm/C.
On that basis the natural change due to the 1.2C warming since 1880 would be 1.2*16=19.2ppm.
Of the 140ppm increase since 1800 19.2 ppm would be natural, 13%, and the other 120.8ppm, 87% would be anthropogenic.
Your 19.2 ppm figure is in the ballpark of the figure from the Takahashi 1993 equation d[ln(C)]/dT = 0.042. A 1.2C change is about a 20 ppm difference there.
And just to clarify…you mean the natural change due to the 1.2C warming since 1880 would be 19.2 ppm if the 1.2C is itself natural in original otherwise if the 1.2C is anthroprogenic then the 19.2 ppm is also anthroprogenic right?
E man,
You are conflating several issues. How much temperature changes CO2 and vice versa is two. How much of the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic is a totally different problem. Although your calculations are as good as anyone’s.
I like back-of-the-envelope calculations.
They indicate the likely value of something without all the complexity. You could certainly get a more accurate answer by going into a lot of detail, but in the past I’ve found that my quick estimate is usually within plus or minus 10% of the final answer.
Like using a calculator. A quick mental calculation beforehand allow you to avoid big mistakes like decimal point errors.
I am also following the conventional view that the 1.2C increased temperature is due to increased CO2 and climate feedbacks, and will continue to do so until someone comes up with an alternative which better fits the evidence.
Ent, you’ve got it reversed. Increased temperature causes increased CO2. Decreased temperature results in decreased CO2.
We know that increased CO2 does not cause increased temperature. Just like we know passenger jets don’t fly backwards or sideways.
We’ve been over this before. It goes both ways.
There are carbon sinks including the ocean, peat bogs, soil and permafrost which are temperature sensitive. When temperature decreases the sinks become net absorbers of CO2. When temperature rises they become net emitters of CO2.
It works the other way too. Geologically mountain building leads to increased weathering which removes CO2. Lower CO2 leads to lower temperatures, which is mountain building periods are linked to glacial or snowball conditions. For example, when the Himalayass began forming in the Eocene 50 million years ago CO2 was around 1000ppm. By the Pleistocene it was down to 200-28ppm and the current Ice Age was under way.
Other examples include the Permian extinction and the PETM where geologically rapid rise in CO2 due respectively to the Deccan and Siberian Traps drove a rapid rise in temperature.
Now we are increasing CO2 by 2ppm year and driving temperatures upwards, with no viable alternative explaination.
> We know that increased CO2 does not cause increased temperature.
Who’s that “we” besides Joe, Puppy, and their chicken?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie
” How much of the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic is a totally different problem. ”
I’m not so much interested in this “anthro vs. nat” CO2 discussion, I have enough to do with processing climate data like temperature, sea ice, sea level, solar flux etc.
Could this be helpful in the discussion?
Atmospheric evidence for a global secular increase in carbon isotopic discrimination of land photosynthesis
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/39/10361.full.pdf
J.-P. D.
binny…”Im not so much interested in this anthro vs. nat CO2 discussion, I have enough to do with processing climate data like temperature, sea ice, sea level, solar flux etc.”
Why don’t you try something you understand…like ad homs and insults?
You might be able to apply here:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqn9
Robertson
” Why don’t you try something you understand… like ad homs and insults? ”
And that is what a dumb, ignorant and pretentious person dares to write
– who doesn’t even understand simplest things like anomalies and baselines
– who insults serious, knowledgeable people with ‘stinking cheaters’, ‘cheating SOB’ and the like.
*
We just need to recall, as often as is needed:
” … if you define true warming as positive anomalies above the baseline. ”
and to bookmark
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-695486
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
Thank you for the interesting article. This from the abstract stuck out to me:
“…we show that no plausible combination of sources and sinks of CO2 from fossil fuel, land, and oceans can explain the observed 13C-Suess effect unless an increase has occurred in the 13C/12C isotopic discrimination of land photosynthesis.”
It will take awhile to see what this means in terms of land sources and sinks. My initial reaction is that plant growth must be increasing globally, but what about plant decomposition?
Bdgwx
To clarify. If the 1.2C rise were natural it would have caused 19.2ppm.
Since we see 140ppm rise, at least 120ppm must be artificial.
Because most of the rise is artificial and has caused the temperature rise does not switch off the natural response, so it should be included in the total.
Remember too, that one of the future concerns is that the natural response will continue. It is necessary to factor in this extra emission when calculating long term temperature changes.
I’m just saying that if humans caused the 1.2C rise then the ~20 ppm of additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to this temperature increase is still considered an anthroprogenic release because it would not have happened without human influence. In that respect 100% of the 140 ppm is anthroprogenic.
“In that respect 100% of the 140 ppm is anthroprogenic.”
Quite happy with that.
Think of the 120ppm as direct emission and the 20ppm as a feedback.
Yeah…feedback is a good way of describing it.
There are three possibilities to keep in mind. Strictly FF sourced CO2, CO2 from other human influences like deforestation and plant decomposition, and then there’s emissions from totally natural sources. Differentiating the latter two may be impossible.
Lets not forget increased solar activity and the effect of increased TSI and UV either directly or indirectly on evaporation, near stratospheric condensation and clouds.
We live in a world where climate is poorly understood to an extent that major climatic events transpiring of century length periods have caused the most convinced AGW scientists to work incessantly at eliminating those uncertainties.
The whole AGW effort suffers much like the search for aether.
First…what does this have to do with the carbon cycle? Second…solar activity peaked in the 1950’s and has undergone a secular decline since then.
Well bdgwx you do realize we are talking about deep ocean influence here both with regards to carbon saturation and temperature of the deep ocean and what its unknown equilibrium value is. These things don’t do what you expect them to immediately.
When the change in direction is in the same direction as the momentum you see an immediate response. When the change in direction is in the opposite direction of the momentum you typically see a flattening of the curve in the direction of the momentum.
The pause could be an indicator of a change of direction opposite the momentum. Its certainly not a change of direction in the same direction as the momentum. Time can only tell which is stronger.
Robertson
Another proof of your hidden lack of technical knowledge and experience behind lies, false claims and discrediting polemic.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-697077
You wrote there:
” You, on the other hand, specialize in misrepresenting their data to make it appear as if there is no difference between the UAH temperature data set and those of surface stations.
Don’t know how you manage to mess the data up so badly. ”
*
If you had balls, Robertson, you would send Roy Spencer a mail asking him for the description of UAH’s data like
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2021_6.0
as I did five years ago. One day later, you get the answer, with a link to it.
And then, you would further learn how to process GHCN daily station file data like
https://tinyurl.com/3jez62pe
as I did four years ago.
And then you would have to admit that nothing here in this CONUS mix of UAH, NOAA’s Climate at a glance, and GHCN daily
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhsNLiPz9Rs87SCaxcEv2TE8pONmHSbc/view
is incorrect. NOTHING !!!
But… people like you have no balls, Robertson.
All they are able to do is to divert, distort, discredit, denigrate and… lie.
Regardless what you write about – be it about viruses, climate, astronomy, Einstein, etc etc: it merely shows your ignorance, your lack of technical skill, and your constant tendency to show off.
*
Do you know what elder Spanish women use to say about people like you?
¡Este hombre no tiene cojones en los pantalones!
Yeah. They would be plain right in your case.
J.-P. D.
There’s a similar saying in Ireland.
“All mouth and no trousers!”
Merci / Danke / Thanks
So what value for boundary surface layer does GISS use to covert their temperatures into TOA to surface ones?
Who knows, the thickness of that boundary surface layer could be enough to explain all the temperature differences from 1800 to now.
Planetary boundary layer varies between 50m and 2000m.
Stevenson Screen thermometers are about 1.5m above the surface.
I know. But its effects on temperature profile TOA to surface are hardly explored.
And the evidence for it in historic data is non existent.
“Planetary boundary layer varies between 50m and 2000m.”
It goes from the surface to 2000m but that last figure varies quite considerably
I quoted the upper edge. 50m is more typical of the poles and 2000m of the tropics.
In my flying days the UK boundary layer usually topped off around 600 metres.
Occasionally the boundary layer does not touch the surface. On my local lake the islands often generate a wind shadow and smooth water downwind. I remember gaining ground in a dinghy race once. Everyone else went around the still water. I realised that the wind shadow was wedge shaped and cut the corner. I and the hull were in still air, but the sails stuck up into the airflow.
I’m not clear what effect you expect variations in the boundary laged to have on measured temperatures. Please explain your hypothesis.
The surface boundary layer effects vertical air temperature profile, and humidity, and wind speed/turbulence a host of other thing
Your sailing example is a perfect case.
What would a thermometer have measured at 1.5m off the ground?
I’m not following you either RLH. Can you add some commentary regarding your point to help us better understand it?
Look at balloon vertical profiles. They are not simple. They traverse though the boundary layer. The measurements they take vertically are of temperature, humidity, pressure, etc..
It is rather pointless to try and gauge a vertical temperature profile from TOA to surface and an average temperature for the same unless you have all those parameters to hand and a few more.
Few, if any, temperature measurements from 1.5 meters, historic or otherwise, can do that. Few, if any, satellite ones will either.
I’ve not seen any attempts to use near surface temperatures alone to estimate the average temperature of the bulk atmosphere.
NWP analysis (hour 0) or climate reanalysis is probably your best bet for this kind of thing. I know the ERA5 reanalysis has 130+ levels each of which provide a temperature for that level. You can then do a spatially weighted mean or mass weighted mean if you like.
You can also use geopotential height products and the hypsometric equation available from NWP and reanalysis as well.
Except that Global Warming implies, at the very least, that it is TOA to surface temperatures that are rising all over the Globe.
No data exists that do not use averages in place of required the unknowns.
Certainly not GISS for instance and most other studies that agree with it.
For all we know, the changes in boundary surface layer heights from the 800’s to now could explain all the temperature changes that have occurred since the,
1800’s to now. Missed the 1000
RLH said: Except that Global Warming implies, at the very least, that it is TOA to surface temperatures that are rising all over the Globe.
I think you may have grossly misunderstood what GW is.
GW is the long term secular increase in the accumulated heat in the lower part of the atmosphere, cryosphere, land, and ocean.
GW definitely does NOT imply that the upper atmosphere is warming. In fact, modern climate science theory says in no uncertain terms that the upper atmosphere should cool if GHGs increase and all other things remain equal.
GW definitely does NOT imply that all regions and localities on the planet will experience the same amount of warming or that they will warm at all. In fact, modern climate science theory says that some regions and localities will likely cool as a result of the overall warming of the planet.
bdgwx says:
In fact, modern climate science theory says that some regions and localities will likely cool as a result of the overall warming of the planet.
————————————-
Of course the pregnant question is was that ‘theory’ developed prior to 1980 when the Charney Report was prepared or did it come later when the system wasn’t responding as expected?
A nice pre-1979 study on that would be nice.
“I think you may have grossly misunderstood what GW is.”
So you are saying that GW only effects the surface, but you have no idea about the major factor that effects all 1.5 meter temperature sources, that is the thickness of the surface boundary layer within which they sit?
Are you seriously saying that if that layer is 100m the 1.5 thermometers will be unaffected if it was changed to 2000m instead.
> the pregnant question is was that ‘theory’ developed prior to 1980 when the Charney Report was prepared or did it come later when the system wasn’t responding as expected?
That’s a pregnant question in the sense it’s a loaded one, Bill.
Do you recall what was expected of the system in the Charney report?
RLH said: So you are saying that GW only effects the surface, but you have no idea about the major factor that effects all 1.5 meter temperature sources, that is the thickness of the surface boundary layer within which they sit?
No. I’m not saying that at all. A warming planet leads to changes all over the climate system. It’s just that the changes aren’t completely homogenous and not always warming. Nevermind that changes other than temperature occur as well. And the PBL is not the only factor modulating near surface temperatures.
RLH said: Are you seriously saying that if that layer is 100m the 1.5 thermometers will be unaffected if it was changed to 2000m instead.
Of course not. If you change the height of the thermometer it will read a different temperature. And temperature trends are different for different layers of the atmosphere.
Willard says:
Thats a pregnant question in the sense its a loaded one, Bill.
Do you recall what was expected of the system in the Charney report?
———————————-
So you are saying indeed the theory is just a variation of Texas Sharpshooting.
Not at all, Bill.
I’m saying that you’re just saying stuff.
“If you change the height of the thermometer it will read a different temperature. And temperature trends are different for different layers of the atmosphere.”
I am not talking about the height of the thermometer, I am talking about the height of the surface layer which it resides in. Also about the thicknesses and composition of the other layers from surface to TOA.
The termprature.as measured at 1.5m will depend on the following as far as I can tell.
1. Air pressure. The height of the air column above it.
2. Wind speed. Even if in a screen, wind chill will be a factor.
3. Humidity. Damp air has a higher thermal capacity than dry air.
4. Cell distribution. If the grid is not an equal area/volume one, pole to pole, then considerable computational efforts are wasted on tiny cells towards the pole. There must be cells vertically in order to contain all these factors.
5. The height of the various layers within the atmosphere. If the air column has a surface layer that ends only 500m above it, I expect that it will read differently to if it has a surface layer that ended 2000m above it. Surface layer at sea is quite different to surface layer over the ground.
6. The troposphere height above it. The exact position of the the tropopause must effect all the temperatures below. All the way to the surface.
7. The composition of the air column from TOA to surface will effect all of the above.
You appear to be saying that none of those factors are of interest I am saying they are quite critical.
RLH, if you want to find out a global mean temperature and figure out if it has changed over time and by how much, none of those factors matter. the global average includes the vagaries of weather, and there is no need to account for what are essentially chaotic features of the weather systems that fluctuate within the climate framework.
Climate is the average of weather after all.
If your interest is in meteorology and daily weather then all these things are important.
If I want to get the average wight of adult males in a given population, I don’t need to know what time they ate, what they ate, who was dieting and who was eating excessively. These granular factors are of interest to a clinician studying an individual’s health, perhaps, but irrelevant to estimating the average weight of the adult male population.
The questions have to be as smart as the answers.
You do need to know about how accurate the 1.5m thermometer measured is for the average air temperature of the 3m cub of air in which it sits.
For a whole range of detail factors that are not recorded. Now or historically. See my other post at the bottom
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-699388
RLH,
Based on context clues I’d say there is a deep misunderstanding about what is going on in the context of global mean temperature datasets, but I can’t put my finger on it yet.
Perhaps we can focus on particular dataset and you can ask questions or express concerns. May I recommend GISS’ GISTEMP dataset since it is arguably the most well known and because I actually run the source code myself and am familiar (enough) with it to more confidently speak to it?
Probly something like Pat’s propagation of nonsense:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/
“May I recommend GISS GISTEMP dataset”
Sure what is your confidence interval for each cell for each data point. How do you determine that? What factors do you take into account when determining such an interval? Do you recognize that each cell represents a 3d structure? Do you consider a single point at a single point in time as being accurate for the whole of that cell during that period? Let’s go from there
RLH asked: Sure what is your confidence interval for each cell for each data point. How do you determine that?
Refer to Lenssen 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/4tmprfeh) for a comprehensive review of the GISTEMP uncertainties and potential biases.
RLH asked: What factors do you take into account when determining such an interval?
It’s actually not my dataset. Anyway, refer to Lenssen 2019 for this information.
RLH asked: Do you recognize that each cell represents a 3d structure?
No. The GISTEMP grid cells do NOT represent 3D structure.
RLH asked: Do you consider a single point at a single point in time as being accurate for the whole of that cell during that period?
Again, it’s not my dataset. But no, multiple data points are aggregated to represent the value of a grid cell. Refer to Hansen 1987 (https://tinyurl.com/4bp9tya2) for details on the methodology used.
Well I hardly f=got further than the abstract.
“Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty”
Which is all I have been saying.
“The resulting 95% uncertainties are near 0.05 ◦C in the global annual mean for the last 50 years and increase going back further in time reaching 0.15 ◦C in 1880.”
Nothing is said about the distribution about that mean. For all the points from 1880 onwards.
“We use the total uncertainties to estimate the probability for each record year in the GISTEMP to actually be the true record year (to that date) and conclude with 86% likelihood that 2016 was indeed the hottest year of the instrumental period (so far)”
Plus/minus at least 1c as has been acknowledged so far.
RLH,
There are various global surface temperature data sets and the results are similar despite using differenent methodologies and data.
The global and hemispheric changes are also well-correlated with different subsamples of the various data sets. This method should, if the vagaries of weather cause grave inaccuracies in the averages, reveal problems with averaging the imperfect data. But no problems are revealed.
We also have lower tropospheric data since 1979, and these data correlate very well with surface data, especially on annual time cales. LKet me put two surface and two satellite data sets together for you, with 12-month rolling averages for all of them, to give an idea of the close match with annual data.
https://tinyurl.com/vkjrnk
Look at the correlation between satellite and surface data sets. It’s extremely good. Satellite data have completely different issues than surface data. If there were grave errors in the way these data sets are compiled we should see significant differences between surface and satellite data.
If you use 50% of the surface data, with a fairly even geospatiality, you will get a very similar profile. Use the other 50% and the same happens. You can slice it down to a fraction of the data and still get a similar profile, regardless of which subsample, as long as geospatiality is well spread.
I can add another surface data set, which correlates least well of those available at the applet I’m using.
https://tinyurl.com/njybsevw
That’s still a very good fit to the rest, and this dataset (BEST) has many more station data than the otgher surface sets.
They all tell a very similar story, as far as climate change is concerned.
The global data sets corroborate each other on the big picture. Warming has occurred. Between the data sets you see there is a difference of 0.14 to 0.21 C/decade (+/-0.05) for the period from 1979, all those trends strongly statistically significant.
There just isn’t any robust evidence that the general picture is wrong, or that the data need to be chacked to see if warming has occured. It has. And it is corroborated by other indicators, such as sea level rise, loss of ice, and other barometers of global climate change.
What is it you are concerned by? That the trend estimates are not pinned down further? The warming is unequivocal for the period, and for long-term since 1900, with ups and downs both short and long-term, and it is the long-term trends that concern climate and climate change. The rest is weather, and the surface data appear to be doing a very good job at accurately, if not precisely reflecting the interannual change as well as the long-term change.
“There are various global surface temperature data sets and the results are similar despite using differenent methodologies and data.”
There are various SYNTHETIC global surface temperature data sets and the results are similar despite using different methodologies and data for points on an imaginary plane at 1.5 meters above the surface.
All suffer from the problem that they do not directly related to a 3m 3d layer of air next to the surface in the real world which has environmental factors to consider as well.
We live in the real world.
“What is your problem? That ENSO drives temperature? The derivative of CO2 correlates closely with temperature over the long term whether there is an active El Nino or not.”
After a half dozen tries, lets see if this time does the trick.
The scale factor multiplying CO2 derivative needed to match the short term wiggles of global temperature (both 12 mo smoothing) is 2.5.
The scale factor multiplying CO2 derivative needed to match the long term rise of global temperature (both 60 mo smoothing) is 8.
These are very different scale factors.
https://tinyurl.com/262ypefa
ANd the long term trend is a poor match to the shape, the T data becomes flat before 1975, while the CO2 derivative data keeps going down.
Both observations suggest a DIFFERENT mechanism for short and long term.
And in fact the short term data is correlated because ENSO strongly affects CO2 growth rates, and ALSO affects global temperature. This has been thoroughly studied and seems to be well understood.
Scale factor to match short-term wiggles actually ~ 2:
https://tinyurl.com/2exum5bm
Use short-term scale factor to match only long term stuff. Quite poor.
https://tinyurl.com/v4awuz55
Look correlated to you?
Why are you averaging 60? Try this:
https://tinyurl.com/bryvastm
The curves probably diverge because Had-crut data have been massaged to make the warming look worse.
Chic Bowdrie
” … because Had-crut data have been massaged to make the warming look worse. ”
Some proof for your interesting claim?
Linear estimates for 1880-2020, in C / decade
Had: 0.070
GISS: 0.072
NOAA: 0.073
JMA: 0.075
BEST: 0.082
All with +- 0.001 C
Had and JMA have the least interpolation scheme.
Thanks in advance!
J.-P. D.
Least interpolated scheme between UHI afflicted stations? Perhaps you should breakdown your claims and see if the least interpolation isn’t an interpolation effort to diminish older warming for the benefit of more recent warming.
bill, do you have any idea in what areas temperature is derived from interpolated data, or did you just throw ‘UHI’ in there because it is an automatic talking point?
Looks like you’re here to make noise and shed no light.
bill,
It just seems like there is a misunderstanding about UHI.
UHI itself isn’t the issue. Urban areas warm faster than rural areas during times of urbanization and warm slower during times of deurbanization. The extra warming from UHI should be included in the global mean because it is a real phenomenon. Since urban areas are small relative to the globe we expect the effect to be small.
The issue is with the spatial averaging process. If you have a grid cell that is predominantly rural, but is overweight with urban observations you bias that cell too high. Likewise, if you have a cell that is predominantly urban, but is overweight with rural observations you bias that cell too low. Similarly if you move a rural station into an urban area the cell will be biased too high after the move. Likewise, if you move an urban station into a rural area the cell will be biased too low after the move. Or if the number of rural stations increases faster than urban stations you bias the cell too low and vice versa.
Interpolation is an separate topic mostly unrelated to UHI handling. Interpolation deals with grid cells that have sparse observational histories. Datasets like NOAA and Had.CRUT which adopt the do-nothing approach essentially cause these cells inherit the average of all the other cells. This biases the global mean low because these cells tend to cluster near the poles where the warming rate is higher than the global mean. Datasets like GISTEMP and Cowtan & Way adopt interpolation schemes that fill in these cells using data from neighboring cells. This reduces the bias because cells are more correlated with their neighbors than with cells that may be on the other side of the planet.
I would dispute that bias is reduced.
Since there are a huge number of various surface conditions and sharp boundaries exist between them, any interpolation system that ignores that is in fact rich hunting grounds for advancing bias into the final result. And I say that with a lot of experience in dealing with exactly that.
Riiight, something must be wrong with the data, cuz it cant be a problem with your theory, whatever that turns out to be…
Some Galileo Chic & Bart got:
https://tinyurl.com/ycnjfe6p
Try this:
https://tinyurl.com/5zs2s69k
As noted, the match to both long-time and short-time variation is POOR. Are you really unable to see that??
“Why are you averaging 60?”
Low-pass filter to see only long-time variation in both series.
Separate plot showed 12 mo average to see faster variation.
Absolutely standard analysis methods.
OK I see what you are getting at now. This is what you want to do–https://tinyurl.com/27jtwmx6–you know, standard analysis methods.
And these two: https://tinyurl.com/th8ay5t8 and https://tinyurl.com/uuxyc56k
Now what sets of data most likely indicate what drives what when?
Rather than play WFT gotcha games, why don’t you propose a hypothesis and find some supporting data or model that actually adds something to the discussion.
So you think testing theory against experiment is “Gotcha games”?
Meanwhile, your second plot is test of a strawman theory that no one has.
Stop trolling and get back to fact-based debate.
You have no hypothesis, no data, no model and don’t even understand the hypothesis you are arguing against.
If you want a fact-based debate, how about defining exactly what you are throwing against what wall to see if it sticks?
Bdgwx,you did not provide a link to support the entire ocean as a net sink.
It has long been surmised to be so. But better understanding of the deep ocean interface is needed.
The Global Carbon Project is a good source for this kind of information.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3269/2020/
bdgwx says:
The Global Carbon Project is a good source for this kind of information.
—————————–
Why in the world would you believe that to be a good source?
They provide a wealth of information regarding net exchange of mass between reservoirs. They do so in a comprehensive manner (multiple lines of evidence and methods are employed). Their work has been reviewed by the entire world for almost 20 years now and no egregious issues have been raised. Finally, it answers your question clearly and concisely.
bdgwx says:
(multiple lines of evidence and methods are employed).
——————————-
So what are we talking about here? Siberian tree rings?
I don’t know. I searched the publication for references to tree rings and I didn’t see anything. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t used. You could go through the relevant entries in the bibliography list and reviewing those publications. I honestly don’t know if Siberian tree rings are used are not for the analysis. It wouldn’t surprise if they were since just about every technique was considered it seems.
Bill’s “Siberian tree rings” refers to this episode:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/10/05/yamal-and-ipcc-ar4-review-comments/#comment-197561
Remember Yamal:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/rememberyamal
I will repeat below the photoic zone of the ocean, it is believed to be carbon saturated. And since saturation levels are determined by temperature, the despotic zone which is claimed to be warming must be a source rather than a sink
The bottom of the ocean is nearly if not completely saturated because the metal and carbonate ions are in equilibrium with their solid salts. Gradually ocean is less saturated at smaller depths. But ocean overturning brings the saturated water below to warmer waters above where CO2 is less soluble.
That is correct the reason the surface ocean isn’t saturated with CO2 is because of biological activity and photosynthesis draws off the carbon to create huge biomasses in the ocean. Add more carbon and it might move toward saturation but its also going to spur more biological activity.
Measuring this stuff is critical to understanding.
bdgwx provides a link to a paper supported by 68 institutions whose teaching curriculums depend upon climate change fear. and they say:
”The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations.”
Well considering that even when one excludes ocean bottom mineral deposits observation fails to measure this in the deepest most mineral rich reaches of the ocean. The observation record almost certainly accounts for less that 25% of the carbon in the ocean with vastly different capabilities of both different depths and latitudes absorbing and emitting CO2.
That gives no effective observational constraint for concluding if the ocean is a source or a sink, nor any observational constraint that would put any significant limits on the source of carbon in the atmosphere. The models can legitimately be used (under today’s institutional standards of behavior) to spread fear to the benefit of these institutions.
Fortunately cooler minds prevail and ARGO is being expanded to the bottom of the ocean. In another decade or two we will probably be lucky to be able to decipher any real trend in the data even with that.
I don’t think anyone argues that total ocean carbon is not increasing. The main argument is about what fraction of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to FF emissions. Ocean outgassing can contribute to that CO2 increase with oceans still being a net sink.
I’m sorry, did I miss it? Has anyone published a climate model ANOVA Table? If I missed it, please re-post it. Remember, this is a settled science, so every climate model should have identical ANOVA Tables.
I strongly recommend you to carefully read
https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/why-anova-is-really-linear-regression-notation/
https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/why-anova-and-linear-regression-are-the-same-analysis/
Might help you in getting less excited…
J.-P. D.
Bindidion, are you claiming that the miltivariable ANOVA Table is the same as a simple regression? If yes, you don’t have a clue.
Anyway, did you ever find an ANOVA Table for a climate model so we can compare them against your single variable Regression?
CO2isLife
https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/why-anova-is-really-linear-regression-notation/
” Back to how ANOVA and linear regression are the same model ”
Either you are able to understand what Karen Grace-Martin explained, or you aren’t.
If you aren’t, so please shut up.
Definitely!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
For interested people, a report looking ‘somewhat serious’:
OCEAN UPTAKE OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Tsung-Hung Peng (Oak Ridge); Taro Takahashi (Lamont-Doherty), 1993
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/24/071/24071882.pdf
*
On page 8:
” The mean values for alkalinity and total CO2 concentration in surface waters (Table 2) yield a pCO2 value of 309 µatm at the mean surface water temperature of 19.2 °C.
This value indicates that the mean surface water was undersaturated by about 4% in relation to the atmosphere, which had a pCO2 of 321 (±3) µatm in 1973, when these oceanic measurements were made.
On the other hand, the mean alkalinity and total CO2 concentration for the whole ocean yield a pCO2 value of 437 µatm at the mean deep water temperature of 1.5 °C and a value of 913 µatm at the mean surface water temperature of 19.2 °C.
This indicates that the deep ocean water is highly supersaturated with respect to atmospheric CO2. ”
J.-P. D.
Dr. Spencer ! Dr. Spencer !! Dr. Spencer !!!
I was told that not every Climate Model runs with an ANOVA table these days!
This is in an absolutely obvious contradiction to the laws regulating the permissible operation of Climate Models!
Do you think we should call the Attorney General on this serious case?
Thanks in advance for helpful advice!
Best regards
Yours faithfully
O. R. G. Asmus
General US CO2 Support Administration
Head Quarters
12, N 6th Ave
Forsyth, MT
I’m sorry ED Limp Willy, did you have an ANOVA Table you wanted to share with the audience?
Not my comment, Life.
My offer is still on the table:
One spoon, no comment from you at Roy’s until next September.
Please say yes.
Wayward Wee Willy,
Yet another offer? Gee, I wonder why nobody seems interested in what you have to offer.
Just more incomprehensible gibberish, spurting out from one end of an asshat!
How are all those “silly semantic games”, “auditing skillz”, all the lulz, lolz, menz, modulz, and all the rest of your pre-pubescent twaddle, working out for you?
You are starting to sound like another embittered academic wannabe – little talent, little respect, just another faceless drone, convinced you deserve better!
Maybe if you had something of value to “offer”, it might help.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Yet another offer?”
It’s the same offer.
That’s why I said “My offer is still on the table.”
You might have missed it.
Best,
Wee Willy Idiot,
Fantasy offer, fantasy spoon, fantasy table. Dear oh dear, Witless Wee Willy – you would probably get more takers for a turd, particularly a highly polished turd called “The Greenhouse Effect”.
Completely equivalent in value to your entire fantasy inventory.
By the way, how are you going with your efforts to describe where this “Greenhouse Effect” may be observed?
Mike Flynn,
You can’t count offers.
Why should I be surprised that you’re a Sky Dragon?
Willard, please stop trolling.
For those who might wonder about the Sudden Hyperspheric ANOVA Warming, currently experienced by the blog, I strongly recommend
Elements of Statistical Modeling for Experimental Biology
Jeffrey A. Walker, 2018
https://www.middleprofessor.com/files/applied-biostatistics_bookdown/_book/
and, therein
Chapter 16 ANOVA Tables
Having digested that stuff, you know everything about Tabula Anova!
J.-P. D.
Or you could just point to a search for Taylor Diagrams as any good undergrad studying Physical Climatology would do.
It’s obvious that deniers are missing out on a lot of good science.
Yes.
I’m sorry, why is this so hard? Everyone claims these climate models are valid. Prove it, publish the ANOVA Table. What factors are they using and what are the coefficients on those factors? Trust me, no climate model will have an adj-R^2 over 40. My bet is they will even be less, and CO2 won’t be a significant factor.
Your bet would make more sense if you checked beforehand, Life.
It’s obvious you did not.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Your comment would make more sense if you had any.
It’s obvious you have none.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“…why is this so hard?…”
Because you’re one of those frigging short-bus people; one of those people with brain damage, youre frigging retarded, youre on the gosh darned spectrum.
TM,
Is refusing to use more than one apostrophe in a comment, a secret alarmist recognition signal?
Or is it “Because youre one of those frigging short-bus people; one of those people with brain damage, youre frigging retarded, youre on the gosh darned spectrum.”?
Or maybe you are just sloppy.
Most human population is between 42 degrees North and 22 degrees North latitude.
And a significant portion is between 10 degrees South and 42 degrees North latitude.
https://engaging-data.com/population-latitude-longitude/
Or a lot people living somewhat near the tropics.
And global warming or cooling is mostly about average temperature change closer to the polar region. Or tropical average temperature
is basically unchanging in terms of global temperature changes which
have occurred with last hundreds of million of years.
Or tropical zone see little change whether one in Hothouse climate {very warm ocean} or Icehouse climate [cold ocean, our current ocean is about 3.5 C}. And in this history {hundreds of millions of years}
Global surface average surface air temperature has ranged from about 10 C to about 25 C and only Icehouse climates has Earth has such low levels of CO2, and at other times more than 2000 ppm. And other gases such Methane have been much higher than presents levels of Methane in the atmosphere.
But big picture thing about current age [last couple million years} is the degree of how cold our ocean is.
And in terms of last 5000 years, it appears to me the entire Ocean average temperature has been about 3.5 C. And in the earlier part of our Holocene, our ocean may have been as warm as 4 C. And in this much warmer part of time, the Sahara Desert a land with forest and grassland. And what is called fossil water under the present sands of the desert, was added at this time.
Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System
“NSAS covers a land area spanning just over two million km2, including north-western Sudan, north-eastern Chad, south-eastern Libya, and most of Egypt. Containing an estimated 150,000 km3 of groundwater,[2] the significance of the NSAS as a potential water resource for future development programs in these countries is extraordinary. The Great Man-made River Project (GMMR) in Libya makes use of the system, extracting substantial amounts of water from this aquifer, removing an estimated 2.4 km3 of fresh water for consumption and agriculture per year. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System
And during this early time northern treeline was higher:
“Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589499921233
Or within our cooling period, we got more deserts area and the largest forest in the world, shrunk significantly.
Also in Little Ice Age {within the last 800 years] and we are presently recovering from, there was more severe droughts and worldwide glaciers were advancing. Or at moment, glaciers are roughly not changing, and there is some small amount greening in the Sahara region.
gbaikie
You wrote above:
” … Or at moment, glaciers are roughly not changing… ”
Where do you have this claim from?
*
What I read these days looks rather like this:
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210429-nearly-all-the-world-s-glaciers-are-melting-at-an-accelerated-pace-study-finds
” Analysing images taken by NASA’s Terra satellite, they found that between 2000-2019, the world’s glaciers lost an average of 267 billion tonnes of ice each year.
But the team also found that the rate of glacier melt had accelerated sharply during the same period.
Between 2000 and 2004, glaciers lost 227 billion tonnes of ice per year. But between 2015-2019, they lost an average of 298 billion tonnes each year.
The study, published in the journal Nature
A globally complete, spatially and temporally resolved estimate of glacier mass change: 2000 to 2019
Hugonnet & al. 2020
https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2020/EGU2020-20908_presentation.pdf
found that the fastest-melting glaciers were situated in Alaska and the Alps.
The authors also expressed concern about the retreating mountain glaciers in the Pamir Mountains, the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas, which provide water for more than 1.5 billion people.
“During the dry season, glacial meltwater is an important source that feeds major waterways such as the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Indus rivers,” said Romain Hugonnet, lead study author and researcher at ETH Zurich university and the University of Toulouse.
‘Right now, this increased melting acts as a buffer for people living in the region, but if Himalayan glacier shrinkage keeps accelerating, populous countries like India and Bangladesh could face water or food shortages in a few decades.’
The authors also found areas where melt rates actually slowed between 2000-2019, on Greenland’s east coast and in Iceland and Scandinavia, for instance.
They attribute this to weather in the North Atlantic that caused higher precipitation and lower temperatures in the region, thereby slowing ice loss. ”
*
This info relates also, among other sources, to the Nature articles:
1. Rapid glacier retreat and downwasting throughout the European Alps in the early 21st century
Christian Sommer, Philipp Malz, Thorsten C. Seehaus, Stefan Lippl, Michael Zemp & Matthias H. Braun
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16818-0
2. The satellite observed glacier mass changes over the Upper Indus Basin during 20002012
Tariq Abdullah, Shakil Ahmad Romshoo & irfan Rashid
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71281-7
*
Do you have any sources scientifically contradicting these authors?
I would enjoy valuable links to them.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
“Prior covariances estimated empirically in order to: remove outliers (filtering), then mitigate effects of seasonality while conserving nonlinear changes (fitting)”
Estimated, filtered, mitigated, fitted.
In other words, “our best guess”.
You are a gullible chap, aren’t you?
And you, Swenson, are an ignorant, polemic dumbass, trying all the time to show off with risible details you pick up, while deliberately hiding all the rest.
It is hard to be more stupid than you, but your friend Robertson gets it.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
You posted the link. Maybe you should read first, before linking to anything containing such laughable details.
Don’t blame me for actually reading your risible appeal to authority.
I hid nothing. It remains just where you left it. If you don’t want to look stupid, don’t link to stupid papers.
–Between 2000 and 2004, glaciers lost 227 billion tonnes of ice per year. But between 2015-2019, they lost an average of 298 billion tonnes each year.–
“Researchers calculated the ice thickness for 171,000 glaciers worldwide, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which hold the bulk of Earth’s frozen water. Through a combination of direct satellite observations and modeling, they determined the total volume of ice tied up in the glaciers is nearly 41,000 cubic miles (170,000 cubic kilometers), plus or minus 5,000 cubic miles (21,000 cubic km).”
Plus or minus 21,000 billion tons
gbaikie
” Plus or minus 21,000 billion tons ”
And? Never heard of standard error in estimates?
People like you push up 21,000 km^3, but keep silent about 170,000 km^3!
Incredible.
What did you do in your professional life?
J.-P. D.
–And? Never heard of standard error in estimates?–
I am the one that quoted something which did attempt to give an error in estimate. And you are the one that didn’t.
I thought of question in regards to this.
Did the Little Ice Age add more glacial ice, than our recovery
has removed?
Decades ago there was some paper, which claimed that within 50 years all glacial ice added during the Little Ice Age will been removed.
I haven’t seen any update in term of such progress.
I am not actually very interested in this stuff, but apparently others may have a lot fervor for this kind of stuff, so, anyone?
Did I miss something? Did someone find a Climate Model ANOVA? Why is that so hard to find? Maybe once they are published, the lie is exposed.
CO2isLife
Bindidon and I have both given you links. Since you clearly haven’t bothered to read them we’ve stopped bothering to debate the topic with you.
EM,
Are you all going to stop commenting, or just you?
Mike Flynn,
Which part of “we’ve stopped bothering to debate the topic with you” do you not get?
Wee Willy Idiot,
All of it, actually. Seems like a pointless puerile statement – more of a dummy spit than anything.
Oh the indignation! Oh the unsubstantiated assertion!
You and your ilk are really something, you know. Do you really think your threats to stop debating are going to bother people who fervently wish you would do just that?
You are full of hot air – you can’t stop yourself from trolling, let alone being an idiot.
Try it!
Mike Flynn,
To remind Life that nobody will make the sammich he requests because he’s too lazy to click on links is far from being pointless.
So once again you butt in without reading.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
More nonsense – sammich? More unsubstantiated assertion?
You’re an idiot. I do as I wish. Nothing you can do about it. And your powerlessness is possibly noted by others.
Here’s the deal, Limp Willy – nobody needs your permission to do anything. They don’t need to click on links, they can make whatever comments they like, they can comply with your desires or not – as they feel fit.
Carry on being an asshat. At least it keeps your face covered.
Mike Flynn,
Not the first time you ask me that one:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/make-me-a-sandwich
Life’s “give me a Climate Model ANOVA” and “give me evidence of greenhouse effect” is of that kind.
I hope you don’t abuse people like that where you work.
Weird Wee Willy,
Pee in one hand. Hope in the other.
See which fills up first.
I do as I wish. Don’t you?
Feel free to look silly, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-697860
Glaciers retreat, glaciers advance. From a paper by Michael E Mann –
“These dramatic glacial advances often had important practical consequences for nearby human populations. In the Chamonix valley near Mont Blanc, France, numerous farms and villages were lost to the advancing front of a nearby mountain glacier. The damage was so threatening that the villagers summoned the Bishop of Geneva to perform an exorcism of the dark forces presumed responsible (this procedure, as for most human attempts at weather modification, does not appear to have been successful). Such societal threats were common during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as many glaciers expanded well beyond their previous historical limits.”
Even the Antarctic continent used to be ice free, no glaciers at all.
swenson…”In the Chamonix valley near Mont Blanc, France, numerous farms and villages were lost to the advancing front of a nearby mountain glacier.”
Don’t know if Mann mentioned that the glacier expansion occurred during the Little Ice Age. Since the LIA ended, circa 1850, the glaciers have been receding. Naturally, rocket-scientists like Mann blame that on a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Co2…”Im sorry, why is this so hard? Everyone claims these climate models are valid”.
Models are all the alarmists have, there is no valid science to back their theories. Out of desperation they quote Tyndall and Arrhenius but neither said anything about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere other than in generalities. In fact, Arrhenius foresaw warming from CO2 as being a good thing, so he was not predicting catastrophe.
One modeler, the late Stephen Schneider, was quoted as follows:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 4548, October 1989.)”.
He admits, in essence, that it’s OK to lie in science to serve a cause.
Here is a more damaging quote wrt politicians:
“I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming”.
He concedes that politicians are making it up…the predicted degree of warming is a fabrication of politicians. lead by their political authority, the IPCC.
> Models are all the alarmists have
Global Temperature Rise.
Warming Ocean.
Shrinking Ice Sheets.
Glacial Retreat.
Decreased Snow Cover.
Sea Level Rise.
Declining Arctic Sea Ice.
Extreme Events.
Ocean Acidification.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Witless Limp Willy,
You are just stupid. Might all of these things (apart from “Extreme Events”, whatever they are), be due to heat? No?
What then?
You might be stupid, but at least you are gullible. I once told Gavin Schmidt he was as thick as two short planks. He took umbrage, but appeared mollified when I upgraded his thickness to that of three short planks!
What thickness would you like for yourself?
> I once told Gavin Schmidt
Citation needed, Mike Flynn.
Your incredulity is duly noted.
Waffling Wee Willy,
Need away, laddie. See how far it will get you, and how much I care what you think.
Feel free to believe what you want. It won’t affect facts.
Funny how you appeal to facts and never provide any, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”I once told Gavin Schmidt he was as thick as two short planks. He took umbrage…”
Can’t understand why he’d take umbrage over your compliment. Personally, I don’t think he’s that smart at all.
willard…”Global Temperature Rise….Warming Ocean… Shrinking Ice Sheets….”
Not a shred of scientific evidence that any of the stuff you listed is created by anthropogenic means. The proof offered by alarmists is…’what else could cause these things’?
Evidence. Inference. Learn the difference, Gordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
There is no doubt about global climate’s future.
We have been in an Ice Age and we will continue to be in an Ice Age.
We are in 34 million year Ice Age because Earth’s ocean is cold, all nuclear bombs that humans could make, could not warm it. Human could burn the sky, but can not warm the ocean enough, so as to leave this Ice Age.
Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.
Archimedes
Humanity have had the misfortune to find a climate lever.
Our civilization has an energy budget around 10^15 Joules/year. As a by-product we release enough extra CO2 to increase the energy content of the climate system by 3*10^21 Joules/year.
A lever with a “mechanical advantage” of 1 million!
Not my morning.
When I checked, I found that our joules/ year energy consumption is 10^20 Joules/ year.
That only give the climate lever a “mechanical advantage” of ten.
There isn’t enough CO2 and/or methane on the Planet to get us out of this Ice Age.
But humans could cause the ocean to boil, they could nuclear bomb to steer a big space rock to hit Earth. There are endless amounts of space rocks bigger than 50 km in diameter, and out of many one find a few big rocks which could be “relatively easy” to move so they hit Earth. Of course it’s possible such big rock will “naturally” hit Earth without human “help”. And such rocks could even come from our Galaxy rather than from our solar system. Or we finding the ones in our solar system {and could find more with better telescopes] but have to pretty big objects to find to the ones coming from outside our solar system.
I believe current research suggests that 1200 ppm of CO2 would all but guarantee an eventual end to the current ice age. Even 600 ppm of CO2 might be enough melt out the ice sheets in both the NH and SH. There is a lot of ice so it would take quite some time either way.
There number things about that. I do not think we will get to 600 ppm for one thing. If nothing else, China can’t burn coal forever.
US which has a lot coal, couldn’t either, US has more, and using a lot less of it and the current lowest coal use, would last about 300 years.
If got cheap natural gas, than using coal is like using horses. People still use horses, but few think that is problem.
We have more cows, they fuss about cows, and maybe there will be some anti-horse thing, it’s possible. They want people not to pets, and guess a horse is counted as a pet.
As said before, I am too interested in climate, whereas I am interesting in idea/possibility of Human becoming a spacefaring civilization. For that to happen, we need to determine whether lunar water is mineable. To make rocket fuel. But even if Moon does have mineable water, there other ways [or costly ways] of making lunar rocket fuel. Or making rocket fuel on the moon is mostly about making oxygen {Or liquid oxygen- LOX} on the Moon. And 40% of surface of Moon is oxygen {rock which as oxidized} and same goes Earth surface. Or if making iron you are removing oxygen which can be done with CO, which then becomes CO2. There other doing it, but point you separating Fe ore from it’s oxygen.
The moon has about 25% pure iron, and 75% iron oxidize, and you get the Oxygen from iron oxidize. Or discard or put in pile the pure iron because the oxygen is more valuable than the iron.
Of course things made of iron work pretty good on the Moon. There are same mass, but 1/6th the weight. You make stronger bridges or towers on the moon of iron, which can work as better than best steel. And doesn’t rust. The could mine more iron on the Moon than planet Earth does- at cheaper price.
Or it isn’t if, it’s when, can one profitably make rocket fuel on the Moon. And if there mineable lunar water, it’s sooner. Anyhow, Biden is on board with plans to explore lunar polar regions, and then explore Mars. Though it’s more about how well Elon Musk’s Starship is going to work out. General plan is starship prototype with go to orbit by July. and then take months more before one actually gets a starship delivering some kind payload somewhere. Could be Musk focus on Starship doing 100 passenger sub-orbit hops from say Texas to Saudi Arabia or something- maybe India.
Though the regulations may require much longer time before this happens. Musk has always wanted greenhouse on Mars, maybe that will a priority. The other thing he say he needs is ocean launch site {I have long been a fan of using ocean as launch site- I have weird idea, I call a pipelauncher- which could be able launch the massive starship, I think.}
So back CO2, also if Musk does put million people on Mars, the way looking at it, it would add a bit to global CO2. Rockets normally don’t he wants have 3 rocket launches per launch site per day and have a few launch site. I think if we lunar rocket fuel, you don’t have to do this, but that was his mad plan.
So, other space. I am interested to do low income housing on the Ocean. And main thing needed is cheap floating breakwater {that stops all waves}. But in last few days, I thinking about idea of having an artificial gravity space station in Venus orbit.
And we need the cheapness of Starship AND lunar water mining.
NASA always going on about needing nuclear rockets- and I disagree about it’s importance. But one thing they say, is nuclear rockets will allow a fast return to Earth from Mars. I say, put crew on Mars surface and have stay there for +3 years. Because I think need human on mars surface, and there a lot work to done by the human on Mars- or more manhours on mars surface, the better.
But being annoyed, this with desire to fast return prompted me to find another way to “solve” this imagined problem.
And I think it solves more than this stupid problem.
A problem with going to Mars is the long wait for launch windows from Earth to Mars [or from Mars to Earth- and were worried about the Mars to Earth, part.
Roughly launch windows relate to the Synodic period.
Earth to Mars or Mars to Earth is: 2.1354 Years
Earth to Venus is: 1.5987 Years
Mars to Venus is: 0.9142 Years
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html
So going from Mars to Venus has more twice the times as Mars to Earth. Twice as much launch windows going to Venus as compared to going to Earth from Mars {or also other direction, “to Mars”}
Now, I long thought that once we people are living on Mars, they going to use Venus orbit. Or long recognized that Venus would make a better “hub” of solar system than Earth does.
What new, is idea that NASA could use Venus orbit, and fairly soon, say 5 to 10 years. I tend to think Mars settlement in terms +10,000 people living there, is about 50 year from now, despite Musk wild success with rockets. Of course I allow that it’s possible that Musk could surprise me- he already done it, consistently. Whereas NASA hasn’t, NASA been very slow.
But Musk is firing up the people at NASA, so I might even be surprised in regard to NASA, speed in the future.
binny…”Chapter 16 ANOVA Tables
Having digested that stuff, you know everything about Tabula Anova!”
***
Nothing to digest, it’s statistical theory being applied incorrectly. These goof don’t even get it that cholesterol was dismissed as a cause of heart disease back in the 1950s. The Framington study had declared that cholesterol was the cause of heart disease but within 10 years, scientist on the study had changed their minds.
However, the Framington study became a paradigm and no one can shake it these days. It has since been discovered that the body makes its own cholesterol. These quacks would be better served dumping the statistical nonsense and doing some real science.
There are legitimate uses for statistical theory. If you had a factory making millions of batteries and you wanted to test them for quality control you could take small samples from various batches and test them. The more small samples you take the better the idea of how many per unit sample fail. You can then project that quality ratio onto the larger number using a confidence level.
Doesn’t mean the confidence level is correct, you won’t know that till people contact your company to complain about faulty batteries.
The example given in your chapter 16 is better described by Mark Twain who said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
I say that because Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath, another good German scientist, proved that cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease. Rath discovered the problem was plaques caused by lysol deposits, and Pauling, being a brilliant expert in chemistry, immediately recognized that the amino acid Lysine would dissolve the lysol deposits and break down the plaques.
Also, Pauling figured out that low levels of vitamin C (he thought most people are at sub-clinical levels) allow arteries to deteriorate. Then they leak and form scabs inside the arteries that allow deposits to form on them.
Of course, this theory will never see the light of day because idiots, like the one’s writing in your book, are so hung up on bad math that they’ll never see the truth.
Sometimes, you need to lay down the calculators and observe. These days, you see paper after paper based on statistical studies (and models) and very little on actual science done in a lab.
> Pauling figured out that low levels of vitamin C
Galileo was wrong about many things, so did Linus:
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7547741/vitamin-c-myth-pauling
willard…”A Cochrane review of nearly 30 studies looking at people with colds taking the normal daily dose of vitamin C found that it reduced colds length by 8 percent”.
So, the idiot doing the study used 75 mg and found an 8% reduction in cold length, whereas Linus recommended 3000 mg.
Reminds me of the study done by Moertell at the Mayo Clinic refuting Pauling’s claim that 10,000 mg of C improved the terminally ill cancer patients. The terminally ill had been removed from chemo treatment.
The idiot Moertell claimed to have repeated the test and found no benefit. It was later revealed that he used 250 mg of C and kept the patients on chemotherapy. When an astounded pauling asked why he kept terminally ill cancer patients on cehmotherapy, Moertell replied it was to keep up the appearance that something was being done.
first time I’ve seen an add posted by hitting the spacebar. I was trying to edit to point out that the quality of life of the terminally ill cancer patients was improved dramatically by the high doses of C and that some actually experienced remission.
One remission case was significant. The guy went into remission and was discharged. A few months later he was back with the same cancer. When queried, he admitted he had stopped taking the C because he had felt so good.
This presented a quandary to Pauling and his partner at the Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland, surgeon Dr. Ewen Cameron. As the doctor in charge, Cameron should have continued chemotherapy as the standard treatment. However, for reasons unexplained they decided to try the C again. The patient went back into remission.
There is no scientific proof that C can produce remission but that one case was very encouraging since it was directly linked to the C. 10 grams is not a lot of C for this kind of treatment. Some cases have involved IV injection where more C can be given over a lesser amount of time (eg. 25 grams). For serious infections, some doctors have used over 100 grams of C via IV.
If you don’t take high doses of C for a cold or the flu, you are depriving yourself based on ignorance. I have used this religiously for a long time and I can tell you the benefits. For one, if you hit the cold/flu immediately with a high dose of C, it has an immediate effect.
The dose is measured by bowel-tolerance. If you take the right amount, within an hour you will be rushing to the bathroom…there is no choice, and it’s not for a tinkle. For me, the dose varies depending on how sick I feel. It’s usually around 8 grams (8000 mg).
Recently I had to take 10 grams to get that effect but after I go through the procedure, the severity of the cold/flu ends. It does not get worse. I follow it up after 4 hours or so, and keep taking high dosages till the flu/cold passes.
A definite result is that I no longer get the congestion following the fever stage, with the aches and stuff. That would often be the worst part for me, the runny nose, the sniffling, etc. Don’t get it anymore. No coughing, no sniffling, no nothing.
I have never measured the length of a cold/flu episode, the issue for me has always been how good or bad I feel. I remember feeling so lousy all I could do was take Aspirin and go to bed. With the high dose C I can carry on working on a computer, or read a book.
> Reminds me
High vitamin C does don’t work, Gordon.
Neither do supplments:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161208-why-vitamin-supplements-could-kill-you
Eat your greens. Walk. You should be fine.
US FDA: Be aware that taking more than 500 mg of vitamin C per day on a regular basis (which will saturate your blood with vitamin C) may increase your risk of developing cataracts, and taking more than 1,000 mg per day may also increase your risk of kidney stones. Diarrhea can result from a single dose of more than 2,000 mg for an adult and lower amounts for children.
This might explain GR’s frequent bouts of the online equivalent of diarrhea of the mouth.
maguff…”US FDA: Be aware that taking more than 500 mg of vitamin C per day on a regular basis (which will saturate your blood with vitamin C) may increase your risk of developing cataracts, and taking more than 1,000 mg per day may also increase your risk of kidney stones”.
Have you always had this strong appeal to authority? I have been taking high doses of C for decades and I have no cataracts nor do I have kidney stones.
When I visited the dentist not too long ago, he commented that the nerves in my teeth were the size of a teenagers. He could not understand why since I am well into adulthood by which time the nerves in teeth are expected to get smaller with age.
After laproscopic surgery the scar was expected to heal over a period of weeks. When I saw my doctor a few days later and the scar was already well-knitted he commented that I seemed to be a fast healer.
It’s the vitamin C!!!!! See???
If you take the time to source those old wive’s tales about kidney stones and cataracts, you’ll find they are statistical studies done by idiots. Likely the same idiots who started the anthropogenic warming idiocy.
> Have you always had this strong appeal to authority?
How about yourself, Gordon:
Know where I’m going with this?
Gordon Robertson May 19, 2021 at 7:27 PM
…Have you always had this strong appeal to authority?…
…I visited the dentist…
…When I saw my doctor…
…anything about Pauling…
You should have that diarrhea of the mouth checked out.
Willard, Tyson, please stop trolling.
willard…”In fact, with every spoonful of supplement he added to his orange juice, Pauling was more likely harming rather than helping his body. His ideas have not just proven to be wrong, but ultimately dangerous”.
Ah, yes, the experts from the BBC, lecturing one of the top scientists of all time. Pauling, an expert in chemistry, who worked in the medical field applying his knowledge for ten years, discovering sickle cell anemia along the way, would have no understanding of how vitamin C affects the body, according to the blithering idiots at the BBS.
And here we have Willard, another blithering idiot, quoting those blithering idiots, without having the slightest idea how C works in the body or anything about Pauling.
Willard thinks eating his greens will supply an adequate amount of C. Guess that’s why the British Navy supplied lettuce to sailors…wait a minute…wasn’t that citrus fruit…as in limes? Only took them 50 years to implement the suggestion of James Lind that limes would prevent C. Here we are in the 21st century and people still think scurvy does not apply to them and luminaries like the BBC are ridiculing an expert in chemistry who suggest we are lacking enough C.
Without vitamin C, you die!!! No ands, ifs, or buts. Stop taking it altogether and you’ll be dead in a couple of months. You’ll die a slow painful death as your body literally falls apart. Vitamin C is essential for the production of collagen, a glue that sticks your cells together. Guess what strongly bonded cells do, they resist cancer and any other disease that affects cells?
C not only does it by supplying the glue, it does it by neutralizing dangerous compounds (free radicals) that can form toxic chemicals in the body. Who else, but an expert with atoms and molecules could suggest an optimal amount of vitamin C?
Meantime, a 150 lb billy goat makes 12,000 mg for itself per day and the human 0 grams. Pauling once quipped. ‘seems the goat knows more about vitamin C than the government’. So, the rocket scientists at the FDA recommend just enough C to prevent your body falling apart and the BBC and Willard think that’s OK. One of the leading experts in chemistry of all time did not think it’s OK.
Guess who I’m going with?
And wouldn’t you know that Willard and the BBC are leading climate alarmists? It takes a seriously dogmatic mind to miss the obvious and adhere to the views of the status quo, not because they are right, just to be one of the group.
> One of the leading experts in chemistry
You’re selling Linus short, Gordon. He’s a Nobel prize. In fact he also won the Peace prize.
His claim about high Vitamin C intake was still wrong, and his claim about curing cancer with Vitamin C is still being exploited by gurus around the world.
Peace out.
A great reason not to believe experts that don’t owe you an enforceable duty.
Instead demand the evidence and read it enough times to understand it for yourself.
No one confuse your armwaving with understanding except yourself, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Robertson
Dumb and superficial as all the time.
You weren’t even able to understand that this reference to ANOVA was ‘dedicated’ to the CO2 life genius.
He was the origin of this sudden increase of ‘interest’ for ANOVA.
I personally had no interest in mentioning that stuff, even if I consider statistical analysis dedicated to minimization of uncertainty (all things you know nothing about, and hence discredit).
Read his comments, dumbass, instead of replying your redundant nonsense.
J.-P. D.
rlh…”So what value for boundary surface layer does GISS use to covert their temperatures into TOA to surface ones?”
Don’t know about TOA but here’s an example from James Hansen, former leader of GISS. It also is an example of the abuse of statistical methods using climate models.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000345
Perfect example of how GISS, NOAA, and Had-crut fudge the surface data.
I wouldn’t go so far as that. It is sufficient to say that no temperature measurements at 1.5m can provide a TOA to surface temperature profile and an average temperature form it either.
That includes modern as well as historic values.
Also, satellite temperature measurements suffer from the same problems. Without much of this information they will be deficient too.
Look at a vertical balloon profile and understand just how complex this all is. And all of those factors and a lot more determine the average temperature TOA to surface.
rlw…”It is sufficient to say that no temperature measurements at 1.5m can provide a TOA to surface temperature profile and an average temperature form it either”.
There is another paper by Hanson in which he laments the lack of accuracy of surface stations. He not only talks about altitude, he talks about weather situations like inversions.
TOA is top-of-atmosphere
“he talks about weather situations like inversions.”
Well that would play havoc with measurements taken at 1.5m for sure. When trying to work out an average temperature TOA to surface.
“he troposphere contains about 75% of all of the air in the atmosphere, and almost all of the water vapour (which forms clouds and rain). The decrease in temperature with height is a result of the decreasing pressure. If a parcel of air moves upwards it expands (because of the lower pressure). When air expands it cools. So air higher up is cooler than air lower down.
The lowest part of the troposphere is called the boundary layer. This is where the air motion is determined by the properties of the Earth’s surface. Turbulence is generated as the wind blows over the Earth’s surface, and by thermals rising from the land as it is heated by the sun. This turbulence redistributes heat and moisture within the boundary layer, as well as pollutants and other constituents of the atmosphere.
The top of the troposphere is called the tropopause. This is lowest at the poles, where it is about 7 – 10 km above the Earth’s surface. It is highest (about 17 – 18 km) near the equator.”
If you want to derive a surface to tropopause temperature profile from station temperature data, why not use the 6.5C/km moist lapse rate?
Because that is only an approximation of what is really happening at any station.
It would require a balloon launch at the time of observation at the point of observation to determine the correct values
“The environmental lapse rate (ELR), is the rate of decrease of temperature with altitude in the stationary atmosphere at a given time and location. As an average, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines an international standard atmosphere (ISA) with a temperature lapse rate of 6.49 C/km”
Note the words stationary and average in the above
“The standard atmosphere contains no moisture. Unlike the idealized ISA, the temperature of the actual atmosphere does not always fall at a uniform rate with height. For example, there can be an inversion layer in which the temperature increases with altitude.”
Enough said.
Why do you feel the need for a full surface to TOA temperature profile for every station for every measurement? It is more detail than even the weather forecasters get.
It could be done it you are willing to increase the weather monitoring budget tenfold, but I don’t really see the point.
I doubt this would meet that kind of High Expectation Auditor demand.
Regular thermostats and ovens may not.
Because the station temperature data is then used to produce an average air temp for the world, TOA to surface. Which it plainly cannot do.
There are too many unknowns for the station data to do that.
Also, satellite data cannot do it either.
You cannot use figures which vary by only a small amount with that number of uncertainties and draw any real long term conclusions at all.
For all we know, the surface layer height has increased or decreased since the 1800’s and that explains all the temperature differences so far experienced.
No study that I am aware of has addressed that problem.
You must have missed this reply suggesting sources for the information you seek.
“bdgwx says:
May 19, 2021 at 7:49 AM
Ive not seen any attempts to use near surface temperatures alone to estimate the average temperature of the bulk atmosphere.
NWP analysis (hour 0) or climate reanalysis is probably your best bet for this kind of thing. I know the ERA5 reanalysis has 130+ levels each of which provide a temperature for that level. You can then do a spatially weighted mean or mass weighted mean if you like.
You can also use geopotential height products and the hypsometric equation available from NWP and reanalysis as well.”
I still can’t figure out why you want the information or what you intend to do with it that the atmospheric physicists are not already doing.
“Willard says:
May 19, 2021 at 8:52 AM
I doubt this would meet that kind of High Expectation Auditor demand. ”
Should have spotted that earlier.
RLH is not making a serious scientific request. He’s playing Climateball.
“Hes playing Climateball.”
No he is asking specific questions that throw into doubt the claims that are being made for the figures that are being provided.
So what are the answers to those questions? HAs the surface boundary layer increased in thickness since the 1800;s or not?
If so/not, how to you prove that?
> There are too many unknowns
Easy to invent a criteria post hoc.
> asking specific questions
What question does “enough said” ask, again?
“I still cant figure out why you want the information or what you intend to do with it that the atmospheric physicists are not already doing.”
Those figures use averages which have very little bearing on what is actually happening.
“Easy to invent a criteria post hoc.”
This is no post hoc criteria. Are you saying that averages are enough to solve the problem?
The standard atmosphere contains no moisture. Unlike the idealized ISA, the temperature of the actual atmosphere does not always fall at a uniform rate with height. For example, there can be an inversion layer in which the temperature increases with altitude.
> This is no post hoc criteria.
If you don’t say what would be good enough beforehand, the criteria that allows you that what we got isn’t good enough is post hoc.
EM said: RLH is not making a serious scientific request. Hes playing Climateball.
Possible. Above the poster said this…
RLH said: Except that Global Warming implies, at the very least, that it is TOA to surface temperatures that are rising all over the Globe.
This tells me the poster either does not understand that the stratosphere is cooling and that this is an expected observation and that some regions (Hudson Bay, south of Greenland, and parts of Antarctica) are cooling and that this is an expected observation as well per modern climate science theory OR he’s not making a good faith attempt at acquiring the information he seeks. I cannot rule out a combination of both either.
> I cannot rule out a combination of both either.
Hence why a team of scientists and philosophers DESTROYS engineers in the engineer-scientist-philosopher game.
“I cannot rule out a combination of both either.”
Or provide actual data that shows that what is claimed is what is happening either it would appear.
“This tells me the poster either does not understand that the stratosphere is cooling ”
And that makes up what percentage of the TOA to surface figure?
The environmental lapse rate (ELR), is the rate of decrease of temperature with altitude in the stationary atmosphere at a given time and location. As an average, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines an international standard atmosphere (ISA) with a temperature lapse rate of 6.49 C/km
“Hence why a team of scientists and philosophers DESTROYS engineers in the engineer-scientist-philosopher game.”
And yet you rely on engineers to produce the instruments you make the measurements on.
RLH said: And that makes up what percentage of the TOA to surface figure?
By mass: 20%
By depth: 35% where TOA is 100 km.
> you rely on engineers to produce the instruments you make the measurements on.
Of course I do, dear RLH. Don’t you?
I don’t trust them to have studied how establishing double standards work, however. Nor do my Climateball experience has convinced me that they understand that science is about going where no one has gone before to understand the world, not to sheepishly respect building codes because that’s what their foremen ask of them.
EM asked: Why do you feel the need for a full surface to TOA temperature profile for every station for every measurement?
RLH responded: Because the station temperature data is then used to produce an average air temp for the world, TOA to surface.
I think there is some confusion going on here. Surface station’s are used to report the global mean surface temperature and nothing more. The “average air temp for the world” is implied to be near surface unless otherwise noted. It is not meant to be a bulk atmosphere average.
RLH said: For all we know, the surface layer height has increased or decreased since the 1800s and that explains all the temperature differences so far experienced.
No. The PBL depth does not explain the warming troposphere, warming land, warming cryosphere, and cooling stratosphere.
You do recognize that your 1.5m thermometer sits at the center of a approximate 3m cube of air of which it supposedly sampling.
This is a 3d world, not a 2d one.
RLH said: This is a 3d world, not a 2d one.
That doesn’t mean that a global mean surface temperature isn’t a useful metric to measure and track.
Sure but 2d does not do that
It also does not cover the inherent accuracy/inaccuracy of the cells/points on which you base that analysis.
It actually does, and if you read anything (I mean, just about anything) about that you’d know that most of the work is done to estimate that kind of uncertainty, e.g.:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017187
RLH said: Sure but 2d does not do that
If the task is to determine the mean temperature on a 2D surface/plane then we really need to stick with observations that are themselves on that surface/plane or at least very close to it. If there are deviations in height above or below that surface/plane then the accuracy gets more compromised; not less.
> So what.
So what indeed, Mister “I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth.”
A forth similar dimension as the first 3.
{{x,y,z},t}
is the correct dimensional layout.
“If the task is to determine the mean temperature on a 2D surface/plane then we really need to stick with observations that are themselves on that surface/plane or at least very close to it.”
If the task is to determine the 3d, 3m layer of air that sits next to the Earth’s surface then the 2d, 1.5m synthesis record, such as GISS.Temp, is only an approximation to the ‘true’ figure.
“It actually does”
See the paper I quoted that lays out the differences between 24hr min/max/mean temps and the ‘true’ figure.
So are you saying that a world average is suitable for a grid system that covers from equator to pole?
Or are you saying that the surface boundary layer, and other layers of the atmosphere are the same height the world over?
The troposphere extends upward to about 10 km above sea level. The height of the top of the troposphere varies with latitude (it is lowest over the poles and highest at the equator) and by season (it is lower in winter and higher in summer). It can be as high as 20 km near the equator, and as low as 7 km over the poles in winter.
Near the equator, the lower edge of the stratosphere is as high as 20 km , at midlatitudes around 10 km, and at the poles about 7 km
RLH asked: So are you saying that a world average is suitable for a grid system that covers from equator to pole?
A world average is typically specific to a certain layer of the atmosphere usually near the surface unless otherwise noted.
The world average is computed from a grid mesh that covers the entire globe. Each grid cell is assigned a temperature which itself is an average. For example, GISS uses an 8000 cell grid mesh. ERA5 uses about 500,000 grid cells. The average is the weighted (by area) sum of the temperatures divided by the total area.
UAH-TLT is a little different in that their grid mesh is much higher up in the atmosphere and is itself representative of a large depth of the atmosphere but weighted by a special weighting function. In fact, one concern we have with UAH is that the warming trend is contaminated by the stratosphere.
RLH asked: Or are you saying that the surface boundary layer, and other layers of the atmosphere are the same height the world over?
No. No one is saying that.
“The world average is computed from a grid mesh that covers the entire globe.”
So this grid mesh, is it equal area/volume? You know like a Mollweide projection weighted for vertical seasonal troposphere height?
RLH asked: So this grid mesh, is it equal area/volume? You know like a Mollweide projection weighted for vertical seasonal troposphere height?
In the context of global mean temperature datasets most grid meshes are 2D so volume is not applicable in those cases. The grid cells are sometimes equal area and sometimes not. The cells have different shapes as well. It depends on the grid used. Reanalysis does use a 3D grid mesh. It is usually the case that the vertical resolution is higher near the surface so in that regard the cells do not have equal depth unless they are on the same level. In either case the mean temperature is computed for and applicable for a specific level or plane. Obviously the spatial averaging process weights the grid cell by the area it represents. One final point, it is important to note that not all datasets use a globally complete grid mesh. NOAA and Had.CRUT for example only cover about 80-85% of the globe omitting the part of the polar regions. This is why they tend to underestimate warming trends since polar amplification cause the polar regions (specifically in the NH) to warm faster than the global average.
“In the context of global mean temperature datasets most grid meshes are 2D so volume is not applicable in those cases.”
How do you project that then to produce an average temperature from TOA to surface? Which is a volume calculation.
“Obviously the spatial averaging process weights the grid cell by the area it represents.”
But again area is not volume.
As I mentioned above the atmosphere varies in depth from the equator to the poles, If what is not taken into account then any analysis is flawed. From 20Km down to 7Km. That is a 3:1 ratio which is non trivial.
Also from what you are saying it is done on a static basis. If so this most certainly fails in exactly the way I have suggested. Each cell needs to have to have different vertical weightings on it because of other factors, including but not limited to moisture, win, etc.
Wind damn it
“polar regions (specifically in the NH) to warm faster than the global average.”
Are those Polar regions weighted in comments, forecasts, etc. as the quite small area/volume they contribute to the Global figures?
RLH said: How do you project that then to produce an average temperature from TOA to surface? Which is a volume calculation.
You don’t. Near surface global mean temperature datasets are inadequate for the purpose of determining the bulk average temperature of the whole atmosphere through its entire vertical depth. If you want such a thing you need to use datasets that do provide 3D grid meshes that cover the bulk atmosphere.
RLH said: As I mentioned above the atmosphere varies in depth from the equator to the poles, If what is not taken into account then any analysis is flawed.
We don’t need to take into account what is happening up high to produce a global mean temperature near the surface…usually. I will say that satellite datasets are a bit different in that they do have an implied depth to them. So what happens up high does matter. For example, many of think UAH-TLT may be contaminated by the cooling stratosphere.
RLH said: Each cell needs to have to have different vertical weightings on it because of other factors, including but not limited to moisture, win, etc.
I’m not following you here. How are you thinking moisture or wind would effect near surface temperature observations and spatially average computation of them producing a global mean?
RLH said: Are those Polar regions weighted in comments, forecasts, etc. as the quite small area/volume they contribute to the Global figures?
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking. I will say that no one is stupid enough to apply the same weight to 0-30N, 60-90N, etc. latitude bands. Those bands obviously cover different percentages of Earth’s total area. So if the question is…are polar regions given more weight than mid-latitude or equatorial regions…the answer is an obvious no.
Is account taken of the fact that the atmosphere is much lower in height at the poles than at the equator? That is a 3d calculation rather than a 2d one.
Your 1.5m thermometers sit in an approximate 3m cube of air which it is supposedly sampling and representing. This is a 3d world, not a 2d one.
@bdgwx Lets us bring all this down to more manageable dimensions as you appear to have problems with larger ones.
Are you seriously claiming that the thermometer at 1.m represents the average air temperature of just the 3m cube of air that surrounds it?
As an engineer, I would need to know the following at least in order to determine the basic uncertainties in that measurement.
Apart from all the other factors I have mentioned and assuming the surface is grass.
1. Has the surface been in full sun for the last 4hrs
2. Has the surface been in partial sun for the last 4hrs. If so, in what ratio.
3. Has the surface been in shade from clouds or is it at night
4. Is the surface covered in any of the following; dry, rain, frost, snow, ice, etc.
5. Does the cube of air contain mist, cloud, etc.
6. Are we instead at sea or over concrete, tarmac, etc.
I personally have experienced situations where the 2 figures differ by more then a few degrees.
1.5m damn it
Datasets that provide a global mean surface temperature are on 2D planes so the concept of cubical cells is not applicable. The question then becomes…is a single thermometer representative of the temperature of the whole area of that cell? The is answers is…probably yes at least in the context of determining trends. We can compare small cell grids (ERA5 with 500,000) to medium cell grids (GISS with 8000) to large cell grids (Nick Stokes 60 station experiment) and we can see that the warming trends are not substantially different either way.
“Datasets that provide a global mean surface temperature are on 2D planes so the concept of cubical cells is not applicable.”
Reality begs to differ. We are in a 3d world. Not a 2d one.
“The is answers isprobably yes at least in the context of determining trends.”
Historic (and current) data could be uncertain to a few degrees at each cell for any one reading. Sure it is likely that this will average out but that does not reduce the uncertainty that is there regardless.
> We are in a 3d world.
Time would like to have a word with you, RLH.
“Time would like to have a word with you, RLH”
Why? Do you live in a different time period?
“warming trends are not substantially different either way.”
Warming trends are not the problem. The inherent accuracy of the data points they are based on is.
RLH said: Reality begs to differ. We are in a 3d world. Not a 2d one.
Like I said above that doesn’t mean that a global mean surface temperature isn’t a useful metric to measure and track.
We measure and track the global mean temperature at various different levels because those are useful too.
In fact, 2D fields used ubiquitously in all kinds of analysis because it is a useful technique.
RLM said: Historic (and current) data could be uncertain to a few degrees at each cell for any one reading. Sure it is likely that this will average out but that does not reduce the uncertainty that is there regardless.
Yeah. The 1-sigma uncertainty on a 2D temperature field probably is on the order of 1-2C for each cell. That means the standard error of the mean for a global average using say an 8000 count grid mesh could be as low as E = 2C/sqrt(8000) = 0.02C though in reality the uncertainty is actually a bit higher a complex array of reasons. Most datasets report +/- 0.06C (2-sigma) for monthly anomalies.
> Do you live in a different time period
My comment is being written at a different time than when you read it, RLH. Time and space are interconnected. The actual debates are if we live in multiverses and if we live in 10 or 11 dimensions.
The point I’m trying to make is that you’re conflating reality with our representation of it. If we had direct access to reality, we would not need scientific theories in the first place.
Another way to make the point would be to appeal to your engineer background: a model is meant to be fit for purpose. you’re not designing a motherboard right now, not even a bridge. We’re trying to estimate temperatures over a 510M km square ship.
Unless and until you can show how all the margins of error you see everywhere all add up in the very same direction, you got no case.
“The 1-sigma uncertainty on a 2D temperature field probably is on the order of 1-2C for each cell.”
As I said before a point on a 2d plane at 1.5m above the surface does not correspond to the 3m thick layer of air next to the surface.
A point has no dimension, RLH.
Please advise.
RLH said: Warming trends are not the problem. The inherent accuracy of the data points they are based on is.
The change is temperature is the most important metric to track in the context of climate change.
Can you tell us more about your concern with accuracy here? Are you saying the warming trend itself is not accurate because you feel the data points are not accurate? Can you give us an example of an accuracy issue you want to discuss?
“The actual debates are if we live in multiverses and if we live in 10 or 11 dimensions.”
I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth. I prefer to think in polar around a point. That is how the world works in any case,
“Can you give us an example of an accuracy issue you want to discuss?”
The accuracy of using a 2d data point in a 2d surface to represent a 3d layer of air next to the surface. Both now and historically.
“Are you saying the warming trend itself is not accurate because you feel the data points are not accurate?”
Uncertainty not accuracy. They are different.
10.0001 centigrade +- 5 degrees centigrade can cover a range of options
> I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth.
Go on.
RLH said: As I said before a point on a 2d plane at 1.5m above the surface does not correspond to the 3m thick layer of air next to the surface.
First…it does actually. The point measurement is going to be highly correlated with the mass or volume weighted mean of the parcel of air surrounding the measurement site.
Second…it doesn’t matter here because we are not attempting to measure the mean using a 3D space here. We are measuring the mean in a 2D plane. The fact that the mean in the 3D space might be (and probably is) different than the mean on the 2D space is irrelevant because no one is inappropriately comparing or analyzing those two values as if they were the same thing.
BTW…you can probably use reanalysis to compute a mass or volume weighted mean of the 3m layer 3D space just above the surface. I know ERA5 provides the skin temperature, 2m temperature, and various other products that would allow you calculate the value you seem to be interested in.
“The point measurement is going to be highly correlated with the mass or volume weighted mean of the parcel of air surrounding the measurement site.”
With a range of uncertainty.
Thus 10.0001 +- 2.0 degrees. It is the later I question, not the former
“> I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth.
Go on.”
I believe that covered it
Yesterday’s article for present day summary of space-time history:
https://www.space.com/time-how-it-works?utm_source=notification
> I believe that covered it
The justification part is missing.
You could for instance say how that difference makes a difference, except for some kind of special pleading about 3D being the bestest way to portray the world.
Should I ditch my ruler because we now know that space is curved?
In a Cartesian world a point is represented as {{x,y,z}, t}
The is 3d with time added. T is NOT a forth dimension. It is a forward only vector
> In a Cartesian world
A point is often designated by an ordered pair, but is not itself that ordered pair. The ordered pair extends in 2D. The point represents an exact location in a space. It still has no length, width, or thickness.
“A point has no dimension, RLH.
Please advise”
A 3d point is represented as {x,y,z}
A 3d point with time is {{x,y,z} ,t}
t is a forward only vector unlike the others.
“It still has no length, width, or thickness.”
Straw man. I never said it did
“Thus 10.0001 +- 2.0 degrees. It is the later I question, not the former”
You can average the former by using many data points. You can never average the second.
> I never said it did
Here’s what you said:
“As I said before a point on a 2d plane at 1.5m above the surface does not correspond to the 3m thick layer of air next to the surface.”
If a point has no dimension, what are you measuring exactly?
“If a point has no dimension, what are you measuring exactly?”
The position of the point. Can you construe it otherwise?
As I said before a point positioned on a 2d plane at 1.5m above the surface does not correspond to a cube of the 3m thick layer of air next to the surface around that point.
Happier?
> Can you construe it otherwise?
Grids.
What does it mean to measure temperature of a position of that position is represented with a dimensionless entity?
At some point (pun intended) you need to project that position so that you can cover the area of interest without getting lost into the continuum.
Se above or do I need to repeat it?
“At some point (pun intended) you need to project that position so that you can cover the area of interest without getting lost into the continuum.”
At some point (pun) you need to recognize that accuracy does not effect uncertainty.
10.00001 +- 2.0 is an example
You can average the first by using multiple data points
You can never average the later
I don’t think anything you said solves that conceptual difficulty, RLH, as it reduces your quest for absolute accuracy to absurdity.
As far as temperatures are concerned, locations are represented with grid cells. Waving your arms about uncertainty won’t do anything about the fact that we need to choose a resolution that’s fit for purpose.
RLH said: The accuracy of using a 2d data point in a 2d surface to represent a 3d layer of air next to the surface. Both now and historically.
Let me explain it this way. If we want to know the temperature at a certain level then we only want to consider temperature readings on that level. If we include temperature readings from higher up or lower down then our mean no longer represents the mean just for that level. In that case the accuracy of our level mean temperature has been compromised.
Let me present you a scenario. The task is to determine the global mean temperature at 850 mb. How would YOU go about doing this?
“If we want to know the temperature at a certain level then we only want to consider temperature readings on that level. ”
Yup. With what uncertainty do you hold data points in that level?
You could have 2000 points of 10.0001 +- 2.0 degrees. How would you present a forward projection based on that data?
“I dont think anything you said solves that conceptual difficulty, RLH, as it reduces your quest for absolute accuracy to absurdity.”
Accuracy can always be improved. Uncertainty is more difficult.
If you have 5000 data points of 10.0001 +- 2.0 how would you deal with that? Assuming it was historic data.
RLH said: With what uncertainty do you hold data points in that level?
If you’re asking about the uncertainty on individual temperature observations I think it is on the order +/- 1C for near surface readings.
RLH said: You could have 2000 points of 10.0001 +- 2.0 degrees. How would you present a forward projection based on that data?
I have no idea what you mean by “forward projection”. Nobody is projecting anything forward here AFAIK.
Anyway, the mean of those 2000 points is 10.0001. The standard error of this mean is 2/sqrt(2000) = +/- 0.04C. Notice that it is FAR less than the +/- 2C for the individual points.
“If youre asking about the uncertainty on individual temperature observations I think it is on the order +/- 1C for near surface readings.”
So we finally have a figure at last. +-1C for uncertainty .
“Anyway, the mean of those 2000 points is 10.0001. ”
That provides the accuracy only. The uncertainty remains at +- 2.0C
> Accuracy can always be improved.
That’s the very point I tried to refute with my excursion on the notion of point, RLH. Mathematicians have access to more numbers than what metrologists need. Locations are abstractions, and this is a Good Thing.
RLH said: That provides the accuracy only. The uncertainty remains at +- 2.0C
No, the uncertainty, precision, or statistical error of the mean is +/- 0.04C as computed from the standard error of the mean formula. The accuracy, bias, or systematic error of the mean is unknown because the bias of the readings was not stated. If it can be shown that all of the individual readings had +1C bias then the accuracy of the mean is itself biased +1C as well. However, if the readings had different biases that fit a normal distribution then that can be modeled with the standard error of the mean formula as well. In other words, if the +/- 2C figure on each data point is in reference to both the precision and accuracy then the +/- 0.04C figure for the mean is for both the precision and accuracy as well. BTW, this just an idealized example. Real global mean temperature datasets require far more complex analysis for their potential errors.
“That’s the very point I tried to refute with my excursion on the notion of point, RLH. ”
Unless you can distinguish between accuracy and uncertainty you ave a lot to learn.
“No, the uncertainty, precision, or statistical error of the mean is +/- 0.04C as computed from the standard error of the mean formula.”
Uncertainty is not the same as precision, or the statistical error. They are 2 different things.
What do call the various parts of 10.00001 +- 2.0?
I call the first part accuracy. The second party uncertainty.
YMMV
“In general use, the words accuracy and uncertainty describe how sure we are of something, but when used in measurement their distinct meanings are well defined and it is important – even vital – to use the correct word.”
“Accuracy of measurement is the older phrase and its internationally agreed definition is ‘ the closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and a true value of the thing being measured’. The definition adds: ‘… accuracy is a qualitative concept’, so is often expressed as being high or low, but not with numbers.
In practice, though, it is often used quantitatively and the definition becomes ‘… the difference between a measured value and the true value’. This leads to phrases like ‘… accurate to X’. Unfortunately this unofficial definition breaks down because it inherently assumes that a true value can be defined, known and realised perfectly. Even in the finest national measurement laboratories, however, perfect values cannot be realised. It is simply impossible to define or make perfect measurements, neither nature or the laws of physics allow it.
Uncertainty of measurement acknowledges that no measurements can be perfect and is defined as a ‘ parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterises the dispersion of values that could reasonably be attributed to the thing being measured’. It is typically expressed as a range of values in which the value is estimated to lie, within a given statistical confidence. It does not attempt to define or rely on one unique true value.
In summary, common usage of the word accuracy for quantitatively describing the characteristics of measuring instruments, is incompatible with its official meaning. But, even ignoring this point, its common usage definition is significantly cruder than the proper metrological term”
“uncertainty.
Does the difference really matter?
In many situations the difference really doesn’t matter at all and it remains much easier to say ‘This instrument is accurate to’ rather than ‘This instrument is uncertain by’. Swapping convention might have been easier if the term was certainty and not uncertainty; but it isn’t! And an accurate device sounds more impressive than an uncertain one too, which is probably why much equipment sales literature uses the word accuracy.
In recent years, however, great strides have been made in developing methods for quantifying the performance of measuring instrumentation, which can be relatively complex for even a simple instrument. If you are attempting to make a serious estimate of measuring performance, and persuade others that the result is valid, you will have to use the philosophy of uncertainty, and its adoption from the outset is thoroughly recommended.”
https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/q-a/difference-accuracy-uncertaint
If you have 2000, 5000 or even 10,000 points of 10.00001C +/- 2.0C then the best you know is that they all lie within 12.00001C and 8.00001C.
Adding more points does not improve that.
Think of it as the thickness you draw a line on a graph. You can extend the line but it does not thin at all.
> Think of it as the thickness you draw a line on a graph.
Uncertainty is about knowledge, so the proper analogy would be your estimate that you draw the line where it should be.
Let me provide some real world context.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
Here Berkeley Earth presents two different global mean surface temperature time series.
Using air temperature above sea ice yields 14.106 +/- 0.018.
Using water temperature below sea ice yields 14.700 +/- 0.018.
These figures are the estimates of the absolute global mean surface from 1951-1980 using the two different methods.
14.106C and 14.700C are the measurements. We usually call the +/- 0.018 part the uncertainty. Unless otherwise noted the uncertainty is most analogous to the concept of “precision”. But look at the spread between 14.106C and 14.700C. Which one if either are “true”? If the former is “true” then the later has an error of +0.0594C and vice-versa. Of course neither are likely to be “true” so they both have some error in this regard. This is most analogous to the concept of “accuracy”.
But here’s the great thing about anomaly analysis. Whatever accuracy error there is will cancel out as long as that accuracy error is time invariant. We don’t care whether the planet was measured as 14.1C or 14.7C from 1951-1980. What we want to know is how much the planet warmed wrt to the 1951-1980 period. So as long as we use the same method for constructing the 1951-1980 baseline as we do for all of the months in the time series then the accuracy issue caused by sea ice becomes moot (with caveats).
RLH said: If you have 2000, 5000 or even 10,000 points of 10.00001C +/- 2.0C then the best you know is that they all lie within 12.00001C and 8.00001C.
OK. I see what you are doing. Your +/- 2C figure includes both precision and accuracy error.
Here’s the thing though. If both the precision and accuracy components are normally distributed then the standard error of the mean formula E = S/sqrt(N) applies for the uncertainty of the mean.
RLH said: Adding more points does not improve that.
But if you compute the mean more samples does improve upon the uncertainty of the mean.
In other words, computing an average using 10000 data points will have a lower uncertainty than had you used 2000 data points.
It is a pretty neat quirk of mathematics that averages or means have a lot tighter uncertainty envelopes than the individual constituents might naively lead you to believe.
“OK. I see what you are doing. Your +/- 2C figure includes both precision and accuracy error.”
If that is your terminology then yes.
My analogy with the line thickness on a graph best describes what I am saying. You cannot thin the line no matter how long you extend it.
The line will always be as thick as it has always been. Statistically or otherwise.
“In other words, computing an average using 10000 data points will have a lower uncertainty than had you used 2000 data points.”
What I call the accuracy may well do. Their distribution about that mean will remain the same though. At +/- 2c. What I call uncertainty.
New points or the analysis of old ones will still be +/- 2c.
That is the problem. You cannot statistically improve those observations. Past, present or future.
“Uncertainty is about knowledge, so the proper analogy would be your estimate that you draw the line where it should be.”
The accuracy of the placement of the center of the pen does not make the pen any thinner.
Uncertainty is still about how you estimate the relationship between the line you trace and the one you idealize.
Good carpenters know how to mark lines that will produce good result.
“Good carpenters know how to mark lines that will produce good result.”
What the heck does that have to do with the recording of a measurement on a imaginary 2d plane at 1.5m above the ground and its accuracy with regard to that measurement to the average air temperature of the 3d 3m cube of air surrounding that point?
And to clear things up, instrument error is NOT the same as measurement error.
bdgwx says: various things that kinda miss the point.
If you are saying that studies like GISS that deal with points on an imaginary 2d plane at 1.5m above a surface over time has only a passing relationship to a real world 3d volume of the air between 3m and that surface over the same time period I can only agree.
New points added to the GISS series will still have the same uncertainties as they always have had for the differences between those 2 viewpoints, a synthetic 2d one and a real 3d one.
Points 1.5 m above the surface are real. They exist. I promise.
A temperature reading in the center of a 3 m^3 parcel of air will be highly correlated with the mean temperature of that parcel regardless of what level it is at.
I want you to do an experiment. Using your thermometer measure the temperature outside in the shade at knee height, shoulder height, and above your head. Repeat this multiple times. Report your results. I’ll do it too if you want.
“Points 1.5 m above the surface are real. They exist. I promise.
A temperature reading in the center of a 3 m^3 parcel of air will be highly correlated with the mean temperature of that parcel regardless of what level it is at.
I want you to do an experiment. Using your thermometer measure the temperature outside in the shade at knee height, shoulder height, and above your head. Repeat this multiple times. Report your results. Ill do it too if you want.”
I have already on still nights in the mountains in a valley slope in Portugal.
You get somewhere between 1’s and 10’s of degrees difference between the various measurements.
As I have said many times, environmental context matters.
P.S. My toes were freezing but my face was warm
“Using your thermometer measure the temperature outside in the shade at knee height, shoulder height, and above your head.”
Do I get to decide the TOD and the environmental conditions?
OK. At night. With any combination of rain, frost, dew, snow, ice on the surface. And wind velocities between calm and force 10 in the air we are standing in.
We will need to add in at toe height to those heights as well.
As many combinations you can think of. Night, day, snowing, raining, windy, dry, humid, etc. Just make sure you shield your thermometer like how a station would be so that the readings are not contaminated.
“As many combinations you can think of. Night, day, snowing, raining, windy, dry, humid, etc.”
As I said. I have already done this in Portugal, at night, under calm conditions during Summer. There were considerable differences.
I should add wind shadow to free air to the list.
You obviously have not been out and about in those conditions. I have.
Please note the addition of toe height to the list of heights. That makes quite a difference
> What the heck does that have to do with the recording of a measurement on a imaginary 2d plane at 1.5m above the ground and its accuracy with regard to that measurement to the average air temperature of the 3d 3m cube of air surrounding that point?
The accuracy part, which you still conflate with uncertainty. Accuracy indicates how close are your measurements to the “true” value. Uncertainty estimates give you the same thing, but without the idea that you have a “true” value. The two concepts are related, but distinct.
And the carpenter reminds you that sometimes, a ruler and a pencil are good enough to make clean cuts.
What you are saying is tat the air temperature profile over the bottom 3m is not effected by environmental conditions at the surface and in the 3m band.
I beg to differ as would any engineer or scientist also.
“And the carpenter reminds you that sometimes, a ruler and a pencil are good enough to make clean cuts.”
Try that outside in the rain and see how well your cuts go.
> Try that outside in the rain and see how well your cuts go.
Been there. Done that.
You know, there’s a saying around here and probably everywhere: “you can remove, but you can’t add wood.” Good carpenters measure twice, thrice or more. They also give themselves some room for error. That way they work at a slower but steadier pace.
Humans know that trick for a while now. The expression “festina lente” is still around. It’s even a name for a limit in physics.
“Been there. Done that.”
But obviously not notice the difference between face and feet under a wide range of environmental conditions such as the ones we are discussing.
> not notice the difference between face and feet
How charming.
You brought the line. I happen to know how to draw and measure them. It’s obvious to anyone who can do that you’re suffering from “the best is the enemy of the good” syndrome.
Another High Expectation Auditor.
Just stating facts you appear to be prepared to overlook
What is the air temperature profile from surface to 3m under the wide range of environmental conditions we have been discussing, on the surface and in the 3m band of air?
Are you seriously claiming that it is a straight line?
You’re not stating facts, RLH. You’re indulging in what I call incredibilism:
http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/
When you take your body temperature, do you ask yourself the same silly questions?
“When you take your body temperature, do you ask yourself the same silly questions?”
My body is bounded by a skin which limits the temperature variations.
A 3m band of air is not so easily bounded.
The same logic applies to bands of air, latitudes, cities, etc.
When we say that it’s 24C in Toronto, do you really think that it’s 24C in every single location of Toronto?
At some point you will need to tackle bdgwx’ idea that errors tend to cancel out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-699766
RLH said: As I said. I have already done this in Portugal, at night, under calm conditions during Summer. There were considerable differences.
Differences…absolutely. In fact, if you go to the following site you can see the 2m and skin temperature differences at least here in the United States for every hour over the last couple of days as analyzed by HRRR. Just find the “2m temp – skin temp” product and click on hour 0 for the analysis. You’ll see for some hours of the day there is dramatic difference easily exceeding 10C in some cases. Note that “skin temp” is the temperature within 1 cm of the surface.
https://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/HRRRnew/Welcome.cgi?dsKey=hrrr_ncep_jet&domain=full
Correlation…absolutely. What you will find is that despite the difference there is high correlation between the temperature at 2m and the temperature at the skin or even at 850 mb. In fact, you can easily predict the skin or 850 mb temperature with reasonable skill given only the 2m temperature and the hour of the day. This is what I mean by when I say the temperature in the center of the air parcel is highly correlated with the average temperature of that parcel.
So it would neat if you could put your observations into Excel and then do an =RSQ(temp1range, temp2range) and see what you get.
“At some point you will need to tackle bdgwx’ idea that errors tend to cancel out”
Limits are not the same as averages. Neither is the presumption that the center is the average.
“This is what I mean by when I say the temperature in the center of the air parcel is highly correlated with the average temperature of that parcel.”
What I am claiming is that the air temperature profile over the bottom 3m is not a straight line. Which you appear to admit is the case.
It has a variance to it which you seen to be prepared to ignore. I am not prepared to do so.
> Limits are not the same as averages.
Measurements are measurements.
Mode is usually considered a better choice than mean in statistical analysis in physics
“Measurements are measurements.”
And statistic are statistics.
Do you understand the differences?
You quote mean when you should be quoting mode. And distribution curves and confidence intervals.
Physics is big.
High Expectation Auditors usually go long on medians.
“Physics is big.”
Yup. And Engineers know the difference between mode and mean and rarely confuse the two.
And ninjas can spot BS artists who have not done any reading:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2012/08/statistical-homogenisation-for-dummies.html
“And ninjas can spot BS artists who have not done any reading”
But not able to consider if bringing in other topics that are not related to the temperature curve in the last 3m of air above the surface are relevant apparently.
So after all you have done in this conversation is to bring up irrelevant topics that are not on point to the discussion.
If memory serves well, dear RLH, I showed that you misunderstand what it means for a point to be dimensionless, misapply uncertainty and accuracy, and now are waving your arms about how climate scientists don’t know an elementary statistical notion without having done any kind of reading whatsoever.
While exposing your ignorance does not meet your High Expectation Auditor demands, it serves a purpose that I find worthwhile.
“If memory serves well, dear RLH, I showed that you misunderstand what it means for a point to be dimensionless”
Straw man. I never said a point has dimensions. Only it has a position in 3d space. If that be {x,y,z} or {r,a,z}.
That last should be {r, θ, φ} according to ISO 80000-2:2019
You can’t make this up:
[VLAD] A point on a 2d plane at 1.5m above the surface does not correspond to the 3m thick layer of air next to the surface.
[ESTR] If a point has no dimension, what are you measuring exactly?
[VLAD] The position of the point. Can you construe it otherwise?
[ESTR] Grids.
That’s when you deflected to accuracy.
YHour ability to misconstrue simple English continues I see
“[VLAD] A point on a 2d plane at 1.5m above the surface does not correspond to the 3m thick layer of air next to the surface.”
A virtual point on a 2d plane at 1.5m above the surface does not correspond to the 3d, 3m thick layer of air next to the surface.”
“[ESTR] If a point has no dimension, what are you measuring exactly?”
Its position
[VLAD] The position of the point. Can you construe it otherwise?
As I said
[ESTR] Grids.
That’s when you deflected to accuracy.”
Grids are defined in {x,z,z} form typically. I thought that was well understood.
Grids occur in {r, θ, φ} from too. You may know that as {Lat, Long}
Think of grid cells as Las Vegas cells: what happens in it, stays in it. I think it’s safe to say that climate scientists know about resolution:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/airs-and-amsu-tropospheric-air-temperature-and-specific-humidity
“Think of grid cells as Las Vegas cells: what happens in it, stays in it.”
The actual figures that represent each cell in any grid depend on a lot more than simple means of 1.5m point(s) in it. There is a lot of statistics too. Mostly environmental As I have been saying rather a lot.
You’ve been insinuating lots of stuff alright, RLH.
Tell me when you can provide evidence to support precise and accurate claims.
To aid those reading the AIRS figures, Standard sea level pressure is 1013 hPa
“Tell me when you can provide evidence to support precise and accurate claims.”
In my terms (and many others too) accuracy is the 1st part of the 10.0001 +/- 2.0C figure. Uncertainty is the 2nd part.
“Even modern digital weather stations still only have a +/- 0.5C uncertainty. This includes the Argos floats.”
“temporal resolutions (daily, 8-day, monthly)”
So what. Temporal resolutions do not alter individual figures. The thermostat in my house has been running for years. The current temperature still varies +/- 2.0 degrees or so.
ARGO floats are +/- 0.002C. At least for the water probe. The air probe is likely different and higher error.
Usually the +/- part is the precision.
I know most surface station instruments get calibrated physically every year so their accuracy should be good. They’ll still have several tenths of degree of precision error though.
RLH,
The temperature in your home will vary quite a bit. Even old mechanical thermostats will overshot the setpoint. This is intentional to prevent rapid cycling the HVAC. Modern electronic thermostats will likely use PID loop logic that will also overshoot the setpoint. Mine also has humidity control that will cause up to 4F of overshoot. Nevermind that the sensor like has at least +/- 1C of precision error in addition to whatever its accuracy error is. My unit has a calibration screen that allows you to correct the accuracy error.
> So what.
“I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth.”
“ARGO floats are +/- 0.002C. At least for the water probe. The air probe is likely different and higher error.
Usually the +/- part is the precision.”
Precision of an instrument is not the same as precision of the measurements that it takes. There are multiple factors that determine that. You are confusing the error of an instrument with the error of a reading.
“I know most surface station instruments get calibrated physically every year so their accuracy should be good. Theyll still have several tenths of degree of precision error though.”
Again you are confusing the r=error in an instrument with an error in the reading it gives for the 3m cube or air surrounding it.
“I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth”
If you don’t get that {{x,y,z}, t} means that the 4th variable is not dimensionally the same as the first 3 then I despair for you.
“Nevermind that the sensor like has at least +/- 1C of precision error in addition to whatever its accuracy error is. ”
The average (mean or mode) temperature of my house will be more accurate the longer I take readings of it. The range over which it moves will be unaffected by that (other than aging of the sensor).
That is what you need to address
> The average (mean or mode)
“The mean (average) of a data set is found by adding all numbers in the data set and then dividing by the number of values in the set. The median is the middle value when a data set is ordered from least to greatest. The mode is the number that occurs most often in a data set.”
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/cc-sixth-grade-math/cc-6th-data-statistics/mean-and-median/v/statistics-intro-mean-median-and-mode
“The mean (average) of a data set is found by adding all numbers in the data set and then dividing by the number of values in the set. The median is the middle value when a data set is ordered from least to greatest. The mode is the number that occurs most often in a data set.”
You tell me this like it is something I do not know already? Median = mode in fractional numbers you know
Sorted out the difference between instrument error (like it says on the side of the box it came in) and measurement error of a single point in a 3d, 3m cube of air it resides in yet?
“Mean is the most frequently used measure of central tendency and generally considered the best measure of it. However, there are some situations where either median or mode are preferred.
Median is the preferred measure of central tendency when:
a). There are a few extreme scores in the distribution of the data. (NOTE: Remember that a single outlier can have a great effect on the mean).
b). There are some missing or undetermined values in your data.
c). There is an open ended distribution (For example, if you have a data field which measures number of children and your options are
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 or more, than the 6 or more field is open ended and makes calculating the mean impossible, since we do not know exact values for this field).
d). You have data measured on an ordinal scale.
Mode is the preferred measure when data are measured in a nominal ( and even sometimes ordinal) scale.”
“Interval data is like ordinal except we can say the intervals between each value are equally split. The most common example is temperature in degrees”
> Median is the preferred measure of central tendency when
As I said earlier:
“High Expectation Auditors usually go long on medians.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-700454
If you want to take weight into account, go mean.
If you want weightless, take median.
Median is the preferred choice if the data contains outliers or if you are unsure as to if the data is skewed or not. Mean only works for unskewed data.
Sorted out the difference between instrument error and measurement error yet?
Mean = median = mode on unskewed data, so median is always the correct choice in these forms of statistics.
> Median is the preferred choice if the data contains outliers or if you are unsure as to if the data is skewed or not.
Those who put their money where their mouth is still use moving averages, RLH.
You can use both for all I care. The more the merrier.
“Those who put their money where their mouth is still use moving averages, RLH.”
Ah but which averages are those? Mean, median or mode? All are averages. In statistics, only 1 is the correct choice without prior knowledge of how the data is going to be distributed, as a normal distribution or something else.
You really ought to think before you write.
Sorted out the difference between instrument error and measurement error yet?
Europas (Jupiters satellite) Mean Surface Temperature Calculation
Tmean.europa
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Europas albedo: aeuropa = 0,63
Europa is an ice-crust planet (rocky) without atmosphere, Europas surface irradiation accepting factor Φeuropa = 0,47
Europas surface consists of water ice crust
Cp.europa = 1cal/gr*oC
1/R = 1/5,2044 = 0,0369 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Jupiter than that on Earth, the same on its satellite Europa.
Europas orbital period is 3,5512 d
Europas sidereal rotation period is synchronous
N = 1/3,5512 rotation /day
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Europas mean surface temperature equation Tmean.europa is:
Tmean.europa = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.europa = { 0,47(1-0,63)1.362 W/m *0.0369*[150* (1/3,5512)*1]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴}∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.europa = 99,557 K
Tsat.mean.europa = 102 K (- 171 oC)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Earth / Europa (Jupiter’s moon) satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison
All the data below are satellite measurements. All the data below are observations.
Planet.Earth.Europa
Tsat.mean 288 K.102 K
R………..1 AU5,2044 AU
1/R1.0,0369
N….10,28159 rot./day
a..0,3060,63
(1-a)0,6940,37
coeff…0,9127…0,3158
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1-a) (1/R) (N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R)*(N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,694 * 1 * 1 )∕ ⁴ = 0,9127
Europa:
Tsat.mean = 102 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R)*(N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,37*0,0369*(1/3,5512)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴ = 0,3158
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. /Europa coeff. =
= 0.9127 /0,3158 = 2,8902
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.europa =
= 288 K /102 K = 2,8235
Conclusion:
We could successfully compare Earth /Europa ( 288 K /102 K ) satellite measured mean surface temperatures because both Earth and Europa have two identical major features.
Φearth = 0,47 because Earth has a smooth surface and Φeuropa = 0,47 because Europa also has a smooth surface.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*C, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
Europa is an ice-crust planet without atmosphere, Europas surface consists of water ice crust, cp.europa = 1cal/gr*C.
And
Planets satellite measured mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as planet (N*cp) product sixteenth root.
Earth / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 210 K comparison
These ( Tmean, R, N, cp and albedo ) planets’ parameters are all satellites measured.
These planets’ parameters are all observations.
Planet…..Earth…..Mars
Tsat.mean..288 K…..210 K
R………..1..AU….1,525 AU
1/R……..1……..0,430
N………..1……..0,9747
cp……….1……..0,18
a………0,306……0,250
1-a…….0,694……0,75
coeff…….1…….0,72748
As we can see Earth and Mars have very close (1-a); for Earth 0,694 and for Mars 0,75.
Also Earth and Mars have very close N; for Earth N = 1 rotation /day, and for Mars N = 0,9747 rotation /day.
Earth and Mars both have the same Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor.
Thus the comparison coefficient can be limited as follows:
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1/R) (cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1/R)*(cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 1*(1)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴ = 1
Mars:
Tsat.mean = 210 K
[ (1/R)*(cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,430*(0,18)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴ = ( 0,430*0,65136 )∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,2801 )∕ ⁴ = 0,72748
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars =
= 288 K /210 K = 1,3714
Conclusion:
Everything is all right. Everything is based on observations in the comparison coefficient
[ (1/R) (cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
And
Planets satellite measured mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as planet (N*cp) product sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction
In the above 4 comments instead of (1/R) it should read (1/R)^2
And instead of (W/m) it should read (W/m^2)
Also instead of (…) ∕ ⁴ it should read (…)^1/4
Thank you
Christos Vournas
As long as you don’t come out with a physical explanation for the use of the product ‘ Φ (1-a) ‘ instead of using an appropriate average of the two factors, your endlessly repeated calculation sequences remain useless.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
Φ is planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor
Φ varies between 0,47 and 1
(Accepted by a Smooth surface planet with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r^2(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
For planets with rough surface Φ = 1
Φ is a planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient
There are planets with Φ = 0,47 and there are planets with Φ = 1.
(Accepted by a Rough surface planet with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r^2(1-a), where Φ = 1)
Bindidon
> “instead of using an appropriate average of the two factors”
Bindidon, Φ cannot be averaged, because there are different physical properties the planets surfaces have. Some planets have surface which capture the incident solar flux – those planets reflect only diffusely.
Other planets have surface which allows solar flux to slide off – those planets reflect diffusely and specularly.
Christos Vournas
” Bindidon, Φ cannot be averaged, because there are different physical properties the planets surfaces have. Some planets have surface which capture the incident solar flux – those planets reflect only diffusely.
Other planets have surface which allows solar flux to slide off – those planets reflect diffusely and specularly. ”
*
That does by no means allow you to artificially construct a product of these two reactions to solar incidence factors.
*
Instead of endlessly filling this blog with your personal thoughts, you should be a bit more courageous, and present your ‘ideas’ to a broader community.
Should you be afraid of peer review (what Pseudoskeptics anyway denigrate), so you might begin with a guest post at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
But… be careful: many commenters there are Skeptics, but not Pseudoskeptics!
That means, some of them know a lot, and could certainly take your arguments apart right down to the bottom.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
> “That does by no means allow you to artificially construct a product of these two reactions to solar incidence factors.”
To this point you make some sense…
Bindidon!
What is this… are you addressing to me all this…
Instead of endlessly filling this blog with your personal thoughts, you should be a bit more courageous, and present your ‘ideas’ to a broader community.
Should you be afraid of peer review (what Pseudoskeptics anyway denigrate), so you might begin with a guest post at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
But… be careful: many commenters there are Skeptics, but not Pseudoskeptics!
That means, some of them know a lot, and could certainly take your arguments apart right down to the bottom.
Bindidon
Φ is planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor
Φ varies between 0,47 and 1
(Accepted by a Smooth surface planet with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r^2(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
For planets with rough surface Φ = 1
Φ is a planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient
There are planets with Φ = 0,47 and there are planets with Φ = 1.
(Accepted by a Rough surface planet with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r^2(1-a), where Φ = 1)
Bindidon
> “instead of using an appropriate average of the two factors”
Bindidon, Φ cannot be averaged, because there are different physical properties the planets surfaces have. Some planets have surface which capture the incident solar flux – those planets reflect only diffusely.
Other planets have surface which allows solar flux to slide off – those planets reflect diffusely and specularly.
Bindidon, I had to write it again, because it did not show properly.
Planets have different surface properties. Planets cannot be averaged – they are different Planets!
“Planets cannot be averaged they are different Planets! ”
You are applying the same Ncp calculation to a number of planets and moons.
It would be interesting to see a plot of Ncp against temperature.
If your relationship is sound, you would some correalation.
If it is unsound you would see a low r scatter.
Entropic man, thank you for asking.
> “You are applying the same Ncp calculation to a number of planets and moons.
It would be interesting to see a plot of Ncp against temperature.
If your relationship is sound, you would some correlation.”
Entropic man,
What I have in a separate page in my site is the following. Please visit and tell me your opinion…
Tsat/Te without Φ
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589399740293._szw1280h1280_.jpg
and
Tsat/Te with Φ
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589399740246._szw1280h1280_.jpg
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589399740131._szw1280h1280_.jpg
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448752897
No correlation between Ncp and temperature until you include phi.
You still haven’t described how you derive phi.
I’m beginning to think phi is a fiddle factor you’ve invented to force a correct prediction when there is actually none.
Please tell me that you didn’t calculate the temperature of each object without phi. You then assigned a value of phi which made the temperature prediction match observation.
That would make your whole argument logically circular and therefore meaningless.
Entropic man
> “No correlation between Ncp and temperature until you include phi.”
Yes, without phi there is no correlation when we have both groups together… But there still is a good correlation for the group of (6) the smooth surface planets and moons…
> “You still havent described how you derive phi.”
The very first thing I found was the phi.
When realizing smooth surface planets cannot absorb the entire incident (less albedo) on the cross-section disk solar flux, since the flux is hitting a hemisphere and not a disk… The flux is not perpendicular to the spheres surface… it was obvious to me from the very beginning… it was not possible.
There are no publications on the parallel light hitting sphere, I could not find any, it is a yet an uncharted area in science.
So I looked in the parallel flow of liquids for Reynolds number
(Re < 10000) for the drag coefficient for smooth sphere, and it was there the 0,47.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
I had no choice, but to embrace the 0,47 and it proved to be the right one.
When two years ago (Feb. 2019) I had my New formula calculating every planet in solar system, I had that dilemma…
There are two new terms to explain… too much. I could have hidden the phi in the constant Betta and present a group of the six planets, (Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa and Ganymede).
The phenomenon (N*cp) we witnessing is universal for all the planets in the solar system, so I could not omit the rest of the planets and moons in favor of the easy way…
Thus here I am, with phi and (N*cp)
Phi is a term in the left side, the Energy in
(N*cp) is a term in the right side, the Energy out
Christos Vournas
” What is this… are you addressing to me all this… ”
Yes.
Go on, Mr Vournas, prewent your thoughts to people knowing a lot of what you guess being right, and come back to us with the result.
J.-P. D.
“There are no publications on the parallel light hitting sphere, I could not find any, it is a yet an uncharted area in science.
So I looked in the parallel flow of liquids for Reynolds number
(Re < 10000) for the drag coefficient for smooth sphere, and it was there the 0,47".
This has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve read on this blog, and there have been some serious contenders posted just this month.
The Reynold’s Number is, generally speaking, a dimensionless quantity used to establish whether the flow of a Newtonian fluid is in the laminar or turbulent regime. Using it as justification for fudging the Earth’s Bond albedo by 0.47 is just plain incompetent.
This is truly short-bus, brain damaged people stuff!
TM,
No, the stupidest thing on this blog is the belief that CO2 can sometimes make some thermometers in some places hotter or colder, through the magic of something called a “GHE” which nobody can actually describe!
As you say “This is truly short-bus, brain damaged people stuff!”.
TYSON
> “This has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve read on this blog, and there have been some serious contenders posted just this month.
The Reynold’s Number is, generally speaking, a dimensionless quantity used to establish whether the flow of a Newtonian fluid is in the laminar or turbulent regime. Using it as justification for fudging the Earth’s Bond albedo by 0.47 is just plain incompetent.
This is truly short-bus, brain damaged people stuff!”
Well,
…Using it as justification for fudging the Earth’s Bond albedo by 0.47 is just plain incompetent.
…for fudging the Earth’s Bond albedo…
…fudging…
Thank you TYSON
TYSON
> “The Reynolds Number is, generally speaking, a dimensionless quantity used to establish whether the flow of a Newtonian fluid is in the laminar or turbulent regime. Using it as justification for fudging the Earths Bond albedo by 0.47 is just plain incompetent.”
TYSON, the 0,47 is not a Reynolds number itself.
The 0,47 is the drag coefficient for a smooth sphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
Now, pay close attention you frigging idiot. I never said the 0.47 is the Reynold’s number.
I said that YOU ARE USING IT TO JUSTIFY fudging the Earth’s Bond albedo by a factor of 0.47; capisce?
Furthermore, what does a drag coefficient have to do with the interaction of EM radiation with matter? Nothing, that’s what.
TYSON
It is you said
> “This is truly short-bus, brain damaged people stuff!
Also you said
> “…pay close attention you frigging idiot.”
And you asking
> “Furthermore, what does a drag coefficient have to do with the interaction of EM radiation with matter?”
It is a good question from someone who understands physics, compares evidences and wonders why it is happening.
Lets try and find it together…
First – it is a coefficient, and the flow is parallel, and the shape is sphere – so we see an analogue here…
Listen, the drag coefficient, a.k.a. the friction coefficient, is a proportionality constant between the kinetic force and the product of the characteristic area of a submerged object times the kinetic energy of the flowing fluid.
I surmise that in your analogy the flowing fluid is a stream of EM energy packets moving at the speed of light. The friction coefficient is a function of Reynold’s number which in turn is a function of fluid velocity, density and viscosity.
Your analogy breaks down when attempting to calculate a Reynold’s number.
Note that the proportionality described above is not a law of fluid dynamics but only a definition of the friction coefficient.
TYSON
I agree with what you are saying. Also I see in Wikipedia:
“The drag coefficient of any object comprises the effects of the two basic contributors to fluid dynamic drag: skin friction and form drag.”
TYSON, two years ago, when realizing it…
When realizing smooth surface planets cannot absorb the entire incident (less albedo) on the cross-section disk solar flux, since the flux is hitting a hemisphere and not a disk The flux is not perpendicular to the spheres surface it was obvious to me from the very beginning it was not possible.
So I grabbed the 0,47 and moved further forward in my search. The 0,47 number worked the way a drag coefficient for the fluid-EM parallel flow hitting on a smooth sphere (planet).
The rest fitted perfectly.
Also, I have planets and moons calculated without the 0,47 coefficient. For them Φ = 1 .
Example:
Ios (Jupiters satellite) Mean Surface Temperature Calculation
Tmean.io
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Ios albedo: aio = 0,63
Io is a rocky planet without atmosphere heavy cratered, Ios surface irradiation accepting factor Φio = 1
Most of Io’s surface is composed of sulfur and sulfur dioxide frost.
Cp.sulfur = 0,17 cal/gr.oC, Cp.sulfur.dioxide = 0,12 cal/gr.oC
cp.io = 0,17 cal/gr.oC *0,5 + 0,12 cal/gr.oC *0,5 =
cp.io = 0,145 cal/gr.oC
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
1/R = 1/5,2044 = 0,0369 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Jupiter than that on Earth, the same on its satellite Io.
Ios orbital period is 1,799 days. Ios sidereal rotation period is synchronous.
N = 1/1,799 rotations/per day
IO’S MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION Tmean.io is:
Tmean.io = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.io = { 1*(1-0,63)1.361 W/m *0.0369*[150*(1/1,799)*0,145]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ }∕ ⁴ = 111,55 K
Tmean.io = 111,55 K is the calculated
And the satellite measured is almost identical
Tsat.mean.io = 110 K (- 163 oC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28moon%29
Christos Vournas at 7:59 AM
It is wrong to use the Earth’s solar constant (~1361 W/m^2) for this calculation since Io is over five times the distance from the Sun as Earth.
TYSON
I used in calculation the distance square inverse law:
1/R^2 = 1/5,2044^2 = 0,0369 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Jupiter than that on Earth, the same on its satellite Io.
1361 W/m^2 * 0,0369 = 50,33 W/m^2
I retract my comment at 8:24 AM since I see that you correct for 1/R.
Still, I’m not interested in the surface temperature of Io.
What planet surface temperature you are interested in?
Christos Vournas at 8:56 AM
I only care about Earth, unless you want to talk about Lunar Solar Power.
I see you posting all these eqs. that I never read. I wish you’d make your point in words because eqs. on this site seldom convey the message intended due to formatting issues.
TYSON
One more eqs. and then I will try with words. It is different when one speaks its native language.
Earth / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 210 K comparison
These ( Tmean, R, N, cp and albedo ) planets’ parameters are all satellites measured.
These planets’ parameters are all observations.
Planet….Earth….Mars
Tsat.mean..288 K…210 K
R……….1..AU…1,525 AU
1/R…….1…….0,430
N……….1…….0,9747
cp………1…….0,18
a……..0,306…..0,250
1-a……0,694…..0,75
coeff…….1….0,72748
As we can see Earth and Mars have very close (1-a); for Earth 0,694 and for Mars 0,75.
Also Earth and Mars have very close N; for Earth N = 1 rotation /day, and for Mars N = 0,9747 rotation /day.
Earth and Mars both have the same Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor.
Thus the comparison coefficient can be limited as follows:
Comparison coefficient calculation
[(1/R^2) (cp)∕ ⁴]∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1/R^2)*(cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 1*(1)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴ = 1
Mars:
Tsat.mean = 210 K
[ (1/R^2)*(cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,430*(0,18)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴ = ( 0,430*0,65136 )∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,2801 )∕ ⁴ = 0,72748
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars =
= 288 K /210 K = 1,3714
TYSON
It is obvious, one can calculate Earth’s mean surface temperature by simply multiplying Mars’ satellite measured mean surface temperature by the comparison coefficient.
Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
Tmean.earth = Tmean.mars*1,3746 = 210 K * 1,3746 = 288,7 K
Very close!
TYSON
Two years ago (Feb. 2019) I made an effort to theoretically calculate planet without atmosphere mean surface temperature. The results were beyond any expectations…
I checked the formula on the Earth case in order to estimate the greenhouse effect influence on the Earth mean surface temperature and suddenly it came out there is none. Or it is very small so it does not show in the theoretical estimation calculations.
Surely not the 33 oC.
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon – planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
The phi = 0,47 or = 1 permitted to estimate correctly for the every planet the Energy in which is the IR emitted Energy out.
Having correctly estimated the energy in and having the Rotational warming phenomenon implied, the universal constant was derived. The formula calculating planet mean surface temperature was ready.
This formula calculates theoretically the planet mean surface radiative temperature. (The so called base line) The real Earth’s mean surface temperature, I think, should be somehow higher, because of the atmosphere winds and ocean streams effect.
TYSON, what I am trying is to make these few simple things to become known…
Christos Vournas at 11:09 AM
Maybe it’s a language barrier, but I think you are saying that in your calculations the Earth radiates to space like a black body at 288K.
TYSON
>Maybe its a language barrier, but I think you are saying that in your calculations the Earth radiates to space like a black body at 288K.
Not exactly the classical blackbody uniform temperature.
For Earth and other planets the mean surface temperature is the average surface temperature.
Earth radiates on every infinitesimal spot as a blackbody radiating at the spots temperature fourth power.
When integrated over the entire sphere surface the total planet IR Jemit:
Jemit = 4pi*r^2*sigma*288^4 /(Betta*N*cp)^1/4 W
where 288 K is the planet average temperature (it looks “behaves” like uniform, but it is the average temperature in this equation)
I am risking to copy-paste below here from the original:
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πrΦ*S*(1-a) = 4πrσTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Christos Vournas at 1:54 PM
And what is your calculated Jemit?
Also to be clear, you no longer justify the 0.47 fudge factor as a drag coefficient which in turn is a function of Reynold’s number, right?
TYSON
> “And what is your calculated Jemit?”
Φ*S*(1-a) = 0,47*1361W/m^2*(1 – 0,306) = 444 W/m^2
πr^2Φ*S*(1-a) = πr^2*444 W = Jemit.earth total
> “Also to be clear, you no longer justify the 0.47 fudge factor as a drag coefficient which in turn is a function of Reynold’s number, right?”
There is also the wave-corpuscular EM theory. EM wave when striking matter materializes… and behaves as a parallel corpuscular flow…
How to calculate the Reynold’s number in this case… but the flow is parallel and the shape is spherical.
0,47 is the right planet spherical shape and roughness coefficient. And it works.
Moon receives 30% more solar energy than Earth because of the smaller albedo.
But Earth is on average a warmer than Moon planet. Earth is warmer on average because Earth (N*cp) product is 155,3 times higher than Moon (N*cp) product.
TYSON,
Here is from Wikipedia
“Specular reflection from a body of water is calculated by the Fresnel equations.[6] Fresnel reflection is directional and therefore does not contribute significantly to albedo which primarily diffuses reflection.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectance#Hemispherical_reflectance
Also I invite you to visit a page in my site where I have calculated the water-earth total specular reflection based on the Fresnel reflection.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448587170
Is someone ever going to publish a Climate Model ANOVA Table? As any other science for the evidence supporting the conclusion and they will start with their ANOVA Table. They reason they won’t publish an ANOVA Table is because it will rule out CO2 as the cause.
Click on the link, Life.
I know you want it:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=climate+model+anova
Nice try Williard. Simply publish the ANOVA Table for a Climate Model.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif-Brottem-2/publication/256053642/figure/tbl3/AS:668567280295948@1536410269753/Extra-sum-of-squares-test-Full-sample.png
Note how:
1) The variables are listed
2) The significance of the variable is listed
3) The significance of the model is listed
4) The Model Adj-R^2 is published
Why is it so hard for everyone to copy and paste a Climate Model ANOVA Table?
co2…”Why is it so hard for everyone to copy and paste a Climate Model ANOVA Table?”
Strikes me as a bit of idiocy to provide adjustments/corrections to guestimates. It’s moving toward lunacy to take statistics as a real, physical science.
Modelers need to focus on understanding physics. As it stands they have completely botched the theory of positive feedback and thermodynamics. If they got both right, they would not have the ridiculous warming they are predicting.
> Simply publish
I won’t make you that sammich unless there’s a reward, Life. I offered you one.
Your itch, you scratch it.
Wayward Wee Willy,
More offers? More prepubescent “sammich” stupidity?
More inanity, crypticism and obscurity?
“Your itch, you scratch it.”?
All signs that Weak Willy isn’t having much luck getting too many rational people to dance to his discordant cacophony!
How about you aim for total incomprehensibility? You don’t need to pretend to be an idiot – you demonstrate that no pretence is necessary.
Got any more warnings, threats, or offers?
Ho, ho, ho!
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“More offers?”
I already told you that there was only one offer on the table.
You’re not very good at this.
Witless Wee Willy,
In what alternate universe do you think I value your opinion about what I am good at?
Do you really think that anybody values your worthless opinion?
How many people have benefitted from your “offer” fantasies? You might be delusional, but at least you are stupid!
You are getting desperate, Limp Willy, reduced to this sort of thing –
“Click on the link, Life.
I know you want it:”
No justification. No reason. Just someone desperately trying to appear important and powerful.
If you have something relevant to contribute, why not just do it?
Because you are an incompetent idiot, that’s why!
Mike Flynn,
There’s no evidence you value anything.
Enjoy your afternoon.
WifflingWeeWilly,
Tell me again why anyone should care what you think.
[Laughs]
<3
Complaining about “prepubescent stupidity” would carry a lot more weight if it weren’t coming from some writing “prepubescent” comments like
“Wee Willy” (54 times!)
“Self styled “climatologists” ”
“idiot/idiots/idiotic”
“Boo hoo. Poor, sad, dejected Binny!”
“laughing at your impotence”
and so many more it is not worth checking. You lost all credibility on this point, long ago!
Willard, Tim, please stop trolling.
Willard, dodging the question doesn’t answer the question. You passionately believe in this CO2 drives warming nonsense. You believe that nonsense without the evidence required by any real science. You simply believe. I’ve offered you a way to make your case with real scientific statistical evidence and you failed to do it. You will continue to fail to provide that evidence. The reason you will never produce an ANOVA Table is because it will expose CO2 as a fraud.
Life,
You keep pretending you care about a question you won’t research by yourself. You got a link. Click on it. It should take you less than 15 minutes.
Or take the bet and I’ll show you how it’s done.
CO2isLife
” The reason you will never produce an ANOVA Table is because it will expose CO2 as a fraud. ”
Here you behave one more time like a little, whining child.
You were proposed lots of ways to look how ANOVA is used in the context of climate models, but you are simply too lazy to inspect their documents and produced data.
That is namely a hard job!
*
It’s not so long time ago that you stupidly claimed about the lack of warming at surface stations being a proof for the nonexistence of any CO2 effect.
Then you tried the Antarctic, and failed again, because it is so cold there that the CO2 effect can’t be quantified there.
Then you tried the R^2 trick.
And now, you try this ridiculous ANOVA trick…
How woeful.
Don’t you understand that
– your stoopid trials to explain the lack of CO2 effect are as simple and trivial and useless
as are
– the stoopid trials like coin, merry-go-round and ball-on-a-string to explain the lack of lunar spin?
Don’t you REALLY get that?
J.-P. D.
Willard, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
entropic…”Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.
Archimedes”
How’s things going in Boris Hitler’s concentration camp?
I wonder if Archimedes knew the Earth was moving at a speed of over 100,000 km/h. He would have needed a platform moving alongside at the same velocity to get his lever under the Earth.
Only engineers notice these details, which may have led to a verse in the Engineering song:
Godiva was a lady
who through Coventry did ride,
To show the local villagers
her lovely bare, white hide,
The most observant villager,
and engineer, of course,
Was the only one to notice,
that Godiva rode a horse.
ps. been to Coventry….Binley too. Had a pint, or two, in the Binley Legion.
Engineers do have an unusual view of the world, too easily distracted by irrelevant detail, which is why they should not be allowed out without a keeper.
https://www.flixxy.com/little-red-riding-hood-for-engineers.htm
Classic.
In the legend Lady Godiva rode naked through Coventry as the price for her husband reducing their taxes.
The people had the good grace not to look, except for Peeping Tom. Your engineer was a graceless voyeur.
binny…”Go on, Mr Vournas, prewent your thoughts to people knowing a lot of what you guess being right, and come back to us with the result”.
Take your own advice rather than presenting (prewenting???)your amateurish statistical theory and bad graphs to us.
christos…”Bindidon!
What is this are you addressing to me all this
Instead of endlessly filling this blog with your personal thoughts, you should be a bit more courageous, and present your ‘ideas’ to a broader community”.
***
Binny thinks he runs this blog. If he had his way, everyone would be banned so he could present his pseudo-science uninterrupted.
A couple of years ago he became so angry with us that he said good-bye, that he would not be back. A few weeks later, a new blogger appeared who sounded exactly like Binny. It was Binny, presenting himself as a female. Later, when his game was exposed, he claimed it was his girlfriend.
Binny is a few bricks shy of a load (likely won’t interpret correctly). Means he’s not all there. Pay no attention to him.
In reality what usually happens is that you’ve looked at a popular description, a simplified explanation, taken it as literal and then gone down a logical rabbit hole where the only conclusion is that Physics is broken and you’ve found the break. Generally speaking, that’s not what’s happened. What’s happened is you didn’t get the full technical explanation because you don’t know the physics.
TM,
Perfectly correct. Climate alarmists actually believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter, against all known physical laws!
Unfortunately, when they are called out, they just invent new “physics” to try to explain the fact that they have been exposed as fools or frauds. Simplistic nonsense about greenhouses, overcoats, forcings, feedbacks and all the rest, no longer works.
Even the public is starting to wake up. Politicians and journalists are a bit behind, but hope springs eternal.
Climate alarmists actually believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter, against all known physical laws!
Citation please.
TM, are you denying your own cult nonsense?
Have you tried to cook a chicken using your steady-state cooker, Puppy?
Clint R at 6:09 AM
What about you little buddy?
Do you have a citation saying that if I put a [mercury] thermometer in a cylinder full of CO2 and compress it adiabatically the thermometer will not read a higher temperature?
Or perhaps a citation negating the fact that when a CO2 molecule absorbs an infrared photon in the v2 or v3 fundamental, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and, at the densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will collide with another molecule in the atmosphere thus losing its excitational energy by transferring it to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with and the increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature?
Willard, Tyson, please stop trolling.
TM,
I have no responsibility to provide you with anything, of course, and whether you are happy about my opinion is irrelevant to me. Why should I care what you think?
However, being a most charitable and helpful chap, I invite you to read Professor John Tyndall’s “Heat – a Mode Of Motion’, preferably the latest edition. He describes his experiments in great detail, but you should read the book in it’s entirety, as there are many other verifiable observations, and scientific explanations for them, which are supported by experimental results.
But you are an idiot, so I won’t suggest you also read the 1907 Radiometry publication from the US Bulletin of the Burea of Standards, which shows that Tyndall’s instruments were capable of showing temperature changes of a millionth of a degree.
So carry on being dimwitted. Avoid reality. Your choice.
got it. give me a page number.
While you’re fetching that page number you may want to check professor Tyndall’s lecture of January 18, 1861 titled “On the Action of Gases and Vapours on Radiant Heat,” in Proceedings of The Royal Institution of Great Britain, page 295. It very clearly demonstrates that you are a retard.
TM,
Start on page 1.
Get with the program. His lecture (updated with new facts, and to correct errors) is included in the book.
If you can’t be bothered reading, don’t blame me if others do, and come to the conclusion that you are a delusional idiot.
Indeed, radiant heat acts on gases. What is your point? Blathering about the fact that CO2 can be heated, and allowed to cool, is a good diversion in your mind, but won’t do much good convincing anybody unless you can relate its action to the GHE – which you can’t actually describe!
What a pity!
Swenson at 9:03 PM
TM,
Start on page 1.
So you got nothing; that’s what I thought.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
SwensonPuppet,
“Climate alarmists actually believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter, against all known physical laws!”
Well all of them? How about you name just one physical law?
We have gone over the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter.
See the chart at the top of the page, see the Keeling curve, see the emission spectra of CO2.
Wave an infrared thermometer at the sky.
b,
No, you have made repeated assertions, and tried to convince people they are fact.
Unfortunately, from Professor John Tyndall onwards, every physical experiment has demonstrated that blocking IR from reaching a thermometer, results in lower, rather than higher, temperatures.
You can’t even describe the GHE, because you would have to say something stupid along the lines that energy radiated by a cooler body must be absorbed by a hotter, raising its temperature.
Such as putting ice cubes in your coffee, and convincing anybody other than a climate cultist that the coffee will absorb the radiation from the ice, and get hotter as a result!
Time for you to fly off at a tangent, b. Start ranting about “evidence”, perhaps?
Evidence that you live in a fantasy, that’s all!
Mikey Flym Flam man.
“Unfortunately, from Professor John Tyndall onwards, every physical experiment has demonstrated that blocking IR from reaching a thermometer, results in lower, rather than higher, temperatures.”
It doesn’t block the IR from reaching the thermometer, dumbass, it provides more IR to the thermometer, dumbass, troll, sockpuppet.
“You can’t even describe the GHE, because you would have to say something stupid along the lines that energy radiated by a cooler body must be absorbed by a hotter, raising its temperature.”
You get it wrong again dumbsocket, troll, sockpuppet.
The energy absorbed may or may not raise the temperature, the absorbing body and the photons involved don’t know the temperature of the body emitting the photons, dumbbell.
“Such as putting ice cubes in your coffee, and convincing anybody other than a climate cultist that the coffee will absorb the radiation from the ice, and get hotter as a result!”
Geez, dumbass, who is trying to do that? Nobody is making that argument.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bobdroege
Re.: ” Climate alarmists actually believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter… ”
The best is that, each time somebody writes ‘Swenson, you are Flynn’, this genius answers ‘Who is Flynn?’.
He is not even able to understand that using Google, you can perfectly associate the pseudonyms ‘Swenson’ and ‘Mike Flynn’ on the basis of their comments.
Jesus, how dumb is one allowed to be in life?
J.-P. D.
Binny,
And this supports what, exactly?
You, like Woebegone Wee Willy, seem inordinately upset that I choose to to use a pseudonym of my choosing, rather than yours! Here’s the deal – I do as I wish. Your opinion is of little import to me.
Have an apoplectic fit, if you like. I don’t care.
Still can’t describe the GHE in any way that makes sense, can you?
> how dumb is one allowed to be in life?
Mike Flynn plays dumb, of course. First because he’s already banned from the site. Second because he might be abusing people online from the comfort of his work office.
In fairness, playing dumb is what Mike Flynn does best.
Witless Wee Willy wrote –
“First because hes already banned from the site. Second because he might be abusing people online from the comfort of his work office.”
Oh dear. Wobbly Wee Willy thinks that someone who has been banned from commenting is commenting. Dang! Limp Willy is confusing me!
Confusing me with someone who cares what he thinks. As to his second imaginary fantasy, Willingly Woke Willy has just become the self-appointed champion of anonymous people concerned about being abused by some anonymous person from their position of comfort!
A true Climate Warrior! Or a complete idiot, who can give it, but can’t take it.
Mike Flynn,
Check the name of your sockpuppet.
That is all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Check the name of your sockpuppet.”
No, I don’t feel like it.
What are going to do about it?
Mike Flynn,
Suit yourself.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike why don’t you ask Roy to describe the GHE? It is his website afterall.
Galaxie500
Flynn never and never would ask Roy Spencer for GHE.
And that wouldn’t even be necessary, as he did the job years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
J.-P. D.
G,
Oooooh! Subtle appeal to authority – not! As you point out, it is Dr Spencer’s website.
Why should I ask him anything? I have read what he has written.
Galaxie500
It was easy, even trivial, to anticipate the answer:
” Subtle appeal to authority ”
Hmmh.
Each time a Pseudoskeptic doesn’t know how to contradict a scientist you refer to, s/he says: “appeal to authority” .
It’s as simple as that…
The Frogs love to say: "Plus bête tu meurs".
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“> I believe we live in 3 dimensions with time, incorrectly, being identified as being a forth.
Go on.”
I believe that covered it
Here Co2isLife. A lolly to stop you whinging.
Bet you throw it out of the pram.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/env.1068
ET, that docuement is behind a pay wall. If you have access to it, please copy and paste the ANOVA Table. I want to see what are the variables and how significant the relationships are.
Simply publish the ANOVA Tables. Every model should have them.
CO2
I gave you already a link to a paper doing quite complex work using ANOVA statistics, but you seem to have deliberately ignored it because it does not contain the info you trivially expect.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05229-y
1. Search for ‘Analysis of variance’, read what they do, and try to understand it (if you can).
2. Search for ‘These figures provide an overview and a background to interpretation of the ANOVA results presented below.’
Look at the visualizations of their ANOVA data, e.g.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05229-y/figures/2
and try again to understand (if you can).
My impression: you never used ANOVA in your entire life.
J.-P. D.
> that docuement is behind a pay wall
Search “where is sci-hub” in your favorite search engine.
Bindidon, Willard, please stop trolling.
entroping…”Here Co2isLife. A lolly to stop you whinging”.
Why do you pommies put a ‘g’ in whining?
In Monty Python’s Lumberjack Song they add an ‘r’ to bra, as in brar. Why is it that some of the worst English is spoken in England? In automechanics parlance some English people use the word prise in lieu of pry. They prise a seal out of a socket rather than pry it out.
The purest English in the UK is actually spoken in northern Scotland, near Inverness. I heard it spoken up there once and it confused me. It was really clear English without an accent or the Scottish brogue. I asked the girl speaking it if she was English and she expressed insult, claiming she had been born in the region and everyone there spoke like that.
You should come to Northern Ireland. Parts of County Tyrone have retained an almost Shakespearean English.
entropic…”You should come to Northern Ireland. Parts of County Tyrone have retained an almost Shakespearean English.
…”
Meant no harm calling you a pommie but it could be taken as an insult if you are Irish, in which case I’d have had to call you a tattie howker. ☺ ☺
Pay me no mind, I call myself a haggis basher, on a good day.
Then again, in Northern Ireland, you are still in Boris Hitler’s domain. ☺
CO2isLife,
Here is the full version of the paper Entropic posted:
https://sci-hub.do/10.1002/env.1068
Again, use sci-hub. Many full papers can be accessed this way.
rlh…”The decrease in temperature with height is a result of the decreasing pressure. If a parcel of air moves upwards it expands (because of the lower pressure). When air expands it cools. So air higher up is cooler than air lower down”.
***
Yes…and the decrease in pressure is due to a pressure gradient created by gravity.
The lapse rate theory suggests that the rising air creates the lower pressure, which strikes me as nonsense.
I agree that rising, heated air expands and cools as it expands. And that air at higher altitudes is cooler than air at lower altitudes. Therefore all air temperature is equal to or lower than surface temperature.
That leads to the 2nd law which states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a hotter body. There goes the back-radiation theory of AGW upon which its warming depends. Simply put, any radiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere can NEVER raise the temperature of the surface.
Of course, alarmists try to get around that with a sleight of hand. They claim the 2nd law is not contravened if the NET energy is positive.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, experts in thermodynamics, tried to point out that net energy is not a term used in physics and if it is used it can apply only to heat vis-a-vis the 2nd law as net heat transfer. Alarmists are trying to combine heat with radiation to get a positive sum by using back-radiation as a heating element.
When G&T pointed this out to Eli, the goofy rabbit, Eli made an astounding claim. He tried to point out the stupidity, that if two bodies were radiating toward each other, one hotter, the 2nd law as stated by G&T would mean one body was not radiating.
Duh!!!! No Eli, it means radiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere has no effect on the hotter surface temperature.
> radiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere has no effect on the hotter surface temperature.
U sure about that, Gordon?
willard…”> radiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere has no effect on the hotter surface temperature.
U sure about that, Gordon?”
***
Absolutely positive and I have supplied the quantum theory to back me. Thus far, no rebuttals, only whines (or should that be whinges…ET?)about the ability of electrons to absorb and emit EM as the sole source in atoms/molecules.
1)the 2nd law forbids an uncompensated heat transfer from cold to hot.
2)quantum theory backs the 2nd law and it is based on electrons and their relationship to the positive nucleus.
3)no uncompensated energy can be transferred from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy. Water cannot flow uphill by its own means, a boulder cannot lift itself onto a cliff by its own means, electrons cannot flow from positive to negative by their own means.
Get the idea?
> I have supplied the quantum theory to back me.
https://giphy.com/explore/little-laugh
willard…”> I have supplied the quantum theory to back me.”
You’re too stupid to understand quantum theory, hence the stupid link.
Electronics theory is based on quantum theory. The Bohr model is the basis of quantum theory and it has also been the basis of electronics theory and organic chemistry theory.
Certain idiots have taken basic quantum theory and extended it into the sc-fi domain. They cannot prove any of it but they talk about it as if it is factual (eg. electrons being both particles and waves). What I have promoted as proof for the inability of radiation from a cooler source to warm a hotter source has nothing to do with that airy-fairy stuff, it is simply plain, solid physics.
The quantum theory I have presented agrees with the 2nd law and it agrees with the Bohr’s representation of quantum theory. It was Bohr who initially postulated that electrons absorbing and emitting EM had to abide by certain constraints, one of them being that a certain EM intensity and frequency was required to excite an electron to a higher orbital energy level. That rise in electron energy equates overall to a warming in the mass.
EM from a cooler source lacks both the intensity and frequency required to excite electrons in a hotter body. The EM from the cooler source is ignored by a hotter body.
Gordon,
I don’t need no quantum theory to prove you wrong.
All I need is a White Russian that I hold with my warm hand for a while.
willard…”All I need is a White Russian that I hold with my warm hand for a while”.
***
So, your warm hand transfers heat to the cooler White Russian. Or if you made the WR with hot milk, or…shudder…hot vodka… and no ice, it would transfer heat to your cooler hand.
Point???
You’re surely not inferring that an ice cooled drink transfers heat to your warmer hand?
> Point???
https://giphy.com/gifs/memecandy-ZD2nSye2TAZq6SDATM
Wondering Wee Willy adds ice to his White Russian cocktail. Adding energy.
Wonders why his cocktail doesn’t get hotter! Wraps his warmer hand around the cocktail, absorbing the energy the cocktail emits. Wonders why the ice melts! Surely, having emitted energy to his warmer hand, the ice should get colder.
Just like the GHE works – or maybe not.
Keep wondering, Wee Willy. Maybe try a few “silly semantic games”. If that doesn’t work, employ some “auditing skillz”.
It all sounds a bit pathetic, doesn’t it? Just like Woeful Wee Willy’s attempts to look rational.
Mike Flynn,
When the Dude puts ice in his White Russian, it keeps it cooler than it would be if he did not put ice in it. In return, the ice cube should melt, but more slowly than the ice left on the counter or if it was crushed ice.
When the Dude holds his White Russian, he warms it. In return, the hand that holds the glass gets colder than his other hand.
The Dude always keeps his cool, except perhaps when anarchists pee on his rug.
That gif is enough to defuse any kind of Sky Dragon silliness.
Wee Willy,
I see you are getting it, slowly.
The ice does not make the warmer liquid even hotter.
The colder atmosphere does not make the warmer surface even hotter.
Oh dear! Now you have find another stupid, pointless, and irrelevant analogy, don’t you?
Off you go now. You could always whine about being abused, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
You seem to be forgetting that when the Dude goes outside with his White Russian, the glass indeed keeps his drink warmer, ice cube or not.
Also note that the GIF is taken from a moment in the movie where the Dude has no ice at hand. In fact he has no cream either. He’s using powder milk.
Wayward Wee Willy,
What are you blathering about? More stupid links to irrelevancies, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
That you comment in a thread you haven’t read can be forgiven.
That you haven’t watched The Big Lebowski isn’t.
Please remedy to this predicament.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“radiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere has no effect on the hotter surface temperature.”
So, if I have a hot object (say 100C) in a room with walls at 99C, and an identical object in a room with walls at -99 C, you say that has no effect and the hot object would cool the same in either setting? (Make the “room” a vacuum chamber to avoid the effects of conduction and convection).
tim…”you say that has no effect and the hot object would cool the same in either setting?”
Tim…we’re not talking about cooling, which is heat dissipation, we are talking about transferring heat from a colder object to a hotter object, without compensation (by its own means).
Swannie made that mistake in his experiment. He confused a reduction of heat dissipation, leading to an increase in temperature of the source, with a cooler body radiating to the same body. He thought heat was being transferred from the cooler body to the hotter body, when in fact, the hotter body warmed due to its heat dissipation being reduced.
If you look more closely at your thought experiment I’m sure you’ll find the same issue.
Granted, it’s difficult to explain the effect of boundary layers on a radiating source in a vacuum. It is known, however, that the greater the temperature differential between source and boundary layer, the higher the rate of heat dissipation. Conversely, if the boundary layer is hotter than the source, the heat transfer will be in the opposite direction.
The closest I have come to this from a physicist was a suggestion by David Bohm, that electrons seemed to have a quantum ‘feel’ for their surroundings. He was talking, of course, about the single slit experiment wherein electron streams shot through the slit produced a diffraction pattern on a screen, just as expected from EM waves in a double-slit experiment.
Bohm suggested that electrons going through a single-slit seemed to interact with the slit at a quantum level to divert them into diffraction bands on a screen. Perhaps the same is true with electrons emitting EM from a source in a vacuum. Maybe they can sense the temperature of the boundary layers surrounding the vacuum and adjust their emission rate accordingly.
I think it’s important to realize that the slit through which the electrons must pass have walls made up of atoms with their electrons. It’s possible that the electrons passing through interact with the electrons of the wall, and possibly with the positive protons in the wall, bending them in an ordered direction. The moving electrons will also have a magnetic field around them that can interact with the atoms/electrons in the wall.
I wonder if the experimenters tried heating/cooling the material containing the slit to see if it affected the diffraction pattern.
***
Or…maybe there is an interaction between the EM radiated from the source and the EM radiated by the boundary layer.
Have no idea how that is possible, just a suggestion. However, that action cannot cause the hotter body to warm.
Gordon, you are clinging to words, not physics.
Yes, we are talking about cooling. At night, the surface cools slower because of the radiation from the atmosphere. The “hot” surface (15 C) cools slower because the surroundings are just cool (+15 to -80 C) rather then “cold” (-270 C of space). The surface will be warmer at dawn because of the ‘back radiation’ of the atmosphere during the night.
We are ALSO talking about warming. During the day, the sun heats the surface. What ever temperature it is, it loses energy slower because the surroundings are just cool (+15 to -80 C) rather then “cold” (-270 C of space). This lets the sun warm the surface BETTER with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere. The surface will be warmer at dusk because of the ‘back radiation’ of the atmosphere during the day.
Your misunderstanding is highlighted here: “He thought heat was being transferred from the cooler body to the hotter body.”
No one thinks heat is being transferred from cool to warm. Everyone simply thinks heat is being lost more slowly. This is because photons are being transferred both ways so the net flow from warm to cool (ie the “heat”) is reduced.
The rest of that sentence is good: “, when in fact, the hotter body warmed due to its heat dissipation being reduced”. And that is exactly what the atmosphere does for the surface of the earth.
Tim,
As you say, at night the surface cools. All the radiation escapes to space. All.
As you also say, during the day, the Sun heats the surface. As you don’t say (pity, that), the atmosphere prevents about 35% of the insolation reaching the surface. That’s why maximum temperatures on Earth are below 100 C.
The airless Moon, after the same exposure time, can get to 127 C or so.
As John Tyndall pointed out, over 100 years ago. Maybe you are just a slow learner?
Get with the program. It’s the 21st century – 18th century science has been updated.
tim…”Gordon, you are clinging to words, not physics.
Yes, we are talking about cooling. At night, the surface cools slower because of the radiation from the atmosphere”.
***
Don’t think so. It cools more slowly if the air is warm and there is little or no convection. Also, if the surface as super-warmed during the day. The warmer air above reduces the rate of dissipation.
***
“No one thinks heat is being transferred from cool to warm. Everyone simply thinks heat is being lost more slowly. This is because photons are being transferred both ways so the net flow from warm to cool (ie the heat) is reduced”.
Talk about misunderstanding physics. There is no such thing as net heat flow, it is transferred in one direction only. That’s what the 2nd law states, nothing about a net heat transfer.
SWENSON says: “As you say, at night the surface cools. All the radiation escapes to space. All.”
All of *what* radiation?
The surface is still at least CLOSE to 288 K (on average) and still CLOSE to radiating 396 W/m^2 (on average). Surely you are not saying all of THAT radiation escapes directly to space at night. Even if the surface cooled by 10 C over night, that would still be 340 W/m^2 from the surface.
No, the actual net escape to space by thermal IR remains closer to 240 W/m^2 (on average). A bit higher during the day, and a bit lower at night. But definitely NOT “all” of the ~ 340 to 390 W/m^2 from the surface.
“As you dont say (pity, that), the atmosphere prevents about 35% of the insolation reaching the surface. Thats why maximum temperatures on Earth are below 100 C.”
First, about 184/341 = 54% gets to the surface on average, so the atmosphere actually prevents about 46% from reaching the surface. Or more germane to your point, over 1000 W/m^2 can hit a given location at noon, which is less than 25% absorbed by the atmosphere. Your 35% number doesn’t fit either the maximum or the average.
Second, there is another major reason the surface does not get that hot. 1000 W/m^2 would still be enough to warm a surface to ~ 90 C (even ignoring the whole question of back-radiation for the moment). But with an atmosphere, convection occurs, transferring energy away from the surface and to the cooler air above.
RECAP
— your 35% number is either too high or two low
— you miss perhaps the single most important reason why an atmosphere keeps a surface from reaching extreme temperatures during the day.
Finally, while you are (inaccurately) focusing on noon-time temperatures, you are ignoring (pity that) the temperatures of the whole rest of the globe! The moon also gets down to -170 C (and colder yet in some craters and near the poles). INCREASING the solar radiation to the surface of the moon DECREASES the average temperature! Some how that just gets swept under the rug.
“There is no such thing as net heat flow, it is transferred in one direction only. “
First, I didn’t say “het heat flow”. I said “net [energy] flow from warm to cool”. The “ie (heat)” simply restates the same idea in different word. That is, I was saying that “heat” is “the net flow”.
You seem to disagree, so think about putting a warm block of metal in contact with a slightly cooler block of metal. On average the KE of the atoms in the warmer block is higher. But there is a wide spread in KE, some atoms in the cooler block have higher KE than some atoms in the warmer block. So when they are touching, occasionally an high KE atom on the cool block can hit a low KE atom in the warm block and transfer energy FROM the cool block TO the warm block! Nothing in the laws of thermodynamics prevents that — which is good because we know it happens.
Let me repeat — nothing in the laws of thermodynamics prevents that! Energy can and does move on an atomic scale from cooler objects to warmer objects. When averaged over many collisions (or many photons) the net transfer is always from warmer to cooler. THAT is what the 2nd Law describes — the net, average transfer from myriad individual microscopic transfers.
Just to clarify what I wrote earlier ….
INCREASING the solar radiation to the surface of the moon (ie increasing relative to the radiation on at earth’s surface) DECREASES the average temperature (on the moon’s surface relative to the earth’s surface).
Please do distinguish the following errors which go to make up the overall measurement error.
1. Instrument error. The one written on the side of the box the instrument came in.
2. Systematic errors. Those caused by taking measurement of the air temperature surrounding point the measurements are taken at.
2. Environment errors. Those that occur in the environment around any point that helps make the accuracy of the point not a true representative of the 3m cube of air surrounding the point.
All of these will bring an uncertainty to the accuracy and statistical distribution of the recorded measurement compared to the true measurement that should have been recorded.
RLH
Are you aware of the fact that you are about the thousandth guy showing off with this stuff, while manifestly having ZERO DOT ZERO experience in measurements of any kind?
It is incredible.
Are the hundred ‘specialists’ daily posting at WUWT not enough yet, RLH?
Do we really need your ‘professional’ voice in addition, here at Roy Spencer’s blog?
Do you know ANYTHING about how temperature data is processed by those professional people you discredit behind your pseudonym, without having read even one of the documents they presented?
What about first reading documents like
1. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The Had-CRUT4 data set
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017187
2. Understanding and assessing uncertainty of observational
climate datasets for model evaluation using ensembles
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.654
before you Pseudospecialist land here and boast around?
J.-P. D.
“Are you aware of the fact that you are about the thousandth guy showing off with this stuff, while manifestly having ZERO DOT ZERO experience in measurements of any kind?”
And you know this how? As an engineer I have done numerous measurements in multiple scenarios all of which have been proved correct,
“Do you know ANYTHING about how temperature data is processed by those professional people you discredit behind your pseudonym, without having read even one of the documents they presented?”
I have factual and well grounded observations about most of the work in climate science I read.
From a long background in statistics, computing and engineering.
Even the continuous use of means, which makes prior assumptions that the data is going to be normal distribution rather than a skewed distribution in some way. Medians are the only way approved in statistics for ‘no prior knowledge’ type of data.
That alone could skew the results by a degree or more.
And then we have the continuous failure to sort out the difference between instrument error and measurement error.
This is really off the charts weird. If you asked me for an ANOVA Table for my model it would take me 3 seconds to produce it. For those who have never run a multi-variable regression, you can do it is Excel, SAS, and R is the one that is popular now.
In Excel install the “Data Analysis” Add-in. Once that is installed simply choose regression from the drop down. Identify your independent variables and then your dependent variable. Not Variables for the Independent Variables, not variable.
Run the regression and it spits out an ANOVA Table with a huge amount of supporting statistics. All I’m asking for is for someone to publish what the SIgnificance of the CO2 variable is in a Temperature model that uses multiple independent variable. It is that simple. What is the coefficient on CO2, what is its significance, and what is the Adj-R2 of the Model. Answer those simple questions. The fact that you can’t easily answer that question proves there is something wrong with this settled science. BTW, a settled science would have all models produce identical outcomes, not the spaghetti charts that Dr Christy shows. The variation is models proves it isn’t settled.
Give me an ANOVA Table for your model, Life.
But first, give me your model.
Willard 5:41 PM
I second that request; I could use a good laugh!
Then again, this is the same person who asked “DREMT, would you please produce the monthly graphics for the South Pole? It would be nice to have a link to reference in these discussions. ” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-684921
So, not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I was sharp enough to create the graphics myself.
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS#BLncbpV
I was also smart enough to understand the quantum physics of a CO2 molecule so that I was able to hypothesize in advance that those charts would show no warming. Guess what? They show no warming. Funny how that works. Understand real science and you can make accurate predictions. Don’t understand real science and you create nonsensical models like Dr Christy mocks all the time.
Once again, if something is understood, it can be modeled. I just modeled the entire South Pole and I don’t have a Ph.D in Climate “Science.” How is that? How can someone that isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed discover something the experts didn’t, or don’t seem to understand the significance of?
Well done!
Now, where’s the table and the model?
Tyson, Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop being endlessly so partial, that becomes really boring, and discredits yourself.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I don’t build climate models. I do know that if I regress Temp and CO2 I get a meaningless R-Square. If you tell me what variables I should use and point me in the direction of the data I’ll gladly produce an ANOVA Table. I will also predict that CO2 won’t be a significant variable in explaining the variation of temperature.
Simply look at these graphics, they isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. There is none.
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS#BLncbpV
CO2 went up 25%, Temperatures sent up 0.00%.
No, those numbers isolate the impact of CO2 … in one specific region where little or no impact would be expected because of ….
* high elevations, limiting the thickness of the remaining atmosphere to absorb IR.
* cold temperatures, limiting the amount of IR available to be absorbed and the amount of IR that could be emitted toward the surface.
* a low tropopause that is nearly the same temperature as the surface.
> I don’t build climate models.
You said
Do you have a model, yes or no?
I just “regressed Temp and CO2” globally from ~ 1979 – 2019 and got R^2 = 0.67. Ie 67% percent of the variation can be explained simply by CO2.
67% is not “meaningless”.
Did you calculate a correlation (R) or R^2 on the raw data or the 13-month running averages? The best I could do with R^2 was 0.62 on 13-month averages. The correlation on the raw data is 0.68 (R^2 = 0.46).
“R-squared (R^2) is a statistical measure that represents the proportion of the variance for a dependent variable that’s explained by an independent variable or variables in a regression model. Whereas correlation (R) explains the strength of the relationship between an independent and dependent variable, R-squared explains to what extent the variance of one variable explains the variance of the second variable. So, if the R^2 of a model is 0.50, then approximately half of the observed variation can be explained by the model’s inputs.”
BTW, I find that no matter which variable I assign as independent one, the correlation and its square come out the same either way.
So CO2isLife is correct about R^2 being meaningless. It’s the same value no matter which one you pick as the independent variable.
Another way to look at it; the R^2 for temperature versus world population is 0.59.
Chic Bowdrie
” So CO2isLife is correct about R^2 being meaningless. ”
Well Chic, that is now really TOO MUCH.
You seem to be a bit late in the discussion, and should read all comments posted by this guy since months.
HE, and nobody else, is the one who continuously pushed the alleged relevance of R^2 !!!
After having been contradicted a hundred of times, he went back from that useless claim, and now rides a fresh horse: ANOVA.
J.-P. D.
Chic,
I used some monthly data I downloaded from https://www.woodfortrees.org/ I wasn’t worrying too much about exact dates or sources. Just a ‘quick and dirty’ analysis (and then I threw out the excel file). So I don’t have a source for the exact data.
The main point was that CiL cherrypicked data from the one region that does not show a temperature increase (and for which there are some ‘quick and dirty’ reasons to anticipate that CO2 will not cause warming). While his one region does not show a trend and has a very low R^2, globally there is a clear correlation — both CO2 and temperatures have been increasing.
And yes, correlation is not causation. And R^2 is not the same as a p-value. And the data is auto-correlated. So simple statistical tests will not necessarily be valid. But there is still a definite correlation.
And it is meaningless.
Tim, Willard, please stop trolling.
Can I join in?
RLH, please stop trolling.
Why? You are the troll, not me.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Idiot
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
willard…”Mike Flynn plays dumb, of course. First because hes already banned from the site”.
***
Who said Mike was banned, do you have inside information?
I thought you were the insider here, Gordon.
Check back the last comments when Roy got tired of Mike Flynn.
willard…”Check back the last comments when Roy got tired of Mike Flynn.”
Have no idea where to look.
I posted it recently, but there’s hockey right now, so:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.drroyspencer.com%2F+%22mike+flynn%22
willard…”I posted it recently, but theres hockey right now, so:”
Still can’t find it. I heard that Mike met a nice Aussie, climate skeptic woman and ran off to Perth.
Possible.
There:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-668272
Willard, please stop trolling.
Witless Wee Willy,
You seem to be claiming that I have been banned. Not allowed to comment.
And yet, here I seem to be.
Hmmm. Is there a problem of logic here? Maybe your “silly semantic games” and “auditing skillz” have addled your brain.
Maybe addressing the message, rather than attempting to shoot the messenger, might be more efficacious in promoting whatever mad fantasy you fancy.
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“And yet, here I seem to be.”
Under a sock puppet you are.
I do hope that the fossil fuel company for which you work does not rely on your internet skillz for its network security.
Speaking of which, you do realize that your company has a trace of every comment you send here via its network, right?
Willard is a bore.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Whining Wee Willy,
Pee in one hand. Hope in the other. See which fills up first!
All your “hopes”, plus $5 will buy you a cup of coffee.
What I realise (or otherwise) is obviously beyond your knowing, otherwise you wouldn’t make such idiotic comments.
You need to hone your “skillz”! Learning how to spell might help. Carry on being an idjit!
Mike Flynn,
I believe in Newton’s third law.
What about you?
Wee Willy Wanker,
Good for you.
Thank you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still, the idiot brigade insist that putting ice cubes in your coffee will make your coffee hotter.
Alternatively, they claim that a colder atmosphere will make a warmer surface even hotter!
Unfortunately for their speculation, at night the surface cools. No heating. Fact. “Ah”, they say, “but during the day the surface is warmed by the Sun!” The Sun is around 5600 K, so this is hardly surprising.
Quite apart from this fact (that a hot object can raise the temperature of a cooler), none of the climate alarmists are actually prepared to describe even where this mythical GHE may be observed, for fear of being made to look like the misguided fools or frauds that they are!
For example, the GHE seems to act in reverse in Antarctica. It works to apparently cool arid tropical deserts lacking in that most “important” GHG, H2O. The less GHG, the hotter it is! The GHE obviously fails at night, under thick cloud, indoors, during solar eclipses, or in the absence of a powerful heat source generally.
But they press on. Gavin Schmidt claims to be a “climate scientist”, Michael Mann not only claims to be a “climate scientist”, but also claimed to be a Nobel Laureate! And so it goes.
Mike Flynn insist in denying that igloos work.
Wee Willy Idiot retreats to his diversionary fantasy. What do you mean by “work”?
Back to insulation, are we? Which warms you better – ice or a fire? Maybe you believe the CO2 from the fire makes the heat?
You’re an idiot, but at least you’re stupid and delusional!
Mike Flynn always sleeps without blankets because he denies that they warm.
The blanket store doesn’t seem to be warmer than the paint store.
Hmmmm.
willard…”Mike Flynn always sleeps without blankets because he denies that they warm”.
Blankets don’t warm, they reduce the rate of heat dissipation. If you sit outside on a cool winter’s nite, with a blanket wrapped around you, eventually the heat will leak through the blanket and you’ll find yourself pretty cold. If you sit around long enough without replenishing your caloric intake, they’ll find a cold blanket with a cold body inside it.
Same in a warm environment like your house, with the furnace keeping the room warm. If you don’t eat or drink for a month or so, with the blanket wrapped around you, they’ll find a blanket at room temperature with a dead body at room temperature.
> If you sit outside on a cool winter’s nite, with a blanket wrapped around you, eventually the heat will leak through the blanket and you’ll find yourself pretty cold.
You need better gear, Gordon:
https://youtu.be/XvynyBcr2sc
You can also generate heat by running:
https://youtu.be/Re5fhBoF6sY
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”On the Action of Gases and Vapours on Radiant Heat, in Proceedings of The Royal Institution of Great Britain, page 295. It very clearly demonstrates that you are a retard”.
***
Unfortunately, Tyndall and a few other prominent scientists were caught up in the belief that heat could be radiated through space. Note his reference to Radiant Heat.
I’ll need to look at his apparatus again but I recall he used an open flame. He thought heat from that flame moved directly through the aperture on the tube and down the tube holding the CO2. We now know it is EM traveling down the tube.
I don’t pick Swenson up as meaning that CO2, as a gas, cannot raise the temperature of a thermometer, I have always regarded him as referring to the radiant energy from CO2 as being unable to affect a thermometer under the conditions imposed by the atmosphere.
As you pointed out, compressing pure CO2 can cause the gas temperature to rise. That’s not what he’s talking about. I have always picked him up as meaning that CO2, as found in the atmosphere, cannot raise the temperature of a thermometer.
Swenson is always talking about AGW and the GHE, which involves CO2 at 0.04% in an atmosphere that is always equal to or cooler than the surface. You have to take him in that context because his main point, and I agree, is that AGW and GHE theory is invalid.
Gordon Robertson at 11:53 PM
Since you are fluent in gobbledygook let’s clarify then that you and Flynn are negating (without evidence) all of the following:
A: When a CO2 molecule absorbs an infrared photon in the v2 or v3 fundamental, it rotates or vibrates faster.
B: At the densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will collide with another molecule in the atmosphere thus losing its excitational energy by transferring it to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with.
C: By negating B above you are negating the Equipartition of Energy principle.
D: The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.
I said “without evidence” because Flynn vaguely claims that somewhere in the near 600 pages of “Heat Considered as a Mode of Motion by John Tyndall,” there is supporting evidence for his claim, even though professor Tyndall is best known for “proving the connection between atmospheric CO2 and what is now known as the greenhouse effect in 1859.”
TM – idiot in training,
You state that Swenson (or some mythical person) is “negating” something or other.
You don’t know what “negating” means, can’t quite say what is is that Swenson is “negating”, but who cares?
Not me, that’s for sure!
Keep it up, and you may attain the status of complete idiot. Pity you can’t bring yourself to actually read what Tyndall wrote. I’d like to say I wouldn’t wouldn’t enjoy serving you your ass on a plate (as they say), but I’m only human.
Go your hardest, idiot-in-training. See how you go.
Tyndall is best known for “proving the connection between atmospheric CO2 and what is now known as the greenhouse effect in 1859.”
TM,
In your dreams, laddie, in your dreams!
From John Tyndall’s “Heat Considered as a Mode of Motion.”
TM,
Indeed. Matter which absorbs heat, becomes hotter.
Your point?
And what has it to do with “Tyndall is best known for “proving the connection between atmospheric CO2 and what is now known as the greenhouse effect in 1859.””.
Nothing at all – as usual.
> Your point?
“we found that the molecules stopped the waves of heat which impinged upon them”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“A joint of meat might be roasted before a fire, with the air around the joint as cold as ice. The air on high mountains may be intensely cold, while a burning sun is overhead ; the solar rays which, striking of the human skin, are almost intolerable, are incompetent to heat the air sensibly, and we have only to withdraw into perfect shade, to feel the chill of the atmosphere.” – John Tyndall
Experience teaches. Science attempts to explain.
Concerning this recurrent, plain stoopid references to ANOVA in the ‘narrow-gauge’ context of CO2/temp regressions, here is a paper showing how people use ANOVA to detect and handle uncertainty in climate models:
USING ANOVA TO ESTIMATE THE RELATIVE MAGNITUDE OF UNCERTAINTY IN A SUITE OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS
Julie A. Winkler, Jeffrey A. Andresen, Galina Guentchev, Eleanor A. Waller, and James T. Brown
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/55250.pdf
That is real work, CO2isLife.
I repeat: your recent comments about ANOVA clearly show that you NEVER really used it.
Neither did I, but unlike you, I don’t post on this blog the pretentious claim that others wouldn’t care about it.
Your behavior, CO2isLife, reminds me that of a retired elementary school teacher.
J.-P. D.
Thermometer cannot measure the outdoors air temperature…
Thermometer measures indoor air temperature because the indoor air has the same temperature the walls inside the room have.
Thermometer measures temperature in the room and we assume it is the air temperature thermometer measures.
If we evacuate room air, thermometer will show the same exactly temperature…
Christos Vournas at 2:26 AM
TYSON
> And what is your calculated Jemit?
Φ*S*(1-a) = 0,47*1361W/m^2*(1 0,306) = 444 W/m^2
πr^2Φ*S*(1-a) = πr^2*444 W = Jemit.earth total
So, by your method the Earth receives ~240 W/m^2 and emits 444 W/m^2?
That’s no right.
Edit: That’s not right.
TYSON
By my method Earth receives total
444*pi*r^2 W/m^2
And the same exactly total Earth emits
444*pi*r^2 W = 4*pi*r^2*sigma*288^4 /(Betta*N*cp)^1/4
or
πr^2*Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr^2*σ*288⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Edit:
Earth receives total
444*pi*r^2 ( W )
From Tyndall –
“The experiments of Bischof upon basalt show that our globe would require 350 millions cf years to cool down from 2000° to 200°Centigrade.”
Pity neither knew anything about radioactivity, radiogenic heat, or anything of that nature.
Their 350 million years could have become four and a half billion years without any trouble.
Climate alarmists refuse to commit themselves to anything. Predictable.
Ooooh!
Swenson appeals to authority…
Just for lolz (as Laughable Wee Willy would say), why does water refuse to boil at 260 C on the ISS?
Peer reviewed and all.
The magic of CO2, perhaps?
Ho, ho, ho!
Swenson at 5:16 PM
TM,
I have no responsibility to provide you with anything, of course, and whether you are happy about my opinion is irrelevant to me. Why should I care what you think?
However, being a most charitable and helpful chap, I invite you to read Professor John Tyndall’s “Heat a Mode Of Motion’, preferably the latest edition. He describes his experiments in great detail, but you should read the book in it’s entirety, as there are many other verifiable observations, and scientific explanations for them, which are supported by experimental results.
It is not often that deniers appeals to John Tyndall’s work but it’s always fun to quote the man best known for “proving the connection between atmospheric CO2 and what is now known as the greenhouse effect in 1859.”
Tyndall post quantum mechanics would probably read:
TM must believe “cooling” is “warming”.
He’s very confused. That’s why it’s best to keep it simple for the stupid.
Had John thought about steady state cooking, Puppy, the history of science wouldn’t have been the same.
Clint R at 11:05 AM
Surmise
The stupid responses from Willard and TM illustrate how confused they are.
Energy transfer within a system, as a high energy molecule impacting a low energy molecule, does NOT increase the system temperature. But idiots can not understand such easy concepts.
That’s why the simple analogies are all that are necessary. Anything at a higher level is only for the adults.
Clint R at 12:24 PM
Energy transfer within a system, as a high energy molecule impacting a low energy molecule, does NOT increase the system temperature.
As usual you are missing the forest for the trees.
What you refer to as “a high energy molecule” became that way by gaining rotational energy by a_sor_ing an IR photon; which is to say that its rotational kinetic energy is now greater by virtue of increased angular velocity.
This is what’s missing in Tyndall’s description of his observed results.
I didn’t mention vibrational degrees of freedom which may also exist.
Clint R
It is rather funny that you call intelligent Tim Folkerts an idiot when you are absolutely unable to comprehend what he is saying.
You really should give posting a break. You really are quite a stupid arrogant person. I suggest you learn how to think and read some real physics. Come back with valid points.
Your statement has no bearing on what was stated. It is a strawman.
The systems they discuss have an input energy going on. So yes, you dumb one, temperature will increase when you add energy but restrict the outgoing energy!! Please quit being stupid. It is not enjoyable at all for anyone. If you want to point out flaws do everyone a favor and try to put in effort to understand what is being discussed.
I could waste time explaining it to you but from past encounters with you, you will not understand what I am saying and complain about pounding on a keyboard. So I leave it for you to think about and ponder your own ignorance. It is great but not as great as your arrogance.
Clint R
I don’t want you to go without a link.
This one will verify your ignorance if you think and understand the content. Not sure you will be able to. I won’t say what I think the link is saying or else you will post your troll comment “Norman posts another link he does not understand”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
TM still doesn’t understand “does NOT increase the system temperature”.
But idiots can NOT understand such easy concepts.
And then Norma chimes in with more insults and false accusations.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R at 5:29 PM
TM still doesn’t understand “does NOT increase the system temperature”.
Ok I’ll bite. What happens to the a_sor_ed radiant energy that has now been transformed to higher kinetic energy? This better be good!
TM, in your wildest cult fantasy, please explain how energy can be “transformed to higher kinetic energy”.
Clint R at 5:47 PM
Yep that’s what I thought, you got nothing, except for a good clown act.
TM, if you can’t support your cult’s nonsense, maybe you need more of their bovine excrement.
Eat up.
I would prefer to eat Joe’s chicken, Puppy.
When will he show the YT video of his steady-state cooker?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the troll
RLH, please stop trolling.
But I like trolling the trolls
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
I troll trolls. That is what I do.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
Round and round we go. It would be amusing if it was not so pathetic.
#4
RLH, please stop trolling.
TM,
Consider learning some physics before pretending you are quoting dead experimenters.
Removing the almost incomprehensible gibberish aspect, what is it you are trying to say? That CO2 (like any other gas in the universe) can be heated?
Hardly novel.
I can only deal with one imbecile at a time and at the moment ClintR is doing his circus act.
TM, that explains why you can’t answer in a mature manner.
TM,
So you agree that CO2 can change its temperature when the radiation to which it is exposed changes?
And that is related to the mythical GHE because . . .?
TM,
At least you have managed to quote Tyndall. Excellent.
What has your quote to do with the mythical GHE?
Tyndall explains that gases can be heated. After they become hotter, they then radiate that heat away.
Still nothing to do with a mythical GHE (which you can’t even describe)!
Keep reading. You might learn something.
If someone posts the Factors that should be included in a valid Climate Model, I’ll run the ANOVA Table.
Would someone please post a link to:
1) Temperature Data for the Dependent Variable
2) CO2 Data Set (pay attention to periodicity to match the other data sets)(Independent Variable)
3) Solar Radiation (Independent Variable)
4) Global Cloud Cover or Irradiation at the surface (Independent Variable)
5) Water Vapor (Independent Variable)
6) Urban Heat Island Effect (Independent Variable)
What you will find when you go down this rabbit hole is that the data sets to model the global climate simply don’t exist. What data sets you do have will reject CO2 as a significant variable. Prove me wrong.
I cannot find data for Earth average surface temperature 288 K estimation!
The global curator for the raw data is NOAA.
Each of the temperature dataset groups has adjusted data and their algorithms in the public domain on the internet.
A little research should find it easily.
Entropic man,
The reason I am asking is I could not find any. Maybe I did not searched well. Maybe I do not know where I should search, what key words to use…
I did my best though.
I am very much interested, because I have calculated Earth Tmean = 288 K theoretically.
But I cannot see a dataset or algorithm providing Earth Tmean = 288 K.
Entropic man
” The global curator for the raw data is NOAA. ”
Please don’t say things like that, you could really annoy the BEST team …
Because they don’t share a bit of data with NOAA.
J.-P. D.
Christos Vournas
You might be too busy with your trials to disprove GHE…
*
On this blog, you will find lots of people permanently denigrating temperature data processing and evaluation (except that made by UAH because it’s ‘cooler’), claiming that’s all fudged data.
Don’t care about their ignorant boasting.
*
A good source for what you search for is Berkeley’s land+ocean data:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
Therein, you can search for the line
” Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 global mean temperature (C) ”
Below you see, for air temperature: 14.106 (+/- 0.018) C
Then you see all monthly anomalies wrt the mean of 1951-1980 shown above.
Now please move to the end, and build the 10 year average of these anomalies for Jan 2011 till Dec 2020 (taking only 12 months often shows too much variability).
That is 0.762 C.
Adding 14.106 + 0.762 + 273.15 gives 288.018 K.
OK, Christos?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
Thank you.
Ok !
Bindidon
I clicked on the link you provided, but it does not open…
”
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
Therein, you can search for the line
Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 global mean temperature (C)
Below you see, for air temperature: 14.106 (+/- 0.018) C “
Christos Vournas
Of course it does! How else could I have found the info I communicated to you above?
I don’t belog to the people inventing what they can’t see.
*
I just did check, the file begins with
% This file contains a detailed summary of the changes in Earth’s global average
% surface temperature estimated by combining the Berkeley Earth land-surface
% temperature field with a reinterpolated version of the HadSST ocean temperature
% field.
J.-P. D.
Ooops!?
” I don’t belong…”
Bindidon
It opens now, thank you again!
Where have you checked, Life?
” Prove me wrong. ”
That is the typical, perverse pseudokeptic attitude.
Instead of proving wrong all people working on climate models by scientifically falsifying their results, dumbies like CO2isLife simply say megatrivial blah blah like
” Well, I don’t see their ANOVA tables, so I think they are wrong; prove me wrong! ”
That is so unscientific, so cowardly.
J.-P. D.
Why is this so difficult? It takes you 2 seconds to find the temperature data. Why can’t someone just copy and past an ANOVA Table for a climate model. Why is that so difficult? This is weird beyond belief. What science can’t produce an ANOVA table to support the conclusion? Prove to be that this is actually a science. Produce the statistical analysis of the Factors.
> Why is that so difficult?
It’s not that difficult, Life.
It’s more instructive to let you simmer.
Russell’s Teapot
CO2isLife
A modern GCM solves the Navier-Stokes equations for 40 variables, 12500 grid cells and five altitudes, daily for 50 years.
Its many years since I last used an ANOVA table. How many rows and columns in this one?
E,
There is a prize of around a million US dollars from the Clay Mathematics Institute for proving there is a solution to the Navier Stokes equations.
Maybe you should restate your opinion to more closely align with reality. Climate modellers make all sorts of claims, hoping nobody will challenge them.
They may well change their claim (when challenged) to that of using primitive derivations of Naiver Stokes, or similar weasel words.
Your faith is admirable. Belief in miracles is to be saluted, but I prefer more immediately useful things.
As usual, the ignorant Pseudoskeptic Swenson aka Mike Flynn (his ‘predecessor’ in some sense – different pseudonyms, same blah blah) boasts with useless references.
He should read and {try to, hmmmh} understand what physicist Nick Stokes wrote about these equations:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/10/chaos-cfd-and-gcms.html
He writes there
” Tomas Milanovic has one of an intermittent series of posts (latest “Determinism and predictability”) at Climate Etc, of which the general theme is the unsolvability of Navier-Stokes equations due to some effect of non-linearity negating proof of existence and uniqueness, or some such.
My standard response to all this is, look at Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD, which has been my professional activity for the last thirty years). It is a major established engineering tool based on numerically solving the Navier Stokes equations, and has dealt with the chaos (turbulence) from the beginning. ”
Here some bits about the engineering tool Nick Stokes refers to:
calmarresearch.com/NF/STG/AGPS/media/aiaa-2003-3439.pdf
But of course, the Swenson genius prefers to boast with superficial, superfluous, superintelligent hints like
” There is a prize of around a million US dollars from the Clay Mathematics Institute for proving there is a solution to the Navier Stokes equations. ”
Genial, isn’t it?
*
Swenson (like Robertson and some other geniuses) manifestly never did anything relevant during his entire life, and all they can do these days is to endlessly show off on the last blog they can post their eternal trash, what is, as we all know, solely due to the lack of any moderation here.
*
Now, what concerns a solution to Navier-Stokes: my answer is “Wait and see…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem_for_specific_exponents
That took… 350 years.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
You wrote –
” Prove me wrong.
That is the typical, perverse pseudokeptic attitude.”
Albert Einstein wrote –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
A perverse pseudo skeptic, was he? Really?
Hi Dumbie
Again the usual, irrelevant trash.
See my reply above. Une fois suffit, n’est-ce pas?
J.-P. D.
RLH,
Please answer this question:
If therfe are real problems with the global surface temperature records, why do they all correlate well with each other, despite using different sets of data, and different methods?
Even more: why do the surface records corrfelate so well with the satellite records?
Here are 2 surface and 2 satellite records of global temperature.
https://tinyurl.com/vkjrnk
They all follow very similar year-to-year changes, they all have a similar rising trend and very similar overall profile.
The satellite data has more variability, but the interannual variation is almost always in the same direction.
The way you describe the supposedly fatal issues with the surface data sets, we should be seeing wildly different results between satellite and surface temp records.
But we don’t. We see a very close match.
If that is not because averaging reduces the error substantially…
Please explain why we see this close match between satellite and surface global temp records?
barry, Earth temperatures have slightly increased since the 1970s, due to natural variability.
Do you question that?
You should stick to steady-state cooking, Clint:
https://www.axios.com/climate-change-earth-temperature-change-902e2958-451b-4044-a6a3-8dab46902da6.html
Wee Willy Wailer,
You should stick to being an idiot. I don’t need a link to show that you are an idiot, but at least a pointless and irrelevant one.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
This isn’t about you, Clint. It’s about a line of enquiry initiated by RLH. You can search the initials to see what they are proposing.
Correct barry, Earth temperatures have slightly increased since the 1970s, due to natural variability.
Actually you have it backwards. For the last 5000 years natural variation has been cooling the Earth by 0.002C/decade.
We dont notice nowadays because human activities hav been artificially warming the Earth by 0.2C/decade.
Ent, you’re confusing your beliefs with reality, again.
Thermometers weren’t invented 5000 years ago. And passenger jets don’t fly backwards and sideways.
“If there are real problems with the global surface temperature records, why do they all correlate well with each other, despite using different sets of data, and different methods?”
All synthetic temperature series can agree one with another without them actually being grounded in what the real world is experiencing around them.
A virtual 2d, 1.5m plane, using means as a method of statistics, and situated in the middle of a 3d, 3m thick layer, correctly using medians as its method of statistics, are only loosely connected. One to another.
Those are factual observations. Grounded in both science and statistics,
“The way you describe the supposedly fatal issues with the surface data sets, we should be seeing wildly different results between satellite and surface temp records.”
As I said, they can easily agree with one another without being truly representative of the real world surrounding them
“Here are 2 surface and 2 satellite records of global temperature.
https://tinyurl.com/vkjrnk”
So, after removing the offset which are purely for plotting clarity, what is your explanation for the approximate 0.8c differences between the 4 plots?
Have you shown that the series data are normally distributed about their various centers to justify their use of means?
What measurement errors/uncertainties are expected from the data sources? That is measurement uncertainties, not instrument accuracies.
Have you even shown that a time series that uses Min/Max means at 12 hour intervals is even a close approximation to 1 hour sampled data using medians?
Nyquist would be turning in his grave.
They’re all measuring different things. gistemp is a full sphere surface measurement, had.crut is a partial sphere surface measurement, RSS is bulk mean weighted closer to 850 mb, and UAH is a bulk mean weighted closer to 700 mb. UAH also happens to be inconsistent with other measurement so many suspect there is a low bias with it.
So you miss completely the thrust of the discussion.
They all take a subsampled 24 hour period and do different sub-sampling of that period. The land based ones use min/max and then a mean of that. The satellite ones do up and down passes and differentiate that against previous passes from a few days ago.
None have a continuous full globe analysis which is what Nyquist would want for a full globe air temperature figure. Anything less than that is an estimate, not a precision. With an error band associated that the sub-sampling implies.
Hence 10.0001 +/- 2 degrees.
Sure. It would be nice to have had 50e18 thermometers positioned 1 meter apart with global coverage from the surface to 100 km up from 1850 to present. But that didn’t happen. So we have to make do with what we do have.
Nobody is saying that the available global mean temperature datasets are perfect. They aren’t and they never will be. But they are the best we have. If you can think of a better way of doing it then by all means go for it. Publish your results. I know would definitely be interested.
“So we have to make do with what we do have.”
“Nobody is saying that the available global mean temperature datasets are perfect. They arent and they never will be. But they are the best we have. ”
I know. As I have been pointing out continuously.
But please include the error statistics that make up each point in any series created. To not include that is non-scientific.
RLH said: But please include the error statistics that make up each point in any series created. To not include that is non-scientific.
It is included.
“It is included.”
But not stated. Care to make it public? Say individual GISS data points are +/- n degrees.
Those are published. The monthly anomalies are +/- 0.05 for later in the period and +/- 0.20 around 1880. Here is an example from Berkeley Earth.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
“The monthly anomalies are +/- 0.05 for later in the period and +/- 0.20 around 1880. Here is an example from Berkeley Earth.”
The paper I quoted shows figures that are widely different to those quo=ted from Berkeley Earth.
Why do you think that there are such significant differences?
So you are of the belief that drawing a line with a pen many times reduces the thickness of the line drawn. What accuracy may do is refine where the center of the pen is. Not reduce its thickness
> So you are of the belief that drawing a line with a pen many times reduces the thickness of the line drawn.
I’m rather of the belief that temperatures are more like my weight than like the sharpest line I can draw with a pencil.
I need to think a bit more about how to solve the conceptual problem we are facing, as I wrote a post and have to be elsewhere. Meanwhile, I will emphasize a bit from a paper Barry (if memory serves well) cited earlier:
https://tinyurl.com/ruwnuju6
The whole section is worth revisiting.
I mentioned earlier that I got as far as the Abstract and found
“Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty”
which is then not mentioned again anywhere in the full paper. Nor is it explored in detail further either.
Except under
“Station uncertainty encompasses the systematic and random uncertainties that occur in the record of a single station and include measurement uncertainties”
Try again.
Plus we have
“We estimate that on average 13% of the non-seasonal variance in a typical monthly temperature time series is caused by local noise of one kind or another”
> not mentioned again anywhere in the full paper
Well, sometimes it’s hard to find something akin to a folk theorem:
But there is at also that:
That should inspire you to look for Menne.
If you are trying to tell me that taking 1,000,000 measurements are going to turn an inaccurate +/- 5 degrees into an accurate +/- 0.01 degrees then you don’t understand statistics or science.
The range that the instrument covers, even as you add new points, still remains at +/- 5 degrees
That is what we’re trying to tell you. If the task is to compute a mean then the error of the mean decreases and the number of samples increases. It is the well known and uncontroversial formula E = S/sqrt(N). The concept is used ubiquitously in all disciplines of science.
I know. But the range of accuracy for new and old readings will always be +/- n degrees depending on how much you paid for the thermometer. No statistics will reduce that +/- figure.
RLH,
No. That’s just not feasible.
You argument is that the vagaries of weather and local conditions make deriving a fairly accurate global temperarre record impossible.
But we see that the satellite data – which measure a swathe of the lower troposphere kilometers, using radiance brightness of O2 molecudles as a proxy for temperature – matches the annual ups and downs of surface records and have similar long-term trends.
If weather can’t be overcome by averaging, then these data sets hould be very different. Saqtellite and surface data are located in very different places. The weather will be very different foor eahc measurement for each kind of data.
Yet they end up closesly matching.
This should not happen, not to the excellent agreement we see in comparision, if the factors you have listed are a fatal complication for the global average temperature record.
The 2 satellite data sets have the same data source but different methodologies.
Those 2 satellite data sets are completely different in every way from the surface data. Instead of themrometers, radiance brightness from O2 molecules. Much better coverage of the Earth, but not twice a day for each location (min/max). Where the surface data have issues with station moves, time of observation bias and instrument changes, the satellite data must reckon with satellite drift, orbital decay, and stitching together a record from several different satellites, having to intercallibrate between each, and each satellite with its own, sspecific issues regarding orbit and instrumentation.
If the factors you have listed overwhelm the averaging process, then the chance of these records following the same interannual changes is hair thin.
No, the fact that these correllate well is clear evidence of a sound methodology, and that averaging hugely reduces the chaotic element of random weather.
And this should be evident to anyone used to working with large data sets. A large sample cancels out the random stuff and gives a good overall picture.
“what is your explanation for the approximate 0.8c differences between the 4 plots?”
Dunno what you mean, but as I said, it is well known that the satellite data have a bit more variability (higher peaks, lower troughs) than surface, and this is clearest during a strong el Nino/la Nina. All that means is that either the lower tropoaphere is more sensitive to ENSO events than the surface, or the metric being measures potentially exacerbates ENSO events in the satellite record.
Otherwise, the plots are remarkably similar. This cannot be a coincidence. There are too many different data sets and methodologies involved.
And as I said, you can take a half or quarter subset of the surface data and you get the same profile, as long as the geospatial distribution of data is well spaced.
If local weather dominates averaging process, then we should NOT see the same profile regardless of which subset we use.
Averaging works. The chaos of weather is filtered into the averages of climate with enough data.
The factors you have nominated cannot have equally affected satellite and surface data. The reason the correrlation is good between them is because the methods are sound. Indeed, comparing satellite and surface data is a check on each. Sub-smapling also corroborates.
Your listed factors don’t dominate on climatic scales. They are only interesting when you are investigating weather.
Scuse the repetition, I was doing 3 things at once.
“Scuse the repetition, I was doing 3 things at once.”
NP. I have the same problem all the time.
“Averaging works. The chaos of weather is filtered into the averages of climate with enough data.”
The central figures quite possibly, though mean is a poor choice in statistics. The error range, the plus/minus figures for each point are unchanged by the number of points you gather.
“You argument is that the vagaries of weather and local conditions make deriving a fairly accurate global temperarre record impossible.”
I am observing, as many have done before, that the individual points in that temperature record have an error band and other stats associated with each point.
Tell me what is the confidence level, standard deviation, etc. for each point in that record, regardless if it is derived from ground based thermometers, satellites or fingers in the air?
The error of each meausrement is the tolerances of the instrument.
You don’t need to factor manby of the items you have listed. The temperature is the temperature because of those daily influences. It’s not practical to remove them to arrive at some ‘true’ temperature, nor is it necessary.
If we want to know whether the global temperature has changed over a period of decades, then we will have enough information using just temperature data. Daily variation is normal and expected.
One location to be used for the globe would be highly erroneous. But gather thousands of locations in a fairly even geospatial spread, average daily temperatures into months, and monthly temperatures into years, and with those hundreds of thousands of measurements the error reduces.
That the error reduces for this kind of operation is a fundament of statistics.
So do you believe that having a +/- 5.0c thermometer can be turned into a 0.01c one by taking 1,000,000 measurements with it?
The way you put that…. Interesting wording.
No – the error in the instrument remains the same.
The error in the estimate reduces with more measurements.
I think it’s just possible you aren’t aware that you get better precision the more measurements you take.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080402030712/tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/the-power-of-large-numbers/
The statistical power of large numbers has thousands of applications, eg in chemistry:
“…the more measurements that are taken, the closer we can get to knowing a quantity’s true value. With multiple measurements (replicates), we can judge the precision of the results, and then apply simple statistics to estimate how close the mean value would be to the true value if there was no systematic error in the system. The mean deviates from the ‘true value’ less as the number of measurements increases.”
For the purposes of tracking changes in an averaged global temperature over time, good precision is what we need. Many measurements give us that.
I think you want better accuracy. That misses the point – and the power of large numbers. We are tracking climate change over time. Climate is the average of weather.
You’ve seen a graph showing excellent correllation between satellite and surface global temperatures.
These are fundamentally different measurements of different things, but they end up giving us the same result for global temperature.
If the temperature record is so unreliable because of the factors you have suggested, then it has to be an extraordinary coincidence that the global temperatures evolution inferred from measuring brightness radiance of oxygen in a 10 kilometer deep swathe of the atmosphere should so closely match that measured by near-ground thermometers.
I skimmed some conversation you were having with bdgwx about a cubic volume of air around the thermometer, and how various factors could make that thermometer reading unreliable.
Here we have a volume of atmosphere 10 kilometers deep covering most of the globe (except for a few degrees near the poles), compared with a non-symmetrical array of thermometers around the globe at about 2 metres above the ground.
If your doubts were well-justified, we really shouldn’t see this close match between such wildly divergent metrics. And I don’t think there is a plausible explanation for why we do that permits your concerns at the same time.
But I would be curious to see a well-argued rationale that explained, if you have one.
“No the error in the instrument remains the same.
The error in the estimate reduces with more measurements.”
Please make sure to keep that in mind all the time.
“I think its just possible you arent aware that you get better precision the more measurements you take.”
I know rather more about statistics than you seem to give me credit for.
There is considerable difference between multiple samples reducing the central error and the range that the instrument is capable of providing.
If you have a thermometer which is accurate to +/- 5.0c what is the accuracy of new readings taken by it?
Each individual measurement is still +/- 5.0C.
But the mean of all of the measurements is given by S/sqrt(N) where S is the standard of the individual measurements (in this case 5.0C) and N is the number of the measurements.
I know rather more about statistics than you seem to give me credit for.
To do a proper error analysis, one would need to better know the characteristics of a “+/- 5.0c thermometer”. In particular, how the tolerance is split between instrument bias and instantaneous noise.
If we have a hypothetical noise-free thermometer with a bias in the range +/-5 reading a fixed temperature environment, it will give the same biased reading each time and the average will retain that bias. If the bias per instrument were randomly distributed, we could average readings from many such instruments and expect to approach “truth” as 1/sqrt(N instruments).
Similarly if we have a hypothetical bias-free thermometer with noisy readings we can average a large number of readings from the individual instrument and expect the average to eventually converge on “truth” even with large uncertainty in individual readings.
That said, I’m not at all clear what larger point you’re trying to make. Nobody denies that we use imperfect instrumentation to measure messy environments, but those who make broad appeals to unknown unknowns seem almost universally to assume uncertainty in a particular direction. Uncertainty is not your friend because it cuts in both directions.
> Uncertainty is not your friend because it cuts in both directions.
Well put.
I would add that the deeper uncertainty cuts, the costlier it becomes.
To emphasize observation errors implies that the current warming could be much more than we usually assume.
Mark B, Exactly!
“To do a proper error analysis, one would need to better know the characteristics of a +/- 5.0c thermometer. In particular, how the tolerance is split between instrument bias and instantaneous noise.”
I chose the +/- 5.0c case to emphasize the argument.
You cannot improve the accuracy of new readings taken on any thermometer no matter how you try.
They will always be +/- 5.0c
For this case that is
RLH,
I think the oint I made here is hard to refute. Will you respond?
“I skimmed some conversation you were having with bdgwx about a cubic volume of air around the thermometer, and how various factors could make that thermometer reading unreliable.
Here we have a volume of atmosphere 10 kilometers deep covering most of the globe (except for a few degrees near the poles), compared with a non-symmetrical array of thermometers around the globe at about 2 metres above the ground.
If your doubts were well-justified, we really shouldnt see this close match between such wildly divergent metrics. And I dont think there is a plausible explanation for why we do that permits your concerns at the same time.
But I would be curious to see a well-argued rationale that explained, if you have one.”
How do you explain this close match if the factors you indicate supposedly make the temperature record so unreliable?
Some self appointed quantum physics expert wrote earlier –
“What you refer to as a high energy molecule became that way by gaining rotational energy by a_sor_ing an IR photon; which is to say that its rotational kinetic energy is now greater by virtue of increased angular velocity.”
Presumably this is supposed to relate to the mythical GHE is some way. However, the question about the quoted nonsensical and misleading gibberish would be –
And what then? The “expert” will be unable to say – Wikipedia can’t help him out!
What an idiot!
You need new material, Mike Flynn.
No, he doesn’t.
Why do you speak of yourself in the third person, Mike Flynn?
Why are you an idiot?
That’s the 117th “idiot” on this page, Mike Flynn.
Well done!
Waffling Wee Willy,
Make that 118, you idiot.
With your ability to count, if you can divide as well, you could call yourself a “climate scientist”.
Any idiot could, and obviously some do.
Whoops, 119!
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
There, 100!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the troll
RLH, please stop trolling.
Nope
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Woebegone Wee Willy, funny little chap that he is, is finding that his reliance on “silly semantic games” and “auditing skillz” is having an adverse effect on his twisted brain.
Poor Wee Willy. Not sure where the GHE can be observed, or what it is supposed to do! Nobody seems to be interested in his offers, and his demands that people click on his mostly irrelevant links go unanswered.
Sad and Sorrowful Wee Willy, complaining that he feels abused. Poor diddums! Obviously needs to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. Or just poke himself in the eye with a hot needle, so he can feel better about himself when he stops.
Ho, ho, ho.
Where’s Ken?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the troll
Wow, you really have a problem with me, for some reason. Oh well.
I have a problem with all trolls. Always have had. Since the 1960s or there about.
RLH, please stop trolling.
Nope
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Only a #2?You can do better than that!
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/golAjKMDuVk
willard…”You’re selling Linus short, Gordon. He’s a Nobel prize. In fact he also won the Peace prize”.
I’m trying not to stray too far off topic. I could write scads on Pauling and his achievements.
His peace prize was a second Nobel and he might have won a third Nobel for discovering the shape of the DNA molecule had the McCarthyists not taken away his passport. He was scheduled to visit Rosalind Franklin, in London, the expert in xray diffraction who revealed the xrays of DNA to Watson and Crick. Had Pauling seen them first he would have immediately recognized the shape.
Franklin received no credit for her important part in the discovery of the DNA molecule shape, which was a sin. Watson and Crick had no idea what they had discovered. Pauling’s son was in London at the time and he was a friend of Watson and Crick. They had to consult with Pauling Sr. to understand the meaning of the molecular makeup of DNA.
It was his wife who turned Pauling onto peace. After WW II, the US Army were allowing soldiers near atomic bomb tests to check the effect the blast had on humans. As they left the area, the soldiers had dust brushed off them with a whisk broom. Pauling recognized immediately that the radiation could be deadly.
He began writing articles on the danger of radiation and he was visited by the FBI. They wanted to know how he knew how an atomic bomb worked. He told them he had worked it out using chemistry theory. However, the McCarthyists presumed he had communist sympathies and began hounding him, taking away his passport. He had to swear he was not a Communist to get it back.
Pauling suffered poor health in mid-life and nearly died from it. It’s a testament to his later discovery of the benefits of vitamin C that he lived into his 90s. It was not just vitamin C he preached, it was all vitamins and he wrote a book on that called How To Live Longer and Feel Better. Obviously, it worked for him. He was active in his lab right up till the time he died.
ps. I t wasn’t Pauling who started the notion of vitamin C helping fight cancer. It was Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish surgeon who took an interest in what could be done to stop tumours from spreading.
Based on his own research he had learned that vitamin C in adequate dosages formed a substance in the cells surrounding a tumour that interfered with the tumour’s ability to spread. He was working in the dark and he accidentally came across an article by Pauling on vitamin C, so he contacted Pauling to seek advice.
Basically, he wanted to know how much he should used and through mutual consultation they agreed on 10 grams orally. However, they used initial dosages of 25 grams using IV. Through that consultation process, Pauling went to Scotland to work with Cameron.
I think they did important work and it’s ridiculous that idiots in the medical profession turned their backs on it, or like Moertell, completely messed up the process by using inadequate amounts of vitamin C and keeping terminally ill patients on chemo.
A great man.
Still wrong about vitamin supplements.
You’re getting me nostalgic.
I lived in Cambridge and studied at King’s College London in the early 70s. Both the King’s biology depargument and the Cavendish were steeped in DNA lore.
Like many discoveries the DNA structure was built on a number of sources.
The dimensions, water content and orientation of the chains came from King’s. Work done by Rosalind Franklin built on work by Maurice Wilkins. One key point that Franklin spotted was space group C2, that the two chains ran in opposite directions like two pencils laid side by side but pointing in opposite directions.
Her interpretation of the X-ray diffraction of helices was informed by earlier work by Linus Pauling on helical proteins and Francis Crick’s helical diffraction theory.
After a couple of false starts Crick and Watson used Franklin’s data to build a successful model of the two chains.
The arrangement of the base pairs started with Erwin Chargaff. He measured the proportions of the nucleotide bases and found that the amount of Adenine matched the amount of Thymine and similarly for Guanine and Cytosine.This became known as Chargaff’s rule. A=T and G=C.
Watson’s main contribution to the final structure was to work out how A bound to T and G bound to C. He realised that they form pairs with identical dimensions which fitted the chain structure.
By this time Rosalind Franklin had moved to Birkbeck College. She was credited in the discovery papers, but most of the adulation went to Crick, Watson and Wilkins. By the time the Nobel Prizes were awarded Franklin was dead of cancer and Nobels are not awarded posthumously.
In recent years Rosalind Franklin is much more respected. Among other things ESA have named their next Mars lander after her.
Tim Folkerts wrote earlier x
“Just to clarify what I wrote earlier .
INCREASING the solar radiation to the surface of the moon (ie increasing relative to the radiation on at earths surface) DECREASES the average temperature (on the moons surface relative to the earths surface).”
If that’s Tim’s idea of clarification, I’d hate to deal with his idea of complication!
Strange lad, Tim.
Swenson
The Tim Folkerts statement is correct. You can look at actual tables of the surface temperature of both the Moon and the Earth.
The Earth surface receives less solar input than the Moon (Earth atmosphere absorbs parts of solar input) but has a higher average surface temperature than the Moon.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg?itok=43dwxKEV
This link has the average temperature of the Earth and Moon.
http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter1/marsfacts.htm
N,
So increasing solar radiation decreases temperature?
Only if you use a climatological imaginary thermometer. In the real world, blocking solar radiation results in lower temperatures, and vice versa.
As to average temperatures, they are the first refuge of the fraud or the fool. Beloved of alarmists for that very reason. Who cares about the average temperature if you are about to die from frying or freezing? Who cares about average rainfall, if you happen to be drowning or about to expire from thirst?
You have joined the idiot brigade – have you raised or lowered their average IQ? Does anyone care?
I don’t think so.
“So increasing solar radiation decreases temperature?”
Yes, in this case! As you go from the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon,
* you are increasing the average sunlight.
* you are decreasing the average temperaure.
The slower rotation explains part of that. The properties of the oceans explains part of that. And the greenhouse effect explains part of that.
norman..”The Earth surface receives less solar input than the Moon (Earth atmosphere absorbs parts of solar input) but has a higher average surface temperature than the Moon.”
Perfect example of how an average can be misleading. The Earth rotates about 29 times for each orbit of the Moon, therefore its exposure to full illumination is far more frequent. As you know, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. When the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, the near side is fully illuminated. When the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth that same side is now receiving no illumination and becomes very cold.
In between, when the Moon’s near face is perpendicular to a line between the Sun and the Earth, an intermediate face of the Moon receives full illumination.
The point is this. The Moon does not rotate on its axis and its exposure to the Sun depends on its position in the orbit. The change in exposure occurs slowly over a 28+ day period, therefore the average between full illumination and total cold with no illumination affects the average far differently than the Earth’s average with a high rate of rotation.
“The Moon does not rotate on its axis”
The Moon begs to differ.
RLH, you must have missed the discussion about Moon. It started about April 2020. The issue is of interest because it demonstrates how people will twist/spin/distort/pervert reality to support their beliefs, that are based on their worship of false idols.
Even if someone does not understand orbital motion, they can understand a simple ball-on-a-string that is being swung in a circle. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of the circle. The ball is not rotating about its axis. If the ball were actually rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. It’s the same motion as Moon.
Here’s a partial list of all the attempts to pervert the simple ball-on-a-string analogy:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Tesla had hotel bills and was feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucault’s Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards and sideways
As you might expect, those that believe Moon rotates also believe CO2 can heat the planet.
“RLH, you must have missed the discussion about Moon. It started about April 2020. The issue is of interest because it demonstrates how people will twist/spin/distort/pervert reality to support their beliefs, that are based on their worship of false idols.”
I did.
But Newton refutes all of the crazies. I can have an axis anywhere on the center-string-ball where I am standing and still see things rotate about me.
It’s been six months since this gem was first posted:
NASA website today:
NASA agrees that the Moon rotates about its axis then
RLH
You’re flogging a dead horse here.
The only way to change Clint R’s mind would be to use a trepanning tool.
I’m just waiting for him to disown NASA
Clint R at 5:57 AM
It is disappointing that you omitted tidal locking from your list. I was looking forward to your recounting of the steel hammers and feather experiment. https://tinyurl.com/Hammers-and-feathers
RLH says: “I’m just waiting for him to disown NASA.”
Actually NASA has disowned itself.
What people don’t understand is that NASA started out being a science organization. But gradually transformed into its current form as just another bloated, agenda-driven bureaucracy.
It is correct as far as the science on this goes though. In fact it is just restating Newton
No RLH, NASA is WRONG about Moon. Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
And, if you’re going to support the NASA nonsense, you need to come up with something original. “Misquoting Newton” has already been used. Bindidon tried that numerous times because he couldn’t understand what “with respect to the stars” meant. Bindidon has NO understanding of science, like most of the other “Spinners”.
Newton was actually the one that verified what pure orbital motion is. A body, with no axial rotation, affected by gravity will orbit a host keeping only one side facing the inside of the orbit. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string, or Moon. Newton had to invent calculus for his verification.
“Newton was actually the one that verified what pure orbital motion is. A body, with no axial rotation, affected by gravity will orbit a host keeping only one side facing the inside of the orbit.”
Wrong. Newton said that a body in orbit with no axial rotation will keep one face to a distant star unless a force causes it to turn on its axis, say once per revolution. 1st law in fact.
Newton’s 1st Law of Motion is indeed fact, RLH. But, you have to know how to apply it.
Moon has a linear velocity. The 1st Law says that linear velocity will remain the same unless a force acts on it. That force is the centripetal force caused by gravity. Moon obeys all of the laws of motion. That’s reality.
You are attempting to pervert reality by claiming Moon must always face a distant star. That’s the same perversion as Entropic man attempts by claiming a passenger jets will be flying sideways and backwards as it circumnavigates Earth. And Newton never said anything like what you claim he said. So, your perversion of reality gets memorialized.
We now have:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Tesla had hotel bills and was feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucault’s Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards and sideways
Newton’s 1st Law of Motion
“Moon has a linear velocity.”
Wrong again. The Moon has 3 velocities. One, the orbital velocity around the Sun. Another, the orbital velocity around the Earth and the last, a rotational velocity around its axis.
RLH, are you trying to be stupid? By your “standards”, Moon would have a nearly infinite number of velocities! One for each star and object in the Universe!
Of course, you’ve long lost the argument. Now you’re flinging anything against the wall, trying to support your beliefs. You hope to change the issue, to cover up your loss. Hint: No matter how many velocities you claim Moon has, it is still NOT rotating about its axis.
Cults force people to deny reality, then desperately make up even more nonsense to support their nonsense. Cults force people to make idiots of themselves.
I think you deserve another entry on the idiot board.
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Tesla had hotel bills and was feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucault’s Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards and sideways
Perverting Newton’s 1st Law of Motion
Moon has an infinite number of velocities
“Of course, youve long lost the argument. Now youre flinging anything against the wall, trying to support your beliefs.”
I was quoting the top 3 motions. The rest amount to a tiny, tiny, set of variations. Mostly unmeasurable (but they are there none the less as you correctly observe).
You do not consider Newton et al. to be of any relevance. Newton (and I) don’t care about that. You are wrong. End of.
Tell me, if a stick is spinning, does its motion depend where on the stick I stand? None-the-less, for each place on that stick I stand that is also an axis about me which the stick can be considered to rotate. As observations made by me will show.
You already got credit for perverting Newton, RLH. And “reference frame” has already been tried before. So sorry, no new places on the idiot board for you this time.
That’s the beauty of the simple ball-on-a-string analogy — reference frames can not add confusion. If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string will wrap around it. Not rotating, then not wrapping.
You’re welcome to try to make the idiot board again. There’s apparently no limit to how stupid people can be, especially when they are clueless about orbital motions.
“That’s the beauty of the simple ball-on-a-string analogy — reference frames can not add confusion.”
That’s the advantage of replacing the ball-on-a-string example with a rod which also represents the same thing.
“especially when they are clueless about orbital motions.”
According to you, NASA are hopeless about orbital motions. Go figure
It’s not just according to me, RLH. Richard Feynman discovered that NASA was so corrupt they were willing to kill astronauts to keep the funding coming in.
What people don’t understand is that NASA started out being a science organization. But gradually morphed into its current form as just another bloated, agenda-driven bureaucracy.
But learning to think for yourself is hard. That’s why it’s so hard for the braindead to leave cults.
So how come NASA correctly calculate orbits on a regular basis?
Kepler’s Laws are used to “calculate orbits”, RLH.
But Kepler’s Laws have nothing to do with axial rotation. Newton was the one that discovered that a non-rotating, orbiting body will always have the same side facing the inside of the orbit. That also means one side is always facing in the instantaneous direction of travel, just like a passenger jet, javelin, or Moon.
“That also means one side is always facing in the instantaneous direction of travel, just like a passenger jet, javelin, or Moon.”
Meaning as the instantaneous direction of travel changes, so the object rotates on its own axis changing its orientation as observed inertially thus Clint R agrees with RLH observing inertially and the spinners.
Sometimes Clint R is observing from the passenger jet, javelin, or Moon with the non-spinners when writing “a non-rotating, orbiting body” and forgets to announce the location of the observation.
Troll4 returns to re-confirm what an idiot he is.
The ball-on-a-string negates any attempted confusion with “reference frames” or “location of observation”. The string does not wrap around the ball — the ball is not rotating about its axis.
Changing direction is NOT the same as rotating about an axis. It’s the same for a passenger jet, javelin, or Moon.
Idiots can never learn.
“Newton was the one that discovered that a non-rotating, orbiting body will always have the same side facing the inside of the orbit.”
No he did not. Cite an exact reference for that.
“Keplers Laws are used to calculate orbits, RLH.”
And Kepler’s Laws were based on ——- gravity. And we all know who defined how gravity worked don’t we. Newton
Newton also defined inertia. As in rotational inertia. Does the Moon have rotational inertia when revolving around its axis? Yes it does. Therefore the Moon is rotating about its axis. QED
CLINT: “one side is always facing in the instantaneous direction of travel”
This is why Clint puts “elliptical orbits” on his list. This statement is true only for perfectly circular orbits. The point on the surface pointing in the direction of travel changes for elliptical orbits. (Also, the point on the surface pointing toward the center changes for elliptical orbits.) Since “elliptical orbits” don’t match his simplistic views based on balls on strings, elliptical orbits must be ignored.
Wrong TF. Moon faces its instantaneous direction. That’s what causes libration.
You still don’t understand any of this.
And further TF, the ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon. It is a model of “orbiting, without axial rotation”.
This has been explained to you numerous times, but you still haven’t learned.
I heard a Puppy say:
“Richard Feynman discovered that NASA was so corrupt they were willing to kill astronauts to keep the funding coming in.”
That echoes the “But NASA” square in the Climateball Bingo.
Here’s a little classifier of the Bingo squares:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/05/23/the-bingo-core/
“But NASA” is linked to “But PSYOP.”
So explain it to us, Clint.
Suppose I get a map of the moon’s surface — like this: https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/545184main_Figure5_DiffSlopeMap-full.jpg
At some given instant — say 0:00 UTC, May 23, 2001, I find
(A) the point on the moon facing directly toward earth
(B) the point on the moon facing directly in the direction of the moon in its orbit (ie its “instantaneous direction”.)
I mark these on a map.
At some later time — maybe 1 day or 7 days or 14 day later — which (if any) of the following would be true.
(A) is still facing directly toward the earth
(B) is still facing directly in the direction of travel
And why!? What causes libration for a ball on a string?
CLINT: ” the ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon. It is a model of orbiting, without axial rotation.”
So what does your ball-on-a-string model of orbiting-without-axial-motion tell us about the 100% of real orbits that are not perfectly circular? What orientation do you expect for 100% of real orbits, where libration is observed? What causes libration?
FYI: Libration is trivial to explain for the moon in the uniformly-rotating-about-its-axis model.
TF still clings to his nonsense “What causes libration for a ball on a string?”
Idiots can’t learn.
Just remember Clint inertial rotation on celestial object’s own axis means this occurs: ‘That also means one side is always facing in the instantaneous direction of travel, just like a passenger jet, javelin, or Moon.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Clint, You are good at avoiding ideas that make you uncomfortable, I’ll give you that. You clearly have no idea how to explain the orientation of a tidally locked moon in a real elliptical orbit. So you bluster. You pretend to know. You attempt to pre-emptively ban the whole concept of elliptical orbits. But you never answer the basic issue.
Describe the orientation of a tidally locked moon as it orbits in an elliptical orbit.
Clint: Describe rotational inertia.
Tim, RLH, please stop trolling.
So I have to ask then. If one were to cut the string close to the rotational axis, would the string then continue to revolve around the center axis of the ball or not?
Rather like a Weight throw on track and field
Yes, but the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis before release.
But does afterwards which demonstrates that the ball does indeed have its own axis of rotation and rotational momentum around it .
It does afterwards, but not before.
Before release, the ball is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis. After release, the ball is rotating on its own axis.
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
Thats a poor argument. A pitcher throwing a curveball imparts the spin upon release. Maintaining your line of argument goes against kinematic teachings of rotations around external axes. If we were to buy your argument there would never be a rotation around an external axis.
“It does afterwards, but not before.”
So where does the rotational momentum come from then? The rotation about its own axis or not. Otherwise the weight would travel in a straight line with no rotation at all.
It is rotating before release, just not on its own axis. Read my previous comment again, basically. I have already explained it.
Read tidal locking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking as well
Already well aware.
So where does the energy for ocean and land tides come from?
You tell me, and I will agree. I am not arguing against the existence of tides.
Well I, and the rest of the world, think that tidal locking has to do with the tides.
I have no problem with the tidal locking mechanism. From the “non-spinner” perspective, a tidally-locked moon is simply a moon that does not rotate on its own axis.
GORDON: “Perfect example of how an average can be misleading. ”
Perfect example of how applying a correct idea can be misleading.
The rate of rotation is important for average temperature, as Gordon (and everyone else) realizes. The moon would be warmer if it spun faster.
But! there are limits. No matter how fast it spun, the moon would not get any warmer than about 270 K, its effective blackbody temperature. So even if we got the moon spinning as fast as the earth, the moon would STILL absorb a higher average solar power (about 345 W/m^2 vs 240 W/m^2) while STILL having a lower average surface temperature.
So it is very misleading to simply point to ‘rotation rate’ as if that were the answer.
> it is very misleading to simply point to ‘rotation rate’ as if that were the answer.
The trick is as old as Zeno.
Tim, Willard, please stop trolling.
entropic…”A modern GCM solves the Navier-Stokes equations for 40 variables, 12500 grid cells and five altitudes, daily for 50 years”.
If Navier-Stokes is applied incorrectly and/or does not represent the physical reality, it’s a moot point. N-S as applied in GCMs is done very poorly and incompletely. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed out, there are no computers large enough or fast enough to compute the required representation, even if it was known.
If a representation is uncomputable, Gordon, then so much the worse for requiring it.
What applies for floating points applies for everything else.
Here you see again that Robertson does not have ANY knowledge about real engineering.
He never used Navier-Stokes in any form and hence does not understand the major difference between
– the undeniable unability to solve these equations on an analytical basis
and
– the possibility to use them based on numerical approximations.
*
Moreover, Gerlich and Tscheuschner were/are two German experimental physicists who NEVER worked in the context they criticized.
And that is, of course, the reason why Robertson would immediately discredit them as incompetent – if they would have had a meaning not fitting to his own narrative.
A reminder: even the German physicists Lüders and Lüning, who are among other things the scientific background of the German ultraskeptic web site EIKE, contradicted Gerlich and Tscheuschner soon after their publication.
J.-P. D.
binny…”A good source for what you search for is Berkeleys land+ocean data:”
You mean the data Judith Curry left behind because it is now fudged? Of course, after pushing Meier’s fudged data alleging the Moon rotates on its axis, you would not know the difference.
maguff…”In other cases, however, we found that the molecules stopped the waves of heat which impinged upon them; but that in so doing, they themselves became centers of oscillation”.
Tyndall was describing the behavior of CO2 in a relatively thin tube at a known concentration and at a constant pressure. CO2 in the atmosphere is not confined by a tube, accounts for 1 molecule at STP per 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, and it’s concentration varies markedly with altitude.
The IR source used by Tyndall was a solid flame that was focused through a narrow tube. The Earth’s surface radiates different IR frequencies at different locations depending on the makeup of the surface. Furthermore, the emissions move in every direction from vertical to almost horizontal and the surface IR flux swamps the ability of CO2 molecules to absorb 95% of it.
There is simply no comparison between Tyndall’s important discovery and CO2 in the atmosphere.
btw…molecules don’t absorb IR or EM, electrons do. The word molecule is a descriptor for two or more atoms bonded by electrons. In essence, there is no such thing as a molecule, only atomic nucleii bonded into various configurations.
The shape of the molecule determines its degrees of freedom re vibration and its ability to rotate in a certain degree of freedom. It’s shape is determined by its electron content and how they are configured between atoms. It’s all about internal atomic attraction and repulsion between positive and negative charges.
That’s not exactly correct, Gordon. The molecule absorbs IR resulting in rotational, translational, or vibrational energy states depending on the molecular structure. You are thinking of other wavelength spectrums.
Anderson
Thanks for trying, but… you have NO CHANCE to change even a bit in Robertson’s narrative – regardless the domain you observe, beginning with Moon’s rotation about an interior axis, and ending with… the existence of viruses.
J.-P. D.
Swenson May 20 at 5:43 AM
TM,
Perfectly correct. Climate alarmists actually believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter, against all known physical laws!
Swenson May 21 at 6:18 PM
TM,
So you agree that CO2 can change its temperature when the radiation to which it is exposed changes?
Yes, go on
TM,
You really can’t understand, can you?
Game over, idiot.
Has anyone done a difference calculation for the differences between 12 hour min/max using means as against a 1 hour median over the same 24 hour period?
Oh. Look. Here is a 12 hour example of the problems with a 2m to skin surface temp difference. Which will, effect the 3m air band around the 1.5m virtual plane. From NOAA no less.
https://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/HRRRnew/jsloopUpdated.cgi?dsKeys=hrrr_ncep_jet:&runTime=2021052211&plotName=temp_full_2ds&fcstInc=60&numFcsts=49&model=hrrr&ptitle=Forecast%20Graphics&maxFcstLen=48&fcstStrLen=-1&domain=full&adtfn=1&resizePlot=1&domain=full
I’m the one that introduced you to that site.
It obvious that scientists are well aware of the temperature gradient between the skin and 2m temperatures.
And as we’ve been trying to explain it is moot since global mean surface temperature datasets do not inappropriately mix skin temperature readings in with the readings at standard height.
So do you believe that if we only have a +/- 5.0c degrees thermometer we can turn it into a +/- 0.01c one by taking 1,000,000 measurements with it?
I know.
But then you don’t seem to want to take that into account when translating a 1.5m virtual plane into a 3m air surface layer.
If the 2m band changes that much then the 2d 1.5m height sampled with min/max and using a mean of that over 24 hours compared to a real world 3d, 3m air surface layer running at a continuous median sampled bears little in any comparison.
> bears little in any comparison.
How do you know: your eyeballs?
Will
Be able to hold up after your little spanking?
No – basic statistical and sampling knowledge. Nyquist would have a lot to say about time series sampled that were:
1. At a 1.5m 2d virtual grid using min/max mean at 24 hour intervals
2. A 3d, 3m surface air band sampled continuously using a median also over a 24 hour period.
Presumably you think they are the same?
Go for it: show climate scientists how things should be done.
Denny,
Your new guru mistook modes and medians yesterday.
Give yourself a chance.
“show climate scientists how things should be done.”
Well drop means for a start. Start using medians.
Start sampling at shorter than 12/24 hour periods. That goes for satellites too.
Stop claiming that a 2d, 1.5m virtual plane has any bearing on 3d, 3m air volumes next to the ground.
“Your new guru mistook modes and medians yesterday.”
Yup. I should have said medians all along. Anything but mean though.
> Well drop means for a start. Start using medians.
I said “show,” RLH.
I did not say “tell.”
Everyone’s a critic, but can you cook?
“I said show, RLH.
I did not say tell.”
Do you know of a 1 hour sampled temperature time series with global coverage than I can run a median over? With a greater than 60 year length?
Just Asking Questions isn’t a way to show anything, RLH.
What you need to show is that the differences you see make a difference in the end. I’m not saying it’s impossible to do. In fact if you can show it, more power to you. I’m quite agnostic regarding scientific matters. Climateball isn’t about science, but about people.
Thank you for your earlier correction, it goes a long way.
NP on my correction to myself.
Until I can up with a data source then definitive proof of the difference between mean and median and sampling rates will be difficult to achieve.
“BTWkeep in mind that skin layer temperature gradients are localized within the first few cm above the surface. After that the vertical profile is relatively stable. In other words, youre not going to find a lot of difference between 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 meter temperatures.”
I personally know of and the site you referred me to definitively shows that what you are claiming is false.
The 2d 1.5m virtual plane is NOT representative of the 3d 3m surface volume on a continuous basis.
Add to that the min/max over a 24 hour period to produce a mean when all science knows that an hourly sampled median over the same 24 hour period will produce a more accurate figure.
I know you will correctly observe that such a data series does not exist. That does not make it undesirable or give anything other than an error band to include to the figures until it is.
> Until I can up with a data source then definitive proof of the difference between mean and median and sampling rates will be difficult to achieve.
That’s when you need someone like bdwgx and EM.
“That’s when you need someone like bdwgx and EM”
If they know of such a data series then I will happily adopt it.
Perhaps you need to contact the curators themselves.
Here’s an overview:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/
Perhaps this project could be of help (note the note on benchmarking):
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/
I already quoted VeeV. You can contact him via Twitter or his professional account:
http://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/staff/venema/
The guy who knows more about data and code is Mosh:
https://twitter.com/stevenmosher
Used to be a contrarian. Still is, but mostly personality-wise.
Perhaps what you’re looking for does not exist. I have no idea.
Best of luck!
“Perhaps what youre looking for does not exist. I have no idea”
It does not. Until it does an error term needs adding to the figures that do exists to account for the lack of it. As I have been saying.
So you’ve been arguing from ignorance all along, RLH.
That’s when you pull me back in the exchange.
“So you’ve been arguing from ignorance all along, RLH.
That’s when you pull me back in the exchange.”
No I have been arguing from the point of view of Nyquist and the whole of the rest of science.
You can always ignore them, but your results will always be wrong in that case.
Arguing from ignorance does not imply that one must argue from total ignorance, RLH. If you don’t have the dataset, you can’t study the effect you surmise. Which means you don’t know if the effect you surmise would have any effect in the end.
Intriguingly, Nyquist has a nice theorem that shows how we should not bet the farm on having richer information, at least as far as our ear is concerned. I’m still an hi-fi snob, but I sometimes download music at 320 kb.
“I’m still an hi-fi snob”
So JLH might have some bearing on your hobby?
Nyquist tells us what we should be concentrating on in order to improve things. That is what I am trying to improve.
Do or do not, JLH.
There is no try.
“Do or do not, JLH. There is no try.”
JLH was my Uncle. The rest is down to initials. See if you can guess what the full name is (try Google – about the 5th entry down I think)
1st if you make it JLH audio
OMG.
Well done. As I said, I grew up not only listening to his audio but also taking to him about how sound, chemistry, mathematics, sampling theorem and a load of other things worked.
That’s great. Your uncle’s design still has currency. It’s still talked about in DIY forums.
I much prefer this kind of exchange to anything else Climateball has to offer.
“Your uncles design still has currency. Its still talked about in DIY forums.”
Tell me something I do not already know.
Like what error bands would you assume that Nyquist would apply to land and satellite figures for instance? Given that they all use sub-sampled data to produce Global Air Temperature figures.
> Tell me something I do not already know.
No problemo:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/25/nyquist-sampling-anomalies-and-all-that/
“Start sampling at shorter than 12/24 hour periods.”
We need a long term temperature record with the data that we have, not the data we fantsise about.
Min/max is good enough for the purpose – establishing global, hemispheric, state or local temperature change over time.
@Willard Try instead “Estimating daily mean temperature from synoptic climate observations” by Yuting Maa and Peter Guttorp published 8 April 2012
“We compare some different approaches to estimating daily mean temperature (DMT). In many countries, the routine approach is to calculate the average of the directly measured minimum and maximum daily temperature. In some, the maximum and minimum are obtained from hourly measurements. In other countries, temperature readings at specific times throughout the day are taken into account. For example, the Swedish approach uses a linear combination of five temperature readings, including the minimum and the maximum, with coefficients that depend on longitude and month. We first look at data with very high temporal resolution, and compare some different approaches to estimating DMT. Then, we compare the Swedish formula to various averages of the daily minimum and maximum, finding the latter method being substantially less precise. We finally compare the Swedish formula to hourly averages, and find that a recalibrated linear combination improves estimation accuracy. Copyright 2012 Royal Meteorological Society”
I leavee you to read the full paper.
“Min/max is good enough for the purpose establishing global, hemispheric, state or local temperature change over time.”
But it should come with an error band. A plus/minus figure that attests to its accuracy to the real temperature that should have been recoded at the spot over the last 24 hours. See the above paper (there are others) which sets out the limitations of the method you are defending and it appears that you, and others, are suggesting that no error band is included despite what it says.
Uncertainty analysis is available. Refer to the following as examples.
Lenssen 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/4tmprfeh)
Rhode 2013 (https://tinyurl.com/rm82bhws)
“But it should come with an error band.”
The data sets DO come with advised uncertainties. Well, UAH uncertainty is difficult to track down, but its published somewhere.
Look, here is the Had.CRU global record including an error band.
https://tinyurl.com/3wp2x74y
Here are some basic results for a single year (last year) including uncertainty estimate for NOAA’s report for last year.
https://tinyurl.com/j7z6pu95
Eg,
2020 global average temperature anomaly: 0.98 C (+/- 0.15).
The following description of uncertainty estimates for global temperature data is applied for both Had.CRU and NOAA land surface data sets.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005JD006548
The following paper discusses uncertainty limits on sea surface data. Note the error band in the graphic near the end.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/9/jcli-d-15-0430.1.xml
“2020 global average temperature anomaly: 0.98 C (+/- 0.15).”
But the paper I quoted shows significantly different figures than that. Care to say why?
“The following paper discusses uncertainty limits on sea surface data. Note the error band in the graphic near the end.”
They appear to be discussing instrument error, not measurement error.
Sub-sampling any grid will produce significant uncertainties in the latter.
You should note that uncertainties about an individual point in any series cannot be reduced by taking more points into account. If an individual thermometer has an uncertainty to its readings as an average of the air or water temperature around it, then adding extra stations/grids will not improve that reading.
“Lenssen 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/4tmprfeh)”
“Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty”
But this is not followed up on or expanded in the rest of the text.
“Rhode 2013 (https://tinyurl.com/rm82bhws)”
“We estimate that on average 13% of the non-seasonal variance in a typical monthly temperature time series is caused by local noise of one kind or another”
Now that is slightly more than I was expecting. Do I se any reflection of this in the figures produced?
> If an individual thermometer has an uncertainty to its readings as an average of the air or water temperature around it, then adding extra stations/grids will not improve that reading.
You just cited a paper that shows how the mere choice of an estimator can reduce the bias of these readings, RLH. The error reduction does not seem linear, as the hourly average gets better results than daily minutes.
I suppose it depends on what you’re trying to estimate. If you want to test the reliability of a thermometer, using many other ones and varying measure conditions might improve your test.
“You just cited a paper that shows how the mere choice of an estimator can reduce the bias of these readings”
Reduce but not remove.
And the 13% mentioned above? That reduces the uncertainties how?
> Reduce but not remove.
To remove is virtually impossible, at least in this context.
If you weigh yourself every hour, your uncertainty regarding the measure of your weight will reduce. Adding a more precise scale can’t beat more measurements.
“If you weigh yourself every hour, your uncertainty regarding the measure of your weight will reduce. Adding a more precise scale cant beat more measurements.”
Do you think before you write? What does knowing your own weight have to do with estimating air temperature in a grid?
“But the paper I quoted shows significantly different figures than that. Care to say why?”
Link what you are referring to.
I will make a bet right now that the metric discussed by the paper you refer to is NOT globally averaged annual temperature.
RLH,
“But it should come with an error band.”
Is what I quoted upthread while showing you 2 global (land/sea) temp records with error bands.
Did you not want to acknowledge that your demand had been met?
Do you not recognize that a tighter central mean does not reduce the accuracy range for any reading? Even new ones.
A +/- 5.0c thermometer will always produce +/- 5.0c readings.
even if the central mean of it can be reduced by taking 1,000,000 samples using it.
“Well drop means for a start. Start using medians.”
I am curious why you would say this. As an extreme example, suppose that set of data has was 20 C 13x and 10 C 11x. A second set of data was 20 C 11x and 10 C 13x. Even thought they had almost the same temperatures, they have vastly different medians. The median is a bad measure of the central tendency here. But the average would be a quite good measure for both of them.
I know this is an artificially extreme example, but I am trying to think of a case where the median would be a better measure of the central tendency than the mean. Median can be good when you have outliers, like 10 people with incomes of $50-70,000 and one boss with an income of $1,000,000. But there are not outliers like this with temperature.
“I know this is an artificially extreme example, but I am trying to think of a case where the median would be a better measure of the central tendency than the mean.”
Tell what the hourly temperature distribution is in any 24 hour period. Is it normal? I think not.
Median at hourly intervals will provide a much more accurate figure for daily temps then mean (average) will ever do over the same time period.
Same goes for monthly, yearly, or even decade wise.
RLH, your comments did not help me understand your position on median vs mean.
“Tell what the hourly temperature distribution is in any 24 hour period. Is it normal? I think not.”
Data does not need to be normally distributed for mean values to be useful and important. The specific ways that a data set differs from normal determine the specific ways that mean, median, and mode differ from each other.
“Median at hourly intervals will provide a much more accurate figure for daily temps then mean (average) will ever do over the same time period.”
Why? You repeat this this, but provide no further rationale. The single best estimate of central tendency is usually the mean — which is why it is the most commonly used measure of central tendency. Google “central tendency” and you will see this is what most sources think.
I gave one example above. As a different example, consider the hypothesis that ‘global warming’ might cause nighttime temperatures to rise, but daytime temperatures to stay the same. Calculating the average of the hourly data will show this (as would simple daily high and low data). But median would be problematic.
Each statistic has its use, but I see no reason to conclude the median is “much more accurate”. (Plus most of the time, the two will be practically the same and have similar changes.)
Why would I want to take the skin temperature into account if my focus is on standard height temperature?
BTW…keep in mind that skin layer temperature gradients are localized within the first few cm above the surface. After that the vertical profile is relatively stable. In other words, you’re not going to find a lot of difference between 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 meter temperatures.
I’m not saying a 3D mean temperature of the first 3 meters, 100 meters, 1 km, etc. isn’t interesting or useful. It is especially for numerical weather prediction and meteorological purposes for various reasons which is why this information is easily obtainable in that domain. But that doesn’t mean an average temperature at standard height isn’t equally interesting and useful as well.
“Why would I want to take the skin temperature into account if my focus is on standard height temperature?”
Because there is an error band to the 1.5m figure that you are making 0.
It cannot and is not 0. As the site you referred to shows. You even admitted that my personal experience in Portugal was valid. A 1.5m thermometer would never have shown the frigid river of air around my feet.
I would have estimated that it was around 0.5m thick that rive of air. It was certainly at knee height or hereabouts.
“It is especially for numerical weather prediction”
And here I was thinking that Climate was Weather over a 30 year period.
RLH said: Because there is an error band to the 1.5m figure that you are making 0.
No there isn’t. Skin layer effects do not factor into a thermometer’s accuracy or precision.
I think you are confusing things that make the temperature what it is and things that cause a measurement to have error.
The gist I’m getting is that you feel that because temperatures change with height we cannot know the temperature at a specific height which is definitely an erroneous argument since scientists record the temperature with little problems at various different heights from the skin layer all the way up through the stratosphere.
“No there isnt. Skin layer effects do not factor into a thermometers accuracy or precision.”
Straw man. I did not say it affected the thermometer. I said it effects on the readings taken by it. There is a considerable differnece
“I think you are confusing things that make the temperature what it is and things that cause a measurement to have error.”
And I think you are confusing instrument errors with reading errors taken by those accurate instruments.
“The gist Im getting is that you feel that because temperatures change with height we cannot know the temperature at a specific height”
Wrong I am not thinking of that at all.
If I were to place an accurate thermometer in a 3m cube of air what error range would you expect that any one reading from it at 24 hour intervals using min/max means to obtain?
10.0001 +/- 2 degrees?
I certainly would. There are many factors, linear and non-linear that effect that number. To deny that there is a error range to that reading is to deny science.
RLH,
A point temperature measurement and a volume weighted mean of sufficiently placed and numerous temperature measurements of the parcel of air immediately surrounding the original point will likely be a bit different. That’s not an error. That’s a difference. The larger you make your parcel of air the larger the difference.
For example, if a balloon measures 20C at 1000 m and 10C at 2000 m then the height weighted mean between 1000 m and 2000 m is 15C. The difference between the mean and 1000 m is thus 5C. Again, that’s a difference; not an error.
That same principal applies to any scenario regardless of whether it 1000 & 2000 m or 1 m and 2 m.
What I’m saying is that global mean surface temperature datasets measure at standard height. If instead of measuring at standard height you measure from the skin to 3m you will likely get a slightly different result. You may even get a different result on the warming trend. In fact, I suspect you would. That doesn’t mean the measurement or warming trend at standard height is wrong or has excessive error. It just means it is different.
“What Im saying is that global mean surface temperature datasets measure at standard height.”
I know. But failing to include an uncertainty estimate for those figures is not science.
See “Estimating daily mean temperature from synoptic climate observations” mentioned elsewhere on here (or go look it up yourself and there are other papers too) which set out the limitations of the min/max/mean method of measuring a 24 hour temperature cycle.
“If instead of measuring at standard height you measure from the skin to 3m you will likely get a slightly different result. You may even get a different result on the warming trend. In fact, I suspect you would.”
Thank you. The real world operates on the 3m thick band of air, not the 2d synthetic plane which is often quoted.
“That doesnt mean the measurement or warming trend at standard height is wrong or has excessive error. It just means it is different.”
Do you think that those who read the figures understand that they are reading estimates rather than measurements.
> Do you think that those who read the figures understand that they are reading estimates rather than measurements.
I don’t see much of a difference.
It’s best to weight oneself each morning at each hour. It’s best to weight flour than to measure it, but unless one bakes a bread it should not matter much. If I buy a lot, the surveyor’s map gives me a rough outline I can trust, but litigation can still be possible.
In any event, your point reminds me that many contrarians refuse to accept that to measure is to model.
> at each hour
Erm, perhaps not at each hour.
At the same hour should be good enough.
“Its best to weight oneself each morning at each hour.”
Do you ever produce something that is on-topic?
I’m addressing your “who read the figures understand that they are reading estimates rather than measurements” fairly and squarely, RLH.
If you don’t get that my point is topical, perhaps you don’t understand what you’re talking about as well as you presume.
“If you don’t get that my point is topical, perhaps you don’t understand what you’re talking about as well as you presume.”
It is about as relevant as weighing yourself with a random collection of objects on the scale at the same time. Taking more readings will not produce better figures. Only keep the uncertainty to the objects that are added.
“fairly and squarely, RLH.”
Did you read the 13% uncertainty figure elsewhere? From a source I’m sure you approve of.
> Taking more readings will not produce better figures.
Ask any boxer. They will tell you otherwise.
From your own cite:
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3510
I will let you find back what was the true value.
So do you believe that you can reduce the +/- range band (the thickness of a pen) by drawing many lines with it? Or just improve the center of the line the pen is drawing?
I’ve updated the graphics to include CO2 and the Trend in Temperatures.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
In my opinion, this data set is undeniable proof that if you isolate the impact of CO2 on Temperature by controlling for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor you can demonstrate that CO2 does not impact temperatures in the lower Troposphere.
These graphics also highlight how any causative relationship between CO2 and Temperature is basically non-existent, and if you place CO2 and Temperature in a Multi-Variable Linear Regression Modeling Program such as R, SAS, or even Excel you will get a non-significant R-Squared and coefficient on CO2.
Lastly, I put a regression line on Temperature. You can see that:
1) Some Months are (+) some months are (-)
2) The high volatility of the data make the slope basically meaningless
3) Climate Alarmists have no answers for the evidence I’ve provided with these graphics. Even their nonsensical slope arguments are debunked with those charts. I have more (-) slopes than they have (+), but the fact that the same location has both (+) and (-) Slopes depending on the month pretty much proves regression slopes are useless in this analysis.
Here is the Evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Yup. Simple regression always has been useless
CO2istLeben
Langsam reicht einem Ihr langweiliges, oberflächliches Blah Blah.
Sie sind sowas von stur und störrisch – als wären Sie einer von diesen pensionierten deutschen Grundschullehrern.
Und in 50 Jahren habe ich einige (zu viele) kennengelernt.
J.-P. D.
You think that German makes you sound more intelligent?
He already sounds like a Nazi.
… says the guy who recently wrote on this blog, yeah, that the bloodthirsty dictator Pinochet was a Leftist.
Great.
J.-P. D.
Bindi,
Totalitarianism is left. Totalitarianism is, by definition, BIG GOVERNMENT. Right is small, limited government. Maybe one day you will understand this concept, Ja?
Republicans never reduced government size, Stephen.
Are you suggesting they’re leftists?
Republicans? Many, yes. Conservatives? No.
Williard, most of the time Republicans have tried to cut taxes. However, they have only stopped spending once when Clinton was President with the welfare block grants. Most Republicans are cowards.
And yet government size never was reduced, Stephen.
Have you ever wondered why?
No.
I’m simply more fluid in German and French sometimes.
And CO2istLeben’s stubbornness reminds me own experience with retired German elementary school teachers…
Are you one too, RLH?
J.-P. D.
“Are you one too, RLH?”
I don’t think so. Am I one of what?
RLH
He’s asking if you are a retired elementary schoolteacher.
Why is it that most educated people in Europe can make themselves understood in multiple languages while Americans even struggle with their own language?
Less experience with foreigners would be my bet.
Willard
I work as a museum guide in Northern Ireland nowadays and see (or at least saw) a lot of Americans. The best of them make me glad to share a planet, the worst make me glad that plate tectonics is carrying them further away.
My sample is biased towards those willing to travel, but even so I get the impression of a parochial people mostly focused on their own domestic affairs.
Who says I am American?
JLH would have been unimpressed.
> The best of them make me glad to share a planet
I’m on record in saying that the only thing that can save us is American poetry:
THE WAY IT IS
Theres a thread you follow. It goes among
things that change. But it doesnt change.
People wonder about what you are pursuing.
You have to explain about the thread.
But it is hard for others to see.
While you hold it you cant get lost.
Tragedies happen; people get hurt
or die; and you suffer and get old.
Nothing you do can stop times unfolding.
You dont ever let go of the thread.
William Stafford might have anticipated blog comments.
Half a century ago the cutting edge of peat bog research was in Germany. I learned written German to read their papers.
In Europe most educated people are at least bilingual.
In case you have trouble, COisLife is described as boring and stubborn, like a retired primary school teacher.
Bindidion, are you from Germany? Good to see that Biden is no longer obstructing the development of the NORDSTREAM 2 Pipeline. Russia will now have a much easier way of bringing Germany under their totalitarian control. This Climate Nonsense is the mechanism by which Totalitarism will eventually control the world, and you should be proud of your contributions. Just like those 400k North Koreans that gave their lives enslaving their families and future generations.
Russia Cuts Gas, and Europe Shivers
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/europe/07gazprom.html
Some people will simply never learn, and their ignorance is so dangerous that you can literally destroy the world following their “good intentions.”
CO2istLeben
” Russia will now have a much easier way of bringing Germany under their totalitarian control. ”
Ha ha, what a great analysis. As if the US would do anything different with their shale gas!
Are you 7 or 77 years old?
Fits perfectly to your tremendous comparison of ‘stations showing no warming outside of UHI and water vapor’ with ‘atmospheric increase of CO2’.
Weiter so!
J.-P. D.
One more time, the pretentious Ignoramus Robertson distorts, discredits and denigrates everything what does not fit to his egocentric narrative.
We look at what he wrote upthread:
” … Meiers fudged data alleging the Moon rotates on its axis… ”
He talks of course about the German astronomer Tobias Mayer, who proved Moon’s spin in a splendid treatise:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
130 pages of hard work using spherical trigonometry, following two years of observation using a telescope coupled with a own-engineered micrometer.
*
BUT, thanks to Internet, any incompetent asshole, cowardly posting behind a fake name, can destroy such splendid work in one sentence.
BUT, conversely: what is the wording of a person worth, who permanently insults, on this blog, scientists with ‘stinking cheaters‘ or ‘cheating SOB‘ just because he lacks all of the knowledge needed to understand what they wrote, let alone would he be able to scientifically contradict it?
NOTHING.
J.-P. D.
I check the board if something new and sensible appears, all I see is Bidendong throwing tantrums in here,
Great, Eben, great!
Shall I conclude that you enjoy people like Robertson discrediting and insulting scientists?
J.-P. D.
Shall I conclude that you are prepared to do the same and not discuss the science (if any) that they are using?
Willard just got banned on Dr. Curry’s Blog. I think he must have been attacking my post.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/19/projecting-manmade-climate-change-scenarios-to-2050/#comment-950356
After many violations of blog policy, Willards comments have been placed in moderation, so that they wont appear on the blog unless I release them from moderation. WordPress.com has changed, so it took me awhile to figure out how to do this, but will save me much time in the long run in terms of blog moderation.
With regards to blog policy, make your comments about the arguments, not about the commenter. Do not waste our time with petty bickering; do your best to contribute constructively to the dialogue.
CO2istLeben
That comment is plain dishonest: you post Judith Curry’s words as if you were the origin of that wording.
And Willard’s ban off Climate Etc certainly has NOTHING to do with any of your comments: you are overestimating your relevance by say 1,000 %.
J.-P. D.
Funny timing. I guess it was a coincidence, just like the cherry picked time periods and CO2 and Temperatures. I imagine Willard wasn’t attacking me on her blog like he does on this one. Sure, sounds reasonable.
> Funny timing.
Perhaps Judy wakes up at the same time you do, Life.
Here’s the deal. Own that you don’t have a model, own that you haven’t read many papers on climate models, and we’ll talk.
Until then you’re just a silly meme maker. There are thousands like you on social media.
Pretending to post on science only allows you to hide your ridiculous ideology for a short while. Enjoy the moment!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said one troll to another
If you say so, RLH.
I do. I do.
RLH, please stop trolling.
No chance
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
How is this “dishonest?” “I think he must have been attacking my post.
I said “I THINK.” That is 100% honest, and you have 0.00% evidence that it is wrong or dishonest. Willard and You claim I am wrong in my conclusion, that may be true, but attributing false motives to my claims is simply wrong and highly dishonest. BTW, have yiu talked with Judith to verify that Willard didn’t make comments directed at me? Willard, did you make comments attacking me on that or any other post that may have violated her rules?
> I said “I THINK.”
You also said “this is the evidence that likely was the final straw,” Life.
Get a grip.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Who’s the troll?
You, currently.
Is there an echo in here?
RLH, please stop trolling.
Why? I just LOVE trolling the trolls
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Count away. Count Dracula you are
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
Please accept my congratulations on being banned from Judith Curry’s blog. It’s the usual reward for arguing your case too well.
“Its the usual reward for arguing your case too well.”
I’m sorry, did Willard refute the conclusion of my research? Nope. Insults aren’t evidence or valid arguments.
Here, let’s try again. Willard, please refute my conclusions regarding this evidence. Maybe I missed it…as did everyone else.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH#kAi4m7S
You’re not listening, Life.
I did not respond to your comments.
Here’s one comment that got deleted during the week:
https://pasteboard.co/K35wU1u.png
It took me 2 seconds to find a post of Willard attacking me on Judith’s Blog. I won’t waste my time finding others, but this is irrefutable evidence that Willard isn’t completely honest.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/10/climate-book-shelf-2/#comment-949660
You found a comment on the 12th of May, Life. A comment that simply noted that you were trying to become a memer, and quoting a similar comment you posted here, at Roy’s.
But you’re right: I did respond to one of your comments.
My bad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the troll
OK, RLH.
echo…
RLH, please stop trolling…
echo…echo there seems to be an echo
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
I am as unimpressed by your counting as I am of you in the first place
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
Another #3. I want to go for #4
#4
RLH, please stop trolling.
> got banned
I can still comment, Life. My comments go in a pending bin.
And no, I wasn’t attacking your post. I was responding to David Young’s cheap shots, who won’t come here so that we have an explanation.
I asked you here if you have a model. Many times. You never responded. Many times I asked you to commit to the claims you made about how climate scientists ignore ANOVA tests. You never responded.
At some point one needs to realize that you’re not a responsive guy.
Here is the evidence of my model. Maybe you missed it.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH#kAi4m7S
I am familiar enough with modeling to know that if I enter that data into a model CO2 will have 0.00 significance, none, made, zip. The evidence is so overwhelming that I didn’t even bother to test it, but a visual examination tells a pretty clear story.
Hypothesis: If you identify the locations that are naturally controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor, you can isolate the effect of CO2 on Temperature.
Null Hypothesis: CO2 does not materially affect temperatures.
Gather Data: Which I did. https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH#kAi4m7S
Analyze the Data: There is no relationship between CO2 and Temperature
Conclusion: You don’t reject the null, CO2 doesn’t affect temperatures
That’s a screenshot, Life.
I want the model.
Do you know Github?
Willard, trust me, if I place that data into a model I will get a 0.00 coefficient on CO2, it is so obvious I won’t even waste my time. No climate model you can identify did a better job modeling the impact of CO2 on temperatures as those graphics do. Visual examination is so obvious you don’t even need to test it statistically. The trendline for most months is (-), there is no way to get a positive relationship with that data. ET and Bindy will support that fact, they are the ones that keep pushing the regression slopes.
“trust me, if I place that data into a model I will get a 0.00 coefficient on CO2, ”
Why not do so and use tinyurl to post it here?
> trust me
No, Life. I won’t. Just look how you behave. In general, but particularly this morning. Why should I trust you?
Besides, even if I trusted you, otters need to access the data and code to replicate your results. No data, no code, no evidence of anything. Sorry.
But at least we have you on record for claiming to a model.
Progress!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the troll
OK, RLH.
OK, troll
Yes, OK.
Echo… Echo… echo…
RLH, please stop trolling.
Nope
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Only a #2 here. You can do better. Try harder.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
This is the evidence that likely was the final straw for Willard. He got banned shortly after I posted it. You know when you are near the target because the flack picks up dramatically.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH#kAi4m7S
Facts are, the evidence I’ve produced won’t go away. You can attack me all you want, but those facts are simply facts and they won’t go away. Come up with a reasonable rebuttal as to why that evidence should be ignored, refute the conclusions I’ve reached, but attacking me won’t change the facts. Also, posting nonsensical links to research models that have failed doesn’t help the case of the alarmists. No model with the above data would produce an ANOVA Table that identifies CO2 as a significant factor. That is simple math, and math doesn’t care about the politics behind this nonsense.
> This is the evidence that likely
Life, you insufferable twat!
It find it ironic that you complain about other people’s statistics while struggles by yourself.
You have been cherrypicking stations which suit you and using inspection to draw biased conclusions from them.
Why not combine them into a decent sized sample and publish an ANOVA table?
You wave the South Pole data around as proof that there is no global warming without considering
1) that the South Pole is isolated from the rest of the climate system by its latitude, it’s altitude and by the Southern ocean and would be expected to show less warming.
2) that nevertheless it is warming.
Scientifically your methods are nonsense and your belief that they say anything about the validity of AGW is a delusion.
The Left Attacking real scientists isn’t new, but it won’t change the facts.
Nazi backlash and coming to America
Inevitably, Einsteins fame and the great success of his theories created a backlash. The rising Nazi movement found a convenient target in relativity, branding it Jewish physics and sponsoring conferences and book burnings to denounce Einstein and his theories. The Nazis enlisted other physicists, including Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, to denounce Einstein. One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein/Nazi-backlash-and-coming-to-America
Einstein is not powerful enough, Life.
Go Galileo:
https://climateball.net/but-galileo/
Einstein was in the last 100 years, not the Dark Ages. The Left, ie National SOCIALISTS, have always corrupted science for political purposes. Only the Left trusts the Government with the power to do the damage that they ultimately do. Today the left embraces the fascist symbol of a Fist, a symbol of brutality, violence and force. They use violent mobs to burn books, rob, loot, beat, censor, deplatform, burn, and intimidate. That is happening today as if Galileo taught them nothing. Most people read Rand, Orwell, and Huxley as warnings, the Left read them as blueprints. As I’ve pointed out before, 400k people blinded by political bias and intoxicated by visions of a Utopia gave their lives creating N Korea. That is the danger of trusting a Leftist. You end up getting Cuba and N Korea and a dystopia based upon utopian dreams.
Just imagine if that’s all you had to post, Life.
Don’t you realize how useful is Climateball to you?
Weird Wee Willy,
Just imagine if you weren’t such a bitter, impotent, drone.
Hard, isn’t it?
Mike Flynn,
Just imagine-
No. Sorry, you can’t.
Just be yourself.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the troll
OK, RLH.
OK, troll
Yes, OK.
Is there an echo in here? I could have sworn I heard that before
RLH, please stop trolling.
Why? You’re so easy to wind up.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
You think a count scares me? Count away
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
Another #3. You can do better than that!
#4
RLH, please stop trolling.
Interestingly America is now the anti-science capital of the world. Trump spent four years trying to expunge climate change from government sources and research, while the creationists try to expunge evolution from science syllabues.
Not to mention coronavirus denial, the Republican refusal to wear masks and their fear of vaccination.
ET says: Not to mention coronavirus denial, the Republican refusal to wear masks and their fear of vaccination.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott boasts zero COVID deaths after early reopening
https://nypost.com/2021/05/17/gov-greg-abbott-boasts-zero-covid-deaths-amid-texas-reopening/
Germany Doubles Pace of Covid-19 Shots Amid Surge in Cases
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-09/merkel-talks-with-state-leaders-scaled-back-amid-virus-spat
Results matter in science. It following science makes things worse, science would dictate not following the science. BTW, Dr Fuchi was using scalped aborted babies to grow hair on rats.
Researchers grafted skin from aborted fetuses onto rodent bodies, creating what they call ‘humanized rat models.’
https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/07/university-of-pittsburgh-uses-taxpayer-funded-aborted-babies-for-medical-research/
> Greg Abbott boasts zero COVID deaths
Click on “yesterday”:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/
Same Site, Germany, and Germany isn’t on the Mexican border and experiencing a huge influx of unvaccinated people.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/
I was addressing Abbott’s claim, Life.
Germany’s biggest surge was in December: 388K cases. It lowered to 130K in March, but spiked again to 312K on April 26th. As of today, it’s at 208K.
Germany has a population of 83M, compared to Texas’ 29M.
Do you have a point?
I was addressing Abbotts claim, Life.
Germanys biggest surge was in December: 388K cases. It lowered to 130K in March, but spiked again to 312K on April 26th. As of today, its at 208K.
Germany has a population of 83M, compared to Texas 29M.
Do you have a point?
Yes, look at the Trends. Germany started earlier and they are currently doing worse than Texas. Texas also has far more challenges than Germany does. Texas will be up and running long before Germany, and the per-capita deaths will ultimately be less for Texas.
I also think the cost as a % of GDP was also much higher for Germany than the US.
Yep, Germany spent a fortune only to see things get worse.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107572/covid-19-value-g20-stimulus-packages-share-gdp/
> Yes, look at the Trends. Germany started earlier and they are currently doing worse than Texas.
And New Zealand started earlier and are doing better than both. So again, what’s your point?
Here’s how you should do this.
First, pick the whole list of countries:
https://tinyurl.com/y3pahyk7
Since you want to delve into new cases, click on the “new cases” column. Notice the outlier? India.
Now, do you *really* think that we should open up India like we did in Texas? I hope not.
Lastly, if you want to play even more fair, click on “Tot Cases 1M pop.” Small countries should rise on top. After which you should get bigger countries:
Sweden. USA.
And that’s notwithstanding the little fact that Texas must have the best medical facilities in the world.
Willard Says: And New Zealand started earlier and are doing better than both. So again, whats your point?
New Zealand is an island last I checked, with few urban areas. Place them on the Mexican Border and open the gates and lets see how long that theory holds.
You are really getting boring.
> New Zealand is an island last I checked,
New York and UK are islands too. And India isn’t exactly one.
You’re simply special pleading right now, Life.
Quick question: do you have Premium access to the Statista page that you cited? The website asks me to pay 40$ to pay due diligence to your irrelevant point. For it’s an irrelevant point, as that’s not how we should at this.
So again, here’s how we should do it:
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19
That should help us establish a comparison between how Germans and Muricans fare financially.
Wayward Wee Willy,
I see you are still trying to get people to click on inane links yet again. Presumably, you are appealing to the non-authority of the IMF to provide useful guidance on anything at all.
Going to a money-lender for financial advice? Just how naive are you?
Rhetorical question – no answer required.
Wee Willy the Fantasist is at it again.
He wrote –
“And thats notwithstanding the little fact that Texas must have the best medical facilities in the world.”
Wee Willy creates a “little fact” out of his ass, as they say. And that is difficult for an asshat – his head is blocking the appropriate orifice.
Here’s a sample of another version of the facts –
“You dont want to be sick in Texas.
The federal governments latest National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report (NHQDR) gives the Lone Star State some poor grades.
Overall, Texas ranks fourth from the bottom, across all measures, ahead of only New Mexico, Nevada, and Alaska.
Texas also does the worst job in the nation at caring for Hispanics and manages only somewhat better with African-Americans.”
Maybe Texas has the best medical facilities in the world, who knows? Quite irrelevant if you actually get sick, perhaps.
Mike Flynn,
The little fact I’m alluding to is well-known, e.g.:
https://www.tmc.edu/about-tmc/
Weren’t you in Texas when you were being a pen pusher for Exxon?
Wacko Wee Willy,
Yes, it’s a fact that advertisements generally support the advertiser, in an endeavour to grab a larger share of money.
There’s a never-ending supply of organisations claiming to be the best.
Likewise, a never-ending supply of gullible believers – “I read some publicity. It must be true!”
Next.
Mike Flynn,
The US spends 11K per capita on health care:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/what-do-countries-spend-on-healthcare-versus-military/
And that does not take private funds:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/08/2089702/0/en/Global-Private-Healthcare-Industry.html
The US has *a lot* of ICU beds:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/is-u-s-health-care-well-equipped-for-the-coronavirus/
It has less acute care beds available, but then there are lots of cases. In some weird way, we’re lucky that what happened in the US of A happened there and not in (say) Australia.
I know people on the front line. What is happening in India will be a nightmare.
Diversionary Wee Willy,
I called you out on your “little fact” having little to do with fact. You immediately deny all responsibility, and fly off into your usual tactics of deny, divert and confuse.
Whatever happened to Texas, and “the best medical facilities in the world”?
By the way, you say you know “people on the front line.” Well, Im sure you think that that is meaningful. Are they all as silly as you?
As to India, no problem –
“WASHINGTON: NASA engineers have developed a new, easy-to-build high-pressure ventilator tailored specifically to treat COVID-19 patients.
The device, called VITAL (Ventilator Intervention Technology Accessible Locally), passed a critical test this week at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York, an epicentre of COVID-19 in the US, NASA said.”
They used “high-fidelity human simulation”, so NASA want special permission to dispense with normal testing procedures. After all, they are only going to be used on Indians in India, aren’t they?
What, have you no faith in NASA, models, and simulations? What sort of a true believer are you – you even know people on the front line, or in the cafeteria queue, or something.
Your’e an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“I called you out on your “little fact” having little to do with fact.”
For that you pull a single quote from a report you haven’t cited and that has little to do with the point I made, which is that Texas must have the best medical facilities in the world.
That’s what you’d need to address, not if you want to be poor and sick in the US.
But you won’t, Mike Flynn, for you’re the asshat we all know and love.
Wee Willy Witless,
You must be off with the fairies, laddie. In what insane alternate universe would I take advice from you on what I need to address? Are you quite mad, or just a really, really, slow learner?
Here’s the deal, dimwit. I address what I want, and I don’t care what you think about it.
Why should I? You are impotent, powerless, and stupid to go with it.
Some mothers do ‘ave em. No doubt yours loves you, in spite of everything.
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“You must live in the fairies”
I wish. I don’t. Do you still live in Darwin, or is the rumor that you’re in Perth because of a girl true?
Wherever you live, you’re still our loveable asshat.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“and the per-capita deaths will ultimately be less for Texas.”
I love how these guys always use future data that is about to arrive, as evidence to support their beliefs.
Like the ‘always just around the corner’ global cooling.
Current total deaths per capita (Worldometer)
Texas: 1,775/Million
Germany: 1,047/Million
Daily death rate per capita
Texas: 1.38/Million
Germany 2.08/Million
SO sure, if the current rates hold steady, Germany’s death toll will catch up to Texas
in 730/0.7 ~ 1000 days.
Only the gullible would think Government Sponsored “research” is valid science. Esieahourer warned us today would happen 50 years ago. My simple research debunks the largest scientific push the Federal Government has today. That is a joke.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=90&page=transcript
–CO2isLife says:
May 22, 2021 at 9:57 AM
Only the gullible would think Government Sponsored research is valid science.–
And apparently, Government Sponsored researcher neglect their “work” as they allow a government to erase it.
I guess they they think it lack any value.
The easiest rebuttal to that nonsense is that we get changes of government, ones that want to pursue a green agenda, and others that are against it and don’t want to hear from the climate science community.
The message from science has been consistent no matter which party is in power, therefore climate scientists are not government lackeys or they would change their tune in line with the aspirations of each new ruling party.
Barry, have you ever seen a Trump Sign pasted on a Professor’s door? Every? Do you see letf wing garbage posted on every bulletin board, lamp post, sign, door and building side? Your comment is nonsense. Can you even claim to know a Republican that works at a University?
Except for maybe the very rare expectation of people like Dr. Spencer and Chhristy?
Jim Hansen is a registered Republican. He also favours a Republican’s policy on GHG mitigation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/legendary-climate-scientist-likes-a-gop-proposal-on-global-warming/
Sure, academia tends left. Your one-dimensional take is one-dimensional.
Back to the point:
“…Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity…”
Obviously not, or the government scientist lackeys would have fawned all over George Bush Jr’s rejection of the mainstream view of climate science and aligned themselves to get a pat on the head and a bocket of gold from the gummint of the day.
Eisenhower’s excellent farewell speech doesn’t really hold here. This is not some techno-cratic scientific elite holding a country to ransom, this is an international body of knowledge that is well supported. Scientists don’t get paid to write the IPCC report. And there is no river of gold in it mitigating AGW for scientists.
Appropriating Eisenhower is a real shot in the dark. The motive from scientists is actually pretty clear, as it has always been – genuine concern.
Wrong barry. That AGW nonsense is EXACTLY the kind of thing Eisenhower was talking about.
You are just so fooled by it you can no longer see reality.
I’m Australian, by the way.
Nation of birth is no excuse for stupidity.
Except for Albertans.
I call racial profiling.
“Only the gullible would think Government Sponsored ‘research’ is valid science. ”
Extremely ignorant.
Gov funding of basic research has always had bipartisan support.
It has been well understood that industry does not do much basic research.
It is well understood that basic research has led to economic development again and again.
In my field, gov funded basic research led to discovery in the 1980s of advanced magnetic sensing materials. Within a decade these were put into use in producing much better computer hard-drives. Still in-use today.
Gov funded basic research has led to discoveries in biology that enabled the rapid COVID vaccine development.
This is Wee Willy Idiot setting the standard for polite discussion –
‘Life, you insufferable twat!”
Whining Wee Willy can give it, but complains bitterly if he doesn’t get his own way! oh, the abuse! Oh, the insults!
Whinging Wee Willy plays his “silly semantic games”, talking about “sammitches”, but carries on like a petulant disgruntled academic drone, incessantly demanding that people click on his pointless links, and provide him with “models”, so he can complain even more!
Woeful Wee Willy resembles nothing more than a slimy little toad, oozing his poisonous and erratic way, leaving a trail of mucus in his wake.
But hey, that’s life! Even toads like Wailing Wee Willy have their uses, I’m sure. Maybe somebody can help out here, because I can’t actually think of a use for a slimy idiot toady, apart from hiring himself out as a butt for jokes, or an object of version. Oh well, that’s good enough, I suppose.
Maybe if Wacko Wee Willy could actually state what the GHE is supposed to do, and support it with reproducible experimental support, he would be welcome amongst the adults.
But of course he can’t, because he has faith in the mad assertions of the madly cavorting pack of bumbling buffoons calling themselves “climate scientists”. Facts and the scientific method are anathema to that crowd of assorted fools and frauds.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
What do you mean by GHE?
More importantly, why do you presume you’re an adult?
Please rest assured, dear Mike Flynn, that your silly high school cafeteria bully act fools no one.
Enjoy your Sunday,
Wayward Wee Willy,
So you also don’t know what the GHE is? And don’t care?
Excellent.
Why do you bother asking pointless questions? To demonstrate that you are not just a pointless troll, endlessly complaining, but an idiot as well?
So carry on. Act the fool. Use degenerate pseudo-English in an attempt to appear sophisticated, if you wish. Skillz, lulz, modulz, Muricans – you really do believe such idiocies make people think you are clever, don’t you?
How about explaining why thermometers are made hotter by CO2, rather than heat? Oh, you didn’t say that? Indeed, you are so busy whining about being bullied and abused, you can’t actually give any cogent reason for anybody taking you seriously.
Look around, Woebegone Wee Willy, rotund little rascal that you are, and accept that the climate has always changed, and will no doubt continue to do so while the Earth inexorably cools, and you continue to whine like a petulant child, desperately seeking to be noticed.
Next!
Mike Flynn,
You ask-
“So you also don’t know what the GHE is? And don’t care?”
It’s hard to say if I care about an abstruse acronym.
If you could clarify, that’d help.
Ta.
Wacko Wee Willy,
You are really excelling yourself at acting the goat, aren’t you? Maybe you could give yourself a link to Google, and try to find out for yourself.
Do you really expect me to spoon feed a dimwit such as you? Poor diddums.
Never heard of the GHE? That might demonstrate how lazy and incompetent you are, or maybe you just don’t care.
In either case, you just lost another game of climateball, and don’t expect me to clarify what that is, either. You wouldn’t understand.
Do you really think you excel at “silly semantic games”? How about “auditing skillz”, or “modulz”?
Whiny Wee Willy – fragile flower that you are. Maybe you could try claiming that you have been reduced to a state of incoherent idiocy, being unable to overcome feelings of inadequacy. Man up, laddie! There’s no shame in being a dimwitted alarmist, is there? There are plenty around, to judge by the comments. Maybe you could get together with them, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya.
Feeling better? Good.
Mike Flynn,
You seem to be mistaken:
“Do you really expect me to spoon feed”
I don’t expect anything from you except abuse.
You want to ask random questions?
Be my guest.
Worrisome Wee Willy,
How would you like me to abuse you? I decline to feel abused, myself, so I don’t know what you want of me. What do you consider abuse? I’ll do my best to meet (or exceed) your expectations.
It might be a bit difficult. Adherents of wokeism complain they are abused, bullied, and offended at every turn. Are you woke? Or just trying to play the “poor me” card?
In any case, you want to be abused, just tell me what to do. I rarely accede to requests from idiots, but in your case, I’ll make an exception.
Fire away!
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“How would you like me to abuse you?”
Please ask your spouse or your children.
Report.
Waffling Wee Willy,
So you just lie, and hope no one will call you out?
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
What lie, asshat?
That you’re an asshat is the opposite of a lie.
Enjoy your afternoon!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the troll
OK, RLH.
OK, troll
Yes, OK.
Is there an echo in here?
RLH, please stop trolling.
Echo. Echo. I could have sworn I heard an echo.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Who is the troll here? You who post continuously that various different people are trolls or you as a troll posting thus?
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
Only a #3 on this thread? I demand more!
#4
RLH, please stop trolling.
continued from here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-697388
Regarding Tom Curtis’ rebuttal at SKS: Salby did adjust the scales on the graph to exaggerate the deviation of temperature trend from what would be predicted by a CO2-drives-temperature hypothesis. His data ended before temperatures continued to rise through last year and my calculations show that real temperatures are tracking the model temperatures pretty well. If I were Salby, I would not use that graph again unless and until greater deviation becomes apparent.
The important thing to remember is these are just correlations. Nothing in Salby’s figures or Curtis’s rebuttal proves anything definitive about what drives what.
The rebuttal of Salby’s evidence that temperature drives CO2 by Dikran Marsupial (DM) is another story. DM starts out with Salby’s acknowledgement of the mass balance assumption, but makes no mention of the magnitude of natural emissions which are roughly 20 times more than FF emissions. He does make a big deal out of unknown natural sources and sinks. My model indicates both are rising and their difference perfectly balances the net difference between FF and natural emissions. So much for any mass balance problem.
DM butchers the rebuttal by conjuring up a bogus gendankenexperiment. On one hand, he belittles Salby’s “circulation dependent component” due to “surface conditions” by portraying them as deviations from a mean value of net global emissions. DM assumes those deviations to be zero. DUH! Salby’s whole argument is that the temperature driven surface conditions contribute significantly to a growth in natural emissions.
OTOH, DM creates a totally wishful thinking scenario even equipped with a sample correlation formula to explain why “the correlation doesn’t tell you very much about the cause of the long term rise, because that is mainly due to the mean value, not the variability around the mean.” He invents a constant long-term rise, creates deviations around the mean, defines them as natural contributions perfectly correlated to the net global emissions, and then feels the need to explain why the correlation doesn’t tell you much? Good grief, Charlie Brown.
He wasn’t done. Next he a priori asserts a constant anthropogenic contribution exactly the same as his hypothetical growth in atmosopheric CO2. Holy cow, Batman! Obviously there won’t be a correlation between his hypothetically constant anthropogenic contribution and the hypothetically induced net global emissions. But, lo and behold, the hypothetical anthropogenic emissions match perfectly the growth in CO2. Pay no attention to that Marsupial behind the curtain!
If that all sounds confusing to you, don’t blame me. Blame DM.
Here’s the bottom line. Salby found a correlation between the change in CO2 each year and what he calls surface conditions. Apparently they are related to temperature. The obvious one is ocean outgassing. Plant decomposition must be one also. So the pertinent correlation is between deltaCO2/dt and surface conditions affected by temperature. The correlation that DM is consumed by is between two hypothetical emission quantities and he has no actual data to support it.
The good relationship between temperature and changes in CO2 rise are clearly evident in Salby’s data. It makes sense that warmer years will produce more CO2 emissions than cooler ones.
> DM creates a totally wishful thinking scenario
You’re just saying stuff, Chic:
https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
The thought experiment is only there to illustrate how Murry errs in claiming that the variability in net emissions gives rise to the long term trend.
That said, it’s cool that you have nothing to say against TomC’s argument.
Did you even read my explanation of DM’s strawman? I guess you were too busy playing climate ball.
Variability in net emissions is temperature induced as the data shows, not a fantasy in yours or DM’s simple minds.
Chic,
You made a rant, not an explanation. I underlined his argument to help you. You failed to discuss it. Why is that?
If you can’t understand Dikran’s thought experiment, just say so.
Wee Willy,
“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.”
There don’t seem to be any theories here, just warring speculations – “my God is superior to your God” statements of faith.
What difference does it make? Any need to re-examine the laws of Nature as currently understood?
Off you go now, wave your placard – “Stop climate change”. Or “Save the Dinosaurs” – just about as pointless.
How are your “silly semantic games” going? Maybe you could see more clearly by using tinfoil, rather than your ass, for a hat. Have you worked out what GHE stands for? How about COVID?
You’re an idiot, and slimy to boot.
Mike Flynn,
It’s just a page to read.
Even you can read it.
But you won’t!
For you’re an asshat.
Rejoice, Mike Flynn!
Witless Wee Willy,
Ooooh! I won’t read your irrelevant page?
Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue? Run to your Mummy because nasty Swenson won’t read to you?
Ho, ho, ho!
You may be an idiot, but at least you’re childish and petulant to go with it!
Mike Flynn,
You’re commenting in a thread about that page.
So once again again being irrelevant.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
And?
Is that really the best you can do, kiddo?
Mike Flynn,
You ask-
“And?”
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing follows from your irrelevance!
Wavering Wee Willy,
Question answered, kiddo.
It really was your best. Pity your best doesn’t rise to the level of my worst.
You might cause yourself less pain by poking yourself in the eye with a needle. Give it a try, and see how you get on. You might just be stupid enough, and I could have a good laugh at your expense.
You could be good for something after all!
Mike Flynn,
And?
Mike Flynn!
Perfect.
‘lard
Have you ever considered writing a book “How I was brainwashed by the Climatariat”?
As soon as you stop punching hippies, Roberto.
Willard, please stop trolling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-698617
Complaining about Salby’s data presentation technique, Nate writes:
“He shows actual C14 data, but misrepresents the equilibrium level as occurring in 1962.”
There is no equilibrium level during that period, Nate. Just because you are an expert obfuscator doesn’t mean that everybody else is. There was a earlier blip prior to the main bolus where the data he presented started. The point is that the e-time has to be at least as short as he showed for the decay to have reached the same level in 1983 that it was in 1962. Bomb testing no doubt occurred later which would only prolong the time to reach a lower baseline. And if you knew anything about adjustment times, you would realize they never get to 100% of baseline anyway.
If you had any data, models, or hypotheses of your own, you would understand this stuff. Or not.
Nope.
“There is no equilibrium level during that period, Nate.”
Of course the equilibrium must be BEFORE the large scale bomb testing started. That would be BEFORE the mid 1950s.
The correct graph was shown to you with a much lower level of C14 in the mid 1950s.
“The point is that the e-time has to be at least as short as he showed for the decay to have reached the same level in 1983 that it was in 1962.”
All the large-scale testing after the mid 1950s added C14 to the atmosphere. And to come back to equilibrium it MUST come back to THIS LEVEL in the mid 1950s.
If you show a different higher level and misrepresent that as the equilibrium level, as Salby does, you are simply lying. And the lie makes the e-time appear to be very short ~ 5 y, to fit his false narrative.
Stop making up excuses for his straight-forward deception.
“The correct graph….”
You are just an obfuscating commenter on a blog. You don’t get to decide what is correct or not.
Was the abbreviated data presented by Salby accurate?
“And the lie makes the e-time appear to be very short ~ 5 y, to fit his false narrative.”
Did he actually say that? After explaining the history of the appearance of C14 after bomb testing, Salby says at 30:00 on his London lecture,
“With the auxiliary source removed, C14 decayed through unbalanced absorp-tion. Within two decades the nuclear surplus of C14 was history. The decay is almost perfectly exponential with an e-folding time shorter than a decade. Equal to the residence time, this determines [the absorp-tion rate constant] alpha. Exponential decay means that absorp-tion of CO2 is proportional to the abundance of CO2. That was our approximation earlier.”
So he said “shorter than a decade,” not your “very short 5 y to fit a false narrative.” You are the one promoting a false narrative, because either you don’t understand the science or you are obsfuscating as usual.
He goes on to say, “It’s noteworthy that, during the 70’s and 80’s, another source of C14 emerged. C14 is also released by nuclear power plants which expanded them. Contamination from that additional source would artificially link the apparent absorp-tion time. The actual absorp-tion time could be only shorter.”
This is what he means:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wmvjtt7aqx8lnx/C14%20simulation.png?dl=0
Now go on deceiving yourself and obfuscating others with your obsession with Salby.
No data, no models, no hypotheses. Just the usual deception from the King of Ofuscation.
What publication is that graph from?
Perhaps this:
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
The one Salby would have published had he not been exiled from Australia?
The data is from one of the several sights where measurements were taken, no?
How does it compare with this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/txh935fi4pwv47o/C14%20revised.png?dl=0
C’mon, Chic. There’s only one rule for contrarians:
https://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/22/rules-for-contrarians-1-dont-whine-that-is-all/
And there are many online repositories to dump a pre-print, starting with:
https://arxiv.org/
Even a Dropbox account like you do would work.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> With the auxiliary source removed, C14 decayed through unbalanced absorp-tion. Within two decades the nuclear surplus of C14 was history. The decay is almost perfectly exponential with an e-folding time shorter than a decade.
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
“Within two decades the nuclear surplus of C14 was history.”
is what he clearly stated. What does that mean to an objective person?
The SURPLUS means the amount added above the normal equilibrium level.
‘Was History’ means is back to 0. Back to equilibrium.
This is FALSE. A lie, a cheat. A science no-no.
It is indefensible. So why do you defend it? Cuz he’s on your team.
I’m not defending that he didn’t show all the data. It just doesn’t change the conclusion that the e-time for disappearance of C14 was shorter than a decade allowing for the possibility that additional C14 was released after the 1962 bolus.
Yes not 5, Salby’s fit has an e-time of 8.6 y.
Everyone who has fit the true curve has found an e-time of > 16 y.
Salby was hoping it be ‘Equal to the residence time’ which Berry finds is 4 y.
It is not close to 4 y.
I can’t read Salby’s mind, so I don’t know what he was hoping for. I’ll take him at his word which was that the e-time must be shorter than a decade considering there may have been additional C14 sources after 1962.
We know that e-time for CO2 is about 4 years because e-time = level/inflow = 410/100.
“Ill take him at his word which was that the e-time must be shorter than a decade ”
Obviously taking him at his word is problematic. With his deception he finds 8.6 y.
Looking at ALL the data and using the true equilibrium, the e-time is > 16 y.
For some inexplicable reason, you find that acceptable.
His protestation that nuclear power plant emission should slow the decay is speculation, unless quantified. The C14-free fossil fuel input causes a faster decay. Which is a bigger effect?
I don’t find it acceptable, but Salby errors or misrepresenting data doesn’t bother me.
What bothers you? Not having any ability to create a spreadsheet model to understand what’s going on? Fear that your AGW meme won’t hold up under the threat of contradictory data?
Feel free to share. The doctor is in.
“I dont find it acceptable, but Salby errors or misrepresenting data doesnt bother me.”
I would suggest then not bringing up Salby or his analysis to support your claims. It will not be helpful.
Finding out how much humans contribute to atmospheric CO2 is what’s important. Expect me to bring up Salby whenever relevant.
I’ll expect you to obfuscate anything that contradicts your closed mind and AGW dogma.
Clearly obfuscate means:find the errors in, and somehow that is a bad thing to do.
“Expect me to bring up Salby whenever relevant”
Then we will have to again point his errors and fraud, and you will have another meltdown defending him, and round and round we shall go.
Or, alternatively, you could learn from these discussions..just a thought.
The errors you are regurgitating are like correcting grammar or misspelled words in a paragraph. That doesn’t change the paragraph’s message.
What I’ve learned from these discussions is two-fold. I have honed my models and improved ways to explain them to better enable me to write papers and make presentations on the issues Salby raised.
I also learned that you have no hypotheses, models, or data to contradict Salby’s arguments. Only the flawed AGW talking points.
If going round and round changes any of that, bring it on. I’ll try not to meltdown.
“The errors you are regurgitating are like correcting grammar or misspelled words in a paragraph. That doesnt change the paragraphs message.”
If the message was e-time is short, somehow consistent with a predicted 4 y e-time, then the fraud changed the result. Significantly, a > 16 y e-time is not consistent with the narrative.
Again, facts are no impediment to belief for you guys.
I have shown you papers describing the complex multi-box models, and the justification for them from years of observations of the carbon cycle. There are many follow up papers, more observations, and model adjustments.
I can roughly follow what they are doing, and it makes physical sense. But I am not a carbon cycle expert and I fully understand that I can’t possibly compete with what they have done by fooling around in Excel.
Salby, Berry, Bart, and you all ignore the complexity of the carbon cycle that science has discovered in the last 60 y.
Then declare that the Carbon cycle can be modeled better by a SIMPLE single-box model! But this is clearly erroneous, since it is not even able to correctly model the Bomb Pulse.
If SpaceX ignored the 60 y of prior rocket science discoveries, and declared that rocket engines are actually SIMPLE, they would have failed miserably as a rocket company.
Why do you think that is a healthy scientific approach?
“…then the fraud changed the result.”
If you can’t get the message right, how could you possibly know the result? Why don’t you rephrase Salby’s argument so I will know where the goalpost is? No one is talking about a >16 year e-time, but you. That would be one step towards ending this non-stopped obfuscation that you have been campaigning on for three weeks.
What facts are you “again” referring to? I remember you citing one fairly old paper a long time ago. Has that been improved on and substituted for the Bern model? Does new data refute the Salby, Berry, and Harde arguments I have been making? If so, why haven’t you mentioned it?
We all don’t ignore anything. That is your preconception. You just can’t accept the fact that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be described by a simple model, but not a single box. It’s two boxes and another input. It may not be exactly correct, but there is no more complicated model doing any better!
The whole carbon cycle is an entirely different matter. A C14 model is also another matter.
You admit you are not a carbon cycle expert. Now stop appealing to authorities who may not be any more knowledgeable than you on this stuff.
It’s not rocket science. Getting a completely accurate carbon cycle model could be a lot more complicated, if not impossible, to do.
“No one is talking about a >16 year e-time, but you.
“That would be one step towards ending this non-stopped obfuscation”
What are u talkin about? Everyone who fits the WHOLE Bomb Pulse curve finds an e-time of 16 or more years. Even you!
So who is obfuscating here? It looks like you.
“I remember you citing one fairly old paper a long time ago. Has that been improved on and substituted for the Bern model? Does new data refute the Salby, Berry, and Harde arguments I have been making? If so, why havent you mentioned it?”
That paper from the 1970s was the basis of the Bern model. It clearly demonstrated the NEED for a complex multi-box model based on observations, of, for example, bomb C14 penetrating the ocean. It accounts for the C14 decay.
The paper shows quite clearly why a model like yours or Berrys is entirely insufficient.
“We all dont ignore anything.”
You guys obviously do ignore the KNOWN complexity of the carbon cycle, like the REVELLE FACTOR, and erroneously assume simplicity.
Thus your rocket fails to launch, can’t explain the bomb pulse, can’t explain the rise of atmospheric CO2 without hand-waving and made-up data.
“It may not be exactly correct, but there is no more complicated model doing any better!”
False, the mutli-box Bern type models CAN explain the rise of atmospheric CO2 due KNOWN sources, and why it persists in the atmosphere. It accounts for the C14 decay into the ocean.
“Now stop appealing to authorities who may not be any more knowledgeable than you on this stuff.”
Oh puleez, how moronic!
There are experts on the carbon cycle just as there are experts on rocket science. Read their papers to see the complexity of the subject. These guys have spent dozens of man-years mastering this complex subject, and learning from previous pioneers like Revelle, Seuss, etc.
How many man-years have you spent? It would good if you could admit it is very few.
“Everyone who fits the WHOLE Bomb Pulse curve finds an e-time of 16 or more years.”
1) Name names. Enough empty assertions. 2) 16 or more is not the same as >16, obfuscator.
“Even you!”
Where did I write more than 16 years?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709553
“The paper shows quite clearly why a model like yours or Berrys is entirely insufficient.”
Sayin’ it’s not ‘splainin’ it.
“You guys obviously do ignore…REVELLE FACTOR.”
You failed before and now fail again to explain how that is relevant. Until you show how the Revelle factor or any other factor invalidates “us guys,” you are just blowing smoke.
“the mutli-box Bern type models CAN explain….”
Put up or shut up.
“How many man-years have you spent?”
Enough to know that you are all talk and no action. Make an argument with models and supporting data or your assertions are groundless.
“You failed before and now fail again to explain how that is relevant. ”
Uhhh, I did try to explain it, and showed you articles. I can only lead the horse to water, as they say.
Revelle showed that you can’t assume the ocean acts like a single box that will rapidly soak up all added atmospheric CO2 in a few years.
The Revelle Factor and ocean stratification means that it abs*orbs just enough to equilibrate the mixed layer with the atmosphere in a few years. It then takes much longer to equilibrate the ML with the deep ocean. Measurements concur.
“Where did I write more than 16 years?”
You said 16 years….it is quoted in papers here and there.
When I fit it a while back I got 17-ish.
As discussed, the C14-free FF input is making the apparent e-time appear shorter than it actually is.
See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534253/
Two reasons why I use > 16.
In any case, 16 is much greater than 4. That is the main point.
BTW, that paper uses the model from the older paper I showed you:
“A simple model based on Oeschger et al. (10, 13) was used to simulate carbon cycling in atmospheric, oceanic, and biospheric reservoirs. The model includes one atmospheric box, one biospheric box, and a one-dimensional box diffusion ocean model with 43 ocean boxes.”
Figure 2 in the paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534253/bin/pnas.1504467112fig02.jpg
illustrates well how the bomb C14 quickly exchanges with surface reservoirs. But it takes much longer to penetrate the middle ocean layers and very long to reach the deep ocean.
These are fundamental properties of the ocean that you can’t ignore if you want to model growth of atm CO2.
“Enough to know that you are all talk and no action. Make an argument with models and supporting data or your assertions are groundless.”
I’ve shown you a specific model Oescher et al. 1975, that I consider a good example that contains the basic ingredients. As noted it is used in the 2015 paper I mentioned above, so it is still quite relevant.
The 1975 paper shows lots of supporting data. So does the one in 2015.
If it proves useful to science (and it does) then it matters not a bit that it was done by someone other than me, when I was a teenager. I can read it and appreciate it.
Can you?
Whoops. It is Oeschger et al. 1975.
Your problem Nate is your viewpoint on the complexities of the carbon cycle are pretty much limited to political science.
Dr. Revelle studied this matter and expressed concerns about a ‘potential’ problem arising from the emissions of CO2, but never concluded it was a problem. Dr. Revelle was an outstanding scientist who understood the need to maintain an independent skepticism as one pursued matters that science might be able to shed some light onto a relevant social issue.
What the Revelle factor does is shade some uncertainty with regards to ocean uptake of CO2 but it doesn’t provide any solutions.
Bottom line is it isn’t at all likely the mixed layer of the ocean is feeding CO2 into the atmosphere. The mixed layer is carbon-poor due to photosynthesis. Carbon in the atmosphere and the mixed layer of the ocean determines how green the planet is also.
The deep ocean is what is considered to be carbon saturated, which would be a carbon content associated with its temperature.
The Revelle factor describes why the mixed layer isn’t carbon saturated, as the chemical uptake of carbon doesn’t keep up with photosynthesis.
However, there are vast areas of deep ocean upwelling that involves carbon saturated water spewing carbon both into the mixed layer of the ocean and into the atmosphere.
Fishermen who harvest shell fish are very concerned about this, worried that excess acidification resulting from human emissions will limit shellfish growth. But even that isn’t well understood as to whether it will accelerate or limit growth as this carbon is the foundation of life itself and generally in gardening acidic soils support a lot of green growth sucking up a lot of carbon. And a lot of green growth produces a ‘carbon rain’ in the ocean as these organisms die off and fall to the bottom of the deep ocean. There is just a huge number of processes we just don’t understand well and those who think they do are politically/religiously influenced.
“Uhhh, I did try to explain it,”
Uh, where? All you do is assert. You don’t have a model and you don’t understand how the Revelle factor doesn’t change the reality than CO2 e-time is 4 years.
“‘Where did I write more than 16 years?’
You said 16 years.”
That’s right not more than 16 years. So you lied.
“In any case, 16 is much greater than 4. That is the main point.”
What main point? The one you are trying to obfuscate with. This is the whole problem with you. You never make a point other than to obfuscate one of mine. 16 an 4 are apples and oranges. I keep explaining the difference and you keep obfuscating.
“I can read [Oeschger et al. 1975] and appreciate it.”
Appreciating it and reducing it to an explanation of how it contradicts my arguments are not the same thing. Citing papers and making assertions are all you do. You have no model or data of your own. Until you do, I can only conclude you continue to be the King of Obfuscation.
“Uh, where? All you do is assert. You dont have a model and you dont understand how the Revelle factor doesnt change the reality than CO2 e-time is 4 years.”
I repeatedly showed you a specific model used in two specific papers. The models incorporate Revelle factor because it is an observable fact. The papers show long e-times.
So shut the fuck up and stop lying!
Revelle factor DOES change the e-time. This is an undeniable property of the ocean.
Continued denial of it will not make it go away.
Because you fail to learn from previous discoveries, you insist that your Saturn V sized rocket can be powered by baking soda and vinegar.
Good luck with that.
“The papers show long e-times.”
Show me where a paper claims long e-times for atmospheric CO2.
“Revelle factor DOES change the e-time. This is an undeniable property of the ocean.”
Not for the atmosphere. Can’t do, silly. 410/100 = 4 years.
“Not for the atmosphere. Cant do, silly. 410/100 = 4 years.”
Residence time. Intelligent skeptics get why that is different. Why cant you?
“the reality than CO2 e-time is 4 years.”
Cults and religions declare ‘facts’. Just like you did there.
“16 and 4 are apples and oranges. I keep explaining the difference ”
Declaring is not explaining. As in explaining with empirical facts.
If its the fantasy C14 nuclear power plant leak data that you use to convert 16 into 4 nonsense, nope.
No real data, no credit.
“Residence time. Intelligent skeptics get why that is different. Why cant you?”
Moving the goal post again, obfuscator? Define residence time. Tell me what skeptic gets why that is different than e-time. Go on round and round making yourself dizzy. Try a merry-go-round if that doesn’t work.
“Declaring is not explaining. As in explaining with empirical facts.”
That’s my line! Only you can’t use it on me, obfuscator. I have the hypothesis, model, data, and explanations that you don’t have. All you can do is cite irrelevant papers and make assertions.
This is a fact: 400 ppm/100ppm/year equals a 4-year e-time. Where does the 100 ppm/year come from? From the fact that natural emissions are 20 times more than FF emissions. Now go on and obfuscate with other e-times, residence times, and sleepy times. Whatever.
Meanwhile, I’ll be working on modifications to my model that will do more than just explain how additional C14 inputs turns a 4-year e-time into a 16-year e-time. Not that I expect you to acknowledge having ever understood how that happens.
At this point, my model already extends the decay profile beyond a 16-year e-time without adding additional inputs. It matches the C14/CO2 ratios at 1955 and 2010 timepoints. It’s so hard to believe, I’m re-examining everything to see where I may have made a mistake.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pu7eu654t74ko1q/C14%20model.xls?dl=0
“Moving the goal post again, obfuscator? Define residence time. Tell me what skeptic gets why that is different than e-time. Go on round and round making yourself dizzy.”
“This is a fact: 400 ppm/100ppm/year equals a 4-year e-time. Where does the 100 ppm/year come from? From the fact that natural emissions are 20 times more than FF emissions. Now go on and obfuscate with other e-times, residence times, and sleepy times.
Whatever.”
a. You havent explained how the 16 y observed e-time for the bomb curve is consistent with a 4 year e-time. Nor has Salby or Berry.
b. Natural emissions and absor*ptions are mostly cyclical movements of existing cO2 between reservoirs DRIVEN by an external oscillating forcing. These are not an ADDITION of CO2 from an external source of carbon, as the FF emissions are.
I dont know if you are familiar with circuits. There is basic filter circuit called an RC circuit consisting of one resistor and one capacitor. Look it up.
It also has the property of exponential decay. Namely if the capacitor is charged with a battery, it will charge up slowly, with an e-time of R*C. If disconnected from the battery, the charge will decay with an e-time of R*C.
On the other hand the circuit can also be driven by applied voltage to oscillate, at any frequency and any amplitude! The amplitude and frequency of the oscillation is decided by the applied voltage! It is not dependent on the e-time for the charge to decay.
c. That residence time and concentration decay time are different is basic fact that hasnt gone away just because you have decided to ignore it, so it does not really qualify as ‘moving the goal posts’, does it?
Freeman Dyson explained it, and I showed it to you, remember? You didnt understand his explanation, you don’t understand mine, you don’t understand BDGWXs many explanations, thus you feel you can declare it wrong.
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
“my model already extends the decay profile beyond a 16-year e-time without adding additional inputs. It matches the C14/CO2 ratios at 1955 and 2010 timepoints. Its so hard to believe, ”
I dont know what you think it shows, and don’t know why should I pay attention anymore?
You refuse to incorporate real-world constraints into your model, since they will immediately invalidate your belief in a short e-time. Thus, it is purely an exercise designed only to confirm your prior beliefs.
You don’t pay attention to the model I have shown you. The one published by actual experts and still used today. I understand contrarians want to dismiss/ignore work done by experts, but the rest of the world knows that is foolish.
Let the record show you didn’t define residence time.
“a. You havent explained how the 16 y observed e-time for the bomb curve is consistent with a 4 year e-time.”
Neither have you. Have you been too busy obfuscating others while I’ve been working on it?
“b. Natural emissions and absor*ptions are mostly cyclical movements of existing cO2 between reservoirs DRIVEN by an external oscillating forcing.”
How would you know? You say there’s no data available and you sure haven’t been forthcoming with any. Are you making stuff up now or just obfuscating as usual?
“These are not an ADDITION of CO2 from an external source of carbon, as the FF emissions are.”
Prove it.
RC circuits: you reached a new level of obfuscation with that one.
“c. That residence time and concentration decay time are different is basic fact that hasnt gone away just because you have decided to ignore it, so it does not really qualify as ‘moving the goal posts’, does it?”
Sometimes you obfuscate, sometimes you lie. This time both. I ignored nothing and you conflated residence time and decay time leaving it unclear what you mean by them, despite any competent scientist knowing they are both defined unambiguously by e-time.
Bringing up Freeman Dyson only underscores your obfuscation. He says in a link you once used, “We are talking about different meanings of residence time.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/will-humanity-ever-reach-2xco2-possibly-not/#comment-432891
“[Lord May] says that the residence time of a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about a century, and I say it is about twelve years.”
“You don’t pay attention to the model I have shown you.”
I would if you demonstrated any ability to explain how it contradicts my conclusions and those of Salby, Berry, and Harde.
“why should I pay attention anymore?”
Please don’t. You are annoying as hell.
“These are not an ADDITION of CO2 from an external source of carbon, as the FF emissions are.”
Prove it.”
No need. It is self-evident.
Whatever ‘external’ source are you dreaming up, YOU need to show ANY evidence it exists.
Dyson CORRECTLY defined RESIDENCE time, in the same way that I and BDGWX and science does:
” I am talking about residence without replacement. My residence time is the time that an average carbon dioxide molecule stays in the atmosphere before being absorbed by a plant.”
He is disagreeing with Monckton on what things are called, not what will happen.
Typically, you missed the point that Dyson was making:
“Another way of describing the difference is in terms of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. His residence time measures the rate at which the total amount would diminish if we stopped burning fossil fuels. My residence time measures the rate at which the total amount would diminish if we replaced all plants by carbon-eaters which do not reemit the carbon dioxide that they absorb.”
He is CLEARLY stating that time it will take the atmospheric CO2 concentration to decay “about a century”, is NOT THE RESIDENCE TIME, the one you think is 4 years and he thinks is 12 y.
You want to ignore the reality that other intelligent skeptics accept, and continue to erroneously believe e-time for Concentration decay = RESIDENCE TIME = 4 years.
” You are annoying as hell.”
Yes, I would imagine anyone pointing out the flaws in your beliefs would be.
You would understand how that would be fully expected if you were doing real science.
“Whatever ‘external’ source are you dreaming up, YOU need to show ANY evidence it exists.”
It’s interesting that we have several estimates of FF emissions, but none for natural ones other than being twenty times more than FF emissions. What is the likelihood that natural emissions have not grown since pre-industrial days? The best evidence beyond that 20x fact is my model which demonstrates a good fit to Mauna Loa data with a physically meaningful e-time derived from first-order kinetics and 410/100 = 4-year e-time data. That fit requires a growth in natural emissions.
“Dyson CORRECTLY defined RESIDENCE time, in the same way that I and BDGWX and science does:”
What equation(s) would that be that Dyson, bdgwx, and you use to define residence time?
I did not miss any point that Dyson is making in his reply to Lord May’s (not Monckton) critique of his June 12, 2008 NY Review of Books editorial, :
http://www.acamedia.info/sciences/sciliterature/globalw/reference/how_long_will_they_stay.pdf
“He is CLEARLY stating that time it will take the atmospheric CO2 concentration to decay ‘about a century’, is NOT THE RESIDENCE TIME, the one you think is 4 years and he thinks is 12 y.”
There is nothing CLEARLY stated in that paragraph about CO2 residence/decay. He simply explains the gross discrepancy between his concept of residence/decay time and Lord May’s. Anyone familiar with the argument understands what he means in that, while speaking to a largely non-scientific audience, getting technical with e-times and removal rate constants would be totally out of place. Naturally, it works well for you to do that, because your goal is to confuse and avoid being pinned down to any scientific clarity.
I found one of Lord May’s comments particularly interesting, “Dysons annoyance at the Royal Society and others derives from his worry that ‘in the history of science it has often turned out that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.'”
“You want to ignore the reality that other intelligent skeptics accept, and continue to erroneously believe e-time for Concentration decay = RESIDENCE TIME = 4 years.”
Nice try. I do not accept the premise that I have been beating my wife and I reject the implication that anything I believe is erroneous. Especially my belief that you are an annoying obfuscating SOB.
My next comment will be at the new June 1 post.
“The best evidence beyond that 20x fact is my model which demonstrates ”
A model is not evidence!
“What equation(s) would that be that Dyson, bdgwx, and you use to define residence time?”
It is a definition in words that is unambiguous.
“residence time is the time that an average carbon dioxide molecule stays in the atmosphere before being absor*bed”
he adds ‘by a plant’ but in general, it could also be by soil or ocean.
Here is the key point: during the residence time, many of the original CO2 molecules will have left but been REPLACED by others. While if Mass decreases, it is NOT replaced.
“Naturally, it works well for you to do that, because your goal is to confuse and avoid being pinned down to any scientific clarity.”
Not my goal. I am agreeing with his clear definition, which is the universal one. You?
“‘You want to ignore the reality that other intelligent skeptics accept, and continue to erroneously believe e-time for Concentration decay = RESIDENCE TIME = 4 years.’
Nice try. I do not accept the premise that I have been beating my wife and I reject the implication that anything I believe is erroneous. Especially my belief that you are an annoying obfuscating SOB.”
You’ve been quite consistent in claiming that e-time for mass decay and residence time are the same.
Are you now retracting your claim that they are the same? Or did I miss you retracting that elsewhere???
Dyson is absolutely clear that they are NOT the same. If I am obfuscating about this, than HE is also obfuscating.
Monckton is claiming that mass relaxation time is a century. Are you disagreeing with him? Is he also obfuscating?
So you are disagreeing with TWO well known skeptics, it seems, but you still try to put all the blame on me for ‘obfuscating’.
I requested some feedback from others on residence time:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-714034
“It is a definition in words that is unambiguous.”
It is amazing to me that you can write stuff like that without responding to my request for an equation to back it up. I know I’ve giving you a hard time, but somewhere deep down, don’t you want to come clean and stop obfuscating?
We all make mistakes. I may be wrong about my model. Bart may be wrong. Salby may be wrong. Ed Berry may be wrong about Starr, Segalstad, Jaworoski, Beck, Rorsch, Courtney, Thoenes, Quirk, Essenhigh, Glassman, Humlum, Harde, Revelle, and Suess all being wrong about e-time = CO2 level/inflow.
“You’ve been quite consistent in claiming that e-time for mass decay and residence time are the same.”
No. How could I be when I don’t know what residence time you mean? What I have been consistent about is using e-time instead of those other terms which lead to confusion. Knock yourself out using whatever definitions you prefer. Just don’t expect me to call you anything but an obfuscator when you do.
And don’t involve me with any disagreements you have with Dyson, May, Monckton, or whoever you want to drag into the fray. I have a very clear conscience. I would not have had any trouble discussing residence time with any of them. We would immediately define the term(s) with equations and that would be the end of it.
The correct graph…
https://cams.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/competencies/growing-season-graph.png
I revised my original spreadsheet to show the blip during the few years before 1962. It doesn’t change anything. The plot still shows that the pulse relaxes with an e-time of 4 years allowing for additional C14 released after 1962. It is the equivalent of an e-time of 16 years if no additional C14 was released.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/txh935fi4pwv47o/C14%20revised.png?dl=0
That is what the data is saying. You can interpret it however you want to obfuscate it.
No model, no data, no hypothesis. Just AGW talking points.
No idea what you did to arrive at that idea. Makes no sense.
If you think ‘it doesnt change anything’ that is obviously wrong!
What idea? I can’t read your mind.
You need to open up a spreadsheet and start plugging in data. I can help. You just have to ask.
Where did you get maintenance inflow data from.
Did you just make it up?
Do you not understand why that is bogus?
Maintenance inflow is arbitrary. It’s the relationship of level, inflow, and e-time(s) which determines the shape of the curve(s). If you think it’s wrong, put up your own version and show me up. I welcome it. I’m not defending anybody. I’m just trying to get the science right.
“Not having any ability to create a spreadsheet model ”
Anybody can make a ‘spreadsheet model’, whether it is informative about the real world is less clear.
You make assumptions about what you think the data should be doing, but with no evidence that it is what real data is doing. Then put that invented data into a spreadsheet.
As you did here with powerplant C14 emissions.
Then you claim:
“I revised my original spreadsheet to show the blip during the few years before 1962. It doesnt change anything. The plot still shows that the pulse relaxes with an e-time of 4 years allowing for additional C14 released after 1962.”
“That is what the data is saying.”
No, no it is not! Remember garbage in garbage out.
You put in garbage data to get a desired result, and sure enough you get that result out.
But that result is garbage.
This exercise does not SAY anything.
Do you not get that?
There are at least five zones where C14 was measured after bomb testing. This matches NH zone 1 from Hua et al. (2013) Figure 2:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o6s8ynkgf5do86t/C14%20rev2.png?dl=0
I can match any zone by tweaking the pulse inputs. The decay matches a 16-year e-time with no additional C14 sources or a 4-year e-time with gradually decreasing additional sources.
This is not making up any data. I just modified my spreadsheet again to match the actual data points. If you think this model is wrong, all you have to do is correct it with your own spreadsheet model. You wrote, “Anybody can make a ‘spreadsheet model.'” So do it.
Believe it or not, my model simply explains what the data says in terms of levels, inputs, and e-times. It’s not a trick, really. Do your own analysis and see for yourself.
“or a 4-year e-time with gradually decreasing additional sources.
This is not making up any data.”
Yes it is! You are in deep denial.
I can also invent ‘additional sources’ that make e-time 12 y, or 40 y.
That you get your desired 4 y result this way is absolutely meaningless. This is not science.
Find a paper that measures or estimates c14 leaks from nuclear power plants and put that into your spreadsheet. Also include a column for-c14 free fossil fuel inputs.
From what i have gleaned, the latter effect is larger, pushing e-time further out.
You can use a 12-year e-time with less additional sources than needed to maintain a 4-year e-time. I only illustrated the two extremes of 4 and 16 years. You can’t use 40-year e-time unless you invent a C14 capture mechanism. If you understood the principles at play here, you would know that already.
“This is not science.”
We’ve been going round and round on this for over three weeks. Only once have you presented a scientific argument which is this “C14 free fossil fuel inputs” one. Previously you claimed “The C14-free fossil fuel input causes a faster decay.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-707273
Now you are arguing for a slower decay, “pushing e-time further out.”
Which is it, Nate?
“You cant use 40-year e-time unless you invent a C14 capture mechanism. If you understood the principles at play here, you would know that already.”
Wrong. The input of C14-free CO2 from FF has the same effect as capturing.
The FF fuel input causes the curve to appear to decay faster than it otherwise would. If taken into account (removed), the UNDERLYING decay of the Bomb Pulse should have a longer decay constant > the 16 y observed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534253/
“Over this century, the ratio 14C/C in atmospheric CO2 (Delta14CO2) will be determined by the amount of fossil fuel combustion, which decreases Delta14CO2 because fossil fuels have lost all 14C from radioactive decay.”
“whereas ‘business-as-usual’ emissions will reduce Delta14CO2 to -250%” by 2100.
“Wrong.”
If you don’t have anything other than a hand-waving argument of your own, how about citing one of your “many follow up papers” to back that up. Preferably one that doesn’t “invent” data.
Speaking of the devil. You cite a 2015 paper using the old Oeschger model (with 43 ocean boxes) and RCP scenarios (i.e., invented data).
Let’s see how it stacks up against my model.
bdgwx,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-698640
I’m through educating “yous guys.” If you want your point to count, you need to do a better than write, “He seems to be completely unaware” and “Berry and Harde seem to be equally confused….”
What other models besides the Bern model would you recommend?
I don’t recommend any one particular carbon cycle model just like I wouldn’t recommend any one particular global circulation model. But there is a consortium called C4MIP that acts like a subcommittee to CMIP for the carbon cycle models. It looks like CMIP3 and CMIP5 both had 11 carbon cycle models and it looks like they just released the results for CMIP6 which also appears to include 11 models. I’m not very familiar with the carbon cycle model part of CMIP though so I’m not a great person to ask.
Salby, Berry, and Harde aren’t into building retrospective models which have nothing to do with atmospheric physics. Maybe find some bureaucrats?
Amazing isn’t it? These guys are all over Salby, Berry, and Harde nit-picking this and that. But if you ask for an alternative model disputing theirs, you get crickets or the occasional “multiple lines of evidence” mumbo-jumbo.
4 y, 16 y, whats the diff?… Just nit-picking!
Apparently you like the King of Obfuscation label.
The 16-year e-time is one that fits the data. I explained that a 4-year e-time could only be applied if additional C14 sources continue to enter the atmosphere after the 1962 pulse. That’s the diff.
Only a novice unfamiliar with the topic could misunderstand that or a person who is committed to obfuscation. Which one are you, Nate?
“But if you ask for an alternative model disputing theirs, you get crickets”
Very dishonest.
Youve been shown better models before, like this one:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1975.tb01671.x
Whad they do wrong?
“Whad they do wrong?”
I’m not sure. Why don’t you share what Oeschger’s e-time is for atmospheric CO2 and C14 and compare with my model constraints.
How does their model contradict Salby’s arguments? How does their model differ from Harde’s or Berry’s?
Has that model been updated since 1975 or challenged with new data become available?
binny…”Now, what concerns a solution to Navier-Stokes: my answer is Wait and see”
You are talking through your hat, as usual. You have a skill for missing the point.
There are differential equations like those representing a spring/mass that can be solved for any spring or mass. You can model that accurately with a second order differential equation where the mass, the spring coefficient, and the dampening factor are well known.
How do you solve the Navier-Stokes differential equations to a system where the environment is constantly changing and largely unknown? It is similar in a much simpler way to attempting to model the flow of water under a waterfall. It’s always changing, how do you model it.
Nick Stokes is talking through his hat as well. He is talking about a generalized situation and not the specifics of the atmosphere-surface interaction which is largely unknown.
To solve a differential equation you need to know the parameters involved and those parameters in the atmosphere-surface interface are either too complex, totally unknown, or both.
Models using Navier-Stokes are little more than expensive toys.
willard…”Texas Medical Center (TMC) the largest medical city in the worldis at the forefront of advancing life sciences”.
The following is typical of the utter garbage coming out of TMC:
“In 1981, reports began to emerge about a mysterious virus that caused illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths. Nearly four decades later, HIV/AIDS is recognized as a manageable chronic condition that remains powerful and pervasive enough to be classified as an epidemic, with close to 38 million people worldwide living with the virus. Significantly, we still dont have a vaccine to prevent HIV/AIDS.
And now, COVID-19 presents a disproportionate threat to people with serious underlying health conditions”.
https://www.tmc.edu/news/2020/07/hiv-and-covid-19-two-viruses-collide/
***
The scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, has been claiming for at least 10 years that HIV does not cause AIDS and that it is harmless to a healthy immune system. Two decades before that, Dr, Peter Duesberg, a world-renowned microbiologist who discovered the first cancer gene, claimed the same thing and his career was ruined.
Back in the early 80s, when Montagnier first inferred HIV, he also claimed he did not think HIV alone could cause AIDS, that a co-factor was required. Duesberg claimed the same thing but he thought AIDS was a lifestyle issue alone and that HIV was a harmless passenger virus. Duesberg is an expert in retrovirology.
Montagnier also addressed the nonsense of 38 million worldwide living with HIV/AIDS. Prior to 1980, the same condition was known in those parts of the world and it was called wasting syndrome. The cause was known too: malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria. After HIV was proclaimed, the WHO included wasting syndrome as an AIDS opportunistic infection and blamed it on a sexually-transmitted virus.
That’s the kind of idiots we have running the medical community today and TMC is at the forefront of the pseudo-science. As they have admitted, after 40 years there is no vaccine for HIV yet they have miraculously produced one for covid in 3 months. Mark my words, 40 years from now we will still be wearing masks and practicing social distancing unless they move these clowns out of medicine and get some decent scientists in their place.
Next you’re gonna tell us that Vitamin D cures COVID, Gordon.
Or is it Vitamin C?
willard…”Next youre gonna tell us that Vitamin D cures COVID, Gordon”.
No, but funny you mentioned it. Dr. Ryan Cole of Idaho has postulated there is no such thing as a flu season, just a light season and dark season. During the dark season, especially above a certain latitude, sunlight is not strong enough to supply the vitamin D we need for good immunity.
He has reasoned further that vitamin D needs to be supplemented during the dark season and the fact that so many people are testing low for vitamin D and have lowered immunity is an explanation for why covid has persisted, mainly among people with poor immunity.
https://stateofthenation.co/?p=60479
BTW…Fauci takes 8000 – 9000 IU of vitamin D a day but he’s not telling the public of its benefits.
> No, but funny you mentioned it
It’s as if I was able to read where you’re going, Gordon.
Amazing, isn’t it?
willard…”Its as if I was able to read where youre going, Gordon”.
Actually, it comes across like you are biased, obtuse, and unable to understand basic logic.
I love you too, Gordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”What is happening in India will be a nightmare”.
It has been known for at least a century that many people in India suffer from serious immune problems. There are people lying in the streets of major cities like Calcutta and Bombay who are seriously ill. There is nothing new going on in India, just tests that test for everything but a virus.
We need to reveal this fraud and get on with life.
> just tests that test for everything but a virus
C’mon, Gordon. That’s tin foil hat stuff.
willard…”Cmon, Gordon. Thats tin foil hat stuff.”
You are suggesting the Luc Montagnier who has a Nobel for discovering HIV wears a tin foil hat?
It has been obvious to me since you started participating in the blog that you are incredibly gullible. You are a parrot for the status quo, a butt-kisser extraordinaire.
Gordon,
If Luc suggests that COVID tests don’t test for a virus, then yes it’s tin foil hat territory.
Not long ago it was Linus. Now it’s Luc. Your contrarian hero worship might be tough to reconcile with your accusation of kissing butts.
willard…”If Luc suggests that COVID tests don’t test for a virus, then yes it’s tin foil hat territory”.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Don’t know about alarmist rats.
Do you understand logic or are you going to hide behind tin foil hat ad homs.
fact a)Montagnier tried to find HIV using the standard method from his own institute, the Louise Pasteur Institute. He admitted he tried to follow the protocol which required the virus be physically isolated and viewed on an electron microscope but he could see no virus.
Why did he not stop there?
fact 2)he inferred a virus based on the presence of reverse transcriptase, an enzyme theorized to represent a retrovirus. He admitted that he had not physically isolated the virus and that he had inferred it based on strands of RNA related to the RT.
fact 3)He claimed the virus based on the fact a sample from a person with AIDS killed uninfected cells. Still no proof of a virus, just that something killed the uninfected cells.
fact 4)Stefan Lanka later proved in a German court that the uninfected viruses would have died anyway due to the way they are prepared. Amazingly, no one who claimed a virus based on this method bothered to check that possibility.
Since the court accepted his testimony, and the testimony of his peers, does that mean they were all wearing tin foil hats?
fact 5) covid is based on the same inferential method and has never been physically isolated. It’s called ‘the new method’ but no one can explain why any of those viruses cannot be seen on an electron microscope.
fact 6)the researcher credited with the current covid PCR test, Christian Drosten, admitted he had not physically isolated covid and the Wuhan researchers who claimed a virus admitted they had not physically isolated a virus.
fact 7)no one has physically isolated the covid virus and the test tests for RNA that has not been proved to come from a virus.
Gordon,
Luc has gone beyond emeritus since 2000 at least:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier
Do you think that we can teleport ADN like Luc does?
I have a dear friend in Bangalore who says what we are seeing in the news, multiply by 10. It’s zero degrees of separation for everyone, she says. Everyone is directly connected to someone who has caught and people who have died of it. She personally knows several people who have died of it, well before their time.
Anecodtal: my experience of Indians is that they are actually pretty hardy. They have a lot of bacteria in the water and food, and while I was able to keep from being ill most of the time, Indians were more resilient. Their immune systems seemed to be primed to handle more than mine.
Just my experience.
The rise of COVID19, my friend says, comes from 2021 being a year of elections and a once-in-a-12-year festival, which saw millions of Indians congregating on the banks of the Ganjes. Elections come with massive political rallies. Also, India is a religious place, and people still insisted on congregating in mosques and churches and temples.
She says the queues at crematoria, the lack of oxygen around the country and people dying at busstops because the hospitals are full, is something she has seen. She wants to shake those in luckier places out of their complacency.
In my own country there is the noisy minority who thinks its a hoax, overblown or handlable by locking up old people while the young get on with it.
The failure is pure prochialism. Because they haven’t personally suffered, or know hardly anyone who has caught the disease and likely no one who has died from it (death toll sits at 910 for the country and only one death this year), the success of Australian policies to mitigate the spread, our fortune in being able to control our borders, and the low density of living has conspired to support these peoples’ beliefs.
It’s all a big conspiracy until a loved one catches it and has to go on a respirator. Those removed from the suffering of it can blithely tell themselves all sorts of horseshit.
I have noticed that the phone-call scams from India have dropped off. Maybe working crammed into those boiler-rooms has had an effect.
You all should know by now that Gordon Robertson never says anything that is even remotely related to the truth. It is conceivable that he is pathological, but more likely he just misunderstands everything he reads or hears.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
We can estimate Earth’s radiative mean surface temperature via the comparison with other planets satellite measured radiative mean surface temperatures.
Example:
Earth’s radiative mean surface temperature.
Mars’ Tm.mars = 210 K
Earth /Mars comparison coefficient = 1,3746
We can now calculate Earth’s radiative mean surface temperature Tm.earth:
Tm.earth = 1,3746*Tm.mars = 1,3746* 210 K = 288,7 K
Tm.earth = 288,7 K !
Wonderful, isn’t it!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gordon Robertson
“BTWFauci takes 8000 9000 IU of vitamin D a day but hes not telling the public of its benefits. ”
You are talking nonsense. Above 4000 IU you get hypercalcaemia and Vitamin D toxicity.
Back to the chicken-on-a-spit, since it is such a great tool to explain science, and it’s so easy to understand.
The rotating chicken will cook quite well with 2000 W/m^2 arriving from one side. The corresponding BB surface temperature is 160C/320F.
But, if the arriving flux is 500 W/m^2 equally from 4 sides, the rotating chicken will NOT cook. 500 W/m^2 corresponds to a BB surface temperature of 33C/92F.
The chicken receives the same energy, but does not achieve the same temperature. That’s a good example of why you can’t divide flux by 4. It’s also is a good example that “energy” is NOT “flux”, and “flux” is NOT “energy”. The two are quite different.
Clint
> “The rotating chicken will cook quite well with 2000 W/m^2 arriving from one side. The corresponding BB surface temperature is 160C/320F.”
Exactly!!!
Chicken has to be strongly irradiated from one side. And chicken should be rotated vigorously, so it will not get burned.
If chicken in rotated slowly, the outside layers of chicken will be very dry and crispy- slightly-burned and the inside of chickens will remain still uncooked and raw.
When the irradiation intensity and the rotational spin is well chosen chickens come out of rotisserie well cooked and delicious…
The rotisseries construction firms know well about these two small secrets – strong irradiation from one side and vigorous rotation. How, on the first place, could they have a perfectly cooking rotisseries achieved?
They had some experimenting first to do… The final result is obvious:
The strong irradiation should be combined with a vigorous rotation.
The Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon is also based on the deeper understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law!
That is why Earth is warmer on average surface temperature than Moon. The irradiation source is at the same distance for both – Earth and Moon.
Earth rotates 29,5 times faster. And Earth is covered with ocean, which has specific heat cp = 1 cal/gr.oC
Moon has cp = 0,19 cal/gr.oC (regolith)
Earth (N*cp) product is 155,3 times higher than Moon.
Tm.earth = 288 K and Tm.moon = 210 K
> The rotisseries construction firms know well about these two small secrets strong irradiation from one side and vigorous rotation.
Have you asked? It so happens that I live near Portuguese and Greek rotisseries. They tell me that the two secrets are air and self-basting.
> “They tell me that the two secrets are air and self-basting.”
The air and self-basting are very important too…
So they did not tell you about the rotation… Why should they – you saw the chickens rotating…
Rotating a chicken does not increase the heat input, Christos. Its steady-state equation will remain the same.
You should not believe everything Joe and Clint try to sell.
> “Rotating a chicken does not increase the heat input.”
Rotating a chicken does not increase the heat input. Its steady-state equation will remain the same.
It is very much correct! I agree the heat input does not change with rotation…
Well, lets see:
Chickens should rotate to get cooked. Chickens are irradiated from one side only…
There should be the right combination of radiative source power (flux) and rotational spin (N).
> Chickens should rotate to get cooked.
If the energy in is the same as the energy out at each moment, it won’t.
The first principle of cooking is that you need heat.
> “If the energy in is the same as the energy out at each moment, it wont.
The first principle of cooking is that you need heat.”
Please visit your neighboring rotisserie at hours when chickens rotate…
You already agreed that rotating a chicken does not increase heat input, Christos.
But let me check.
[Hours pass.]
Alright. I asked them if their rotisseries had a 0K input on the side opposite to the heat source. First they asked me what was a Kelvin. When I told them that they should remove all the heat that was in the oven except from the side that was receiving it, they laughed.
Willard,
Hours passed… You did not see the chickens rotate yet?
Chickens in zero-dimensional rotisseries don’t need to rotate, Christos.
They’re singular points.
Did you told them their chickens are singular points?
Did they laughed again?
Did their chickens rotate or not?
They told me that a zero-dimensional model of a rotisserie is fine, as long as one understands that it’s only meant to establish a steady state equation, not to solve energy transfer.
They also told me that they did not fear competition from those who didn’t realize how cooking is really done, and that Joe would fail the following course if he tried to pull his scam:
https://weitzlab.seas.harvard.edu/files/weitzlab/files/2014_physedu_kitch_as_physics_classroom.pdf
Rotation does not change the heat input… Steady-state equation will not remain the same.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Willard is now boring the chickens.
You’re not a chicken, Ennui.
If it looks like a troll, talks like a troll but tastes like chicken, is it a chicken or a troll
Given the tendency to rely on grids to determine climate, I propose the following experiment.
Take the recorded figures for 1.5m air temperature (wet and dry bulb) min/max means, rainfall, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity (steady and gust), wind direction, etc. for the whole grid centered statistically at the center of the grid.
Then take 10 randomly distributed positions with that grid. Record median figures for all the above at 1hrly intervals.
Produce a table which determines the range/standard deviation of the differences between the sets of figures.
Any guesses as to the variations that will be discovered?
RLH
You are a specialist in superficial guessing, arguing, claiming, doubting about temperature data sets.
What about becoming a specialist in accurately DOING exactly what you expect others to do?
Some here would welcome progress at your side concerning that, but… hmmmh.
J.-P. D.
I do not have the funding to produce my own temperature series. All I can do is note the deficiencies in the methods and statistics used in the published ones.
If you want to find me a research funding stream to do the work, I am all ears.
So you believe that min/max/mean is the best (pun) method to determine average temperature. in bulk. for the lower 3d, 3m do you?
You don’t need any funding. Nick Stokes does his own independent analysis.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/
As usual, the 13% range of statistical variation for all temperature series from the paper I quoted does not even get a mention.
We estimate that on average 13% of the non-seasonal variance in a typical monthly temperature time series is caused by local noise of one kind or another
P.S. Look down and you will see what the differences are between min/max/mean and medians for hourly data.
“We estimate that on average 13% of the non-seasonal variance in a typical monthly temperature time series is caused by local noise of one kind or another”
OK. I have downloaded a sample hourly data set from U.S. Local Climatological Data (LCD).
I have run a median against and mean for the whole dataset.
What temperature readings would you like? From HourlyDryBulbTemperatureF HourlyDryBulbTemperatureC HourlyWetBulbTemperatureF HourlyWetBulbTemperatureC HourlyDewPointTemperatureF HourlyDewPointTemperatureC
They are
0.37 0.21 0.78 0.42 1.62 0.86
And that’s just for 1 day.
I haven’t done a min/max/mean because that would be even greater margins.
OK, I have done those too just to keep you happy
-1.00 -0.55 0.00 0.05 5.00 2.75 4.50
Oops. One too many columns. Ignore the 4.5 figure
No no no no, RLH.
You are clearly trying to do what in my native tongue is named ‘prendre silencieusement la tangente’, i.e. to silently avoid doing anything.
What I expect from you is that you process that data you manifestly discredit all the time.
Here are, for example, two data sets
1. Surface stations: GHCN daily
https://tinyurl.com/w2umyj7x
2. Sea surface: HadISST1 SST
https://tinyurl.com/p5tvxery
Please start working, generating absolute data as well as anomalies with annual cycle removal wrt the mean of 1981-2010 or similar.
Then combine the two, and produce some graphs here showing all your results.
Then we will see whether you are as much able to work as you are to speak, or if you are some Robertson bis.
To say “I can start working only with new observation data”: That’s a bit too simple.
J.-P. D.
The sample data set I used is from WBAN:94846 on 2014-03-26 11:51. Care to repeat the workings for that data set?
As the point was the inherent inaccuracies of min/max/mean daily data compared to hourly median you kinda missed the meaning.
“Please start working, generating absolute data as well as anomalies with annual cycle removal wrt the mean of 1981-2010 or similar.”
Please provide an hourly median data set otherwise we will just end up with the same answer. One with the measurement (not instrument) ranges included. Such as the spread for all data points in a 3d cell.
13% I think it was from a source I’m sure you would approve of.
“We estimate that on average 13% of the non-seasonal variance in a typical monthly temperature time series is caused by local noise of one kind or another”
Question. Do you think that it is possible to turn a +/- 5.0c degree thermometer into a +/- 0.01c by the use of statistics? By using, say, 1,000,000 samples?
RLH,
Averaging DOES produce a lower statistical error than the error on each measurement.
Ask 100 random people how old they are (in years only), and average those. Add 0.5 (due to rounding down). You will find the error on the average is ~ 0.1 year.
You could re-ask for their more precise age in years plus days (if they were willing!), and average these. The result will be the same as above result within 0.1 y.
The power of averaging.
If we are talking about actual weather measurements, I would expect no more than +- 1.0 C.
Averaging the T measurements of thousands of independent locations, DOES reduce the error on the average of these.
If we had 10,000 measurements of truly independent locations, then the error on the average could reach ~ 1/sqrt(10,000) = 0.01.
They are in reality somewhat correlated, so the actual error will be somewhat larger.
Then there are systematic errors…another story.
Pointless obfuscation. Take a million more measurements just to make sure your accuracy is more precisely wrong.
So you apparently believe that taking 1,000,000 samples improves the accuracy of the next measurement on a +/-5.0c thermometer by statistical magic.
Please note the the central mean as accumulated is not the same as accuracy of a individual reading. Even the next one.
“So you apparently believe that taking 1,000,000 samples improves the accuracy of the next measurement on a +/-5.0c thermometer by statistical magic.”
You can read what I posted, it was nothing remotely similar to that.
Can you refute it?
Yup. The central tendency can be improved. The range the instrument differs from the true temperature cannot.
Tell me, new readings taken with the thermometer. How accurate are they?
“Yup. The central tendency can be improved.”
What does that mean?
Do you understand my average Age example?
The resolution of the measurement of people’s age was 1 year.
Yet the AVERAGE AGE could have an error bar of 0.1 year.
Do you need more examples?
Average US birth-rate babies/woman = 1.73. Obviously the actual measurement resolution on babies is 1 baby. Yet the average can be resolved to 0.01 babies/woman!
This is not a trick. Just the beauty of averaging at work.
Now, could this number 1.73 have systematic error that means it is inaccurate? Yes. Maybe the true birthrate is 1.81 if ALL babies could be properly counted.
If the TREND in birthrate is what’s important, and changes in it of .01 or so can be resolved, then the inaccuracy of 0.08 is not an issue.
For global average temperature, what’s of interest is the TREND in temperature.
There are several different surface data sets, and they differ slightly on the values of the absolute temperature because of different averaging methods.
But the TRENDs they find are remarkably similar.
““Yup. The central tendency can be improved.”
What does that mean?”
Aside from the pun I assume you don’t know what a ‘central tendency’ is.
Let me help you
“A measure of central tendency is a summary statistic that represents the center point or typical value of a dataset. These measures indicate where most values in a distribution fall and are also referred to as the central location of a distribution. You can think of it as the tendency of data to cluster around a middle value. In statistics, the three most common measures of central tendency are the mean, median, and mode. Each of these measures calculates the location of the central point using a different method.”
“Mean is the most frequently used measure of central tendency and generally considered the best measure of it. However, there are some situations where either median or mode are preferred.
Median is the preferred measure of central tendency when:
There are a few extreme scores in the distribution of the data. (NOTE: Remember that a single outlier can have a great effect on the mean).
Mode is the preferred measure when data are measured in a nominal ( and even sometimes ordinal) scale.”
Median is preferred method to use on anything other than normal distributed daat which almost neve =r occurs in real data.
Ok, then Mean is what we are discussing. And you recognize that its error can be smaller than the error on a single measurement.
Nope. Over a 24 hour window then min/max/mean (i.e (min+max)/2) is a very poor way of doing things with quite a variance needed to cover the potential temperature curves in the day.
Over a month then it is even worse.
Over a year, worst of all
“you recognize that its error can be smaller than the error on a single measurement.”
The central tendency can be better defined. Its variance not so
“Ok, then Mean is what we are discussing.”
No we are discussing the average (or central tendency) and deciding if mean, median or mode is the method we should use.
“Over a 24 hour window then min/max/mean (i.e (min+max)/2)”
Entirely different issue.
Seems you are changing the subject..
“and deciding if mean, median or mode is the method we should use.”
Nope. Red herring. Science has figured it out.
Non statisticians have decided what statistics are going to be used and how you mean (pun).
People apply sampling theorem and then declare that Nyquist is not relevant.
“Seems you are changing the subject.”
Nope. Just that people will try and include distaractions without dealing with the points made.
You can reduce that to 9 samples and increase to cell size to 9degree by 9degree if you want to do reanalysis of current data
Your sample size is far too small.
Perhaps I can explain why.
The variability of a temperature sample mean depends on three things, measurement uncertainty of the thermometer, the uncertainty due to sample size and the intrinsic variability of the local temperature.
A calibrated mercury thermometer tell you the temperature to an accuracy of +/- 1C.
The accuracy of the sample mean improves in proportion to measurement accuracy/√n where n is the sample size.
This the mean of 10 samples is accurate to 1/√10=0.32C.
The mean of 100 samples would be accurate to 1/√100=0.1C.
To reach an accuracy of +/-0.01C would require 10,000 measurements.
In practice there is a limit to your accuracy due to the intrinsic variability due to clouds, gusts, etc of around 0.05C. If you go much above 1000 samples any increase in sample size will not improve your accuracy.
It is not an accident that the global average temperatures are calculated from 1500 high quality stations.
I chose the 9 grid sample size to reflect the 8/9 grids around a central grid point. You can drag that over the whole data set provided for the globe.
“The accuracy of the sample mean improves in proportion to measurement accuracy/√n where n is the sample size.”
The variance will not decrease with more samples though. It will still be +/- 1C.
The central point of the sample mean will increase with more samples though as you correctly observe. Still median is a better choice because it is true for both normal and skewed distributions.
Better to use mean rather than median.
The mean is the average of all the data points.
The median is determined by only two datum points, the highest and lowest values.
Is the data a normal distribution?
Does it have any outliers?
Is even slightly skewed?
Then the median is the only choice.
If the data is normally distributed then mean, median and mode are all the same value.
Thus median always is correct. Mean is only for normal distributions.
Medians used to be laborious to calculate. Then we invented computers.
“When you have a skewed distribution, the median is a better measure of central tendency than the mean.”
So the question becomes ‘is temperature data skewed or does it have significant outliers?’
“The accuracy of the sample mean”
We are not talking about the center of the pen, but the thickness of the pen when drawing lines.
RLH
Most climate data conforms to a normal distribution. Mostly symmetrical, occasionally skewed.
The mean of such a sample is the average of all the samples.
The mode is the most frequent value.
The median is the value midway between the highest and lowest individual samples.
I think you are using”median” when you mean “mode”
“Most climate data conforms to a normal distribution. Mostly symmetrical, occasionally skewed.”
Rally. Temperatures in a dat are normally distributed around the mean of the temperature in that day? I rather think not.
“The mean of such a sample is the average of all the samples.
The mode is the most frequent value.
The median is the value midway between the highest and lowest individual samples.”
Tell me something that is not in the statistics books
“I think you are using median when you mean mode”
Nope. I mean (pun) median.
What you, and others, are trying to claim is that. if using a widely inaccurate thermometer, say +/- 5 degrees, I can turn it into a precise one of +/- 0.1 degrees by taking a 1,000,000 measurements using it.
That is NOT the case. Sure, if the errors in the instrument are normally distributed (an unlikely case) then the CENTER point of that range can be better estimated, the actual spread of the errors remains the same at +/- 5 degrees. You would be advised to draw a line for its temperature that wide on any graph to encompass the ranges that the instrument COULD have been around the true temperature even if the center of that line MIGHT be drawn more precisely.
Bloody spell check (and what it passes)
Most climate data conforms to a normal distribution. Mostly symmetrical, occasionally skewed.
Really. Temperatures in a day are normally distributed around the mean of the temperature in that day? I rather think not.
The mean of such a sample is the average of all the samples.
The mode is the most frequent value.
The median is the value midway between the highest and lowest individual samples.
Tell me something that is not in the statistics books
I think you are using median when you mean mode
Nope. I mean (pun) median.
What you, and others, are trying to claim is that, if using a widely inaccurate thermometer, of say +/- 5 degrees, I can turn it into a precision one of +/- 0.1 degrees by taking a 1,000,000 measurements using it.
That is NOT the case. Sure, if the errors in the instrument are normally distributed (an unlikely case) then the CENTER point of that range can be better estimated, the actual spread of the errors remains the same at +/- 5 degrees. You would be advised to draw a line for its temperature that wide on any graph to encompass the ranges that the instrument COULD have been around the true temperature even if the center of that line MIGHT be drawn more precisely.
Question. Do you think that it is possible to turn a +/- 5.0c degree thermometer into a +/- 0.01c by the use of statistics? By using, say, 1,000,000 samples?
I’ve expanded my graphical list of sites that show no warming uptrend (volatility isn’t an uptrend, all these sites have recent temperatures at or near temperatures very close to values reached decades ago). Here is the evidence. This list is in my opinion the greatest evidence that CO2 doesn’t drive temperatures. These sites were specifically selected to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor. Almost all will have a very low BI and are located in deserts or rural areas. There are some exceptions, but most locations were chosen specifically for their ability to isolate the effect of CO2 on temperatures. Others were chosen because of their long-term record.
Undeniable Evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
If the list is only your opinion, the list cannot be undeniable evidence
The undeniable evidence is the actual graphic and supporting data. It has nothing to do with my opinion. I didn’t collect the temperature data, the experts did.
Here you go. You are arguing against the actual data, not me.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
“This list is in my opinion…”
It’s your work alone; others would have different opinions depending on their work.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/potency-of-ghg.png
“…The smooth blue line is the spectral flux from the surface at the temperature To = 288,7 K for a transparent atmosphere with no greenhouse gases.”
What I think is we cannot have the To = 288,7 K spectral flux curve as an etalon to compare with the spacecraft measured outgoing IR radiation from the earth’s system.
For the reason Earth does not have a uniform surface temperature
To = 288,7 K. Therefore Earth does not emit IR radiative energy according to that
“smooth blue line is the spectral flux from the surface at the temperature To = 288,7 K for a transparent atmosphere with no greenhouse gases.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth does not emit to space as a blackcbody at 288K; it emits to space as a blackbody at 255K.
TM, thanks for verifying you have no idea what is going on.
So enlighten us then, what is Earth’s emission temperature to space?
My expectation: you got nothing. Prove me wrong…
TYSON,
Sun has almost uniform temperature. Sun diffuse emission is uniformly distributed over the entire suns surface. Therefore sun has uniform surface emission temperature…
Planets do not have uniform surface temperature because planets are always irradiated on one side while the opposite side is dark.
The Sun’s emission temperature is estimated by matching the Planck curve vs. wavelength with the measured spectral radiant energy emitted by the sun, the best match was found for a temperature of approximately 5800K. Following the same procedure with the Earth’s measured spectral radiant energy yields an emission temperature of 255K.
QED.
Sun radiant energy is measured…
> “Following the same procedure with the Earth’s measured spectral radiant energy yields an emission temperature of 255K.”
Planets do not have uniform surface temperature as sun has.
The 255K for Earth is a mathematical abstraction without a physical analogue.
TM, you’re still not getting it.
For example, your 255K must correspond to a surface and a flux. So, what is your corresponding surface and flux?
> a surface and a flux
Tyson was asking about emission temperature, Puppy.
Clint R at 1:09 PM
That is actually a good question and worthy of a reply. There may still be hope for you, I guess.
The emitted flux is that which balances the average flux received from the Sun. This flux and S-B gives you the blackbody temperature (Te) needed at equilibrium.
The “surface” as you call it, is the interface in the atmosphere at a height where the calculated S-B temperature Te is found. This height is of course a function of the ground temperature and the moist adiabatic lapse rate.
Christos Vournas
The 255 K is not a total math abstraction. A blackbody object (or nearly so) the size of Earth that receives the total energy of the solar flux (which would be a set amount of joules per second). If the amount of energy is uniformly distributed then each square meter would reach a steady state temperature of 255 K. It would not be a higher temperature based just on rotation. That is as high as it can go unless the amount of energy leaving is reduced. Then the surface temperature will rise up to a new steady state temperature.
The GHG in the atmosphere lower the amount of energy that can leave the Earth system at a given temperature. The surface temperature is forced upward until the outgoing energy now is balanced by the incoming energy.
Norman
> “The 255 K is not a total math abstraction. A blackbody object (or nearly so) the size of Earth that receives the total energy of the solar flux (which would be a set amount of joules per second). If the amount of energy is uniformly distributed then each square meter would reach a steady state temperature of 255 K. It would not be a higher temperature based just on rotation. That is as high as it can go unless the amount of energy leaving is reduced. Then the surface temperature will rise up to a new steady state temperature.”
Norman
The faster rotation lowers the amount of IR emitted energy that can leave the Earth system from the solar lit hemisphere. Therefore the average surface temperature is forced upward until the outgoing energy balances the incoming energy.
Clint R
“For example, your 255K must correspond to a surface and a flux. So, what is your corresponding surface and flux?”
No simple answer.
About half the OLR is emitted at the Earth’s surface temperature through the atmospheric window.
H2O emits in the lower tropopause around 240K
CO2 emits higher in the tropopause around 220K.
If you plot the area under the OLR curve you get an overall average of 240W/m^2, which corresponds to 255K.
Christos Vournas
The Earth is already spinning fast enough that its temperature will not increase with faster rotation.
If a blackbody sphere the size of Earth had an internal energy source that heated the surface uniformly with the same amount of energy the Sun delivers 173,000 terawatts, the surface (with no impedance to energy loss) would reach a steady state temperature of 255 K with space as the sink.
This would negate any effects of rotation. The highest temperature with no slowing of heat loss would be 255 K.
https://phys.org/news/2011-10-vast-amounts-solar-energy-earth.html#:~:text=A%20total%20of%20173%2C000%20terawatts,the%20lifetime%20of%20the%20sun.
Wrong again, Norma.
173,000 terawatts emitted from a black body Earth’s size would reach 278K, not 255K.
TM was unable to answer the question: “For example, your 255K must correspond to a surface and a flux. So, what is your corresponding surface and flux?”
Ent chimed in with his anti-science about adding fluxes, after he admitted there was “No simple answer.”
The 255K is for an imaginary black body. Earth is NOT imaginary.
Is your chicken imaginary, Puppy?
It’s hard to say which is more entertaining, Norma’s incompetence, or Willard’s desperation.
Both are funny.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
You are correct on that point. When I read the article the claim was 173,000 terawatts strikes the Earth. I had assumed it was the surface but it was just the Earth. With the Earth you would have 30% of the energy that is not absorbed at all, merely reflected away. So the energy reaching the surface would be around 121,000 terawatts. This is the energy that would set the surface temperature. The value may vary based upon what you use as albedo.
If the blackbody sphere had this much energy flowing through it to space it would reach a steady state temperature of around 255 K. With the numbers I used it was closer to 254.
Clint R at 6:02 PM
TM was unable to answer the question: “For example, your 255K must correspond to a surface and a flux. So, what is your corresponding surface and flux?”
Tell me what part of my answer you didn’t understand:
TM, that was NOT an answer. It was your acknowledgment that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So, what is your corresponding surface and flux?
An “answer” would identify a specific surface and a specific flux.
Clint R at 6:45 AM
So the problem is on your end as I suspected. Let me dumb it down for you then.
Clint R at 6:45 AM
The fact that I had to dumb down my answer even further does not speak highly of your understanding of the subject.
Puppy is still stuck with his division-by-two trick, Tyson.
Give him a break.
TM, there are so many things wrong with your “answers” that I will only mention the main ones.
1) Your values do not match for energy flow at surface, 5.5 km above surface, 6K/km, and TOA.
2) You’re still trying to balance flux, but flux doesn’t balance.
Just two things that indicate you don’t know what you’re doing.
Clint R at 10:34 AM
Then you will just have to continue living in your natural state of ignorant bliss. I can’t dumb it down any more than I already have.
Have a nice day, you hear.
Puppy’s two-step:
[Bind 1] Give me flux!
[Bind 2] Aha! Youre still trying to balance flux!
Meanwhile, he’s still stuck with his silly division-by-two, as if EMBs were meant to solve heat transfer.
“Ignorant bliss” is what you experience in your cult. You smugly insult because you can’t even support your own comments.
My knowledge of physics allows me to enjoy your pathetic attempts to pervert reality. And, it gets even better when the full-time desperate trolls try to protect your cult, failing every time.
That’s why this is so much fun.
We can estimate Earth’s radiative mean surface temperature without atmosphere via the comparison with other planets satellite measured radiative mean surface temperatures.
Example:
Earth’s radiative mean surface temperature.
Mars’ Tm.mars = 210 K
Earth /Mars comparison coefficient = 1,3746
We can now calculate Earth’s radiative mean surface temperature without atmosphere Tm.earth:
Tm.earth = 1,3746*Tm.mars = 1,3746* 210 K = 288,7 K
Tm.earth = 288,7 K !
Wonderful, isn’t it!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The method I use is “Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.
We are now equipped with the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Theory.
As I have demonstrated in my site, planets’ mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as planets’ (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
As we can see Earth and Mars have very close (1-a); for Earth 0,694 and for Mars 0,75.
Also Earth and Mars have very close N; for Earth N = 1 rotation /day, and for Mars N = 0,9747 rotation /day.
Earth and Mars both have the same Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor.
Thus the comparison coefficient can be limited as follows:
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1/R) (cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tmean = 288 K
[ (1/R)*(cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 1*(1)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴ = 1
Mars:
Tmean = 210 K
[ (1/R)*(cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,430*(0,18)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴ = ( 0,430*0,65136 )∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,2801 )∕ ⁴ = 0,72748
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars =
= 288 K /210 K = 1,3714
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s do the analysis you haven’t bothered with.
First to estimate the temperature rise you would expect if CO2 causes the South Pole warming a la consensus.
Starting conditions.
From your graph CO2 rose from 335ppm in 1979 to 415ppm in 2021.
Climate sensitivity is 3.0
Forcing sensitivity is 3.7W/C.
The expected change in temperature is
5.35ln(415/335)3/3.7 = 0.93C
Remember that climate sensitivity is 3.0, so 2/3 of the temperature change is due to the water vapour feedback and 1/3 directly due to CO2.
CO2isLife tells us that there is no water vapour feedback at the South Pole, so the warming effect should be
0.93/3 = 0.31 +/- 0.1C
From the graph the observed warming t is com anomaly -0.1 to 0.1C. That is 0.2C +/- 0.1C.
Since the 95% confidence limits overlap there is no significant difference between prediction and observation and the CO2 hypothesis has not been disproved.
Crickets.
“CO2 hypothesis” is a better choice of words than “CO2 theory”.
But “CO2 nonsense” is better still.
I bet you can’t spell out the difference between hypothesis and theory, Puppy.
Whiny Wee Willy,
I bet you are an idiot, kiddo.
Mike Flynn,
How much can you afford to lose?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I heard a Puppy say:
“Richard Feynman discovered that NASA was so corrupt they were willing to kill astronauts to keep the funding coming in.”
That echoes the “But NASA” square in the Climateball Bingo.
Here’s a little classifier of the Bingo squares:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/05/23/the-bingo-core/
“But NASA” is linked to “But PSYOP.”
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You are an obsessional little grub, aren’t you? Desperately trying to involve people in your fantasy.
“But NASA”? “Climateball Bingo”? “But PSYOP”?
I fear your dreams of being lauded as a “climate science” warrior philosopher are about as remote as Michael Mann getting a Nobel Prize for Physics (or anything else), or anybody demonstrating experimentally that the GHE exists!
Your infatuation with “silly semantic games”, “auditing skillz”, and attempting to emulate adolescent teenage “boyz” in attempts to look clever, just makes you look pathetic – to me at least.
Maybe you have a large crowd of adoring fans hanging on your every word. That would show that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American (or as one idiot says, Murican), public. But I could be wrong. I’m sure that your madly capering acolytes will leap to your defence if I am.
How are you getting on finding out what GHE means? Still finding it hard to care about “abstruse” acronyms? Don’t worry – just ask an alarmist if you can’t use the internet.
Mike Flynn,
I point at your “obsessional little grub.”
And I point at your last 100 comments or so at Roy’s.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I move my discussion with Nate to a new thread because the old one is so long my mouse gets exhausted trying to find where to reply. It continues from here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-702398
After I wrote, “The long-term data is only logically explained by a delayed temperature effect on CO2.” Nate writes,
“Or even more logically, by anthro emissions, not by temperature.”
Please explain how anthropogenic emissions that are out of sync with net global emissions can logically explain the long-term temperature/CO2 relationship that is explained by natural temperature induced emissions that are very much in sync with net global emissions. I’ll need some supporting data to be convinced, not a regurgitation of AGW talking points.
“Thats quite a stretch, but try to show it in a spreadsheet. What model would you use?”
I showed how deltaCO2 stopped increasing during the 80’s already here: https://tinyurl.com/ekdj9tvz
My spreadsheet version looks like this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyl61prpyjcs3w3/CO2%20vs%20FF.png?dl=0
“And why dont short-term effects show any delay whatsoever??”
Hmmm. Maybe because short-term means right away, IOW, no delay?
Global emissions are accelerating.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
The effect of each extra unit of CO2 decreases logarithmically.
http://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2018/08/26/Why-CO2-Forcing-Is-Logarithmic
The two changes cancel out, so the temperature change due to CO2 is approximately linear, at least in the short term.
ET’s explanation is easily debunked with MODTRAN. Also, he has absolutely no explanation as to why I’ve been able to identify over 500 locations what have shown no warming over the past 140 years. In ET’s world, the laws of physics are dependent upon the location.
Simply look at all the evidence ET and his ilk have to ignore.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Hi life:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/23/collapse-of-the-fake-consensus-on-covid-19-origins/#comment-950496
Willard, you should be proud of yourself. Dr. Curry took off your dunce cap and let you out of the corner. Now maybe you can start acting like an adult and start behaving in an appropriate manner. You and your buddies will never be able to explain this data. If you can’t model something, you don’t understand it.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Life,
Adults answer questions. You don’t answer questions.
I’ll let you find the appropriate conclusion.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Co2IsLife
Upthread I posted this analysis of your South Pole data.
“Lets do the analysis you havent bothered with.
First to estimate the temperature rise you would expect if CO2 causes the South Pole warming a la consensus.
Starting conditions.
From your graph CO2 rose from 335ppm in 1979 to 415ppm in 2021.
Climate sensitivity is 3.0
Forcing sensitivity is 3.7W/C.
The expected change in temperature is
5.35ln(415/335)3/3.7 = 0.93C
Remember that climate sensitivity is 3.0, so 2/3 of the temperature change is due to the water vapour feedback and 1/3 directly due to CO2.
CO2isLife tells us that there is no water vapour feedback at the South Pole, so the warming effect should be
0.93/3 = 0.31 +/- 0.1C
From the graph the observed warming t is com anomaly -0.1 to 0.1C. That is 0.2C +/- 0.1C.
Since the 95% confidence limits overlap there is no significant difference between prediction and observation and the CO2 hypothesis has not been disproved.”
You failed to reply to, critique or falsify my analysis.
Please do so.
Ent claims “…the CO2 hypothesis has not been disproved.”
Ent, maybe you’ve missed all the discussions about the chicken-on-a-spit. The chicken cooks fine. No GHE nonsense needed.
Reality is tough for cultists, huh?
> The chicken cooks fine.
No, it does not, and the Earth ain’t no chicken.
Whimsical Wee Willy,
Of course the Earth isn’t a chicken. And CO2 does not make thermometers hotter.
Are you still an idiot?
You wrote –
“Adults answer questions. You dont answer questions.
Ill let you find the appropriate conclusion.”
Does this apply to you, or do you consider yourself not quite adult enough yet?
Good afternoon, Mike Flynn.
Slow Monday?
Willard, please stop trolling.
E man,
You provided two links which have nothing to do with the discussion involving what is driving CO2. Natural emissions are twenty times greater than fossil fuel emissions. The latter have little effect on rising CO2 as is demonstrated by the fact that at times natural and FF emission yearly changes are incoherent. That means that while one is accelerating, the other is decelerating.
But to your point, is there any evidence that CO2 has any effect at all on global temperature? You know, like data.
Many of the scary predictions about climate that are being made public are based on the output of multiple Global Climate Models (GCMs). However, the GCMs are faulty. Dr. John Christys graph showing GCM calculated temperature increase-rates averaging about twice measured continue to show this. Water vapor (WV), the profoundly dominant greenhouse gas, has been accurately measured using satellite instrumentation since Jan, 1988 by NASA/RSS and reported online as Total Precipitable Water (TPW). Measured WV increase rate has been shown to be about 43% more than the GCMs calculate.
The assault on fossil fuels is based on the assumption that planet warming was initiated by and is driven by increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning them. The warming from increasing CO2 has been assumed to be augmented by rising WV. But measured WV has been increasing faster than possible from just planet warming which demonstrates that CO2 change does not cause temperature change. If CO2 does not cause temperature change, it cannot cause climate change.
GCMs calculate water vapor within the model where it results to be approximately constant relative humidity as temperature increases. Measured and calculated TPW are compared thru Jan, 2021 at https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Lv6QmsSb5cgBmpa02DxEhxEG3GFLufK/view?usp=sharing with links to supplemental analyses. (Although the NASA/RSS reports have usually been available by about the 10th of the following month, the Jan, 2021 report is the most recent available)
> Many of the scary predictions about climate that are being made public are based on the output of multiple Global Climate Models (GCMs).
No they’re not.
Dimwitted Wee Willy,
So what do you think the scary predictions about climate are based on? The bizarre fantasies of self styled “experts” like Schmidt, Trenberth, Mann, and the rest, or maybe strange autistic teenagers who believe they can change the climate by not going to school?
From the Christian Science Monitor (must be scientific – look at the name) –
“Meet Gavin Schmidt. He’s part of an elite team of scientists hoping to put climate prediction in the palm of your hand.” Actually, he is more fantasist than scientist – he is actually an undistinguished mathematician, not a scientist, elite or otherwise. He also said “The real wild card in climate forecasting is whether people will modify their behavior, and change their worlds in response to a warming planet.”
On the other hand the IPCC stated that it is not possible to forecast future climate states, but Gavin told me at one time that he had seen nothing to convince him of the existence of chaos in the physical or mathematical sense, so obviously the IPCC are full of hot air!
Gavin predicts “catastrophe” if “mankind” doesn’t “act fast enough”! Ooooh! Scary!
Just another “expert” trying to keep the funding going.
What is your opinion, Wee Willy? Maybe you could avoid getting involved by claiming you don’t know what the IPCC is. Probably too “abstruse” for you, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
Here you go:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_AnnexI_Glossary.pdf
Most welcome!
Wily Wee Willy,
Another irrelevant link, I assume.
What is your point, or are you just desperate to get someone to click on links which you paste?
You’re an idiot!
Maybe you can cut and paste the words you are going to depend on, and cut out all the attempts to show how clever you are!
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“I assume.”
You can ass-ume whatever you want: you’re an ass-hat!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
So do you always like to leave words out of your quotes?
Of course, they are except in your surreality.
SPA,
Now, now – don’t upset Wee Willy Witless with truth.
He might respond with an offer, a warning, throw his climateball at you, or even scuttle you totally with one of his “silly semantic games”!
I hope you are made of stern stuff.
Mike Flynn,
What truth would that be?
The only truths you can handle are briefcases!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I assure you they’re not based on GCMs, Stephen.
Think about what GCM means.
Woeful Wee Willie wrote –
“I assure you theyre not based on GCMs, Stephen.
Think about what GCM means.”
All Wacky Wee Willy’s assurances plus $5 can buy you a cup of coffee.
Presumably, the idiot’s exhortation to “Think . . .” doesn’t apply to him. He is impotent and powerless to enforce his demands.
What an idiot he is!
Mike Flynn,
I think that says it all.
Mike Flynn!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
> So what do you think the scary predictions about climate are based on?
Which one do you have in mind, Mike Flynn?
Chapter and verse, please.
Wacko Wee Willy,
Don’t try and change the subject, kiddo. You said that none of them were based on models. Are you changing your mind, or the goal posts? Which ones weren’t based on models? Don’t actually know what you are talking about?
Or are you just trolling, and trying to be argumentative, you chubby little rascal?
You sound like an idiot who has been caught out trying to play “silly semantic games”. Are you?
Mike Flynn,
You command-
“Dont try and change the subject”
Are you suggesting that your question (So what do you think the scary predictions about climate are based on?) changes the subject?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Dillbrain,
You have the attention span of a goldfish.
Here’s your record of the exchange –
“>Many of the scary predictions about climate that are being made public are based on the output of multiple Global Climate Models (GCMs).
No theyre not.”
Which scary predictions are you saying are not based on models?
Or are you just trying to avoid looking like the idiot you are?
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“Which scary predictions are you saying are not based on models?”
Any prediction Dan, Stephen, or you can think of.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dan Pangburn at 6:37 PM
The assault on fossil fuels is based on the assumption that planet warming was initiated by and is driven by increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning them.
Exxon said so forty years ago.
https://imgbb.com/Fh0nfH7
Don’t you believe Exxon?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Then EXXon was wrong 40 years ago. The evidence demonstrates it.
Dan Pangburn at 6:37 PM
The assault on fossil fuels is based on the assumption that planet warming was initiated by and is driven by increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning them.
You must not have been paying attention in 1982.
TM,
Some of us know better now. Humanitys only contribution to climate change is the slight warming from increasing water vapor; mostly (about 90%) from increasing irrigation. If you can understand the description in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com , you can know better too.
Weird Wee Willie wrote the following (complete comment) –
“Mike Flynn,
I think that says it all.
Mike Flynn!
Oh! Oh! Oh!”
Retarded, delusion, idiot, troll? All of them?
Who knows. He’s definitely a strange chappie.
Mike Flynn,
There’s an answer to all your rhetorical questions:
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, and the one and only Mike Flynn with all his sock puppets!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You still at it?
Enter the troll killer stage right.
Troll. You are a troll. You are THE troll. Begone now.
Grow up and shut up, child.
Sticks and stones….
Grow up and shut up, child.
Now, now! Naughty boys get put on the naughty step.
#2
Grow up and shut up, child.
Ooh. A count. I love a count. Are you Dracula by any chance?
#3
Grow up and shut up, child.
RLH, meet kiddo.
Unless you have an RSS reader, he’ll have the last word. And even then. As he once told me, he’s ready to post the same comment until the end of his life.
You might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
That should provide the background for the chicken reference.
Yes, that is a good article to show Willard has no idea what he’s talking about. Another argument I enjoyed winning.
What comes after #3? Big bird wants to know.
#4
Grow up and shut up, child.
I told you I like counting. What comes after 4?
5.
You don’t say! Who’s a good boy then? What comes next?
6.
willard…”If you weigh yourself every hour, your uncertainty regarding the measure of your weight will reduce”.
I wonder if you ever think about what you write?
The human body’s weight varies throughout the day due to water loss, food intake, etc. You can lose 5 lbs easily through water loss.
> You can lose 5 lbs easily through water loss.
What does that tell you, Gordon?
Wacko Wee Willy,
That you are an idiot?
No, Mike Flynn.
It should tell Gordon that what we believe is our true weight is less obvious than it seems at first.
It is if you allow multiple objects to be on the scales at the same time as you weight yourself.
You’re mostly water.
Should we weight it too?
This is about error bands around a central figure. If you really think composition is important, go for that.
Mind you I suspect it is just another attempt to distract from the main question.
Distract away on your own then.
Gordon Roberson
“The human bodys weight varies throughout the day due to water loss, food intake, etc. You can lose 5 lbs easily through water loss. ”
So to get a better picture of any weight change trend over time you standardise.
I weigh myself first thing every Saturday morning to give a weight under conditions comparable to previous and future weeks.
Weather stations are similarly standardised as far as possible by using Stevenson screens, similar time-of-day observations etc.
What would happen if we were to take 10 randomly placed stations around the central weather station?
Would you expect them to all read the same as the station? What range would you expect them to take?
entropic…”Since the 95% confidence limits overlap there is no significant difference between prediction and observation and the CO2 hypothesis has not been disproved”.
It doesn’t have to be disproved, it has never been proved.
In fact, established science a la the Ideal Gas Law, proves that CO2 can add not more heat in a constant gas volume than its percent mass. That means N2/O2 adds 99% of the heat and CO2 about 0.04%.
The AGW theory is all about intangibles like heat trapping, a misinterpretation of the S-B equation, and a contravention of the 2nd law. Before AGW can be proved, one has to prove that atmospheric gases can trap heat, like glass in a greenhouse, that the S-B equation applies to an energy transfer from cold to hot, and a heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
Hmm.
I have asked what would the average temperature of this planet be if was completely covered with ocean.
I would say that the global average surface temperature would be +25 C.
But I had thought it would simpler, but seems there would be a number of reasons why the planet would be so much warmer.
So, it seems to me, now, that it would not be simpler pathway to model Earth’s climate.
Though, one’s purpose could be to see if one added land area in right places, would to make it warmer than without the land added.
But related idea, is to be able add any element in order to get a earth-like planet at 1 AU distance to sun to have highest average global surface temperature.
As said before, I think if move Venus to Earth distance from the Sun, Venus would become cooler than Earth’s average surface temperature. Or if added 93 atm of CO2 to Earth, Earth becomes colder.
Just one element of proof, is Venus currently absorbs and radiates less energy than Earth {yet has twice the amount sunlight}.
And it seems one have agree than if Venus was at 1 AU, it would absorb and emit even less sunlight.
Even if thought Venus heated by internal heat, instead of sunlight, I think have to agree it’s warmed a little bit by the 2600 watt per square meter sunlight, no?
Though I guess, one could possibly argue 2600 watts of sunlight is insignificant.
EM wrote –
“Since the 95% confidence limits overlap there is no significant difference between prediction and observation and the CO2 hypothesis has not been disproved.
There is precisely no CO2 hypothesis. There are some delusional characters who believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter, by some magical process they can’t actually specify, can’t show experimentally, and has never been actually observed or measured.
Maybe EM could state the “CO2 hypothesis”, but the contents of his fantasy don’t show up too well in written form.
He’s dreaming.
The method I use is the “Planets Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”
The Earth’s atmosphere pressure at the sea level is 1 bar. It consists mainly of 79% N2 and 21% O2, and water vapor 1%, and CO2 0,04% and the other trace gasses.
Let’s compare Earth’s atmosphere with Venus’ atmosphere. Venus is almost the same size planet as Earth is. That is why Venus is called a sister planet.
The Venus’ atmosphere pressure at the ground level is 92 bar. It consists mainly of 96% CO2 and 4% N2, and other trace gasses. And Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
For someone living on Venus the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be thin. It appears to be very thin, very-very thin.
Compare the figures:
1 bar with 0,04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2.
How much more CO2 Venus has?
Let’s calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0,04% =
92*96*25 = 220.800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere has compared to Earth’s.
So what we compare is 1 to 220.800 !
For someone living on the Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesn’t have any CO2 in its atmosphere.
Tm.venus = 737 K
Venus’ Albedo 0,76 Bond.
Solar flux on Venus = 2600 W/m^2
(1 – a)S = (1 – 0,76)2600 W/m^2 = 0,24*2600 W/m^2 = 624 W/m^2
On Earth (less Albedo 0,306) it is 945 W/m^2
Tm.earth = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction
What we estimate is 1 CO2 molecule in Earth atmosphere compared
to 220800 CO2 molecules in Venus atmosphere!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 1:41 AM
Now do Mars
Mars’ and Earth’s carbon dioxide CO2 gas planet atmosphere partial pressure comparison
The partial carbon dioxide pressure in Earth’s atmosphere is 0,0004 bar.
The atmosphere pressure on Mars is 0,636 kPa or 0,00636 bar.
The partial carbon dioxide pressure in Mars’ atmosphere is
0,00636 bar * 95,97% CO2/100% = 0,00610 bar
Let’s compare: Mars CO2 /Earth CO2 = 0,00610 bar /0,0004 bar = 15,26
Conclusion:
Mars has 15,26 times higher CO2 partial pressure content.
What it means? It means that per planet surface square meter
Mars has
15,26 times more than Earth carbon dioxide molecules.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas, so, what conclusions do you draw from the data?
Conclusions:
The mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…..Te……..Tmean……Tsat.mean
Mercury…439,6 K…325,83 K…..340 K
Earth…..255 K…..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon…..270,4 Κ….223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars….209,91 K….213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I will admit that this is the first time I see someone fudge the Earth’s albedo in an attempt to falsify the GHE. I have seen the ideal gas law trick attempted before, but never this.
I also note that the last time I angaged you in a discussion you were trying to say that phi is a drag coefficient which made absolutely no sense either.
TYSON
> “I will admit that this is the first time I see someone fudge the Earth’s albedo in an attempt to falsify the GHE. I have seen the ideal gas law trick attempted before, but never this.
I also note that the last time I engaged you in a discussion you were trying to say that phi is a drag coefficient which made absolutely no sense either.
I read several times what you addressed to me…
…in an attempt to falsify the GHE.
…trick attempted before, but never this.
I have demonstrated planets mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as the planets (N*cp) product sixteenth root.
Also I have demonstrated there is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Planets reflective properties differ significantly. There are planets without atmosphere with low Albedo, and there are planets without atmosphere with high Albedo.
Planets without atmosphere with low Albedo (the smooth surface planets) have a very strong specular reflection…
Also I have developed a Planet Mean Surface Temperature calculating equation.
The equation theoretically calculates all the planets in solar system the Mean Surface Temperatures, Earth including. The results match very close those satellite measured.
My only attempt is to make this knew knowledge to become known.
I am working very hard since February 2019 when I first realized I have found something new.
Since then I do whatever effort is needed to explain what is it all about. And I will continue doing so, because it is important to become known…
TYSON
I never had a slightest intention to falsify anything. Why should I spent so many years of studying the subject and when having achieved the so much satisfactory results, I considered a duty to make the knew knowledge to become known…
Please, TYSON, do reconsider…
I am always willing to answer any question on the matter the best way I can.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Question who on here thinks that it is possible to turn a +/- 5.0c degree thermometer into a +/- 0.01c by the use of statistics? By using, say, 1,000,000 samples?
Yes. This is the standard error of the mean concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error
E = S/sqrt(N)
S is the standard error of the individual samples. N is the number of samples. If you increase N the standard error of the mean decreases per the formula.
You all seem to think that you can just use cheap +/- 5.0c thermometers and produce 0.01c accuracy just by taking 1,000,000 readings using it. I have to tell you it doesnt work that way. Sure you might be able to reduce the central mean using statistics. You will never improve the range of readings beyond +/- 5.0c unless you change the thermometer.
That is exactly what we are saying. And it works as long as the error on individual readings is normally distributed.
The chances of normal distributions in the real world are quite small. Close to maybe. Normal never.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error#/media/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
The width of the normal distribution (which may or may not be skewed) is not reduced by taking more samples
That is correct. The distribution of the error of each sample is what it is due to the design, manufacture, quality, and calibration of the instrument used to make the measurement. It does not change. It is the same for each measurement. Adding more samples does not change the shape of this distribution. No one is suggesting otherwise.
Its a lot more than that. See elsewhere as multiple conversations are not improving clarity.
Looking back up through some of the discussions it looks you think we are saying that the individual measurements get better with each successive measurement. None of us have said that or even remotely implied that.
What we are saying is that the error of the mean of a population of samples decreases as the number of samples increases. This is true as long as the error in the individual samples is normally distributed regardless of whether that error is precision or accuracy.
“What we are saying is that the error of the mean of a population of samples decreases as the number of samples increases. ”
I have never denied that.
But you have not acknowledge that the width of the sample, its range, standard deviation, whatever, is not influenced by the number of samples taken.
I have acknowledged that; multiple times now actually.
Again, we are NOT saying that the error of the individual samples improves with each new samples. We are saying the error of the mean of the population improves with each new sample.
And I am saying that temperatures are not a normal distribution on any time scale and that the standard deviation of those readings matters as well as the central tendency.
That is irrelevant. What the temperatures are and how much they vary in time and space has no bearing on the error of those measurements. We talking about the error of the measurements here which is normally distributed (mostly anyway). That necessarily means that the error on the mean of a population of temperature readings is smaller than the error on the individual readings themselves. This has nothing to do with the variance of the population. That is a different topic.
That is irrelevant. What the temperatures are and how much they vary in time and space has no bearing on the error of those measurements. We talking about the error of the measurements here which is mostly normally distributed.
“This has nothing to do with the variance of the population. That is a different topic.”
You can ignore it all you wish. Doesn’t make it go away.
No body is saying the variance of a population isn’t important or should be ignored. It is a useful metric to track and understand like so many other metrics. It just doesn’t have anything to do with the error of the mean of the population.
It has long been clear that we are not talking about the same thing.
There are things that can be influenced by taking multiple samples and those that cannot.
Care to list what you consider are the things that cannot be changed by taking multiple samples?
What many participating in this accuracy-versus-precision circus don’t seem to get is what RLH is not saying very well (on purpose, so as to seem relevant?).
If you use a thermometer that is off one way or another by 5K from a standard, it won’t matter how many readings you take with that thermometer. Your accuracy will be off by 5K.
No I just come from a different background to Climate Scientists is all
No what?
You are annoying. Repeating the same thing over and over? Why?
Because no-one is prepared to accept that they are not including things that are important to what they are discussing. Like concentrating on the sample mean when that is not what I am discussing.
It’s your responsibility to make your point clearly. You are not doing that, as the many responses indicate.
I’m just rocking the boat. That will always draw many responses.
IOW RLH is just here to troll.
Anomaly analysis solves that problem.
What problem? The inability to reduce the standard deviation of the results by taking may samples?
It solves the bias or accuracy error problem as long as the bias or accuracy error is time invariant.
So what? We are talking bout 2 separate things. Ones that can be reduced by taking multiple samples and ones that cannot.
How representative do you think that 1.5m point samples are of a 3d, 3m layer of air between here and the next weather station?
There is one more point to discuss here. If the accuracy of the individual measurements is not normally distributed, but is instead systematic such that all measurements are biased one way or another this gets cancelled out via anomaly analysis. Here is the math behind that.
dT = (T2 + B2) – (T1 + B1)
T is temperature and B is the bias (accuracy error) for that reading. As long as bias is time invariant such that B1 = B2 then…
dT = (T2 – T1) + (B2 – B1)
dT = T2 – T1
So here we are left with dT which has the time invariant systematic bias removed.
Biased distributions should use a median rather than a mean as all statistics text books will tell you.
Yes. Your uncle would have agreed.
So you do believe that it is possible to turn a +/- 5.0c degree thermometer into a +/- 0.01c by the use of statistics? By using, say, 1,000,000 samples?
JLH would most certainly not agreed to that.
What would you consider to be the precision of new readings taken by such a thermometer? +/-5.0c or +/- 0.01c
I discussed this earlier.
The precision of a single temperature reading is a function of the precision with which the thermometer can measure the temperature and you can read the scale. For a mercury thermometer, as you rightly say, that is about +/- 0.5C for a single measurement.
When you take multiple measurements the precision of the mean is better than the precision of a single measurement and the precision improves as the sample size increases.
To be specific,
Precision of the mean = precision of measurement / √ number of measurements.
For your example
precision of the mean = 0.5/ √ 1,000,000 = 0.005C
The central mean does NOT effect the +/- figure in any way. What accuracy are new readings taken on a +/-5.0c thermometer? +/-5.0c or better?
JLH was more than well aware that the number of sensors, their distribution across a rolling mill, their accuracy, their range, the sampling rate, feedback timings, delays, and a host of other factors effected the efficiency of the control work he did for that rolling mill. In both digital and analogue domains. Did you know that he had to ask his employers for permission for the first audio amplifier article he wrote because it touched too closely on trade secrets from his employment?
Now consider what he would make of the claims that are made for air temperature sampling at 2d, 1.5m as representative of the 3d, 3m thick air layer within which we all live.
“Now consider what he would make of the claims that are made for air temperature sampling at 2d, 1.5m as representative of the 3d, 3m thick air layer within which we all live. ”
JLH would be well aware that to produce a meaningful body of data for control you need to standardise. Keep your instruments properly calibrated and standardise the conditions under which your measurements are taken.
If you need more precision than a single measurement can give you, take the mean of multiple measurements. You can do this by taking multiple measurements from one instrument or use multiple instruments.
How is this applied to temperature data? You standardise the design of weather stations. Use Stevenson screens to hold the thermometers a standard 1.5m distance above the surface and shield them from direct sunlight. Take daily measurements at the same time. Calibrate your instruments regularly. Compare each station with its neighbours to spot whether one station is drifting off calibration or its local conditions have changed.
You didn’t read what I said.
JLH was more than well aware of the need to calibrate his sensors (or have it done by the supplier) as you note.
He was also well aware of the need to place those sensors such as to minimize measurement errors using things not dissimilar to those you example for climate.
JLH was also well aware that the number of sensors, their distribution across a rolling mill, their accuracy, their range, the sampling rate, feedback timings, delays, and a host of other factors effected the efficiency of the control work he did for that rolling mill. In both digital and analogue domains.
You all seem to think that you can just use cheap +/- 5.0c thermometers and produce 0.01c accuracy just by taking 1,000,000 readings using it. I have to tell you it doesn’t work that way. Sure you might be able to reduce the central mean using statistics. You will never improve the range of readings beyond +/- 5.0c unless you change the thermometer.
You have picked up the old climate change denier meme that the limit of precision of the temperature means is the limit of measurement precision of the thermometer. That is mistaken.
https://scientificallysound.org/2016/03/03/how-does-sample-size-affect-precision-of-estimates/
You all seem to think that you can just use cheap +/- 5.0c thermometers and produce 0.01c accuracy just by taking 1,000,000 readings using it. I have to tell you it doesnt work that way. Sure you might be able to reduce the central mean using statistics. You will never improve the range of readings beyond +/- 5.0c unless you change the thermometer.
It’s precision that is improved, not accuracy.
And it does work that way.
Yup
Actually…if the accuracy on the thermometers themselves is normally distributed then the accuracy of the mean improves too. That is often the case. For example, for every thermometer that is biased by +0.5C you will find one that is biased by -0.5C. But the biases of the thermometers all cancel out in the end when doing anomaly analysis as long as the biases are time invariant.
bdgwx,
I hope you aren’t measuring temperatures for anything important.
Chic,
I’m advocating for using as many thermometers as reasonably possible and performing anomaly analysis if the task is to measure a change in the mean temperature. Are you saying you disagree? How would you track the change in mean temperature if not by using anomaly analysis with as many thermometers as reasonably possible?
Chic. Too true.
RLH,
It sounds like you disagree with me too. You are more than welcome to describe how YOU would track the change in the mean temperature of something. I recommend using as many thermometers as reasonably possible and performing anomaly analysis to remove any systematic bias. How would you do it?
The same way. But I would acknowledge up front about the limitations of the sampling method, the sampling frequencies and the difficulties in capturing the real world into a synthetic temperature series.
There are limitations in our measurements of the global mean temperature. Neither the accuracy nor the precision of the measurement is perfect. It never will be. Everybody knows that. Many of these datasets publish rigorous analysis of the uncertainties in their estimates. One notable exception is UAH. I’ve not seen even a single uncertainty analysis published for UAH which is rather odd considering that RSS provides one.
Sampling error ain’t no observation error tho.
It can be both. Depending on how far back in time you go.
bdgwx,
Yes, I disagree that anomaly analysis will improve absolute temperature measurements. That’s like saying reporting how much I grew improved the measurements of how tall I was.
“Many of these datasets publish rigorous analysis of the uncertainties in their estimates.”
Many publish their deviations from the sample mean by multiple samples. Few publish their uncertainty as to standard deviation about that mean however and the meaning of that to the figures provided.
Chic,
I didn’t say anomaly analysis reduces the accuracy error of the absolute temperature. It doesn’t. What it does is make the accuracy error moot by considering only the change in temperature instead.
Reporting how much you grew does not in any way reduce the accuracy of how you report how tall you are. But if there is any accuracy error with the yardstick used to measure your height you can be confident that this accuracy error cancels out when you report how much you grew.
Doh…sorry for the unintentional bolding in that post. I only meant to bold the word change.
“I only meant to bold the word change.”
How do you do that?
HTML markup
“em” for emphasis
“strong” for bold
“blockquote” for blockquotes
“a” for links
etc.
Thanks for that
bdgwx,
“But if there is any accuracy error with the yardstick used to measure your height you can be confident that this accuracy error cancels out when you report how much you grew.”
I stand corrected to the degree that you are half right. The accuracy error is moot only for an instrument that is inherently inaccurate (systematically biased). But anomalies won’t eliminate all error, because one is just as likely to get a low reading the first time and a high reading the second time as it is likely to be off in the same direction and to the same extent in both readings. IOW, anomalies will correct for systematic inaccuracy, but not for any imprecision of raw measurements.
“anomalies will correct for systematic inaccuracy, but not for any imprecision of raw measurements.”
I agree
> I have to tell you it doesnt work that way.
You also have to produce a theorem, either by derivation or by citing one. Alternatively, you could try to establish how the cheap thermometers all have the same systematic error. That will be hard, for you don’t have the resources to go around and do the proper uncertainty analysis.
And all this might be for nothing because we’re mostly interested with temperature anomalies, not absolute temperatures.
“And all this might be for nothing because were mostly interested with temperature anomalies, not absolute temperatures.”
Anomalies are based on absolute temperatures. In fact you get from one to another by using a monthly/daily figure.
Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error#/media/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
and consider standard deviation.
Here’s what I was alluding to, RLH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error#Sources_of_systematic_error
I don’t have 165$ for the Performance Test Standard PTC 19.1-2005. Do you have it?
And I consider
“Sources of random error
The random or stochastic error in a measurement is the error that is random from one measurement to the next. Stochastic errors tend to be normally distributed when the stochastic error is the sum of many independent random errors because of the central limit theorem. Stochastic errors added to a regression equation account for the variation in Y that cannot be explained by the included Xs”
As well as
“Random error is always present in a measurement. It is caused by inherently unpredictable fluctuations in the readings of a measurement apparatus or in the experimenter’s interpretation of the instrumental reading. “
Yes, random errors “can be estimated by comparing multiple measurements, and reduced by averaging multiple measurements,” so unless you can show that the errors your after are systematic, they’ll even out, e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-699766
According to thy Wiki, there are three main sources of systematic error: imperfect calibration, the specific quantity measured, and drift. Suppose that thermometers always overestimate temps. How does it affect anomalies? It does not.
If your source data is corrupt or inaccurate then nothing you do from there on will be accurate either.
Tell me, how representative do you think a single point at 1.5m is of the 3d, 3m layer of air from here to the next weather station?
Representativeness is another topic.
We need to agree on systematic error first.
No wee need to deal with the real world as opposed to statistics
Representativeness does not exist in the real world the way you might presume.
If you are saying that a synthetic temperature series does not represent the real world closely I can only agree.
If you are saying that a synthetic temperature series does not represent the real world very well I can only agree
> If you are saying that a synthetic temperature series does not represent the real world
No, I’m saying that your usage of “represent” isn’t quite clear, and in fact might not be realistic at all.
For starters, you need to accept that representation isn’t a tangible object, like a rock is. Then you could tell me what we should expect from our representations of the world. Finally, you would need to specify (ideally in a formal sense) how to meet that expectation.
Hence why I used “High Expectation Auditor” earlier.
“Finally, you would need to specify (ideally in a formal sense) how to meet that expectation.”
Well in an ideal world one would have a set of thermometers at just above ground, 1.5m and 3m for each weather station. A weather station every few km or so. And a whole range of environmental readings at 1hr intervals and temperature to the same resolution at each station.
Then one gets back to the real world.
> Then one gets back to the real world.
I think that once we jump into ideal worlds, we never get back.
But suppose you have the setup you just specified. What kind of thermometers would you use, how precise are the best ones in the market, and how would that improve our anomaly analyses?
The best available for the price range and budget to hand. As usual.
I assume that in your ideal world price is no object.
Give me a link.
Why? Are you unable to use Google? Just type in the relevant words and hit return.
It’s your ideal world, and I gave you enough.
Time to give back.
Let Google be your friend. It cuts down on simple research a lot.
Try https://www.weathershop.co.uk/shop/davis-vantage-vue-weather-station as a starting point.
Or
https://www.davisinstruments.com/product/cabled-vantage-pro2-plus-with-standard-radiation-shield/
“Accurate, reliable weather monitoring with real-time data updates every 2.5 seconds.
Transmits data from the sensor suite to the included cabled console via 100/30 m cable.
Sensor suites rugged, weather-proof housing gives you years of reliable data.
Sensor suite includes outside temperature and humidity sensors in a passive radiation shield; wind speed and direction; rainfall; and UV and Solar radiation.
Mount anemometer up to 40/12 m from the rest of sensor suite for flexible siting.
Console includes inside temperature and humidity sensors and barometer; shows all sensor data as well as indexes, dewpoint, moon phase, alarms, highs/lows, forecast and more.
On-screen graphing of weather data shows you over 100 graphs for last 24 hours, days, months or years; tickertape provides forecast and meteorological information.
Set 22 simultaneous console alarms to warn of dangers such as high wind, freezing temperatures, high rain rate, heat index, and more.
Sensor suite is AC-powered through the console with battery-backup.
One-year manufacturers warranty.”
https://www.davisinstruments.com/product_documents/weather/spec_sheets/6152C_6162C_SS.pdf
Sensor Accuracy is 0.5F or 0.3C.
So what. How does that effect the sensor reading to the 3m band of air in which its sits? And the 1000’s of meters around the s==weather station?
So what indeed.
God Roy’s spam filter sucks.
Let’s try
tinyurl doc com slash 4cmcwv8h
A meteorologist’s website blocks a page on the NOAA’s instruments!
On the page I cited you can find the specs for their Platinum Resistance Thermometer on that page. The company claims an accuracy of 0.04% over full range. They also claim repeatability and stability better than 0.01C per year.
There is a contact form on the first page if you want more details.
Wow. You actually fulfil the ‘what the heck does that matter’ spot in the ‘show me how that accurate instrument can be used to create a usable temperature average (of any sort) for the 3d,3m cube of air it is the center of’ challenge. That includes the distribution or error range that will be generated by that measurement. Of a 24 hour period using min/max/mean as you underlying mathematics.
It’s easier if you quote teh relevant section from the url in any case
“Air Temperature: Three platinum resistance thermometers housed in fan aspirated solar radiation shields
Precipitation: An inlet-heated, wind-shielded weighing rain gauge (configured with three load cell sensors), precipitation (wetness) detector, and an auxiliary tipping bucket gauge.
Wind Speed: A 3-cup anemometer at the same height as the air temperature shield intakes.
Solar Radiation: A silicon pyranometer
Surface (Skin) Temperature: A precision infrared temperature sensor pointed at the ground surface
Relative Humidity: A capacitive thin-film polymer humidity sensor providing accurate and stable measurement even in environments with high humidity
Soil Temperature & Moisture: Moisture sensors with built-in thermistors installed at specific depths: 5, 10 20, 50 and 100 cm.”
I would include a 5cm air temperature thermometer as well, continuous not minimum to better determine air profile over the bottom 3m of air.
> You actually fulfil the what the heck does that matter spot
And that’s just by reading a specification sheet.
Imagine if you read more from those you want to criticize.
Armchair incredulity has limits.
Now answer me why the UK met office has a 5cm air thermometer?
Do you think it is for fun or because they want to throw money away?
It is there for a very specific reason that demonstrates that the air temperature profile over the lower 3m cannot be well represented by a 1.2m reading.
“How we measure grass minimum temperature
For many years the grass minimum temperature has been defined as the lowest overnight temperature measured by a thermometer, fully exposed to the open sky, suspended horizontally over an area covered with short cropped turf and in contact with the tips of grass blades”
“The difference between the air temperature typically measured around 4 to 5 feet above ground and the grass minimum can be substantial on clear nights with little wind and strong radiational cooling.”
> why the UK met office has a 5cm air thermometer?
No idea. If I select your question, right-click, and select “search for,” I get:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/guides/observations/how-we-measure-temperature
From there you’re on your own.
You can always ask Richard Betts:
https://twitter.com/richardabetts
A swell guy.
> why the UK met office has a 5cm air thermometer
No idea. My guess would be that’s it’s what they got. If I select your question, right-click, and choose “search for” I get a page at the MET Office that says how they measure temperatures.
I’d ask Richard Betts @richardabetts on the tweeter or email him if I really wanted to know. Not sure your second question would get an answer, tho.
God I hate Roy’s spam filter.
> why the UK met office has a 5cm air thermometer?
Was a rhetorical question which I assumed would lead you to find out.
“How we measure grass minimum temperature
For many years the grass minimum temperature has been defined as the lowest overnight temperature measured by a thermometer, fully exposed to the open sky, suspended horizontally over an area covered with short cropped turf and in contact with the tips of grass blades.”
> Was a rhetorical question
Hence my rhetorical response.
So how about looking at the reason I gave you from the met office wen site
“How we measure grass minimum temperature
For many years the grass minimum temperature has been defined as the lowest overnight temperature measured by a thermometer, fully exposed to the open sky, suspended horizontally over an area covered with short cropped turf and in contact with the tips of grass blades
and from elsewhere
“The difference between the air temperature typically measured around 4 to 5 feet above ground and the grass minimum can be substantial on clear nights with little wind and strong radiational cooling.
> How about
How about you get to the point, RLH. Everybody knows that temperature changes according to conditions.
The more quotes you provide the less plausible becomes your “lie by omission” hypothesis. Which is a Good Thing, as it’s up to you to try to refute it.
I demonstrate that there is a significant air temperature profile in the lower 3m of the atmosphere and you go, so what?
“Significant” has a formal meaning, so I say: show it.
Significant here means considerable.
If anyone is using a thermometer not more accurate than 5K, then they should not be measuring weather temperature. What good would that be?
I think the point you are not making very well is that thermometer accuracy trumps precision. Say you have a thermometer that is accurate to 1K. The more readings you take on a subject that is at a constant temperature, the more confident you will be that the temperature will be within 1K of the measurement. More measurements improves confidence but not precision.
Getting even further into the weeds, accuracy and precision are both dependent on the instrument. One thermometer can be very precise but not accurate. Another one just the opposite.
Also you need to take into account that a reading on an instrument at 1.5m is only loosely connected to a 3m surface layer of air 3d space from here to the next weather station.
> I think the point you are not making very well is that thermometer accuracy trumps precision
Either RLH argues the opposite, or he violently agrees with everybody:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exactitude_et_pr%C3%A9cision#/media/Fichier:Accuracy_and_Precision.svg
You make parts of my point quite well with one diagram.
All the points I made so far have been made with this diagram in mind, if only to make sure I don’t mix the two concepts. I bet I will still conflate them in the future. Everyone always does.
As I see it, climate scientists deal with inaccuracy issues with anomalies. They deal with precision issues with uncertainty measures. Would you agree with that picture?
That diagram (and that picture) represents concepts, not reality. In reality, thermometers are both inaccurate and imprecise. Just like to speak of thermometers is both inaccurate and imprecise: there are other measurement devices, proxies, etc. As long as we can understand one another, it’s fit for purpose. Same for our data.
“In reality, thermometers are both inaccurate and imprecise.”
The precision of thermometers is rarely discussed now. Very sensibly.
The accuracy of those 1.5m thermometers as representative of the 3d, 3m surface air layer between here and the next weather station is still to be explored though.
> The precision of thermometers is rarely discussed now.
Depends by whom. I could cite hundreds (plus or minus 88) of contrarian posts on ARGO floats. And don’t get me started on tree rings!
I only have a stub so far of “But Data” but that should get you an idea:
https://climateball.net/but-data/
Our discussion of systematic errors will become a line in it, probly later today.
But you’re right: climate scientists seldom inspect the realness of the datasets they analyze. That’s not their job. It’s the meteorologists’.
John Nielsen-Gammon is one. You can contact him:
https://atmo.tamu.edu/people/profiles/faculty/nielsen-gammonjohn.html
A great guy. You’ll get a serious response from him. Here’s one of the best series I’ve ever read:
https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/06/weather-modification-diary-entry-r-minus-6/
It’s hard to find the series, but you can cut the URL to follow the months and click on the next part of this “Diary Entry”.
“The accuracy of those 1.5m thermometers as representative of the 3d, 3m surface air layer between here and the next weather station is still to be explored though.
Srsly, RLH: email NG.
See what he replies to you.
https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/06/weather-modification-diary-entry-r-minus-6/
Sorry, this content is not available in your region.
Another reason to make a post celebrating the 10th anniversary of the series.
I will archive the page and post a link in Roy’s monthly post.
There:
https://archive.ph/IhkaW
Sounds like a very grounded scientist.
Meteorologists usually are grounded, at least since Franklin.
🙂
I’ll try that again
: )
You obviously stopped reading about the central limit theorem in statistics that states that, given a sufficiently large sample size, the sampling distribution of the mean for a variable will approximate a normal distribution regardless of that variable’s distribution in the population too early.
It continues with the fact that additionally, the central limit theorem applies to independent, identically distributed variables. In other words, the value of one observation does not depend on the value of another observation. And, the distribution of that variable must remain constant across all measurements.
Now if you are telling me that one temperature reading does not effect the next..
As is well understood, particularly by those doingvthe analysis.
“If we had 10,000 measurements of truly independent locations, then the error on the average could reach ~ 1/sqrt(10,000) = 0.01.
They are in reality somewhat correlated, so the actual error will be somewhat larger.”
“If we had 10,000 measurements of truly independent locations, then the error on the average could reach ~ 1/sqrt(10,000) = 0.01.”
None of that will turn a cheap +/-5.0c thermometer into a +/-0.01 reference one by taking a 1,000,000 samples with it at one spot.
What does that have to with the Global average?
Strawman alert!
It has to do with the accuracy and relevance of claims that are made using those figures.
If all of your complaints are just another attempt at ‘how to prove all of climate science wrong with this one simple trick’, its quite lame!
Your assumption that the professionals analyzing Global Temp dont have a clue about stats or how to properly analyze uncertainty, is a bad assumption.
Please do show us whatever evidence you got, or shut up.
What specifically do you think I am wrong in challenging?
This is a classic of denier arrogance. That you have knowledge of basic science that climate scientists just don’t have.
You raise issues of uncertainty and stats, and make assumptions again and again, that that climate scientists don’t have a clue about them.
Where is the evidence? Show us their papers in which they discuss error analysis (there are many to choose from), and point out the flaws.
Eg correlation between measurement sites is well known and taken into account.
I am not a denier or an advocate. I am scientists who believes the claims made require a strong statistical basis to be of use.
What reasons do you have that the 1.2m measurement height is even vaguely related to the bulk air temperature in the lower 3m column of air from weather station to weather station?
What reasons do you have to believe that the (min+max)/2 represents a fair measure of daily temps at 1.2m height when it is well acknowledged that there is a significant standard deviation of significant size in those assumptions.
As Nyquist would require both horizontally, vertically and time wise.
What reasons do you have to believe that the (min+max)/2 represents a fair measure of daily temps at 1.2m height when it is well acknowledged that there is a significant standard deviation of significant size in those assumptions.
As Nyquist would require both horizontally, vertically and time wise.
A min/max thermometer clearly satisfies Nyquist in time, so one can directly do temperature anomaly trends and error analysis on the min and max data. In quantifying long term warming trends there’s virtually no difference in using the daily mean of these and using each directly.
The temperature relationships in the horizontal and vertical dimensions aren’t usefully represented as periodic, so it’s not obvious how your reference to Nyquist makes sense for these. Maybe you want to expand on what you think is the issue of concern. To be clear, the specifics of interpolation between stations matters in deriving confidence intervals, but that’s well documented in the literature.
“A min/max thermometer clearly satisfies Nyquist in time”
Oh no it doesn’t. A hourly reading during the day using medians is a much, much more accurate assessment. It is well acknowledged that this is true. But no uncertainty is added to the (min+max)/2 to account for that.
“The temperature relationships in the horizontal and vertical dimensions arent usefully represented as periodic, so its not obvious how your reference to Nyquist makes sense for these.”
Nyquist applies in both space and time. Why do you think that cell size is so important to any conclusions that are drawn. Are you really claiming that a point sample at 1.2m (or 1.5m) is even a close approximation to the average bulk temperature of the 3m air band from one station to the next?
We are all attempting to determine what the bulk air temperature is in the lower atmosphere and how its statistics are moving otherwise what it the point.
RLH says:
May 27, 2021 at 9:20 AM
A min/max thermometer clearly satisfies Nyquist in time
Oh no it doesnt. A hourly reading during the day using medians is a much, much more accurate assessment. It is well acknowledged that this is true. But no uncertainty is added to the (min+max)/2 to account for that.
A min/max thermometer satisfies Nyquist in time in so far as it reports the min and max temperatures observed in the observation period. Your issue is that you want it to report some definition of a daily average, but that’s not Nyquist.
The temperature relationships in the horizontal and vertical dimensions arent usefully represented as periodic, so its not obvious how your reference to Nyquist makes sense for these.
Nyquist applies in both space and time. Why do you think that cell size is so important to any conclusions that are drawn. Are you really claiming that a point sample at 1.2m (or 1.5m) is even a close approximation to the average bulk temperature of the 3m air band from one station to the next?
We are all attempting to determine what the bulk air temperature is in the lower atmosphere and how its statistics are moving otherwise what it the point.
I would say we are attempting to determine, with reasonable confidence, a long term trend in atmospheric heat at some altitude. With that objective the precise instantaneous temperature gradients through space don’t have to be known, rather they need to be statistically stationary across space. If this weren’t reasonably true we’d expect to see it show up in subset tests, which it does not.
Tmax and Tmin vs. every hour:
A basic model of temperature in a day at one place is a sinusoid. If so than (Tmax +Tmin)/2 will give a good measure of the average.
Sure sometimes it will deviate from a nice sinusoid, as when a cold front moves in at noon, or a warm front moves in at midnight.
This is weather, and the fronts are moving in at different times at distant sites and different days at the same site. The errors it adds are incoherent in space and time and tend to cancel.
I’ll bet this source of noise is smaller than the DIRECT noise produced by weather, IOW the direct effect of weather on local Tmax and Tmin.
You should try to model and quantify it.
Same goes for the effect of measuring at specific height. Is noise introduced by this random? And is it much smaller than the direct effect of weather? I think probably it is.
Radiative Energy Transfer Intensity is the decisive factor in Thermometer Temperature Measurements
When the conventional thermometer was invented it happened in an indoors workshop.
The newly made Thermometer was a great invention at the time.
It made it possible to measure the heat intensity.
When it was cold Thermometer measured how much cold it was.
And when it was hot Thermometer measured how much warm it was there.
They eventually took Thermometer outdoors; they took it out in the open place.
When under the suns irradiation Thermometer showed a much higher temperature.
What they decided then was that when Thermometer is put in the shade, it measures the air temperature, because when on sun it gets complement heated by the suns rays.
So, they concluded, if thermometer is properly insulated from the direct sun rays it would measure exclusively only the airs temperature.
Of course they didnt know about the infrared radiation the matter emits all the time in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
So they had thermometers indoors and it was decided they measured the indoors air temperature.
And the workshops where the basic laws of thermodynamic were discovered in also were indoors laboratories.
They had not a problem then. They had no difficulties discovering the fundamental laws of ideal gasses because in the indoors laboratories the air was in the constant equilibrium with the inside of the walls and all the other surroundings.
Of course scientists performed their precise measurements experiments with the gasses extension behind the closed doors.
The doors were closed so no one could disturb the very accurate measurements with ideal gasses temperatures they did at the time.
At the party with friends take out from your inner pocket an indoor air measuring thermometer and put it on the desk.
Ask then your friends a very simple question: What temperature does thermometer shows?
It is a very amusing joke, you will be surprised with answers you will have.
I also used to take out the indoors thermometer to measure the air temperature in the shade on my balcony.
I also used to measure the air temperature at cold winter nights in the open on the balcony.
Each time I gave it some time for the thermometers temperature to adjust to the outside temperature, as I thought at the time, to adjust to the outside air temperature, since thermometer was at the room temperature when it was taken out.
So here we are.
There is another issue in measuring air temperature with the thermometers sheltered in the standardized Stevensons screens.
This very important issue has to do with the adjustment time needed for the thermometer to respond to the changes of the (I am not saying air temperature only) surroundings temperature.
Thermometers what they are doing is measuring their surroundings thermal conditions from the inside of the standardized shelters.
Look what I finally found out about measuring the temperature of the outside air from the measuring stations.
The air temperature measurements by thermometers sheltered in the standardized screens are not air temperature precise measurements.
These measurements and the data they provide are not reliable for the long time scale very small climate changes estimation.
It happens because thermometer in the shade does not measure the temperature of the air.
The Sun may not see it directly, but even the shelter itself emits infrared radiation.
And the thermometer, on the other hand, emits its own infrared radiation too. In general, matter is constantly emitting infrared radiation.
So the thermometer, like any other object, tries to balance thermally with its overall environment.
Thermometer shows the temperature at which it has been warmed, and not the temperature of the surrounding air, thermometer is in a thin direct contact with.
Air basically acts as an insulator than a transmitter of energy, so air is not capable to write its actual temperature in the thermometers display.
This is because by radiation thermometer is heated and cooled much more intensely than with its epidermal contact with the air.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos has vicariously absorbed another contrarian meme.
Well done, RLH!
What did I do?
Nothing pernicious. You only inspired Christos to include thermometers into his daily drive-by comment.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
So do you always like to leave words out of your quotes?
RLH,
I feel like we are not adequately addressing your concern in regards to global mean surface temperature trend estimates like those provided by GISS, Berkeley Earth, Copernicus, etc.
What about specifically are you concerned about? How would you estimate the near surface warming trend from 1979-present? What would you do differently that no one else is doing?
An upfront acknowledgement of the imprecision of the all of the temperature series (thermometer and satellite) to the real world 3d, 3m layer of air next to the surface would be a start.
As those figures are in themselves imprecise, observations using them will be imprecise also.
GISS, Berkeley Earth, Copernicus, etc. do not want you to use their datasets as a proxy for the mean temperature of the 3m layer of air just above the surface without proper consideration. They only intend their datasets to be used as a proxy for the mean temperature at standard height.
If you are interested in the mean temperature of a 3m layer of air then you’ll have to use alternate data sources. I recommend ERA5 for this purpose as they provide several products that would be useful in computing this value.
Either way everybody already acknowledges that their datasets are not perfect and come with uncertainty.
“GISS, Berkeley Earth, Copernicus, etc. do not want you to use their datasets as a proxy for the mean temperature of the 3m layer of air just above the surface without proper consideration. They only intend their datasets to be used as a proxy for the mean temperature at standard height.”
In other words they, despite the common usage of their series in such a way, make no claims as to the real world applications of their series when discussing climate.
I’m not aware of anyone that has used these datasets as a proxy for the warming trend of the 3m layer without giving proper consideration that the skin effect has on that layer. Regardless tracking the mean temperature over time at standard height is useful nonetheless.
“Im not aware of anyone that has used these datasets as a proxy for the warming trend of the 3m layer without giving proper consideration that the skin effect has on that layer.”
So you are saying that the series you quoted are not suitable for direct use in climate discussions without taking into consideration of other factors. Such as those I have been mentioning.
Good to know.
They are suitable for climate discussions and for testing hypothesis.
One such hypothesis is that given the factors that have changed from 1979 to present we expect the global mean temperature at standard height to have increased. GISS, Berkeley Earth, Copernicus, etc. provide a measurement of this value and we can see that the hypothesis is consistent with observations.
You can even use the global mean temperature at standard height and combine it with your understanding of the temperature behavior in the planetary boundary layer to make inferences regarding the temperature at the skin, 950mb, 925mb, etc. So these dataset are definitely useful for a wide range of applications.
“So these dataset are definitely useful for a wide range of applications.”
But not directly applicable to the real world 3m thick surface layers as you have already indicated, without other environmental factors included.
Inferences imply assumptions which are sadly lacking in the usage of the figures.
What was the height on the planetary boundary layer in the 1880’s? Or do you just make unstated assumptions and use them instead of actual knowledge.
RLH said: What was the height on the planetary boundary layer in the 1880s?
I’m not sure what the average height of the PBL was in 1880. I’m not even sure what it is today off the top of my head. You should be able to use one of the reanalysis datasets to estimate this though.
RLH said: Inferences imply assumptions which are sadly lacking in the usage of the figures.
Can you give me an example of an inappropriate use of a global mean surface temperature dataset?
“Can you give me an example of an inappropriate use of a global mean surface temperature dataset?”
Yes. You imply (and others) that it is a proxy for the lower 3m air layer all over the Earth and therefore provides a direct assessment of the temperature of it when you yourself have admitted that there are numerous other factors that need to be considered for that to be considered true.
Thus it is a lie by omission.
Failure to disclose what other factors need to be considered for the series you promote to represent the true real 3d world that we exists in.
I’m sure you will claim that tracking GISS.temp provides some clue as to the real world does but that makes wide assumptions about what other factors need to be considered and the range that should sensibly attach to them.
Not knowing but making broad assumptions about environmental factors from 1880 onwards is but one sin.
The PBL moves on an hourly basis. It is rarely fixed for even a day.
Can you provide evidence that the global mean surface temperature trend of +0.19C/decade from 1979-present as provided by GISS, Berkeley Earth, and Copernicus for standard height is substantially different than for the 0-3m layer?
I am sure that the data exists.
For instance from the UK met office
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/guides/observations/how-we-measure-temperature
“For many years the grass minimum temperature has been defined as the lowest overnight temperature measured by a thermometer, fully exposed to the open sky, suspended horizontally over an area covered with short cropped turf and in contact with the tips of grass blades.”
“Concrete minimum measurements have been made at Met Office stations since 1 December 1968 and are mainly relevant to the incidence of ice on runways or roads.”
“At many stations with automatic systems soil temperature is measured at a depth of 10 cm, 30 cm and 100 cm below the ground surface by platinum resistance thermometers.”
Unfortunately the later does not include one at 0cm from the ground.
As to values taken at 3m, I cannot find any but it sure would be worth as study
“he Grass Minimum Temperature is the temperature recorded in open air ground on short turf, with the bulb of the thermometer just in contact with the tips of the blades of grass. It is also described as the temperature at 5cm (2in) above ground.
The grass minimum temperature often varies substantially from air temperature, which is measured at 2m above ground. In deserts or on the beach during a hot summer day the “grass temperature” might be much higher than the air temperature and much, much lower during clear spells under a starry winter sky. In fact, the grass minimum temperature might be 0C (32F) or less, while the air temperature recorded simultaneously at the same site is 4C to 5C or higher. This is known as ground frost and is an important information for farmers, gardeners and drivers.
The grass minimum temperature is measured by a minimum thermometer . As with all minimum thermometers the actual thermometer is held inside a glass jacket and the contraction of the alcohol column overnight causes a small indicator within the stem of the thermometer to descend and record the lowest temperature. The grass minimum temperature is usually read after night at 9 am local time, or0900 GMT in Britain.
After snowfall, the instrument is positioned above the snow surface and a note made to the register. Some stations also record the concrete minimum thermometer , above a slab of concrete, where the snow is swept away and the thermometer reset.”
https://www.ceh.ac.uk/met-station-data
“The meteorological station at our Wallingford, Oxfordshire site has been measuring local weather conditions, including daily rainfall, sunshine and temperature parameters, since 1962. Observations are also made of cloud cover, present weather and visibility.
Daily data
These graphs display the data manually recorded from the met site over the last six months. Latest values are shown in the top right hand corner of each graph.”
“It has been shown that temperature inversion occurred near
the surface layer at night in summer, the temperature increased with the height within a certain altitude
range, and the reverse was true during the daytime.”
Analyses of temperature and humidity profiles and heat balance of the surface boundary-layer in the hinterland of the Taklimakan Desert
WEI WenShou1, WANG Min Zhong HE Qing1, LEI Jia Qiang & ALI Mamtimin
Figure 1 The average temperature profiles of July-August of 2006 and
2007.
An “upfront acknowledgement of imprecision” seems both trivially obvious and of little utility without bounds on the uncertainty.
Putting reasonable bounds on the uncertainty of the surface temperature time series and doing so in a transparent/open source context was largely the stated goal of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project.
It’s fine if you want to challenge specifics of their (or other) approach, but it’s rather a waste of everyone’s time to start without also acknowledging the various good faith efforts to bound uncertainty in the available temperature series.
“also acknowledging the various good faith efforts to bound uncertainty in the available temperature series.”
Oh they are very good in their own way.
But as bdgwx said:
“Im not aware of anyone that has used these datasets as a proxy for the warming trend of the 3m layer without giving proper consideration that the skin effect has on that layer.”
I’m curious. Can you present a dataset that computes the global mean temperature in the 0-3 meter air layer from 1979 to present which shows a warming trend that is substantially different than that at standard height and which is provided by GISS, Berkeley Earth, and Copernicus and which all show +0.19C/decade?
Can you show that the 13% known differences ascribed to noise does not significantly impact the variations from the recorded data sets that you are referring to?
The central figure nay well be +0.19C/decade. What is the distribution of uncertainty around that central figure. If it is 13% then all bets are off.
RLH asked: Can you show that the 13% known differences ascribed to noise does not significantly impact the variations from the recorded data sets that you are referring to?
That figure comes from Rhode 2013 regarding Berkeley Earth’s dataset. The statement is saying that 13% of the variation in a typical monthly time series is the result of locally induced noise. This locally induced noise is defined in the same paragraph. The context here appears to be that of the difference between two neighboring sites. Different datasets use different methodologies to reduce biases that locally induced noise may inject. The question then should be…how much does this locally induced noise contaminate the warming trend estimate? I think that is a very tough question to answer. Based on how this is handled in other disciplines of science this is best answered by looking at multiple datasets that try to estimate the same thing, but by doing so with different methodologies and subsets of available data.
RLH asked: What is the distribution of uncertainty around that central figure. If it is 13% then all bets are off.
The uncertainty comes in 2 forms: precision and accuracy. The precision is on the order of +/- 0.005C/decade as obtained from Excel’s LINEST function. The accuracy is more difficult to estimate, but based on an ensemble approach of using different datasets it appears to be on the order of +/- 0.01C/decade. I say that because the full sphere datasets cluster around +0.19C/decade and the partial sphere datasets cluster around +0.17C/decade. It is also interesting that if you the using kriging technique on the partial sphere datasets like what Cowtan & Way do to the Had.CRUT dataset you get +0.19C/decade.
“That figure comes from Rhode 2013 regarding Berkeley Earths dataset. The statement is saying that 13% of the variation in a typical monthly time series is the result of locally induced noise. This locally induced noise is defined in the same paragraph. The context here appears to be that of the difference between two neighboring sites. Different datasets use different methodologies to reduce biases that locally induced noise may inject. The question then should behow much does this locally induced noise contaminate the warming trend estimate? I think that is a very tough question to answer.”
The ‘noise’ will apply to all other pairs of cells as well. The range distortions that it provides broadens the overall readings that should be considered to be the ‘true’ temperature of any individual cell/site.
So what do you think the true error is?
If I knew that I would already be quoting it. The point is that we do not know what that error is or the ranges over which it moves.
I’m struggling trying to envision a plausible mechanism whereby the trend in a time-averaged small-but-3D space differs significantly from the 1.5 m point measurements.
Particularly so since the correlation between more broadly spaced point measurements is quantifiable and that source measurement set is demonstrably over sampled for the purpose of calculating long term trends.
See Figure 1 The average temperature profiles of July-August of 2006 and 2007. from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71583444.pdf
and
“TEMPERATURES CLOSE TO THE GROUND
Soil, surface, and air temperatures within a few meters of the ground change through the day (Figure 3.6). The daily temperature variation is greatest just above the surface. The air temperature at standard height is far less variable.”
from https://geography.name/surface-and-air-temperature/
to get what I am talking about.
The 1.2m height was chosen historically to reduce not remove the effects of the surface in the 3d air column above the surface
Care to list those things that are not covered by taking multiple, time spaced, samples at a point? Temperature wise that is.
Increasing sample size will not improve biases introduced because of time of observation changes, station moves, urban heat island effect, increase/decrease in station counts over time, etc. It also will not improve the systematic bias that occurs as a result of the spatial averaging process or general methodology used.
Strange you missed out on using hourly rather than daily measurements. Using medians rather than means because of potentially biased sampling distributions. Adding in an uncertainty range because of under sampling in both time and space. Need I go on?
> Using medians rather than means because of potentially biased sampling distributions.
The true value in the paper you cited was averages.
Statistics papers all refer to using median rather than mean except in normal distributions where median=mean=mode in any case.
Medians became significantly easier to use when computers were invented.
Computing a global mean using hourly observations would obviously be better than using min/max observations. Likewise, 5-minute observations would be better than hourly. The problem is that hourly observations are not available for most sites prior to WWII nevermind 5-minute observations like what is available today.
Earth’s median temperature and the long term trend in the median will be different than the mean temperature and its long term trend. Not that using a median is wrong but it would bias the equatorial region since with any grid mesh there are more cells and area they represent in equatorial latitude bands than mid-latitude or high-latitude bands. In most circumstances it is more useful to know the mean temperature than the median temperature. This is especially true if you are wanting to know how much heat the planet has accumulated and is available to do work like melting ice or raising sea levels via thermal expansion.
“Sensor Accuracy ±0.5°F (±0.3°C) (typical)”
“Computing a global mean using hourly observations would obviously be better than using min/max observations. Likewise, 5-minute observations would be better than hourly. The problem is that hourly observations are not available for most sites prior to WWII nevermind 5-minute observations like what is available today.”
I am aware of that.
“In most circumstances it is more useful to know the mean temperature than the median temperature.”
Statistics text book would disagree with you on that.
“Sensor Accuracy 0.5F (0.3C) (typical)”
For what and how does that effect the reading of the 3m band that the real world provides
A quote might be nice.
Those were your words I was quoting
I responded to your last comment in the proper subthread. My comment was misplaced here.
I’m asking for a quote that would support “Statistics text book would disagree with you on that.”
So we have to make do with what we have. If that means using min/max then so be it. You still get something useful. We know that the global mean temperature at standard height using min/max is increasing.
“The mean is used for normal number distributions, which have a low amount of outliers.
The median is generally used to return the central tendency for skewed number distributions.”
Temperature over a day/month/year are not normally distributed. They are definitely skewed or otherwise distributed.
“If that means using min/max then so be it. You still get something useful. We know that the global mean temperature at standard height using min/max is increasing.”
Being part of a crowd does not make you correct.
Means are a very poor statistical choice for what is being measured.
Min/max/mean even more so.
“We know that the global mean temperature at standard height using min/max is increasing.”
But what is the 3m band of air between 3,m and the surface doing? Approximately the same. But how approximately?
It would be shocking if it weren’t increasing too.
Indeed it would.
But at what rate? That is the all important question
The point about the 1.2m (I don’t know where I got 1.5m from but the same arguments apply) standard height was that it minimized, not removed, the surface effects in the bulk air column.
This then morphed into the 1.2m as being a true representation of the 3d air column. The bulk air 3d layer, out to 80m from some sources, 1.6m in others, is quite different.
That sets out the challenge. What variation should we apply to the 1.2m measurements in order to cover for the 3m or 80m, 3d air layers?
“Computing a global mean using hourly observations would obviously be better than using min/max observations.”
I have done it for one station in the UK now.
More on the impossible Bizarro Planet energy budget
https://bit.ly/3fBkqw8
Lehr is science director and senior fellow of the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think tank that attacks the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. The Heartland Institute has received over $791,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
The tobacco industry has also been a regular funder to the Heartland Institute, with at least $190,000 coming from Philip Morris since 1993. The Heartland Institute maintains a smoker’s rights section on its website called “The Smoker’s Lounge.”
Seems legit.
Less than a million?
That’s inconsequential compared to the billions and billions wasted on the AGW nonsense.
FUD is cheap, Puppy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
LOL , don’t forget the tobacco, haven’t heard that talking point in a while .
Print this reply out and use it as coupon with $2.79 will get you one Egg McMuffin.
The simple analogy of a chicken-on-a-spit teaches us that 2000 W/m^2, from one direction, will cook the rotating chicken just fine. But 4 sides of the chicken receiving 500 W/m^2 will not cook.
The same applies to Earth. 960 W/m^2 from one direction will warm the planet just fine. But, 240 W/m^2 from 4 directions will not. 240 W/m^2 corresponds to 255 K, while Earth averages 288K. The 33K difference is supposedly supplied by the fictitious GHE nonsense. But the 33K difference is NOT reality.
255K = -18.2C, -0.7F
288K = 14.9C, 58.7F
And that’s just one of the ways the AGW crowd attempts to pervert science.
> The simple analogy of a chicken-on-a-spit teaches us that 2000 W/m^2, from one direction, will cook the rotating chicken just fine.
No in space it won’t.
Sorry youngster, but your beliefs ain’t science.
You can’t cook, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“> The simple analogy of a chicken-on-a-spit teaches us that 2000 W/m^2, from one direction, will cook the rotating chicken just fine.
No{t} in space it wont.”
You have to be kidding me!
2k will cook things perfectly well in space.
If Exxon has this data, they will never lose a lawsuit, never. All this climate change nonsense is fine for impressing your liberal friends at cocktail parties, but it will never, and I mean never, survive cross-examination. This stuff is great if it stays in the bubble echo chambers of our conservative purged Universities.
Once again, this is the data that alarmists will have to argue against and they will fail.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
If this stuff held water, you wouldn’t need to silence debate and intimidate critics.
> If Exxon has this data
What data?
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
That’s not data.
Here’s data:
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp032/ndp032.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
My my my, someone did a reseacch project and reached the exact same conclusions I’ve been saying they would. Funny how that happens. Understand something and you can model it, if you don’t understand something, you can’t model it. Climate Alarmists are the ones creating nonsensical models.
A professor of hydrology from the University of Athens eviscerates the nave paradigm that says the natural state of Earths climate is constancy and stability, only changing when an external agent (i.e., a rapid increase in fossil fuel emissions ) acts upon it. Instead, (a) water is the main element driving climate and (b) the alleged human contribution to heat exchange is 2100 times smaller than Earths natural energy fluxes.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/05/24/paradigm-busting-new-study-affirms-co2-doesnt-drive-climate-water-clouds-do/
Any unbiased 2 year old would reach the same conclusion, and BTW, there is all the evidence you need to defend the above conclusion. Control for the UHI and Water Vapor, and you get no warming.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Lets do the analysis you havent bothered with.
First to estimate the temperature rise you would expect if CO2 causes the South Pole warming a la consensus.
Starting conditions.
From your graph CO2 rose from 335ppm in 1979 to 415ppm in 2021.
Climate sensitivity is 3.0
Forcing sensitivity is 3.7W/C.
The expected change in temperature is
5.35ln(415/335)3/3.7 = 0.93C
Remember that climate sensitivity is 3.0, so 2/3 of the temperature change is due to the water vapour feedback and 1/3 directly due to CO2.
CO2isLife tells us that there is no water vapour feedback at the South Pole, so the warming effect should be
0.93/3 = 0.31 +/- 0.1C
From the graph the observed warming t is com anomaly -0.1 to 0.1C. That is 0.2C +/- 0.1C.
Since the 95% confidence limits overlap there is no significant difference between prediction and observation and the CO2 hypothesis has not been disproved.
This is third time I’ve put up this analysis of your South Pole data. Still awaiting your reply.
If you want another source for South Pole warming , try this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z/
They measure warming of 0.61C +/- 0.34C/decade over the last three decades which demolishes your claim of zero warming.
EM,
Just hang on there a second, pardner!
“Unmasking the negative greenhouse effect over the Antarctic Plateau.”, published in Nature, which even contains “Explanation of the negative GHE.”
So what CO2 hypothesis are you referring to? The one that claims CO2 makes thermometers hotter, or the one that claims CO2 makes thermometers colder?
No wonder none of the cultists can even provide information about the mythical GHE. Sometimes it makes thermometers hotter, sometimes colder, depends on positive or negative feedbacks, is related to CO2 concentrations sometimes, and sometimes not, and has no effect in the absence of sunlight anyway!
Where may the GHE be observed and measured? Like other scientific effects.
Nowhere, that’s where!
Carry on.
ET Says: This is third time I’ve put up this analysis of your South Pole data.
What analysis is that? That is nonsense. You have months with strong downtrends in temperatures, and some with slignt insignificant uptrends. Depending on the time period chosen I could get any trend I wanted. Your trend analysis is 100% time period dependent. It the data stated 4 years later all months would likely show a downtrend. Your regression analysis and nonsensical forcing values are a complete joke.
Facts: CO2 increased by 25% and I believe 7/12 of the months show temperatures in the (-), 100% of them were recently (-). You are trying to blame natural variations on CO2 is all you are doing. None, nada, zip of those months show anything close to an uptrend related to CO2. You can pick and choose time periods to get any regression you want. You can not identify an uptrend in temperatures and you can not show any relationship between CO2 and temperatures. CO2 would be rejected in any statistical model.
You are deliberately using statistical methods that are completely inappropriate for this situation.
> Depending on the time period chosen I could get any trend I wanted.
Which is exactly what you do.
I use the entire history available. I don’t pick the time period.
Nice to meet you, Robert.
Willard, please stop trolling.
More warming is less deserts and more forests.
The fear of more CO2 is upsidedown baseless “hope”.
Or “father” of the pseudo science wanted a warmer world- the left is hopeless deranged.
Anyhow, thought a different kind of machine which increase global temperature {though requiring a lowering of present average global surface temperature- but I don’t think anyone actually wants a cooler average global surface temperature}.
Have any of the monkeys any knowledge about the pregnancy status of this football ?
A propos
” More on the impossible Bizarro Planet energy budget ”
https://bit.ly/3fBkqw8
I DEFINITELY loved this:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/
Jesus… dumber you die.
And some here eat that gullibly like Rocky Mountain marshmallows, imagine!
J.-P. D.
binny…”And some here eat that gullibly like Rocky Mountain marshmallows, imagine!”
What’s your problem, the heat transfer from Earth’s interior, and the amount, has been confirmed by MIT. It’s not a mystery, except maybe to you.
It’s been happening for bazillions of years and it has no doubt raised the ocean temperatures.
” … the heat transfer from Earth’s interior ”
Robertson is as ignorant as usual.
The entire geothermal is about 1 W / m^2 on average.
Binny,
Indeed. Giving the equivalent to a surface temperature of around 40 K , in the absence of sunlight. So whatever you calculate from insolation, you need to add about 40 K.
If you wish to heat the surface to 288 K, the amount of heat depends on the starting temperature. If it was already 287 K, you would need little energy. If it was 0 K (as seems to be assumed by “climate scientists”) it would take far more.
So start with 40 K, add the energy you calculate is received from the Sun, and tell me what you get. No, don’t bother. You haven’t the faintest idea of what I am pointing out, have you?
If calculations of the present surface temperature based on SB give 255 K, it is obvious they are wrong if the “normal” surface temperature of the > 99% molten Earth is ignored.
For example, when the surface was still over 1500 K, the SB calculation gives 255 K. When the seas were still boiling, the SB calculation give 255 K. When the surface temperature is 288 K (the present) the SB calculation gives 255 K.
The calculation assumes a body initially at 0 K. That’s because “climate scientists” do not accept reality. Delusional.
Swenson, you are looking at this all backwards. Starting at the end: “The calculation assumes a body initially at 0 K. “
Calculations about temperatures assume many things, but this is not one one them.
One thing that *is* assumed is that *space* is 0 K (or 2.7 K, but close enough). It is also assumed that the sun is ~ 5770 K. Both are pretty safe assumptions; your scary “climate scientists” are indeed “accepting reality” about the surroundings for earth.
Base on these two perfectly legit assumptions (plus assumptions about albedo and emissivity) you can easily calculate the total power absorbed by earth. You can also calculate the temperature that a uniform blackbody must be to emit that amount amount of power (ie 255K for albedo = 0.7). That is all that the equations give us.
So the premise “if calculations of the present surface temperature based on SB give 255 K” is misguided. The calculations are NOT for “the present surface temperature” They are for a steadystate blackbody.
The fact that the earth was once WAY hotter than 255 K simply tells as the earth was NOT in radiative equilibrium and that it would cool. The fact that the earth’s surface is currently ~ 33 K above the BB temperature merely tells us that the earth is NOT acting like a uniform BB and we ought to figure out why.
*That is the challenge. What mechanism keeps the earth’s surface above the BB temperature?
maguff…”So enlighten us then, what is Earth’s emission temperature to space?”
There is no such thing as an emission temperature. The proper name is a colour temperature which is not a temperature at all but a theorized temperature related to a heated body that gives off the equivalent radiation frequencies/wavelengths.
You are claiming a colour temperature of 255K which is 273.15C – 255C = 18.15 C below 0C, or -18.15C.
What exactly is it you are trying to say? The temperature of the lower atmosphere, as measured by surface stations is guestimated to be about +15C, but you are rating it at -18.15C. A temperature of +15C would be 288.15C/K.
That’s an average temperature. What instruments are measuring 255K? Any EM-detecting telemetry would see surface radiation as easily as any other radiation, but those instruments do not measure temperature.
Also, in which frequency/wavelength bands is the EM being detected? From which altitudes? If they are measuring an EM equivalent of -255K then they are measuring a queer mixture of radiation frequencies from all parts of the atmosphere which makes no sense since the molecules capable of radiating in those bands make up less than 0.3% of the atmosphere.
If radiation is being measured near TOA, then the bulk of it should be from the surface, where all mass is radiating. I think there is something very wrong with this focus on EM radiation.
What does the number mean?
correction…”If they are measuring an EM equivalent of -255K..” should read: “If they are measuring an EM equivalent of 255K…”.
“If radiation is being measured near TOA, then the bulk of it should be from the surface, where all mass is radiating. I think there is something very wrong with this focus on EM radiation.”
If you were 50 Km above lunar surface {above a vacuum} most lunar surface heat would not come from directly below you.
Or you 5000 km from surface, one get roughly hemisphere of light and move closer to 50 km there less of hemisphere of light and not a lot is coming from directly below you.
And when add atmosphere, then most of light is going thru more atmosphere {as compared whatever is going straight up into space].
Or 50 km up and draw 50 Km radius circle as compared to drawing 500 km radius circle- most radiation is reaching you from within warmed surface with 500 km radius circle drawn on it.
And if over land which is in sunlight, that land surface will warmer as compared to if night time, though most of Earth surface is ocean which doesn’t have such large difference between day and night.
Of course average global surface temperature is measured when the sun is out and when it’s not, and is average of day and night.
And if in spot where average is 15 C, unless it’s ocean, it’s not close to 15 C.
Earth is not really 15 C. But 15 C is pretty cold.
Or Moon’s average temperature is about 200 K, but large parts Moon is much cooler than this and say about 1/8th of it is much hotter than this.
The only thing about Earth which close to uniform is the average temperature of the entire Ocean, which averages around 3.5 C.
And 3.5 C average ocean is what makes our global surface temperature [ocean surface {about average of about 17 C} makes our global average surface air temperature which said to be about 15 C].
Oh, finally something amusing:
–Steve Koonin
2 hours ago Andy May 15 Comments
By Andy May —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/24/the-union-of-concerned-scientists-tries-to-cancel-steve-koonin/
I liked this part:
“[Oreskes’ analysis] does not support the study’s conclusions because of a variety of fundamental errors in their analysis. S&O’s content analysis lacks reliability, validity, objectivity, generalizability, and replicability. ” (May, 2020c, p. 169).
And we got again that fingerprint guy:
“Now, they are giving voice to Benjamin Santer, the “fingerprint” guy, widely criticized for his last-minute changes to Chapter 8 of the second IPCC report (SAR) in 1995. He and John Houghton forced a last-minute change to the conclusions of Chapter 8 after the chapter team had approved the conclusion that “no study to date has both detected a significant climate change and positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes.” Under political pressure, likely from Vice-President Al Gore, they reversed the scientific finding and changed the conclusion to:
“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” (IPCC, 1996, p. 4)”
And in later years they were quite confident C02 had made some unmeasurable amount of global warming
Nate,
I gave you the option of starting a new thread or dropping it after you called me a moron the first time.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-704458
I’m taking it here because you did neither.
You introduced the concept of disequilibrium without defining it as a one-time pulse or a change in inflow or outflow or any other possibility. You use relaxation time as if it is synonymous with e-time and then have the gall to suggest that I don’t understand basic chemical equilibrium concepts. You write that while relentlessly obfuscating these concepts presented by Salby, Berry, Harde, which are clearly described with arguments and data in their presentations. You don’t have to agree with them or me, but don’t call me a moron just because you have no good scientific rebuttals. This is not a rebuttal:
“Basically you are frustrated that have no good arguments to defend the indefensible T-driven CO2 rise, and thus nothing left to do but deny, toss ad-homs and troll.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-698699
I’m the one with the hypothesis, data, and models trying to work out what’s going on with temperature/CO2 relationship. Are you going to continue obfuscating or start presenting some evidence of your own.
Put up or shut up.
You were asking about brightness temperatures of The outward longwave radiation.
The surface radiates directly to space through the 8-13 micrometres atmospheric window. Depending on location that could be anywhere between 233K and 325K.
H20 radiates from the lower tropopause at about 240K. CO2 radiates from higher in the tropopause at 220K.
If you plot the area under the curve for the OLR spectrum you get a total output of 240W/m^2 which corresponds to a brightness temperature of 255K.
I wasn’t asking, but if you think gasses are prevented from radiating anywhere they want, you are fooling yourself. Try to be less specific and more realistic.
Ent, those figures are all estimates, assumptions, and beliefs. That’s as bad as the bogus “Earth Energy Imbalance”.
No one knows what Earth is emitting to space, but we know the “total output” is NOT 240 W/m^2.
EM,
You are dreaming. At night, the surface cools. Which wavelengths from the surface are prevented from escaping? None, as it happens. It doesn’t have to be “direct”.
Read your Tyndall. He explains that radiation which heats a body is reradiated in all directions. No, still no GHE, as Tyndall points out.
These days, the explanation is more detailed, involving photon absorp.tion and such, but the reality remains the same.
At night, the surface cools. No radiation is prevented from leaving.
No shit Sherlock,
The greenhouse effect doesn’t prevent radiation from leaving the surface.
It isn’t even prevented from leaving the atmosphere, it just takes a few milliseconds longer.
b,
So light travelling at the speed of light (Duh!) takes a few milliseconds extra to . . . .?
Does that mean sunlight is hotter because it takes “a few milliseconds longer” to teach the surface?
Of course not. You are delusional.
No dumbass,
It’s not the surface nor the Sun that is hotter, try guessing something else.
That’s all you do here is guess, sometimes you find an acorn, most times just your own spit.
“You use relaxation time as if it is synonymous with e-time and then have the gall to suggest that I dont understand basic chemical equilibrium concepts.”
YES, they ARE the same. That is absolutely standard in physics. It has been use here many times. I am surprised that you would be unaware. But you could easily look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxation_(physics)
“In the physical sciences, relaxation usually means the return of a perturbed system into equilibrium. Each relaxation process can be categorized by a relaxation time τ. The simplest theoretical description of relaxation as function of time t is an exponential law exp(-t/τ) (exponential decay).”
“You write that while relentlessly obfuscating these concepts presented by Salby, Berry, Harde, which are clearly described with arguments and data in their presentations.”
You have abused the word ‘obfuscation’ so much that it has no meaning anymore.
What I have consistently done is pointed out flaws in the arguments. Any real scientist should expect such criticism.
I have also pointed out one specific deception by Salby, of which there are many more. You are acting like a family member of an accused murder. Regardless of the evidence, they NEVER think they did it.
False. I have given you several straightforward arguments and rebuttals to the T-driven CO2 rise. It has legitimate issues.
I repeated it in different ways. If you were actually uncertain what a word I used meant, you could have simply asked for clarification.
“But first, e-time has nothing to do with reservoirs ceasing to do what they do.”
Never said that.
“Disequilibrium means a loss or lack of equilibrium or stability. That does not mean e-time.”
Never said that.
“Relax is what I do when I read Swensons replies to Willard. Stop using vague and unscientific terminology. Otherwise you are obfuscating.”
“You dont have to agree with them or me, but dont call me a moron just because you have no good scientific rebuttals. This is not a rebuttal”
I don’t think you are actually a moron, but you are highly motivated to ‘not understand’ science that contradicts your beliefs. (EG Residence time issue that other skeptics understand).
Your quibbles over terminology here (see above) twisting of words, refusal to look at context clues, is simply another of several TACTICS you use to be DISMISSIVE of arguments you don’t like because they counter your beliefs.
“Im the one with the hypothesis, data, and models trying to work out whats going on with temperature/CO2 relationship. Are you going to continue obfuscating or start presenting some evidence of your own.”
As we can see here, you continue to DISMISS my facts and arguments as if they were never shown to you!
You are right. You do know what relaxation time means and all along I thought you thought it was relaxing to baseline. By bad.
Now try and make the case that temperature does not drive deltaCO2/dt.
Temperature does drive deltaCO2/dt.
And CO2 drives deltaT/dt.
https://i.imgflip.com/5awry9.jpg
Ent, you can’t have it both ways.
Unless you want to deny things like “entropy”….
Just hoping that would slip through or do have any data to back up your assertion that CO2 drives deltaT/dt?
Still waiting for the data showing how any incremental increase in CO2 makes a commensurate increase in global temperatures.
Anything that perturbs the radiative balance of the planet drives deltaT/dt. CO2 isn’t endowed with some magical property that makes it inert in this regard.
Clint R
Nothing to do with entropy.
CO2 drives temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Temperature drives CO2 through its effect on carbon sinks.
The two variables have a mutual feedback relationship. If one changes, they both change. It doesn’t matter which leads and which follows.
Wrong Ent. CO2 can NOT “drive temperature”.
You still favor your cult beliefs over science.
Clint R
Curious how your beliefs allow you to accept that temperature can drive CO2 while denying that CO2 can drive temperature.
Particularly when the geological record of the last 700 million years contains abundant examples of both.
BGDWX,
Chic is asking for a mathematical for instance. I suggest you don’t try to slip some of your crazy math by him. He’ll pick up on that right away.
“Anything that perturbs the radiative balance of the planet drives deltaT/dt.”
Let’s make a list.
Sun, clouds, rain, evaporation, conduction, convection, wind, ENSO, H2O and CO2 LWIR.
Anything else?
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Permafrost thaw
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z#publish-with-us
Greenhouse effect.
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3428v1r6
Ent, you can find all kinds of nonsense on the Internet.
But, reality is still there.
-Scale factor different for short and lonhvtimes , as shown repeatedly. No this is not ok. Show me your theory that says otherwise.
-As discussed, if e-time is 4 years, a T increment will cause outgassing for ~ 4 years. Thus the T record we have cannot explain the CO2 record we have. Have a sensible delay model that can explain short and long time response, show us!
Let the record show that Nate passed on his opportunity to explain whatever hypothesis, model, or data supports his AGW meme.
The scale factors on CO2 and temperature could only be the same by coincidence. The units are ppm/time^m and degrees/time^n, where m and n are 1 or 2, depending on what is being compared. Show me your reasoning why the scale factors should be the same.
CO2 emissions have been increasing for several possible reasons for at least two centuries. In successive years, the change in CO2 is sensitive to the temperature as shown in the plots of deltaCO2/dt and temperature together with the proper scale factors. This makes sense because more CO2 outgasses in warm years than in cool years.
Over the long haul, deltaCO2/dt rose for a period with a relatively constant acceleration, then there was a twenty year or so period of less to no acceleration followed by a return to the previous level. This pattern was not chronologically identical to the long term temperature pattern. A lag between the time for the temperature pattern to affect the CO2 behavior could account for the observed data. Especially considering the effects of ENSO and ASR are neither constant or predictable.
I forgot to mention that e-time is simply level/inflow. If the level increases, inflow increases proportionally. But FF data alone isn’t proportional to the Mauna Loa without continually adjusting the e-time. That’s the argument you should be making. How could the e-time be changing and natural emissions not be.
“The scale factors on CO2 and temperature could only be the same by coincidence. The units are ppm/time^m and degrees/”
I said nothing remotely like that, dimwit!
Read it again.
“then there was a twenty year or so period of less to no acceleration followed by a return to the previous level. ”
Nope. Just stop inventing data!
“This pattern was not chronologically identical to the long term temperature pattern. A lag between the time for the temperature pattern to affect the CO2 behavior could account for the observed data.”
Again, this is pure handwaving. There is no sensible model offered that does that, and explains the short term no delay.
Without a theory, you can can claim it does somersaults! That is just not convincing.
With outgassing responding with an e-time of 4y, what you would expect during a 30y T plateau is for Co2 level to settle on a plateau after ~ 8y (couple of etimes).
Just not seeing that.
“I said nothing remotely like that, dimwit!”
Let the record show that Nate expects me to be a mind reader.
“Scale factor different for short and lonhvtimes….”
It makes sense that they would be different. The mechanism causing the short term effect of temperature on CO2 is surface conditions. You know, outgassing, plant decomposition. The long term effects are probably due to what causes the temperature to fluctuate. Things like ASR, ocean circulation, ENSO, etc.
“Nope. Just stop inventing data!”
If you think I am inventing data, then tell me what was the average rate of change of deltaCO2/dt in the following three periods? 1959 to 1979; 1979 to 1999; 1999 to 2019. Use Mauna Loa data and let me know if you have trouble doing the calculations.
“Again, this is pure handwaving.”
I agree. I am doing my best with the available data given a chaotic system. At least I HAVE a hypothesis, model, and data. How can I have any respect for you with nothing?
“Just not seeing that [CO2 plateaued after the temperature plateau].”
The data appears to show that is pretty close to what happened.
To bear out what I have been saying about the 3m thick air surface layer being of critical importance in being able to set the various air temperature series (GISS et al) in a 3d context I present the following
https://geography.name/surface-and-air-temperature/
“Air temperature can be quite different from surface temperature.”
Influence of vegetation cover on thermal regime
of mountainous catchments
Miroslav Tesař1
, Miloslav r1
, Ľubomr Lichner2 & Eva Zelenkov3
“height/depth average ( ◦C) standard deviation (◦C) variation coefficient (◦C)
(cm)
forest clearing dead forest forest clearing dead forest forest clearing dead forest
200 13.6 13.7 14.0 2.6 3.8 3.6 6.9 14.7 12.8
5 13.4 13.7 13.6 2.4 4.4 5.2 5.9 19.3 26.7”
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71583444.pdf
“Figure 1 The average temperature profiles of July-August of 2006 and
2007.”
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/294761953.pdf
“The dynamical behaviour of the lifted temperature minimum(∗)
S. Ragothaman(1), R. Narasimha(2)(∗∗) and A. S. Vasudeva Murthy(3)”
From the first paper:
No “median” in that paper.
Doesn’t mean (pun) that it should not have been used, purely that it wasn’t.
Do you want precise information on how much min/max/mean differs from hourly median accumulation over a day? I have that data if you are interested. Only for 1 day so far but it will be the same spread for other days too.
Hourly data
Average (mean) -6.65
Median -6.10
Min -11.70
Max -1.10
Mean -6.40
Difference 0.30
That only shows there’s a difference between using means and using medians for noisy data.
Everyone knows that.
What you need to show is how this difference will make a difference when considering anomalies.
“What you need to show is how this difference will make a difference when considering anomalies.”
Anomalies are based on daily station data. If that is in error then the anomalies are also.
A difference is a difference, an error is an error. Whether you take mean or median speed, either your car accelerates or it does not. Same for temps.
Quick question. You’re are Roy’s. Roy is known for having built a satellite data series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
That dataset gives numbers for the lower troposphere, the mid troposphere, and the lower stratosphere.
Do you think we can infer anything about a “global cooling” in general using numbers this high in the atmosphere?
Hmm. Satellite series. What time sampling do you think is used in those series? Differences it time between readings taken at the same spot and the same spot again?
Think Nyquist and you might get an answer as to the amount of uncertainty you should add.
Again, no idea. I’m not the data guy here. Perhaps Bindidon might help you on that.
You can download the data and check for yourself:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/
Doesn’t give me the required data.
It requires full knowledge of the satellite orbit times and the swath widths.
I talked to Roy on this topic via email previously to develop this question.
What did he say?
He told me that the time between passes over the same spot was days rather then hours of course.
The same will be true for AIRS
That was based on
TemperatureC
-1.1
-1.1
-1.7
-2.2
-3.3
-3.9
-5
-6.1
-6.1
-6.1
-6.1
-6.1
-5.6
-5.6
-6.7
-7.8
-8.9
-9.4
-10
-10.6
-11.1
-11.7
-11.7
-11.7
“That only shows theres a difference between using means and using medians for noisy data.”
I would hardly call the above ‘noisy’
You can replace “noisy” with any reason why you’d prefer medians over means.
The errors you’re after don’t propagate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-699485
“The errors you’re after don’t propagate:”
These are not the droids you are searching for either.
You obviously think you can turn a cheap +/- 5.0c thermometer into a
reference quality one of +/- 0,001c by taking a 1,000,000 samples with it. It doesn’t work that way. The thermometer will still record +/- 5.0c for all the records, past, present and future.
You do need to sort out in your head, central tenancy, which can be improved by multiple samples, and variation which cannot.
Its like I told you about the pen. The center of the line can be placed more and more accurately. The width of the line is unchanged.
> You obviously think
And you obviously think that the wisdom of the crowd does not exist.
Are we talking abut the crowd or about you?
You know how Francis discovered the concept, right?
Imagine thermometers instead.
You obviously stopped reading about the central limit theorem in statistics that states that, given a sufficiently large sample size, the sampling distribution of the mean for a variable will approximate a normal distribution regardless of that variable’s distribution in the population too early.
It continues with the fact that additionally, the central limit theorem applies to independent, identically distributed variables. In other words, the value of one observation does not depend on the value of another observation. And, the distribution of that variable must remain constant across all measurements.
Now if you are telling me that one temperature reading does not effect the next…..
“The concept of regression toward the mean can be misused very easily.”
Willard is now boring the crowd.
I think he IS the crowd
Best of luck, RLH.
Pat yourself on your back, why don’t you
Sun has almost uniform temperature. Sun’s diffuse emission is uniformly distributed over the entire suns surface. Therefore sun has uniform surface emission temperature…
Planets do not have uniform surface temperature… and planets are always irradiated only on one side while the opposite side is dark.
The Sun’s emission temperature is estimated by matching the Planck curve vs. wavelength with the measured spectral radiant energy emitted by the sun, the best match was found for a temperature of 5777K.
Planets do not have uniform surface temperature as sun has.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/potency-of-ghg.png
“…The smooth blue line is the spectral flux from the surface at the temperature To = 288,7 K for a transparent atmosphere with no greenhouse gases.”
What I think is we cannot have the To = 288,7 K spectral flux curve as an etalon to compare with the spacecraft measured outgoing IR radiation from the earth’s system.
For the reason Earth does not have a uniform surface temperature
To = 288,7 K. Therefore Earth does not emit IR radiative energy according to that smooth blue line.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
The common denominator of denialism and Pseudoskepticism is doubt about and to discredit the usefulness of techniques and procedures (for example: averaging and interpolation) used workwide with success in many other domains.
Years ago, I had a nice talk with a French lady busy with highway design operations. One of her most used tools was kriging, and she always got a big laugh about climate ‘skeptic’s who were in her opinion worldwide the only persons claiming it would be incorrect to use it.
There are people who dare to doubt about the correctness of latitude and even of area weighting, the latter being used to avoid overrepresentation of measurements in some regions, when compared with other ones…
Great, Mr Vournas!
Συνεχίστε, είστε στο σωστό δρόμο!
J.-P. D.
Thank you Bindidon!
Without seeing the original paper it is hard to be sure, but that seems to be a calculated curve for a particular surface temperature and a particular set of atmospheric conditions. As such the blue curve would follow the BB spectrum exactly.
PS. The spectrum from the sun is not uniform, an effect know as “limb darkening”. But this is a relatively minor effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening
PS TF has nothing to contribute. He just wants to practice his keyboard skills.
laughing at the irony …
That’s all you can do, TF.
You have NOTHING.
(When will your deluded sycophants arrive to defend you?)
“When will your deluded sycophants arrive to defend you?”
A purely tactical comment from a troll; a slight improvement on the vacuous attempt at one-upmanship from the previous.
You’re a particularly noxious little turd, aren’t you? And the marvel of it is that you appreciate yourself for it. It’s something special to experience this level of human waste from anyone. Thank you for the novelty.
You all obviously stopped reading about the central limit theorem in statistics that states that, given a sufficiently large sample size, the sampling distribution of the mean for a variable will approximate a normal distribution regardless of that variable’s distribution in the population too early.
It continues with the fact that additionally, the central limit theorem applies to independent, identically distributed variables. In other words, the value of one observation does not depend on the value of another observation. And, the distribution of that variable must remain constant across all measurements.
Now if you are telling me that one temperature reading does not effect the next..
RLH
Do you have an idea about how many supereducated people were talking at WUWT during the last ten years about ‘uncertainty’, ‘central limit theorem’, ‘law of large numbers’, ‘TAVG’ vs. ‘(TMIN+TMAX)/2’, ‘anomalies’, etc etc etc etc ?
*
But… none of them ever did read for example
Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The Had~CRUT4 data set
Colin Morice, John Kennedy, Nick Rayner, Phil Jones (2012)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017187
Simply because they are only interested in discrediting the work of others, and not in a fair discussion.
For the dumbest among them, the paper never could be valuable – just because one of the authors was… Phil Jones, you know, yeah, ClimateGate.
*
And this paper no one would ever read anyway:
Understanding and assessing uncertainty of observational
climate datasets for model evaluation using ensembles
Marius Zumwald, Benedikt Knüsel, Christoph Baumberger, Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, David N. Bresch, Reto Knutti (2020)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.654
And not even ONE of these self-named specialists did ever process any temperature or sea level data set!
J.-P. D.
So tell me why you think that GISS, etc. are used to setout what purports to be a measure of the air temperature in the lower atmosphere when it is apparent that the lower 3m at least has a significant air temperature gradient to it?
As the measurement at 5cm for frost shows? As done by the UK met office for weather forecasters.
So tell me why you think that GISS, etc. are used to setout what purports to be a measure of the air temperature in the lower atmosphere when it is apparent that the lower 3m at least has a significant air temperature gradient to it?
GISS (really GHCN) purports to be a time series estimate of (nominally) 1.5 m land air temperature anomaly, nothing more.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make with regard to near surface air temperature gradient. That there exists an air temperature gradient across the entire atmosphere and it is time variant with large daily and annual components is not controversial. While having higher resolution of temperature anomaly trend vs altitude would be nice, it’s not clear what difference it makes to our broad understanding of global warming.
“GISS (really GHCN) purports to be a time series estimate of (nominally) 1.5 m land air temperature anomaly, nothing more.”
Anomalies that are based on actual monthly readings taken at the various stations. If the readings are wrong (or wrongly analyzed) the then anomalies will be likewise
Anomalies that are based on actual monthly readings taken at the various stations. If the readings are wrong (or wrongly analyzed) the then anomalies will be likewise
That would depend upon how “the readings are wrong”. Common mode errors like instrument bias and static siting issues largely cancel when using anomalies.
How about the daily readings are +/- 2.0c because improper statistics are used to compile them As that is the heart of all temperature trends it kinda makes a mockery of the exercise so far.
Mind you, it is possible that the trend increases rather than decreases. But the range at each end is larger than claimed for sure
“How about the daily readings are +/- 2.0c because improper statistics are used to compile them As that is the heart of all temperature trends it kinda makes a mockery of the exercise so far.’
In science one has to have evidence before making claims. You are making a mockery of that principle.
Not really. I understand all too well how using an improper base for ones conclusions means that the conclusions MAY be suspect too.
Mind you, it is possible that the trend increases rather than decreases. But the range at each end is larger than claimed for sure.
1) You haven’t made a compelling argument supporting larger than purported errors in the published trends, never mind any analytic argument.
2) “the range at each end” (presumably error margin) of a (presumably linear) trend seems like a confused statement, specifically confusing the error in individual measurements with the error in the slope of the trend.
The trend can be drawn from the top of the highest reading at the start (plus its uncertainty) to the bottom of the lowest reading at the end (minus its uncertainty) just as well as drawing a line from the central tendency at both ends.
That’s a simple statistical fact.
The trend can be drawn from the top of the highest reading at the start (plus its uncertainty) to the bottom of the lowest reading at the end (minus its uncertainty) just as well as drawing a line from the central tendency at both ends.
Thats a simple statistical fact.
It would seem both of us have greatly overestimated your understanding of error analysis, but the extended thread makes a lot more sense now.
Thank you.
“The trend can be drawn from the top of the highest reading at the start (plus its uncertainty) to the bottom of the lowest reading at the end (minus its uncertainty) just as well as drawing a line from the central tendency at both ends.”
Hmmm, seems like all the points in between the beginning and end contain a lot of information about the trend, but you suggest that information can just be tossed?
Nope. But the range of lines that CAN be drawn cover those points. I think that linear trends are pretty useless for periods of less than 60 years in any case and longer ones need to take account of the uncertainties in earlier measurements.
P.S. I have previously done some statistical frequency analysis of UAH for short and long term wave patterns using work I have done in other disciplines. I am unimpressed by the common use of square wave sampling methods on temperature data sets preferring a gaussian approach to that.
RLH
I wrote already to you: start processing rawest possible data according to your thoughts, and come back with your results.
You are just talking in the air.
J.-P. D.
Do you have access to a raw set of data I can start with? For free that is. Or a funding stream to obtain it from paid for services. If so let me know.
I can do it with small samples of example data which I have shown elsewhere in other threads on here already.
So far we are up to +/-0.3c in sampling methods alone. Add that to the +/- 0.5c band for each weather station and another 13% for ‘statistical noise’ as =nd the figures stop looking quite so accurate.
P.S> The urls you gave earlier just timed out with no data
They worked for me.
A lot of stuff works for you. Not that it makes it relevant in any way. Care to post a snippet so the relevance can be determined? If it uses (min+max)/2 for daily data then it should already have a +/-0.7c range to it at noted elsewhere.
Or use a cheap +/-5.0c thermometer 1,000,000 times and magically turn it into a +/-0.01 reference one.
> Care to
Not anymore. I already told you. Why would you ask?
You don’t seem to realize that you’re not the first data thug I meet, RLH.
Nor are you the first idiot I have run into
You’re the first data thug who can’t read a README file tho.
If you don’t understand how to apply Nyquist for sampling in time and space, how to correctly use statistics then ‘up in the air’ is mostly where you’re at.
“Now if you are telling me that one temperature reading does not effect the next..”
IIRC it is called autocorrealation.
The first reading and the next describe temperature on a particular day in a particular season.
There are definite limits on how fast conditions can change, which means that if you know the morning reading, you can predict the probable range in which the evening reading will sit.
The evening is not going to differ too much from the morning. You are not going to see 30C in the morning followed by -20C the same evening.
“IIRC it is called autocorrealation”
I know. I was just pointing out it removes the use of Central Limit theorem from the arguments.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274148161_Effect_of_Autocorrelation_on_Applying_Central_Limit_Theorem_to_Air_Pollutant_Concentration_Time_Series
You obviously stopped reading about the central limit theorem in statistics that states that, given a sufficiently large sample size, the sampling distribution of the mean for a variable will approximate a normal distribution regardless of that variables distribution in the population too early.
It continues with the fact that additionally, the central limit theorem applies to independent, identically distributed variables. In other words, the value of one observation does not depend on the value of another observation. And, the distribution of that variable must remain constant across all measurements.
Now if you are telling me that one temperature reading does not effect the next..
P.S. it is called auto-correlation as mentioned elsewhere if you have never heard of it before.
Means that ANY use of CLT is against the correct use of Statistics in any analysis.
You obviously are new to Climateball:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/a-rooty-solution-to-my-weight-gain-problem/
Wayward Willy,
You might be an idiot, but at least you are stupid.
Linking to something about “a rooty solution to my weight gain problem”?
Are you desperately trying to get people to waste their time dancing to your discordant cacophony?
Try harder, nitwit.
Good afternoon, Mike Flynn.
You’re a fast eater.
Willard: Just because you post something does not mean it is of relevance to what is being discussed, Your poor grasp of basic statistics cannot be solved by the usage of irrelevant material.
More generally, RLH, X does not imply Y unless X entails Y in some way.
If you want room service, ask someone else.
entropic…”IIRC it is called autocorrealation”.
I prefer to call it fudging.
> Autocorrelation, also known as serial correlation, is the correlation of a signal with a delayed copy of itself as a function of delay. Informally, it is the similarity between observations as a function of the time lag between them. The analysis of autocorrelation is a mathematical tool for finding repeating patterns, such as the presence of a periodic signal obscured by noise, or identifying the missing fundamental frequency in a signal implied by its harmonic frequencies. It is often used in signal processing for analyzing functions or series of values, such as time domain signals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
Well done. You can use the wiki. Now tell me how you recon that the use of CLT can be justified when it specifically states that it cannot be used with auto-correlated data?
> Now tell me ho
I’m not your monkey, RLH.
From now on, scratch your own itches.
Be a monkey the. I’ll try and be a human.
Humans are monkeys, statistically speaking.
Use fewer stations such that they are not autocorrelated.
Make sure that the stations are far enough apart, see Hansen.
Simple enough.
Searching for quasi-continuous data: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!
Getting autocorrelations: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.
Temperature data is auto-correlated all over the planet. To find data that is not auto-correlated is probably impossible.
> To find data that is not auto-correlated is probably impossible
Such is the way of the High Expectation Auditor.
Deal with it.
“Temperature data is auto-correlated all over the planet. To find data that is not auto-correlated is probably impossible.”
I think not, try again.
Past about 1200 kilometers autocorrelation of temperatures goes away.
“Humans are monkeys, statistically speaking.”
Nope, Humans are apes, genetically speaking.
> Humans are apes, genetically speaking.
Perhaps, Bob. But what’s the median ape?
More science. Less politics and name calling
> Less politics and name calling
What the hell do you think you’re doing with comments like “Do you understand statistics, CLT, science and a range of other disciplines or do you just take a few words from what is said and post irrelevant side concepts to the question to hand?”, RLH?
If you like to play with the elbows up, don’t complain if others raise theirs too.
“If you like to play with the elbows up, dont complain if others raise theirs too.”
If am discussing with people who raise their elbows first I shouldn’t do likewise?
Of course you should. At least that’s what I do. But then I’m not the one who pretends to be here only for the SCIENCE ™!
Compare and contrast how EM, bdwgx, or Tim Folkerts interact. We all have our voice and manner. Even Mike Flynn can be fun from time to time. You’ll get used to it.
Be the change that you want to see.
“Of course you should. At least thats what I do.”
Good. Then I shall do likewise
You forgot to opine on the “But then Im not the one who pretends to be here only for the SCIENCE !” part.
Is this was you’d call a lie by omission?
Nope
So you say.
The third part of three:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/25/ocean-surface-temperature-limit-part-3/
Interesting, don’t find anything I disagree with.
Take away summary:
“The concept of the “Greenhouse Effect” demonstrates a misunderstanding of how Earth’s average surface temperature is achieved. The energy balance of the oceans, and consequently the entire earth, are related primarily to the upper and lower thermostatic limits on ocean surface temperature. “
Yes, as noted, the author demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the Earth’s near surface multiannual temperature balance is achieved. The author needs to pass a couple of college beginning courses in meteorology and learn to separate weather and climate.
It’s a bit late here, but before PC shutdown I wanted to show two graphs made out of exactly the same data source (about 2250 GHCN daily stations)
– the one without area weighting,
– the other with area weighting, i.e. with a preliminary averaging of data into grid cells in front of the averaging into monthly values.
1. Direct monthly averaging
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16yagrJ2wca9RsvR0zp5G4klTzIFgfFsd/view
2. With preliminary area weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lbRjGp4rkACp6EgJ2LF1YmVYATkMGcM/view
*
While some love to endlessly discuss about what we could name ‘errors-in-the-small’, I prefer to talk about ‘errors-in-the-large’.
I’ll post tomorrow a bit more about the origin of these graphs.
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
” the one without area weighting,
the other with area weighting, i.e. with a preliminary averaging of data into grid cells in front of the averaging into monthly values.”
What the heck does that have to do with either (min+max)/2 or temperature gradients in the lower 3m of the atmosphere?
A minimum of daily data (preferably hourly) is required for any analysis that intends to provide better than +/-1.0c output.
“[T]he difference (between the 1 hr sampling and the min/max method of daily temperature determination was on average 0.5C with a range of 0.4 and 0.7C (Table 3 and Section 3.2). Comparing this to the various sampling frequencies this level of accuracy falls between 6 hr (4 times a day) and 8 hr (three times a day) sampling. The standard deviation of the max/min method is comparable to the 8 hr sampling period. In other words to improve upon the min/max method of determining daily temperature the sampling frequency needs to be every 6 hr per day or better (i.e., greater than four times a day).”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6528
“on average 0.5C with a range of 0.4 and 0.7C (Table 3 and Section 3.2).”
So all data using (min+max)/2 should have a +/-0.7c added to it. Good to know. Add that to the +/-1.0c for station uncertainty (they do add you know) and we have +/-1.7c for each data series. That makes the overall claims be quite suspect.
> Add that
Unless you can establish systematic error, that’s a no.
What has systematic error to do with the range of uncertainty?
Citation needed for the “they do add you know.”
You could argue for adding the squares of the errors but the true value lies between that and simple addition dependent of a load of other factors
RLH,
Is that the way you add uncertainty?
I thought it was done differently.
Damn Ninjas, I should refresh before I post.
You could argue for adding the squares of the errors but the most likely value falls between that and the simple sum
> Damn Ninjas
https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohhwytHcusSCXXOUg/giphy.gif
“You could argue for adding the squares of the errors but the most likely value falls between that and the simple sum”
really?
I am skeptical of that.
Maybe you could rephrase that.
It all depends if you consider the errors and their distribution to be related or not.
“The histogram and the normal probability plot are used to check whether or not it is reasonable to assume that the random errors inherent in the process have been drawn from a normal distribution. The normality assumption is needed for the error rates we are willing to accept when making decisions about the process. If the random errors are not from a normal distribution, incorrect decisions will be made more or less frequently than the stated confidence levels for our inferences indicate.”
“Weather phenomena that are small in size too small to be shown on a weather map are referred to as mesoscale. Mesoscale events range from a few kilometers to several hundred kilometers in size. They last a day or less, and impact areas on a regional and local scale and include events such as:
Thunderstorms
Tornadoes
Weather fronts
Sea and land breezes”
RLH
It seems you don’t understand anything here outside of your tiny bit thoughts.
J.-P. D.
So what is it that you think I don’t have correct?
RLH,
It is much easier to do ad hominem attacks. Then you don’t have to support anything. You’ll learn that on this board.
While that may explain most of your contributions, Stephen, I doubt laziness is the dominant factor in your case.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You mean (pun) that observations on statistics, CLT, medians, etc. are not welcome because they lead to suspicions about the accuracy that is claimed?
Welcome to science.
I would prefer that people did science rather than politics on this and other temperature related boards.
> lead to suspicion
As Elvis and Fine Young Cannibals said before me, RLH:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT3P7p-WNSY
As Russians say, believe it but check it.
As idiots also say ‘a stopped clock is correct twice a day’
rlh…”So what is it that you think I dont have correct?”
The alarmists around here think everyone is wrong about everything, except what they are told from there authority figures like NOAA and GISS. Thinking for themselves is foreign to them so they will attack you with ad homs and insults rather than supply a coherent argument based on a smattering of intelligence.
Carry on regardless, there are another people reading this blog who will appreciate the other side of the alarmist pseudo-science.
I take no sides in political wars. This is science not a playground.
RLH,
If you can provide your own global mean surface temperature dataset with accompanying uncertainty analysis we’ll definitely take a look. It sounds like you’re convinced that the datasets that are available are useless due to the high uncertainty you believe exists. If you think you’ve found something that has thus far eluded the rest of the world’s scientists you should publish your work and get it reviewed and see if others can replicate it. Make sure you document the mistakes that the various other datasets have made and why those mistakes undermines their results. It would be interesting if you come to a substantially different conclusion and if you can explain your result.
bdg…”If you think youve found something that has thus far eluded the rest of the worlds scientists…”
Little bit of arrogance from bdg.
For the record…I fully and transparently admit that I cannot do any better than what is already available.
b,
That’s fair. I fully and transparently admit that it would be unlikely that you (or anyone else) could do any worse, either.
Mike Flynn could.
Willard, please stop trolling.
But do you question what is the accuracy and range of what is claimed and that you support though?
I’m skeptical of every dataset. That’s why I don’t give any one particular dataset extra weight. And I look at the uncertainty ranges provided by each. I also concede that after decades of worldwide examination no one has been able to show any egregious methodological mistakes or has provided a substantially different result or a substantially different uncertainty range for monthly anomalies than the current +/- 0.05C. There’s a lot of what I call “nuh-uh” and “but what about this” arguments, but they are never actually quantified and presented with an accompanying dataset demonstrating the argument nevermind proving it out. Until that time I have no choice but to form my position around the evidence available to me.
So would you have got https://www.statisticshowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/pearson-mode-skewness.jpg right?
b,
“well definitely take a look”. Really? You and which other dimwits?
You don’t have a “global mean surface temperature dataset”, do you? Surface? You have to be joking! The self styled “climate scientists” can’t even tell you what this magical “surface” is.
It seems that it is a magical place somewhere in the air, or somewhere. Unless you are talking about the “surface” which lies under the oceans (about 70% or so), when the buffoons claim they mean the water surface, or above it, or beneath it, or something!
I suppose you might claim you mean the air temperature. Nope, it is extremely difficult to measure the temperature of air. As others have pointed out, the thermometer measures the temperature of itself, and responds to the strongest radiation acting on it. Generally, anything other than the weakly radiating gas which surrounds it.
So yes, all the “climate scientists” are either fools or frauds. Clueless wannabes.
If you like, you can start by defining this magical “surface” to which you refer. You can’t, can you? No more than you can say where the mythical GHE may be observed and measured.
You are just another presumptuous and patronising idiot.
Statistics and science tell me what ranges the data could be in from the measurements taken and the methods used.
If that makes any claims made from that data suspect it is not my fault.
“If you can provide your own global mean surface temperature dataset with accompanying uncertainty analysis well definitely take a look.”
If you can supply me with a source of hourly temperature data on a non-paid for basis with a series length of 60 years or better then I will do my best (pun)
The last 6 months from a local weather station shows the temperature options that are available for consideration.
https://www.ceh.ac.uk/met-station-data
To reduce that to a 24 hour (min+max)/2 looses a lot of information right there,
Remember if we are talking about the temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (less than 100m) then all of those factors become worthy of inclusion.
I now have that hourly median data for one site in the UK. In a .csv file
rlh…”In other words they, despite the common usage of their series in such a way, make no claims as to the real world applications of their series when discussing climate”.
Correct. The surface record is a political statement in support of AGW in which the series has been fudged to make it appear as if there has been a linear warming since 1850 caused only by anthropogenic gases.
The UAH satellite series has tried to e honest about the warming, that it is not catastrophic. The RSS sat data crowd have joined the alarmists, especially NOAA, and have become unreliable.
> The UAH satellite series has tried to e honest about the warming, that it is not catastrophic.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-705729
Wacko Wee Willy,
Do you have a point? GR said “The UAH satellite series has tried to e honest about the warming, that it is not catastrophic. ”
If you believe there is dishonesty involved, just man up and say so. You might be asked how you arrived at that opinion.
You provide another stupid and irrelevant diversionary link? Presumably, it doesn’t mention honesty or otherwise, but that is the nature of climateball losers like you, they change the rules to suit themselves.
For example, if you asked me why I agree that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw, and deadbeat, I can provide facts which would protect me from any stupid defamation action Michael Mann might care to mount. He is probably less stupid than you in that regard.
Carry on trying to deny, divert and confuse, if it makes you happy.
You will still be an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“Do you have a point?”
Yes, I do.
Gordon may not appreciate RLH’s response.
One just has to click on the link and read on to see why.
But you won’t, for your our sassy asshat.
PS: Smelt any mice lately?
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Who would bother clicking on your pointless link, knowing that you are just trying to waste their time?
If you had anything of relevance to say, you would say it.
But you haven’t, so you can’t.
Try harder, fool.
Do you understand statistics, CLT, science and a range of other disciplines or do you just take a few words from what is said and post irrelevant side concepts to the question to hand?
Do you think asking rhetorical questions is a way to do science, RLH? I don’t. I rather think that’s a way to play Climateball without owning it.
Said someone who usually gets the science wrong in the first place
Holy tu quoque, sciency Batman!
If Batman is the level of your science then…
Well, I *do* know a thing or two about tu quoques:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/holy-tu-quoque-batman/
“Nyquist applies more to sampling done with audio waves ”
Nyquist applies to all sampling done at any frequency. Why do you think that small cells are used in climate science?
willard…” Hmm. Satellite series. What time sampling do you think is used in those series? Differences it time between readings taken at the same spot and the same spot again?
Think Nyquist and you might get an answer as to the amount of uncertainty you should add”.
***
I realize the quote above came from RLH but I don’t think sampling a la Nyquist is applicable here. Nyquist applies more to sampling done with audio waves where the criterion is the number of samples per unit time required to accurately represent a full wave cycle. Or how many times it has to be sampled per second to provide a reliable representation.
The surface stations use two-a-day samples and average them. That’s far too slow for Nyquist, IMHO. The sats scan the entire atmosphere as the sat passes overhead and scans from straight down to the horizon. It’s not scanning to sample something that is changing, it is receiving a full, real-time view of static microwave radiation from oxygen molecules between the surface and a certain altitude.
Nyquist, as I have seen it applied in electronics, samples an audio wave, at say 1 Khz with a frequency that is at least twice the bandwidth of the audio spectrum. The upper end of the audio spectrum is regarded as 20Khz and a standard sampling frequency is 44.1 Khz.
They are trying to digitize the audio analog wave into digital codes and Nyquist found the optimal number of scans required to reproduce the original analog waveform.
> it is receiving a full, real-time view of static microwave radiation from oxygen molecules between the surface and a certain altitude.
[VLAD] It requires full knowledge of the satellite orbit times and the swath widths. I talked to Roy on this topic via email previously to develop this question.
[ESTR] What did he say?
[VLAD] He told me that the time between passes over the same spot was days rather then hours of course.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-705785
So what are the repeat times for a lat/long for AIRS then?
Your itch.
You scratch it.
26 days according to their own web site
Make that 16. Damn fingers
> Nyquist found the optimal number of scans required to reproduce the original analog waveform.
We might as well mention predessors:
“The name NyquistShannon sampling theorem honours Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon, but the theorem was also previously discovered by E. T. Whittaker (published in 1915) and Shannon cited Whittaker’s paper in his work. It was also discovered in 1933 by Vladimir Kotelnikov.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
You can see on the page that the theorem can be stated more generally in terms of information. It states sufficient conditions to reconstruct complete information from samples.
As I understand RLH’s quest, he’s looking for the most realistic model of the atmosphic temps, and he’s asking how we can reconstruct it from the samples of temperature we have. He observes that thermometers have limited accuracy, and that surface temperatures don’t represent 3D volumes. He also seems to be looking at the problem from a signal processing standpoint (Nyquist acted as a secret handshake).
This comes with different statistical tools and requirements. The usual conceptual battleground is around issues of stationarity. As I see it, there is a tension between two desires for realism: faithfulness and physicality. A trade-off needs to be negotiated. That’s where research background comes in play.
So if ground thermometers have limited scope around their station, my guess is that satellites are covering very big parts of the atmosphere in an ever more loose manner.
Wee Willy,
What you” understand” (obviously you don’t), and reality are two different things.
For example you refer to “ground thermometers”. What are they? Are you referring to the mythical “surface” of the “climate scientists”, possibly? Or “air temperature thermometers’?
Over the 70% of the surface covered by water, how do your “ground thermometers” support themselves? More CO2 magic, I suppose.
You are an idiot, and an ignorant one at that. Try again.
Mike Flynn,
“Ground” was meant in the sense of level, to be contrasted with the height at which satellites roam.
As far as silly semantic games are concerned, you’re a natural.
Well done!
Wriggly Wee Willy,
I see. “Ground” doesn’t actually mean “ground”, but rather a “sense of level”!
I suppose that “surface” means “not really the surface” but “a sense of something which can be anything I want”.
The usual “climate science” nonsense.
Nothing is what it is said to be. Cooling is warming, the GHE is negative or positive, ground is really a sense of level . . .
You’re an idiot, trying to play “silly semantic games” – and losing badly.
Maybe you could learn some physics.
swenson…”I see. Ground doesnt actually mean ground, but rather a sense of level!”
Sound like ball4’s definition of heat, which Tim tried to verify. According to Bally, heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer. Since the energy being transferred is heat, according to Bally, heat is a measure of itself.
There are actually Ph.D’s offering that stupid definition of heat. Now they are claiming gravity is not a force, but a space-time anomaly. So, the Moon is not held in its orbit by gravitational force, but by a space-time anomaly, where neither time nor space have properties that can apply such a force.
swenson…”For example you refer to ground thermometers. What are they?”
You poke a hole in the ground and insert a thermometer. Sometimes they use the same concept to measure body temperature, by sticking the thermometer in a hole at one end or the other. They don’t call it a surface temperature, however,
Easier in the ocean, you simply dip the thermometer in the water. Ironically, NOAA sticks them above the water and calls that a surface temperature whereas the one stuck in the water is called an SST.
[/sarc off]
Actually the thermometers in question are close to the ground (5cm height) and are not part of the sub-surface set that are usually referred to as ‘ground thermometers.
“According to Bally, heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer.
That is actually according to every thermodynamics text (from physics, chemistry, or engineering). You should read one or two of them sometime.
Heat (Q) is a transfer. Much like work (W) is a transfer. No object “contains work” or “contains heat”. I can “do work” on a baseball and the base gains kinetic energy. The phrasing in English is awkward, but an analogous situation would be that the heating element on my stove can “do heat” on a pot of water and the pot of water gains internal energy (aka thermal energy).
dU = Q + W
Tim 2:20pm, more precisely, your formula is for dU/dt as every thermodynamic process changing U occurs over a certain time interval. So Q in your formula is a rate.
Heat is the total thermodynamic internal energy (unknown total KE of constituents) of an object; temperature becomes the known average of the thermodynamic internal energy (avg. of the constituent’s KE) of an object where measured.
In a thermodynamic process when a solid object at one temperature is placed in contact with another solid object at a different temperature, heat cannot transfer in reality as no transfer of the objects constituents occurs.
Thus, whenever textbooks discuss heat transfer in solids, they must mean some paranormal process: a thing that springs instantly into existence at the border then instantly out of existence once border is crossed. Why trouble oneself explaining that dogma – passed down incorrectly from: “The Nature of the Motion which we call Heat” wherein that “motion” really was meant to be the motion of constituent particles i.e. their KE.
Unfortunately, for many, there is a lot of wasted time and effort trying to define something (heat) which does not exist. Any comment can always be made clearer by simply eliminating this word: heat.
It is very easy to deal with the definition of heat: It does not exist.
Heating however, is the name of a macroscopic process in which the thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy U of a system changes by virtue of a temperature difference between it and its surroundings.
Heating is a way of doing something macroscopically measured so it becomes necessary to abandon all attempts to identify heat as an entity, especially (in science) a vague, metaphysical, even paranormal entity. If anyone can achieve that level of understanding in practice, then anyone will think and write more clearly & precisely about thermodynamics while improving communication.
/soapbox irreverence
Ball4. I’m not sure your ‘clarifications’ were always helpful.
“more precisely, your formula is for dU/dt as every thermodynamic process changing U occurs over a certain time interval. So Q in your formula is a rate.”
There are some different conventions in different textbooks, but this is *not* “more precisely” what I wrote.
The first law is typically written (give or take a minus sign) as
dU = Q + W
where U, Q, and W are in units of J. Not J/s as you are suggesting. This agrees, for example with Q = mc Delta(T)
That said, in some cases, you will see “Q” used for heat *rate* in J/s (or kW or BTU/hr, etc). This can be confusing! Others would call this “dQ/dt” or “Q dot”.
“Heat is the total thermodynamic internal energy (unknown total KE of constituents) of an object; “
No! Heat is heat (Q) and internal energy is internal energy (U). If Q was U, the equation would be “Q = U”.
[And more subtly, internal energy includes not just kinetic energy, but also potential energy in solids and rotational & vibrational energy in molecules. But that is more than we need to deal with here.]
“Heating however, is the name of a macroscopic process in which the thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy U of a system changes by virtue of a temperature difference between it and its surroundings.”
This is where history and the limits of the English language conspire against us. The noun “heat” is historically the word associated with “Q”. In many ways it would indeed be better to use the gerund “heating” for “Q” — and equivalently to use “working” for “W”.
“The ice cube warmed up because of heating from the warm surroundings.”
“The baseball sped up because of working from the arm of the pitcher.”
Until we can get everyone else onboard, we will have to accept “heat” as a common name for the concept.
\_(ツ)_/
5:11pm: “The first law is typically written (give or take a minus sign) as dU = Q + W”
I am sure that would be delta U = Q + W in units of joules*. And that change in U process always takes time so that formula must be per unit time.
“No! Heat is heat (Q).”
And Tim just wrote 2:20pm “Heat (Q) is a transfer”. Now “heat is heat”. Confused? Yes, obviously. Tim would be less confused not using the “heat” term.
And Tim should be confused, as heat does not exist in an object just like work does not exist in an object. Go argue with Clausius defn. of heat from his 1st memoir (p. 28 iirc) that I used, not me. Tim won’t improve on Clausius but can make a valiant effort as I believe rigorous treatment of the 1st law is within the reach of Tim.
“internal energy includes…”
Subtly note there is a reason I wrote “thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy”.
Onboard? No. Few, if any, here use Clausius’ clear defn.s, instead most stick with their own incorrect dogma strayed from the original, the best, & passed down incorrectly by certain tribes over the last 100+ years. The incorrect use of which creates food fights galore that are paranormal at BEST. To be helpful, reduce the food fights, go correct & stick always with Clausius.
*See your local librarian for further reading in more modern (9/1970) printed language:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2351512
Ball4,
1) Yeah, I should have typed “DeltaU” and not “dU”. I’ll give you that one. I must have had “dU = δQ – δW” running around my head.
2) I am not sure what you consider confusing about “heat is heat”. That seems like a tautology. Nor do I see what is confusing about “Heat is Q”. That is standard in thermo books everywhere.
What *is* confusing is you saying heat is internal energy! Saying Q = U
3) Everything takes time. That does not negate the existence of equations for energy in units of joules. Or equations for position or momentum or mass.
Delta(U) = Q + W is a real, valid, useful equation.
Taking the time derivative of each side is also a real, valid, useful equation.
4) Not-so-subtly note that “thermodynamic internal energy” does indeed include potential energy for solids (in the classical theory). Including only KE gives the wrong specific heat by a factor of 2 for solids. See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulong%E2%80%93Petit_law#Application_limits
5) Appeal to authority is never a strong position. Nor is appeal to history. Clausius was a brilliant man, for sure. But there have been many equally bright scientists in the past 150 years. Collectively they have built on — and improved on — the work of Clausius.
This “food fight” is primarily because you seem determined to argue 150 year old semantics.
The equation is (give or take that minus sign)
Delta(U) = Q + W
There are 3 letters that we can call what ever we want without changing the physics. We could name them in English or French or German or Russian or Chinese.
The modern convention is to call U “internal energy”. To call Q “heat”. To call W “work”. You agree that this is the equation. SO you must agree that “Q” is not mythical. You can call it “heating” if you want. I actually like that. Just don’t call Q “internal energy” and don’t call U “heat”!
Its late. I hope I didn’t type anything too outrageous!
“He also seems to be looking at the problem from a signal processing standpoint”
Do tell me what part of the work done here is not signal processing.
Perhaps this part:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/27/midgets-try-to-bite-dr-willie-soons-ankles/#comment-1438192
Tim 10:57 pm, your, and many others (including, very unfortunately, text book dogma), confusion is that Q is heat. The math correctly shows Q is a rate. W is a rate. Because delta W HAS to occur over a time interval. Texts often & unfortunately drop the per unit time language.
Heat like work does not exist in an object & relevant to this blog thermodynamic internal energy U does exist in the object; heat correctly being the total KE of the constituent particles ever since Clausius’ 1st memoir. An appeal to an authority who really is a generally recognized authority is not ever an issue.
Writing “Heat is Q” leads to the rise of sky dragons insisting therefore Q has only one way to transfer and causes food fights to the extent of whole sophist blogs being created to argue incorrectly our atm. cannot warm the surface. The boldness of crackpots leaks out from those & atm. sophistry is enabled to grow by your writing “Heat is Q” AND you are at least one commenter who is within reach of rigorous treatment of thermodynamics to know that Earth’s cooler than surface atm. can indeed warm the surface by increasing atm. IR opacity.
If Tim can be convinced Q is a rate, then maybe the next commenter within reach comes on board more rigorously & the next commenter so on… This is what teachers are supposed to do as told by The Physics Teacher link I supplied. I am not expecting miracles though, so just like Zemansky writes in conclusion focus on: “Q and W are methods of producing changes in the (relevant) internal energy. I believe this provides the smoothest transition from the elementary thermal physics to legitimate thermodynamics.”
No, Ball.
POWER is a rate. P = W/t. Work, W, is joules. W = F(dot)x. Heat, Q, is joules. The most familiar equation for heat is Q = mc(DeltaT). Whether the change in temperature happens in 1 second or 1 ho, Q is the same.
Delta(U) = Q + W is the standard expression for the First Law. U, Q, and W are all energies, measured in joules.
The other irony is that Zemansky is not talking about rates. He is advocating “heat” be used ONLY for the process, like work.
Sorry – posted this to the wrong thread
Nyquist applies more to sampling done with audio waves
Nyquist applies to all sampling done at any frequency. Why do you think that small cells are used in climate science?
Do you understand Nyquist? And the limitations it sets both in time and space for any claims made?
Yes. And what us the relevance here? Again are you assuming no one in climate science has this secret knowledge?
Because Nyquist applies to all signals processed in both time and space. In fact any form of signal processing is based on sampling theorem.
I love it when people say that Nyquist doesn’t apply then use signal processing (on either paper or in a computer) to do their work.
RLH says: May 28, 2021 at 6:29 AM
Because Nyquist applies to all signals processed in both time and space. In fact any form of signal processing is based on sampling theorem.
The Nyquist criteria applies to reconstructing a signal from a discrete sample (usually time) series. It is not necessarily the case, for instance, that Nyquist must be satisfied for a statistical average of an under sampled time series to converge on “truth”.
Historic min/max thermometers aren’t discrete time sample devices anyway. They are continuous time devices that record the signal minimum and maximum value since the most recent reset.
I know about sampling theorem.
(min+max)/2 is a very bad way of estimating real temperature in a day. As NOAA understands
“Correct. The surface record is a political statement in support of AGW in which the series has been fudged to make it appear as if there has been a linear warming since 1850 caused only by anthropogenic gases.”
So, you believe in the hockey stick?
And/or don’t believe that Little Ice Age cooler and we are recovering from that coldness.
Do think we are as cold now as during the Little Ice Age?
The way I look at it, is it’s been a cool Interglacial period as compared to earlier interglacial periods. And we had warmer periods of our Holocene period more than 5000 year ago, when our Sahara desert was green and our tree lines were higher.
And think this was case because there was something different happen with our interglacial period and do not blame it on witches or other human causes. And it could something to with our glaciation periods being the coldest within 34 million year old icehouse climate.
And I think it’s possible that last 2 million years have been the coldest 2 million years in the entire history of planet Earth.
It’s not like I am saying it’s warm or something.
binny…RLH…I wrote already to you: start processing rawest possible data according to your thoughts, and come back with your results. You are just talking in the air”.
***
I did not think you could become more of an idiot that you are already. RLH just finished telling you…”I am unimpressed by the common use of square wave sampling methods on temperature data sets preferring a gaussian approach to that”.
Of course, such an idea is way beyond your understanding, so you insult the guy, referring him back to raw data, which you somehow manage to misinterpret.
Does he even understand what ‘square wave’ and gaussian sampling methods are?
RLH
Yes he does.
And again: you are talking about methods you might have used in ‘some other professional context’.
The difference between your and Robertson is at that you know what you are talking about. One point for you, RLH.
*
And again: implement a software performing what you are talking about, and publish the results.
Until then, your arrogant, condescending behavior does not impress me at all.
J.-P. D.
And an unimpressed Binny is a fearsome sight. Goose-stepping back and forth, smiting his highly polished jackboots firmly with his equally highly polished riding crop.
Leaders tremble! Civil unrest looms! UN convenes extraordinary session!
Only joking. Nobody cared at all.
Neither does your denial of statistics and science
Of course I have done already for the analysis I mentioned
“And again: you are talking about methods you might have used in ‘some other professional context’.”
You mean signal processing? Like any form of continuous data analysis?
Robertson
There is only one person endlessly insulting others here, and that is YOU.
J.-P. D.
You do rather do the same you know?
binny…”Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The Had~CRUT4 data set
Colin Morice, John Kennedy, Nick Rayner, Phil Jones (2012)”
***
Ah, yes, Phil Jones, the climate criminal. Jones…the IPCC Coordinating Lead Author…responsible in part for recruiting reviewers…caught threatening in the Climategate email scandal to ban paper from skeptics like John Christy of UAH. Impressive…the head of Had-crut, threatening to ban legitimate papers from climate scientists and here we have Binny the Brain citing him as a reference.
Phil Jones, who applauded ‘The Trick’ by M. Mann, admitting he had used it himself to hide declining temperatures. A cheater, but good enough for Binny.
And Phil Jones, who applauded the death of skeptic John Daly and warned his fellow cheaters not to cooperate with an FOI request submitted to the UK government by Steve McIntyre, who was trying to get them to release Had-crut data for an independent audit.
Binny, you’re a class act…siding with climate alarmist cheaters and using them as a reference.
> with an FOI request submitted to the UK government by [the Auditor]
The FOI was by David Holland, Gordon.
willard…”The FOI was by David Holland, Gordon.”
It appears both of them submitted FOIs but as I recall, the Jones reference was to McIntyre. It was Steve McIntyre who relentlessly pursued Jones, and Jones admitted he did not want to be subjected to the same kind of exposure McIntyre and McKitrick had applied to Mann’s hockey stick fiasco.
He [Jones] admitted at one time that his data was in disarray and I think he was too embarrassed to reveal it. He hid behind the excuse that all the data did not belong to him.
A sticking point in the legitimacy of his investigation over Climategate is that McIntyre was not called to testify. It was a kangaroo court type of investigation in which those investigating him had vested interests in the AGW theory. They did not want to expose their star to witnesses who could seriously damage him.
Jones came of sounding like a wanker.
Gordon,
My first entry into Climateball was at the Auditor’s:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/
I don’t mind much your impressionistic rendering of the CG episode, so the only detail I’ll correct is that it has very little to do with AGW. We don’t need tree rings to know that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow is not a Good Thing.
But if you insist in saying stuff with “but emails” every time Phil’s name is mentioned, you know now what to expect from me.
Wee Willy Witless,
Yes indeed. Everybody knows what to expect from you – idiotic attempts at trolling.
Accompanied by diversionary stupidities like ‘We dont need tree rings to know that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like theres no tomorrow is not a Good Thing.”
Also accompanied by stupid links. So carry on, you rotund little rascal.
We know what to expect from you, oh yes, we do.
An endless dribbling of idiotic, yet strangely irrelevant and pointless, slime.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for your kind words.
Enjoy your afternoon.
willard…”you know now what to expect from me”.
Of course…stupidity and more stupidity. Anyone with a lick of sense perusing this blog will see you for what you are…a shill for the alarmist community. We can read too. We’ve read about the pathetic advice offered to climate trolls on how to disrupt skeptics. They did not count on the fact that skeptics are more intelligent and can see through the nonsense.
Jones deserves to be exposed for the cheater he is. Same for the rest of the cheaters exposed by the Climategate emails.
As for climateball, don’t know what it is and I don’t want to know. Sounds like a poor man’s skepticalscience, where cartoonists posing as scientists try to denigrate real climate scientists using every lie at their disposal.
BTW…Jones not only threatened to use his power at the IPCC, with his fellow Coordinating Lead Author, Kevin Trenberth, who Jones idiotically implicated in the emails as his partner, he did manage to block the paper from John Christy et al.
BTW…I am not claiming it was Trenberth, but who else meets the description of ‘Kevin’ who is also a CLA and has the power to do that. Sounds like the may have discussed it.
You sure keep slimy company, then again, what do you expect from someone who takes a nym from a rat.
Less politics. More science
> diversionary stupidities
CG I, II, and III are all about tree rings, Gordon.
Invoking CGs every time Phil’s name is invoked is the diversion here.
> Less politics. More science.
Easy to spot when discussing scientific issues acts as a proxy.
High Expectation Auditors seldom audit science randomly.
Statisticians rarely get things so wrong so easily.
An appeal to authority rolled into a glittering generality.
That’s when we recognize SCIENCE ™!
Idiots get things wrong all the time.
Sure, and Einstein married his first cousin.
Really? You’ve sunk to that now?
no u
Robertson the cheating SOB
You insult all people as ‘cheaters’, even those like Andrew Motte, who did the incredible work of translating Newton’s Principia Scientifica from Latin to English.
You called Motte a ‘cheating SOB’, Robertson!
What is the guy nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’ in comparison with all the people he so woefully insults?
A little dog poo.
J.-P. D.
Less politics. More science
“The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) agreed standard for the height of the thermometers is between 1.25 and 2 m (4 ft 1 in and 6 ft 7 in) above the ground.”
Not terribly consistent, but practical. The observer didn’t have to stoop too much, nor climb up a ladder.
By the way, inversion temperature differences between the surface and 2 m can exceed 10 C at night.
On the other hand, the surface can easily be 10 C hotter than the air at 2m during the day.
Recording temperatures is fun, but generally pointless, Real time temperatures are useful in citrus groves and similar, of course. Averages would be completely useless.
“By the way, inversion temperature differences between the surface and 2 m can exceed 10 C at night.
On the other hand, the surface can easily be 10 C hotter than the air at 2m during the day.
Recording temperatures is fun, but generally pointless, Real time temperatures are useful in citrus groves and similar, of course. Averages would be completely useless.”
Yup
And the air temperature at 5cm follows more closely to the surface temperature than it does to the air temperature at 1.2m.
RLH
Aren’t you courageous enough to tell that Robertson?
He is the one here who has zero dot zero science to offer.
Did you never read his nonsense about the lunar spin (his ‘coin’ theory) and how woefully he discredits the work of knowledgeable astronomers?
He is not the only one who distorts, discredits, denigrates on this blog. But he is the liar-in-chief here, see his opinion about viruses, Einstein etc etc.
Concerning science: why don’t you post your so terribly scientific stuff on blogs where you get some more scientific reactions?
Nick Stokes, Clive Best… what about going there, RLH?
Nick has a PhD in Physics and a very solid math backgronud, and Clive Best is quite fit in the area, as it seems.
J.-P. D.
I agree with or disagree with people based on the science that they use.
Signal processing can run from Plate Tectonics all the way to Radar and beyond.
All use Nyquist in one way or another. Either in space or time or both.
And yet people think that Nyquist is limited to just audio processing.
Duh!!!
RLH
Again: please discuss such things where your ideas are evaluated by specialists.
Nick Stokes wrote a head post at WUWT about Nyquist 2 years ago, and he didn’t reply to your comment on his guest post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/25/nyquist-sampling-anomalies-and-all-that/#comment-2606914
So why don’t restart this discussion at moyhu?
J.-P. D.
I love it when people will quite happily agree that reducing cell size (horizontally and vertically) and increasing the step timings in GCMs will improve their accuracy then say that Nyquist does not apply to anything they do.
RHL
OK, but then go to these people, and prove them wrong, instead of non-committally insinuating on this blog that they aren’t.
You are conveniently keeping yourself off the need for a true scientific contradiction.
J.-P. D.
Proving them wrong is not the same as observing that the methods they use are inaccurate.
How’s about an uncertainty band of
Min -1
Max 1.5
difference in just 7 days worth of local met office data between (min+max)/2 and medians for hourly temperature data?
> Nick Stokes wrote a head post at WUWT about Nyquist 2 years ago, and he didn’t reply to your comment on his guest post
Nice catch!
People who do not understand that Nyquist is at the heart of all signal processing, ALL SIGNAL PROCESSING, are destined to be unable to obtain accurate figures from their measured data.
> ALL SIGNAL PROCESSING
Powerful argument you got there!
Do you keep repeating the same unsupported things over and over again to abide by Nyquist?
No I use signal processing. Based on Nyquist. Which you also do though you wont admit it.
So you say, RHL.
Show you do.
Planet Mars black-body temperature (effective temperature) Te misfortunate coincidence.
The Corrected Effective Temperature for Mars is
Te.correct.mars = 174 K.
But let’s see what happened when the Effective Temperature of Mars was not yet corrected. Te.mars = 209,8 K.
Tsat. mean.mars = 210 K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
We have here planet Mars mean temperature measured by satellites:
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
We have the Mars black-body temperature
Te = 209,8 K
These temperatures the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
and the black-body temperature Te.mars = 209,8 K
are almost identical.
These two very important for planet Mars temperatures are almost identical, but it is a coincident.
It is a coincident, but with very important consequences.
Let’s explain:
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K measured by satellites is almost equal with Te.mars = 209,8 K
When measuring by satellites the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K and calculating Mars black-body temperature Te.mars. = 209,8 K scientist were led to mistaken conclusions.
First they concluded that the planet’s effective and mean temperatures should normally be equal, which is wrong.
Secondly they concluded that Earth without atmosphere should have an average surface temperature equal
to the black-body temperature (effective temperature), Te.earth = 254 K
Then they compared the Te.earth = 254 K with the measured by satellites Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
The difference of 288 K – 254 K = Δ34 oC was then attributed to the Earths atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.
Now we have the Mars Corrected Effective Temperature
Te.correct.mars = 174 K.
The fact that the Corrected Effective Temperature of Mars is Te.correct.mars = 174 K, which is not even close to the satellite measured Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K debunks
the above syllogism that the planet black-body temperature (effective temperature) is the planet without atmosphere mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I agree with or disagree with people based on the science that they use.
RLH
… and I agree with or disagree with people
– based on the real results that they show
and not
– based on their private opinion about which science is adequate or inadequate for the processing of some information.
Here is an example of what I deeply agree with.
You might be able to contradict it.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8119
But then please do that with binding results, and not with some non-committal comments on a blog like this one.
J.-P. D.
Yup. I agree totally. Uses Nyquist to observe that smaller cells improves accuracy.
Needs to consider what ‘average’ methodology (mean or median) is used in the calculations per cell though.
I am have submitted a comment to that blog along those lines
“it is encouraging that three very different methods of averaging global temperature data give very similar results.”
If you deal with already mangled data then the results can indeed be similar.
To set your quote in its full context.
“Spherical Triangulation covers the poles by connecting large area triangles, while Icosahedral grids avoids any latitude binning bias. However, it is encouraging that three very different methods of averaging global temperature data give very similar results.”
Yep.
If only we could have a pixel-by-pixel representation of the Earth with absolutely exact temperatures at each point of the time continuum.
That’d change everything.
It would indeed. But until then grids will have to do.
Thank you. That is now my official response to anything that sounds like a High Expectation Auditor concern:
“It would indeed. But until then what we got will have to do.”
Still can make observations about the methods used, regardless of the data itself
Everyone’s a critic. Some of the critics pretend to be science cops. Nobody likes cops:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/the-auditing-problem/
Some of the critics pretend to be scientist too. Even if they lack training is sampling theorem and statistics.
Sure, RLH.
And I’m a ninja. See how much I care about that kind of ad argument.
Trivial things occupy simple minds
Don’t be too hard on yourself.
What is the time differential on AIRS for spot (lat/long) to the same spot? How many days is it?
To answer that you will need satellite orbital frequency and swath widths.
RLH
Feel free to compute that stuff yourself…
https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data/about-the-data/earth-coverage/
J.-P. D.
Thank you for that.
No need to any computation.
“The repeat cycle period is 233 orbits (16 days) with a ground track repeatability of +/- 20 kilometers (12 miles).”
That means that AIRS has a yearly sampling rate of ~23 samples/year for any spot on earth.
Provides a Nyquist time sampling for 1 month (just about). Doesn’t do much for temperature levels though over that time period though.
I think it is a little better than that in some ways. The satellite hits 95% of the globe everyday (twice actually – around noon and around midnight). And every other day it *almost* hits the same areas again. So there is a lot of data, but it overlaps is non-trivial ways.
“The repeat cycle period is 233 orbits (16 days) with a ground track repeatability of +/- 20 kilometers (12 miles).”
From their own website.
Yes. 16 days until it measures exactly the same area again. I get that.
My point is that during 24 hours, it measures 240 “granules” that cover 95% of the earth (both day and night).
The next day it measures 240 different ‘granules’ that again cover 95% of the earth.
So if you want data that, for example, includes London, you can find a ‘granule’ every single day (and every single night) that includes London! it will be a different region around London, but it will contain London.
What you have to wait 16 days for is to get the SAME region around London. But its not like you only get data for London once every 16 days. And its not like you have to wait 16 days to get global data. You get global data every day (just slightly different parts of the globe).
“Yes. 16 days until it measures exactly the same area again. I get that.
My point is that during 24 hours, it measures 240 “granules” that cover 95% of the earth (both day and night).”
Not done much Nyquist have you? You know signal processing at any level.
If you are not comparing like with like then you have an uncertainty to add to the numbers you produce. A range in which the real values will differ from the numbers you get. See that anywhere in the measurements claimed?
“If you are not comparing like with like then you have an uncertainty to add to the numbers you produce. “
Yes. You might have to work harder. You might have more uncertainty. But there is still the data available to analyze. There is still at least *some* results that can be teased out.
Oh I know there are some results. But what is the range of true figures against the recorded ones?
I too would welcome true figures.
Ever saw one?
If you plot the different estimates of climate sensitivity as a frequency or probability distribution you get this.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/RoeBaker.jpg
A normal distribution with an extended right tail.
Mode and mean are both close to 3.0. The median is halfway between 1.5 and 12 at about 6.8.
I would suggest that the mode and the mean come a lot closer to the real world climate sensitivity than the median.
Ent, “climate sensitivity”, TCR, and ECS, are all just attempts to make up for the fact that there is no “radiative forcing”. They’re just making up stuff for you to swallow.
I can predict anything, any time, with a simple formula:
P= a*b + c – d
How much accuracy you want depends on how many times I get to adjust a, b, c, and d.
Swallow that!
” The basic feature of the median in describing data compared to the mean (often simply described as the “average”) is that it is not skewed by a small proportion of extremely large or small values, and therefore provides a better representation of a “typical” value.”
But what “extremely large or small values” are we talking about? Median income is handy because most Americans make ~ $50,000, but some people make $10,000,000,000. The mean value is not “typical” because the data varies by orders of magnitude. For temperatures, you don’t have one day at 300K and another day at 10,000,000 K. All the temperatures are the same order of magnitude and change relatively smoothly and predictably.
[ESTR] I want to study the evolution of the 1%! Let met see how the average salary…
[VLAD] Slow down, cowboy. It’s medians or bust.
So you happily accept that (min+max)/2 is a ‘good’ method of estimating temperatures during the day, but refuse to accept that min, max, and a value that is central to it is better.
Any statistic text book will tell you that determining the central tendency by the use of means will fail on anything other than a ‘normal’ distribution during the day. Median is the accepted way of producing a central tendency in any distribution, normal or skewed, without further statistical tests.
If you are going to use (min+max)/2 then you should at least add a +/-2.0c to +/-3.0c range estimate to those figures. These are not large numbers. There are only 24 hours in a day for instance.
“So you happily accept that (min+max)/2 is a ‘good’ method of estimating temperatures during the day, but refuse to accept that min, max, and a value that is central to it is better.”
No. I am just questioning which ‘central value’ to use. There are many candidates, such as:
a) (min+max)/2
b) median of hourly temperatures.
c) mean of hourly temperatures.
If all you have are max & min values (ie most of the historical records for most weather stations), then clearly the first is the ONLY choice. If you have hourly temperatures, then I would tend to expect (b) to be better, and (c) to be better yet. (But that should be studied and not assumed. And that may well depend on your purpose for finding a “central tendency”. For example, one method might be better for estimating your AC costs and another might be better for estimating crop growth. For estimating thermal radiation, averaging T^4 might be better. )
“Any statistic text book will tell you that determining the central tendency by the use of means will fail on anything other than a ‘normal’ distribution during the day. Median is the accepted way of producing a central tendency in any distribution, normal or skewed, without further statistical tests.”
No. A statistics text book will tell you that SOMETIMES the mean is DIFFERENT than the median.
You seem to be equating “central tendency” with “peak in the PDF”. This is not the definition of “central tendency”. As a germane example, temperature is proportional to the mean kinetic energy of of the molecules in a gas. You will “fail” if you use the median but “succeed” if you use mean!
“No. I am just questioning which ‘central value’ to use. There are many candidates, such as:
a) (min+max)/2
b) median of hourly temperatures.
c) mean of hourly temperatures.
If all you have are max & min values (ie most of the historical records for most weather stations), then clearly the first is the ONLY choice. If you have hourly temperatures, then I would tend to expect (b) to be better, and (c) to be better yet.”
If you chose a) then you should add the uncertainty that it implies. Around +/-3.0c seems to be fair. That is for each daily reading.
c) will be worse than b) in almost all cases.
“No. A statistics text book will tell you that SOMETIMES the mean is DIFFERENT than the median.”
It will tell you quite clearly that mean is only useful for normal distributions. Median is preferred for all others.
The temperatures during a day are NOT normally distributed. At all.
We are talking about temperature readings of a thermometer, not other things.
“temperature is proportional to the mean kinetic energy of of the molecules in a gas.”
Temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of of the molecules in a gas.
Average is still up for grabs.
If one were to mix cold and hot gasses together, until they stabilized the mean of those two mixtures would, I suspect, give a more accurate assessment of the true Kinetic energy.
Damn fingers, meant median not mean
“It will tell you quite clearly that mean is only useful for normal distributions. Median is preferred for all others.”
Not a SINGLE statistics textbook will tell you this!
You could show me up by finding a single published textbook to support this inane claim. Good luck. I’ll wait …
“If one were to mix cold and hot gasses together, until they stabilized the [median] of those two mixtures would, I suspect, give a more accurate assessment of the true Kinetic energy.”
I am sure you know that the median of two numbers (like your hot temperature and cold temperature ) is found by calculating the mean of the two numbers. So the median *IS* the mean here! So you are definirtely wrong that median is ‘more accurate’.
You just eyeballed that didn’t you? Want to do some real stats on the data instead?
e.g. https://www.statisticshowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/pearson-mode-skewness.jpg
“Mode and mean are both close to 3.0. The median is halfway between 1.5 and 12 at about 6.8.
I would suggest that the mode and the mean come a lot closer to the real world climate sensitivity than the median.”
On what basis? Any statistics text book will tell you in the case as laid out the median is the true central tendency is the median
For https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/RoeBaker.jpg the median will be around 3.0c, the mean most certainly won’t
Want to give me the table that that image is based on so that I can do some real stats on it rather than an eyeball assumption?
https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.1144735
Hmmm… can’t reach this page
Search for “where is sci-hub” then for the DOI you want.
Also b-ok dot cc can help.
Would help if I knew what the title I was searching for is.
Try “Roe and Baker Science 2007” like it says on the tin.
“Sorry, this page is not available through —-
—- has received an order from the High Court requiring us to prevent access to this site. For more information about the order and your rights, please click the relevant link below.”
Why not just post the data table?
Sherwood 2020 has the same probability density function with the long right tail.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019RG000678
Use sci-hub.do to find a non-paywalled version.
I don’t have it, and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-707294
sci-hub.do is blocked in the UK by court order
OK. I got “An assessment of Earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence” Authors: S. Sherwood
But there are no data tables for the images/graphs in that.
Get yourself a VPN.
“Why Is Climate Sensitivity so Unpredictable?
Author(s): Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker”
No data for the figures in that either
“Get yourself a VPN.”
I have one. Are you suggesting I break a UK court order?
I neither confirm nor deny having ever mentioned anything about any moral imperative ever regarding any Scientific Hub, RLH.
I’m sure that if you search for “climate sensitivity median” you’ll find papers. Ideally one that is Open Access and that has a complete SI to replicate.
None of the suggested papers have data tables to go with their images.
Then I guess your next quest is to find one.
Well it appears there is no point in asking
Yeah, I can see why scihub is blocked in some regions. You could argue that it should be blocked in the US too. Though honestly, I can almost always find a non-paywalled copy without it so I don’t think its that helpful anyway.
For the Sherwood 2020 paper try this…
https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/193005298/104._Hegerl.pdf
I have the papers already and been through them (I too have ways to get these things, once I know the full title).
None of them have data for the figures though.
Are you interested in some UK met office data for the differences between (min+max)/2 and median on hourly data over a day period 2021-05-17 to 2021-05-2 at Brize Norton, UK?
Oh. I missed table 10
Table 10
Mean, Mode, Median, and Percentile Values of Posterior PDFs
That might be useful
5th percentile 17th percentile 50th percentile 83rd percentile 95th percentile Mode Mean
Baseline (UL, uniform λ Prior)a 2.3 2.6 3.1 3.9 4.7 3.0 3.2
US (Uniform S prior)a 2.4 2.8 3.5 4.5 5.7 3.1 3.7
UL No Process 2.0 2.4 3.1 4.1 5.2 2.7 3.3
UL No Historicala 2.0 2.3 2.9 3.7 4.6 2.6 3.1
UL No Paleo Warma 2.2 2.5 3.1 4.0 5.1 2.9 3.3
UL No Paleo Colda 2.3 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 3.0 3.4
UL No Paleo 2.2 2.6 3.3 4.6 6.4 2.9 3.8
US No Process 2.3 2.8 3.7 5.2 6.9 3.1 4.0
UL + EC (emergent constraints) 2.4 2.7 3.2 4.0 4.8 3.1 3.4
Fat tails 2.2 2.5 3.1 4.0 4.9 2.8 3.3
Shows that there are statisticians in there as well.
For Sherwood 2020 they provide the following link you can use download the data. I have not download it yet so I cannot comment on what is and isn’t provided.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3945276
Yeah. I saw that but it mostly contains stuff that I cannot use under Windows 10
bdgwx: I now have the hourly data from 1951-08-02 to present at Brize Norton using medians for the daily figure rather than (min+max)/2 in a csv file.
Are you interested?
RLH
Remember your definitions.
Mean is the average of all the individual value.
Mode is the most frequent value.
CMedian is halfway between the lowest and highest values.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/pearson-mode-skewness.jpg
So much the worse for the idea that statisticians rarely get things so wrong so easily:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relationship_between_mean_and_median_under_different_skewness.png
“Many models assume normal distribution; i.e., data are symmetric about the mean. The normal distribution has a skewness of zero. But in reality, data points may not be perfectly symmetric. So, an understanding of the skewness of the dataset indicates whether deviations from the mean are going to be positive or negative.”
Searching for “skewness of temperature series” gives me this:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089794
The ratio of “mean”/”median is 15:1, so it’s probly crap.
Willurd
David is grinding his organ. It is peanut time for you.
<3
“Searching for skewness of temperature series gives me this:”
Hurray! You can use Google. Now ever stopped to think about the ramifications about the things you quote?
I am rather showing that a simple 10-second search refutes the idea that climate scientists don’t know about skewness, RLH. As a bonus, I emphasized how skewness is related to AGW.
Missing the evidentiary point does not bode well for your “I am only here for the science” posturing.
“I am rather showing that a simple 10-second search refutes the idea that climate scientists dont know about skewness, RLH. As a bonus, I emphasized how skewness is related to AGW.”
And I have been showing that a measurement taken at 1.2 or 1.5m in height using (min+max)/2 for the day bears little if any relationship to the lower 3m air column station to station overall over a 24 hour period.
If the assumptions made are at that point then any conclusions drawn from them are suspect if not inaccurate at least.
You have done nothing of the sort yet, RLH.
Have you found a way to unpack a tar.gz file in Windows yet?
You mean for free or with the paid for versions? Yes to both
Then you should not have any problems playing with the cvs and the py files you got the other day.
The data provided did not include either of those types of file.
A powerful data thug we got there:
No results found for “This Python code was written by Mark Webb”
Bummer.
What will you do next?
Oops, my mistake.
The median is the middle value of a sample. If n=101 there will be 50 measurements below the median and 50 above it.
Nearly correct. If there are multiple identical values then it will differ from the ‘center’ of the plot
Nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
The Median is the central value if the number of samples is odd, if even then it is the average of the 2 most central values.
I agree. But in all cases, normal or left or right skewed distributions, then median is a better central tendency than mean in all cases. You could argue for mode but that really only works for synthetic data. It is too easily distorted by rogue distributions.
> median is a better central tendency than mean in all cases
If what you want is the absolute center of the distribution, perhaps. If you want to weigh evidence, sometimes mean is best.
Suppose you’re wondering how many pizzas you should prepare. You know that your guests eat one pizza on average, but that the median value is 0.8. You also know that 10 persons confirmed their presence. Will you make 8 or 10 pizzas?
I say whatever number gets me more pizza the better it is. First, because people gather they tend to eat more. Second, if you have a surprise guest, you should have enough. Third, because I’m biased – I eat above median.
Whoever complained of having made more pizza should not make pizza in the first place.
“If what you want is the absolute center of the distribution, perhaps. If you want to weigh evidence, sometimes mean is best.”
Temperature has very little to do with weights. Other than the proportions you should use in any summation of them
Science has very little to do with armchair quarterbacking:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/192177031.pdf
Counting the number of “median” in the document should indicate how important medians are for arbitrage pricing theory.
“Counting the number of “median” in the document should indicate how important medians are for arbitrage pricing theory.”
And this is relevant to temperatures at a weather station how?
It’s relevant to the “median is a better central tendency than mean in all cases” part, which I quoted.
And indeed weights matter: I just showed you that AGW increases skewness, for Pearson’s sake!
Weights have 2 meanings. The proportion ones gives to items in a collection and what you see on the scales as I indicated.
So you are going to throw away a lot of data because perfect is the enemy of the good.
A lot of the climate data consists of daily data with only two measurements, the high and the low, in those cases the median and the mean are the same.
When do you get to accurate enough?
How many stations do you need to answer the question of what is the change in global average temperature?
> Weights have 2 meanings.
So do “outlier.”
In our case, it’s not noise but the damn signal!
“So you are going to throw away a lot of data because perfect is the enemy of the good.”
No I am trying to get a more accurate assessment of the data we have.
Or place a qualified uncertainty to the figures that are used.
“How many stations do you need to answer the question of what is the change in global average temperature?”
What is the average (any of them) distance between weather stations?
Outlier: A person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set
“Weather phenomena that are small in size too small to be shown on a weather map are referred to as mesoscale. Mesoscale events range from a few kilometers to several hundred kilometers in size. They last a day or less, and impact areas on a regional and local scale and include events such as:
Thunderstorms
Tornadoes
Weather fronts
Sea and land breezes”
Contrarian: person who holds a contrary position, especially a position against the majority.
Scientist: One who follows the data rather than the crowd
“What is the average (any of them) distance between weather stations?”
That depends on how many are used to determine the global average temperature.
Back to you Tim.
Do you understand that the answer determines the Nyquist horizontal sampling frequency?
An armchair quarterback: a person who is not a quarterback (or general, etc.), but offers opinions and criticism on the performance or decisions of those who are.
An idiot: One who talks about things that are not relevant to the discussion
A SCIENCE ™ guy: someone who plays Climateball while pretending to act like a scientist.
Signal processing should only be done by those who understand the whole discipline is built on Nyquist and sampling theorem.
That goes for any form of signal processing. On paper and in computers.
Science should be done by SCIENCE ™ guys.
Too bad they’re too busy playing armchair quarterbacks.
“Do you understand that the answer determines the Nyquist horizontal sampling frequency?”
I don’t think so Tim.
I think you are trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
Signal processing or statistics?
Medians became trivial to use after computers were invented
In 2019, I read this excellent paper:
A Comparison of Daily Temperature-Averaging Methods: Spatial Variability and Recent Change for the CONUS
Jase Bernhardt, Andrew M. Carleton, and Chris LaMagna (2018)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml
*
But I confess that of that paper I didn’t integrate anything into my layman way of processing climate data (temperature, sea ice, sea level, solar flux etc).
The reason you see in this graph I made in 2018/19:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EymLmp1mHweXOnrVIRL0DDjnHabgt_yr/view
This graph shows a worldwide comparison between
– Berkeley Earth land data
– Clive Best’s GHCN daily evaluation using icosahedral binning
– my much much simpler contribution.
*
Clive Best’s latest result in evaluating GHCN daily (35,000 stations in 2017, now over 40,000) you can see here:
http://clivebest.com/data/Daily-monthly-2019.txt
*
I said above ‘simpler’ because unlike Clive Best (and, of course, Berkeley Earth)
– I used a trivial flat 2.5 degree grid (the same as UAH’s)
– I used a hard anomaly construction mechanism (elimination of all stations which lacked sufficient data in the reference period, with backdoor mechanism for historical data)
– I didn’t perform any infilling of empty grid cells, what means that they showed the same value as the entire grid).
Thus, everybody hopefully will understand that each time somebody speaks about mean vs. median, uncertainty, Nyquist etc etc etc, I inevitably answer:
” Do the same job using that raw raw GHCN daily data, and come back here with your results! ”
J.-P. D.
You do realize that doing basically the same thing with the same data treated in the same way will always produce the same (or similar) results don’t you?
Would you like to know what happens if you look at even a short (7 days) run of UK hourly met office data using just slightly different methodologies to those commonly used?
+1.5/-1.0c differentials.
From traditional (min+max)/2 daily figures that is
RLH
” You do realize that doing basically the same thing with the same data treated in the same way… ”
Now, that’s really enough.
Nothing was more different than the way chosen by the persons responsible for the three evaluations.
Who does not understand that must either be dense, or … behave like a retired teacher who never did process any data in his entire life.
Thanks a lot for stopping to reply to my comments! I’m sad of your mix of superficiality and condescension.
Talk with other people, RLH!
J.-P. D.
Sure. But did you take any notice of the differences I have found for even a short run of hourly data? Compared to the traditional daily (min+max) daily data that you are using?
I am working my way though a run from 1951-08-01 to 2021-05-30 but it will take some time as you will appreciate.
“Who does not understand that must either be dense, or behave like a retired teacher who never did process any data in his entire life.”
You must be speaking about someone else. I have done lots of data processing work, using megabytes of data. Just not in the climate theater, until now that is
> I have done lots of data processing work, using megabytes of data.
Sure, RLH.
And I’m a ninja.
I have letters after my name to prove it
All I see is “RLH” followed mishandling of basic statistic concepts, SCIENCE ™ guy.
All I see is people misapplying normal sampling statistics to what is very obviously not a normal distribution case.
Sure, Jan.
binny…”Robertson the cheating SOB”
Had a good laugh over that one. Lighten up Binny, you and I could probably get along fine in person. I think, when a person reaches a state of awareness where the greatest insult produces a good laugh, that person is healed.
Robertson
Feel free to laugh, Robertson!
I would be ashamed if I ever would manage to write, AS YOU DID RECENTLY, about a person like Andrew Motte:
” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB. ”
Yes, Robertson: so you are. The person insulting the most here.
Not only other commenters on this blog, but great historical persons as well.
And that, Robertson, is the reason why I name you “cheating SOB”.
What else could you merit?
J.-P. D.
Both of you make insults more than you do science.
RLH
And you dare to think you would do science here?
You do no more than guessing, like does the average WUWT commenter.
Jesus what are you a boaster…
J.-P. D.
“You do no more than guessing, like does the average WUWT commenter.
Jesus what are you a boaster”
If you don’t like statistics and Nyquist then don’t use them in your observations.
An example of Wobbly Wee Willy, and his “silly semantic games” –
Whacko Wee Willy provided the following comment (in full) –
“Sure, and Einstein married his first cousin.”
Who cares? Quoting one of the idiot’s favourite authorities, Wikipedia –
“A cousin marriage is a marriage where the spouses are cousins The practice was common in earlier times, and continues to be common in some societies today . . . “.
As usual, an irrelevant pointless comment from the slimeboy.
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“Who cares?”
Nobody.
Which was the point, lovely bully.
Oh dear, poor Weak Willy.
Your point is to write pointless comments, knowing nobody cares about them? And boast about it?
Going to play the “the awful man is bullying me” card are you? Add that to feeling abused, jabbed, insulted, and generally made to feel small and insignificant, and you can be sure that nobody cares about your feelings. I certainly don’t!
You are a loser at climateball, but you might do better at slimeball. That would suit your slimy attempts at trolling – trying to play “silly semantic games”, whining about nobody clicking on your links, not appreciating your idiotic comments, and gloating about getting people to waste their time.
Grow a pair, Wee Willy. Stand up for yourself. Blubbing like a baby is fine for “woke” idiots, but won’t cut you much slack with me.
Think about it.
Mike Flynn,
If saying “who cares” amounts to say something pointless, what should we think of your comment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-708088
So once again you haven’t read the comment to which I reply.
And once again your attack fizzles.
No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
Woke Wee Willy,
Here’s the deal. You can complain all you like.
I still can’t be bothered clicking on your stupid links. If you have something to say, be man, not. a wriggly worm. Just say what you want to say. It won’t kill you, and people might even respect you for it!
Keep playing the persecution card, like Michael Mann, if you wish. Claim everyone who calls you an idiot (because that’s what you are), is attacking you – unfairly! Poor, poor, diddums!
Why would anyone want to attack an anonymous idiot? Do you think I have awesome powers, and can actually inflict harm on you from afar?
Ho, ho, ho!
In you, deep the fear is!
Carry on. Try some of your “silly semantic tricks” laced with a dash of “auditing skillz”.
Good for a laugh, if nothing else.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH
You might find this item on the change in temperature frequency distributions over time of interest.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2012_hansen_17/
Supplementary data associated with one of the papers in the reference list, Hansen et al 2012a.
As the daily data is so widely different (+/-2.0c) from that used in that, then its conclusions are not rigorous at all. If you were to place a 95% confidence interval round that daily data then there might not have been a change at all, or something that is twice as much. Who knows
Standard deviation of the distribution is about 2C. Standard deviation for most of the means is about 0.05C because⁰
At the current 0.14-0.2C/decade warming rate you see a significant change in the mean (over 0.2C) in about about 2 decades.
Willard or Bindidon can refer you to raw temperature data at NOAA, GISS or the Met Office and you can check for yourself.
I like checking things like this on the back of an envelope, but my data analysis skills are long obsolete, so I’m reliant on other data crunchers.
“Because”
Curses.
Because of an irreducible internal variation in the system due to weather.
“Standard deviation of the distribution is about 2C. Standard deviation for most of the means is about 0.05C because of an irreducible internal variation in the system due to weather.”
Standard deviation of daily temperature is +/-2.0c from the (min+max)/2 which is normally used also.
Climate is weather accumulated for periods longer than 30 years.
If the daily figures are inaccurate (have a standard deviation) then trends based on them have the potential to be statistically inaccurate also.
What 95% confidence bands would you place of the temperature at 1.2m being truly representative of the lower 3m air column? Given that the temperature at 5cm more closely follows the surface temperature rather than that at 1.2m.
As I said earlier, most temperature means are constrained to SD +/- 0.05C and 95% confidence limits of +/ 0.1C.
For a thermometer at 5cm the SD would be larger and at 3m it would be smaller.
When Admiral Fitzroy set up the first network of 15 UK land stations he had to design a standard layout for them. He chose 5 foot (now 1.5m) for thermometers probably because they needed to be clear of the surface and 5ft was a convenient height for the observer. To keep past data consistent with more recent data nobody has seen fit to change it.
“For a thermometer at 5cm the SD would be larger and at 3m it would be smaller.
When Admiral Fitzroy set up the first network of 15 UK land stations he had to design a standard layout for them. He chose 5 foot (now 1.5m) for thermometers probably because they needed to be clear of the surface and 5ft was a convenient height for the observer. To keep past data consistent with more recent data nobody has seen fit to change it.”
Which makes my points precisely.
The 1.2m height does not reflect the 3m air column even at the station, let alone from station to station.
Sorry, 1.2m or 1.5m measurement height
“As I said earlier, most temperature means are constrained to SD +/- 0.05C and 95% confidence limits of +/ 0.1C.”
That cannot be correct.
You can’t make the SD of a cheap +/-5.0c thermometer for instance into a reference +/-0.05c just by statistics. One can improve the central tendency but NOT the SD. Nor the 95% confidence levels either.
> That cannot be correct.
Y tho.
You cant make the SD of a cheap +/-5.0c thermometer for instance into a reference +/-0.05c just by statistics. One can improve the central tendency but NOT the SD. Nor the 95% confidence levels either.
So you can’t because you can’t.
Got it.
SD of the mean 0.05C is as good as you can get. For real world data, is the limit constrained by the internal variation of the system.
Making your thermometer more accurate cor increasing your sample size will make no difference.
You can either give up in disgust and go into denial, or do what the rest of us do and make the best of what we have.
“SD of the mean 0.05C is as good as you can get. For real world data, is the limit constrained by the internal variation of the system.”
What is the SD of a +/-5.0c thermometer?
What is the SD of a +/-1.0c thermometer?
What is the SD of a +/-0.1c thermometer?
What is the SD of a +/-0.01c thermometer?
1,000,000 readings may make the central tendency of all of them converge.
The numbers of readings won’t change the range of readings that each give nor their distribution.
The 1.2m height does not reflect the 3m air column even at the station, let alone from station to station.
The official standard is to have the bottom of your screen 1.25m above ground, which puts the thermometers at about 1.5m.
https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/The-Stevenson-Screen.htm
I know what the standard approach is.
Now tell me how accurate that is for the 3m band of air at the station and for the extension of that to the distance between one station and the next.
The 5cm air thermometer for frost prediction says that the temps at 1.2m/1.5m are no use to predict that.
RLH
There is a line.
On one side is scientific scepticism, in which you criticise the science.
On the other side is the ignoring or denying of the existing science and replacing it with your own beliefs.
You have already rejected the statistical methods used to analyse data and are now starting to rant about your own unsupported beliefs. If you want to be taken seriously only by denialists like Gordon Robertson, you are heading in the right direction. If you want to be taken seriously by the consensus scientists here, you need to cross back over the line.
“On the other side is the ignoring or denying of the existing science and replacing it with your own beliefs.”
Where do you get that about me from?
“You have already rejected the statistical methods used to analyse data and are now starting to rant about your own unsupported beliefs.”
Is not one able to point out that the statistic are being misused and thus question them?
It is necessary to underline here that the air is getting in the standardized Stevenson screen, to have measured its temperature, thru the double louvers via natural circulation.
We have to answer these two questions now:
Do the walls, the bottom and the top in the Stevenson screen have the incoming air temperature?
No, they do not.
Is the conventional thermometer with a bulb or with an electrical resistance capable to deliver the necessary for the climate change estimation precise air temperature measurements?
No, it does not.
What we are sure of is that a conventional thermometer measures its own temperature.
The conventional thermometer is not capable to deliver the air temperature because thermometer is in radiative equilibrium with its surroundings.
On the other hand the air is not in a radiative equilibrium with its surroundings.
You got a sell, RLH: well done!
Another irrelevant and stupid comment from a stupid and irrelevant troll.
Mike Flynn turns into kiddo.
Idiot turns into a smart-arse
Still in Cali, RLH?
GWPF Exposes EPA Deception in New Climate Change Heat Wave Index
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/26/gwpf-exposes-epa-deception-in-new-climate-change-heat-wave-index/
Imagine the furor when they’ll switch from means to medians.
Another irrelevant and stupid comment from a stupid and irrelevant troll, again.
Mike Flynn Mike Flynns.
Another irrelevant and stupid comment from a stupid and irrelevant troll, again, and again.
Mike Flynn,
If you’re gonna go full kiddo, pick a number.
Which do you think is better able to produce correct statistics for a 24 hour window?
Show me, SCIENCE ™ guy.
Why bother? You wouldn’t understand it anyway.
[VLAD] Perhaps you don’t know, but I’m a big guy in the SCIENCE ™ world.
[ESTR] Oh, really?
[VLAD] Very big.
[ESTR] Wow.
[VLAD] Like, this big.
*Spreads his arms as far as he can.*
[ESTR] Impressive.
[VLAD] But in fact, that’s not the true value of how big I am.
[ESTR] No?
[VLAD] No. I can’t tell you how big of a SCIENCE ™ guy I am.
[ESTR] Why?
[VLAD] You wouldnt understand it anyway.
[ESTR] Damn. That’s big.
[VLAD] Why bother?
[ESTR] Words of wisdom, Vladimir. Words of wisdom.
Entirely made up by you of course
Still based on a true story.
In your own mind. Does it echo in there?
no u
How much of your money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?
https://fee.org/articles/new-poll-americans-aren-t-willing-to-pay-for-the-green-new-deal-and-it-s-not-even-close/
“A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change.
However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?”
14% said up to $100 per month.
Who that posts here wants to spend $100 per month or $1200 per year?
You would be one of the few and proud!
Of course, all money already spent, has not done anything to reduce the impact of climate change.
Nor has all the recycling effort done anything to stop plastic from ending up in the Ocean- rather it’s
caused plastic to end up in ocean. Or send to China and burned just scattered over over the place.
So, all plastic being dumped is not just plastic used in those countries, a good amount of it, was imported.
Similar story with CO2 emission, industry shipped oversea, where the energy needed, makes a lot CO2 emission.
So shipped to places which make more air pollution and other kinds of pollution and require more CO2 emission
for products made, which of course get dragged across the ocean. And not mention the poor conditions for their
workers and encourages more oppressive governments.
There is not much good happening with recycling, or shipping jobs overseas.
What would you spend $100 per month for government to do?
I can think things, but they should not cost $100 per month.
How about actually getting the right to speedy trial.
A republic in which all legal votes are counted [within hours}.
Explore the lunar polar region.
Make/allow ocean settlements.
But this actual cause less money to be wasted or make money. Or all them should cost less
than $100 per month even if poorly executed.
How about everyone in US gets tap water which as good as bottle water.
That might cost $100 per month- it shouldn’t, but it’s big enough that it could.
What would want to spend $100 per month for US government to do?
How about stop the slaughter and human trafficking at the border?
Or what is that important to you?
Oh, I got one, healthcare?
So whatever the congress members are getting, you can get, and unlike them, you pay $100 and everyone else pays $100 who don’t use it. So if congress critter are getting better healthcare, you get same care that they get for free.
Let me check that:
As the myth busting website Snopes points out, “contrary to popular belief, Congressional members do not receive free health care.” Instead, they choose a gold-level Obamacare policy and receive federal subsidies that cover 72 percent of the cost of the premiums.
That’s a pretty good deal, especially given that the average 21-year-old making $25,000 a year would be charged $282 per month for a silver Obamacare plan, and pay about half of that, or $142, thanks to subsidies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
So, $100 per month from everyone, get this same the 72 percent as congress- and/or can get 90% off if want the silver plan. And if on silver, whenever you want you can upgrade to gold or return to silver.
That should be hideously expensive, but I would guess somewhere around cost of $100 per month and probably as crappy as UK healthcare- the beauty of it, is that congress critters get the same.
Or they “should be” waiting in lines like everyone else.
Humanity has infinite resources. Planet Earth obviously doesn’t- and humanity not to blame for Earth’s possible shortages.
There is not resource in which we are currently running out of.
Or if you adjust for inflation, everything is getting cheaper to buy, or if some thing getting more expensive, that “could” indicate a shortage. It also mean other things- as laws preventing the use of X. It mean monopolies causing higher prices {that’s what monopolies are well known to do. And are “all” about what governments do in terms of laws, or only laws can make monopolies. We “want” monopolies in terms “rewarding” authors of books, and people that make movies or songs. Inventor can get patents, etc. But also we “want” such monopolies to be limited in various ways. Anyhow, monopolies are a way governments can “encourage” people doing stuff, such as being a song writer.
But such government “help” doesn’t have any effect upon me writing on the blog {maybe legally speaking it does, but does not effect my motivation, much}. Anyhow there is infinite way governments can “meddle” and these numerous way generally cause things to be more expensive, and of course one also have government spending money like drunks- but despite this in real dollars nothing is getting more expensive.
And related to leaving planet that cost is lowering in terms money not adjusted for inflation, the dollar amount is lower, has been happening for decades, and will continue happen in few decades. Other stuff is also getting cheaper and cheaper, like computers. Or computer have now, costs far less than computer cost in terms dollar amount, and it’s a far better computer, cheaper and better. Cable bills, not so much- a thousand channels of utter garbage, but not relate shortage of resource, unless the resource counted is the human mind.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
There is a good point to make. People have been predicting oil would run out at some point but their predictions had been wrong as technology was able to find more oil and find ways to still extract it at a profit. The problem is the technology may be reaching a limit and Biden might have been told we will really run out of oil in around 50 years. We must take steps now so we do not get into a Mad Max world. It could be we need to start the transition now and not wait until the last minute.
https://drillers.com/how-much-oil-is-left-in-the-world/
The replacement of coal is natural gas, but natural gas can also replace oil. The amount natural gas is quite large and wasn’t mentioned in article.
It also seems we could re-do cities and could have end to rush hour traffic.
And also think ocean living could be better way of living, and lower energy use.
But main issue with energy on Earth, will be relate to becoming a spacefaring civilization.
At moment electrical cost in space are extremely high, this related to launch cost from Earth. And high launch cost is due to “not enough market in space”, but that market is ever increasing, and we have crazy person who want towns on Mars. There also other crazy billionaires who also “interested” in satellite market and doing other stuff in space. And China government is quite interested in space, and I expect other countries to increasingly want do stuff in space. Or in terms world population, not many are much involved, and I expect the +7 billion people to getting more interested in near future.
But part of being spacefaring civilization, sort of has to involve, having ocean settlements.
Norman at 8:42 PM
I agree that we are not running out of oil any time soon. Even at current consumption rates of about 1,000 barrels per second we have enough oil for another 100 years. The problem is that, since half of the carbon we emit from burning fossil fuels stays in the atmosphere for centuries, we are tasking future generations with solving the problems we created while we consumed the most valuable natural resources.
Norman at 8:42 PM
The transition to net zero should have started decades ago but since it didn’t, we are now left with mitigation as the only good option. Unearthing carbon that was buried over a 65 million year period and pumping it into the atmosphere in less than 200 years without regard for the consequences is nihilistic indeed. Our tree of life https://tinyurl.com/yrraym6e
TM, you’re being too greatly affected by the scare mongers. “Unearthing carbon” is good for the planet. Carbon doesn’t do any good in the ground. Study the carbon cycle and learn that the more CO2, the more biomass that can be formed, and re-burned later. Unearth it, burn it, and feed the planet.
And, the scaremongering that CO2 can heat the planet is nonsense. Again, learn the science.
> Unearth it, burn it, and feed the planet.
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-the-world-was-like-the-last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-were-at-400ppm-141784
1C at the equator means 6-7C at the poles.
“…four million years ago…”
Pure nonsense!
(Don’t Feed The Troll.)
Of course I will feed you, Puppy:
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
More ineffective flak from the struggling troll.
I must have really hit the target, again.
Next you’re gonna tell me that if I respond to your comment that’s because you won, Puppy.
The most perfect self-sealing machine of all Climateball.
Willard at 7:51 AM
https://studylib.net/doc/13020877/the-real-truth-about-greenhouse-gases-and-climate-change-
Michael’s a great guy.
Met him once.
TM, Happer may be a little too optimistic there.
But, I think 500 ppm is doable, if we all work together. Just get folks interested in “greening”.
Willard at 9:08 AM
Favorite quote from that article:
Willard at 9:08 AM
Favorite quote from that article:
Willard at 9:08 AM
Worth repeating!
You might also like:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/quine.htm
Willard at 9:41 AM
Right on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurath%27s_boat
Willard: We do that with weather stations all the time.
Swenson says:
May 25, 2021 at 6:05 AM
> “For example, when the surface was still over 1500 K, the SB calculation gives 255 K. When the seas were still boiling, the SB calculation give 255 K. When the surface temperature is 288 K (the present) the SB calculation gives 255 K.”
Brilliant insight!
“Because”
Curses.
Because of an irreducible internal variation in the system due to weather.
Where is our superdeveloping La Nina?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd1/nino34Mon.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=NINO34
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
I miss it!
J.-P. D.
Both NOAA and BOM are calling for one more minor dip. But, the worst appears to be over.
It does look like temps are not going in increase that much for the next 6 month or so. How that effects the UAH, RSS figures will ne interesting to see
I guess monthly temperatures have some interest for meteorology. For climate purposes, not so much. The trend of the the full satellite period will barely budge even if we get 6 months of 0 anomaly.
Actually, I’ll do that just now…
Ordinary Least Squares:
Dec 1978 to Apr 2021 = 0.13571 C/decade
Add 6 months 0 anomaly = 0.13228 C/decade
A difference of 0.04 C per century
“Ordinary Least Squares”
why would you use a linear trend to estimate warming over any time period?
I already told you, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-706318
“why would you use a linear trend to estimate warming over any time period?”
To make a point that a few months of low temperatures doesn’t make much difference to the long-term trend. You are welcome to apply your own model of the signal to see if it changes the point much.
As you are an expert in signal processing, are you able to help us all out by applying the Akaike information criterion to see what kind of statistical model would be most appropriate? This would add to the discussion in general, and relieve anyone of the need to have a hunch about the matter.
Or if you have an alternative method that estimates the best statistical model for a set of data, I would be curious about your results for global temperature data. I don’t have the skill to do it.
The Earth’s temperature is 300k°. 1C° is 0.3% of the total temperature. CO2 is 400ppm, or 1 out of every 2,500 molecules, or 0.04%. The Climate Alarmists’ Arguement is that by vibrating 0.04% of the molecules in the atmosphere can raise atmospheric temperatures by 0.3%, and that ignores that H20 absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2 so what ever warming would be done by those wavelengths is already done by H2O.
vibrating 0.04% of the molecules” – But Trace Gas.
“H2O” – But ABC.
“Alarmists” – But Alarmism.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
More pointless links to “woke” stupidity. How do I know? You supplied them.
Where may the GHE (you claim you don’t know what it is, so look it up, dimwit) be observed and measured at night? Or anytime at all? You can’t say, can you?
That’s because it’s a figment of the imagination of dimwitted true believers!
You are an idiot, and a stupidly “woke” idiot to boot!
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“Or anytime at all?”
Say hi to Bob:
Hope this helps!
Witless Wee Willy,
You do realise that air has a temperature, don’t you?
You do realise that everything above absolute zero radiates IR, don’t you?
You do realise you can measure the temperature of air with varying degrees of accuracy, with a thermometer, don’t you?
“Wave an infrared thermometer at the sky.”? Really?
Do you have to utter a magical incantation at the same time? Maybe “Oh, climate change Gods, reveal unto me the sacred and miraculous GHE”. You will need a miracle. Nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by using the magical powers of CO2!
Even Professor John Tyndall showed that air does not drop in temperature by virtue of having the H2O and CO2 removed from it, more than 150 years ago.
You are really stupid, you know. You can’t even manage to succeed at your “silly semantic games”, can you?
What an idiot loser you are! Go away and play some slimeball.
Mike Flynn,
What do you mean by “GHE,” again?
Many thanks!
We picking up on spelling mistakes now? I thought he meant GHG in any case
No Mike Flynn did not, and here’s where we are:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/king-obama-strikes-again-obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty/#comment-1329032
SCIENCE ™!
GHE is not referenced in that article
I know.
So typical distraction then
I love how you play dumb, RLH.
Willard: Few could be as dumb as you.
You have no idea how silly you sound right now, Richard.
Mount Tambora released 100 MtSO2 in 1815. It caused the year without a summer in 1816. Humans release 100 MtCO2 every day.
bdgwx, think about the meaning of your comment: “Mount Tambora released 100 MtSO2 in 1815. It caused the year without a summer in 1816. Humans release 100 MtCO2 every day.”
That pretty much proves CO2 doesn’t do anything, especially cooling. We release 365x the amount of CO2 than Tambora did SO2, and you can’t even find a credible source demonstrating that we have seen any warming at all over the past 140 years.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
> you cant even find a credible source demonstrating that we have seen any warming at all over the past 140 years.
[NARRATOR] Then Rob shows his graph of Antarctica.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Is this the same Antarctica that demonstrates a reverse GHE (according to a peer reviewed article in a prestigious scientific journal)?
Maybe you are referring to the imaginary “climate scientist” Antarctica, or the Antarctica which was ice-free in days of yore – well, before it got really, really cold and covered by ice.
You are just being an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
A guy who calls himself “CO2 is Life” claims that CO2 is a trace gas.
Even you got to admit that this looks odd.
Cheerios.
“CO2 represents just 0.0389% of the air, by volume.”
Wondering Wee Willy,
I don’t have to admit that anything looks odd.
Particularly when it doesn’t. Without CO2, we all die. What difference does it make that it is a trace gas in the atmosphere?
CO2 is life, as is H2O, H, C, and a whole heap of other things.
What is so odd about that?
You are an idiot.
> CO2 represents just 0.0389% of the air, by volume.
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Are you disputing the facts or just trying to divert things?
Which part of “A guy who calls himself CO2 is Life claims that CO2 is a trace gas” you do not get, RLH?
Which part of they are both true don’t YOU get?
The part where stating facts suffices to make a coherent argument, RLH, for “but Life” and “but trace gas” is the perfect counterexample.
I hope you don’t support that silly idea, but then you made many comments as if you did.
Which part of they are both true dont YOU get?
It is both important for life and a trace gas at the same time.
Implication. Noun. The conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.
Implications makes assumptions
> Implications makes assumptions
Sure, Richard.
And colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
CiL,
The point is that small things can have a big impact. The climate system is no different in this regard as evidenced by the impact volcanic activity has on it.
I do find it odd that you’re willing accept that the Earth cooled in 1815-16, but that you won’t accept that it warmed in the last 140 years.
CO2isLife
H2O and CO2 do overlap. The point would not matter once you go above the condensation level.
You can try your tool.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
This will not reflect the current Earth system as it has clouds but it will show an effect for you.
Put the CO2 level to 280 PPM. Use standard atmosphere and use looking down. Get the IR lost to space for this setting. Increase the CO2 to 560 and you will see that the outgoing IR goes down by -2.95 W/m^2. You can use that difference and put a value in the offset to see how much hotter the surface would be to get the same IR out as at 280 PPM. You need to add about 0.5 C to achieve this. Again this is without clouds but it shows that the surface will increase in temperature if you add CO2. The overlap between CO2 and H2O will not be affected by this.
Try it out and see.
N,
Don’t be stupid. MODTRAN is a model, and does not reflect reality if it shows that CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface hotter while the sun is shining!
This is just delusional, based on nothing at all.
Asking someone to “try it out and see” is completely pointless.
You could try telling him where the GHE may be observed, and measured. Following that, you might explain what aspect of the GHE cannot be explained using current knowledge.
Or you could just have a rant.
Mike Flynn,
Come here.
Norma, this is another example of you not understanding science.
CO2 molecules are 15μ emitters. That means if more are added to the atmosphere, more IR will be emitted to space. Notice the ground temperature does not change between 280 and 560ppm. Notice further that the temperature does not change between 280 and 1000 ppm.
You can’t understand the links you find.
Have you done the hammer/hand experiment yet? Science involves doing experiments to learn. But, idiots can’t learn. Prove me wrong.
What happens, Puppy, is that, on average, water is constantly being evaporating at the ground surface, and because water vapor (evaporated water) is lighter than air (and also warmer than air if it is evaporated by the high-temperature action of sunlight), then it naturally rises to high altitude, condensing back out as liquid droplets as it cools with altitude.
What happens, idiot, is that you don’t understand any of this. The selection was “no clouds, no rain”.
Keep trolling. That’s all you can do. I won’t be responding to your nonsense.
You just don’t realize that if the boundary is the warmest, then it can not also be the average, because the average of a whole “ensemble” is necessarily smaller in number than the largest number of the ensemble, Puppy.
That’s why it’s so much fun.
Which type of average is that? Statistically speaking>
Ask Joe.
Norman, not all greenhouse gasses are created equal. A robust GHG like H2O near the surface can thermalize a lot of LWIR. That is why rain forests are comfortable at night, and deserts are ice cold. Problem with your theory is that as you go higher in the atmosphere, the space between LWIR absorbing GHG molecules increases making it easier to radiate LWIR to outerspace than back towards the earth. That is why evidence shows that the Stratosphere is cooling, not warming as CO2 increased. Also, at the altitudes that you are talking about, the IR temperature may be very hot, but you would freeze to death in it. The thermosphere is very hot, but because the air is so thin, you would freeze to death in it.
The thermosphere lies between the exosphere and the mesosphere. “Thermo” means heat, and the temperature in this layer can reach up to 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit. If you were to hang out in the thermosphere, though, you would be very cold because there aren’t enough gas molecules to transfer the heat to you. This also means there aren’t enough molecules for sound waves to travel through.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/thermosphere/en/
Facts are, NASA produces these nonsensical surface temperature graphics that show surface temperatures increasing with CO2. That is pure nonsense, and there are plenty of stations that show 0.00 warming with an increase in CO2.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
norman…” The problem is the technology may be reaching a limit and Biden might have been told we will really run out of oil in around 50 years. We must take steps now so we do not get into a Mad Max world”.
***
Better to get rid of Biden and his eco-weenie groupies.
Would you care to address the biofuel eco-weenies who want to burn all our forests as a bio-fuel?
> the biofuel eco-weenies
You mean, like Dubya?
entropic…”You might find this item on the change in temperature frequency distributions over time of interest”.
***
You might, if you were not aware that the author, James Hansen, was a self-serving political animal whose aim was to support the untenable AGW theory.
Hansen began his academic career as a physicist who went into the field of astronomy where he came under the influence of an utter idiot, Carl Sagan. He adopted Sagan’s pet theory, that the atmosphere of Venus resulted from a runaway greenhouse effect and he has been inferring since that Earth’s atmosphere is headed in the same direction.
Not a shred of scientific proof only inference based on a clear misunderstanding of positive feedback, a process he claimed to exist in the atmosphere that could lead to a tipping point. That is a reference to to the effect of positive feedback, which causes an exponential amplification. Problem is, you need an amplifier which the atmosphere lacks.
Hansen should have been fired for his misunderstanding of positive feedback. He even passed it on to his butt boy, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematicians who should have understood that the equation for positive feedback included a gain factor, aka amplification factor. At one point, the head of NASA wanted to fire him but the director was over-ruled from on high.
Sagan was a showman who lived for dramatic effect rather than science. For example, in one of his documentaries he said, “WHEN the Big Bang occurred…”. Nothing about it being a theory and a ridiculous theory at that.
Hansen learned well from Sagan. In 1988, when he got onto national TV to convince the audience of a dire future of catastrophic climate change, he did it during a heat wave and had the air conditioning turned off in the studio, so that he appeared to be suffering from his alleged climate change.
In the link you provided, there is a photo of a forest fire, which Hansen is obviously passing off as an effect of climate change.
In Hansen’s day, alarmists went out of their way to connect skeptics to Big Oil for their funding. Meantime, he was getting major grants from the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore. Hansen was getting far more government money than any skeptic, by a large amount.
You referred to me recently as a denier but I don’t deny that we’ve had warming since 1850 or that climates can change. All I deny is that CO2 has anything to do with it. Meantime, you present any garbage you can find from alarmists no matter how despicable they are as human beings.
One thing you alarmists have in common is your appeals to authority to outright liars and cheaters.
entropic…”If you want to be taken seriously by the consensus scientists here, you need to cross back over the line”.
Have you gone completely daft? Consensus scientists??? That’s an oxymoron, more moron, than any statement I have seen from anyone who understands the scientific method.Science does not work by consensus, it operates through the scientific method.
The fact that you refer to your consensus based pseudo-science as science is most telling. AGW and GHE theory is supported purely by consensus. There is not a shred of evidence via the scientific method to support either. Both contradict the 2nd law and perpetual motion, yet even some good scientists have been lured into this idiocy.
RLH…you are asking the right questions, don’t let alarmist idiots sway you from you inquiry.
Perhaps, Gordon, but can RLH find the answers he’s looking for?
More importantly, can he handle the truth?
Can you?
chad-yes.png
Everybody accepts that a local weather station, even one a few km away, will record figures that do not reflect those experienced by them where they are.
That goes for all parameters that are measured. Temperature, pressure, rain, wind, frost, rain, snow, clouds, mist… The list is endless.
And yet data captured at those weather stations is used as though the planet is completely uniform. With minute variations that can be sampled simply.
No uncertainty range which would correctly attribute those, some times quite significant factors, to the weather station data is added or declared.
And you wonder why engineers throw their hands up when accuracy claims are made.
And somehow scientists have managed to not only analyze temperatures and geopotential heights global with skill, but they can even forecast them 5 days in advance with ACC scores over 0.8 and often over 0.9. How could that even be remotely possible if “a local weather station, even one a few km away, will record figures that do not reflect those experience by them where they are”?
So tell me why I experience different conditions to those at my nearest group of weather stations. Including all the Mesoscale scale events that range from a few kilometers to several hundred kilometers in size. They last for a day or less, and impact areas on a regional and local scale and include events such as:
Thunderstorms
Tornadoes
Weather fronts
Sea and land breezes
Observations at a particular site will not be exactly the same as observations at a neighboring site. But they will reflect or be correlated with that neighboring site. In this context my use of “reflect” means that observations at site A constrain observations at site B and vice versa.
I know that. But the question I asked was different to that. How close to the true figures recorded at all spots between one station and another are the ones at the stations? What uncertainties lie between the point samples?
What happens if one station has a thunder storm and no-one around does? Are vice versa.
“And somehow scientists have managed to not only analyze temperatures and geopotential heights global with skill, but they can even forecast them 5 days in advance with ACC scores over 0.8 and often over 0.9.”
It’s good question. I don’t know the answer off the top of my head. It should be easy to answer with reanalysis datasets like ERA5.
I will say this though. Per the Hansen & Lebendeff 1987 gistemp methods paper the correlation in temperatures between neighboring sites near 1.0 at small separation and remains above 0.5 even at 1200 km separation in mid and high latitudes. In the low latitudes this correlation does drop to 0.5 even at small separation.
In addition even doing the spatial averaging with 60, 8000, or 500000 grid cells or by doing it with trivial techniques like what gistemp does or advanced techniques like kriging that Cowtan & Way do or 4D-VAR assimilation like what ERA5 does or by using min/max temperatures like what gistemp does or by using nearly 100 million observations available everyday like what ERA5 does we always seem to get roughly the same amount of warming. I think that is a testament to the fact that our estimate of the global mean surface temperature trend is known to within about +/- 0.01C/decade since 1979.
Yet there is that 13% ‘noise’ acknowledged between stations
“Per the Hansen & Lebendeff 1987 gistemp methods paper the correlation in temperatures between neighboring sites near 1.0 at small separation and remains above 0.5 even at 1200 km separation in mid and high latitudes. In the low latitudes this correlation does drop to 0.5 even at small separation.”
And yet it is well acknowledged that Mesoscale scale events that range from a few kilometers to several hundred kilometers in size. They last for a day or less, and impact areas on a regional and local scale and include events such as:
Thunderstorms
Tornadoes
Weather fronts
Sea and land breezes
are hard to track even on weather stations.
“Mesoscale meteorology is the study of weather systems smaller than synoptic scale systems but larger than microscale and storm-scale cumulus systems. Horizontal dimensions generally range from around 5 kilometers to several hundred kilometers. Examples of mesoscale weather systems are sea breezes, squall lines, and mesoscale convective complexes.
Vertical velocity often equals or exceeds horizontal velocities in mesoscale meteorological systems due to nonhydrostatic processes such as buoyant acceleration of a rising thermal or acceleration through a narrow mountain pass.”
“Microscale meteorology is the study of short-lived atmospheric phenomena smaller than mesoscale, about 1 km or less.[1] These two branches of meteorology are sometimes grouped together as “mesoscale and microscale meteorology” (MMM) and together study all phenomena smaller than synoptic scale; that is they study features generally too small to be depicted on a weather map. These include small and generally fleeting cloud “puffs” and other small cloud features.[2] Microscale meteorology controls the most important mixing and dilution processes in the atmosphere.[3] Important topics in microscale meteorology include heat transfer and gas exchange between soil, vegetation, and/or surface water and the atmosphere caused by near-ground turbulence. Measuring these transport processes involves use of micrometeorological (or flux) towers. Variables often measured or derived include net radiation, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, ground heat storage, and fluxes of trace gases important to the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere.”
“And somehow scientists have managed to not only analyze temperatures and geopotential heights global with skill, but they can even forecast them 5 days in advance with ACC scores over 0.8 and often over 0.9.”
Right. The keyword being “noise”. It seems this noise evident on small spatial and temporal scales does not significantly alter the mean temperature anomalies on annual or even monthly temporal scale and global spatial scale. This is a general theme you find in many disciplines of science. Although small scale processes tend to be noisy and chaotic the larger scale average tends to be relatively stable. I’ve been trying to better educate myself on this phenomenon by studying the concepts of attractors and chaos theory in general.
I know that all of these exists and are often considered to be normal in distribution, therefore can be ‘averaged’ out over the stations. That is an assumption at least and deserves its own uncertainty band. There is also the question of time data sampling of things like weather fronts, storms, etc.. They move across the capture network at rates that may not be well sampled at 24 periods.
Regarding the topic of meteorological scales…it turns out we don’t even need to bother describing mesoscale details and differences to understand synoptic scale features. Many of our global circulation models cannot only measure the global mean temperature, but can even forecast it with skill days, weeks, and even months in advance with little to no mesoscale knowledge. The GFS and ECMWF, for example, have resolutions of only ~10 km. Yet they are consistent with models that have 100 km and even 1 km resolutions. It is a testament to the fact that noise on small spatial and temporal scales does not in kind extrapolate to noise on large spatial and temporal scales. In other words, the specific timing, magnitude, and location of tornadoes in the middle of the US do not substantially alter the synoptic scale evolution of planetary waves, temperature profiles, etc.
“Regarding the topic of meteorological scalesit turns out we dont even need to bother describing mesoscale details and differences to understand synoptic scale features.”
But it introduces uncertainties into the daily station data. A range of which need to be applied to that data. +/-n degrees. Otherwise we would be predicting weather out weeks or even months in advance and we cannot do so.
We cannot predict how large (or small) scale events will trend even. For instance the prediction of La Nina often has limited abilities at certain times of the year.
Take frost for instance also. That alone takes (and gives) large amounts of energy flows in and out of the atmosphere and thus effects air temperature but measurements taken at 1.5m are a very poor predictor of if it will happen or not.
I’m not saying those aren’t important concerns for small spatial and temporal scale analysis. What I’m saying is that it just doesn’t matter for global and annual/monthly scale analysis of the mean temperature. The analysis has been done on different spatial scales using wildly different techniques and subsets of available data and it turns out we get roughly the same warming result either way.
I can easily demonstrate that using (min+max)/2 gives an uncertainty of +/-3.0c for all station measurements taken using it. Yet still claims are made as to 0.01c accuracy in the figures given. Historic figures are going to be that inaccurate not closer.
That uncertainty does not does not reduce by taking 1,000,000 measurements. The range of uncertainty remains at +/-3.0c even if the central tendency can be reduced to that sort of accuracy by use of statistics. The SD is unchanged by multiple those samples.
As I keep pointing our, you cannot change a cheap +/-5.0c thermometer into a +/-0.01c one. The range of results it achieves is still +/-5.0c even if, by many samples, you can improve the central figure.
Do you accept that if there is a frost or not will have a serious impact on air temperatures?
Do you also accept that measurements taken at 1.5m will be unable to predict that?
RLH,
Can you publish your global mean temperature dataset with accompany uncertainty analysis showing that monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies have an error as high as you claim?
BTW…the uncertainty on monthly mean anomalies is about +/- 0.05C. It is the warming trend that I feel is about +/- 0.01C/decade based on the output from Excel’s LINEST function and the how closely the various datasets agree with one another.
bdgwx,
You might like:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/
I can show you the errors on met office sites in the UK. I haven’t got round to doing the whole world yet. That will take some time 🙂
Modern thermometers show that taking hourly temps using medians when compered to (min+max)/2 show deviations of at least that much.
Why don’t you try it on 03772 and see for yourself.
Well done Willard. Any critique of the methodology used? Any observations on the use of gaussian sampling?
You do know that signal processing techniques work jus as well on Plate tectonics as they do on Rader (and temperatures)?
Let me remind you of a little something, Richard:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-423439
Seems that we almost already met!
“the uncertainty on monthly mean anomalies is about +/- 0.05C.”
If you can get the SD down to that then you are a magician. SD not the mean. Not even the thermometers in a weather station are that accurate. And no, you can’t just take a 1000,000 samples and improve things. It is like claiming you can draw thinner lines with a felt tip pen by drawing many lines with it. Not going to happen
You might like to note that Vaughan Pratt helped me with coefficients. Not like he’s important at all.
You mention Vaughan’s name at the start of your post, Richard. He still responds to his email if you need more help. Vaughan acts like a scientist, whereas you act like a SCIENCE ™ guy.
My point wasn’t about your filter, you know.
You can do better.
I know he does. Had any replies from him lately?
Last month.
“Can you publish your global mean temperature dataset with accompany uncertainty analysis showing that monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies have an error as high as you claim?”
One station at a time.
Found the hourly temperatures for the UK yet? Found 03772? Want to do an independent calculation of 24 hour medians to compare to the (min+max)/2 traditionally used? Just to confirm that what I say is true?
> One station at a time.
Why tho.
Because validating a database and methodology takes time.
No worries.
Take your time.
ball4…”Yesterdays article for present day summary of space-time history:
https://www.space.com/time-how-it-works?utm_source=notification”
***
I am wondering if any of you alarmists have the slightest ability to think for yourselves. The article at your link is utter rubbish. They talk about an arrow of time that began with the universe at the Big Bang.
Come on, this is not that difficult for anyone who wants to move from the prison of conditioned cult mentality to the freedom of intelligence and awareness.
From the link:
“One of these brings in the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the second law. This states that everything in the universe wants to move from low to high entropy, or from uniformity to disorder, beginning with simplicity at the Big Bang and moving to the almost random arrangement of galaxies and their inhabitants in the present day. This is known as the arrow of time, or sometimes times arrow, likely coined by British astronomer Arthur Eddington in 1928, analytic philosopher Huw Price said at Sminaire Poincar in 2006”.
The 2nd law states nothing about entropy and Clausius made it clear when he formulated the 2nd law that he invented entropy afterward. The two were separate entities, with the 2nd law stated in words then entropy invented to give the 2nd law a mathematical meaning. Idiots, like the author at the link above, have re-invented the meaning of entropy and gotten it seriously wrong, especially in relation to the 2nd law.
Clausius stated the 2nd law as: heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. He then defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat over a process. One puts a limit on the direction of heat transfer and the other indicates the amount of heat transfer.
Clausius did note that irreversible processes represent a positive entropy and he added that such process led to disorder rather than order. He said nothing about the 2nd law being defined based on entropy. Entropy is a summation of heat transfers and has nothing to do with a measure of disorder.
In the same article, the author talks about space-time and he uses entropy as an example of that. The author talks about time as a real, physical entity, which reveals him as an idiot who cannot think for himself. Time has no physical substance simply because it does not exist.
If it’s not physical, or energy, it’s not there.
Time, in the way described by the author, is a mental concept based on the propensity of the mind to retain experiences in memory and order them chronologically. In school, and from parents and peer groups, we are taught history that is someone else’s mental recollection. Without history books, or story-tellers who tell tales of s distorted past, we would know nothing of the past. The past does not exist except in memories.
Time itself was invented based on the periodic rotation of the Earth. That is the basis of our time in seconds, minutes, hours, and the 24 hour day. That invention is reflected in lines of longitude, which correspond to those hours, minutes, and seconds as distances.
Einstein made a huge error when he claimed…in a thought experiment…that time can dilate. His mistake was created by his insistence on using kinematics to describe motion rather than basing it on forces and masses. He relied on the acceleration in motion which has a time factor and he incorrectly described time as “the hands on a clock”.
Louis Essen, an expert on time, who invented the atomic clock, described Einsteins theory on relativity as not a theory but a collection of thought experiments. He added that Einstein did not understand measurement.
So, all the Einstein groupies will rush out of their dark corners to defend his theories without stopping to consider what time is…a constant based on the rotation of the Earth.
Time cannot dilate because it does not exist. As it is defined, it is the change of radial distance moved by the Earth as it rotates.
There are Einstein groupies in universities today teaching naive students that gravity is not a force but a space-time anomaly. Universities are slowly becoming looney bins.
Spacetime would be best written as
{{x,x,z},t} or {{r,theta,varphi},t}
unlike the way most people think of them.
There are indeed 4 dimensions. But they fall it 2 distinct groups.
Gordon 1:34 am: “The 2nd law states nothing about entropy and Clausius made it clear when he formulated the 2nd law that he invented entropy afterward.”
You are wrong here Gordon just like much of your writing is made up & incorrect as I have pointed out to you before without your learning the truth. See Mechanical Theory of Heat p. 365 ninth memoir in R. Clausius’ own written words 1865:
“…the two fundamental theorems of the mechanical theory of heat.
1. The energy of the universe is constant
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum”
Ball4 at 9:33 AM
Agreed. Gordon Robertson is either pathological or has the reading comprehension of a child.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Space is infinite, also time is infinite…
Space is not a substance, neither space is volume.
The same is for time.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Time is a different dimensional type to space. Science fiction has blurred the two but they are still quite distinct.
Yes, they are different…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s way too complicated to root around in. Care to url a specific page?
> Space is not a substance, neither space is volume.
More generally, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, wisdom is not truth, truth is not beauty, beauty is not love, love is not music, and music is not Climateball.
Climateball is THE BEST.
Wayward Wee Willy,
You mean slimeball, don’t you? That’s the sort of thing you could be good at!
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Not sure why are you pretending to know what I mean better than I do, but do continue!
Willard, please stop trolling.
This endlessly repeated trash about time, time dilation, Einstein and Essen is incredible.
No wonder: some prefer to look at contrarian information about that, and there is a lot of.
For example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341219289_EINSTEIN'S_TERRIBLE_TWINS_and_Other_Tales_of_Relativistic_Woe
or
http://beyondmainstream.org/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/
and many many others.
*
For those who prefer to look at more credible info:
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Neil Ashby (2003)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
But, as we all know: That’s ‘appeal to authority’, isn’t it?
J.-P. D.
Do you know the difference between apparent measurements and actual ones?
RLH
Your question is exactly as clear as most of your claims.
Try to formulate something in direct relation to my comment, instead of pompous hand waving.
Do you understand the actual measurements are impossible to achieve on anything but a relatively short distance?
Apparent (as measured by light etc.) are all that are possible.
And yet all the time people claim to use actual measurements to support their thinking.
RLH [second and last trial]
Your reply is exactly as clear as most of your claims.
Try to formulate something in direct relation to my comment, instead of pompous hand waving.
If you don’t understand that then there is little hope for. You obviously spout things that you do not understand. Such as Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Neil Ashby (2003)
WUWT is known as a clearly anti AGW community.
But there, the average brain mass per anti AGW commenter seems to bypass that of this blog. By dimensions.
*
An interesting answer of Rudi Istvan, a regular WUWT guest editor, to a deeply uneducated guy, concerning GPS:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/28/the-radiation-fight/#comment-3256640
Istvan’s comment part on GPS ends with:
” Newton’s truth is good enough to figure the GPS orbit, but not the GPS atomic clock net error. ”
Apart from that GPS detail, the rest of Eschenbach’s thread (head post + comments) is, as Entropic man noted, quite interesting.
But, as we all know: Ignoramuses keep ignorant, because they are all appealing to the (un)authority of those who want to keep them ignorant.
J.-P. D.
Brave Sir Rud.
On energy matters he’s not too bad, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/06/11/clean-coal-2/
For other things a bit less, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/18/sea-level-rise-tipping-points/
Colorful enough to have earned his nick, so no harm done.
Do you know what causes the biggest errors in GPS? As received on the ground?
Do you understand the actual measurements are impossible to achieve on anything but a relatively short distance?
Apparent (as measured by light etc.) are all that are possible.
And yet all the time people claim to use actual measurements to support their thinking.
Richard Linsley Hood
Your texts are (probably intentionally) very nebulous.
Now let me ask you two questions, with as much precision as possible.
1. Are you – please answer with yes or no, nothing in between – doubting about Moon’s rotation about an interior axis, as was
– observed since millennia
– first proven in 1750, through observations and computations, by the German astronomer Tobias Mayer, and then
– proven again and again during centuries, till today using Lunar Laser Ranging?
2. Dou you doubt about the accuracy of this Lunar Laser Ranging, despite its use since 40 years, giving more and more precise results?
Thanks for a CLEAR answer to both questions.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you still want to avoid reality.
Moon has NOT been observed rotating about its axis “since millennia”. “Observations and computations” would indicate that Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. Lunar Laser Ranging, in fact, proves Moon is NOT rotating about its axis, as the radar reflectors always face toward Earth.
You are obsessed with defending your false idol, NASA.
> Observations and computations
Where, Pup?
NASA?
Did NASA exist in 1750?
At that time, Tobias Mayer computed, using
– data from an own, two-year observation of the Moon
– Newton’s differential equations
– spherical trigonometry
– algebra
both the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis, and its rotation period.
On page 168 of his treatise
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
we all can see the result of his computation for this period:
27 days 7 hours 43 minutes 11 seconds 49 sixtieths of a second
that is, in decimal days
27.3216645446 days
to be compared with the most recent results using Lunar Laser Ranging
27.321661 days
what means that Mayer’s computation was identical to the LLR results till the FIFTH position after the decimal point.
*
Clint R, you can run and rant against Mayer as long as you want, and write your simple-minded claim
” You are obsessed with defending your false idol, NASA
as long as you want.
That won’t change ANYTHING. There was no NASA in 1750.
*
And Robertson’s utter nonsense about Mayer:
” Of course, after pushing Meiers fudged data alleging the Moon rotates on its axis, you would not know the difference. ”
won’t change anything too.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, if Moon were actually rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth. This is not really that hard.
The problem is you are obsessed with your cult so much you reject reality. Like Entropic man, you would swear that passenger jets fly backwards.
Any perversion to support your cult, huh?
Clint R
You know it better than thousands and thousands of people who understood that we see the same side of the Moon because it rotates at the same speed as it orbits.
You are the definitive genius.
We are all so proud of you!
Thank you for that.
J.-P. D.
Indeed the moon has a rotational axis about which it rotates. Demonstrably so.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-710012
“You are obsessed with defending your false idol, NASA.”
Conspiracy nut in sight.
“1. Are you please answer with yes or no, nothing in between doubting about Moons rotation about an interior axis, as was
observed since millennia
first proven in 1750, through observations and computations, by the German astronomer Tobias Mayer, and then
proven again and again during centuries, till today using Lunar Laser Ranging?”
Yes
“2. Dou you doubt about the accuracy of this Lunar Laser Ranging, despite its use since 40 years, giving more and more precise results?”
Yes.
Ai I have been constantly saying if you bothered to concentrate.
“2. Dou you doubt about the accuracy of this Lunar Laser Ranging, despite its use since 40 years, giving more and more precise results?
Yes.” That should have been NO. I believe that the laser ranger is accurate and useful. Reading too quickly is my only defense.
I used an example of weight throwing in a field event. The ball and string continue to rotate about their own central axis long after it has left the thrower. Thus proving they have rotational momentum of their own around that axis.
The hammer throw event misleads some, as the tension of the “string” creates a torque.
Release the orbiting object without creating a torque, and it does not spin. Newton used the example of a cannonball.
You keep on quoting Newton without any actual quotes. Newton tells us all about rotational inertia. Which the moon most definitely has about its own axis.
“the tension of the string creates a torque.”
You do recognize that any torque is radial not tangential don’t you?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-710012
Richard Linsley Hood
Understood.
So you manifestly belong to the True Specialists
– Robertson
– Swenson
– Clint R
– Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
and a few others.
Danke, das war’s.
J.-P. D.
I have a running fight with DREMT so I’m hardly on his side.
Clint R and I have had a few brushes too.
Are you sure that I am against real science? You seem to think I am.
Richard Linsley Hood
No idea what you are fighting about with these truly knowledgeable gentlemen.
You gave a clear, doubly negative answer to questions concerning real science: wrt the lunar spin.
That is not a matter of taste or personal opinion, Sir.
So yes: I am sure that you are, in that case, against real science.
J.-P. D.
I believe that the Moon rotates about its own axis, once for each orbit of the Erath.
I believe that the laser ranger provides an accurate distance between the Earth and the Moon.
It would help if you didn’t employ double negatives as well.
Richard Linsley Hood
RLH will do. It served well for JLH so I continue with it.
Richard Linsley Hood
Ok, so we backtrack. No problem for me.
I don’t see where I wrote wrong, but should I be the origin of our complete misunderstanding, I immediately apologise.
J.-P. D.
RHL
OK.
I too correct myself when I see the errors in what I write
This is the ideal thread for all you greenhouse effect deniers.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/28/the-radiation-fight/
Let’s see how long it takes before someone rejects the law of conservation of energy. One of the posters on there is really close to it so it might not take long.
bdgwx, have you learned that flux is not conserved yet?
Or are you still trying to fake a knowledge of physics?
Please do the chicken again, Pup!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perpetual motors work well so I’m told
RLH,
NASA can help out here. From a NASA site –
“Finally, a net of about 17 percent of incoming solar energy leaves the surface as thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by atoms and molecules on the surface. This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%).”
A miracle – I think.
But then, NASA go on to say –
“The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called back radiation) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.”
So, another miracle? When you stand in sunlight, it is back radiation keeping you warm – 100% of incoming solar energy. Step into the shade, the back radiation seems to diminish markedly – I must have missed the physics behind that. And at night, maybe the 100% or 117% or something turns into front radiation, or sideways twirly whirly radiation. The temperature certainly falls.
As Richard Feynman concluded a damning report about NASA once –
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
NASA is pretty good at fooling people, if not Nature.
> I must have missed the physics behind that
https://www.pa.uky.edu/sciworks/xtra/shy.htm
Wily Wee Willy Idiot,
Post your link to NASA if you think they need some help. NASA might listen to you – some of the people there are not terribly bright.
As for me, I don’t bother clicking on links from someone who is too lazy or incompetent to do anything else than post links with no supporting explanation. That is usually sign of an idiot troll, like you.
Mike Flynn,
Did you know that gas cooking worsened asthma in kids?
https://theconversation.com/gas-cooking-is-associated-with-worsening-asthma-in-kids-but-proper-ventilation-helps-151591
Wondering Wee Willy,
Why do you want to know?
Or are you just being an idiotic troll?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Why do you want to know?”
Because natural gas is dear to you.
No?
Woeful Wee Willy,
So you don’t really want to know, you just want to troll.
Fair enough. Troll away. Am I supposed to care what an idiot wants to do?
Mike Flynn,
Let’s get to the chase –
As a Sky Dragon, you’re the troll here.
The best you could do in your illustrious Climateball career is to become a Rottweiler Puppy:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/rottweilerpuppy.htm
You’ll never become a Top Dog.
This is a Good Thing.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willis doesn’t understand the science, but he’s honest about it. He provides 4 examples, where he doesn’t understand. But, he’s trying. The first step to understanding is to face reality. He’s ready to learn, if he would get off WUWT.
That’s where you lost it by trying to claim passenger jets fly backwards.
Your false religion is more important to you than reality.
Go tell Willis, Pup.
Make sure to QUOTE HIM.
Clint R
If you had balls enough (or, like elder Spanish women love to say, ‘cojones’), you would write a head post scientifically contradicting Willis Eschenbach, and present it at WUWT.
But… your problem, Clint R, is that you lack not only
– cojones
but also
– any knowledge to do the job.
Det er den avslørte sannheten, Clint R .
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, are you implying that Willis is afraid to come here?
Or are you just fixated on male genitalia?
Clint R
No!
I’m just implying that YOU ARE AFRAID TO GO TO WUWT.
Btw, I know some women who have a lot more brain… and ‘cojones’ than you.
This attribute has nothing to do with ‘male genitalia’; that in turn is known only to males having some.
J.-P. D.
When was the last time Joe has been seen at Tony’s, JP?
Willard
No idea. I don’t pay any attention to the one, let alone to the other.
Fair enough, JP. I’ll check later.
Perhaps Clint could convince Joe to come here, then?
Nice to see two idiots wasting each others’ time on irrelevancies.
[Chuckle]
Mike “Be Relevant” Flynn Hath Spoken!
Probly this one:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/04/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-2716850
Willard, please stop trolling.
Binny,
Why should Clint take your advice about anything at all? You appear to be an idiot, and a thuggish standover idiot to boot.
Maybe I should see how you react to the rubbish you dish out to others –
Binny
If you had balls enough (or, like elder Spanish women love to say, cojones), you would prepare a scientific description of the “Greenhouse Effect”, telling where it may be observed and measured.
But because you haven’t got the brains (or, like elder Spanish women love to say, ‘cabron’), you just make stupid demands of other people.
So just keep stomping round with your jackboots and riding crop, trying to appear intelligent. I enjoy a good laugh.
Flynnson
I’m so terribly impressed!
J.-P. D.
We shouldn’t deny idiocy?
Why are these strange denialists here always speaking about ‘false religion‘ ?
The guy nicknamed ‘JD*Huffman’ did exactly the same until he got banned.
Germans would see this as a ‘Freudian slip of the tongue’.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Are “strange denialists” different from ordinary “denialists”?
What is it that either is “denying”?
Do you deny you are an idiot? Does that make you a denier, or a strange denier?
Wait, Mike Flynn –
Are you suggesting that we have a scientific consensus on JP’s mental states?
Willard, please stop trolling.
If there are “strange” denialists, are there also “up, “down” and “bottom” denialists?
Or are you uncertain?
EM,
And possibly top and charmed (probably not charming) denialists. I’m definitely uncertain – in principle at least. Is Wondering Wee Willy’s Puppy similar to Schrdinger’s cat?
Sorry if I have misunderstood your play on words. It can be fun, sharing a bit of humour.
No offence intended.
You got my drift.
This bloody place could do with some humour.
Ha, ha : )
Binny wrote –
“Im just implying that YOU ARE AFRAID TO GO TO WUWT.”
Really, Binny (or, as the old Spanish women would say, ‘el stupid gringo’), who cares what you are implying? Why would anybody pay much attention to some dimwit who obviously doesn’t realise that they are powerless, impotent, and idiotic!
Your taunts are falling on barren ground, by the look of it. Maybe you need to be told by Wailling Wee Willy how to play “silly semantic games”.
Ho, ho, ho!
Keep it up, Binny.
Glad you mention silly semantic games, Mike Flynn.
Here’s one:
You’ll never guess who wrote that!
Strange Wee Willy,
And?
Mike Flynn,
It’s *you* who wrote that.
That’s who.
Very Strange Wee Willy,
And? Why wouldn’t I be able to guess who wrote it, if I wrote it?
Are you quite mad, laddie?
Mike Flynn,
i’m glad you ask –
“And?”
And your comment is the perfect example of a silly semantic game.
Would you like fries with that?
Wee Willy Witless,
You wrote –
“Would you like fries with that?”
Are you confused, maybe having a delusional episode? Or are you at work taking orders for fast food?
Mike Flynn,
Are you really that stupid?
Srsly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You 2 still at it?
Wow.
Langsam kommt unser Flynnson so richtig in Fahrt.
Did he sniff some lines of coke? He looks as untamed as a young stallion.
Weiter so, Flynnson!
J.-P. D.
Nicht langsam.
I barely have time to even comment, but Bindidon and Willard can respond in minutes. And now, RLH is throwing out stuff he can’t support, or even understand.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Newton provided us with the knowledge to understand a ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without axial rotation”. This is the motion we observe with Moon.
So Bindidion, Willard, and RLH need to provide a model of “orbiting without axial rotation”, if they disbelieve Newton. Some have tried, but their incompetent model would have passenger jets flying backwards, when circumnavigating Earth.
Want to try again, Bindidon, Willard, or RLH? What’s your model of “orbiting without axial rotation”?
> Want to try again,
Where did I try at first, Puppy?
Willard has nothing, except his usual troll nonsense.
FAIL #!
You’re the one baiting me here, Puppy.
Whine all you want troll, but it’s not my fault you’re ignorant.
Baiting is trolling, Puppy.
Swallowing bait is your choice, troll.
Don’t blame others for your incompetence and ignorance.
(I’ll stop feeding the troll now.)
So telling you I won’t fall for your bait falls for your bait.
Another Kafkatrap!
DAMN YOU PUPPY!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Googling for “orbiting without axial rotation” leads one to
“Tidal locking (also called gravitational locking, captured rotation and spin–orbit locking), in the best-known case, occurs when an orbiting astronomical body always has the same face toward the object it is orbiting. This is known as synchronous rotation: the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. For example, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, although there is some variability because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular. Usually, only the satellite is tidally locked to the larger body.[1] However, if both the difference in mass between the two bodies and the distance between them are relatively small, each may be tidally locked to the other; this is the case for Pluto and Charon.”
RLH desperately does a search, hoping to find something that will work. But instead, he finds more nonsense.
FAIL #2
(He should have searched “Tidal Locking, Debunked”.)
Well that turned up
“Given enough time, all the planets will become tidally locked with the Sun. The timescale involved though are in the billions – trillions of years (for the outer planets). How fast a planet becomes tidally locked depends on the mass of the star and the distance from the planet to the star.”
RLH, if you understood physics, you would understand that “tidal locking” does not work. It’s been debunked, here. Go back and search about 5-6 months ago. The heading is:
“Tidal Locking” Debunked
Googling that phrase just shows multiple results showing that satellite (and planet) tidal locking is a well understood phenomena.
“Tidal locking” is an example of how cults work. “Everyone believes it” is NOT science.
Tidal locking is easily debunked. Gravity can NOT produce a torque on a sphere.
But it can in the water on a sphere. Like the oceans and their tides. Where do you think that energy comes from?
Works for the globe we inhabit too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
Where does that energy come from?
Again:
“Tidal locking” is an example of how cults work. “Everyone believes it” is NOT science.
Tidal locking is easily debunked. Gravity can NOT produce a torque on a sphere.
I can only lead a horse to water. I can’t make the horse drink.
So where does the energy for the tides, water and land, come from then?
“Gravity can NOT produce a torque on a sphere.”
But it can raise the land by about 1m or so and the water above it a lot more.
Tidal locking is easily debunked. Gravity can NOT produce a torque on a sphere.
I can only lead a horse to water. I can’t make the horse drink.
Tidal locking is caused by the tides. Who knew?
Clint R
” What’s your model of ‘orbiting without axial rotation’ ? ”
Why the heck should I propose utter nonsense?
Like all celestial bodies, Moon orbits and rotates since its birth in an accretion disk.
J.-P. D.
Poor Bindidon has nothing but his false beliefs.
FAIL #3
So where does the energy for the tides, land and ocean, come from then?
You still don’t understand the issue, RLH.
What? How tides could slow down the Moon’s rotation and thus leave it tidally locked? The clue is in the name.
Earth tides do not affect Moon.
Moon affects Earth tides.
You have no clue about the issue, or orbital motion, or physics. Your understanding of Nyquist is only to the wikipedia level.
I’m more and more convinced you’re just another lonely troll. There are 3-4 like you already here. Get in line.
“Your understanding of Nyquist is only to the wikipedia level.”
Sure. It’s not like I have done any signal processing before
Recently, John Christy repeated an exercise he first made in 2018, in which he had shown the distribution of daily maxima recorded by USHCN stations, indicating in his opinion that there would be currently no significant warming in the contiguous US in comparison with earlier, warmer periods, because the years with the highest numbers of maxima per station appeared in earlier times, especially in the 1930’s.
At that time, commenter Billy Bob asked for a global figure, and I made one I wrote many times about. I won’t come back to that old stuff here.
*
The focus of John Christy’s new paper was this time to demonstrate, by using a very similar scheme, a decrease of both extreme hot and cold events in CONUS (his paper about that is available only in the Web Archive):
https://tinyurl.com/11wxlmzl
*
In his evaluation, I missed something: namely how, near the lowest minima, the highest minima do behave.
{ The reason why I missed such information has to do with the hard heat wave in Europe in 2003, especially in France: at that time, the nights seemed sometimes warmer than the days. }
It would have been easy to make a third bar chart showing these highest minima.
Instead, I thought it would be better to use as always line plots instead of bars, allowing us for easier comparison.
Moreover, all values were uniformly scaled to percentiles, making comparisons between both plots in a graph and among graphs even easier.
*
Here you see a graph with data very similar to John Christy’s, but using GHCN daily station data instead of USHCN, all with at least 100 years of data as well:
https://i.postimg.cc/sDvCHwqx/GHCN-daily-CONUS-maxima-minima-nogrid-percentiles-1895-2020.png
And here you see why I wanted to collect high minimas: together with the highest number of maxima per year, recorded in 1934 and 1936, you see also the highest number of highest minima.
The highest minima increase over time since the 1970’s.
Why? Find it out.
*
Now I repeated the job I had done some years ago, i.e. an extension of John Christy’s analysis from CONUS up to the Globe, of course still using stations with at least 100 years of data.
A first chart, made in the same technical way as that for CONUS above, shows this:
https://i.postimg.cc/0QzD6grD/GHCN-daily-Globe-maxima-minima-nogrid-percentiles-1895-2020.png
Oooh! Some will say, ” The Globe looks like CONUS, as I expected. ”
Sorry for disappointing. In the graph above, the CONUS stations account for about 80 % of the data, thus letting the Globe appear like CONUS’ backyard.
When applying now an area weighting scheme on the base of e.g. a 2.5 degree grid like that of UAH, the data is first averaged in grid cells before computing the yearly averages.
Thus, while in the previous graph 300 stations in a grid cell had 300 times the weight as a single station in another grid cell, the latter now has the same weight as the former 300.
We then see this instead:
https://i.postimg.cc/28bcsJwq/GHCN-daily-Globe-maxima-minima-grid-percentiles-1895-2020.png
*
No: this is not at all a ‘new view’ on global temperatures.
It is no more than applying John Christy’s presentation of the distribution of daily temperature maxima / minima from CONUS up to the Globe as a whole.
*
What I now would like to see, is a similar exercise, proving for example that using worldwide, for daily temperature measurement, thermometers giving
– the daily mean of hourly measurements
instead of
– the mean of the daily minimum and maximum
would give such a huge difference as shown in the exercise above.
Go on! Do the job.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
You wrote –
“What I now would like to see, . . . ”
I’m sure you would. Just like I would like to know when you think the seas will boil dry. My reason is that you seem to get perturbed when I suggest that trends can stop, or even reverse, without notice.
Presumably, you are not claiming that you have wasted all your time and effort analysing history for no reason at all. When will your warming trend stop, and why?
You probably can’t actually look into the future at all, can you?
People like Flynnson are simply dense; they drool for no reason.
The best is to ignore their endless trash.
Binny,
So you really believe your silly trends will continue indefinitely? The seas will boil away within 10,000 years?
No wonder you are reduced to silly ad homs!
Carry on!
“What I now would like to see, is a similar exercise, proving for example that using worldwide, for daily temperature measurement, thermometers giving
the daily mean of hourly measurements
instead of
the mean of the daily minimum and maximum
would give such a huge difference as shown in the exercise above.”
Actually, for statistical reasons, I am using the daily median of hourly measurements.
That exercise is already underway.
So far only 27 stations, in the UK mostly, are covered.
And the results so far show that +/-3.0c is an underestimate!
Make that 47
Make that 64
Make that 4700+ and counting
This guy Willis Eschenbach is a real piece of work, look what he said,
“Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object? Short answer? Of course not, that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics —BUT it can leave the hot object warmer than it would be if the cold object weren’t there”
He claims two opposite contradicting outcomes for the same scenario – in one sentence, as if twisting the words around a little made it something else.
He literally says in the second half of sentence that cold object makes the hot object even warmer , which in the first half of the sentence he says breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Bizarro planet science at its finest
E,
Strange lad, Willis. Has sucked himself into the belief that a reduction in the rate of cooling is heating. And, obviously, heating results in a rise in temperature!
Except, of course, it doesn’t. These donkeys would have you believe that the intense “back radiation” in a vacuum flask would make the contents hotter. Except it doesn’t.
The donkeys have a problem explaining how the Earth cooled from its presumably molten state. No atmosphere? OK then, what about before the first liquid water formed. Plenty of atmosphere, plenty of that most important “GHG” H2O, all gaseous.
But the surface continued to cool. So sad, too bad. That’s Nature for you.
Has sucked himself into the belief that a reduction in the rate of cooling is heating.
So a reduction in the rate of cooling is what then?
RLH,
A reduction in the rate of cooling. How else would you describe it?
As in a cup of hot soup at say 80 C in a 20 C environment might take a certain time to reach equilibrium with its 20 C surroundings.
A cup of that hot soup placed into a vacuum flask will take a longer period of time to reach equilibrium with those same surroundings.
The greater the insulating effect, the lower the rate of cooling.
No heating – that is, the temperature of your soup does not increase, it merely cools more slowly.
Please let me know if you disagree, but more importantly, why. I would appreciate examples which don’t include internal heating. Heating the Earth’s surface by the Sun is not internal heating, of course. This is just diversionary nonsense used by alarmists. Any normal person will realise that any solar heating during the day, is dissipated at night, during winter, or whatever.
IS it not true that a reduction in the rate of cooling by using insulation could be also modelled as a small heater being placed their instead?
> “…any solar heating during the day, is dissipated at night, during winter, or whatever.”
What I would like to add, that solar heating during the day is dissipated at first during the day heating process.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
RLH,
No, because insulation provides no heat. Alarmists always avoid reality, and invoke magic to create increasing temperatures without the input of additional energy.
I take it you cannot find any factual basis for disagreeing with me.
Thank you.
How can you tell if a reduced heat loss is due to insulation or to a small, not vey powerful, heater placed there instead?
RLH, you do not understand thermodynamics. Insulation adds NO new energy to the system. An additional heater does add new energy to the system.
RLH,
Because any “small, not very powerful heaters” in the atmosphere exist only in your imagination, unless they can be observed and measured.
Heaters powered by an infinite supply of magic dont actually exist, you know.
So how do you model an insulation layer then?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-710410
In air, dummy.
–Eben says:
May 28, 2021 at 8:09 PM
This guy Willis Eschenbach is a real piece of work, look what he said,
“Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object? Short answer? Of course not, that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics —BUT it can leave the hot object warmer than it would be if the cold object weren’t there”
He claims two opposite contradicting outcomes for the same scenario – in one sentence, as if twisting the words around a little made it something else.–
If the cold object were an equally hot as the other hot object,
both hot objects cool slower than than the 1 hot object or a hot and cold object.
Just the large thermal mass of our atmosphere cools slower than an atmosphere of 1/2 it’s mass.
Though the 1/2 mass atmosphere would heat up faster during day than the larger mass atmosphere.
“BUT it can leave the hot object warmer than it would be if the cold object werent there”
Based on the radiative heat transfer law, which states that radiative heat flow from an object depends on its temperature AND the temperature of its surroundings.
If the object has a heat input, which Im sure was the intent, then this statement above is quite literally TRUE.
So precisely what is the problem with it, you guys?
Nate, there is no such thing as the “radiative heat transfer law”.
You’re perverting science, again.
“which Im sure was the intent”
Either way, it’s obfuscation which you are so good at.
“Has sucked himself into the belief that a reduction in the rate of cooling is heating.”
So a reduction in the rate of cooling is what then?
RLH,
A reduction in the rate of cooling. How else would you describe it? Cooling is a decrease in temperature between two successive points in time.
Not heating, unless you are a “climate scientist”!
Can it be modeled as so though?
Rather than insulate, have a small heater there instead.
RLH,
No, not at all. Insulation is not a “small heater”, any more than “a reduction in the rate of cooling” is “an increase in temperature”.
Wishful thinking is not reality.
I didn’t say it WAS a heater. I asked if it could be modeled AS a heater.
Again RLH, a heater adds new energy to a system. Insulation does NOT add energy to a system.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Can it be modeled as so though?
Rather than insulate, have a small heater there instead.”
I said “No”, and gave my reasons.
I assumed you were talking about the Earth. You are free to “model” anything you wish, in any fashion you like. It won’t achieve anything of use, in all likelihood.
What is wrong with observing reality? What part remains a mystery? Why look for magical explanations of non-existent “effects”, that no-one can even consistently describe?
But back to your original question –
“So a reduction in the rate of cooling is what then?” Cooling. No increase in temperature.
Model that any way you like.
“Again RLH, a heater adds new energy to a system. Insulation does NOT add energy to a system.”
A small, relatively low in temperature heater will exhibit the same characteristics as insulation when observed from the body in question.
“So a reduction in the rate of cooling is what then? Cooling. No increase in temperature.”
But the rate of loss has slowed. How do you explain that if not by modelling it as an equivalent heat gain?
RLH, when you ignore info like “”Again RLH, a heater adds new energy to a system. Insulation does NOT add energy to a system.”, it indicates you have no interest in learning.
I’m just asking how you would model and insulation layer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-710410
So how would you model an insulation layer then?
Fourier already did that:
Q = kA(Th – Tc)/d
That is is thermal conductivity.
In free air is a lot more difficult because hot air rises and clod air falls. Then there is the tricky thing about moisture in the air.
Now you’re moving the goalposts.
That’s more akin to trolling than learning.
No. You were being selective in your responses
Yes, I select “reality”.
You deny science and all who support it on a continuous basis
Just one example of me denying science, RLH?
If you can’t provide one, then your irresponsible statement is retracted by default.
Where does the energy for the tides come from if not from the Moon or its rotation originally (for the largest tides that is)?
Give me one example where I’ve denied science, RLH.
Quit trying to cover your tracks.
Ball on a stick represents the Moon’s orbit
???
You appear to be several wheels short of a buggy, RLH.
RLH
I’m afraid that like me, you don’t accept TRUE Science.
In TRUE Science, things like fluxes and temperatures not only don’t add (which we can grasp), nor can you subtract them, let alone – Vade Retro, Satanas! – average them.
Even the UAH temperature record is therefore pure heresy from the point of view of the TRUE Science’s pure doctrine.
The major rule here is that, if the temperature increases somewhere, this delta is added to Earth’s warming account; but if it decreases less, the delta is subtracted from Earth’s cooling account.
Both accounts have by definition nothing in common.
It’s as simple as that, like the ball-on-a-string.
The only way to the Holy Truth, RLH, is KISS: to Keep It Simple, Stoopid.
It’s hard to accept, but… it is, as it is.
J.-P. D.
KISS is one of my philosophies. As I try to do with global air temperatures
Bindidon, where’s your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
The answer is “You don’t have one”.
You’ve got nothing, except your false beliefs and personal attacks.
Where does the energy for the tides, land and sea, come from?
Do you even understand the issue, RLH?
Do you?
There is a very strong greenhouse warming effect on planet Venus surface.
The greenhouse warming effect on Earth surface is so much insignificant because it is 10000 times less than that on Venus.
Earth atmosphere is very thin to have any greenhouse warming effect on the Earth surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Well the “strong” greenhouse effect is due to sulfuric acid droplets.
These droplets are not a gas, but the sulfuric acid droplets are called a greenhouse gas.
“bdgwx says:
Can you publish your global mean temperature dataset with accompany uncertainty analysis showing that monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies have an error as high as you claim?”
I am working my way through the UK at first, one station at a time.
How many stations do I have to find are significantly in error when comparing median hourly temperatures to (min+max)/2 for you to take notice?
Won’t they all be in error?
The median is a single value in the centre of a probability distribution, defined as having 50% of samples of higher value and 50% of lower value. All the other values will be higher or lower.
Incidentally, I checked and my earlier definition of median as halfway between the maximum and minimum values turned out to be wrong.
If you’re ve been checking stations to see if the median temperature is halfway between Tmax and Tmin you’ve been wasting your time.
“The median is a single value in the centre of a probability distribution, defined as having 50% of samples of higher value and 50% of lower value. All the other values will be higher or lower.”
Did you ever notice that means only works for normal distributions? In all other distributions the median is considered better. Statistics wise.
Question, have you done any study of the hourly temperature distributions during a day? Do you that is a normal distribution?
“Question, have you done any study of the hourly temperature distributions during a day? Do you that is a normal distribution? ”
If you plot temperature against time over 24 hours the curve is approximately a sine wave.
If you plot sample measurements of amplitude from a sine wave as a frequency distribution you get a normal distribution.
Thus I would expect a large sample of hourly data to show a normal distribution.
“If you plot temperature against time over 24 hours the curve is approximately a sine wave.”
Not even close to that. Trust me, I’ve looked at loads of them
So how come the median and the mean for a days worth of hourly temperatures differ so much then? Around +/-3.0c or worse.
A sinusoid does not produce a normal distribution. However it’s mean is = (Tmax + Tmin)/2.
Try using that method to find the mean temperature for a month in one city, vs. using all the hourly temperatures.
I’ll bet the difference will be negligible compared to the deviations of a given month from the historical mean.
So why does the median and the mean of daily hourly figures for the stations vary as much as it does?
“Try using that method to find the mean temperature for a month in one city, vs. using all the hourly temperatures.”
Give me a city along with its hourly temperature stations
Not enough to just declare it is a real issue. If you think it makes a sig difference, show us the evidence.
I am in the process of doing so
As was pointed out upthread, the central limit theorem causes datasets with large sample sizes to approximate to normal distributions. Climate datasets have large enough sample sizes to show normal distributions and can be statistically treated as such.
We are talking about 24 hourly readings ion a day, which is not large in any sense.
n is 24 for one day’s data. That is a small sample, but combine hourly data for many days and/or many stations and you get a large sample.
We are only dealing with one days data to create an ‘average’ temperature for that day. To chose either median or mean for that day at that station.
RLH
” How many stations do I have to find are significantly in error when comparing median hourly temperatures to (min+max)/2 for you to take notice? ”
For me, 100 units is a strict minimum.
GHCN daily has 164 TAVG stations for Germany, compared with 1074 for TMIN/TMAX.
I tried yesterday to obtain a TAVG series for CONUS: it was a disaster. Lots of holes everywhere.
And there are currently 3233 TAVG and 19344 TMIN/TMAX stations…
J.-P. D.
Damn. I only have 74 right now. I am trying to automate things to make that a much better rate of collection.
I am starting with the UK stations but if you can send me a list (in csv format) for the ones you would like to include please do. Only active hourly stations please. And WMO station number in the first column
TAVG (assuming it comes from (min+max)/2 needs an at least +/-3.0c uncertainty adding as a range for those stations. TMIN/TMAX probably likewise. Hourly is the best.
Got that up to 88 before I ran out of UK stations. Got another country list I can add? Must be hourly remember.
RlH
Sorry… for that job I won’t help.
Eschenbach has proven thru a good analysis how meaningless it is to use hourly data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/14/a-condensed-version-of-a-paper-entitled-violating-nyquist-another-source-of-significant-error-in-the-instrumental-temperature-record/#comment-2588928
Feel free to continue.
And please do not forget to provide for a mathematical proof that medians must be used instead of means.
Computing the income per capita using means instead of medians is bare social manipulation, but mathematically correct.
Why should that be different for for temperature measurements?
J.-P. D.
Because even a trivial look at real data proves that what he is saying is just plane wrong.
Analysis of real data, taken at hourly intervals shows that it is not a simple choice. Daily data in NOT normally distributed in a 24 hour period. That alone says that mean will always be an incorrect choice. The fact that mean and median differ so much with the real data I have says that must be so also.
Don’t worry about the help. I have a world wide database of hourly temps, some goin back to 1920s or thereabouts.
Data purity before I can automate it all just takes time is all.
“And please do not forget to provide for a mathematical proof that medians must be used instead of means.”
Will you accept a statistic answer to that or do you need real distribution graphs?
“Another time when we usually prefer the median over the mean (or mode) is when our data is skewed (i.e., the frequency distribution for our data is skewed). If we consider the normal distribution – as this is the most frequently assessed in statistics – when the data is perfectly normal, the mean, median and mode are identical. Moreover, they all represent the most typical value in the data set. However, as the data becomes skewed the mean loses its ability to provide the best central location for the data because the skewed data is dragging it away from the typical value. However, the median best retains this position and is not as strongly influenced by the skewed values.”
c.f. https://meteostat.net/en/station/93800
I agree with all of this
“Conclusions
1. Air temperature is a signal and therefore, it must be measured by sampling according to the mathematical laws governing signal processing. Sampling must be performed according to The Nyquist Shannon-Sampling Theorem.
2. The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem has been known for over 80 years and is essential science to every field of technology that involves signal processing. Violating Nyquist guarantees samples will be corrupted with aliasing error and the samples will not represent the signal being sampled. Aliasing cannot be corrected post-sampling.
3. The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem requires the sample rate to be greater than 2x the highest frequency component of the signal. Using automated electronic equipment and computers, NOAA USCRN samples at a rate of 4,320-samples/day (averaged to 288-samples/day) to practically apply Nyquist and avoid aliasing error.
4. The instrumental temperature record relies on the historical method of obtaining daily Tmax and Tmin values, essentially 2-samples/day. Therefore, the instrumental record violates the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem.
5. NOAA’s USCRN is a high-quality data acquisition network, capable of properly sampling a temperature signal. The USCRN is a small network that was completed in 2008 and it contributes very little to the overall instrumental record, however, the USCRN data provides us a special opportunity to compare analysis methods. A comparison can be made between temperature means and trends generated with Tmax and Tmin versus a properly sampled signal compliant with Nyquist.
6. Using a limited number of examples from the USCRN, it has been shown that using Tmax and Tmin as the source of data can yield the following error compared to a signal sampled according to Nyquist:
a. Mean error that varies station-to-station and day-to-day within a station.
b. Mean error that varies over time with a mathematical sign that may change (positive/negative).
c. Daily mean error that varies up to +/-4°C.
d. Long term trend error with a warming bias up to 0.24°C/decade and a cooling bias of up to 0.17°C/decade.
7. The full instrumental record does not have a properly sampled alternate record to use for comparison. More work is needed to determine if a theoretical upper limit can be calculated for mean and trend error resulting from use of the historical method.
8. The extent of the error observed with its associated uncertain magnitude and sign, call into question the scientific value of the instrumental record and the practice of using Tmax and Tmin to calculate mean values and long-term trends.”
I will still settle on 24 hourly samples as being more widely available though.
RLH,
There are errors introduced by not sampling hourly, or minutely, or secondly. But are they significant?
Your selected location has unusual variation.
Here are Denver and Paris.
https://meteostat.net/en/place/US-NBDL
https://meteostat.net/en/place/FR-4FGP
look pretty regular.
Yes they are. Why do you think that USCRN has a very high sampling rate?
P.S. Neither of those has hourly rates.
Try https://meteostat.net/en/station/07149
“P.S. Neither of those has hourly rates.”
?? there are hourly or more frequent data there…
The fact is weather varies over time scales of days. The warm/cool air masses move in and move out days later, not a few hours.
I think the issue boils down to this. If the variations on time scales longer than 12 h are much larger than those on time scales < 12 h, then this is not a real issue.
And this does seem to be the case.
> If the variations on time scales longer than 12 h are much larger than those on time scales < 12 h, then this is not a real issue.
BUT NYQUIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell USCRN that it wasted a lot of money doing 5 min sampling rates then
Why should I do that, Richard?
You go tell them.
Because apparently you think they did.
Apparently you did not get that Msc in reading, Richard.
“Why do you think that USCRN has a very high sampling rate?”
-We have now have convenient automated ways of doing it.
-We now have massive data storage capability.
-It is better to do so to avoid possible errors from fast T variation. But the resulting improvement in tracking long-term global temperature trends will likely be minimal.
-The data is used for more than just Global Warming studies.
–
> I agree with all of this
How about:
How’s about real data confounds that observation.
Compare and contrast:
“[T]he difference (between the 1 hr sampling and the min/max method of daily temperature determination was on average 0.5C with a range of 0.4 and 0.7C (Table 3 and Section 3.2). Comparing this to the various sampling frequencies this level of accuracy falls between 6 hr (4 times a day) and 8 hr (three times a day) sampling. The standard deviation of the max/min method is comparable to the 8 hr sampling period. In other words to improve upon the min/max method of determining daily temperature the sampling frequency needs to be every 6 hr per day or better (i.e., greater than four times a day).”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6528
This should not be news to you, as I already told you a week ago.
Do tell me why USCRN has a sampling rate at 5 mins then.
You’re arguing by leading questions, Richard.
Is it teh tweeter that made you relive your adolescence?
Why would I expect anyone to do any thinking? Do you all want the answers served on a plate for you?
At some point a real scientist stops playing coy, Richard.
Not sure about ninjas, however.
Real scientists expect others to be able to do simple data manipulations.
That’s not how replication works, Richard.
On Planet surface the energy Emission /Accumulation ratio
The by solar irradiated planet’s surface the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
When solar irradiated, planet surface always has a certain the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
It happens so because those are different mechanism energy transfer processes.
The incoming solar energy is one a pure radiative energy.
When solar irradiation interacting with the planet surface there are two different physics phenomena take place.
The by the surface instant IR emission and by the surface heat accumulation (conduction).
And it is observed that when the surface temperature is higher, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
Consequently when rotating slower and having a lower cp the planet’s surface gets hotter and the planet’s surface emits more and accumulates less.
And the opposite, It is observed that when the surface temperature is lower, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
Consequently when rotating faster and having a higher cp the planet surface warms less and the planet surface emits less and accumulates more.
Why? How can it be explained?
It can be explained by the difference in energy transfer by radiation vs energy transfer by conduction.
The energy transfer by radiation is in fourth power of the surface absolute temperature.
The energy transfer by conduction is linear of the surfaces absolute temperature.
Example:
Lets have a planet surface T = 100 K
Jemission = σT^4 = σ*100.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*100
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*100.000.000 /c*100 = 1.000.000*σ /c
Lets have a planet surface T = 200 K
Jemission = σT^4 = σ*1.600.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*200
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*1.600.000.000 /c*200 = 8.000.000*σ /c
σ – the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
c – is the coefficient of conductivity
Thus in this simple example we have illustrated that when a planet surface gets warmed at higher temperatures, everything equals, the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
The planet surface accumulates less.
And when a planet surface gets warmed at lower temperatures, everything equals, the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
The planet surface accumulates more.
That is why sea accumulates much more heat than land.
That is why, when we have Earth and Moon having the same solar flux of So = 1361 W/m^2 Moon rotating slower and having a lower cp, at daytime is getting hotter and having a higher the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Moon surface accumulates less.
Earth rotating faster and having a higher cp, at daytime getting less warm and having a lower the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Earth surface accumulates more.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Eben
” Bizarro planet science at its finest ”
*
You behave here (possibly at lot of other places as well) exactly as smart as Flynnson, Robertson, Clint R and a few other geniuses.
*
Eschenbach wrote
” Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object? Short answer? Of course not, that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics – <BUT it can leave the hot object warmer than it would be if the cold object weren’t there. ”
That is exactly what… the ‘Bizarro fizzix’ named Rudolf Clausius wrote in 1887; you and your Kumpels know and accept from Clausius only what he wrote in… 1854.
*
Here you can see what he wrote:
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
Braunschweig, 1887
…
*
That gives, in Google’s English translation:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect
…
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
” What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one. ”
That is EXACTLY the origin of what Eschenbach wrote.
But… people like you can’t accept that, and keep denying it.
*
And, moreover… it won’t be long before we see Niels Bohr and his Electron gang take the stage.
Ha ha haaah…
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Read what Willis wrote – you quoted “BUT it can leave the hot object warmer than it would be if the cold object werent there.
Exactly so. No increase in temperature at all.
Do you disagree? No?
I thought not. Read Clausius – properly. Cold bodies cannot increase the temperature of a hotter, by their own radiation.
As in, a colder amount of CO2 cannot raise the temperature of a rock on the surface.
Bad luck for your infinitely continuing heating trend.
“Cold bodies cannot increase the temperature of a hotter, by their own radiation.”
That is not the question. Can the presence of cold bodies that are warmer than space reduce the rate of loss of the initial body?
RLH, the “question” is “Can a cold sky warm a hotter surface?”
And, the answer is “NO”.
As I keep on saying, does an insulation layer reduce heat loss? If so, how do you model it?
“How do you model it?”
1) As a reduction of outward heat flow, as clothes reduces convection.
2) As radiation loss which is redirected back towards the surface, as in the metal foil blankets they give runners or GHGs in the atmosphere
As an equivalent heat flow inwards?
RLH,
Of course it does, by definition.
Every square foot of atmosphere at the surface weighs around a ton of constantly varying gaseous, liquid and solid constituents.
It can’t be modelled in any meaningful way. Try another form of gotcha.
“Every square foot of atmosphere at the surface weighs around a ton of constantly varying gaseous, liquid and solid constituents.”
Yea. Sure.
RLH,
You wrote –
“As an equivalent heat flow inwards?”
Don’t be ridiculous. There is no “equivalent heat flow inwards”. That is just a “climate science” fantasy.
Wrap a tailors dummy in a thick blanket. No change to temperature.
No GHE.
As an equivalent heat flow inwards?”
Yes. The gross outward flow from the surface is 503W/m^2 of convection, evapotranspiration and longwave radiation.
Since it maintains a constant mean temperature the surface must be receiving a gross inward flow of 503W/m^2.
163 W/m^2 is shortwave radiation received from the Sun. The rest is 340W/m^2 of infra-red radiation reflected or reradiated downwards by the atmosphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget
Ent, there you go again…
Flux does NOT balance. You continue to believe those made-up figures from your cult. You seem to believe that if you get enough things wrong, you will somehow end up being right.
That hasn’t worked for your entire life, I suspect.
> No GHE.
What’s that, Mike Flynn?
“Wrap a tailors dummy in a thick blanket. No change to temperature.”
So why does wrapping people in space foil blankets work so well then?
No heat source there either.
RLH doesn’t understand the human body creates thermal energy.
He doesn’t understand any of this.
Ah but I do.
Something similar to the Earth’s thermal energy collected from the Sun
You just contradicted your previous comment.
How so? I was observing that heat loss can be reduced by the use of thermal reflection. Say like a half silvered mirror.
“Wrap a tailors dummy in a thick blanket.”
You’ve removed any heat from the equation. There is a source for heat with the GHE (the sun), and there is a source for heat with keeping humans warmer with blankets – the human body.
Let’s wrap the blanket around a dead red herring.
Being an idiot prevents you from seeing that validity of the half-silvered argument
Bindidon, once again you are confusing “energy” transfer with “heat” transfer. A cold object can emit photons toward a warmer object, but that does NOT imply “heat” transfer.
You have no background in physics, so your beliefs take you away from reality.
Clint R
As usual, you don’t understand what Clausius wrote, and hence you misinterpret and furthermore misrepresent it.
Apart from Clausius’ ‘double heat exchange’ (what he unfortunately did not write ‘double radiative exchange’), no one is talking about heat transfer.
What Clausius has understood but could not evaluate nor theorize at that time, is that the heat transfer from the warmer object to the cooler one is diminished by the cooler object’s radiation toward the warmer one.
Clausius was a genius. We all here aren’t.
You don’t need to accept that, Clint R, nor do Robertson, Flynnson and any other one here.
KISS, Clint R!
J.-P. D.
Wrong again, Bindidon. Radiative fluxes from different sources do not interfere.
This has all been explained to you before. If an object were somehow able to absorb a photon with frequency less than the object’s mean frequency, the object would effectively cool!
Or, since you seem to now accept KISS, ice cubes cannot makes a cup of coffee hotter, no matter how many ice cubes you add.
Who said it did?
A thermal blanket would help the cup of coffee keeps it’s temperature higher for longer though.
“It”?
Once again RLH, you don’t seem to even understand the issue.
Given that there is no disagreement as to energy loss from the Earth to space for phase change of water (vapor – liquid – solid) than there is to a +-20.0c change in dry air temperatures for a column of that air some 100’s, possibly 1000’s of meters tall, why is it that the figures for mist, fog, dew, frost, cloud cover, both in depth and density, cloud height, etc. is not directly included in Climate figures?
RLH
Maybe you might have a look at e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/kktb7v6t
That all are talking about temperature is certainly not due to the data sets only…
But while for Germany there are as many entries in the file ‘ghcnd-inventory.txt’ for PRCP as for TMIN, and 541 of these ‘PRCP’ stations still are active in 2021, I see only 40 of these stations reporting SNOW, and the most recent data is of… 1991.
There are 137 weather/climate attributes in the inventory; 21 are present there for stations in Germany (‘GM’).
Financial problem for keeping all the stuff alive? Lack of real interest? No se!
J.-P. D.
That link does not resolve
RLH
How is that possible? Maybe you don’t have the software needed to represent it?
tinyURL links are available to everybody worldwide.
Here is the link to the directory above (it contains the forbidden sequence ‘d’ followed by ‘c’, hence tinyURL):
https://tinyurl.com/w2umyj7x
There you find all you need.
Never click on ‘all’ or ‘by_station’: you get a huge amount of directory entries displayed.
J.-P. D.
Nope. I just get a blank screen in the browser.
Try posting “hard slash toget dot com” instead
Earth (planets) is not considered as a body with inner energy source in planet energy budget (energy in = energy out) equation.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin… Earth’s atmosphere does not produce any significant greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface temperature.
Venus’ atmosphere is very dense. Venus’ 92 bar atmosphere 96,5 % CO2. Thus for Venus what is said about atmosphere greenhouse warming (the back radiation etc…) is correct.
Not for Earth’s very thin atmosphere 1 bar, 1 % H2O 0,04 % CO2.
On planet Earth there is not any greenhouse warming effect worth mentioning!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://tinyurl.com/Dr-Roy-Spencer
TM,
Now just explain how the surface managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Feel free to appeal to authority, or just explain in your own words if you prefer.
Ho, ho, ho!
are you off your meds today?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Yes TM, Dr.Spencer accepts the consensus opinion because his background is not in physics. He accepts the consensus, but chooses to refute it based on his area of expertise. That’s why he calls himself a “Lukewarmer”. He lets those with expertise in physics do their part.
He sets a good example of practicing the “scientific method”. You could learn from his example.
TYSON
> “So, let’s now think through what happens as sunlight enters the climate system.”
Ok, thank you for pointing at this very important moment, the instant solar flux hits surface…
Solar flux hits surface every infinitesimal millionth second of time. When doing so the (solar flux – planet surface) interaction occurs.
1). Surface reflects SW (diffusely and specularly).
2). Surface emits IR (diffusely)
3). Surface accumulates a small portion of the incident solar flux’s energy in form of heat.
TYSON
“As the Earth’s surface a-b-s-o-r-b-s sunlight it warms up. As it warms up, it emits more and more IR energy, limiting its temperature rise (remember “energy balance”?).”
Yes, the higher is the thinnest first layer’s temperature the more IR energy is emitted. Surface does not have to first absorb, get warmed at higher temperature to emit more IR energy.
The moment solar flux hits surface the reflection occurs, the rest energy is for IR emission.
When solar energy hitting a surface the not reflected portion experiences a transformation from SW to IR EM emission frequencies. That is all.
When hitting a surface with a low rotational spin and a low specific heat cp (regolith) the interaction/transformation happens to higher frequencies IR EM emission.
When hitting a surface with a higher rotational spin and a higher specific heat cp (water) the interaction/transformation happens to lower frequencies IR EM emission.
The higher frequencies IR EM emission accounts for a higher surface IR emission temperature.
The lower frequencies IR EM emission accounts for a lower surface IR emission temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 8:23 AM
Cherry picking doesn’t work here. None of what you’ve written falsifies Dr Spencer’s description of the GHE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
Christos Vournas at 8:23 AM
What frequencies are you talking about? Give us some numbers.
> “What frequencies are you talking about? Give us some numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
“Wien’s displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature. The shift of that peak is a direct consequence of the Planck radiation law, which describes the spectral brightness of black-body radiation as a function of wavelength at any given temperature. However, it had been discovered by Wilhelm Wien several years before Max Planck developed that more general equation, and describes the entire shift of the spectrum of black-body radiation toward shorter wavelengths as temperature increases.”
Well, it is “Wien’s displacement law!”
The higher frequencies IR EM emission accounts for a higher surface IR emission temperature.
The lower frequencies IR EM emission accounts for a lower surface IR emission temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 11:52 AM
Give us numbers for the frequencies you’re referencing.
> “Give us numbers for the frequencies you’re referencing.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
Frequency-dependent formulation
For spectral flux considered per unit frequency {\displaystyle d\nu }d\nu (in hertz), Wien’s displacement law describes a peak emission at the optical frequency {\displaystyle \nu _{\text{peak}}}{\displaystyle \nu _{\text{peak}}} given by:
{\displaystyle \nu _{\text{peak}}={\alpha \over h}kT\approx (5.879\times 10^{10}\ \mathrm {Hz/K} )\cdot T}{\displaystyle \nu _{\text{peak}}={\alpha \over h}kT\approx (5.879\times 10^{10}\ \mathrm {Hz/K} )\cdot T}
or equivalently
{\displaystyle h\nu _{\text{peak}}=\alpha kT\approx (2.431\times 10^{-4}\ \mathrm {eV/K} )\cdot T}{\displaystyle h\nu _{\text{peak}}=\alpha kT\approx (2.431\times 10^{-4}\ \mathrm {eV/K} )\cdot T}
where α ≈ 2.821439372122078893… is a constant resulting from the maximization equation, k is the Boltzmann constant, h is the Planck constant, and T is the temperature (in kelvins). With the emission now considered per unit frequency, this peak now corresponds to a wavelength 70% longer than the peak considered per unit wavelength. The relevant math is detailed in the next section.
RLH persists with his gotcha –
“Im just asking how you would model and insulation layer?”
He refuses to believe that if an insulator is placed between an object and an environment with a different temperature, that all will eventually be at the same temperature. Guaranteed.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
I am simply asking how you would model layers of air that had an insulating effect on heat transfers to space.
The original more correct NASA energy budget chart sends a lot more energy directly into the surface, it does not contain any back radiation { perpetuum mobile energy amplifier}. That was invented later by alarmist mathemagicians to justify their antropogenic warming claims.
The key flaw is they turned the earth flat and divided sun radiation evenly over the whole planet surface including the night side.
It is sad to see that Dr Roy Spencer also fell for this nonsense.
https://i.postimg.cc/qRpFLZS1/35654-13.jpg
You don’t give a reference, but it probably dates to before 1997.
The diagram assumes that the gross outflow from the surface equals the amounts of heat the surface absorbed from sunlight.
This turns out to be mistaken.
When it was actually measured, the outflow from the surface turned out to be more than double the inflow from sunlight.
Since the mean temperature of the surface remains approximately constant this means that the majority of the inflow comes from something other than sunlight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget
The conventional explanation is that longwave radiation is recirculated back to the surface due to reflection and reradiation by the atmosphere, aka the greenhouse effect.
I don’t know what the TRUE source of the extra heat is. Nor do Clint R, Swenson, Gordon Robertson and yourself.
Ent, the TRUE source is Sun. Your problem is you do not understand energy balance, so you believe whatever your cult puts out.
Directly or indirectly it all comes from the Sun.
What you seem unable to explain is how a typical area of the Earth’s surface manages to lose three Joules for every Joule it receives from direct sunlight.
As you say, the surface is almost in energy balance, so the output/input ratio should be 1-1, not 3-1.
If it’s not coming directly from sunlight, where are all those extra input joules ccoming from?
Ent, Earth does NOT output 3 times its input! Earth’s surface does NOT “lose three Joules for every Joule it receives from direct sunlight.”
Your cult beliefs make you look like an idiot.
You’re still trying to divide flux by 4. You weren’t able to understand the example of the chicken-on-a-spit.
This is all over your head. You can’t understand any of it.
You’re still stuck with a simple division by 2, Puppy.
Do you even algebra?
Clint R
Your non science opinions are not very impressive. Making up your own reality and facts is neither physics nor science. You demonstrate high levels of ignorance with each of your posts. You get it wrong consistently yet you are not able to grasp your own errors.
Entropic man is correct and you are wrong. Simple case and easy to prove.
I have shown you wrong several times but you are not able to process the reality that you are not correct.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60b2c0b69768f.png
I have calculated the amount of energy a square meter of desert surface in the summer receives via solar input and also how much it radiates away. The amount of energy the surface radiates away it over 1.5 times as much as it receives from solar input. Other losses make the loss even greater. You can’t understand what is true and correct. You need to fall back on your own created world and hide in it. You are too far gone the false belief that your would be too embarrassed to admit you really don’t understand anything. But it is certain you like to post and insult people. It is what you seem able to accomplish. Not so much with physics, science, facts or reality. Enjoy the deluded world you live in. You can convince stupid people with your false physics. It will not convince anyone else.
Norma, thanks for proving once again that you don’t understand any of this.
Obviously you’ve never used a rotisserie.
Obviously you’ve never studied physics.
It’s obvious.
Did you do the hammer/hand experiment yet?
If not, why not?
Afraid of reality?
Clint R
You make up stuff and think it will become true by strength of your egotistical personality. It does not work that way.
Your opinions are again wrong and false as usual.
I have studied physics and I have linked you many times to valid physics (which you are never able to understand).
I think you are the only one afraid of reality. The reality is you are not very intelligent. You can’t understand or process ideas and get easily confused by anything more than very simplistic concepts. You can understand hitting a hand with a hammer. You can understand ice is cold relative to our comfort zones. I believe that is about the limit of your intellect. The rest is just the same. Troll comments, insults, stupid opinions, made up physics that you never support. You also have super limited math skills so you are not able to calculate the energies given in the graph. You cover your ignorance with an arrogant posture. Most know you are stupid but are kind enough to try and reason with you. Most give up after a few interactions with you blockhead mentality.
Wow Norma, all that desperate flak just for me. I’m honored.
Have you done the hammer/hand experiment yet?
Clint R
Okay puppy, Whatever makes you happy. Do you need a treat?
PUP– Physics Used Properly.
(Did you do the Hammer/Hand experiment yet?)
Not “PUP,” Clint. “Pup,” “puppy” or “puppet.”
If you really want to most appropriate term, it’s “sock puppet.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I don’t know what the TRUE source of the extra heat is. Nor do Clint R, Swenson, Gordon Robertson and yourself.”
If you stop following the nonsense flat earth model with sun shining evenly in the night side, you will see all the energy comes from the sun, there is no “extra” missing heat needed to be found.
Here is the more realistic energy picture of earth that is actually round and turns.
https://i.postimg.cc/T3qCVtkk/model-atmo-b-1.jpg
Thank you. We’ve seen Postma’s parody.
Keep searching for the “missing heat” then, pack a sandwich, you are in it for a long haul.
Maybe one day somebody will construct a working energy amplifier using nothing but CO2, then I will pay for all your free energy bills for the rest of your life.
Eben
It might help you to understand Joe Postma is a lunatic who does not understand heat transfer and will not accept this fact.
Once you quit accepting his nonsense as valid it will help you recover from bad science.
GHG in the atmosphere do not act like a magic heater.
The reality is much simpler and basic and beyond the scope of Postma’s warped thought process.
If you look at these links and think about what they imply you might see what is actually going on with the GHE. It is not a perpetual motion machine, magic heater, or violator of Second Law of Thermodynamics.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60b2f2ec6e8f3.png
This is what you get with just incoming solar (what is actually absorbed by the surface). And you also get how much energy the surface loses. You can calculate how much energy a square meter receives and how much it is radiating away with these graphs.
With no GHE the energy loss from the surface exceeds what the solar input adds.
When you add DWIR the surface NET loss is less than what the solar input comes out to be.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60b2f37b310d9.png
The GHG lower the heat loss of the surface (which is the NET energy exchange). It does not alter the rate of surface emission it just lowers how much heat is lost by the surface so that the solar input adds more energy to the surface than it loses.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60b2f412c07cd.png
This graph is not the NET IR so it shows the rate of loss with UPIR and the gain from the DWIR. The NET IR is still negative even with GHG but it is less so. Think it over, it may come to you.
Norma, the chicken-on-a-spit ruins all your nonsense.
But, you’re probably used to getting your bilge right back in your face, huh?
(Done the hammer/hand experiment yet?)
Clint R
In your simplistic thought process you think a chicken cooked on a spit proves science wrong. Not sure why you have such a delusion.
All you demonstrate is you do not understand science, can’t calculate anything but real simple things.
You also show Obsessive Compulsive Behavior disorder. You repeat stupid points endlessly. You think using “Norma” is funny or clever. What a childish person you really are.
Grow up puppy. I know it is hard to accept you are wrong but that is the sum of it.
Clint R
Tim Folkerts gave you a point by point explanation of the flaw in your chicken cooking argument. You do not consider the amount of energy lost. If you cook your chicken at ambient conditions you will be receiving a lot of energy from the surrounding limiting the heat loss as you rotate the chicken. In cold space conditions with no surrounding energy input the chicken will cool quite rapidly as you rotate it. You can’t process this information. It goes over you head and then you think you are smart or something. Nope, just a simple minded person making up false physics to act smart.
Science
https://youtu.be/qkXZ3_ZmKzw
Somebody should do the actual chicken roasting experiment, I have four heat lamps I could do 1200W from one side and 300W from four sides , but I have no rotating device
How do you get a chicken in space, eben?
“In cold space conditions with no surrounding energy input the chicken will cool quite rapidly as you rotate it.”
Vacuum makes for rather a good insulator though
RLH,
You wrote –
“Vacuum makes for rather a good insulator though
No it doesn’t. Sunlight and other forms of light at all frequencies travel through vacuum with precisely no attenuation or hindrance.
You are obviously confused by the mechanics of the vacuum flask, which possesses superlative insulating qualities.
Vacuum prevents all other forms of energy loss other than radiation.
Oh, and outgassing
RLH,
A vacuum prevents nothing. It is the complete absence of matter. No insulating properties whatever.
Learn some physics if you feel like it.
Sure. So it’s never used for its insulation properties. To prevent conduction, convection, etc. The fact that it only allows radiation is of no import.
Tell me, what energy is lost by the chicken when it is ‘in the dark’? What governs the rate at which it loses energy? How fast does it need to rotate in order for input energy to exceed output energy?
Norma, if you’re getting tired of using “Norma” for your name, I’m happy to go with one of the other names you’re used. I think one was Lois, or Lori? There was also “Nomran”, and the latest was “Noron”, rhymes with moron. If you’re tired of “Norma”, let’s go with “Lois”.
So Lois, I gave you a point by point explanation of how to do the hammer/hand experiment. But, you haven’t done it yet. Maybe you lost the instructions?
1) Put one hand on a table.
2) Hit that hand as hard as you can with a hammer.
3) Note that the momentum of the hammer represents a force.
Now, you’ve learned about Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion —
F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
When you’ve completed the experiment Lois, I’ll teach you how to do rotisserie cooking, with your remaining good hand. A rotisserie is a good illustration of why it’s nonsense to divide incoming flux by 4.
If you would actually learn some science, maybe you wouldn’t be so insecure and believe you have to insult others and make stuff up all the time, like Bindidon does.
RLH,
You wrote (re a vacuum) –
“Sure. So it’s never used for its insulation properties. To prevent conduction, convection, etc. The fact that it only allows radiation is of no import.”
Presumably you are attempting sarcasm. The first refuge of the idiot with no facts to bolster his assertions. By the way, a vacuum has no insulating properties.
You might do better learning physics.
You’re wrong. Plane and simple. It does not allow for 2 of the 3 simple ways of losing energy. Conduction and convection.
Regarding the insulating properties of a vacuum.
A perfect vacuum is a perfect insulator for thermal conduction. Good vacuums are still amazing insulators. And, of course, atmospheric pressure air is still an excellent insulator.
But all of that is for conduction (and also convection). But vacuum provides no insulator for thermal radiation. So a ‘warm chicken in space’ will loose basically no energy by conduction, but can still lose a LOT of energy by radiation to the 2.7 K surroundings.
Regarding the insulating properties of a vacuum.
A perfect vacuum is a perfect insulator for thermal conduction. Good vacuums are still amazing insulators. And, of course, atmospheric pressure air is still an excellent insulator.
But all of that is for conduction (and also convection). But vacuum provides no insulator for thermal radiation. So a ‘warm chicken in space’ will loose basically no energy by conduction, but can still lose a LOT of energy by radiation to the 2.7 K surroundings.
At what rate does the chicken lose energy to space? What mostly governs that rate?
Emission is covered by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Emission depends on surface temperature and molecular structure (emissivity), only.
> Emission depends on surface temperature and molecular structure (emissivity), only.
So Pup’s chicken is not only dimensionless, it’s extensionless.
You are almost there, Clint. Let me fix if for you.
Note that rate of change of the momentum of the hammer represents a force. You got the equation right, so kudos on that.
But saying “momentum represents force” is like saying “velocity represents acceleration” or “work represents power”. A function and its time derivative are NOT the same thing!
RLH asks: “At what rate does the chicken lose energy to space? What mostly governs that rate?”
Clint provides half the answer. “Emission depends on surface temperature and molecular structure (emissivity), only.”
The other half is that the ‘chicken’ abso.rbs energy ot a rate that depends on the temperature of the surroundings, the emissivity of the surroundings, the geometry of the surroundings, and the emissivity of the surroundings. For example, if the chicken and the surroundings are the same temperature, the rate of energy loss is 0 W/m^2.
Both emission (energy out) and absor.ption (energy in) are part of the net energy loss.
Sorry TF, but you didn’t “fix” anything. All you did was prove again what an idiot you are.
Have you done the hammer/hand experiment yet? Norma is afraid to do it. Be a hero and go even beyond that. Stand in front of a high-speed semi-truck. There’s a lot of momentum there. Show us that the momentum does NOT represent a force.
See if that truck honors semantics over physics.
(If you don’t feel like an idiot, you should.)
Does velocity “represent” acceleration? No, of course not. They are two related but distinct quantities.
Does “velocity*mass” represent “acceleration*mass”? No, of course not. They are still two related but distinct quantities.
TF, this is NOT about semantics. It’s about physics. If you and your sidekick are not willing to prove me wrong by doing one of the experiments, then all you’re doing is continuing to make yourselves look stupid.
But, I enjoy that.
> this is NOT about semantics
Your miss, Pup:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/#SynSemPraVieBas
Physics is about careful definitions and equations.
position ≠ velocity
velocity ≠ acceleration
work ≠ power
angular momentum ≠ torque
and …
momentum ≠ force.
You can try to waffle with “represents” or “is kinda like” or “bears some resemblance to” or any other semantic games you want to play.
But …
momentum ≠ force.
TF, I never said “momentum = force”. Now, your into misrepresenting me.
As long as you refuse to do the experiments, you’re just making an idiot of yourself. You’re getting stupider and stupider.
Don’t let me stop you….
Here’s what our Puppy said:
“When you finish the experiment, you will learn the connection between momentum and force. (It’s called “Newton’s 2nd Law”.)”
Clint, Then pray tell what you DO mean by “represent”?
Dictionary . com says:
1, to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote, as a word, symbol, or the like does; symbolize:
In this painting the cat represents evil and the bird, good.
2. to express or designate by some term, character, symbol, or the like:
to represent musical sounds by notes.
3. to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does:
He represents the company in Boston.
4. to speak and act for by delegated authority:
to represent one’s government in a foreign country.
By definition (1) or (2), we could say “F” represents force. We could also say that “tension” or “friction” or “weight” represent different forces.
But there is no use of “represent” in the dictionary or in physics parlance where “momentum represents a force”.
Do the experiments and learn what “represent” means, TF
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-712650
Eben says: “Here is the more realistic energy picture of earth that is actually round and turns.”
I would encourage you to actually dig into the numbers. What you will discover is that Postma’s model fails. In particular, if the heat capacity of the surface is large enough to “retain heat” and only cool slowly during the night, then the heat capacity is large enough to impede warming during the day. (And if the heat capacity is NOT large, then the night side cools dramatically, again making the average temperature too cold relative to the actual earth.)
Don’t take my word for it. Do the calculations.
Wrong TF, very wrong.
Earth can both cool at night and warm during the day. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
Don’t take my word for it. Do the calculations.
Clint, as usual, you miss the point!
If the surface has a large heat capacity so that it cools SLOWLY during the night, it must also warm SLOWLY during the day.
If the surface has a SMALL heat capacity so that it cools QUICKLY during day, it must cool QUICKLY during the night.
Postma’s ‘theory’ only works if earth can warm QUICKLY but cool SLOWLY. Ie, it has a small heat capacity during the day and large heat capacity during the night.
Thats all WRONG, TF.
Earth’s surface cools at night slower than it warms during day. “Apples to apples” surfaces, of course. The reason is incoming solar has much hotter photons than those being emitted at night.
Now, you can start moving the goalposts, restating what you stated, playing word games, and making up your usual nonsense.
I’ve seen it all before.
Q = mc Delta(T)
A section of the earth’s surface must gain as many joules to warm 15 C during the day as it loses to cool by 15 C during the night.
Postma’s diagram exists in a parallel universe where heat capacity, c is large at night and small during the day. It is the only way to make that diagram work.
“Earth’s surface cools at night slower than it warms during day.”
If this were true, then over time, the days would warm more than the nights cool, and the earth would be in a continuous warming trend!
“If this were true, then over time, the days would warm more than the nights cool, and the earth would be in a continuous warming trend!”
WRONG again, TF.
The input is limited by the maximum solar received. The output increases with temperature.
> The input is limited by the maximum solar received. The output increases with temperature.
Another dimensionless comment that abstracts away geometry.
Clint, there are on average 12 hr of day and 12 hr of night. If the overall warming rate were higher than the overall cooling rate, the earth would have an overall warming trend.
Here’s a simple calculation for you. Assume you are at the equator with a of continuous input of sunlight (960 W/m^2 at noon, down to 0 at dawn and dusk). Assume the heat capacity of 1 square meter of surface is 200,000 J/K (about the same as 5 cm of water). For simplicity, assume the whole mass is the same temperature.
Show that:
* the max temperature is ~ 305 K
* the min temperature is ~ 236 K
* the mean temperature is ~ 268 K
In other words, postma’s model — even at the equator! — still produces only an average temperature below freezing.
You’re making the same mistakes, over and over, TF.
The maximum temperature would be higher than you show. For BB, 960 W/m^2 would correspond to over 350K. Consequently, your minimum temp is also wrong.
You’re still trying to claim a rotisserie doesn’t work. You’re still stuck on CO2 putting out more energy than Sun. You’re still stuck on being an idiot.
Did you do the hammer/hand experiment yet? How about the semi-truck one?
I rather suspect that Roy is a better scientist than you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
> “Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as “cherry picking” and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.[7]
Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.”
Earths atmosphere is very thin Earths atmosphere does not produce any significant greenhouse warming effect on Earths surface temperature.
Venus atmosphere is very dense. Venus 92 bar atmosphere 96,5 % CO2. Thus for Venus what is said about atmosphere greenhouse warming (the back radiation etc) is correct.
Not for Earths very thin atmosphere 1 bar, 1 % H2O 0,04 % CO2.
On planet Earth there is not any greenhouse warming effect worth mentioning!
The method I use is the “Planets Temperatures Comparison Method”.
Well, I never used the “Cherry Picking” method. What I did was to formulate a Universal Law and to write a planet mean surface temperature formula, which formula theoretically calculates the mean surface temperature for every planet in solar system.
The formula theoretically calculates the temperatures very close matching to those satellite measured…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” What I did was to formulate a Universal Law and to write a planet mean surface temperature formula, which formula theoretically calculates the mean surface temperature for every planet in solar system. ”
What you did was to produce a meaningless formula and use an imaginary Φ, the dimensionless Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor to make the sums come out right.
e…”What you did was to produce a meaningless formula and use an imaginary Φ, the dimensionless Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor to make the sums come out right”.
Prove it. Let’s see your math rather than your ad homs.
> rather than your ad homs
You keep using that expression, Gordon.
It might not mean what you make it mean.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Are you the pot or the pan?
Does that make you the stone or the glass house?
Neither
So you’re the beam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRR5VPplpOM
> “What you did was to produce a meaningless formula and use an imaginary Φ, the dimensionless Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor to make the sums come out right.”
The mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet……Te……Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K..325,83 K…340 K
Earth……255 K….287,74 K…288 K
Moon……270,4 Κ…223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars…..209,91 K…213,21 K…210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
1. Please stop thinking we are here all people you can tell
” Planets Temperatures Comparison Method ”
as if that ‘method’ was in use since decades by several people.
It is your own invention.
2. Your Φ is no more than a trial to redefine albedo without any real proof for correctness.
It is your own invention.
3. And to introduce your Φ as a factor you multiply with the albedo, instead of averaging the two, is not only your own invention.
Sorry, Mr Vournas, but… that is PURE MANIPULATION.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
I read several times what you addressed to me…
“…” Planets Temperatures Comparison Method ”
as if that ‘method’ was in use since decades by several people.
It is your own invention.”
“Your Φ is no more than a trial to redefine albedo without any real proof for correctness.
It is your own invention.”
“Sorry, Mr Vournas, but… that is PURE MANIPULATION.”
I have demonstrated planets mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as the planets (N*cp) product sixteenth root.
Also I have demonstrated there is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Planets reflective properties differ significantly. There are planets without atmosphere with low Albedo, and there are planets without atmosphere with high Albedo.
Planets without atmosphere with low Albedo (the smooth surface planets) have a very strong specular reflection…
Also I have developed a Planet Mean Surface Temperature calculating equation.
The equation theoretically calculates all the planets in solar system the Mean Surface Temperatures, Earth including. The results match very close those satellite measured.
My only attempt is to make this knew knowledge to become known.
I am working very hard since February 2019 when I first realized I have found something new.
Since then I do whatever effort is needed to explain what is it all about. And I will continue doing so, because it is important to become known…
Bindidon
I never had a slightest intention to manipulate anything. Why should I spent so many years of studying the subject and when having achieved the so much satisfactory results, I considered a duty to make the knew knowledge to become known…
Please, Bindidon, do reconsider…
I am always willing to answer any question on the matter the best way I can.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…re binny…”“Sorry, Mr Vournas, but… that is PURE MANIPULATION.””
Christos…Binny uses the GHCN/NOAA record which has been manipulated retroactively to the point where it is useless. Binny cannot understand that yet he refers to your work as a manipulation.
That’s why I call Binny an idiot.
Do you believe that the USCRN network is accurate?
Robertson
Feel free to call me an idiot.
You insult here everybody, if necessary you even name people ‘stinking cheaters’, ‘cheating SOB’ and the like.
You distort, discredit, denigrate anything/anybody.
And the best is that you aren’t even able to do yourself any work you denigrate.
J.-P. D.
RLH
Re.: your comment upthread
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-710844
This is the first time you give me really useful info.
I agree too, of course.
No idea why this TAVG mode of operation is supported by so few stations for the last 40 years.
1. As said above, GHCN daily has only 164 TAVG stations in Germany.
2. And collecting data out of them is exactly as frustrating as it was for CONUS. Even in 1971/72 there was a hole of 13 months.
3. Thus I started a comparison for the satellite era, 1979-now, to ensure full data.
Maybe it will surprise you a little bit:
https://i.postimg.cc/ZKdSJ1ww/GHCN-daily-GM-TAVG-vs-TMIN-TMAX-1979-2021.png
P.S. Where can I find your UK data for a comparison hourly vs. mean?
I could adapt my software to process it, if it isn’t too much work.
J.-P. D.
RLH (cntnd)
1. The correct subtitle for such graphs showing GHCN daily data in fact should be: “monthly averages of absolute daily data”.
2. Of course, the number of active stations per year is way lower than the total number of stations (50 for TAVG, 500 for TMIN/TMAX).
J.-P. D.
As I long have been saying, (min+max)/2 is a lousy way of assessing temperatures. The paper/article says +/-4.0c range error whereas I was only claiming +/-3.0c. Ah well.
Still what does NOAA USCRN know about data sampling and Nyquist?
RLH
” As I long have been saying, (min+max)/2 is a lousy way of assessing temperatures. ”
Maybe, but…
Please prove us that the difference, when averaging the monthly temperatures of 1000 stations distributed worldwide, between (min+max)/2 and hourly averaging of daily temperatures, is way greater than the difference between their average with / without area weighting.
*
Unfortunately, there are, in GHCN daily, currently less than 10,000 stations correctly measuring TAVG, and over 40,000 working via TMIN/TMAX.
The number of stations providing for measurements with both techniques is low, and the periods in which the techniques are shared are relatively small.
To obtain a valuable comparison, we would need another raw data set.
J.-P. D.
I have that – sort of. If you follow the link I provided than you have a data set which is not the daily figures normally used.
The difference between daily figures computed using (min+max)/2 and the median is some +/-4.0c as was stated in the article.
That alone makes anything that uses the normal average useless to my mind.
I have series going back to the 1920s so length should not be a problem.
Still it is all work in hand at present.
RLH
” The difference between daily figures computed using (min+max)/2 and the median is some +/-4.0c as was stated in the article. ”
This is NOT what I see when I look at the difference in my outputs out of GHCN daily.
What I see there is rather that +- 5 C is the span between maximal and minimal difference between the two series.
That is something quite different.
You are a fan of medians; and the difference series should indeed be analyzed that way! Would be fair enough.
J.-P. D.
“You are a fan of medians; and the difference series should indeed be analyzed that way! ”
I am a fan of statisticians that say non-normal distributions should use medians rather than means.
RLH says: I am a fan of statisticians that say non-normal distributions should use medians rather than means.
Maybe I’ve lost the thread, but I thought the ultimate objective was to calculate a temperature anomaly trend and associated confidence interval. The mean is commonly used because much of the historical data is available only as a daily min/max pair for which the median doesn’t have utility.
While I wouldn’t discourage anyone from analyzing the behavioral difference between trends and error estimates computed from min, max, mean, and median measurements where sufficient data is available, it would be astounding if the error bounds different. It would be somewhat surprising if the mean and median trends weren’t reasonably bounded by the min and max trends.
I think that you are ignoring the points I am raising.
1. (min+max)/2 has long been recognized as being very inadequate for determining average air temperatures during a day
2. Sampling at 1 hour intervals is better than at 24 intervals
3. Using median of those 1 hour intervals is better than (min+max)/2
4. Using just air temperatures at 1.2m/1.5m/2.0m alone is not a reliable way of assessing thermal energy in the lower atmosphere
5. 1.2m/1.5m/2.0m heights sit within the chaotic surface layer
6. Satellites measure temperatures from TOA down to close to the surface. (some to it to surface but they don’t provide a bulk air temperature dataset that covers TOA to surface AFAIK)
> you are ignoring the points I am raising.
Unsupported claims can safely be ignored by real scientists.
I think that you are ignoring the points I am raising. . .
I’d agree that we’re talking past each other.
I don’t think I’m ignoring your points so much as I’m questioning their significance for the explicit purpose of estimating useful and reasonably well-bounded long-term temperature trends and that explicit purpose only.
The (hand waving) argument for the tmax / tmin data being sufficient for purpose is
1) It’s what we’ve got over the longest time period.
2) If the vertical temperature gradient statistics are stationary over the long term, then using a single vertical sample is reasonably representative.
3) Similarly for any bias between (tmin+tmax)/2 vs the mean or median of higher resolution time samples, if the relationship is reasonably stationary over time then impact on trends is minimal.
For what it’s worth, I pulled down a few of the hourly station data sets cited in the thread and computed the LMS trend using daily max, daily min, daily (min+max)/2, mean, and median. On this limited sample the trend in the daily max and daily min bracketed the various averages.
“The (hand waving) argument for the tmax / tmin data being sufficient for purpose is
1) Its what weve got over the longest time period.
2) If the vertical temperature gradient statistics are stationary over the long term, then using a single vertical sample is reasonably representative.
3) Similarly for any bias between (tmin+tmax)/2 vs the mean or median of higher resolution time samples, if the relationship is reasonably stationary over time then impact on trends is minimal.”
1) I agree. But that does not mean (pun) that we should not include the know inaccuracies when using that methodology.
2) They are not stationary when other factors are also considered.
The temperature is a poor guide to the thermal energy in the system.
3) The bias is on a day to day basis which means (pun) that means are possibly the worst choice for daily temperatures.
> that does not mean (pun) that we should not include the know inaccuracies when using that methodology
How to beg the question in one single step.
Where have you showed that we don’t, Richard?
What, try to respond with sense to those who have none?
You’re conflating responding with replying, Richard.
You’re confusing thinking with typing.
Not much thinking required to see tou still haven’t shown anything, Richard.
“Of course, the number of active stations per year is way lower than the total number of stations (50 for TAVG, 500 for TMIN/TMAX).”
Mind you, I’m told that 100s of km can be supported between stations and still be able to show an accurate picture : )
RLH
” Mind you, I’m told that 100s of km can be supported between stations and still be able to show an accurate picture ”
For absolute values, this certainly won’t hold.
But for locally constructed anomalies wrt the same reference period, this is very well possible.
It is not my job to search for well correlating anomaly sequences, and to develop a software searching for them is a really hard one.
You might nevertheless have a look at two stations in Alaska, distant by 100 km:
USW00026451 61.1689 -150.0278 36.6 AK ANCHORAGE INTL AP
USW00026523 60.5797 -151.2392 27.7 AK KENAI MUNI AP
https://i.postimg.cc/s2Wkb3tP/GHCN-daily-AK-Anch-AP-vs-KENAI-AP-1954-2020.png
Trends nearly identical, 36 month running means give a good fit.
Some years ago, I found various correlating stations in California and Spain, distant not only in x,y but in z as well, but I didn’t keep the data.
J.-P. D.
It was only a tongue-in-cheek comment
RLH
Aha. Didn’t look like that for me at a first glance…
Well there are those who make such claims.
I use https://meteostat.net/en/station/ddddd to get the wen page and then download the hourly data from there.
I am busy creating a database of station IDs which supports that but that is going to take some time to validate.
rlh…”I use https://meteostat.net/en/station/ddddd to get the wen page and then download the hourly data from there”.
***
You should read through this page first. It will reveal that NOAA uses only a few of the available stations globally and GISS/Had-crut get their data from NOAA. In fact NOAA, has admitted they use less than 1500 stations globally.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
You have to dig for it, but all the cheating of NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are revealed throughout the site.
Also…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
“NOAA / NCD.C have Fudged and Corrupted the Input DataSeries”
Binny is in deep denial about the cheating revealed on this site. He’s in deeper denial about this admission from NOAA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
I do not accept that cheating is going on.
I do believe that an unhealthy reliance is placed on a (min+max)/2 as being a picture of the true temperature at any station over a 24 hour period.
All we can do is try and improve on what and how the data is sampled.
rlh…”I do not accept that cheating is going on”.
Have you read through the link I provided? If you have, and you still don’t think there is cheating going on, you are pretty naive.
The author of the site has done a lot of work showing inconsistency after inconsistency and he claims 90% of the GHCN database has been slashed since 1990.
Tony Heller has done an exhaustive study and arrived at the same conclusion. He is eminently qualified to do such a study, having been a quality control guru with Intel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
“little or no warming since 1940s”.
There is proof on the chiefio site and elsewhere (Tony Heller) that GISS has retroactively fudged the record. For example, they replaced 1935 as the hottest year in the US by 1998. When Steve McIntyre of climateaudit caught them read-handed, they changed it back. It appears they have now reverted to 1998.
Hansen revealed in a paper that they were using a 1200 km radius around each station, in conjunction with other stations, to synthesize temperatures for a third station. The NOAA link I provided corroborates that in their admission to slashing global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
How the heck can anyone cover the global land surface with 1500 stations? And why would they try when they have over a 100,000 stations to pick from? The global land surface area is about 150 million km^2. Divide that by 15 x 10^2 stations and you get 1 station covering 100,000 km.
Say they had 100,000 stations in use, that would mean one station every 1500 km^2. Still not good enough since where I live there is a temperature differential of nearly 25C within 150 miles. That does not allow for altitude temperature differences.
Cheating!!!
And how about the oceans? There are not nearly enough temperature stations to put a dent in ocean air coverage so it’s mainly synthesized using climate models.
When the IPCC admitted in 2012, that a warming ‘hiatus’ had occurred over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012, NOAA went back and fudged the SST to remove the flat trend.
Come on, man, open your eyes.
RLH
Robertson has a whole collection of trash he regularly pour out here.
Among these, for example viruses do not exist, the Moon doesn’t rotate about an interior axis, radiation from a cooler body can’t affect any warmer one, NOAA has only 1500 stations worldwide, and… the chiefio nonsense written by E. M. Smith.
The uttermost nonsense he wrote was this:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
where he suddenly missed the whole bunch of GHCN stations.
That was due to the fact that at the same time, NOAA was transferring the 7280 stations of the V2 data to the new V3 directory.
*
Currently, there are in the GHCN daily data set 2260 stations above 60N, and 411 of these are in Canada.
People like Robertson think they would not really exist, but have been generated automatically. Great.
*
” For example, they replaced 1935 as the hottest year in the US by 1998. ”
Complete nonsense.
Like many people having not even a clue of temperature records, Robertson confounds absolute TMAX records for CONUS (in which the 1930’s appear on top even today, why should that change?) with the TAVG anomalies, which behave completely different due to the removal of the annual cycle aka seasonality.
Etc etc etc.
If UAH had not switched form rev 5.6 to 6.0, and RSS had not switched from rev 3.3 to 4.0, UAH would be the ugly, and RSS the good.
Robertson would discredit Christy / Spencer, and not Mears / Wentz.
*
Let him rant and distort, discredit and denigrate all what does not fit to his ego.
*
He claims to be or have been an engineer, but no one here believes that, except those commenters who are lucky to see him at work.
J.-P. D.
“Have you read through the link I provided? If you have, and you still dont think there is cheating going on, you are pretty naive.”
Sure. I get conned all the time.
There are numerous problems with the way that the temperature record could be improved. None of them suggest that the scientists involved did it deliberately or with malice. If people shout at others then they are likely to get defensive. Try using science and statistics to demonstrate they are incorrect. Otherwise, SHUT UP.
“There are numerous problems with the way that the temperature record could be improved. ”
There are numerous problems with the way that the temperature record and lots of ways that it could be improved.
Bindidon has a whole collection of trash he regularly pours out here. Among these, Moon rotates about an interior axis, and radiation from a cooler body affects a warmer one.
He has been shown to be wrong, but he clings to his false beliefs. His cult is more important to him than reality.
And your belief in yourself is stronger than science or statistics allows.
RLH, if you’re referring to me, thanks.
Sticking to reality and science is why my beliefs are strong.
Figured out where the energy comes from for the tides yet?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-711534
So that’s a no then
norman…”It might help you to understand Joe Postma is a lunatic who does not understand heat transfer and will not accept this fact”.
***
Joe has a degree in science and he understand the 2nd law. You don’t.
Joe once pointed out that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. You fail to understand that as well.
“Joe once pointed out that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. ”
But greenhouse we make are small and have nothing to do with global temperature.
Or global temperature has to do with our ocean average temperature of 3.5 C. And global average surface air, has to do with global ocean surface temperature. Small greenhouse don’t have anything to do with this. A greenhouse 1 km diameter hemisphere would little to do with it- but they would have more thermal mass and be slightly warmer.
Hmm. Say it had 100 meter wall below the ocean surface and the dome above it. And put it south of Vancouver Island and England.
Has wave problem, so surround it with breakwaters.
About $10 million to enclose with floating breakwater, and 5 million for dome.
Area of dome: 785,397.5 square meter [194 acres] $77,319.59 per acre under the dome.
Area of 1/2 km radius sphere: 3.14 million square meters/ 2 for hemisphere, 1.57 million square meters. Times say 10 kg per square meter: 15.7 million kg
Volume of .5 km sphere: 5.2410^8 / 2 = 262 million cubic meters.
Air at 1.2 kg = 314.4 million kg. Slightly less dense air within, makes it float. Could be problem, but one could make it float so as to move it. But 100 meter walls underwater would need to anchor it to keep it from flying away. But make 20 kg per square meter, dome cost more like 15 million. 100 meter underwater wall 5 million.
Twice as much per acre as I said above. But doing something like this the first time and allowing lot’s screw up, times that by another 5. And government doing it, times by another 10.
Gordon,
Joe is a smart guy who has a MS in astrophysics. He also believes the moon rotates on its own axis.
He would be correct
> He also believes the moon rotates on its own axis.
A quote might be nice.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-37404
Happy?
Very.
Many thanks!
In return:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-593908
Willard, please stop trolling.
Pot = pan
RLH, please stop trolling.
Who’s a troll?
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Bindidon
> “3. And to introduce your Φ as a factor you multiply with the albedo, instead of averaging the two, is not only your own invention.”
Φ and Albedo are coupled physical terms. It makes no sense to talk about one without the other. That’s just the physics.
Bindidon,
I did not multiply Φ with albedo.
What I did is to multiply Φ with (1 – a)S which is the what is not diffusely reflected portion of the perpendicularly incident on the planet cross-section disk solar flux.
Thus the not reflected (diffusely and specularly) portion of incident solar flux is:
Φ(1 – a)S
Bindidon,
I invite you to visit a page I have in my site where it is illustrated by colorful schemes the undivided relationship for planets Albedo and the Φ – planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet surface spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient).
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
Christos Vournas
You’re wasting my time here.
Present your stuff at some open review corner, then at some more official one, and we will then see what professionals think about it.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
> “3. And to introduce your Φ as a factor you multiply with the albedo, instead of averaging the two…”
Bindidon,
I do not multiply Φ with albedo.
What I do is to multiply Φ with (1 – a)S which is the what is not diffusely reflected portion of the perpendicularly incident on the planet cross-section disk solar flux.
Φ and Albedo are coupled physical terms. It makes no sense to talk about one without the other. That’s just the physics.
Bindidon
> “Christos Vournas
You’re wasting my time here.
Present your stuff at some open review corner, then at some more official one, and we will then see what professionals think about it.
J.-P. D.
Thank you Bindidon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wait a minute. Aren’t you, Nate, BGDWX, Entropic, et al. all professionals? You seem to have no problem critiquing Salby, author of Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, over 100 other papers, or Berry, publisher of three papers debunking CO2 causes warming, or Harde, who published several papers, etc.
Quantity is not necessarily a sign of quality.
If you have started from a false premise, the hundredth paper will be no more correct than the first one.
Any science professional will look for three things in a new book or paper.
Coherence.
Does the argument make logical sense without contradicting itself?
Consistency.
Does the argument rely on evidence which is disproved by other evidence in the field? For example, a paper which assumes the absence of downwelling longwave radiation, which in reality is measured and monitored.
Consilience.
Does the argument rely on evidence disproved by evidence from other fields? For example, an argument which requires a violation of the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The published works of Salby, Berry or Harde are not accepted by the majority of those qualified to judge. It is not because of bias or vested interest, but because they fail one of more of the three tests.
Ent spends all that effort blabbing about science, pretending to be a “science professional”. But, he’s on record trying to claim passenger jets fly backwards!
Ent, is NOT a science professional. He’s a sanctimonious cult follower.
Salby didn’t start from a false premise. He is a physicist. Neither did Berry or Harde. All of their work is transparent. No models. Based on actual data. You leftists use false scientific dogma to support your leftist agenda.
How reduced you are. No arguments, just insults on an echo chamber.
> No models.
Hmmm:
https://skepticalscience.com/salbyratio.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
Anderson
No, I’m not a professional wrt climate affairs. In that domain, Anderson, I’m a layman.
I concentrate my efforts, in processing climate data and presenting it as good as I can, and that already is enough to be discredited by those who aren’t even able to do such a job.
And that, Anderson, is the reason why I say to people like Vournas:
” Go to peer review, and we will see the result. ”
J.-P. D.
Ent,
How reduced I am? How obtuse you are? I referenced Salby, Berry, Harde, et. al. They made the arguments, mathematically. Then, you said they were wrong with no counter arguments. I make no arguments? No, they made the arguments, wing ding.
Something for Clint R and the other sky dragon slayers.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/29/simplified-climate-modelling-part-1-the-role-of-co2-in-paleoclimate/
Confirmation that temperature can drive CO2 and CO2 can drive temperature.
E,
Ooooooh! A model!
Oh well, as long as you believe it, it must be true.
Drivings, forcings, amplifiers – the neverending fantasy continues. Enjoy yet another fairy story.
Yeah Ent, I just happen to have one of those 60 million-year-old thermometers. It’s a real collector’s item. I could propably let it go for about $5000. Are you interested?
If you are offering to sell me the Earth for $5000 I would accept. If you can deliver?
A thermometer uses a temperature-sensitive variable to infer temperature.
An electronic thermometer uses voltage.
A mercury thermometer uses expansion of mercury.
A bimetallic strip uses differential expansion of two metals.
A 60 million years old sediment uses oxygen isotope ratios.
Same principle.
A 60 million years old sediment uses oxygen isotope ratios.”
Sorry Ent, but using oxygen isotopes is as hokey as radiometric dating. It’s based on estimates, assumptions, and beliefs.
That ain’t science.
“18O is two neutrons heavier than 16O and causes the water molecule in which it occurs to be heavier by that amount. The additional mass changes the hydrogen bonds so that more energy is required to vaporize H218O than H216O, and H218O liberates more energy when it condenses. In addition, H216O tends to diffuse more rapidly.
Because H216O requires less energy to vaporize, and is more likely to diffuse to the liquid phase, the first water vapor formed during evaporation of liquid water is enriched in H216O, and the residual liquid is enriched in H218O. When water vapor condenses into liquid, H218O preferentially enters the liquid, while H216O is concentrated in the remaining vapor.
As an air mass moves from a warm region to a cold region, water vapor condenses and is removed as precipitation. The precipitation removes H218O, leaving progressively more H216O-rich water vapor. This distillation process causes precipitation to have lower 18O/16O as the temperature decreases. Additional factors can affect the efficiency of the distillation, such as the direct precipitation of ice crystals, rather than liquid water, at low temperatures.
Due to the intense precipitation that occurs in hurricanes, the H218O is exhausted relative to the H216O, resulting in relatively low 18O/16O ratios. The subsequent uptake of hurricane rainfall in trees, creates a record of the passing of hurricanes that can be used to create a historical record in the absence of human records.[1]
In laboratories, the temperature, humidity, ventilation and so on affect the accuracy of oxygen isotope measurements.[2] Solid samples (organic and inorganic) for oxygen isotope measurements are usually stored in silver cups and measured with pyrolysis and mass spectrometry. Researchers need to avoid improper or prolonged storage of the samples for accurate measurements.[2]”
RLH, did you find another wikipedia page you don’t understand?
That happens a lot here.
I was demonstrating the science behind the method which you were denying. As you do for a lot of science
RLH, if you were really interested in science, you would be trying to learn. Instead, you are more interested in avoiding learning. You lean toward anti-science.
If you want to see anti-scientists implode, ask them:
1) How is O-18 formed?
2) What is the “correct” O-18 to O-16 ratio?
3) What are the errors introduced by sample handling, storage, measurement and fractionation?
“Oxygen’s most common isotope has a mass number of 16 and is written as 16O. Most of the oxygen in water molecules is composed of 8 protons and 8 neutrons in its nucleus, giving it a mass number (the number of protons and neutrons in an element or isotope) of 16. About one out of every 1,000 oxygen atoms contains 2 additional neutrons and is written as 18O.
Oxygen Isotopes
Depending on the climate, the two types of oxygen (16O and 18O) vary in water. Scientists compare the ratio of the heavy (18O) and light (16O) isotopes in ice cores, sediments, or fossils to reconstruct past climates. They compare this ratio to a standard ratio of oxygen isotopes found in ocean water at a depth of 200 to 500 meters. The ratio of the heavy to light oxygen isotopes is influenced mainly by the processes involved in the water or hydrologic cycle.”
“Oxygen (chemical symbol O) has three naturally occurring isotopes: 16O, 17O, and 18O, where the 16, 17 and 18 refer to the atomic mass. The most abundant is 16O, with a small percentage of 18O and an even smaller percentage of 17O. Oxygen isotope analysis considers only the ratio of 18O to 16O present in a sample.”
Are those more internet quotes you don’t understand, RLH?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-712252
Just to show you are wrong about Tidal locking (and apparently lots of other things too)
???
RLH, this sub-thread is about the fact that prehistoric temperatures cannot be determined with isotopes. Somehow, to you, that means I’m wrong about tidal locking?
Your illogic matches the rest of your confused science.
At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.
The level (or lack of) your science is relevant to all threads
Yes TM, this has been verified by Christos V. and observations.
With the physics demonstrated by the chicken-on-a-spit.
No GHE needed.
Thank you Clint.
Nothing to get excited about. It’s just the trivial application of the Ideal Gas Law, an equilibrium determined by the energy content of the system.
Change the energy flow and you change the equilibrium.
No “Universal Law”, no phi. Just normal physics in action.
Agreed. In fact, I was surreptitiously making the point that all of Vournas’ fudging and misapplications of albedo gets him no further than the much simpler ideal gas law result.
thx
Christos’ fudging is still better than our Pup’s trolling.
Yup, just normal physics in action.
No GHE required.
Not quite. The GHE affects the energy budget and variations in the energy budget affect the Ideal Gas Law equilibrium.
Variations in the energy budget affects the Ideal Gas Law equilibrium. Very profound. Submit it to the Nobel committee.
Ent, neither your GHE or “energy budget” exist. You don’t have any science. The simple chicken-on-a-spit debunks all your nonsense.
Of course, with natural variability, temperatures vary slightly. UAH results document that, monthly.
You made me look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_models
Let’s hope Richard noticed.
What is the repeat rate for the MSU over a given spot on Earth?
I consulted https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/11/8/1520-0442_1998_011_2016_aotmpf_2.0.co_2.xml but I did not find that point addressed specifically
The nearest I got was
“As discussed in CSM95, once the zonal anomalies of each satellite are determined relative to the reference of NOAA-6 or -7, they are filtered in time with a 5-day median filter to account for day-to-day intersatellite differences in orbital swath ground tracks. These intersatellite differences are most pronounced in the subtropical latitudes where gaps appear in a single days coverage as schematically shown in Fig. 5. Each satellite crosses a given latitude (to 82.5 lat) 28 times per day during its 14 orbits. At the equator, the swaths achieve an almost even spatial distribution and therefore provide excellent spatial sampling there. Poleward of about 40 lat, the convergence of the swaths also produces excellent sampling as the swaths overlap.
However, the ground track of the satellites in the subtropical regions produces a pattern that is not spatially complete. In the unshaded gaps of Fig. 5, which are maximized at about 24 lat, no observations are possible on a given day. This entire pattern precesses eastward about 700 km (at equator) each day so that within a 34-day period all gaps are filled. However, any two satellites in orbit do not have exactly the same precession rate so their sampling patterns fluctuate in and out of phase with a period of about 1012 days. This is illustrated in Fig. 3b (no median filter) where T2err reveals substantial 1012 day oscillations in which T2err is low when the ground track patterns are in phase (matching) and large when out of phase.
When the two satellites are out of phase, one satellite views the subtropical locations that mostly represent the data gaps of the other. The existence of longitudinal atmospheric temperature variations, therefore, is enough to cause increases in Terr. In the subtropics, however, there are also substantial longitudinal variations in surface topography. For land below 500 m, T2LT emissions from the surface account for about 15%20% of the total signal and for oceanic surfaces, about 10%. At higher elevations, the surface shines through more and more because the oxygen overburden, from which the atmospheric emissions originate, becomes less of the observational signal.
As long as the surface is sampled in correct proportion for all oceanlandmountain surface types in each latitude band, the surface emission effect, being very systematic, may be eliminated in the anomaly dataset for constant LCT. This happens for the near-equator and extratropical latitudes. However, for subtropical latitudes, one cannot assume that on a daily basis a consistent proportion of oceanlandmountains will be observed by a given satellite. For example, the width of the Andes Mountains is approximately the width of the gaps shown in Fig. 5. Thus, the extent to which the Andes are sampled on a given day would impact the zonal-mean temperature and the anomalies produced therefrom.”
What is the repeat rate for the MSU over a given spot on Earth?
The MSU satellites are in a polar heliosynchronous orbit so they nominally go over the same point on earth at the same solar time each day with about 14.25 complete orbits daily. The observation areas overlap such that there is both one daytime and one nighttime observation daily.
The older satellites experienced orbital decay over their lifetime such that there was drift in the time of observations. Attempts to correct for this are one of the most significant sources of long-term trend errors in satellite temperature anomaly measurement, and the basis for much of the difference between the various temperature anomaly time series.
Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Try reading “Analysis of the Merging Procedure for the MSU Daily Temperature Time Series” where they specifically address this issue.
[MARKB] See Mears & Wentz, 2016.
[RICHARD] Try to read Christy, Spencer & Lobl 1998 where they address this issue.
That deals with orbital decay, not with sampling times for the same spot on Earth
Another proof that the 1998 paper addresses what the 2016 paper says, I guess.
Here are the conclusions:
Care to comment?
That paper does NOT address the sampling rate for a lat/long datum point.
Topicality is my turf, Richard.
You’re the one responding to MarkB, so he gets the right of way here and you’re the one to have responded something irrelevant.
No, I was responding to the comment before the one I posted. Yours.
I’m quoting from the paper Mark cited, Richard.
And I observed that it did not provide and answer to the question/observation I posed.
That must explain why you skipped the paragraph in which Mark answered it, Richard.
An analysis of USCRN CRNH0203-2002-MS_Newton_5_ENE says that the error in using (min+max)/2 instead of medians is -7.1/1.55 for data from 2002/11/03 to date
Stop spamming please, Richard.
Think before replying please
All this to dodge “the results [the weighted average of the lower troposphere measurements] are thus not precisely comparable to surface temperature records or models.”
You should consider only galoping with those who can’t read back the exchange, Richard.
I don’t dodge it, I bought it up in the first place. Remember the boundary layer discussion?
> I bought it up in the first place
You brought up the fact that we can’t directly compare these two products by constantly requiring that we should compare them?
That’s just great.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
I’ve updated the list of stations that show no warming that could be attributed to CO2. Pay attention to the last charts.
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
> Ive updated the list of stations
Where’s the list, Roger?
I have a list of stations, but it’s 10545 long so I’d better not post it here
You still have a website, Richard.
What you still don’t have is a citation for your “they do add you know”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-707314
Strictly the answer is between the sum and sum of the squares depending on the dependency of the errors, but you knew that right?
Strictly speaking, a citation comes with a DOI.
Weather stations do not drink. As far as I know
I thought you were a system guy or something, Richard.
DOI stands for Digital Object Identifier.
I thought you just mistyped DUI
So if I have set of errors that happen with hot temperatures and another set of errors that occur with cold temperatures, do they add?
If I could put the amount of science you did on this thread, Richard, it would fit in a match box.
And I would not need to remove the matches.
Smoking is bad for you
SCIENCE ™!
Does SCIENCE(tm) say the same as science does or different?
Playing smug by conflating assertion with presupposition isn’t how science works, Richard.
SCIENCE ™ allows it.
Being as stupid as you are means that neither applies
No U.
It was in the comment: https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
4971 comments about 0.04C change in temperature anomaly. Well … Okay. Maybe 50 (1%) actually had something to do with the change.
I can hardly wait for the next iteration 1 June. Hopefully there will actually be some greater percentage of insightful posts.
Well the question on every ones mind is will this mini pause continue, go up or go down.
Kennui:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Woeful Wee Willy,
Oooooooh! Another irrelevant link for everyone to ignore!
Feeling impotent and rejected much?
It’s only because you are an idiot, you know.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
No.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Pot meet pan
RLH, please stop trolling.
You first
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Self descriptions suit you
More SCIENCE ™!
Less logic from you
Fair enough. How about:
(P1) SCIENCE ™ guys do performative science.
(P2) Richard does performative science.
(C) Richard is a SCIENCE ™ guy.
Correlation is not causation
Causation isn’t a logical concept, Richard.
If you could make up your mind instead of double binds, that’d be great.
Whickering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Causation isn’t a logical concept, Richard.
If you could make up your mind instead of double binds, that’d be great”
Are you just trolling, or are you an idiot?
Rhetorical question, of course. You’re an idiot, but at least you’re an irrelevant idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You said nothing.
Care to try again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH
In science correlation does not of itself prove causation, but that’s usually the way to bet. Correlation is a useful clue that causation is going on somewhere nearby.
Logically if you see a correlation between A and B, look for one of three patterns of causation.
A causes B.
B causes A.
A and B are caused by C.
Well I would never have guessed that. /sarc
The Humean predicament is the human predicament.
RLH
I dont know if you are new to this debate.
“Correalation is not causation” is a regular climate change denial meme.
The intended message is:-
Correalation is not causation.
CO2 correlates with temperature.
Increased CO2 does not cause increased temperature.
It is not a logical argument, but the intended audience is other climate change deniers who are unlikely to notice.
I know. I was using to rebut Clint
CO2 correlates with increased temperatures. So:
A) Increased CO2 increases temperatures, or
B) Increased temperatures increases CO2.
One is supported by REAL science. One is supported by anti-science.
It is well known FACT that increased ocean temperature causes more CO2 outgassing. It is ONLY a belief that CO2 causes increased surface temperature.
Everyone gets to choose between science and beliefs. It’s called “freedom of choice”. Where human rights count, people have the right to be wrong. But in cults, there is no “freedom of choice”.
> Everyone gets to choose between science and beliefs.
Your model of science had currency in Parminedes’ time, Puppy. Search for his Proem. But even by Plato’s time we knew that knowledge was true, justified belief.
This classical conception has problems, but at least it gets away with a silly dichotomy that allows you to pretend that your pontifications are enough for science.
Yes Willard, and you even get to be wrong to the point of being an idiot.
Obviously you enjoy that freedom.
Yes what, Puppy?
You keep saying stuff. The only support you ever provide are the same half-baked thought experiments. Worse, you even can’t follow through them properly!
Here’s a pro-tip: if you need to brag about doing science, chances are that you’re just bragging. Science is something that works. You need to work to do science.
Where’s your work?
Willard, you cult members have a poor record of being able to think. That’s why I keep my examples simple. There’s always hope, even for the braindead.
When you can’t understand something as basic as cooking on a rotisserie, you’re a long way from learning physics.
Pup,
“But Religion” is a fringe move in the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
Thanks!
See what I mean?
(That’s a rhetorical question. I will, again, stop feeding the troll.)
And once again your bias is confirmed. Well done, Pup!
Here’s the semi-regular reminder –
Sky Dragons are the trolls here, and if you want to do science, stop only pay lip service to it.
Ent,
Chic, Bart, Salby, and who else has shown you that CO2 lags temperature and shown you mathematically? Just because you choose to ignore mathematical facts doesn’t make it not true. CO2 lags temperature in both short and long time scales. CO2 lags temperature and is supported by the actual data. Correlation is not causation. But, if CO2 lags temperature, there can only be one causation.
> mathematically
Where?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Said the pot to the pan
RLH, please stop trolling.
I KNOW there is an echo in here
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
Ken
” Hopefully there will actually be some greater percentage of insightful posts. ”
Insightful posts?
About what?
About plus or minus 0.05 C?
Well, to be honest: I prefer to show how the daily temperature maxima and minima behave globally, compared with CONUS.
But maybe you prefer your own insightful posts.
J.-P. D.
I would leave it to your discretion as to whether or not “daily temperature maxima and minima behave globally compared to conus” is in fact relevant to the discussion on climate and what drives climate change.
I’m not the referee. I don’t get to tell you if your contribution to the discussion is relevant or belongs more in the camp of the excessively boring. All I know is I come to this thread to learn about science as it relates to climate.
I would hope that in future the wingnuts on this thread show greater courtesy for the rest of us and keep their boring platitudes to themselves.
> Im not the referee.
No. You’re Roy’s art critic.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Pot meets pan and nothing sensible happens
RLH, please stop trolling.
I think there is an echo in here
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
RLH…”Sure. I get conned all the time.
There are numerous problems with the way that the temperature record could be improved. None of them suggest that the scientists involved did it deliberately or with malice”.
****
You are naive, that’s why you get conned. There is plenty of damning evidence that certain scientists, for want of a better word, have deliberately fudged climate science to their own ends. Watch the Heller video, he’s a very smart cookie with a degree in engineering and plenty of high-end experience studying such data.
By not following the links I provided from the chiefio and Tony Heller, with an objective mind, you have proved to me, at least, that you’re only interest is in intellectual arguments while missing the forest for the trees. Your focus on boundary layers, which don’t exist in the real atmosphere, but in differential equation theory, is misleading you.
The atmosphere is a gaseous mix and must obey the basic laws of physics and chemistry. If you try looking at it as such and try applying the well tested laws, you’ll get a lot more out of your observations than playing with thought experiments.
I don’t think you understand why heat cannot pass through a vacuum. Look into it then consider the science behind air in a greenhouse and you’ll start getting somewhere. Don’t ask Tim, however, since he thinks heat is an intellectual construct.
The Climategate email scandal revealed major players in the alarmist climate science arena and the IPCC as not only major cheats, but as low-lifes who applauded the death of skeptic John Daly and who used misogynist, hateful language against Judith Curry when she began exploring the skeptical arguments.
Even the betterr ones like Trenberth interfered in peer review and had a conniption over a paper by John Christy of UAH. It’s not his business to interfere in peer review.
You are naive, that’s why you get conned.
You do realize that was an ironic comment dont you?
gbaikie…”Joe once pointed out that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
But greenhouse we make are small and have nothing to do with global temperature”.
***
gb…you’re missing the point. The greenhouse effect implies that the atmosphere behaves like a greenhouse, to trap heat. If the atmosphere could do that, we would not need greenhouses.
The glass in a greenhouse traps rising molecules of air, 99% of which are nitrogen and oxygen. This is the major error in the GHE, they think the greenhouse glass traps infrared radiation. This has led to the silly notion that gas molecules in the atmosphere trap heat, since a tiny percent of the gases can absorb IR.
Even if the glass does trap IR, how can that warm anything? There is no science that proves IR can be amplified. You cannot amplify IR, making it more intense, by trapping it with glass. However, SW solar can heat soil in the greenhouse, along with infrastructure, and those heated surface can transfer the heat to air in the greenhouse by direct conduction.
The atmosphere cannot trap rising molecules of air, in fact, those molecules pass right through cooler molecules below.
Do you accept that any heat reflective layer of air or anything else will reduce the rate of cooling?
“gb…you’re missing the point. The greenhouse effect implies that the atmosphere behaves like a greenhouse, to trap heat. If the atmosphere could do that, we would not need greenhouses.”
Greenhouse prevent warm air from going up- larger greenhouse prevent less warm air going up or more air mass to warm {and more air mass to cool}. Greenhouses also more humid, and preventing less water vapor from escaping.
The greenhouse effect only requires that there are layers of air that cause the same effects as a greenhouse.
They act as a thermal shield (partial) which works to trap heat.
No-one seriously expects there to be real glass covered greenhouses the size of the planet.
So, you don’t expect much in our future?
Did I say that or are you putting words in my mouth?
I am putting words in your mouth.
But it appears to me, you don’t envision that we will become spacefaring.
I might tend to agree it’s unlikely in regards to the planet Earth to have planetary size greenhouse.
Though in regards Earth, one could say planetary size greenhouse could refer to where Earth atmosphere reaches space- 100 km up.
Since Earth circumference is +40,000 km, it could mean a sphere with larger circumference this- as in the planet Druidia in the movie, Spaceballs or “merely” having the top of a dome which is 100 km high.
But neither would be likely with Earth. More practical would be floating cities in the Sky- which may also, never happen on Earth.
I rarely enter the world of science fiction
When the Starship is launches this year, the world will be entering science fiction.
“You are naive, that’s why you get conned.”
You do realize that was an ironic comment don’t you?
I love it when people use statistics that are really only applicable to normal distributions and then go on to use in non-normal ones.
Have you looked at daily air temps at a wide number of weather stations? Just for each day.
RLH
GHCN daily: over 40,000 weather stations worldwide (hmmmh – about 50 % of them in the ConUS area; that is of course the major reason for having introduced area weighting).
Each time I process that data, the software goes thru 10 GB (the rest of the 30 GB have to do with precipitation, wind, etc etc).
Usually, I output only monthly data, but daily data would go as well, at the cost of some more work, especially when departures from the mean of a reference period are needed.
J.-P. D.
Have you looked a the variation between (min+max)/2 and medians for any given day?
Medians? Of what, RLH? Of hourly measurements?
There are none in GHCN daily, and the directoryy for GHCN hourly looks like this:
https://tinyurl.com/3cdbv554
J.-P. D.
“Medians? Of what, RLH? Of hourly measurements?”
Yup. There are 24 hours in a day. On the edge of small sample size, 20, (which is arbitrary in any case). Statistics tells us that for non-normal distributions the median is better than mean. I guess we’ll see.
Still not resolving that tiny url. Other tiny yrls resolve just fine, which must mean that what youre encoding is blocked by my ISP in some way.
Try posting it a hard slash toget dot com or similar
RLH
You don’t seem to have noticed the little paragraph following:
” There are none in GHCN daily… ”
… and the GHCN hourly directory is… empty.
No idea about what your tinyURL problem is due to. No one ever told me about that.
J.-P. D.
The tinyurl resolves to this:
ftp://ftp.ncd c.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/hourly/
Take the space out between the d and the c (this website does not permit those two letters in sequence).
If you have a VPN, try changing it to US, or turning it off. Sometimes US gov websites seem to be suspicious about VPN IP addresses, or suspicious of requests not originating from the US.
Thanks for that. It immediately became clear why the tiny url did not resolve in the browser, It requires file explorer to do ftp.
Blindidon is correct. That directory (the one for hourly temps) is empty.
RLH
You wrote upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-711431
” Do you believe that the USCRN network is accurate? ”
When I look at this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yeAaITxUWgH2LpIwbvMwGWstVLMdzRhA/view
I rather ask me: how much more accurate is the USCRN network (about 200 stations) than all GHCN daily stations in CONUS (about 8000) ?
This above is raw data, not the USCRN homogenized data.
J.-P. D.
“The network consists of 114 commissioned stations in the contiguous United States, 21 stations in Alaska (with a plan to eventually have a total of 29), and 2 stations in Hawaii.”
Small but useful
RLH
These 114 are the currently active ones we find in NOAA’s USCRN directory; but in NOAA’s GHCN daily data set, there are 233 stations flagged ‘CRN’, including those which are no longer in activity, of course.
J.-P. D.
I am only talking about active stations
RLH
” Small but useful ”
Sorry: that was not the point. The point was the lack of difference between ” Small but useful ” and… the rest.
Btw: in GHCN daily’s origin of all NOAA series, I found only two CRN stations with a TAVG record.
More about that later.
J.-P. D.
I am downloading NOAAs USCRN from 2000 to date as we speak
RLH
Thanks for doing that job, I wish you lots of fun.
I just inspected
https://tinyurl.com/3cpuxsah
It is full of holes.
Bonne chance
J.-P. D.
Done now. All I have to do is analyze that data. Should take a day or 2 I expect.
I would like to add here about glass greenhouse warming phenomenon…
It is said in the current GHE theory Earth atmosphere greenhouse effect forcing is +33 oC.
Ok, so far so good!
Now… I have visited greenhouses many times. I never witnessed
+33 oC warming there. Not in daytime, not in nighttime, not in winter… not in winter nighttime!
It was warmer inside those greenhouses, but never, never +33!!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Against what base?
If it was one that was never exposed to light or energy but only to a nighttime sky with no air exchange and so adopted that as a base, 33 degrees seems a reasonable conclusion.
Vournas
With this school boy remark, you show that you don’t understand that, though named similar due to Jean-Basptiste Fourier, the GHE has nearly nothing to do with the simple case ‘greenhouses at the ground’.
This is btw a definitive proof that if you don’t try to escape out of your trivial phi manipulation, you never will pass even the weakest online-open review, let alone the official one.
Try to understand what has been written by people who really know what they are talking about:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/link/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/download
I know: Adobe makes it as hard as possible for us to copy pdf files into Google’s translator, so you could begin with:
https://www.centrale-energie.fr/spip/spip.php?article151
and translate it into Greek.
Good grief, Vournas!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, your continued attack on real science reminded me that you haven’t provided your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” yet.
You claim centuries of knowledge, but you can’t provide a simple model.
Good grief, Bindidon!
> real science
Where can I find that science, Pup?
Clint R
Again and again, you are the origin of that strange model idea.
There is no model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, except in your brain: so please feel free to use it.
Maybe you want to make it known to the whole world, and publish it in a renowned journal for Astronomy?
I’m 100% sure that it would be be a tremendous success, Clint R!
Go for it!
J.-P. D.
Finally! Bindidon admits he doesn’t have a model. And that implies there is no such thing as a ball-on-a-string, tetherball, hammer-throw, or Moon.
Like the other cultists, Bindidon lives outside reality.
> there is no such thing as a ball-on-a-string, tetherball, hammer-throw, or Moon.
I am quite sure the Moon existed before the first scientific model has been created, Pup.
If I would publish a model, Flynnson soon would shoot it dead with a
” Ooooooh! A model! ”
out of his blather gun.
Thus: no model. Experience saves lifes.
J.-P. D.
More models for Bindidon to deny:
Merry-go-round horse
Runner on an oval track
Race car on an oval track
Walking around a tree
All models of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. All reality.
Jinx:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-37432
ge*r*an, JD*Huffman, Clint R
Three consecutive faces of the same brain(lessness).
J.-P. D.
Well that’s cool, to see the debate on another blog, years ago!
I especially liked the comment about the 20 ft long boat in a moat 18 ft wide. It clearly can’t be rotating about its axis!
Just more reality.
You have yet to convince Joe about the Moon thing, Puppy.
Have another tidbit:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63305
Interesting blog, but the vast majority of commenters appear to already know AGW is nonsense. I like it here, where several still require major deprogramming.
You speak as if you didn’t know Joe’s, Pup.
In fact you speak as if you never commented there.
binny…”There is no model for orbital motion without axial rotation, except in your brain: so please feel free to use it”.
***
I have given you a model for it several times but you are far too obtuse to understand it.
If you could construct a runway around the Equator so a jetliner could taxi right around the Equator it would keep the same side facing the ground. If it took off and flew at 35,000 feet it would be performing the same action as the Moon while still keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
You cannot prove that wrong, all you can do is run to some mathematician of 200 years ago who tried to compute the lunar orbit statistically and got it wrong.
You don’t understand the difference between translation and a local rotation. The Earth does both, it translates while rotating about a local axis. The Moon does not, it only translates and my model proves it can do that without rotating while keeping the same face pointed to the surface.
Clint R
You believe you possess common sense and think only your thought process is correct.
You are deluded. You think walking around a tree demonstrates “orbital motion without axial rotation”. How is this? You can look at your own feet as you do this and see that they have to rotate on their axis to achieve the task of walking around a tree. If you do not rotate at all while you walk you go in a straight line. I actually believe you are too stupid to grasp this, even if you look at your feet as you walk around the tree and see the rotate on their axis first then your whole body pivots.
Your level of ignorance goes so far beyond what I thought possible.
Most stupid people do not like to boast and show how dumb they are. You are proud of your stupid opinions and false made up physics.
Answer this one. With your rotating cooking chicken point. If you have identical heat sources do you think there would be a significant difference in cooking if you cooked the chicken outside in a Texas summer or in Antarctic winter? Or would they cook exactly the same since a cooler surrounding has zero effect on the rate of chicken cooking? I really am puzzled by your incredible stupidity. I find it amazing someone with your total lack of any science knowledge keeps pretending they know things and insulting everyone who tells you are wrong.
Norma, sorry, Lois have you done the hammer/hand experiment yet?
If you want to chicken out, just admit it. Then we can move on to teaching you how to rotisserie that chicken.’
Clint R
You failed to answer the question.
I will be generous enough to ask again (I know you are somewhat slow at comprehension).
Will a chicken (with similar heat source) cook the same in a Texas summer night as it would in an Antarctic winter?
Lois, it makes you look stupid to accuse someone else of failing to answer a question when you are so far behind. But, I’ll be generous and ask again:
1) Did you do the hammer/hand experiment, or are you chicken?
2) If you are chicken, do you realize that’s de facto admitting you know “momentum can represent a force”?
3) Where is your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Get caught up, and I’ll teach you how to rotisserie your chicken.
Clint R
It seems like you won’t answer the question. I figured as much. You don’t know the answer so ignore the question.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-712736
binny…”the GHE has nearly nothing to do with the simple case greenhouses at the ground.”
Duh!!! Then why is it called the GREENHOUSE effect???
This is a serious case of moving the goalposts. When your per theory is proved to be plain silly you amend the theory to something even sillier.
Are you saying there are no heat reflecting layers of air in the atmosphere?
RLH, by continuing to use the phrase “heat reflecting layers of air” indicates you do not understand thermodynamics.
“Heat” is the movement of thermal energy from “hot” to “cold”.
““Heat” is the movement of thermal energy from “hot” to “cold”.”
How does that impact on what I said?
The “impact” is NOT happening, RLH. I’m trying to teach you, but you can’t learn. You just keep asking the same incompetent question.
You understand a lot less than you type.
Reality is still not happening for you.
Let me know if anything changes.
An analysis of USCRN CRNH0203-2002-MS_Newton_5_ENE says that the error in using (min+max)/2 instead of medians is -7.1/1.55 for data from 2002/11/03 to date
Richard, please stop spamming.
Well if you will keep up posting irrelevances to real science and statistics all over the place…
Once again you’re confusing your own needs with the topic at hand, Richard.
What needs are those? What are your intensions as well?
The need to advertising results from an analysis you keep for yourself, Richard.
It’s the fifth subthread you’ve been talking about your soi-disant “analysis of USCRN.”
Well, I happened to be out at night at -30 oC.
What you claim is that without GHE there would had been -63 oC.
Dark space can be very cold. Especially over long periods of time.
When two of the three Milankovich cycles coincide, an Absolute Temperature Minimum is on the road, and we can be sure that on the planet, it becomes really, really cold.
So cold that all water vapor in the troposphere precipitates, and the oceans cool to such an extent that their CO2 intake experiences a maximum.
A the end of this coupled process, all surfaces freeze. The planet is now an ice ball.
Does somebody agree or disagree with such a scenario?
How low is its average temperature?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, Milankovich cycles all deal with how much Earth’s motions change incoming solar.
Are you now in the “It’s the Sun, stupid” camp?
Maybe the fog is lifting…
binny…”So cold that all water vapor in the troposphere precipitates, and the oceans cool to such an extent that their CO2 intake experiences a maximum”.
Just like in the Little Ice Age when the cooler oceans sucked more of the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Of course, stupid alarmists missed that and claimed anthropogenic sources alone have increased the atmosphere’s CO2 content to its current level.
They failed to notice as well that glaciers increased in size dramatically during the LIA and are still receding as the planet warms to its pre-LIA average temperature.
External factors that effect the solar input to Earth are bound to drive average temperatures on Earth
I used my coffee break to type up the destruction of the idiotic Willis Eschenbach greenhouse phantasmagorias math.
you can check it out while waiting for the new data release
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/28/the-radiation-fight/#comment-3258823
Too bad Willis spent 1 minute to read your comment and spot the flaw And then spent 10 minutes to show you why you were wrong. I hope you will take 20 minutes to read what he said and realize the no laws of physics where broken; no money was created or destroyed or double counted.
The way to bust the steel greenhouse is to use actual Earth values. Then, the calculated temperatures bust the nonsense.
Earth actually receives 960 W/m^2, after albedo. AGW nonsense divides that by 4, resulting in 240 W/m*2.
So sphere (area = 1m^2) is supplied 240 Watts from external source.
Sphere emitting (with phony GHE added) = 480 W/m^2
480 W/m^2 emitted corresponds to 303 K.
But Earth is only at 288K.
So if the steel greenhouse nonsense is somehow valid, then CO2 must be doing a lot of cooling!
What would planet be like if radiated 235 watts per square meter.
And every planet did radiate 235 watts per square meter- or more- so it’s not unrealistic for a planet to do this at one time or many times.
But whether all the energy is coming from nuclear energy is entirely different topic.
Is Eschenbach’s planet possible?
Or are living on such a planet??
Or did the Earth or any planet ever had so much nuclear energy generated.
It seems like it would be unstable. And supposing Earth had it, and it was “unstable”, and what happens.
Now, some think Venus surface is young and it’s entire surface was “re-surfaced”- all rock became lava. How could do that unless it was from nuclear energy. I tend to think impactor could do it, but other than that how could happen unless it was from nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy, and it was unstable {it stopped apparently]. Or idea roughly {I guess} is the heat builds up over hundreds million of years, turn entire surface molten, and spends hundreds of millions years cooling down. Perhaps it’s wrong, but probably some planets in this Universe does something like this.
But gut feeling is it has to be temporary- something has to give, and planets don’t blow up. Planets commonly go molten- but blowing up is not option- it’s not what planets do.
But my simple question was, what would the Moon’s average temperature be, if the Moon internal heat radiated 235 watts per square meter?
RLH,
“Given that there is no disagreement as to energy loss from the Earth to space for phase change of water (vapor liquid solid) than there is to a +-20.0c change in dry air temperatures for a column of that air some 100’s, possibly 1000’s of meters tall, why is it that the figures for mist, fog, dew, frost, cloud cover, both in depth and density, cloud height, etc. is not directly included in Climate figures?”
Because they are weather, not climate.
If you are relating this to global temperature, consider what you’ve just written about changes in a column of air 1000s of meters tall…
UAH global temperature from satellites is inferred from brightness measurements of oxygen across the globe, doing a full sweep every few days, and takes in a swathe of atmosphere about 12km in height, weighted most strongly at about 3.5 km above the surface.
Global surface temperature data is taken from a non-symmetrical array of thermometers across the globe, at roughly 2 meters from the surface.
If local weather effects and imprecision of thermometers render the global temperature record unreliable, why do these two measurements of very different things produce a close match in annual temperature departures (same sign) and very similar trends?
If the global temp record is foiled by weather, how can it possibly be that these two very different metrics produce the same temperature profile?
The match is too great to be coincidence for 40 years.
The very similar profiles demonstrate the robustness of both methods.
They’re not measuring the same region of the atmosphere.
They’re not using the same instruments.
They’re not measuring the same object.
How in hell do they come to match so closely?
You’ve not really addressed this, RLH, you’ve just waved it away every time or ignored it. I think you have no good answer to this and don’t want to think about it.
If your doubts were well-justified, particularly regarding the need to account for weather effects, then we really shouldn’t see this close match between such wildly divergent metrics. And I don’t think there is a plausible explanation for why we do that permits your concerns at the same time.
But I would be curious to see a well-argued rationale that explained, if you have one.
This was your best attempt at a response, i think RLH:
“There are various SYNTHETIC global surface temperature data sets and the results are similar despite using different methodologies and data for points on an imaginary plane at 1.5 meters above the surface.
All suffer from the problem that they do not directly related to a 3m 3d layer of air next to the surface in the real world which has environmental factors to consider as well.”
But you are only looking at surface data sets, and have ignored satellite-derived global temperature time series. This was your response to my comparison of satellite and surface global temperature records.
If the ‘environmental factors’ matter in a 3m, 3d layer of air such that we could get a significantly different temperature record if we had and accounted for such data…
Then why do we see such a close match to surface temps when the ‘layer’ is a swathe 12 kms deep, weighted at 3.5km altitude?
If ‘environmental factors’ matter because we’ve failed to account for an extra metre or so of atmosphere, wouldn’t we see the problems arise when we add a further 12 kilometres of height to the readings?
They’re not measuring the same object, nor in the same region of atmosphere, but they get very similar results, the main difference being that the amplitude of the satellite-derived record is higher. Otherwise, nearly every annual departure is of the same sign for satellite and surface, and the long-term linear trends are very similar for both.
This should not be happening if unaccounted weather effects confound the record just from adding a meter (or 12 thousand of them) of atmosphere.
“But you are only looking at surface data sets, and have ignored satellite-derived global temperature time series.”
I had only covered ground based data so far. Although I hinted at the potential problems with satellite data and its uncertainties required. Signal processing tells that sampling rates are important.
The repeat rate of data being accumulated over a given point is the factor here. AIRS quite happily says it is 16 days before that happens. Sure it is possible to determine the differentials between passes at 16 days interval over a given spot. But what happened to temperature data in between those intervals?
What smearing of fast moving weather phenomena occurs because of the low sampling rates?
You may say that repeat passes happen near to the exact spot and thus this does not matter at all. Let me ask you this, if we were to move each weather station by 20km each day, how reliable then would you consider the statistics they provide to be?
You haven’t answered to point at all, RLH.
You suggest that if you include another 3 metres of atmosphere for the surface temperatures the results for the global temperature record could be very different.
We have a data set that takes in far more atmosphere than that, with all the vagaries of weather that could change the results if we move beyond the lower 1.5 metres of the ground.
But the results are extremely similar over more than 40 years.
These are two very different objects being measured towards the same end results – global temperature.
How is is the vagaries of weather have so little impact whether you measure from the array 2 meters above the ground, or the instruments measuring 12 kilometres of atmosphere?
Neither of your answers deals with that.
“You suggest that if you include another 3 metres of atmosphere for the surface temperatures the results for the global temperature record could be very different.”
I did not say that.
I said that the uncertainties for the point samples taken at weather stations means that they are not a reflection of the true temperature/energy in the air for the 3m lower air surface layer around the globe.
Those things are quite separate.
We’re not talking about thermometer uncertainties here.
You are saying that weather factors (‘environmental factors”) unaccounted for in the thermometer record need to be accounted for, or the surface global temperature record is spurious.
You say these weather factors would make a difference if a 3 metre layer was sampled instead of 1.5 metre.
How could these two very different global temperature estimates so closely coincide then, when the difference is between a 1.5 (or 2) metre thermometer array and radiance measurements of O2 12 kilometres deep in the atmosphere?
You are not explaining how that could possibly happen when weather factors should confound the record and make these two estimates very different. Why don’t you?
“Were not talking about thermometer uncertainties here”
We are talking about thermometer measurements being a true record of air temperatures in a 24 hour period though.
We should also consider if those air temperature measurements are a true reflection of the thermal energy contained in the lower layers of the atmosphere without considering frost, dew, rain, etc., as being and important part of the equation.
“How could these two very different global temperature estimates so closely coincide then, when the difference is between a 1.5 (or 2) metre thermometer array and radiance measurements of O2 12 kilometres deep in the atmosphere?”
Because if the uncertainties are wide enough of course they will agree.
“Because if the uncertainties are wide enough of course they will agree.”
The temperature records are a close match without even looking at the uncertainties. The global mean temperature record is a close match with the central estimate of the satellite global temperature record.
But you are either unwilling or unable to say why they should match if local ‘environmental factors’ render temperature measurements unreliable.
You have not explained why global temp records from two very different objects being measured, different geospatial volume or plane being measured, and methods to derive the global average temperature very different, should so closely match if local environmental factors that are unaccounted for should make a significant difference.
I’ve asked 5 times now, and either you don’t understand the question or you are evading it.
Why does Had.CRU4 and UAH match so closely? They measure very different things to get a globally averaged temperature time series. Explain how they could possibly match so well if they are not doing a fairly good job at measuring reality in two very different ways?
“The temperature records are a close match without even looking at the uncertainties. ”
The temperature records of (min+max)/2 are a close match but ignore the uncertainties that (min+max)/2 creates.
“Why does Had.CRU4 and UAH match so closely? They measure very different things to get a globally averaged temperature time series. Explain how they could possibly match so well if they are not doing a fairly good job at measuring reality in two very different ways?”
Because if you start with incorrectly calculated data and an uncertainty range which you ignore then the 2 can coincide quite easily.
In fairness, this also applies to correctly calculated data.
Agreed. But poorly sampled data allows a wide uncertainty margin.
Calculating ain’t sampling tho.
Whether or not you use medians or means we’re still stuck with two data point for each day in our historical datasets. So increasing resolution won’t reduce uncertainties. On the contrary, in fact.
“Calculating aint sampling tho.”
If we are talking signal processing it is.
Most of your conceptual problems spring from your inability to make complete sentences, Richard.
HAs your rate of comprehension improved at all. Since first grade.
Richard,
It’s been a week now that you’re dodging the task to support your intimation that measurement uncertainties (a) matter and (b) propagate. Until you do, you’re just another SCIENCE ™ guy.
You can try to dismiss this task as irrelevant, trolling, or the result of some deficiency of mine. I can assure you it won’t work.
You should know better by now. If not, contact NG, RB, or Vaughan.
Data analysis of USCRN hourly temperature data coming right up
An analysis of USCRN CRNH0203-2002-MS_Newton_5_ENE says that the error in using (min+max)/2 instead of medians is -7.1/1.55 for data from 2002/11/03 to date
Same questions.
So you critique it without knowing the methods used and asking if it is repeatable by others.
The questions are when are where will you poast it, Richard.
I already told you I was agnostic regarding scientific matters.
Search for “agnostic” on this page.
I posted a short summary of the first station I used here. Want to do a more though analysis, please do
RLH,
“Because if you start with incorrectly calculated data and an uncertainty range which you ignore then the 2 can coincide quite easily.”
That is an assertion without an explanation. The close match of satellite and surface temperature records is not a result of statistics or uncertainty analysis. We are not comparing the probability distributions, just the central estimates.
Let’s try again. I’m looking for the mechanism that would make these data sets correlate to tightly.
I asked: “Why does Had.CRU4 and UAH match so closely? They measure very different things to get a globally averaged temperature time series. Explain how they could possibly match so well if they are not doing a fairly good job at measuring reality in two very different ways?”
If weather effects make the surface record unreliable, and another metre of altitude unaccounted for could have a significant effect, then why is there a close match when 12000 meters of atmosphere are included, as satellites measure brightness radiance from oxygen molecules and infer temperature from that?
Neither data set is calibrated off the other. They are utterly discrete in the property being measured and methodology.
If your concerns about accounting for weather factors have merit, these 2 temperature records should be very different from each other.
You have asserted that they can match, but you have not explained how this is possible if weather effects at different altitudes render the temp record unreliable if not accounted for. I’ve been expecting you to say that it could be a coincidence, though that is hardly feasible for a 40-year period.
Why on Earth should they match if what you say is a significant drawback? What is the mechanism that would make two completely different ways of obtaining a global temp record come up with very similar results for 40 years?
I’ll provide the image again.
https://tinyurl.com/5fx2hmhn
One temperature record infers temperature from radiance brightness measurements of oxygen through 12 kilometres of atmosphere, the other from thermometers 2 metres above the ground.
Explain what makes them match so closely for 40 years, please.
“We are not comparing the probability distributions, just the central estimates.”
And therein lies the problem. If each series had a +/-5.0c round it as an uncertainty range then getting the 2 close is not a problem.
Why is it that people only deal in the central tendency and not see the uncertainty range?
As your entire plot has a range of +0.6c to -0.3c any uncertainty will make the width of the line bigger than the entire plot!
RLH says:
June 2, 2021 at 1:25 AM
. . . Why is it that people only deal in the central tendency and not see the uncertainty range?
It’s not clear that they are doing so. The divide seems to be the relationship between uncertainty in the long term trend given the statistics of the individual sample points.
Your focus has been on the sample points, but it isn’t clear that the uncertainty in the derived trend is anywhere near as large as you seem to think.
If there is uncertainty in the end points then there is uncertainty in the trends.
Simple straight line trends are useless in any case. They are only valid for the time period they cover. They say nothing about the future.
“Because they are weather, not climate.”
And yet climate is the sum of weather over 30 years or more. If the measurements that are taken daily do not account for the energy flows on a daily basis, how then can they be used to estimate energy flows over a 30 year period without also putting in an uncertainty bar to account for that.
It you start out with uncertain data then any conclusions you draw are suspect at least.
And don’t try the ‘many readings make the statistics centralize’ ploy. The facts are that although many readings make the central tendencies converge, they do NOT effect how broad the width of the line you need to draw. It is just as broad as the uncertainties are on a daily basis.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-712882
Answered there
“If the global temp record is foiled by weather, how can it possibly be that these two very different metrics produce the same temperature profile?
The match is too great to be coincidence for 40 years.”
If the uncertainty ranges for both sources are wide enough, then of course they will agree.
So the methodology is as follows
1) Download the USCRN data from
ftp://ftp.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02
and convert to csv
2) Extract the temps, min and max from columns 3, 4 and 5
3) Derive the medians and means for each day for each pf the values from the above
4) Derive the range from the previous step
Earlier, someone wrote –
“Logically if you see a correlation between A and B, look for one of three patterns of causation.
A causes B.
B causes A.
A and B are caused by C.”
Up until about 2000, there was a startling correlation between increased global temperatures, and the global pirate population. Obviously, a pirate shortage caused global temperatures to increase, or pirate numbers dropped due to higher temperatures, or somebody doesn’t want to accept reality.
On the other hand, burning stuff creates both heat and CO2.
Any bets on which is more likely to affect thermometers?
Always glad to meet another Pastafarian.
Smile emoji.
Although I get the impression that you missed the joke.
As Freud said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
The planet mean surface temperature equation is for planets WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE the whole planet equilibrium emission concept.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
When applied to the planets the equation produces remarkable results. The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…..Te…..Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury..439,6 K..325,83 K…340 K
Earth….255 K….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…..270,4 Κ…223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars…..209,91 K..213,21 K…210 K
The results speak for themselves – it has become possible to calculate planets mean surface temperatures very closely matching the measured by satellites.
When we compare the results for Planet Earth we realize that there is very small difference between the Tmean = 287,74 K and the Tsat.mean = 288 K.
This observation can only be attributed to the fact that there are only traces of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Also the Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any significant Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This comment was way way too short.
Please post double size next time.
J.-P. D.
Historically speaking, The British might dispute that.
Not for the last four years. The USA has been nationalist and authoritarian. You can’t even elect a president without a riot interrupting proceedings.
My America is doing just fine!
My America seems dissociated from the rest of America then
Wish to scour “Analysis of the Merging Procedure for the MSU Daily Temperature Time Series” by JOHN R. CHRISTY,ROY W. SPENCER and ELENA S. LOBL and find out how many times “median filter” occurs?
The Riddler strikes again!
Just pointing out that some scientists know that median is the correct sampling method to use.
You conflate using medians with arguing it’s the correct sampling method, Richard.
Statisticians will tell you that medians outperform means for anything other that normal distributions
Find one.
https://opentextbc.ca/introbusinessstatopenstax/chapter/skewness-and-the-mean-median-and-mode/
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ap-statistics/density-curves-normal-distribution-ap/density-curves/v/median-mean-and-skew-from-density-curves
Do you need more?
“More” presumes you gave me formal demonstrations made by real statisticians, Richard.
You did not.
Those teaching statistics are not real statisticians. I’m sure they will be glad to know that.
Just as I’m sure that they’ll be happy to know that their toy example is being used by some Climateball riddler as a formal argument.
I used to talk to statistic professors all the time. Less so since I retired.
Let me raise you, Richard.
I am trained in gorilla warfare and Im the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
Which part of “arguing its the correct sampling method” you do not get, Richard.
Textbook toy examples ain’t what we need right now.
Data analysis coming right up
\o/
An analysis of USCRN CRNH0203-2002-MS_Newton_5_ENE says that the error in using (min+max)/2 instead of medians is -7.1/1.55 for data from 2002/11/03 to date
For all stations in the USCRN the difference between using means for a 24 hour daily period instead of medians over the same period is -6.95 to +3.6
I notice an error. Oops – I need to check something
Is it fixed yet?
RLH
Were they just ‘pointing out’, or did they really prove that it is correct not only mathematically, but also physically?
From my engineer’s point of view, to build the median of 24 hourly measurements is mathematically correct, but physically it is nonsense.
And conversely, building the average income in a country out of the mean is mathematically correct as well, but is social nonsense.
J.-P. D.
> building the average income in a country out of the mean is mathematically correct as well, but is social nonsense.
At the individual level, the social dimension may look like nonsense. By that criteria, medians would be worse as one can’t infer anything from it at the population level.
Why do you think that USCRN uses such a high sampling rate?
Richard the Riddler Strikes Again!
Willard yet again fails to provide an answer.
Your itch, Richard.
You know what to do with it.
Well sracthing it hasn’t solved the problem
Bummer.
Have you tried contacting them, and what will be your response when they remind you that their deliverables are used for weather forecasting?
An analysis of USCRN CRNH0203-2002-MS_Newton_5_ENE says that the error in using (min+max)/2 instead of medians is -7.1/1.55 for data from 2002/11/03 to date
.
When and where will you poast it?
You should be asking what were the methods used and is it repeatable by other using the same data.
You don’t get to decide what I’m asking, Richard.
I sure expect you to see in the poast the methods explained and the data and code available.
I now those. I expect you to be asking what they were or doing the analysis yourself and posting how you did it.
Quit projecting, Richard.
Quit being a fool
I know you are but what am I?
Ok. But then we should go to Mars.
The Moon is easy compared to Mars.
Mars has months of weightlessness and months GCR- with only prospect of living including, a later future trip back to Earth being months weightless and GCR radiation.
Going to the Moon in my opinion has two purposes, determine if and where there is mineable lunar water. And to get a clue of whether NASA can send crew to Mars- or the Moon is a beginning of long journey to explore the Martian surface.
What could hope to find on Mars surface? Well, Mars is dry desert planet, but it should have a lot more water than what could be on the Moon. But we have not many clues of what kind of water in on Mars. And different kinds of Mars water could be mineable. Or Mars could have saltwater, and saltwater could be mineable. It could water similar to Earth well water {all kinds of different kinds of waters]. And Mars has ice water. Ice water probably like drinkable water when it’s melted. Generally the times we have mined ice, is to get ice, ice used to transported with horses carriages for icebox purposes. Or mining ice to make tap water, is not done much, on Earth. Mars ice could different purpose on Mars, ice can be a “construction material” and that is a hobby/entertainment on Earth, ie, Ice hotels:
https://magazine.trivago.com/ice-hotels/
On Mars it might more of a serious hobby- ice blocks harmful Mars radiation, and doesn’t melts like it does on Earth. An ice road, might made, rather than a kind of road to avoid.
Anyhow, have also determine if and where Mars water is mineable.
There could be many billions of dollars worth of Mars water on Mars. Billions of dollars in terms within a few years, trillions if talking over say 100 year period of time.
And got to see if get water from a well. And also see what caves are on Mars {the Moon has caves also, but finding caves on Mars is more important than caves on the Moon}. Caves important on Mars because they related to whether there could towns on Mars. And could related to whether there is alien life on Mars. Alien life is both a good thing and bad thing. Bad because it could delay future settlements on Mars. NASA purpose should be to determine if the Mars world which is commonly regarded as “more” earth like or more potentially habitable. If Mars has alien life, it could make Mars the least habitable planet as compared to Venus, Mercury, or the Moon. But need to address this potential threat. Some imagine it’s possible Mars life, started Earth life- so I guess it would be fun to know, but we don’t jack at the moment.
RLH
Before we leave this old thread, I recall you having written this above:
” Do you not recognize that a tighter central mean does not reduce the accuracy range for any reading? Even new ones.
A +/- 5.0c thermometer will always produce +/- 5.0c readings.
even if the central mean of it can be reduced by taking 1,000,000 samples using it. ”
That is not the situation, RLH.
The situation is that if you average 1,000,000 temperatures measured by 100,000 thermometers, you error band will EVIDENTLY become narrower.
To understand that, you just need to compare the time series for
– one thermometer
or
– one UAH grid cell
with all thermometers or all 9,504 UAH grid cells.
J.-P. D.
No you don’t. The uncertainty is governed not by the range of the central tendency (which more readings at the same site will improve) but by the uncertainty in any given day’s temperature for a station.
You can’t change an inaccurate +/-5.0c thermometer into a +/-0.01c reference one by taking 1,000,000 samples with it. Sure the central tendency of it will converge if the errors are randomly distributed but you cannot assume that. It will always have a +/-5.0c inaccuracy however.
This is trivial. Why are you making such a song and dance about it?
Richard has nothing else in his hands, Entropic.
What else should we expect from a SCIENCE ™ guy?
RLH
You’re on the wrong forum. You should be discussing this at Climate Etc. Judith Curry is a regular player of the “but uncertainty” card.
https://judithcurry.com
Richard’s been there:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-416469
The short and the end of it all is that medians in this case reduce the AGW signal. So no wonder luckwarmies keep crying for this ABSOLUTELY TRUEST tool. Pay no attention that they can’t prove their point formally.
Coming right up
Looking back, looks like Richard is rediscovering the joy of Gaussians:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-416787
Greg’s the guy who plagiarized Vaughan’s filter without really understand much of it.
Sure. Vaughn knows so little about sampling theorem and data analysis.
You’re certainly not Vaughan, Richard.
For starters, I don’t like you.
I should care about that why?
Science isn’t about you or anyone, Richard.
SCIENCE ™ is all about ego.
So I don’t practice it then
One day you might practice science, Richard.
There’s always hope.
I study and follow science, Not SCIENCE
I have a full page of comments from you that shows otherwise, Richard. Wanna see it?
Here’s an appetizer:
That’s SCIENCE ™!
You can keep your ™ to yourself
I’m not the one who pretends to be here to do science, Richard.
I do science, just not SCIENCE ™
Not here, not now.
If you say so
Thank you.
Do I need to include /sarc?
Do I need to include /sarc?
Nope. I’m right where I want to be
Because people accept the statistics without asking how they are derived?
Are you sure where you want to be, Richard?
Are you sure you know how to do statistics?
Teach me, sensei.
Go study at your own expense
Thus Spake Our System Guru Msc!
That’s MSc (Dist) if you please
Only if you tell me the year, and bear in mind that distinction isn’t part of the title.
I still prefer System Guru.
It says so on my certificate
“An MSc is a Master of Science degree, awarded for subjects such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Computer Science”
“However, the MSc degree classification system or masters grading is very different. In every case, the two main possibilities are Pass and Distinction”
“MSc degree classification Distinction
This is the top classification, and like a first at the undergraduate level, requires a weighted average of 70% or above In addition, you will often be expected to achieve a mark of 70% or above in any project or dissertation.”
It’s easy to see when you refuse to volunteer information, Richard.
Title. Classification. Please learn the difference.
I’m quite proud of that >70% for all parts in the course
The only reason I didn’t do a PhD was
a) There is no good path from an MSc to a PhD in the UK
b) I didn’t need it for the job I was doing
c) I didn’t have the 4 years (or more) it would have required
> I’m quite proud of that >70% for all parts in the course
As you should, Richard.
What year was it, again?
A long while ago. Do you need references?
MSc in Systems Design (Distinction) University of Central England in Birmingham July 1993
You were already 45 at the time, Richard.
Well done!
Yup. It was a work thing. I was a freelance at the time and it helped to get jobs.
You still use it bolster your credibility:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709618
So I’d say it was good investment.
I bolster nothing. I can just do the work in databases quite quickly. In climate or elsewhere.
> I bolster nothing
The “it” in “I have letters after my name to prove it” was meant to support “I have done lots of data processing work, using megabytes of data,” which was meant to counter ““Who does not understand that must either be dense, or behave like a retired teacher who never did process any data in his entire life.”
Care to try again, this time with more honesty?
I do not lie. You sometimes misunderstand, probably deliberately, what I have said.
Dishonesty does not imply lying, Richard.
That you got some title has very little to do with you having done some signal analysis. The fact that you got it on the late side suggests that the two are historically independent in your case. In any event, to deny that you’re mentioning your bragging rights isn’t meant to bolster your authority is frankly ridiculous.
The point you’re trying to evade with all these shenanigans is that you haven’t shown any analysis.
“Dishonesty does not imply lying, Richard.”
You have a different dictionary to me then.
“That you got some title has very little to do with you having done some signal analysis.”
I did that work a long time before that title.
I have better than a dictionary, Richard:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
RHL
” You can’t change an inaccurate +/-5.0c thermometer into a +/-0.01c reference one by taking 1,000,000 samples with it. ”
Maybe you didn’t understand what I wrote?
*
Did you ever compare the difference, in the deviations from the mean, between
– a time series for 1979-2020, computed out of the data of one thermometer / one UAH grid cell above that thermometer
– and a time series for the same period, computed out of the data of all available thermometers / all UAH grid cells above them?
Well, you don’t give the impression to ever have done such a job.
J.-P. D.
Why do I have to do that?
If I can show that without doing it then the series you are using have a wide uncertainty band to them? That alone is sufficient to my mind
For all stations in the USCRN the difference between using means for a 24 hour daily period instead of medians over the same period is -6.95 to +3.6
RLH
” Why do I have to do that? ”
I never trust in people coming out with a great truth they gained out of a microanalysis of a few stations during a few days.
And below you write:
” For all stations in the USCRN the difference between using means for a 24 hour daily period instead of medians over the same period is -6.95 to +3.6 ”
Did you check how many of ‘all’ stations had sufficient hourly data?
When I see how many undefined values are visible in the USCRN subdirectory hourly02, I think I won’t believe any stat before having done the job myself.
J.-P. D.
So the methodology is as follows
1) Download the USCRN data from ftp://ftp.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02 and convert to csv
2) Extract the temps, min and max from columns 3, 4 and 5
3) Derive the medians and means for each day for each pf the values from the above
4) Derive the range from the previous step
P.S. I forgot the remove all lines that have -9999.0 in them step
That would be 2a)
RLH
You don’t need to explain the world how to process USCRN hourly data, and to me the least.
What the world expect from you is that you produce
– a time series based in hourly integration
– one based on (min+max)/2
and
– one showing the differences.
Store the result in a txt or csv file, and upload it.
J.-P. D.
If you follow the methodology then you can create it for yourself, Check my work if you like. This is just a first pass. I expect there to be errors. I have notice one for myself already.
I could do all this again using ftp://ftp.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/subhourly01
to produce 5 min figures for each day as the first step if you would prefer that.
P.S. The 5 min integration has already been done by USCRN.
Lagniappe
(A Cajun word meaning “a little something extra”)
Don’t sleep too much. If you sleep three hours less each night for a year, you will have an extra month and a half to succeed in.
For the new graduates entering the work force full time:
Worth reading for all those who ‘know’ that (min+max)/2 is the ONLY way to go
Measurement Sampling Rates for Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperatures by X. Lin , K. G. Hubbard , and C. B. Baker
along with
Sampling frequency of climate data for the determination of daily temperature and daily temperature extrema by William A. Gough, Ana aknić-Ćatović, Andrew Zajch
Please also note
“USCRN stations are equipped with three independent thermometers which measure air temperature in degrees Celsius. The station’s datalogger computes independent 5-minute averages using two-second readings from each thermometer. These multiple measurements are then used to derive the station’s official hourly temperature value.”
RLH
” … for all those who know that (min+max)/2 is the ONLY way to go ”
No, we don’t ‘know’ that, RLH, let alone do I.
Uless I compute the exact difference between hourly integration and (min+max)/2, by using those USCRN stations having, over a longer period (say 5 years), day after day sufficient hourly data to make the job meaningful.
J.-P. D.
That was for stations that have 20 or so YEARS worth of data
For all stations in the USCRN the difference between using means for a 24 hour daily period instead of medians over the same period is -6.95 to +3.6
> along with
… the citation I gave you twice, Richard.
You’re most welcome!
With no understanding of what that data contains.
Your silly jab doesn’t cover for your dishonesty, Richard.
More like your (deliberate?) misunderstanding
A thank you would have sufficed, Richard.
I feel that thanks for you are waisted
It would be for your own sake, Richard.
Manners maketh the Climateball player.
So the methodology is as follows
1) Download the USCRN data from ftp://ftp.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02 and convert to csv
2) Extract the temps, min and max from columns 3, 4 and 5
3) Derive the medians and means for each day for each pf the values from the above
4) Derive the range from the previous step
I could do all this again using ftp://ftp.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/subhourly01
to produce 5 min figures for each day as the first step if you would prefer that
I am playing the tiniest violin in the world to celebrate your private accomplishment, Richard.
Do you have the data too?
http://gph.is/2oaSVQw
RLH,
Why do you not show us a plot of the results? Even I can plot temp data and work out a linear trend using Excel, and I’m an arts major. As a signal processing expert, surely you should be able to show us time series plots of the 20 years worth of USCRN data using your methodology, compared to 20 years of the same stations using just min+max/2, and for good measure thrown in the official CONUS record for the same period.
I know you are interested in the uncertainty, but I’d like to see the difference between these plots in monthly and annual averages, same as the official records.
I’d like to see this, because I can’t understand at all what you mean by the error figures you’ve provided, whether they apply to a single location for a single day, or a general for the whole series, or regarding a trend derived therefrom.
Your comments really are a bit opaque, and as yet nothing is shown. You’ve stated how to do it, it would be great if you would follow through.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/
Fig 3.
I hadn’t done USCRN then but I may well get round to it soon. 20 years is a bit short for long term period analysis
Ok. In this work did you:
2) Extract the temps, min and max…
3) Derive the medians and means for each day for each pf the values from the above
4) Derive the range from the previous step
maguff…” USA! USA! and of the free because of the brave”.
***
Thanks for not saying, ‘America! America!’, and for recognizing that the US is in America as in US of A.
gbaikie at 6:07 PM
Ok. But then we should go to Mars.
rlh…”MSc in Systems Design (Distinction) University of Central England in Birmingham July 1993″
Congrats. Good achievement.
Willard is a graduate from the Barnum and Bailey, School for Climate Clowns.
It’s “ninja,” Gordon.
You never told what where the engineer courses you took.
Do you hold any qualifications of any sort?
Indeed I do, Richard.
It’s ninja.
Friends of Science is looking for members and donors. Groups like this are needed so we can organize to fight the climate alarmists.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/
This article is so great! I gain more knowledge after reading this informative article. I really enjoyed reading this article. Good work!
https://electricianmerrylands.com.au/emergency-electrician-merrylands/
his article is so great! I gain more knowledge after reading this informative article. I really enjoyed reading this article. Good work! emergency electrician Merrylands
pgslot ไม่ต้องลุ้นเหมือน ราคาทอง เพราะราคาทองนั้นมีขึ้นลงอยู่ตลอดเวลา บางวันอาจจะลงจนเราขากทุนได้ เว็บบริการเกม ของ pgslot นั้น ลงทุนแล้วมีแต่ได้ เพราะอัตตราการแตกของโบนัสนั้นสูง https://pg-slot.game/
Weak sunspots (low magnetic activity) are approaching the solar equator, which means an increase in the strength of the solar wind. As a result, the latitudinal circulation will strengthen and the full La Nina will return in November, when the Humboldt Current will be at its lowest temperature.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png